It’s no upset, and it certainly doesn’t compare to the vice-presidency, but Sarah Palin didn’t come away from the 2008 campaign empty-handed: she’s been named “Conservative of the Year” by the right-wing magazine Human Events. And, in an extra-special honor for Alaska’s governor, the announcement was made by no less a personage than Ann Coulter herself.
“Sarah Palin wins HUMAN EVENTS’ prestigious “Conservative of the Year” Award for 2008 for her genius at annoying all the right people. The last woman to get liberals this hot under the collar would have been … let’s see now … oh, yeah: Me!” Coulter wrote in her column about the award. She continued:
When McCain chose our beauteous Sarah as his running mate, the maverick was finally acting like a real maverick — as opposed to the media’s definition of a “maverick” which is: “agreeing with the editorial positions of the New York Times.”
Pre-Palin it had been one race — boring old “You kids get off my lawn!” John McCain versus the exciting, new politician Barack Obama, who threw caution to the wind and bravely ran as the Pro-Hope candidate. And then our heroic Sarah bounded out of the Alaska tundra and it became a completely different race. This left the press completely discombobulated and upset. They didn’t know whether to attack Sarah for not having an abortion or go after her husband for not being a sissy.
I assume Palin was chosen because McCain had heard that she was a real conservative and he had always wanted to meet one — no, actually because he needed a conservative on the ticket, but that he had no idea that picking her would send the left into a tailspin of wanton despair.
But if anyone on the McCain campaign chose Palin because she would drive liberals crazy, my hat is off to him!
Interestingly, Coulter didn’t shy away from criticizing Palin for some of her missteps during the campaign, and warned, “Perhaps Palin’s year is 2012, but I would recommend that she take a little more time to become older and wiser.”
The magazine’s interview with the governor, however, was not quite so critical. It featured questions like, “For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?”