Let’s not bail out the auto industry, too, writes Rich Lowry of National Review. Giants like GM and Ford have long mismanaged their empires, and the argument that the country can’t afford to lose 100,000 jobs casts Detroit automakers as job and welfare programs, he writes. Bailing them out would put us on track for a new wave of protectionism from free-market competition. And President-elect Obama has signaled he may be willing to do it.

On economic policy, Barack Obama’s not really about change. So holds Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg. The president-elect chose 17 people last week for his transition economic advisory board, and many of them ought not to be guiding his decisions on financial matters because they’ve got shady pasts of their own. One of them, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, was chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee when the bank “helped Enron Corp. cook its books.” There’s more.

Should the courts defer to the popular vote on Prop 8? Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Just, respectively the legal affairs editor and managing editor at The New Republic, have an on-going debate on the issue. The first two parts are here and here. In the third part, Rosen argues that when the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority over an issue is uncertain, as he says they are in the case of abortion and gay marriage, then it should defer to the people and to the Legislature. It’s a high-minded debate.

A black man is president; America no longer needs racial quotas, writes Ken Blackwell in National Review. Racial preference programs harm minorities, anyway, he writes. For example, a 20-percent minimum requirement for minority attendance at a school quickly becomes a 20-percent maximum in practice. Barack Obama has championed change and put forward a vision of a post-racial America, and that’s something everyone should celebrate.

What-next fest continues. David Brooks at the New York Times sees two camps in the struggle for philosophical control over the Republican Party: the Traditionalists, who want to cut taxes, cut big government, and restrict immigration; and the Reformers, who want to address inequality and middle-class economic worries and who tend to see global warming as a more serious issue. His prediction? The Traditionalists will win the near-term battle, but the outcome of the war is uncertain. Over at National Review, Deroy Murdock’s mantra: “What would Reagan do?”

What about Sarah Palin? She appeared in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren yesterday, covering everything from the clothes fiasco to why she feels the McCain-Palin ticket lost. Part one is below. Part two is here.

Nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker called for Palin to step down Friday, saying she didn’t have the necessary experience.

“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.”

Parker is a lot less enthusiastic about Palin now than she was after her speech at the RNC. She wrote then:

“Palin brings more to the ticket than the possibility of a few female voters. She has animated voters who had little enthusiasm for the race. She has given them the very thing Democrats have been enjoying the past several months: hope and change.”

OK, so maybe this experience thing does matter a little! Jim Geraghty, writing on the Web site for the conservative magazine the National Review, held out hope Friday that Palin could get up to speed fast.

“The question is, how fast can Palin build on that knowledge base? What’s her learning curve? If, God forbid, she had to take office in February 2009, there would be understandable concern. A year later, she’d have a much broader range of policy knowledge. Two years later, it would be even broader, and by 2012, she would be as versed in national policy as almost anybody in Washington.”

Geraghty has given Palin four years to become as knowledgeable in national policy as most of the people in Washington. That’s reassuring.

Conservative columnist for the Washington Post George Will argued in early September that experience was crucial, and predicted Palin’s lack of experience might be her downfall. “By his selection of Palin, [McCain] got the enthusiasm of the base. But what has he got in Palin? In coming days he and we will learn from a stern teacher, experience.”

Last week David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times, wrote a vice presidential pick with experience was crucial, and concluded Sarah Palin didn’t have it what it takes.

“Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”

I wouldn’t describe the Sarah Palin shown in the below clip as brash. Overwhelmed and out of her league? Most definitely.

Will other conservative commentators begin to criticize Palin, or will they circle the wagons on her behalf? Each day she gets more and more difficult to defend.

There’s no question John McCain tossed a hail Mary pass when he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. But the game isn’t over yet.