Sarah Palin Losing Support Among Republicans

Republicans are starting to sour on Sarah Palin, meaning that they're finally starting to catch up to the rest of the country.

The downward trend in Sarah Palin’s favorable numbers is showing up within her own party now as well:

Sarah Palin’s ratings within the Republican Party are slumping, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, a potentially troubling sign for the former Alaska governor as she weighs whether to enter the 2012 presidential race.

For the first time in Post-ABC News polling, fewer than six in 10 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents see Palin in a favorable light, down from a stratospheric 88 percent in the days after the 2008 Republican National Convention and 70 percent as recently as October.

In one sense, the poll still finds Palin near the top of a list of eight potential contenders for the GOP nomination. The former vice presidential candidate scores a 58 percent favorable rating, close to the 61 percent for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and 60 percent for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and better than the 55 percent that onetime House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) received.

But Palin’s unfavorable numbers are significantly higher than they are for any of these possible competitors. Fully 37 percent of all Republicans and GOP-leaning independents now hold a negative view of her, a new high.

In another first, fewer than 50 percent of Republican-leaning independents — 47 percent — hold favorable views of Palin.

This is a significant change since the Palin first burst on to the Republican scene as John McCain’s running mate:

Of course, this is a trend that matches the masses increase in Palin’s unfavorable numbers among the public at large:

The difference, of course, is that the ABC/Washington Post poll spoke to the type of people that Palin would have to gain the support of if she actually did run for President. It also comes at the same time that many conservative pundits seem to be having second thoughts about Palin:

Among those taking aim at Palin in recent interviews with POLITICO are George F. Will, the elder statesman of conservative columnists; Peter Wehner, a top strategist in George W. Bush’s White House, and Heather Mac Donald, a leading voice with the right-leaning Manhattan Institute.

Matt Labash, a longtime writer for the Weekly Standard, said that because of Palin’s frequent appeals to victimhood and group grievance, “She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition.”

Conservative intellectuals, while having scant ability to drive large blocs of votes on their own, traditionally have played an outsize role in the early stages of Republican nominating contests. Their approval has lent credence to politicians from Ronald Reagan onward hoping to portray themselves as faithful adherents to an idea-driven conservative movement.

This year, the conservative intelligentsia doesn’t just tend to dislike Palin — many fear that her rise would represent the triumph of an intellectually empty brand of populism and the death of ideas as an engine of the right.

“This is a problem for the movement,” said Will about what Palin represents. “For conservatism, because it is a creedal movement, this is a disease to which it is susceptible.”

Additionally, over the weekend, former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg  noted that the fact that there is no clear frontrunner or heir apparent in the race for the GOP nomination means that Palin could end up being victorious despite the fact that many Republicans have doubts about her:

Because the nominating process has become so dominated by primary elections, with the vast majority of the delegates chosen by direct vote, it is entirely possible that with no presumptive winner or even favorites, a candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates.

Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement. And primaries tend to be populated by people who go to the polls with the purpose of making a statement.

Finishing second and third isn’t really a big deal — until you get enough delegates to be the nominee. And picking a nominee who it seems would be easily defeated by President Obama might not be the best statement.

All of this, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Palin will actually throw her hat into the ring. During the fall, it seemed as though the answer to that question was a rather obvious yes, but events since then, most particularly the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson, have thrown all of that into doubt, and nobody can tell what Palin is actually thinking. Therefore, until she announces her intentions, she hangs over the GOP field as a presence, and Republicans who are beginning to realize (finally!) that nominating her would be an act of political suicide seem to be starting to worry.

 

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Politicians, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. brad says:

    Note to Republicans Sara Palin. She isn’t the problem(s). Your problem is a completely compromised system of governance, law and finance and about half the populace on the government payroll in one form or another with the days of the dollar as the reserve currency clearly numbered. Good luck with that one.

  2. Flag Gazer says:

    With Sarah, it’s all about the money… she’ll stay where she can rake in the $$$$

  3. John Malkovich says:
  4. John425 says:

    Now, c’mon–‘fess up. Given what you’ve seen from Obama, wouldn’t Sarah have been the better choice?

  5. Neil Hudelson says:

    The GOP leadership/conservative pundits hyped Palin and the mentality associated with her when it was convenient in 2010. Now that its getting close to big election, they abandon her for someone that can win.

    I would say that this makes her a patsy, but most patsies don’t make a few million dollars in the process.

    And on that note, kudos to her.

  6. Neil Hudelson says:

    John425,

    Nope.

  7. Mr. Prosser says:

    As long as Roger Ailes and Fox continue to employ her she will not run. I believe she will act as the uber-populist commenting foil to all the other candidates to prevent too much moderation in the primaries.

  8. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    Sarah Palin’s ratings within the Republican Party are slumping…

    Yeah, but the Tea Party still loves her and guess who scares the Republicans more than Sarah Palin?

  9. michael reynolds says:

    So, basically, liberals spotted her immediately as a vacuous, grudge-fueled bimbo. And now, two or three years later, conservatives are starting to catch on.

    This is actually progress. Usually it takes conservatives a decade or more to figure out that liberals were right all along.

    Is conservative a synonym for dumb?

  10. Kylopod says:

    I believe she’ll run. You have to pay attention to what her most ardent supporters have been saying over the last two years. Part of the whole Palin Myth that has seized them is the idea that she’s the heir apparent and the new Ronald Reagan, who was defeated in ’76 but won four years later, trouncing many people’s expectations about his electability. These supporters believe she’s destined to run now, and they will view it as a betrayal if she doesn’t. Given this situation, the best scenario for her would be to run and be defeated in the primaries, and then to watch the nominee lose in the general election. Then she can say “Toldja so,” and the Palin Myth remains unvarnished, allowing her to cash in as needed.

  11. John Malkovich says:

    “Is conservative a synonym for dumb?”

    Is liberal a synonym for homosexuality?

  12. ponce says:

    The fact that a weasel like Newt Gingrich has a 55% favorable rating tells you everything you need to know about today’s Republican Party.

  13. michael reynolds says:

    “Is conservative a synonym for dumb?”

    Is liberal a synonym for homosexuality?

    Either this is a spoof, or you just proved my point.

  14. JKB says:

    What ideas on the Right? These stories are populated with the DC overlords only from the Republican side. They’ve never seen a bureaucracy they didn’t like, as long as they are in power.

    Probably Palin is declining in full support now that it is approaching decision time but can we really trust a poll from the DC establishment be they, politicians, chatterers or pollsters. In any case, this shows Palin and the Tea Party has them scared. So instead of trying to stack the deck, they should be trying to find a solid candidate that represents the new ideas, the Tea Party ideas, fiscal responsibility, constrained bureaucrats, belief in America’s future. Field a candidate like Romney, two steps behind and one step to the right of Obama and they’ll lose the primaries as the People want change and the Dems aren’t going to bring it.

    Personally, I believe even the ardent are awakening to Obama, the daydream believer and homecoming queen. Does anybody really believe they can get food prices down before the polls open in November of 2012? Fuel prices?

  15. TG Chicago says:

    Yeah, I’m with Kylopod. I don’t think Palin wants to be president. I think she’s happy where she is. But she’s been built up so much that some of her supporters would feel betrayed if she simply chose not to run.

    But my guess is that she’ll choose not to run by saying that too many people are attacking her and the party/country would be better off with a nominee that isn’t getting clobbered by the ‘lamestream media’ or whatever. Maybe she’ll throw in some stuff about being sick of the ‘constant attacks on her family’. Essentially, she’ll wave the victim flag. Like always. She’ll make it sound like she’s throwing herself on her sword in order to save the country.

    And, just as when she quit the governorship, her hard core supporters will accept the drivel.

  16. wr says:

    JKB — The “Tea Party” ideas are being tried all over the midwest, and they are turning out to be the worst thing that’s ever happened to your party. Poll numbers for everyone involved in these outrageous expansions of government power are plummetting — Kasich couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Ohio now, at least three of the right-wing thugs in the Wisconsin senate are going to be recalled, and independants are fleeing from the Republican party. Because the hate-filled tea partiers really represent only the worst five or ten percent of the country.

  17. michael reynolds says:

    So far the only actual policy suggestions I’ve heard from the so-called Tea Party have been to eliminate foreign aid and the Department of Education. Suggestions of staggering irrelevancy to the deficit.

    Let the TP start suggesting cuts in SS benefits or Medicare. Then let’s see how well their membership holds up.

  18. G.A.the Friendly Troll says:

    So, basically, liberals spotted her immediately as a vacuous, grudge-fueled bimbo. And now, two or three years later, conservatives are starting to catch on.

    This is actually progress. Usually it takes conservatives a decade or more to figure out that liberals were right all along.

    You say crap like this as if Obama does not exist, lol…
    Oh and liberal have never and never will be right about anything, its against the laws of God, and nature….

    Harry, lol….why with the bimbo crap?

  19. Steven Plunk says:

    Palin’s role as a conservative lightning rod has been serving the party well. I believe she knows she can’t win the primary but can still be of service and make some money. The attacks on her and her family have exposed the mean spirited liberals that populate the Left.

    The interesting thing to me has always been the fact that for every conservative supporter there seems to be two liberals going rabid against her. I see her as a benign populist getting the message out for the election cycles.

    My friend Michael complains the Tea Party has few policy ideas and I have to agree. Populist movements are more about the problem than the solution. We have elected politicians and bureaucrats that are paid to come up with solutions. Joe Six Pack doesn’t have the resources or time to formulate a budget but he does know the current spending is unsustainable. My dog knows it’s unsustainable.

    It’s much too early to judge the success of Tea Party candidates. The next election cycle may very well vindicate those who take on public sector unions and out of control spending. I will not support a Palin candidacy but I am thankful to her for what she has done. She has energized the conservatives and given them hope. That’s more than any other Republican has done lately.

  20. anjin-san says:

    > I believe she knows she can’t win the primary but can still be of service and make some money.

    I think we can count on her making some money. It appears to be the reason she is in the game.

  21. hey norm says:

    @ michael reynolds:
    conservative is not a synonym for dumb. not at all.
    the problem is not conservatism, but what passes for conservatism today. palin and bachman and limbaugh and hannity and gingrich and beck are not conservatives. kristol and krauthammer are not conservatives. boehner and ryan and cantor are certainly not conservatives.
    obama is more conservative than any of them.

  22. TG Chicago says:

    The attacks on her and her family have exposed the mean spirited liberals that populate the Left.

    But it’s Palin whose favorability numbers are sinking.

  23. mantis says:

    Now, c’mon–’fess up. Given what you’ve seen from Obama, wouldn’t Sarah have been the better choice?

    I know wingnuts have the memories of fleas, but do you seriously not remember that Sarah Palin didn’t run for president?

    Even if she had, no, she would not have been the better choice. Not by a long shot.

  24. anjin-san says:

    > The attacks on her and her family have exposed the mean spirited liberals that populate the Left.

    As opposed to the attacks on Obama and his family? Keep turning that victim card over. Heck, maybe it’s time for another “blood libel” speech.

  25. jwest says:

    “With Sarah, it’s all about the money…”

    I’ve heard liberals and a few quasi-libertarians say this and it puzzles me. People have used this in the context that she wouldn’t run for president because she can make more on TV, speaking and writing books. Because she’s economically secure now, I don’t understand the reasoning (if there is any) behind this position.

    Since James Joyner has been diligently researching Palin for his upcoming article, he could probably explain better than I how this doesn’t make sense. If she was “all about the money”, wouldn’t she have been more about the money back when she didn’t have any? When Frank Murkowski gave her a plumb six-figure job on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, Todd Palin was working a union job on the pipeline and they had four kids at home. An additional $130,000 per year for attending a few meetings and keeping her mouth shut (by law) about the inside dealing going on sure would help pay the bills in Wasilla.

    If she was “all about the money”, she would have quietly accepted the taxpayer’s check every month. Instead, she gave up her position to expose the conflicts of interest between the oil companies and the republican party.

    Perhaps some of the anti-Palin folks could give some examples of other politicians who gave up good paying positions to expose corruption in their own party, and how they did it for the right reasons and not “for the money”.

  26. Jay Tea says:

    A wee bit of selection bias here…

    There are two things Doug could comment about today regarding Sarah Palin:

    A poll that reinforces his own opinions;

    A thoughtful analysis of the Obama administration’s anti-energy policy
    (let’s call a spade a spade here).

    Which will Doug post about, and which will he ignore?

    I know which way I would wager…

    J.

  27. Jay Tea says:

    jwest, a more pointed version of your question is one I’ve asked often — please cite a single time Obama (who came out of the legendarily corrupt Chicago Democratic machine) has ever stood up against corruption within his own party. They can’t — he built his entire career out of “going along to get along.”

    But hey, we have a POLL to discuss, so why the hell should we discuss actual matters of character and substance?

    J.

  28. wr says:

    Jay Tea — A “thoughtful analysis” of the reasons for spiking gas prices that never mentions the turmoil in the middle east.

    I realize that Palin is, indeed, this stupid. But you don’t have to pretend to be.

  29. hey norm says:

    @jt:
    thoughtful article? more like partisan hackery.
    when writing about the drilling moratorium she doesn’t mention people who died on those rigs, the damage done to the environment, and the responsibilty of the government to protect those things. she doesn’t mention what a joke the mineral management service had become under republican oversight and how that was corrected.
    she seems to to take great joy in the fact that oil has spiked due to libya. somehow that is obamas fault. i seem to remember it being even higher under bush but i didn’t see any “thoughtful” comments regarding that. the only way to stop these spikes is to get off oil – something she also doesn’t mention.
    she does mention peer-reviewed science – but ignores the fact that 100% of the peer-reviewed science says humans are responsible for accelerating climate change and that her drill baby drill dogma will only make it worse.
    what you think is thoughtful is one dimensional fact free ideological drivel.

  30. mantis says:

    Jay, that might be a “thoughtful analysis” to shallow twits like yourself, but people with a few more brains than the average lemur know better.

    Shall I dig into the archives for the posts where you claim President Bush and/or government had no influence or control over gas prices? Like, say, this one?

    Do you ever get tired of being so obviously full of shit? Aren’t you embarrassed by your Palin worship? Don’t you realize what a pathetic joke you have made yourself into?

  31. jwest says:

    Jay Tea,

    It could be that Michelle Obama’s job at the hospital ($300,000+/year) was something similar, but being conservatives, we’re just too stupid to explain it.

    I’m certain that the position was critically important because of the pay scale. She must have done a great job, because when she left, they didn’t need to hire anyone else to do whatever it was she was being paid for.

    Doug will probably know the answer.

  32. Neil Hudelson says:

    Steven,

    My friend Michael complains the Tea Party has few policy ideas and I have to agree. Populist movements are more about the problem than the solution.

    You know, this is a pretty fair defense and one I have not considered before. On the flip side, if the tea party wants to stay a political force, there needs to start being consensus on policy issues. Anger fades, and if a populist movement doesn’t have anything besides anger to sustain it, it will fade too.

  33. wr says:

    Wow, the two J’s are working overtime to change the subject. Pretty obvious they both know what a loser Saint Sarah is and can’t bear to admit it.

    “Look, over there! Obama’s a Muslim!”

  34. John Malkovich says:

    “A poll that reinforces his own opinions;”

    Nope, just a desperate move to get traffic.

    The same old trolls saying the same old garbage.

    No new posters at all.

  35. John Malkovich says:

    ““Look, over there! Obama’s a Muslim!””

    Speaking of Hussein the Muslim:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/16/finally-leader-of-free-world-takes-position-on-ncaa-finals/

    No wonder he’s at 42% approval

  36. mattb says:

    Couple thoughts…

    First, Palin is an exceptionally driven woman. And I think, while she’s not particularly intellectually curious (or particularly “book smart”), she’s a smart operator.

    And, no, I don’t think it’s all about the money. That said, given her level of caginess, I don’t think she’s someone to turn down a good opportunity when it crosses her path — especially if it also gel’s with her personal ideologies (see Fox news gig).

    While the lawsuits most likely had some effect on her departure as Governor, I still content that she realized that she could not continue to the be the Sarah Palin that emerged on the campaign trail and be any sort of effective Governor. And no, I don’t see the lawsuits as the key problem there — it’s the fact that as she campaigned she became progressively more conservative and polarizing as things went on (and that was a huge aspect of her appeal).

    As far as the presidency — it’s in her best interests to make an extended run, but not to win the nomination. I don’t care what you think about Obama or the economy, but she is too polarizing of a candidate to win a general election at the top of a ticket (possibly even as VP).

    If she was to reinvent herself, perhaps this would be possible. But, like I said, I think she is smart, and she knows that she can maintain a more than comfortable living (again doing work I think she largely agree’s with) by keeping a strong, core base of supporters (this is more or less the right wing radio model — there’s a reason btw, that most radio hosts are still on her bandwagon).

    The moves to the center of the Republican party (and towards the national center) necessary to win the nomination would alienate her from a lot of her base. Given that even with those moves there’s no guarantee of either the nomination or the election, the amount of work necessary to make those moves, and the amount she stands to lose if she made them and lost — I don’t see her caring enough about the presidency to do any of that.

    So yes, expect her to run — because she needs to run to sustain her aura. But don’t expect her to run seriously.

  37. The insight here is worth every penny.

  38. John Malkovich says:

    “So yes, expect her to run — because she needs to run to sustain her aura. But don’t expect her to run seriously.”

    Two words:

    Gas

    Prices

  39. rodney dill says:

    The insight here is worth every penny.

    …anything free is worth what you pay for it.

  40. mattb says:

    @John M

    Sorry, unless the climb and sustain themselves in the area of $5 a gallon, it’s not enough for a Palin win. Nor is an unemployment rate over 8%. Or perhaps even both together (though I don’t think I’m prepared to take that particular bet).

    Now, both of those could be enough for a republican win over Obama. But it depends on *which* republican. Voting for “not the person in office” can work in some elections, but I don’t think it’s enough in this case. And, as counter-intuitive as this sounds, its easier to pull off when your “running against a person in office” who isn’t in the race (i.e. Obama’s casting McCain as a 3rd Bush term).

    The key thing here is that this is all contingent on her winning the nomination — as James article suggests, there really isn’t a chance of that if things keep progressing as they are.

  41. Jay Tea says:

    wr — this article is all about polls, which is like Viagra to people who live and die by polls. So it’s no wonder that a lot of those people — who tend to subcontract out their own thinking to others — are so excited about the latest poll numbers.

    I’m on record for years about not giving a rat’s tuchis about polls. This is an opportunity for me to mock the twits who get all worked up when Gallup or RCP or Pew or Rasmussen (yes, I Googled up some of the more common ones, I don’t even know their names on my own) tells them what the herd is “thinking.”

    There are very few polls that actually matter. They involve ballots and real consequences.

    The rest? Wank fuel for political phetishists. And like most phetishists, they really get defensive when someone says something judgmental or derogatory about their phetishes.

    J.
    (Who’s getting more and more annoyed with the positively puritan comment filters. Seven tries to post and counting…)

  42. Jay Tea says:

    wr — this article is all about polls, which is like (generic ED medication) to people who live and die by polls. So it’s no wonder that a lot of those people — who tend to subcontract out their own thinking to others — are so excited about the latest poll numbers.

    I’m on record for years about not giving a rat’s behind about polls. This is an opportunity for me to mock the twits who get all worked up when Gallup or RCP or Pew or Rasmussen (yes, I Googled up some of the more common ones, I don’t even know their names on my own) tells them what the herd is “thinking.”

    There are very few polls that actually matter. They involve ballots and real consequences.

    The rest? fap fodder for political phetishists. And like most phetishists, they really get defensive when someone says something judgmental or derogatory about their phetishes.

    J.
    (Who’s getting more and more annoyed with the positively puritan comment filters. Nine tries to post and counting…)

  43. Steven Plunk says:

    mattb, Fine analysis. The two J’s have also hit the nail on the head.

  44. wr says:

    Jay Tea — This article was about Palin’s plummeting poll ratings. First you tried to persuade us that Palin’s moronic Facebook rambling was somehow insightful — ooh, gas prices are going up and it’s all about Obama! What unrest in the MIddle East? What could that have to do with anything? — and when that didn’t work you tried repeating some tired old right wing talking points about how icky Obama is. And now that everyone is laughing at you, you claim that everything you posted was just an opportunity to mock “the twits” who pay attention to polls.

    Do you really think people’s memories are that short? Or that they’re simply incapable of scrolling up a page or so to see what you just said?

  45. Jay Tea says:

    wr — let me put it in simple terms:

    It was a stupid article, by definition — the endless entrail-reading that is “polls and how people interpret polls” are only useful to people who want to confirm their beliefs and prejudices.

    As such, the story didn’t even deserve reading, let alone writing about.

    People with actual opinions, their own beliefs, and the courage to actually hold their beliefs don’t need polls. Their core principles are not up to public debate.

    I will listen to reasons why my beliefs are wrong, but to simply be told that “57% of the people we asked said you’re wrong” will get you laughed at — if you’re lucky.

    J.

  46. Jay Tea says:

    By the way, does anyone have a current running total of “Doug Mataconis pronounces Sarah Palin’s political obituary” pieces? I lost count around number 86…

    J.

  47. wr says:

    Jay Tea — A poll like this is not intended to tell you how to think, so you may safely remove the tin foil from your head. It is to judge, at an early stage, what chance there is of Ms. Palin being elected president.

    And for someone who is so completely unimpressed by such a poll and such an article, you sure are putting a lot of energy into attacking it and trying to change the subject away from it.

    You claim the story didn’t deserve writing about, and yet you’ve written and posted something like a dozen messages about a story that you think doesn’t deserve writing about.

    It’s like your claim that you’re indifferent to Palin, but merely protecting an innocent’s honor. It would be more convincing if you wiped the drool off your chin first.

  48. Jay Tea says:

    wr, you are obviously the product of a unionized public school system. It really shows.

    I never said I was indifferent to Palin. Learn to read. I said I do not endorse her for president. I find a great deal about her appealing and refreshing, but I am not committing to anyone right now. And as a registered independent voter in New Hampshire, I’ll withhold my judgment until it’s MUCH closer to our primary. Last go-around, I didn’t make my choice until within a week or so of primary day.

    Let me try one more time:

    1) Polls matter mainly to people who care about polls.

    B) People who care too much about polls are weak-willed saps who either want to find out how the majority feels, so they can fit in, or need affirmation that they are already in the majority and can feel confident in their beliefs.

    III) “The majority” is usually shaped by whoever is conducting the polls.

    d) People who care too much about polls quickly learn how to find the polls that most often confirm what they already believe, and ignore those that contradict them.

    iiiii) Mocking idiots is quite recreational, and you fill that bill quite nicely.

    J.

  49. tom p says:

    This year, the conservative intelligentsia

    Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? (sorry, I could not resist)

  50. wr says:

    Jay Tea — I am proudly the product of a unionized public school system, as well as two unionized public universities. I proudly teach in another unionized public university.

    You may think you’re insulting me, but you’re just showing your own ignorance, as usual. And your mewling and whining over Palin tells a truth that your words can’t hide. You are as obsessed with her as Smooth Jazz. Why guys like you get so hot for a 40-something housefrau is beyond me, but whatever makes you feel all gooey inside…

  51. Steve Plunk says:

    Those of us who defend Palin aren’t obsessed with her. On the contrary, it is those who incessantly attack her that are obsessed. Sure she’s attractive but more importantly she drives liberals nuts and for that we thank her.

    I’d rather not talk about her but the cheap attacks almost require it. Many of us who defend do so without giving her our support for a presidential run. Sometimes we weigh in merely to counter the bullies who frequent OTB. Those attitudes and mannerisms may work in the faculty senate or on the school board but we’ve seen one trick ponies before and find them boorish and unoriginal. Time to move on and seek a cure for the derangement.

  52. wr says:

    “She drives liberals nuts.”

    And there you have the entire political philosophy of the contemporary right wing. The only thing that matters to the Plunk’s of the world. Doesn’t matter if you’re setting the entire country up for destruction, as long as it annoys liberals, they’ll vote for it.

    Can’t imagine why the new congress is such a disaster…

  53. An Interested Party says:

    The interesting thing to me has always been the fact that for every conservative supporter there seems to be two liberals going rabid against her.

    On the contrary, liberals would LOVE IT if she ran…they would whole-heartedly support her in that effort…

    Perhaps some of the anti-Palin folks could give some examples of other politicians who gave up good paying positions to expose corruption in their own party…

    Umm, we were told that she quit because she was hounded from office by enemies who were trying to bankrupt her…now, the story is that she quit to expose corrupt Republicans? So many stories, so little time…

    The same old trolls saying the same old garbage.

    But enough about John Malkovich…

    And like most phetishists, they really get defensive when someone says something judgmental or derogatory about their phetishes.

    Indeed, like you do whenever anyone has anything negative to say about Sarah Palin…

    Time to move on and seek a cure for the derangement.

    Well, at whatever institution anyone went to receive that cure, he/she would probably see you right down the hall, receiving treatment for ODS…

  54. Jay Tea says:

    Interested, you’re confusing two separate incidents.

    Palin resigned from the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission because she couldn’t expose and fight the corruption among the GOP while in office, so she took her fight public — and won.

    She resigned the governorship because unprincipled leftist vermin exploited the flawed ethics laws and threatened to bankrupt her, her family, her closest aides, and were costing the state millions.

    I realize you might have trouble grasping that these were two entirely separate incidents, years apart, but they were not the same.

    J.

  55. An Interested Party says:

    Umm, jwest wasn’t clear in what he was refering to…that being said, I admit that I don’t have the slavish devotion to her that others do and, therefore, don’t observe every little thing she does in the same way that a proctologist would examine a patient…I mean, with people like you to pick up the slack in that department, why should anyone else bother…

  56. An Interested Party says:

    Oh, I forgot to thank you for proving what a phetishist you are…well done…

  57. Jay Tea says:

    Interested, that misspelling was deliberate, to try to get past the positively puritan filters in place here. I know it starts with an “f,” but couldn’t get my comment published.

    Then I realized I was using a brand name of a certain pharmaceutical, replaced it with “GENERIC ED MEDICATION,” and the comment got through. At that point, I was too frustrated to go back and change “phetish” and its variants and see if that was necessary and left it stand as is.

    J.

  58. Jay Tea says:

    Oh, and Interested: you don’t have to take a “proctological” level of scrutiny to Palin to get the basics right. And stay away from the “gynecological” — Andrew Sullivan has that staked out.

    Just show a modicum of more attentiveness than, say, a Wisconsin doctor handing out “sick notes” at the Madison capitol building to teachers engaging in an illegal work action, and you’ll be fine.

    J.

  59. Steven Plunk says:

    wr, If you took the time to read my statements you will see I don’t support her candidacy so therefore I won’t vote for her just to annoy you. If anything is a disaster or ruining us it is the Obama presidency which is looking more amateurish every day.

    What matters to me is effective responsible government. The liberal experiment within government has proven to not be either. I’m curious why the “Plunks of the world” would be ridiculed for wanting that?

  60. wr says:

    Plunk — Because we’ve seen what you consider effective, responsible government and it nearly destroyed the nation. No thanks.

  61. mattb says:

    I don’t support her candidacy so therefore I won’t vote for her just to annoy you.

    While politics isn’t as *deadly serious* as either party makes it, this pleasure in causing pain swings so far to the other side (even if it’s tongue in cheek) that it transforms everything into a zero-sum game.

  62. Jenessa says:

    In a major crisis does anyone-never mind political party affiliation; just as an American; 100% believe she could make a number of seriously executed decisions to save this country ? Frankly when I stand back I can honestly say all Palin does is attack people. She’s pissed off every allied country in the world. She has a severe ‘hate on’ for the UK and France. Aren’t they our allies also? How does this play out if she became elected? Never mind what she would suggest we do with our border countries-Canada and Mexico.