Image via Wikipedia
A trio of voices in the more libertarian-ish corner of the conservative blogosphere came away with fairly warm and fuzzy feelings toward Glenn Beck's weekend rally featuring Sarah Palin.Glenn Reynolds: "Although Beck's rally attracted a lot of Tea Partiers, his religious message is pretty distinct from the core Tea Party message. On the other hand, a lot of people agree with Beck that something's gone wrong in this country, beyond the last election. Some people worry that Beck's trying to transform the Tea Party movement into a religious movement, but I'd say that remains unclear at this point. If he tries that, though, it's likely to fail. For the moment, though, I agree with those who characterize his message as Tocquevillian."Tim Cavanaugh, writing at Reason: "The dismissive pose toward Beck stems from a well founded fear my fellow rootless cosmopolitans have -- that if we seem too close to the cars-on-cinderblocks, chicken-coops-in-yards, shotguns-and-rockingchairs variety of libertarianism, we will lose the respect of liberaloids in New York and D.C. It's a real concern, but if the trade-off means you reject the Tea Parties -- by far the biggest popular movement with a clear anti-government mood that has occurred in my lifetime -- and in exchange you get to , well, that deal sounds like a loser to me. (Then again, I've never had dinner chez Frum/Crittenden. Maybe it's really worth it.) . . . I actually like this doughy Mormon over in his spooky little study, who as of the other day was advising his college student viewers in this way: 'Don't you just take from [teachers]. You question them. You read everything they tell you not to read. You read everything theytellyou to read, and then you read everything they tell younotto read. You find out why they don't like it. Challenge them. Find out on your own what's true.' I have no problem with that advice. Does anybody else?"Jen Rubin, not always a huge fan of Palin, is pointing out that she's doing what no other woman in American politics has done: "Palin has proved by example that a woman politician need not spout the pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-welfare-state line. 'Ms. Palin has spent much of 2010 burnishing her political bona fides and extending her influence by way of the Mama Grizzlies, a gang of Sarah- approved, maverick-y female politicians looking to "take back" America with "common-sense" solutions.' She sure did, and she proved herself to be the most effective female politician in the country. Sorry, Hillary -- while you have been playing errand girl for the Obama foreign-policy train wreck, Palin has ascended to the throne. (Nancy Pelosi's days are numbered.) . . . Palin not only trumped the left on style but she also managed to connect on nearly every issue -- ObamaCare, bailouts, Israel, taxes, American exceptionalism, and the stimulus plan -- in a way the president and his liberal supporters could not. For all of her supposed lack of 'policy muscle,' it was she who defined the debate on ObamaCare and she who synced up with the Tea Party's small-government, personal-responsibility, anti-tax-hike message. Who's short on policy muscle -- the White House or Palin? Does 'engagement' of despots, Israel-bashing, and capitulation to Russia make for a meaty foreign-policy agenda?