Speaking of libertarians and Sarah Palin, I can think of no fiercer libertarian pundit than Vin Suprynowicz. (He's long been one of my favorites.) I have to say, it came as a surprise to me to see that he's endorsing the McCain-Palin ticket. Not that he considers McCain a libertarian. But then, McCain is not claiming to be a libertarian. Bob Barr is, however, and Suprynowicz just isn't buying:

...This year, [] the Libertarian Party has nominated Fearless Drug Warrior Bob Barr, a man who has opposed medical marijuana initiatives, opposed needle exchanges, a man who zealously locked up for years those seeking to peacefully medicate themselves or help others to do so, shoving them into small cages where they're subject to anal rape by guys named "Bubba."

It's tempting to stay home on Nov. 4....

Wishing won't make John McCain a small-government libertarian. But think back to how the defeatist fellow-travelers in the media ridiculed him when he said The Surge could defeat al-Qaida in Iraq.

Think back to when the genius political analysts told you McCain's campaign was dead, that this guy was so clueless he had no remaining plan but to spend the entire autumn in New Hampshire, hanging out and gabbing with the locals at Dunkin' Donuts.

And then last week my former senator, John McCain, threw the entire race into a maelstrom, confounding all expectations and common wisdom by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

If Democrats believed what they say -- that Gov. Palin is such a poor choice that John McCain might as well fold his tent and go home -- they should be condescendingly patting the little lady on the head right now, saying, "Oh, how cute."

So how are we to explain the way the Democratic Party is now going after Sarah Palin and her perfectly lovely pregnant daughter, for all the world like the frenzied final holdouts on some Japanese-occupied Pacific atoll, shrieking "Banzai!" as they level their bayonets and charge the machine guns in their loincloths?

I've already lost count of the ways the ululating harridans have attacked this anti-corruption reformer....

Why the desperation?

Because Vice President Sarah Palin would mean Americans could actually end up electing a woman president without tapping a manipulative, soulless, stay-married-just-to-stay-in-power socialist.

How dare the Republicans threaten to do that? Only the "progressive" party is supposed to be allowed to put the first articulate woman in line for the White House! Why, it's just like when the Republicans dared to put a conservative black man on the Supreme Court. It's so wrong!

Sarah Palin is a gun owner and Westerner who seems to still understand the core American notions of Freedom and the Frontier, a woman who vetoed a half billion dollars in proposed state spending and "put the government of our state back on the side of the people."

Yes, it bothers me that she might outlaw other women's abortion choices if she could. But she can't.

What these screeching attacks on Sarah Palin are really all about is not a pregnant daughter or a 20-year-old DUI. And the "no foreign policy experience" red herring would have barred Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as well as Barack Obama.

What this is really all about is that she is the first everyday American in a generation, the first person who is not an Ivy League attorney, not a career Washington insider, not vetted by the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations and the CIA and Ellen Goodman, a person who works her husband's fishing boat and drives her own car to work and buys her own groceries, to be given a shot at leading this nation.

And that appears to have a certain element of the political power structure terrified.

Why do you suppose that is?

Gov. Sarah Palin can't save America all by herself. That's the underlying absurdity of this near-religious frenzy to pick a new Guy On A White Horse every eight years.

But an America that could elect Sarah Palin might still save itself.

Why, from them, of course!

(Readers know who they are, so I don't want to repeat myself. But I've written a number of posts trying to define them.)

The only thing I'd add is that I have long believed that what "they" most fear is an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives. I'm not saying this will necessarily happen, but if it ever did, the fallout would be very bad.

Why, such a thing might even jeopardize the very future of socialism!