Will Palin effect hit Harper?

Much is being made of Sarah Palin's latest foray into the spotlight, via a speech she delivered to the U.S. Tea Party convention. Her fans remain highly vocal, but scarce in numbers, according to the latest polls.
Among the leading political analysts in the United States, there seem to be a few more (grudging or otherwise) Palin admirers including David Broder, who describes her populism as "pitch perfect." I doubt her message or style would play well in Canada but there's a reason why it has some traction south of 49.
Disappointment and anger aimed at government are running at sky high levels in the United States. Some are distraught about the economic shambles they see around them. Others are angry about unprecedented levels of public debt and government intervention into the economy. Many on both the left and the right think Wall Street excess caused everything to unravel, while DC politics have ensured that only Wall Street is left standing.
Into this marketplace Palin's message that a revolution is needed to overthrow the elites is catnip for the angry. Mainstream Republican leaders know that to embrace her language is to play with a fire that may warm today, but could eventually burn you, so they stand on the sidelines as she occupies center stage, the standard-bearer of opposition to the Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress.
The Obama administration response to Palin has been somewhat dismissive, mixed with occasional sharp volleys aimed at Wall Street, which signal an awareness of vulnerability. But the full Palin effect won't really be known until we get closer to the next presidential election. She will either stand outside the Republican race and make it unstable and potentially divisive, or she will get in and risk an even more disruptive effect. There's no doubt President Obama will take his licks from her for the foreseeable future, but the Republicans may have more to be worried about. George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole saw first-hand what Ross Perot could do to destabilize things in 1992 and 1996.
Here in Canada, feelings about the federal government have been running a lot cooler during this recession. Most sense our economy is weaker because of contagion effects more than misguided policies here at home. Anger at Wall Street is a huge force in the United States, but there is no parallel feeling toward Bay Street and big banks here. Canadians rarely go in for talk of "revolution," and for every voter foaming with anger at Ottawa, at least two seem indifferent.
The next six to twelve months will likely be a watershed. A durable recovery, even if snail's-paced, will help prevent growing frustration with Ottawa, despite massive deficits and looming deep spending cuts. A double-dip recession on the other hand would introduce new risks for Stephen Harper. His support has always had some measure of conditionality: the feeling that no one else would do any better, or that there are no bigger, better ideas available. A weaker economy, and/or a stronger Michael Ignatieff, and voters may re-test those assumptions.