| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Palin: 76% of Republicans Still Favorable
The latest Rasmussen poll, taken after Palin's announcement of resignation, shows she is still viewed favorably by 3/4ths of Republicans. Palin leads among Republicans in the very favorable category (45%), and is only beaten out by Mike Huckabee when "very favorable" and "somewhat favorable" categories are combined (78% Huckabee and 76% Palin). Only 21% have an unfavorable opinion of Palin.
Considering that 66% of Republicans identify themselves as conservatives (and 27% moderates and 5% liberals), Palin seems to have won almost all the conservatives with liberals and most of the moderates being those unhappy with her.
Unfortunately National Review's editor Rich Lowry has decided to lead conservatives by slamming Palin for being disingenuous and self-interested. Here’s Lowry on Palin’s resignation:
"It’s just too absurd. Palin mentioned Alaska or Alaskans 34 times in a 17-minute statement that must be a new record in the history of protesting too much. Palin says she hates politics as usual, and true to her word, on July 3 she staged a spectacle in politics as unusual. But she still proved adept at the traditional political art of extreme disingenuousness." [How many times did Reagan refer to California or Californians in his gubernatorial speeches or to America or Americans in his presidential speeches?–Protested too much?]
"She didn’t want to put Alaska through the hell of a lame-duck governor who would “hit the road, draw the paycheck, and ‘milk it.’” Never mind that if she feared becoming a lame duck, she could run for re-election — especially if “serving [Alaska’s] people is the greatest honor I could imagine.” Or that she could endeavor to work her hardest at her job until her last day in office. That may sound outlandish, but it’s been done before." [If serving the people of California was such a great honor for Ronald Reagan, why didn’t he run for senator or representative from California after being governor?]
"Sarah Palin’s words served only to throw a tissue of rationalization over a calculated choice made in her personal self-interest. In all likelihood, Palin is going to embrace her political celebrity with gusto, freed from the burdens of the geographic isolation of the Alaska governorship and its (relative to national politics) petty distractions. Her decision wasn’t particularly public-spirited, but neither was it crazy. She has seen her opportunities, and she’s going to take them." [Just as Reagan’s words only threw a “tissue of rationalization over a calculated choice” made in his personal self-interest. Reagan embraced political celebrity with gusto, freed from the burdens of the California governorship and its petty distractions. Reagan’s decision wasn’t particularly public-spirited, but neither was it crazy. He had seen his opportunities, and he took them.]
This may be Lowry's honest venting, but it’s not too smart either in political terms of getting a conservative elected president–-or for National Review. When you rely on conservative readers and spit in the eye of 76% of the party that is mostly made up of conservatives, that's like spitting into the wind. Good luck on that.
Poor National Review seems less and less to be leading conservatives than defying them.
- T D Williams's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Favorables
I'm a Republican. I have a favorable view of Tom Brady. That doesn't mean I'm voting for him if he runs for President. Favorables/unfavorables are notoriously complicated. They don't match with nomination preference, nor with perceptions of electability.
Why say that Lowry is "defying conservatives"? You can be a conservative and dislike one conservative candidate or another. That's why we have primaries.
It's not a question of favoring
one candidate over another. Though traditionally, NR doesn't back one conservative candidate in a primary against other conservative candidates. The best thing to do when various conservative candidates are running is to stay out of it until the winner is announced. Then you support the candidate who wins the primary. That's what National Review usually does.
When you call a candidate that the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives approve of "disingenuous" and "self-interested" in a way that singles them out from all other political candidates that's pretty much non-approval for any and all elected offices. Has Lowry called any other conservative candidate names except for moral failures? I'm not sure he did that to Gov. Sanford or even John Edwards.
Not really
The official line of NR, as expressed in unsigned editorials, may be even-handed toward all comers for the nomination, but the individual columnists have always had their favorites. Just check out archives of The Corner from the '08 primaries - it was a free-for-all. Besides, it's a magazine of opinion, not an official party organ.
"Palin At The [..] Bottom – for GOP Voters in 2012"
T D Williams -- you seem to outright dismiss the fact that Palin is a highly controversial person even among self-described conservatives. E.g. the Rasmussen poll that you cite also points out that ..."she’s also one of two candidates they least hope wins the party’s nomination." And independent/centrist voters like her even less.
The three things that define Palin right now are socially conservative values, self-pity, and cultural resentment.I can understand why the GOP base can identify with that, but a better message (and messenger) will be needed in 2012. Palin only appeals to small demographic segment mainly living in the South and some Western states, and it just won't be good enough no matter how devoted Palin's "fans" are.
MARCU$