Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palinism's defeat in the 2010 elections

By David Ignatius

For all the Republican huzzahs this post-election morning, one of the interesting results of Tuesday's balloting is that it showed the natural limits of the politics associated with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

Palin is such a vocal self-promoter that it's easy to overlook how many of her pet GOP candidates lost. The most notable failures, based on current vote totals, were the Senate candidates: Sharon Angle in Nevada, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and (apparently) Joe Miller in Alaska. That Palin couldn't even swing her home state of Alaska suggests that she is not as potent as her media hype.

The Tea Party's influence was strong, but not decisive. Early exit polls showed that only about 21 percent identified themselves as strong Tea Party supporters, with another 20 percent in the "somewhat" supportive category.

People are overwhelmingly concerned about the state of the economy (88 percent say it's in bad shape), but a far smaller number see the Tea Party and its conservative populism as the answer.

Here's the point: This election season showed the energy of Palin and the Tea Party. But it also showed that it has natural limits. This is not a movement that is sweeping the country. We have an angry electorate that is convinced, more than ever, that Washington doesn't get it. But it doesn't yet seemed to have coalesced around a philosophy of change or a new political leader.

By David Ignatius  | November 3, 2010; 12:28 PM ET
Categories:  Ignatius  | Tags:  David Ignatius  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How should Harry Reid say gracias? Con mucho humildad.
Next: Can Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo govern?

Comments

Hum... yes Palin's newest riskiest candidates Angle and O'Donnell lost.. but not overwhelmingly... and only because they were successfully demonized by both Dems and the liberal media.

Paul, Rubio and Toomey all equally strong conservatives escaped the demonization.

Critically... all Palins picks weakened the Republican Washington Establishment - think Crist, Castle, Bennet etc. RINOs and moderate Repubs now know they are a primary away from retirement. Think McCain's hard tack to the Right even with Palin's endorsment.

The Tea Party and Palin even forced another Dem victor Manchin to tack hard right and oppose Obamacare !

Notably... the Dems biggest victories in California and Nevada may turn out to be more damaging in the long run. Schumer would have been a better Majority Leader (much less baggage) than incoherent Reid... and what is the prospect of Brown, Boxer, and Reid getting future bailout aid for their states ? from a GOP House ? zero.

Hopefully, Obama will enjoy his $200 million a day Taj Mahal vacation... January the battles resume.

Posted by: pvilso24 | November 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Palin is an incompetent nobody who was birthed by an incompetent unsuccesful presidential candidate. That she has embarassed herself and this country by believing she is presidential material is abominable. Let her fade away!

Posted by: wp121606 | November 3, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

>>This is not a movement that is sweeping the country.<<

Well, for a "party" or movement that basically began 2 years ago in earnest, it's not doing too bad.

21% strong support
another 20% "somewhat"

To me it's look like alot like Android coming up on Apple.

Posted by: ekholbrook | November 3, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

you wish PVILSO24! They lost because it's obvious they have no idea what they are talking about. it's just that simple. there is a reason they couldn't even draw 100,000 people to their rally. it's just not that big of a movement.

the next two years is going to be a govt. gridlock that mimics the DC metro area traffic during rush hour.

Posted by: bryangirkins | November 3, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The point is that the Repubs would have crushed in Deleware, Nevada, and Colorado in this horrendous economic climate had Palin and the TP not intervened. Castle was up 20 points on the Dem in Deleware, then O'Donnell was promptly down 20.

The TP demonized themselves with all their race-baiting, head-stomping, and hand-cuffing hooliganism.

Posted by: greggiebaba | November 3, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Voters were showing their disappointment in the Democrats, not endorsing the GOP. It is a victory for the GOP, but they know that this is a "one more chance baby" situation for them. The American voters want to see congress deal with real problems and the conservative extremists have driven moderates out of the GOP which makes that less likely. Palin and the conservative extremists that co-opted the Tea Party are a fad. The best thing for the GOP and the future of America is for them to fade away.

Posted by: CharlesS | November 3, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, Ignatius. You'll stop at nothing to continue to report lies about Sarah Palin.

For a more accurate account of what really happened, read below article from the far more credible CBS:


Palin Emerges with Even More Clout

(CBS News) Most of the candidates Sarah Palin endorsed chalked up victories Tuesday.

And that scorecard leaves pundits wondering whether she'll now train her sights directly on the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

As CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, .the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed 43 candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Campaign 2010

Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed 12 candidates. Seven won.

Though it's been 15 months since Palin stepped down as Alaska governor, she was very much in this election, stumping for candidates across the country, skewering President Obama at every turn.


Posted by: QuineGeology | November 3, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Actually Palin cost them at least two senate seats, because definitely Delaware and probably Nevada would have gone R absent the weird candidates nominated by the Republicans.

Posted by: barbaque | November 3, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

CONT. (from CBS News)

"When the results come in," says Politico National Political Editor Charles Mahtesian, "I think people will look at that and see that as a reflection of her clout, because she played such an enormous role in defining the terms of that race."

Among the winners Palin endorsed: Nikki Haley for governor of South Carolina, Pat Toomey for Senate in Pennsylvania, and John Boozman for Senate, in Arkansas.

All year, Palin and re-elected Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina were kingmakers in the Tea Party court, supporting winning candidates such as Rand Paul for Senate in Kentucky.

There were some losses, too. In Delaware, Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell was forced to spend part of her campaign convincing voters she wasn't a witch.

But overall, Glor observes, Palin seemed very pleased, punctuating a big night by tweeting, "As always, proud to be American! Thanks, Commonsense Constitutional Conservatives, u didn't sit down & shut up... u 'refudiated" extreme left." '

Posted by: QuineGeology | November 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

William Butler Yeats wrote with contempt about those who "hawk for news whatever their loose fantasy invent, and murmur it with bated breath..." Mr. Ignatius comes to mind. Sarah Palin emerged from recent elections stronger and more popular than ever. "Principle over pragmatism" is what Sarah stands for. Palin/2012!

Posted by: bubbasouth | November 3, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Cool. So Sarah has, once again, proved she is worthless and has, as Karl Rove says, "no gravitas"/. So, PLEASE can the media stop covering her? Just ignore her ans maybe she will just go away. I am sick to death of hearing about her ans seeing her smarmy face. Find some other useless personage to write about..anyone. WE DON"T CARE! get it!

Posted by: sux123 | November 3, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

What David Ignatius discounts is that only 30% of people are opposed to the tea partiers. that means 70% are open to being convinced. since the tea partiers concerns are inescapable (HELLO when the federal government is running trillion dollars deficits yearly you need to cut government spending by hundreds of billions every year and cannot afford a trillion dollar Obamacare!) that's a tough spot for Dems to be in.

Posted by: dummypants | November 3, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing the great quote, bubbasouth. It perfectly fits the "journalists" at the Washington Post.

Mr. Ignatius is stubbornly - and stupidly - clinging to a template that is now two years old and woefully out-of-date. That template being to destroy Sarah Palin, speak poorly of the Tea Party, and exhalt President Obama at any cost.

Any journalist with their finger in the wind ought to be able to discern by now that the country's mood has changed - in a big way. And it's gaining momentum by leaps and bounds. Poor Mr. Ignatius must be old and confused, not to be able to pick up on this. Either that or his masters at the ever-diminishing Washington Post have too much invested in Obama to be honest with themselves that he and his administration are a colossal failure, on display for all to see.

No matter. In less time than it's taken Obama to destroy the country, Mr. Ignatius is going to be out of a job by virtue of his tiresome liberal slant, his creaky reporting skills and, most of all, his cratering readership.

I'd say Sarah Palin's future is a whole lot brighter than David Ignatius'

Posted by: QuineGeology | November 3, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I will have to agree here with the author. Palin's supporters are touting competence without due evidence. The candidates she "endorsed" are a motley crew with one similarity - they are unbound. The anger and frustration is prevalent in the electorate, but lessons to learn - harness the nuttiness, and people will be more likely to listen. Rand Paul had his message tempered early by the GOP. He had to step back and reject some of his early statements. Rubio in Florida was pretty much under the guidance of Jeb Bush - a conservative, traditional Republican. The O'Donnells and Angles proved to be unharnessable. The voting public is less than one would wish, but some have the wits to reject these off-the-wall types.

Posted by: robinx | November 3, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has managed to throw fear into both Dems and Republicans.

For this she has the thanks of a grateful nation.

Therein lies Governor Palin's power and appeal. Governor Palin is the natural leader of the "none of the above" faction in American politics.

That faction is big and its growing. It will grow even larger as long as Dems and Republicans both continue to screw up.

So, if Dems and Republicans want to prevent a President Palin, all they have to do is govern the country responsibly and solve problems.

And that's why established figures in both political parties fear Governor Palin. They don't have faith in their own ability to lead, which they know causes Governor Palin's power to grow.

Let's see what another year of the little boys playing in DC like America was their toy does to the political balance of power.

Posted by: jfv123 | November 3, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama couldnt swing Illinois and that's much worse considering that Joe Miller simply lost to another Republican.
What does that say about Obama's relative sway?

No candidate linked to Palin will be able to win so long as the media is singularly bound and determined to distort and destroy conservatives candidates. Interestingly, Miller beat Murkowski during the primary before the media had a chance to distort his record and make him seem like some dangerous subversive.

I mean, what good explination does Mr. Igantius have for his employer's singular focus on a weak conseravtive candidate who was destined to lose in a blue state (O'Donnell)? You can't say there isnt an agenda there. Anymore than if Fox News lead with the New Black Panthers case every night. Even that would is more understandble unless there happen to be two or three dozen similar stories (like there were a dozen close senate seats)

Posted by: dummypants | November 3, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Why dont we compare all the people oblunder campaigned for and lost vs Palin. Not even close. oblunder was crushed.

Posted by: j751 | November 3, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

O'Donnell & Angle did not get defeated because of media bias. They got defeated because they self-destructed. A good rule of thumb is that any time a US Senate candidate has to claim to "not be a witch", it is not a good news cycle for that candidate.

Posted by: cyberfool | November 3, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

What this election shows is that independent voters have the real power. When they tilt for Obama, he's elected president. When they tilt against him, the GOP takes over the House. They have grown from less than 20 percent of registered voters to about 36 percent. Democrats, GOP, Tea Party only do well at the whim of independents. Better get used to it. Now is the time for independent candidates to emerge. It's time for candidates who will do what they think is right rather than toeing their parties' lines. That's the real message, here. The rest is just noise.

Posted by: rob15 | November 3, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I think that people need to realize that Sarah Palin is not the Tea Party. As much as she has tried to promote herself as its leader and attach herself to it, Palin did not get the Tea Party started. She's more of an opportunist carpetbagger who showed up, added some star status, and tried to exercise some muscle with the movement.

Unfortunately for Palin, the Tea Party didn't always fall in behind her. In some cases, they did. In others, they went their own way.

Ignatius, though, is mistaken to deny the influence of the Tea Party this election. Over 40% indicated support for the Tea Party, which is huge. The gap in enthusiasm and voter turnout, which especially manifested itself in the 60+ seat gain in the House for Republicans, shows just how much influence the Tea Party had.

Before the Tea Party, the Republicans were merely shell-shocked do-nothings whose only trick was to try to block everything that Democrats tried to do in Congress. The Tea Party actually provided some driving ideology, energy, and focus that mainstream Republicans were, and still are, lacking.

The real problem for the Tea Party now is that it has a small handful of senators and representatives who are about to enter into a big pool of Democrats and Republicans. Will the Tea Party-supported legislators stay true to the Tea Party, and will they stay cohesive in Washington? Or will they become scattered and become the mainstreamers that they just worked to toss out? They will be a small, minority voting bloc if they remain cohesive, but they could be a powerful one in defining GOP agenda and setting the terms for bipartisan compromise. If they scatter, the Tea Party will have no effect in Washington, and perhaps only limited effect in the next election. Republicans worked hard to get the Tea Party in their pocket, and as long as the GOP remains smugly confident that the Tea Party will continue to serve as a base, then they will worry less about pandering to Tea Party demands. If the GOP fears the Tea Party bolting or sitting out in 2012, or if House leaders need a Tea Party bloc to pass any bills, on the other hand, it will be very attentive to Tea Party demands.

Palin, for her part, had a mixed bag in her endorsements. Some were longshots and some were poor choices. Nonetheless, Palin left a deep mark on the Republican Party. Her endorsement helped push out Castle and put moderates on notice. She also put a lot of women front-and-center as GOP candidates. This is going to have long-term implications.

Still, anyone who thinks that this election was an endorsement of Republicans or of Palin (who is a Republican first, and a Tea Partier after) is nuts. This is the same mistake Democrats made in reading 2008 as an endorsement of progressive liberalism. The last three elections show that the American public does not feel represented in Washington, and they want to throw the bums out. The problem is that the new people are bums, too.

Posted by: blert | November 3, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I read a Palin obituary in the WaPo about every other day.

Yet, she doesn't go away and just becomes more prominent.

The Left can't fit her into it's narrative and it drives them insane.

She will continue to snowball and they will continue to have a stroke.

Posted by: drjcarlucci | November 3, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"We have an angry electorate that is convinced, more than ever, that Washington doesn't get it. But it doesn't yet seemed to have coalesced around a philosophy of change or a new political leader."

***********************

Same could be said for the New Left in 1968.

Now look who's in the White House today, controlling the banks and the auto companies and the military and the schools and the media, and the....

Posted by: pmendez | November 3, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

@cyberfool:

"O'Donnell & Angle did not get defeated because of media bias. They got defeated because they self-destructed. A good rule of thumb is that any time a US Senate candidate has to claim to "not be a witch", it is not a good news cycle for that candidate."

***************************

I think you're making the point that endorsement of Palin & TEA Party was powerful.

Both Angle & O'Donnell were marginal candidates, but they bumped off their primary opponents and Angle came close to bumping off the Senate Majority Leader.

(However, I must agree that O'Donnell was the victim of character assassination by the media. The fact that Palin & O'Donnell drive liberals into such foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical fear indicates to me liberals see their potential and are deeply, deeply afraid.)

Posted by: pmendez | November 3, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone Obamo endorsed win?? how many dems ran from like stuck pigs. Who's really failing to impress? you see what you want to see me thinks.

Posted by: perryd5 | November 3, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

This must be no. 217 in the "Palin is Gone" series of articles.

For someone who just managed to "refudiate" Obama, she seems very much here, and Obama seems very much diminished.

Andy you were given another topic to write about today. So she's even helped you at your "job."

Posted by: fishcrow | November 3, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Ignatius's revisionism is appalling. O'Donnell lost because she's a bit wacky (hopefully hers is the last political speech that begins, "I am not a witch"), but the fact of the matter is that Palin led a grass-roots movement that reinvigorated and mobilized conservatism in this country.

Cherry-picking a couple of races doesn't erase the reality that the nation took a big step to the right in large part due to Palin's leadership (and Obama's lack thereof).

Posted by: diehardlib | November 3, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

We need strong individuals that will call out the obstructionists, crooks, liars and thieves in government. I don't care who they are. The Tea Party folks are engaged in do so, which is fine by me. I don't trust my government and want it back under control. Fraud and waste needs to be stopped.

Posted by: richard36 | November 3, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

You gotta love how the democrats are still in utter denial. I watched MSNBC and read the Washington Post closely, both media outlets keep pointing out this same lame line: Look at how poorly the Sarah Palin-endorsed candidates did. I can't even begin to describe how completely ridiculous this claim is.

The pundits who keep focusing on the Sarah Palin's "scorecard" on election night remind me of the absolutely idiotic football announcers who always bring up a coach's record on challenges. Your batting average in these instances is completely irrelevant, since you often know you are likely to lose but take a chance anyway. Your team is down and you just turned the ball over with almost no time left on the clock, the only hope of winning the game is to challenge the call--even though you know your player was not down. So you lose the challenge, and then next week the announcer is talking about how bad your record is at challenges--as if that is a reflection of your ability to spot an incorrect call.

Same goes for Palin. She knew Christine O'Donnell was going to lose, we all did. But she supports her platform and sees no reason not to endorse her. Then O'Donnell loses, as expected, and this is somehow supposed to be a reflection of how a Palin endorsement hurts you? Um....that is total bulls**t and the media knows it. But they will always find a way to try to make Palin look bad because they despise female conservatives more than anything in the world (other than minority conservatives).

Posted by: Barno1 | November 3, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

This "defeat" of Palinism smacks like Egypt's claim that they, the Egyptians, defeated the Israelis in 6-day war. The tousands of Egyptian bodies strewn all over Sinai desert wre just photoshopped, like Jimmy Carter's bogus Lebanon photo.

Posted by: craigslsst | November 3, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The United States may, indeed, be badly in need of a revised version of Lincoln's "secular religion". But the Tea Party "Apostles of Ignorance" are not going to give us much more than a cult. The greatest favor they could do Obama for 2012 is to stonewall everything he tries to do between now and then, thereby providing him with just the ammunition he will need.

Posted by: russell1 | November 3, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Palin is positioned to win even when her endorsed candidates lose.

Any smart politician will seek to bring Palin into the planning sessions when the GOP chooses candidates and takes positions on issues. Getting her input early in the process makes it less likely she will later endorse a candidate who is likely to explode.

Palin can also suggest potential candidates and issue positions to party leaders and serve as a sounding board of Republican insiders about how Tea Party people are likely to view certain candidates and positions to hep the GOP get along better with Tea Party groups.

This isn't to say that Palin is ging to get to call the shots on everything. Politics is still the art of compromise. The GOP leadership should be sufficiently scared of blowing it again that they try to better understand what the Tea Party factions want.

Palin doesn't speak or the Tea Party. It's too dicerse a faction for that. However, Palin is one of many people who have earned seats at the table, and who should be listened to, because she senses the pulse of a large number of voters, and is good at translating what they want to others.

Posted by: jfv123 | November 3, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Why do some posters refer to Palin as "governor Palin"? She should be refered to as the quitting governor Palin. When the going gets rough, she quits.

Stupidity and quitting, Sarah Palin's legacy.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | November 3, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Why do some posters refer to Palin as "governor Palin"? She should be refered to as the quitting governor Palin. When the going gets rough, she quits.

Stupidity and quitting, Sarah Palin's legacy.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | November 3, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Perfect example of how ignorant some of the commenters on here are. Sarah Palin is referred to by Gov. Palin because she was once governor. This is no different then any other former governor in the country.

As for her quitting because the going got tough, you sir are an utter buffoon if you seriously believe that is why she quit. I don't agree with her decision to quit either, but only an utter buffoon would seriously believe she quit because things got too difficult.

Posted by: Barno1 | November 3, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarah is badly over-exposed. She needs to learn when to speak and when to be quiet.

(I personally wish for more of the latter. )

Posted by: Woodalll | November 3, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

COLEBRACKETT writes: "She should be refered to as the quitting governor Palin. When the going gets rough, she quits."

If by "the going" you mean baseless ethics charges (26 in all - all thrown out by judges) brought upon her by liberal kooks seeking her destruction, and costing Alaska taxpayers millions of dollars not to mention untold hours that could have been used to, you know, run Alaska, then, yes, Sarah Palin wisely chose to step down from her job to avoid drawing any more attention from left-wing fanatics with a bad case of Palin Derangement Syndrome who were hampering her efforts and the efforts of her staff to properly govern the state.

Funny how, despite predictions from liberals that her political career was finished, she remains the single most influential political figure today. And that includes President Bozo and Hillary Clint-con, the only two Democrats cited as having even a prayer of running against Palin in 2012 and winning.

Posted by: QuineGeology | November 3, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

David:
Comforting words, perhaps, if you are a Democratic office holder in a centrist state. Overlooked in your analysis is the fact that the Tea Party was most strongly felt within the the Republican Party itself, and it altered the policy debate for both sides. Hopefully, these changes transcend Sarah Palin.

Posted by: jaybird2 | November 3, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Hum... yes Palin's newest riskiest candidates Angle and O'Donnell lost.. but not overwhelmingly... and only because they were successfully demonized by both Dems and the liberal media.

Paul, Rubio and Toomey all equally strong conservatives escaped the demonization.

Critically... all Palins picks weakened the Republican Washington Establishment - think Crist, Castle, Bennet etc. RINOs and moderate Repubs now know they are a primary away from retirement. Think McCain's hard tack to the Right even with Palin's endorsment.

The Tea Party and Palin even forced another Dem victor Manchin to tack hard right and oppose Obamacare !

Notably... the Dems biggest victories in California and Nevada may turn out to be more damaging in the long run. Schumer would have been a better Majority Leader (much less baggage) than incoherent Reid... and what is the prospect of Brown, Boxer, and Reid getting future bailout aid for their states ? from a GOP House ? zero.

Hopefully, Obama will enjoy his $200 million a day Taj Mahal vacation... January the battles resume.

Posted by: pvilso24 | November 3, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Calling someione an idiot isn't "demonizing" them. Angle and O'Donnell were terrible candidates--idiots--and if you were victimized, it was by virtue of their candidacies, not because your candidates were victimized.


Posted by: ADDC | November 3, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

How many Palin victors would have won without her support?

McCain has been winning for years as have several others.

Love how the media, including your colleague Chris, gives her credit just because she said "...I support...". Once again the media is regurgitating nonsense.

Posted by: rlj1 | November 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

barno "Perfect example of how ignorant some of the commenters on here are. Sarah Palin is referred to by Gov. Palin because she was once governor. This is no different then any other former governor in the country."

Sorry, numbnutz, but former governors are NOT referred to as "Gov. [insert name]." This is a new phenomenon among the slavering followers of the quitter, half-term, former governor Palin in a pathetic attempt to give her gravitas.

You Palinbots are hilarious. But us REAL Americans truly hope her influence among the Republican Party increases to the point where the 2012 GOP nominee, if not Palin herself, is one of her hand-picked droolers.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The statistics about how many Palin-endorsed candidates won or lost are worthless, because they include people like John McCain.

Posted by: Observer691 | November 3, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has managed to throw fear into both Dems and Republicans.

For this she has the thanks of a grateful nation.

Therein lies Governor Palin's power and appeal. Governor Palin is the natural leader of the "none of the above" faction in American politics.

You got that right.

What does Palin bring to the American voter?

a. Intellect
b. Depth
c. Integrity
d. Selflessness
e. Modesty
f. Worldliness
g. Maturity
h. Wisdom
i. NONE OF THE ABOVE


Posted by: ADDC | November 3, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell admitted that she's not a witch but Sarah Palin never did. I think its time for Witch Palin to mount her broomstick and fly her narrow azz back to the frozen north. Momma Grizzly can hang out with Grizzly Adam. (Joe miller)

Posted by: ODDOWL | November 3, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

barno "Perfect example of how ignorant some of the commenters on here are. Sarah Palin is referred to by Gov. Palin because she was once governor. This is no different then any other former governor in the country."

Sorry, numbnutz, but former governors are NOT referred to as "Gov. [insert name]."

Posted by: Observer691 | November 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

You couldn't be any more ignorant if you tried. It is an undeniable fact that after you leave elected office, you are still referred to by your elected title. Hence, Bill Clinton is still introduced as President Clinton. Former senators and congressmen are still addressed by their elected titles, and former cabinet members are still referred to as Secretary ______.

Do you know how to read?

Posted by: Barno1 | November 3, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

If all things remain equal, best chance for Dems in 2010 is Sarah Palin. Her approval rate is already poor, really poor when you consider she's basically just a celebrity reporter. Right now she's hiding on Fox and mostly just speaking to her choir; wait until the moderates and liberals are reintroduced to her beyond soundbites. Also, she has to win not only statewide, which most of her non-incumbent candidates failed to do in the Senate races, but across the entire country. Including large population cities which she's made clear she despises.

Posted by: pam3 | November 3, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Mr Ignatious; all,

for a "bunch of stupid hillbillies, trailerpark trash & ignorant nobodies from flyover country" (the FORMER Princess Pelosi said that of us.), who are NOT now, nor never will be, "political professionals" (MOSTLY we TEA PARTIERS despise "political professionals" & want them GONE & replaced with REAL "servants of the citizens".), i don't think that we've done badly "for a first time out".

despite the hate-FILLED, prejudiced, KNOWING LIES told by the DIMocRATS & their allies in the extremist/leftist "main-SLIME media", the SOLE reason that we didn't get "Dingy Harry" Reid's scalp yesterday was that we simply couldn't overcome all that GAMBLING/dirty MONEY (some sources say 38.000.000 bucks.), dumped into the NV race (much of it in in the last two weeks).

in the final analysis, obama was 100% correct. = DIRTY MONEY from "unknown & unknowable donors" (can you say, "MOB MONEY", children? SURE, you CAN!) was our downfall in the NV race.
had he NOT had all that $$$$$$$, he would be sitting in a corner today, whimpering about how "misunderstood & unappreciated" he was by the voters.

otoh, Governor Palin was a positive asset to the TEA PARTY movement, though she is NOT now, nor ever will be, "THE LEADER".
(the TEA PARTY has NO "leaders". - not even local officers. - unless ALL of us ordinary members are "leaders".)

Sarah helped the TEA PARTY groups make up for a lack of funds, as she draws a crowd wherever she speaks.

just my opinion. = i do NOT & CANNOT speak for our county's TEA PARTY group, absent a vote on each issue.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 3, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Finally it's over for this quitter!her ending starts in her own Alaska!she didn't deliver Alaskans are fed up with this clown quitter!what a disgraced!Imagine endorsing an evil Tancredo guy!he lost too!palin's endorsement were gone w/the wind!!hurray!

Posted by: caroldijk1 | November 4, 2010 6:42 AM | Report abuse

Finally it's over for this quitter!her ending starts in her own Alaska!she didn't deliver Alaskans are fed up with this clown quitter!what a disgraced!Imagine endorsing an evil Tancredo guy!he lost too!palin's endorsement were gone w/the wind!!hurray!

Posted by: caroldijk1 | November 4, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Interesting how the liberals went after the women. Kind of a "glass box", if you will, that says women can't be strong conservatives, must "stay on the reservation" on only liberal or moderate causes. Not that different from how they treat African American conservatives as if they were not authentic. Much is made of the "small mindedness" of conservatives, but I believe there's a bit of a log in the liberal's eyes too...

Posted by: steveinWashington | November 4, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of comments that the "liberal" media is hexing Palin. She hexes herself with her ugly and insulting comments and innuendoes about President Obama who, whether anyone likes it or not, is the President of the United States. Quit pretending like there is no right wing media and that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck don't exist. They're much uglier in their comments than any other media. Even the Republicans are now out to eat their young, e.g., Sarah Palin, now that she and the tea partiers have been used by the true Republican party to get Republican votes so that their agenda of making the wealthy even wealthier at the expense of the middle class can continue. Middle class Republicans need to wise up - the Republican party simply is not out for your best interests.

Posted by: ntrides1 | November 4, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

ntrides1,

aren't you smart enough to know that 90+% of "what you know" about Sarah Palin are KNOWING LIES, made up out of whole cloth by leftist LIARS in the "main-SLIME media"?

when there is nothing "unpleasant", dishonest and/or factual to report on people that the LIARS in the media want to "expose"/embarrass, they print/broadcast "out of context" comments, create "modified quotes" and/or simply make things up.

pity that you evidently don't know that OR you choose to ignore THE TRUTH.
(fyi, THE TRUTH is NOT opinions, feelings, wishes and/or anything else except THE TRUTH.)

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 4, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

caroldijk1,

IF your comment (repeated twice) wasn't an exercise in SILLINESS & only semi-literate, we all might pay more attention to your blather/nonsense.

pardon me, but basic grammar & spelling is important to "communication" with others. ===> your comment must be an example of your "gubmint apruvd publick screwl edumakashun".

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 4, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

steveinWashington,

WELL SAID!

fwiw, the main-SLIME media is DISGUSTING & most of their "talkers" deserve a "punch in the nose" because of their spewing out of KNOWING LIES, stupidity/ignorance, inbred prejudices & unwarranted arrogance.

while the First Amendment to the BoR protects their RIGHT to speak/publish almost anything, COMMON DECENCY (and their bosses!) should cause the "journalists" to be, at least minimally, TRUTHFUL in their printed/broadcasted blather.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 4, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

there's one thing that palin lacks....
the most crucial!.....INTELLECT!As soon as she opens her mouth she states it clearly that she's brainless....

Posted by: caroldijk1 | November 4, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

One. two, three, many Angles, Donnells and Fiorinas!

Sarah Palin in 2012 - BRING HER ON!

Posted by: dldbug | November 5, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

A successful write in candidacy for the U.S. Senate is such a difficult feat to pull off that the last time it was done was by Strom Thurmond in 1954. Yet Murkowski looks to be pulling this off despite Palin and her allies attempt to make it even more difficult by flooding the write in ballot with names to make it more confusing.

And Alaska is reliably Red and hasn't voted for a Democratic POTUS in eons. So we are supposed to believe that Palin has such genuine political power despite losing her own home state?

Posted by: dldbug | November 5, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

didbug,

are you another one of the DUMB-bunny DIMocRATS, who just cannot figure out that Governor Palin is NOT running for POTUS in 2012?

IF you are one of those "empty-headed creatures", you are not to be despised but rather PITIED.

yours, TN46
coordintor, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 5, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company