By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, November 10, 2010;
Despite its considerable gains in the midterm elections, the GOP has a problem looming in the margins named Sarah Palin.
She who can rouse the base like none other is now She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid. Like it or not.
Many within the so-called party establishment don't quite know what to do about Palin. She's adored by Tea Partyers, to whom she conveniently attached herself as soon as she sensed a shift in the air. A rogue like Palin isn't going to let a rogue movement fill a stadium - or a desert - without her.
She also had some luck with her gambles on midterm endorsements, at least in the U.S. House and a couple of state elections, notably South Carolina Gov.-elect Nikki Haley. Palin's Mama Grizzly shtick, which followed her pit bull-with-lipstick shtick, apparently was effective. She had a less-stellar record in the Senate, with only six of her 11 anointed ones winning.
Bachus, who is likely to replace Barney Frank as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, noted that Palin endorsed some Senate candidates who couldn't possibly win, such as Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
O'Donnell, of course, is only the most extreme example of Tea Party mischief. She didn't have a chance in Haiti of becoming a U.S. senator, but Palin Power put her in the nominee's seat, defeating nine-term Rep. Mike Castle, the establishment candidate.
Other notable lost seats in states where the establishment candidate might have won include Nevada, where Harry Reid defeated Tea Party pick Sharron Angle. Conventional wisdom among political veterans is that Angle's primary opponent, Sue Lowden, would have bested Reid by 15 points.
Other failed races are equally familiar, but especially rich to Palin watchers is the apparent victory in Alaska of write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski over Palin fave Joe Miller. Republicans didn't lose the seat to a Democrat, obviously, but the unlikely election of a write-in candidate over a Palin pick in her own home state is illustrative of Palin's vincibility.
Bachus - whose office has since tried to play down his remarks - wasn't the first to point out the fatal flaw of Tea Party ambition. Karl Rove was vilified for not initially supporting O'Donnell and for criticizing the Tea Party's principle-over-pragmatism approach. The rather obvious message: Nominating people who can't win is . . . self-defeating.
But Bachus, possibly the highest-ranking member of Congress to confront the obvious, or to tempt the fates that now await him, was brave to speak foul of the princess party girl as he now invites the considerable scorn of the new and improved GOP base.
Although Tea Party members tend to be over-45 white men - no implication intended regarding Palin's popularity, but infer at will - there is considerable overlap with the demographic formerly known as the GOP base, a.k.a. white Southerners and social conservatives, libertarian streak notwithstanding.
Exhibit A: O'Donnell was once an abstinence counselor.
Exhibit B: Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" religious revival on the Mall in August.
Exhibit C: Tea Party organizer Dick Armey recently said no to "a truce" on abortion and other social issues.
Cutting government spending may be the central mantra of the Tea Party and, increasingly, of Palin. She recently wrote against the QE2 - "quantitative easing" - whereby the Federal Reserve will dump $600 billion in freshly minted dollars into circulation in hopes of revving the economy. Doubtless, this inspired critique evolved from Palin's long years poring over the Economist.
But the overlay of social and Tea Party conservatism is everywhere becoming more defined, and Palin is the intersection of these two ideological sectors. Her own life is a human diorama of social conservative principles, and she is now strategically developing the part of her profile that earned her ridicule as a vice presidential candidate.
Watching Palin drop foreign policy and economic nuggets into the twitterverse confirms that the real agenda for Palin is President Palin, and therein lies fresh terror for Republicans. She's too powerful to ignore, and too (fill-in-the-blank) to take seriously.
She is - in a word yet again whispered rather than uttered - "Dangerous."
Not only would Palin the presidential candidate drive away other Republican candidates, but she would most certainly lose a national election. Thus, the GOP finds itself in a pickle: How to shed itself of this attractive nuisance?
The answer, alas, is the stuff of all complicated relationships: Can't live with her, can't live without her.