Palin frightens Left

| February 11, 2010

This morning, the Washington Post provides two opposing opinions of Sarah Palin. The first is a news story about a poll, a Washington Post/ABC poll in regards to support for Palin among Americans;

Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party’s presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Qualified? I don’t even know what that means anymore after watching the amateur talent show that currently occupies the West Wing of the White House. That clown car skit that careens in one direction then comically switches direction 180 degrees, dumps off riders and skitters off into the stands.

Of course, a similar poll in the late 70s might have discovered the same sentiment in regards to Ronald Reagan.

But it’s difficult to overcome the media’s trumpeting of the two smartest guys to ever work in the White House – Obama and Biden. Obama has never made decision and Biden had never voiced a policy decision that was right. Poll the public on that, Washington Post.

The other article is an opinion piece by David Broder in which he warns the Democrats that Palin can actually beat them in 2012 if they don’t take her seriously.

Freed of the responsibilities she carried as governor of Alaska, devoid of any official title but armed with regular gigs on Fox News Channel and more speaking invitations than she can fulfill, Palin is perhaps the most visible Republican in the land.

More important, she has locked herself firmly in the populist embrace that every skillful outsider candidate from George Wallace to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton has utilized when running against “the political establishment.”

George Wallace? Hardly. But the most instructive part of the article isn’t in Broder’s piece, it’s in the readers’ comments a sample of which I’ve captured for posterity;

broderpalin-comments

I’ll grant that the Washington Post’s readers are hardly representative of mainstream American voters, but it does demonstrate the fear level in regards to Palin among Democrats. If you support Palin, you’re a clown, a pervert and a Nazi. Some of you who were here during the 2008 elections remember that the main reason the leftists didn’t support Palin was because she was “scary” – apparently more scary than Joe Biden who has been consistently wrong on every US policy for the last thirty years. Joe Biden who plagiarized his way through college and still only got mediocre grades…which he lies about these days.

Yes, Republicans might be moving away from Palin – but they do that. They run away from viable candidates because they listen to Democrats and pick candidates the Democrats tell Republicans they like – which is how we got John McCain on the ticket.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Jimmy Carter, John McCain/Sarah Palin, Politics

63 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
justplainjason

Like usual when he is losing an argument he takes off. I am starting to wonder if he doesn’t like us? I like his thirty years ago argument. Granted I was only five back then, but I remember houses being a lot smaller, no cable, no internet, no cell phones, many families didn’t have two cars, etc… Yeah it costs more to live now because we have more stuff. I could live on nothing if I went back to living like we lived back in 1980…

CavScout

@OldTrooper – first, damn that is one long entry! 🙂

secondly, I’m genuinely curious, and not out to offend; but, it seems to me that “Free Market” has been tried before, and failed. Wasn’t that what we had, when there were railroad barons? When there wasn’t even a middle class? That whole Industrial Period where corporations basically dictated what people were paid (not much) and reaped the profit for? What would prevent that from happening again, if the government let corporations be?

Your assumption is that, if we reduce taxes on the corporations, they’ll reinvest it: 1) in people, 2) in the US … Why would they?

It seems to me that, as a defender of the “free market,” you’d embrace the celebrities and athletes pay scale. I might be wrong, but aren’t they the definition of “free market?” … they only get paid so much because of their perceived value on the open market … Sandra Bullock will /only/ make x amount of dollars on her next film based on her box office sales from her last film … same with an athlete …

Thanks!

Joe

I’m baaaack…… These discussions are thought provoking, fascinating, frustrating, but they tend to digress, go off on tangents. Gotta get back to work…..

justplainjason

I don’t think it failed as much as it evolved. Granted I will have to do more study on the time period you are talking about, but it was then that unions started forming (nothing like decendents of today) depriving the “robber barons” of labor. I think that a lot of the reform was allready on the way before the government interveined.

Whereas socialism has always failed. On the large scale with the Soviet Union and on the small with the Kibutzs (not sure if that is the plural form) in Israel.

I want to give you a better historical answer, but that will take a little more time than I have right now. I will return later.

CavScout

@justplainjason … thanks, in advance! I agree that socialism isn’t the answer … and, I’m not sure that a government-hands-off, free-market is, either … then again, I’m no economist! 🙂

OldTrooper

CavScout, you’re intermixing my points. I was pointing out to Joe that those same people that whine abut and demonize CEO pay haven’t done the same to pro athletes and hollywood types, even though they, in a lot of cases, make more than the CEO. As for free markets……..do you think that your analysis on it being ok for those athletes and actors being paid a lot of money to ply their trade ” Sandra Bullock will /only/ make x amount of dollars on her next film based on her box office sales from her last film” is only appicable to them? Athletes have multi-year contracts, in most cases, so even if they don’t perform up to their expectations this year, they will still get the money next year. If I’m not mistaken, in both cases, they are union, also? Besides; who pays them? That’s right, a corporation. Does the guy/gal behind the camera have a job because of that corporation? How about those that build the sets? The grips, prop people, etc.? The free market does not fail, it works, otherwise we wouldn’t be here as a nation right now. You have the freedom to bring a product to market, whether it’s a skill (that’s why it’s referred to as a “marketable skill) or product, service, etc. If you charge X for your service and people are willing to pay you that much for that service; why should the government be allowed to tell you that you can’t make that much for your service? If enough people pay you for that service and you need to expand, which means you have to hire more people to help, then you, in essence, become a corporation. Now, if you want to continue having this corporation, because you are making money at it, wouldn’t you then put money bac into that corporation in order to grow it more? So, your thinking that corporations don’t put profits back into the corporation is as false as you can get; they do. Plus, if you are a publicly traded company, you have an obligation to… Read more »

UpNorth

No economist, CavScout? That’s ok, Joey’s fav on this, Elizabeth Warren is not one either. She’s a lawyer, and this isn’t a dig at lawyers. Hey, she’s a “leading advocate for accountability and transparency”. Wow, transparency like we have now, on health care, jobs and the deficit? She’s the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, whatever that is. Supposedly, it’s overseeing the TARP bailout, and doing a fine job…. And appointed by the stellar champion of fiscal responsibility, Harry Reid.

Ray

“Ask some of the old timers here how cool it was to stand in gas lines in 1979, or thinking you were getting a great interest rate at 14%, or that the economy was doing ok at 10% unemployment and 12% inflation.”

Stop OT you’re giving me flashbacks. 🙂

Old Tanker

but they tend to digress, go off on tangents.

you’re fucking kidding me….right?

Good grief, I’m getting another scotch….

UpNorth

the economy was doing ok at 10% unemployment and 12% inflation“. And our president telling us, as he showed up on TV in his cardigan, that our best days were behind us and a malaise had settled over our country.

Debra

Keep it up, Old Trooper, and you’re liable to out-do even me for the longest comments ever.