Expert reaction

Second Amendment historian Clayton Cramer (author of Armed America, the definitive refutation of academic fraud Michael Bellesiles), examines the attacks on Sarah Palin and suggests that liberal attacks stem mainly from two causes:

1. She's a pro-life, evangelical Christian.
2. She's a woman.
To the left, it is axiomatic that every woman has to be pro-choice and hostile to the patriarchial system of oppression that is Christianity.

Reacting to my criticism of the anti-Palin "experts" among the pre-war Iraq hawks, Cramer says:

I do think Stacy is on to something here: when the people that played a major part in the Iraq strategy suggest that Palin was an incredibly bad choice -- consider the source.

My point was not to say that all hawks are disqualified from criticizing Palin. What I objected to was the "expert" assertion that Palin is (a) the basic cause of Republican electoral difficulties and/or (b) somehow symptomatic of a fundamental problem with the conservative movement.

This is scapegoating pure and simple, and its sources are among those who far more deserve to be thus blamed than the governor of Alaska. Her son is fighting the war the "experts" demanded, and the lady's reward is to be vilely insulted by them? Just to think of this injustice makes my blood boil. If this were 1850, they would be invited to meet me in Bladensburg, the miserable curs!

(Cross-posted at AmSpecBlog.)

UPDATE: Peter Wehner:

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve detected in some of the conservative critics of Sarah Palin . . . a tendency to call attention to the fact that their position has (supposedly) made them, and their dear friends, vilified figures.

I certainly by God hope they're vilified! They deserve far worse. I have remarked to friends that there is nothing wrong with these intellectual pansies that a good ol' Alabama ass-whuppin' wouldn't cure. As a matter of fact, I'm going to invite Charlie Martin to CPAC just in case David Brooks dares show his face . . .