I think you’re being sarcastic? But since I’m not sure, let me respond to either scenario:

If you’re being serious: I agree. Since the only actual duties of the vice president are to a.) cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate and b.) take over if the president is incapacitated, I’m glad the person who would take over were something bad to happen a person who has obviously thought through many of the issues of the day. To those who’d critique his ideology, I’d say only that I’d rather have someone with a plan (good or bad) than with no plan (or planning mechanisms) at all.

If you’re being sarcastic: I agree with this, too. There’s certainly no one spotless, as you say, and Sarah Palin has surely come in for a lot of unfair critiques. Which is precisely why I point to Noonan’s column: It’s uncompromising critique, but none of it comes from an unfair placed; rather, a person who actually has some understanding of “conservatism” as a school of thought, rather than a collection of catchphrases and false assumptions.

It pains me that my conscience steers me toward the classical definition of conservatism yet in the end forces me to vote for people who are far from that definition, but that’s where it stands, and it’s because the “conservative” movement has as a whole stopped using its brain and given itself over to silly ad hominem and hot-button reaction. Interestingly enough, there is a considerably large (though not well-covered by any major media) group of conservatives who are equally as pained by the Palin phenomenon as am I and Noonan. You should check them out here.