Let’s look at a few facts that, although they may draw on some of the standard excuses used by the Republicans for their loss, may also be dispositive of the legitimacy of an alternative view of Sarah Palin.

One, while it is established that her role (determined largely by the retread Bush/Rove handlers assigned to her) was to shore up the crumbling support of the Republican right, it was soon apparent that she was not comfortable or had become increasingly uncomfortable with that role. Ergo, the sniping from that camp that she was going “rogue.” What exactly does that mean? I heard the term used frequently, but I never heard an adequate definition. Could it be that she was not as evangelical, religiously or politically, as her handlers had expected?

Two, is there any doubt that the Mainstream Media vilified her from the start, largely because of that role? She was the visible symbol of all that was wrong with the country and, by extension, the Republican party since it had been in power for eight years; we would wind up with a theocracy if we elected another Republican. That remains one of the true nightmares of the far Left (although Whoopi Goldberg may have lost more sleep wondering what position on the plantation she would be assigned to). While talking heads were not ready to sign on to the Bill Mahr school of direct “religulous” confrontation (news producers can afford to offend only so much of their viewship before advertising revenues tank), it was relatively easy to snipe at her from every other angle. The strategy was clear: denigrate her and denigrate her message for free. Her language, her preparation, her associations, and even her family were fair game.

However, unbiased viewers began to see a different Sarah Palin than the caricatures so gleefully presented by her enemies in the media. They began to note that she indeed may be unlettered, at least in the ability to spout arcane and polysyllabic words to the satisfaction of Hitchens or Brooks. Because she was a populist (the term is used deliberately) governor as opposed to an ossified senator, she may be unschooled in finer arts of diplomacy, at least to Colin Powell’s satisfaction. And she might have been unprepared for the endemic treachery of DC and its labrynthine stratifications, but her supporters could easily dismiss all that. They do not live in DC or Silver Springs. What they recognized and what ultimately became the only thing that mattered was that she was not unprincipled.

The two essential tenets of the religious right have been opposition to Roe v. Wade and gay marriage. Show me one instance where she demanded the overturn of Roe v. Wade or where she said she would appoint Supreme Court justices from the pool of what the religious right euphemistically refers to as “strict constructionists.” The term is a misnomer; in the most literal sense, Roe v. Wade was mandated by a strict constructist point of view. And here’s a news flash: Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. You would be surprised at the number of Republicans who have long ago accepted that, but then you might also be surprised at the realism of those same Republicans.

Sarah Palin has clearly identified herself with the choice of eschewing abortion, but she has also said (since her release from the Bush/Rove incarceration of the campaign) that she would seek common ground with pro-choice advocates. I cannot help but sense that such a meeting would produce an echo of Bill Clinton: “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

As for gay marriage, isn’t it interesting that the MSM never reported in any detail the tiny fact that as governer Sarah Palin vetoed a bill in the Alaska legislature that denied medical benefits to gay partners because it was unconstitutional? There was an unholy alliance at work in ignoring her actions: the religious right was certainly uncomfortable with it and the MSM obviously had no interest in noting it, albeit for different reasons. I suspect Governor Palin chafed at that restriction.

Finally, I suspect your Republican friend may just represent a larger swath of his party than the fanatics of the left or the right would want to admit. Both extremes, proselytizers that they are, are unattractive to him, as I also suspect they are to the same raucous crowds that came out for Sarah Palin.

You may still be puzzled that your friend and many others would not have been anguished had the election gone the other way and Sarah Palin would have been only a heartbeat away from the presidency. (You may also be puzzled that President-elect Obama’s recent cabinet appointments hardly reflect the “change” that was his message.) In fact, why was there never mentioned a “platform” in either campaign? Was this election truly based on any kind of philosophy, other than the fact that both campaigns wanted to sweep away any trace of Cheney/Bush (the juxtapositon is deliberate)?

Here’s a final news flash: the Democrats did not defeat McCain/Palin; the Republicans did. The failure of the Republican right to come out in force was the diluting factor in McCain’s numbers. How does one reconcile the paltry efforts of the Far Right with the appellation of Sarah Palin as the darling of the Far Right?

Give your buddy a break; he may be on to something.