You make an interesting point, re: a return to Eisenhower Republicanism. I would be curious to know what you mean, specifically.

Here are a couple thoughts that occur to me.

First, if we are talking foreign policy, then I agree a return to Brent Scowcroft caution is in order, after the Iraq debacle. And of course, Eisenhower was known for caution, too. His contemporary, DeGaulle, pulled the French out of Algeria. Realism, drawing of bright red lines for our enemies, those are all good things.

Second, when we talk about the party being *taken over by the far right,* I think some additional tough thinking is in order. Colin Powell, for example, said recently the party is too far right, yet he was appointed and promoted by Ronald Reagen (far more doctrinally conservative than McCain) and George W. Bush (more or less indistinguishable from McCain, with the latter's 90% support). So what is Powell talking about? Similarly, Anne Applebaum wrote a column in the Washington Post on the rightward trend and offered as her evidence . . . a Fox program by Sean Hannity bashing Obama. According to Applebaum, when your *supporters* are doing this sort of thing, it reflects badly on you. Allrighty, then.

My point here is that the Republicans have had a right-to-life wing for decades. They can't win without it. They have to give it props from time to time to sustain it. If by going back to Eisenhower, you mean making the party pro-choice, it won't exist any more, and will not command 50% support. Remember, not only are right-to-lifers a minority; the *rich* or *upper rich* are a minority as well. Even non-rich people who just don't like the modern trend of government are a minority. Three minorities divided against themselves cannot stand.

And finally, don't forget that Eisenhower himself nominated a 45 year old named Palin . . . oops, a mean a 39 year old named Nixon, to appeal to conservatives, and instead of teenage-pregnant-daughter-gate, they had the slush fund story and Checkers. Some things never change. (Palin, incidentally, has a less distinguished academic record than Nixon had in '52, but far more concrete accomplishments, in terms of her ethics bill, budget cutting, and pipeline project in Alaska).

So, I am genuinely curious. What do you mean by getting back to Eisenhower? Is it more than just ditching the anti-abortion plank?

My comment re: *brains* was not focused on intelligence, but on sanity. Mental health, if you will. I think it strange that Biden makes gaping mistakes almost on a daily basis, and his appearance seems markedly different than it did even earlier this year. He worries me.

As for Palin, no, I don't think it's a sign of low intelligence that she hesitated over the Bush Doctrine (I've posted on that at length) or could not name more than one Supreme Court case she didn't like. Geek that I am, I actually read the landmark cases from top to bottom for pleasure, but if I had to name one off the cuff I specifically disagreed with for purposes of a political campaign, I would not have done any better. When I first heard about the Couric interview, I actually sat there and thought to myself for several minutes about what I would have said. I struggled to think of a case I would have criticized.

And besides all that, her job in Alaska did not require her to deal with foreign policy or the Supreme Court. She was getting up to speed early in the campaign, she did well in her debate (yes, I know, not everyone liked it - many did), and her campaign and interviews since then have been gaffe free. Other than goofy P.R. items like the wardrobe, what has happened since the debate to make people think ill of her capabilities? I saw her at a rally last week and thought she seemed on top of the world, very confident, very articulate, much more impressive than many other politicians I have seen. I would even argue that her new feistiness has earned her some media respect: Campbell Brown, who I used to like MSNBC, has written nice things about her twice in the last week on CNN's web page. (I'm still waiting for the sky to fall).

I realize she has limitations, don't get me wrong, and I don't fault anyone for *genuinely* saying those limitations are a factor against her candidacy. But a lot of people who don't like Palin have been throwing stuff against the wall since the day she was announced, and then asserting (or hoping) that most or everything is sticking, even when it isn't.