Sure Palin's a Whack Job...But Could She Possibly Be Worse Than Bush?

So there's yet another collective sigh of relief thing going on in response to Purdum's article on Palin in Vanity Fair (Should you read it? Here's the summary...)

She's an idiot; she's ignorant; she's narcissistic and vindictive; she's a religious loon; she's utterly unqualified to be anywhere near the presidency, and probably anywhere near the governorship, even of Alaska. In fact, you really wouldn't want her to be second assistant dog catcher.

No news there.

But seriously--I don't see why anyone thinks she'd be worse than Bush. So...she'd ignore warnings about impending attacks on the country? She'd divert resources from the search for the attackers in order to start a $2-3 trillion optional war...against the enemies of the attackers? She'd divide the country, shred the Constitution, destroy our moral authority in the world? Act so irrationally as to strengthen our enemies? Smash the economy? Expand the powers of the presidency to frightening proportions?

I mean, I'm not denying that a Palin presidency would be a terrible risk, and probably a disaster...but let's get a little perspective here. As frightening as that prospect would be, we've actually had a presidency that was in actual fact much worse than anything that would be likely even from Palin.

Of course these are two different subjects, and we can fret about them both. I just think our nervous energies would be better used fretting about the megadisaster that actually happened rather than the other disaster that didn't.

Those who forget history etc., etc.

Presumably one might respond that a Palin candidacy remains a live possibility, and that's indeed cause for concern. So if your fretting is prospective rather than retrospective, fret away.