Sarah Palin Unfavorables Reach Critical Mass

Sarah Palin's unfavorability ratings continue to climb. And there's very little room for her recovery.

Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen says “Sarah Palin might have really squandered an opportunity to improve her image last week.”  While 64 percent of Americans say Palin had no culpability for the Tucson shootings and 45 percent think the press treated her unfairly, 40 percent thought her video response was inappropriate.   And she now trails President Obama by 17 points in the latest PPP matchup, “the largest deficit we’ve found for her since May of 2009.”

Similarly, a new CNN poll shows “56 percent of all Americans have an unfavorable view of Sarah Palin, an all-time high.”

Ditto Gallup, which reports “Palin’s 38% favorable rating is her lowest (by two percentage points) since she became a well-known political figure after the 2008 Republican national convention, and her 53% unfavorable rating is her worst by a point. ”

While it’s still very early in terms of the 2012 presidential cycle, giving Palin plenty of time to change people’s minds, she’s unusual among potential Obama challengers in not only name recognition but depth of public sentiment.  As Nate Silver notes,  “an unusually large number of Americans — and possibly a majority — have a strong view of Ms. Palin.”

He points to a December Politico poll:

If this poll is anywhere near accurate, the results are astounding:  People have stronger opinions on Palin than they do George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain!  Bush was president for eight years, having left office less than two years ago.  Clinton has been a national figure the past eighteen years.  And McCain was the Republican nominee just two years ago.   By contrast, few Americans outside Alaska had heard of Sarah Palin until August 29, 2008 when McCain nominated her as his running mate.

Silver concludes:

All of this, needless to say, makes Ms. Palin’s task very challenging. In delivering comments like the ones she did on the Tucson tragedy last week, she must consider their effect on at least four different audiences: Republican base voters who will vote in next year’s primaries; independent and moderate voters who will vote in next year’s general election; Republican elites — in Washington and elsewhere — who are growing more skeptical about her electoral viability; and the news media itself, which will scrutinize, amplify, and analyze her words, in different ways and in greater volumes than they would for any other politician.

Thus far, her every action seems to be simultaneously strengthening the adoration of her core supporters and confirming negative suspicions and driving down her support amongst everyone else.   Of course, it’s possible that she’s already topped the “strong views” scale at this point, since it’s hard to imagine topping the sitting president and his immediate predecessor with a Facebook page as one’s chief platform.

In the meantime, Obama’s favorability is at 53 percent in the latest Gallup poll.

None of this, incidentally, matters if Palin isn’t a candidate for president.   If her goal is simply to enhance her Q rating and to be a television star, she’s making all the right moves.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Public Opinion Polls, Sarah Palin, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Jack says:

    The results regarding strong feelings aren’t necessarily that astounding once one considers that Palin has gotten more air time than pretty much anyone else, much more than Clinton (as Secretary of State) and arguably more than Obama.

  2. James Joyner says:

    Silver addresses that and, despite the perception that it’s all Palin, all the time, she’s not getting an inordinate amount of air time. Certainly, only a fraction of Obama’s. A lot for a former half-term governor, to be sure.

  3. Alex Knapp says:

    If her goal is simply to enhance her Q rating and to be a television star, she’s making all the right moves.

    Well, except for the fact that her show got cancelled. Which is too bad, because if I got anything out of that godawful reality show, it’s that her dad is awesome. I would totally watch a show about her dad.

  4. @Alex,

    To be fair to Palin, the contract that TLC had apparently only called for one season. Also, I would suspect that the main reason TLC might not want to air a second season any time soon is because it’s still unclear if she’s going to run for President. If she does, then TLC (or it’s parent Discovery Communications) would potentially be required to give all her opponents equal time.

    @James,

    Palin’s biggest problem isn’t just the high unfavorable #’s, it is the fact that there are very few people who don’t have an opinion on her at this point. In one Gallup poll last year, the number of people who answered “No Opinion” on a favorable/unfavorable question about Palin was 7%. That does not leave much room for improvement

  5. john personna says:

    Were SPA’s ratings really that bad? I don’t think so. Maybe it was a money issue.

  6. John425 says:

    Historically, both CNN and Politico overloaded their sample groups with Democrats. Generally, their surveys are crap.

  7. It’s minstrel eating time.

  8. Jay Tea says:

    Palin said no to a second season. TLC was interested.

    And while I normally have exceptional disdain and contempt for polls, I have to wonder what Richard Nixon’s figures were in 1962…

    J.

  9. James Joyner says:

    1962? Not sure I follow. He ran for president in 1960, 1968, and 1972.

  10. jwest says:

    First it was NPR pronouncing Rep. Giffords dead prematurely. Now, it’s OTB declaring the end of Sarah Palin.

    Who’s a guy to believe?

  11. ponce says:

    “Were SPA’s ratings really that bad? I don’t think so.”

    Her audience had fallen from 5 million to 2.3 million.

  12. floyd says:

    Is it time for the mutual back-patting ceremony yet??[lol]

    The left wing media is like one of those toy dogs which barks everytime time it’s motion sensor is stimulated!
    The prospect of a Palin candidacy is prestidigitation, and nothing more…. Soon the headlines will read…

    “HEYYY!?!??”

  13. anjin-san says:

    > 1962? Not sure I follow

    Sounds like a case of someone sleeping through U.S. History 101…

  14. An Interested Party says:

    It’s a good thing James wrote this post and not Doug otherwise some people might have had a coronary…

  15. G.A.P.THEORY says:

    ****Palin’s biggest problem isn’t just the high unfavorable #’s, it is the fact that there are very few people who don’t have an opinion on her at this point.****lol, I wonder why Doug…..

  16. ponce says:

    “Not sure I follow. ”

    I think the point is even the wingnuts are starting to compare Plain to Nixon now.

  17. I think the point is that Nixon lost in his bid to be vice president in 1960. Palin lost in her bid to be vice president in 2008. So asking how Nixon polled in 1962 is a lot like asking how Palin polled in 2010.

    An awful lot of snark from folks unable to see this rather basic correlation.

  18. Me, I’m growing rather fond of Doug’s daily posts asking why Palin keeps being talked about.

  19. Jay Tea says:

    OK, time to give the self-styled geniuses a little History 101.

    In 1960, Richard Nixon ran for president, and was defeated.

    In 1962, he ran for governor of California, and was defeated.

    In his 1962, the former vice president announced “you won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more.”

    In 1968, he won the presidency with 32 states and 301 electoral votes (in a 3-way race, with George Wallace running on the “American Independent” party.

    Man, now I know how Sarah Palin felt after everyone pointed and laughed at her “party like it’s 1773” line.

    J.

  20. James Joyner says:

    @Charles: Nixon had won two terms as vice president under Eisehower. He was narrowly defeated by Kennedy in 1960, owing to some controversial results in a couple of close states.

    @Jay: Right. But Nixon didn’t have huge unfavorables. He narrowly lost two races. (Okay, so 52-47 isn’t slim, but hardly a major rebuke, either.) Six years later, he won.

    You think Palin’s gunning for the presidency six years from now instead of one? Or, presumably, five or nine years from now, since that’s when actual elections are scheduled?

  21. mantis says:

    You heard it here first. Sarah Palin is the next Richard Nixon. Good model!

    Here’s a tip, Sarah: stay away from audio recording devices.

  22. mantis says:

    Right. But Nixon didn’t have huge unfavorables. He narrowly lost two races.

    But Nixon blamed the media for his loss in California. Palin blames the media for, well, everything. Therefore she will be president. QED.

  23. Janis Gore says:

    Language, Dr. Joyner.

  24. ponce says:

    “Nixon had won two terms as vice president under Eisenhower. ”

    Think of Palin as a less successful Dick Nixon.

  25. michael reynolds says:

    Nixon wasn’t an idiot. He was an asshole, but not an idiot.

  26. anjin-san says:

    > An awful lot of snark from folks unable to see this rather basic correlation.

    Possibly because it is not valid. In 1962,two years out from his failed run for PRESIDENT in 1960, Nixon ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California, famously remarking after his loss “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.” Unless you are somehow equating Palin’s abandonment of her office in Alaska with Nixon’s failed California run AND claiming that heading a ticket, as Nixon did is the same as holding the VP slot, it is clear that the “basic correlation” is, well, kind of a joke.

    Nixon was in fact, the Vice President for two terms with President Eisenhower, which is a lot different from being a failed candidate for VP.

    Please feel free to call me a “bad faith actor” for actually knowing U.S. history.

  27. Jay Tea says:

    My intention was just to point out how many people wrote off Nixon in 1962, pronounced him politically dead, and decided he was “finished” on the national stage.

    And then, six years later…

    I’d say more, but — as charles noted — it’s about time for Doug’s daily “Sarah Palin is finished, and I wish everyone would stop talking about her” post.

    J.

  28. anjin-san says:

    Michael makes a good point. Nixon was a brilliant man. His self destruction was a real tragedy.

  29. Jay Tea says:

    Bill Clinton was also written off after his disastrous 1988 speech at the Democratic National Convention. Ronald Reagan was a washed-up actor and former governor. Whoever said “there are no second acts” in American politics was woefully mistaken.

    On the other hand, there’s Dan Quayle, Michael Dukakis, John Edwards, and a whole slew of losers who never recovered from losing. But to use them as the ironclad rule is just plain stupid.

    J.

  30. Jay Tea says:

    Nixon was a brilliant man who was troubled with paranoia, a petty vindictiveness, and a streak of wrongheaded liberalism that nearly led to ruin for the nation.

    Barack Obama is, allegedly, a brilliant man…

    J.

  31. anjin-san says:

    > how many people wrote off Nixon in 1962,

    Nixon wrote himself off in ’62. Palin will pretty much cut the ribbon at a car wash opening if it will get her media attention. Nixon was also a highly successful politician at the national level with a long record of accomplishment in multiple offices. Palin, well Palin is someone who bailed as the Gov of a small population state when the going got a little rough.

    It’s a false equivalence. If you want to lecture on history 101, do go beyond what you can glen from Wikipedia in two minutes.

  32. wr says:

    No one said “there are no second acts in American politics.” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote “there are no second acts in American lives.”

  33. anjin-san says:

    > wrongheaded liberalism

    Nixon was a liberal! Of course.

    Now I understand the “fellow traveler” smear he used against Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950. (A favorite tea party smear, that one)

    It all makes sense now.

  34. PJ says:

    @mantis:
    “Here’s a tip, Sarah: stay away from audio recording devices.”

    Yup, that’s why she used yahoo email.

  35. sam says:

    “Nixon was a liberal!”

    Actually, I wouldn’t mind see the reincarnation of Dick in today’s GOP:

    Under Nixon, direct payments from the federal government to individual American citizens in government benefits (including Social Security and Medicare) rose from 6.3% of the Gross National Product (GNP) to 8.9%. Food aid and public assistance also rose, beginning at $6.6 billion and escalating to $9.1 billion. Defense spending decreased from 9.1% to 5.8% of the GNP. The revenue sharing program pioneered by Nixon delivered $80 billion to individual states and municipalities….

    Nixon initiated the Environmental Decade by signing the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972, as well as establishing many government agencies. These included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Council on Environmental Quality. The Clean Air Act was noted as one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation ever signed…

    Nixon signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1972 which included the creation of the Supplemental Security Income Program, a Federal Welfare Program still in existence today…etc.

    See the Wiki page for more of his accomplishments.

    Noam Chomsky said Nixon was the last liberal president. You read that wiki page and you can see why he said that.

  36. Thank you for the correction. I readily acknowledge the brain fart about Nixon losing the race for President rather than Vice President, but I think the analogy to Palin still isn’t that far off.

    Sorry, I think intense pain can affect memory at times.

  37. An Interested Party says:

    Palin seems to have more in common with Quayle than she does with Nixon…still, hope springs eternal for some people, I guess…

  38. anjin-san says:

    Interesting point Sam. It’s also interesting to note Jay’s comment:

    Nixon was a brilliant man who was troubled with paranoia, a petty vindictiveness and a streak of wrongheaded liberalism that nearly led to ruin for the nation

    Now Nixon was clearly paranoid, and he was well known for being vindictive. These qualities, in addition to a sense of being above the law, are what brought him down and did so much harm to the country. Trying to fold ” liberalism’ in with Nixon’s character flaws is, I guess, a predictable bit of hackery. After all, being liberal being paranoid, and being vindictive – all sort of the same thing, no?

    It’s worth noting that objective observes have done a pretty good job detailing Palin’s own paranoia and vindictiveness (something of a legend in Alaska politics). So it would seem that Palin is a good looking Nixon, less the intellect and accomplishments.

  39. Jay Tea says:

    Nixon also instituted price controls and wanted to nationalize the health care system. That really fits in nicely with his conservatism, doesn’t it?

    As far as Palin’s “vindictiveness…” I’ve been around that one with others. The sole source for that was a single article filled with anonymous sources — and several of the named sources heatedly insist they were misquoted. Including one of Palin’s long-time foes.

    Kind of like the “Palin cut funding for special ed,” or “Palin cut funding for pregnant teens,” or “Palin tried to ban books at the library.”

    If Palin is so bad, why to her enemies have to keep making up stuff to smear her?

    J.

  40. PJ says:

    “Nixon also instituted price controls and wanted to nationalize the health care system.”

    Reagan raised taxes.

  41. anjin-san says:

    > As far as Palin’s “vindictiveness…” I’ve been around that one with others. The sole source for that was a single article filled with anonymous sources

    Well, if one Google’s “Sarah Palin vindictive”, here are some of the results. Now you can say that these articles would have to be reviewed to determine their veracity, but this is the result of 5 seconds of searching, so it is safe to say that your claim of “a single article” is complete BS.

    How far away from the mirror do you have to stand to shave Jay? Your nose is getting awfully long…

    http://www.politicalarticles.net/blog/2008/08/30/sarah-palin-just-another-corrupt-vindictive-republican/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=all

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/levi_johnston_says_he_fears_extremely_vindictive_s.php

    http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/10/sarah-and-todd-palins-vindictive-streak.html

    http://www.democratichub.com/sarah-palin-vindictiveness.aspx

  42. mantis says:

    The sole source for that was a single article filled with anonymous sources

    Something you’ve never had a problem with when you can use it to attack a Democrat. Case in point: your oft-referenced “pitchforks” comment from Obama. Guess where that came from? That’s right, an anonymous source. You restate it as fact every time.

  43. Jay Tea says:

    anjin, some interesting sources there.

    1) Video removed.

    2) More vagueness and anonymous sources.

    3) Levi Johnston? Considering his history, if the Palins were truly vindictive, he’d be buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in the great wilderness of Alaska. The Palins have boats, a plane, and plenty of shovels.

    4) The trooper? The Palins wanted fired a state trooper who patrolled drunk, poached, tasered a child, and threatened to kill the sitting governor’s father over a bitter divorce? You REALLY wanna stick up for that guy?

    5) Almost half are BS at a glance. (“Whoever makes personal attacks,” Wooten, librarian, safety commissioner, At that point, why bother checking the rest?

    Keep outsourcing your thinking, anjin. I know, just by playing the odds, that eventually you’ll find SOMEONE who’s brighter than you, but not this time.

    J.

  44. Jay Tea says:

    mantis, the pitchforks comment was reported by Politico, confirmed by ABC, and never denied by the White House. I’ll give it some credibility until someone from the Obama administration says “he didn’t say that.”

    J.

  45. mantis says:
  46. anjin-san says:

    Jay,

    I believe I was clear that these are simply results of a few seconds searching to show that there are multiple claims of Palin’s vindictiveness. You will note I mentioned in advance that their may well be problems with their veracity. You do understand what that sentence meant don’t you? Must I use shorter words?

    > Almost half are BS at a glance.

    Which means that more than half are not. You might not want to strain anything patting yourself on the back for being a bright guy.

  47. mantis says:

    I’ll give it some credibility until someone from the Obama administration says “he didn’t say that.”

    Something you would never do if it looked bad for Palin or someone else you like. And don’t think we don’t notice you repeatedly dismissing multiple things on this thread because they rely on anonymous sources.

    I would say you have a double standard, but you don’t really have any standards at all, do you?

  48. anjin-san says:

    > You REALLY wanna stick up for that guy?

    Please show where I “stuck up” for him. Still waiting for you to show where I called anyone a “teabagger” btw.

    Jay, let me make my position very clear. You are a punk ass liar. Plain and simple.

  49. michael reynolds says:

    Don’t let all these wise guys shake you with their logic and their facts, Jay T: stand by your girl.

    I think if the GOP disses her by failing to nominate her, you should spearhead the 3rd party candidacy of Sarah Palin. I promise I will contribute.

    Palin 2012!

  50. anjin-san says:

    I am with michael. Should this come to pass, I pledge $100 to Palin’s campaign.

  51. mantis says:

    I’ll give it some credibility until someone from the Obama administration says “he didn’t say that.”

    Also, your assertion that you would give credence to anything the Obama administration says strains credulity. You expect us to believe that?

  52. Nikki says:

    She’s got my vote in the primary.

  53. mantis says:

    If she runs, I’ll register Republican to cast my “Operation Chaos” vote for her.

  54. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Anjin, I knew you were of low intellect as your arguement is weak as your mind but Jay kicks your ass rhetorically and I would bet he could do it in person. Why don’t you toddle over to Mantis’ house where you two can play video games and smoke crack all night like usual?

  55. anjin-san says:

    > Anjin, I knew you were of low intellect

    Of course you are right. The fact that I know Helen Gahagan Douglas was and can discuss the 1950 race that pitted her against Nixon pretty much proves that. BTW, I am 20+ years clean and sober. Never tried crack. I am, after all, an elitist.

  56. anjin-san says:

    Mantis…

    If you have any classic 80s arcade games, it might not be a bad way to kill an evening, though I would have to stick to ginger ale.

  57. Neil Hudelson says:

    Whats the maximum a person can contribute to a candidate campaign? I’ll set that aside right now for Palin’s third party run.

  58. Jay Tea says:

    My apologies, anjin. If you’re going to call the treatment of Trooper Wooten “vindictive,” I assumed that you meant he was treated unjustly.

    You will note I mentioned in advance that their may well be problems with their veracity. You do understand what that sentence meant don’t you? Must I use shorter words?

    No, it just means that I should remember that you like to make arguments you don’t necessarily believe in, and don’t bother to fact-check yourself. And as far as the “almost half at a glance” bit, that means I saw 4 out of 10 were BS, and decided to subject the rest to the same level of scrutiny that you did — none.

    And Zelsdorf — don’t go writing checks for my ass to cash. I make no claims about my fighting prowess FOR A REASON.

    J.

  59. mantis says:

    anjin,

    Sure do! I’ve got a bunch of classic NES games on my Wii, and an emulator on my PC hooked up to the TV that has pretty much every Atari, Intellivision, Sega, Comm 64, and Caleco game in existence running.

    I don’t drink or smoke crack either (quite the former ten years ago, never tried the latter), but I do make my own root beer and ginger ale. Come on over!

    Thanks for the suggestion, Zels. We’ll keep an eye out in case Jay wants to come over and kick our asses.

  60. Jay Tea says:

    20 years clean and sober? Pikers. Got you more than doubled.

    And video games… never really got into them that much. So in that arena, I’d get my ass kicked too.

    J.

  61. Jay Tea says:

    mantis, that’s a 13-minute audio. You wanna give a time stamp for the bad stuff? I don’t feel like sitting through it — Palin’s cornpone grates on me a bit — and since I’m not the one who brought it up, I don’t feel like I should have to make both sides of the argument.

    J.

  62. mantis says:

    I didn’t listen to it either. I remember seeing the video during the election. She just chuckles at a few nasty jokes about an opponent (or just some other Alaska politician; i can’t remember).

    Oh wait. Here’s a recap (with commentary from an Anchorage Daily News op-ed):

    Early on in the conversation before Palin started to crack up, Lester referred to Sen. Green as a jealous woman and a cancer. Palin, who knows full well Lyda Green is a cancer survivor, didn’t do what any decent person would do, say, “Bob, that’s going too far.”
    But as the conversation moved on, Lester intensified his attack on Green.

    Lester questioned Green’s motherhood, asking Palin if the senator cares about her own kids. Palin laughs.

    Then Lester clearly sets the stage for what he is about to say by warning his large audience and Palin. He says, “Governor you can’t say this but I will, Lyda Green is a cancer and a b—-.” Palin laughs for the second time.

    What were teenage boys thinking when they heard the governor laugh at someone being called a b—-? How about the teenage girls who look up to Palin. What did they think when they heard her laugh?

    But there is more. Lester then describes Green’s chair as big and cushy. A clear reference to the senator’s weight. Palin laughs a third time. She’s just having a grand old time.

    Palin was clearly enjoying every second of Lester’s vicious attack on her political rival.

    Doesn’t really strike me as vindictive, per se. Could have just been nervous laughter, for all I know.

  63. anjin-san says:

    > it just means that I should remember that you like to make arguments you don’t necessarily believe in

    My argument was that there are many, not a single, claims of Palin’s vindictive nature. But don’t let that stop you from mischaracterizing my statements.

    BTW, do you have links you can provide with evidence of Palin or her representatives denying each and every one of the claims made on those links? Because, by your own standard, if you can’t do that, all the links have some credibility:

    > I’ll give it some credibility until someone from the Obama administration says “he didn’t say that.”

  64. No proof needed, merely claims found on the Internet!

    Reminds me of things like the October surprise for Bush, where no proof was needed, but the seriousness of the charges meant there had to be an investigation!

  65. Jay Tea says:

    If that’s the same audio I recall, her laugh was kind of an uncomfortable “play along with the crazy radio guys so they don’t turn on me” one.

    But I ain’t sitting through 13 minutes to find out.

    J.

  66. Jay Tea says:

    I repeat myself: if Palin is as bad as people say she is, why do they have to keep making up shit to “prove” their case? Can’t they just tell the truth?

    Oh, yeah… never mind.

    J.

  67. Kylopod says:

    There actually was one person in our history who went on from a failed vp bid to become president 12 years later: FDR. But he never had a high unfavorable rating. (Of course, they didn’t take polls in those days, but there’s no evidence he was widely despised before his presidency.) In fact, I don’t know anyone with unfavorables as high as Palin who went on to become president. If someone can provide me with any examples, I’d love to hear.

  68. anjin-san says:

    Mantis,

    Sounds like a good setup. If I had a little more room in the garage I would like to have a vintage arcade game, you can pick them up at pretty decent prices. Used to enjoy them in the 80s before I decided I had to get a real job and be grown up and stuff. Kind of miss those times in the nightclub business. (but not the hangovers!)
    .

  69. mantis says:

    Your protestations would maybe carry some weight if you didn’t do the exact same thing you’re complaining about.

  70. anjin-san says:

    > I repeat myself: if Palin is as bad as people say she is, why do they have to keep making up shit to “prove” their case?

    Sorry, does not fly. By the standard you yourself apply to Obama, the attacks on Palin are credible until we see the denials. When you have them in hand, get back to us. We can wait.

  71. anjin-san says:

    I want to take a moment to talk about a great American woman.

    Chrissie Hynde fvckin’ rocks!

    Thanks for tuning in…

  72. Kylopod says:

    @athiest hater

    But he didn’t have +50% unfavorable ratings. Carter was popular at the time, and some voters were concerned about Reagan’s age.

  73. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Anjin, you and mantis they preyer are so full of sh*t, the smell is overcoming the filter in my system. You both know you have reserved tables at the diner serving crow right after Palin is sworn in in 2013. Be sure to enter on the left side of the building. The doors on the right are reserved for those special individuals who are deaf and cannot hear the voice of truth Palin speaks so well and the people will here during the campaign. If she does not stand a chance, why is so much time being spent on her? Come on Anjin. I know you have something really inane to add
    Sorry Jay for writting checks. Actually I use an ATM card, but I think you underestimate your ability considering the opponents. You know what logic Mantis is incapable of and that is doubled down with Anjin. He is no Blackthorne just a thorn. I do not know Palin’s future, but I sure would not bet against her this far out. The House GOP are going to do everything possible to reveal just who and what Obama is about. I think all Palin needs to do is post her college transcripts and challenge Obama to do the same.

  74. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    AH, they would much rather make up stories about Palin. You know, like her baby is really her daughters. A very good way to keep up with the lastest BS is to look for a by line from Doug Mataconis with the name Palin in the headline. The original thinkers these two names attract should keep you up to date.

  75. michael reynolds says:

    Zels:

    Athiest Hater is totally out-moroning you. The guy is everywhere saying the same stupid things you say. I don’t think you should put up with it.

    You need to think about taking on a second shift.

  76. anjin-san says:

    > “I repeat myself: if Palin is as bad as people say she is, why do they have to keep making up shit to “prove” their case?

    My primary objection to Palin is that she is stupid and ignorant. Pretty easy to support that, watch the Couric and Gibson interviews.

    I also don’t like the fact that she is a quitter. Not much debate about that one…

  77. athiest hater says:

    Zels:

    Michael Reynolds is 39 years old and still ives with his parents. I’m guessing their basement

  78. athiest hater says:

    > “I repeat myself: if Obama is as bad as people say he is, why do they have to keep making up shit to “prove” their case?

    My primary objection to Obama is that he is stupid and ignorant. Pretty easy to support that, watch the unemployment destroying policies this muslim supports.

    I also don’t like the fact that he is a quitter – he quit his Senate seat to run for President . Not much debate about that one…

  79. anjin-san says:

    > Athiest Hater is totally out-moroning you

    Think you have called it. Zel’s is simply outclassed. Jay is running hard, but simply not closing the gap.

  80. anjin-san says:

    > Michael Reynolds is 39 years old and still ives with his parents

    Pssst. Peanut head. Michael is much, much older, and really, really successful 🙂

  81. michael reynolds says:

    Anjin:

    You had to go with the second, “much?”

  82. athiest hater says:

    Michael Reynolds is 49 years old and still ives with his parents

  83. athiest hater says:

    The “new tone” on this thread is AWESOME !!!!!!

  84. michael reynolds says:

    56, Athiest Hater, but I don’t look a day over 65.

  85. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Mikey, AH is not out moroning me, he is out smarting you, which is no feat at all. If I were Reyolds mother I would ask Obama how he felt about post natal abortions. He has posted picture after picture designed to cause children nightmares. I think Loughner got a look at just one of Reynolds pics and went around the bend.
    My primary objection to Obama is his politics, policy and agenda. They are all communist in essense. From his association as a sex toy for Frank M. Davis to who knows what relationship with William Ayers. I have a picture of Obama as a college student hitting a joint. It is amazing someone who brazenly broke federal drug laws is now President of the United States. I understand Loughner smokes a lot of canabis. Never heard of Palin breaking any federal laws.

  86. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    To be honest Mike, yes you do.

  87. anjin-san says:

    > You had to go with the second, “much?”

    I hear tell Methuselah himself is jealous.

    Actually, you only have a few years on me, I crossed the great divide only last year. Like the saying goes “I expected this, but not so soon”.

  88. anjin-san says:

    > Mikey, AH is not out moroning me

    Sure he is Sparky.

    Don’t be sad. You can be like Avis. #2, but you try harder…

  89. athiest hater says:

    ZR,

    I play the same stupid games the athiest left plays, with a twist of humor

    Just throw the crap back in their face and watch them run.

  90. athiest hater says:

    …and remember. Whenever the left starts telling you the reasons why they hate Palin, just substitute in Hussein’s name in her place.

    Of course Sara isn’t responsible for destroying the U.S economy though

  91. michael reynolds says:

    Zels:

    To be honest Mike, yes you do.

    You know, I hate to admit it, but you’re right. I blame the pressures of being a productive member of society. Your decision to avoid that trap is wise.

  92. michael reynolds says:

    Zelsdorf and Athiest Hunter working together.

    A reverent hush falls over the spectators.

  93. mantis says:

    I play the same stupid games the athiest left plays, with a twist of humor

    Where’s the humor?

  94. mantis says:

    …and remember. Whenever the left starts telling you the reasons why they hate Palin, just substitute in Hussein’s name in her place.

    It’s quite clear that you enjoy cutting and pasting others’ comments and replacing a few words. The question is whether you are capable of a level of discourse beyond one you learned from Mad Libs books.

  95. anjin-san says:

    > Zelsdorf and Athiest Hunter working together.

    It could be a bit like the short-lived alliance between Jerry Seinfeld & Newman.

    Well, except the Seinfeld’s success, intelligence and humor. Probably the 32″ waistline as well. And the snappy Manhattan apartment. The nice convertible. The good looking girlfriends.

    Hell, this could end up being a long list…

  96. der_dicht says:

    I would like to address an issue not covered here. Sarah Palin is not Governor Palin. She resigned her governorship after the election of 2008, and not to pursue the vice presidency. But even the reason for her resignation is irrelevant. If a person does not fulfill their term, they are, at best, “former” [title]; as in former President Nixon. Mrs. Palin is at best, former Alaska governor Palin. She deserves no other title. And to handle a related issue, President Obama by virtue of becoming President vacated his seat in the legislature when he became President. Going forward his title if he successfully fulfills his Presidency will be President Obama. He would not be referred to as Senator as a title. In closing, when you find yourself in a hole, former Governor, put down the shovel and stop digging.

  97. Jay Tea says:

    No, der, a person is entitled to use the highest title they achieved for the rest of their lives, unless it is stripped from them. President Carter, two Presidents Bush, President Clinton, Governor Palin, Governor Huckabee, Mayor Koch, Vice President Gore — it’s all a matter of etiquette and protocol.

    As far as the tone of this piece — you’re all a bunch of doodyheads who live in my parents’ basement. I can mock you, ‘cuz I live in the apartment over the garage.

    J.

  98. Steve Plunk says:

    Over 100 comments. It’s reached critical mass here at OTB.

  99. john personna says:

    Re SPA: “Her audience had fallen from 5 million to 2.3 million.”

    OK, no idea what that means. The economics and strategy on cable channels mystifies me. They run the same episodes and movies all week, and expect … non-tivo users? How many million are bored at any particular moment?

  100. Jay Tea says:

    On another topic: there is very little evidence that Obama is intelligent. What he is, is credentialed. Prior to the presidency, he had no real record of achievements (apart from being elected) or history of leadership, and his conduct since then has affirmed that he has no great aptitude for either. He’s gotten by on his oratorical skills, personal charisma, and carefully selecting his patrons — until they become liabilities, and he jettisons them.

    J.

  101. mantis says:

    Prior to the presidency, he had no real record of achievements (apart from being elected)

    He was second in his class at Harvard Law, editor of the Harvard Law Review, elected one of Illinois’ youngest senators, wrote two bestselling books, taught constitutional law at University of Chicago for twelve years, and worked as a civil rights attorney.

    or history of leadership,

    He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), which he basically built from nothing and which under his leadership set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization. He has served on several boards of directors.

    This isn’t even getting into his legislative achievements and as president. I’m sure you’ll deny those exist as well.

  102. matt says:

    Mantis : Sweet setup. Personally I soft modded my regular xbox tossed in a giant hard drive and use it for all my emulator needs (USB inputs on the front allow for a variety of controllers and it was relatively easy to solder in another 64 mb of ram).. I’m still in the process of designing the perfect cabinet and button layout so lord knows when I’ll get around to getting a real arcade cabinet rocking..

  103. anjin-san says:

    > On another topic: there is very little evidence that Obama is intelligent

    Are you a self-made millionaire? If the answer is no, you might want to be a little less dismissive of people who have actually achieved the American dream, instead of simply blathering about it on a blog.

    > What he is, is credentialed

    Yes. And some of those credentials require intelligence to obtain. Unless, of course, you are a legacy case from a wealthy and powerful family.

  104. anjin-san says:

    It’s interesting Mantis. You continually hear things like “Obama doesn’t reflect American values”. Hell, he is practically the poster boy for American values. My father always told me it is sign of great weakness when a man won’t give credit when credit is due.

  105. anjin-san says:

    Jay,

    If you are though prostrating yourself at Palin’s feet, can you finally show an example of me calling someone a teabagger? Or is that simply the lie du jour?

  106. mantis says:

    If I may briefly address the teabagger issue. I’ve been known to use the term, because I think it’s funny, but only because they themselves embraced it, at least initially. See here and here and here (there’s more).

  107. john personna says:

    For a short time I found it funny too. But then I thought, it isn’t really fair, and their feelings are just so hurt.

    Speaking of the way language works … I sometimes make bags with tea, but the sickos + the injured teabaggers have conspired to make the corrupt meaning the most common one.

    Geez, will it take a century for a teabagger to be someone who does not use loose leaf tea?

  108. michael reynolds says:

    Mantis:

    Yeah, Obama did all that. But did he ever win a beauty pagenat? Was he ever mayor of Alaska’s meth capital? Was he half-term governor of Alaska and quit to do a reality show?

    Huh? Well, did he?

  109. michael reynolds says:

    Teabagger was only funny so long as they didn’t get the joke. Once they did, it stopped being funny. It’s all about the funny.

    Reminds me of Roger Rabbit:

    Eddie Valiant: You mean you could’ve taken your hand out of that cuff at any time?
    Roger Rabbit: No, not at any time, only when it was funny.

  110. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***For a short time I found it funny too. But then I thought, it isn’t really fair, and their feelings are just so hurt.*** it’s why we are all running around foaming at the mouth and killing everybody…..

    It’s the secret activation word that you dupes were tricked into using buy Palin, Rush, and Beck.

    And man do ever I feel bad for the liberals that survived and tuned into Sara Palin’s Alaska. before you know it, you will be joyfully helping her fund her presidential tea party candidacy…….

  111. mantis says:

    before you know it, you will be joyfully helping her fund her presidential tea party candidacy…….

    Gladly. Hell, I’ll send her campaign a donation! Run Sarah, run!

    It’ll be awesome.

  112. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***I play the same stupid games the atheist left plays, with a twist of humor

    Just throw the crap back in their face and watch them run.***

    lolI have been doing that for many years here, It don’t work at all on the regulars.Just makes them feel intellectual,lol, as they attack you back with more of the same…..

    But it is a mostly satisfying hobby…

    You wanna have a really good time? Explain to them how atheism is a religion, or bring up creation science.

  113. G.A.Phillips says:

    ***Gladly. Hell, I’ll send her campaign a donation! Run Sarah, run!

    It’ll be awesome.***

    Another unsuspecting viewer. Good, good.(evil lol) I want you to shave your head, then go to the zoo and kill a moose, then make your self a moose skin toga and wait. I will be sending you a package. Once you receive the package, go stake out a few of the targeted street corners I have designated on the map with the cross hairs. I will be sending the map and the gun cleaning kits you will be selling for the cause soon. ALL HAIL PALIN!!!!!

  114. mantis says:

    So, she’s going for the viral thing?

  115. sam says:

    @GA

    You wanna have a really good time? Explain to them how atheism is a religion, or bring up creation science.

    Remarks of the Honorable Figly Whitesides, Chairman of the Department of Creation Science at Humprock College of East Appalachia, and Director of the National Museum of Creation Science on the museum’s opening.

    I am honored to be here today to celebrate this momentous occasion. This museum and the enduring truths it reflects will stand as a beacon in the intellectual history of our great nation. To all those whose financial contributions made this museum possible, I offer my humble thanks. I would particularly like to acknowledge Mr. Elvis Burnley for his generous donation of the property in which the museum is housed. One could not have chosen a more advantageous location. From the interstate, the three buildings of the former strip mall will be seen by innumerable travelers.

    And to Ms. Cynthia Greenlon, many thanks for the statuary that heralds the museum. The 100-foot tall statue of Adam, whose arm moves in imitation of the the Howdy Pard icon of Las Vegas beckoning the passerby, is a masterpiece. The fig leaf is particularly well-rendered. And to those who say it appears to be somewhat large, I say, “Piffle”. Ms. Greenlon and I had many discussions about this particular aspect of the statue, conversations beginning in the evening and extending into the early hours of the morning. She has executed her task with exactitude. Note the absence of a navel on the statute. As I said, a masterpiece.

    The exhibits represent the cumulative findings of those great pioneers in creation science. In Building One, to Drs. Angela McFarlious (DDS) and Reginald Umnut (DDS) all credit is due for the magnificent geology exhibit, “6,000 Years of Rocks”. If I may, they have left no stone unturned in portraying the geological history of the earth. Worthy of particular praise is the Grand Canyon exhibit, showing without fear of contradiction, that the canyon was created by the keel of Noah’s Ark in the time of the Great Flood.

    In Building Two, to Professor Albert Kinklinch (Biblical Principles of Marketing) we owe profound thanks for the dinosaur exhibit. The display of fossilized dinosaur bones clearly showing the teethmarks of man, will, I think, be particularly appreciated by the viewing public.
    The battle between the Tyrannosaurus Rex and the lions over the carcass of the elephant is breathtaking. Observant viewers will see the band of men in the background poised to race in and carve off part of the kill as the ferocious beasts are otherwise occupied. Well done, sir, well done.

    In Building Three, to Messers Rufus Binkley and Edward Longfunt, brilliant examples of the contribution of the interested amateur, many thanks for the homo sapiens exhibit. Working in close coordination with Professor Kinklinch, they have achieved something for which they should be justifiably be proud. Many a viewer will linger at one exhibit, in sorrow and pity, gazing at the fossilized bones of early man, bones showing clearly the teethmarks of dinosaurs. Visitors will come away with a profound appreciation of the fortitude of those doughty ancestors as they made their way, in triumph, through a world fraught with peril. The charming scenes of dinosaur breaking and riding will entrance the viewer and invoke feelings of payback. The dinosaur saddles on display are remarkable. Of particular interest will be the exhibit of early man in the bosom of his family, grouped around the fire, engaged in what the viewer will imagine were the the homely tasks of that era: Sharpening spears, scraping hides, keeping the brothers and sisters away from each other in the darker recesses of the cave. Truly inspiring.

    I conclusion, let me welcome all to this opening. To make your visit the more enjoyable, our snack bar is open for your convenience. The museum store is, for the moment, being conducted out of the back of Professor Kinklinch’s car. We are in negotiations with the owner of the abandoned gas station on the property and hope to move the store into more ample space in the near future. So, please, enter and be enlightened.

  116. mantis says:

    I guess Jay has no more to say about Obama’s resume.

  117. G.A.Phillips says:

    Sam, that’s actually very funny…………..did you write that or is it real? LMAO!!!!!!

  118. floyd says:

    This gives “critical mass” a whole new meaning or two…

    Critical… (self explanatory)
    Mass …( either as in religious fervor or as in protoplasm)