For a while, here and at other sites, I’ve defended Independent Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman’s right to break from his party on matters of foreign policy and national security.  I don’t agree with him on the matter, but I find it somewhat admirable that he is willing to say how he feels, even though it opposes the Democratic platform.

Likewise, I must defend Republican Kathleen Parker, a writer for the National Review, who got a whole load of hate when she wrote a recent column criticizing McCain running mate Sarah Palin.

Parker’s basic argument is that Palin is out of her league and isn’t ready for the position of Vice President.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

…

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Not too long after the column was posted, the mail started coming in.

Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party — not a “true” conservative.

Joe Lieberman and John McCain often get this treatment.  That because they disagree with their parties on certain issues, they are a Democrat or Republican in Name Only.  Not a true liberal or conservative.  Even though on most issues, they agree with the party platform.  Yet, while I’ve seen rather vehement rebuttals (which is okay) written about the two, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything particularly nasty.  Not all Parker’s emails were nice:

Such extreme partisanship has a crippling effect on government, which may be desirable at times, but not now. More important in the long term is the less tangible effect of stifling free speech. My mail paints an ugly picture and a bleak future if we do not soon correct ourselves.

The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn’t sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.

Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different from one’s own, we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks.)

Saying someone is a traitor and giving death threats because of someone’s views?  Which seem to have changed, by the way.  Namely, she used to be a supporter.

When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

A supporter who’s looked at all the current evidence and decided to change her mind.  And she should get death threats because of this?  In America?  Really?

I thought the demonization of independent thinkers of the same party had taken the cake.  I was wrong.  A new cake has been taken.