Last, that is, until after the results are in, as I want to get back to some conversations on atheism (I've just finished Dawkins' God Delusion, and I want to review that and one of Stephen Law's books).
That excellent blogger Doug Chaplin wonders why I can be a Palin fan. This was my comment answer:
"I think there are two main elements to the differing judgements, one being that the basic facts are not agreed on, and the second being that the values given to those facts are different. I see Palin’s record in Alaska as being strongly positive - not perfect, but really pretty good. See here for a list (a partisan source, but it seems reasonable to me).
Summing her record up with the politically-biased ethics investigation or the bridge to nowhere process misses what I see as the most important part, ie running as an outsider against a corrupt establishment (note: something which Obama signally failed to do when he had the opportunity).
So I don’t want to say she’s perfection by any means, but I can’t get my head around the allegation that she is either a) a lightweight incompetent or b) a malicious fundamentalist ideologue. She doesn’t seem to be either of those things to me (see, eg the position she took on benefits for gay partners). What she does seem to me to be is an outsider who is unafraid of taking on vested interests (those vested interests now being some of her enemies in Alaska with control over the ethics investigation). She’s not flawless - but then I don’t expect anyone other than Jesus to be flawless, certainly not a politician - and on the whole I think she’s a good thing. Assuming Obama wins this one, I fully expect her to be the 2012 Republican candidate, I think she’ll probably win, and I think she’d be a good thing. On the whole."