Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Most Important Number in Politics Today



Most Republicans don't think Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin can be an effective president. ABC News/Getty Images

33

That's the percentage of Republicans who said that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has the ability to be an "effective" president in a new CBS News survey in the field earlier this month.

Palin's numbers on that questions were slightly worse among Independents -- 30 percent of whom said she would be an effective president -- and absolutely dismal among Democrats (six percent).

That data encapsulates Palin's problem as she prepares to resign later this month and engage more heavily on the national stage.

That just one-third of self-identifying Republicans -- her most loyal constituency -- believe that Palin could be effective as president speaks to the stature gap from which she currently suffers. Even those who like (or even love her) a majority believe she would not be effective as commander-in-chief.

To be taken seriously as a national figure and as a potential candidate in 2012, Palin needs to reverse those numbers.

She appears to be trying to do just that with an op-ed in today's Washington Post decrying the Obama Administration's cap and trade environmental policy. Palin needs to do -- much -- more of that sort of thing if she wants to beat back the charge that she is all style and no substance, a charge her potential opponents in 2012 are sure to make against her if she decided to run.

Palin has a blueprint to follow in this process -- the man who currently occupies the White House. When the 2008 presidential campaign began, President Barack Obama was dogged by questions that his resume was far too thin to run for national office and that he would, ultimately, lose to Hillary Rodham Clinton because of her depth of policy knowledge and seriousness.

Knowing that, Obama set a tone early in the campaign of gravity and even-keeledness (is that a word?). Even after dispatching Clinton in the primary, Obama hewed to this strategy, refusing to bow to Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) campaign suspension gambit early in the fall campaign and showing a steady and calm demeanor during the three debates in the general election.

The comparison between Obama and Palin is not exact. Palin enters the 2012 mix with most Americans holding strongly-held opinions of her -- for good and bad. Obama, on the other hand, was much more of a tabula rasa, people knew less about him and were more easily swayed that he was up to the job.

Still, Palin would do well to borrow some of Obama's tactics as she seeks to prove to a skeptical Republican electorate that she is ready, willing and able to be the 45th president of the United States.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 14, 2009; 11:07 AM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: Winners and Losers, Sotomayor Day 1
Next: Jim DeMint's Lonely Quest

Comments

About the same percentage as those that think Lil' George did a good job. Palin is just another joke on America and a bad one at that. I have yet to see any evidence that she is competent to lead a garbage can down the driveway.

Posted by: springman1 | July 17, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Whatever her faults, she would be a better President than Obama.

==

Complete nonsense.

Anyone who wanted to manipulate Bush only needed to make a nod toward Christianity. Palin would be even easier. They'd have her standing on her head and rubbing her belly.

You just don't like Obama, and on top of that you're not an intelligent person.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

rosenfan1:

Whatever her faults, she would be a better President than Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | July 15, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand how any thinking rational person would take Palin seriously.
She starts spouting out ideas and figures with no real proof or support, and rarely makes sense. Is our collective intelligence that crippled????

Posted by: rosenfan1 | July 15, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Now the Washington Post is offering a forum to Palin in order to sell newspapers.

==

It's not exactly a persuasive bit of writing. It's hardly any more coherent than her resignation speech, she seems to think she can wing it with a few appeals to patriotic conceit.

No doubt that resonates with her fans though ...

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 15, 2009 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Now the Washington Post is offering a forum to Palin in order to sell newspapers.
If they aren't careful their credibility will end up on a mudflat with her political career.
If you want to shill for the oil companies make sure it's worth it.

Posted by: seemstome | July 14, 2009 10:58 PM | Report abuse

With a Nobel Laureate nuclear physicist at DOE [Chu] who believes in nuke plants, as I do, I do not understand why we have so much resistance to them.

==

Ignorance.

Anti-nuclear movements in the 70s and 80s, which I'm ashamed to say were often composed of liberals, successfully intermingled fears of nuclear weapons with nuclear power. I'll never forget a poster in the cafeteria of my high school, showing a sad-looking Hispanic woman holding an infant with some crap about "worrying" about nuclear power.

Yeah, a nuclear accident would be horrible. But as we're finding out, there's more than one way to kill a world.

"The 21st century is humanity's last and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it" -- the knucklewalkers

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I shivered at the thought of Sarah Palin being one heart beat away from the Presidency.

Who are these people that would vote for her?
Obviously that don't read.

==

It's surprising what sort of people want Palin in national office.

But in the McCain campaign she'd be really close to having a shot at the top slot, since McCain is old and a cancer survivor. His chance of dying in office would have been quite good, which makes his choice of this stupid and unreflective woman wantonly irresponsible.

Not that he had a chance anyway, the reason he was so much on the attack is because he had no ideas. Earmarks, bridge to nowhere, yawn. Then came the weird campaign suspension, and between that and Palin it was easy to conclude he didn't have all his marbles anymore.

I know one guy with shelves of books, and gay, who was hyperventilating when he heard she'd resigned. Here's a guy who does read, owes his allegiance to a party that despises him, and still wants Palin to be president. I think he needs his head examined.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I shivered at the thought of Sarah Palin being one heart beat away from the Presidency.

Who are these people that would vote for her?
Obviously that don't read.

Posted by: gigimn37 | July 14, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Nuclear is a heck of a lot better than coal. But the upfront capital costs are huge, there's a long lead-time from planning to production, and various liability issues are potentially crippling. It's a very risky investment that doesn't promise large gains, not the sort of thing private capital really wants to touch, especially in a "deregulated" environment.

==

A huge amount of the cost of a nuclear plant comes from the fact that every one is separately designed, and every component is a custom engineering job. If we came up with a standard design and mass-produced the components to seismic etc. specifications then the cost would come way down.

There remains the cost of disposing of spent fuel, though.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Nuclear is a heck of a lot better than coal. But the upfront capital costs are huge, there's a long lead-time from planning to production, and various liability issues are potentially crippling. It's a very risky investment that doesn't promise large gains, not the sort of thing private capital really wants to touch, especially in a "deregulated" environment.

Posted by: nodebris | July 14, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

There are certainly line losses. But any sort of transport and storage creates a loss/use of energy. Thus, distributed energy: as much generation at the point of use as possible.

==

Line losses are minimal, thanks to the extremely high voltages they carry.

Loss to heat is proportional to RI², where I is the amperage and R the resistance. And since W = IV (watts, amperage, voltage, we have I = W/V so ohmic loss in the wire is

Loss = RW² / V²

Loss in the wire is inversely proportional to the square of the voltage.

Household electricity is 220 and 110V; overland transmission lines are 750,000V, or about 7000 times household voltage, therefore the loss in the transmission line is the inverse square of that, about one fifty millionth what it would be if we sent 110V over the wires.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Personally I stay away from the 'tea parties' but that's my personal distaste for them due to the fact I live in an area full of people that worship them like religion. And honestly it's always the people that worry me more than the idea behind it. Because ideas don't act, people do. And most of them do not have any general concern but for themselves. But then that may be the difference. I've developed into a very 'concerned with others' person more than concerned with myself.

And Zouk, you should probably stop trying to act like you can hold an intelligent conversation. All you do is attack. You never talk frankly or with anything but contempt for others. You wonder why people don't listen it is because you only see politics and not the people behind them. That is why I find it hard to believe you're a married or happy person. No happy person can have that much hate in their heart. Nor can I imagine a spouse that would be able to put up with someone like that.

Posted by: mtcooley | July 14, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Being insulted by zouk is almost as humiliating as being ignored by a mosquito

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

really don't understand why a major paper would lend her its aplomb by dignifying such a ramble. But then, they do the same for Kristol and Krauthammer so I really shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: chrisuxfox

A shorter list would be the things you DO understand. It could fit in a text message.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

shrink2,

There are certainly line losses. But any sort of transport and storage creates a loss/use of energy. Thus, distributed energy: as much generation at the point of use as possible.

And consider the advantages of using/upgrading an existing electric grid that penetrates essentially everywhere, against building a completely new hydrogen grid. Efficient. Maximizes current advantages. Minimizes upfront capital expenses, which will be huge. Etc.

Posted by: nodebris | July 14, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

you are an idiot.

==

... says the guy who writes like a fifth-grader and claims to be an employed mathematician

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

President Obama said Tuesday that unemployment numbers will likely ''continue to tick up for several months.'' Obama’s comments come two months after a member of his Cabinet predicted that the economic stimulus package would cause unemployment rates to drop. (Snip) Asked on Tuesday how high he thinks unemployment rates will increase in hard-hit states like Michigan, Obama responded, ''Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball.''

Obviously!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

you are an idiot.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

>>"What I love about Palin is that you libs hate her"

That's the whole GOP right there.

I don't go around maligning the GOP but I am more likely to call out a person that says that as a complete moron. Because it's moronic to support someone just to oppose the opposite viewpoint. That's something a 5 year old does. That's not how you decide an elected official. For all the talk they give Ms. Palin perhaps they'd be better off deciding why they want to support someone they aren't sure can get the job done.

==

But this reasoning seems to be the basis of every position held dearly by what remains of the GOP electorate.

They favor unrestrained executive salaries because liberals are against them.

They favor ignoring environmental damage because liberals are concerned about it.

They favor deregulation because liberals believe regulation is necessary.

They favor a posture of international belligerence and national exceptionalism because liberals support human rights.

Et cetera.

And yes, it's infantile. Did you see any pictures from the 4/15 tea parties? Did you see the faces, the signs? Everything matches.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

>>"What I love about Palin is that you libs hate her"

That's the whole GOP right there.

I don't go around maligning the GOP but I am more likely to call out a person that says that as a complete moron. Because it's moronic to support someone just to oppose the opposite viewpoint. That's something a 5 year old does. That's not how you decide an elected official. For all the talk they give Ms. Palin perhaps they'd be better off deciding why they want to support someone they aren't sure can get the job done. There's a difference in being disappointed when your candidate fails and voting them in expecting them to. If you do the latter you have no sympathy for me or the rest of the people here I would imagine.

You should probably read her somewhat disjointed OP-ED article. To me it gives a clear concise look as to how far she needs to go to be a viable candidate again. Palin falls far short proving she has the mettle to stand as a political powerhouse. Probably because I feel she's tangenting too much and does not support herself in her claims. Not to mention I have to say I think she's missed the point.

Even with how they malign Obama's experience, and I don't think he's a master orator myself, he does at least compose his words carefully and articulate his reasoning better. Of course whether you agree with him is an entirely different matter. But then I read and analysis scientific articles out of habit so I can be a fairly harsh critic when it comes to this sort of thing.

Posted by: mtcooley | July 14, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I think Palin's audition piece ranks up there with Piyush Jindal's. Bland recitations of talking points, some perl-script doggerel about the economy, and the barest nod to environmental considerations.

I really don't understand why a major paper would lend her its aplomb by dignifying such a ramble. But then, they do the same for Kristol and Krauthammer so I really shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Out here in the sticks (rural, northern Michigan) there is a strong and ongoing luvfest with Sarah Palin among the right wing zealotry.

This crowd is conditioned to understand Rushspeak, so (to them) Sarah Palin makes a boatload of sense.

Utimately she really doesn't have to reach out to the center or left, but only stake her claim among the GOP's far right.

Posted by: molsonmich | July 14, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Palin the energy wizard tries to lecture Obama, what a joke. there is a very interesting related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

Posted by: carlyt | July 14, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Also on topic I agree that the fact only 33% think she'd be effective makes the fact 70+% of Republicans would vote for her very very scary. Why would you vote for someone if you didn't think they'd be effective? That's the total antithesis of why you should vote.

==

Just read the comments here.

"What I love about Palin is that you libs hate her"

That's the whole GOP right there.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Palin frightens me because she is GWB in a dress and we have seen what eight years of that man has wrought.

==

I think she's a lot worse than Bush. Bush's presidency was an expression of his insecurity. We invaded Iraq because Bush felt compelled to prove that he was a tough liddle money despite being a short guy. That same insecurity held him back from doing anything truly radical like using nuclear weapons or trying to end all environmental regulations.

What would hold Palin back? She's a lot less thoughtful than Bush, whom nobody ever accused of being overly introspective.

She'd leave a cinder where we once had a planet.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you're comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama??? Seriously? One took second place in a beauty contest and the other was editor of Harvard Law Review? And you think they are in the same league?

What are you smoking today, dude?

Posted by: PoliticalPragmatist | July 14, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Were the people that thought that she would make an effective president asked whether she would quit before the end of her term. The I don't know, no opinion and yes probably have little conviction in their belief.

In her op ed piece she showed that she is a policy light weight but would make a very combative victim candidate.

Palin frightens me because she is GWB in a dress and we have seen what eight years of that man has wrought. And we are no where as strong a country after his regime. We must take greater care in who we choose from now on.

Posted by: Gator-ron | July 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

>>With a Nobel Laureate nuclear physicist at DOE [Chu] who believes in nuke plants, as I do, I do not understand why we have so much resistance to them.

Ignorance mainly. I've always been a firm proponent of increased nuclear power in the U.S. and the biggest hurdle is regrettably still NIMBY feelings among the populace. It's not as pretty as other alternative energy solutions. People recoil in fear when they think of nuclear waste. They worry about accidents and the safety of reactors, which I'm sure you know is a fear best left in the early days of development when it was possibly warrented.

Another problem we face with increasing nuclear power is what to do with the waste given that no one wants to effectively deal with what we generate now. Really until we decide how we will handle waste storage we can't move forward with nuclear power. The sad state of it is the U.S. just really refuses to deal with it's energy issues other than going to one extreme or the other. It's either live with wind and solar(not that their bad but the energy solution should always be multifold with all of our capabilities) or drilling which doesn't change the fact we need these other alternatives just as much.

Not to mention the fact environmentalists hurt the movement to alternative energy as much as they help because nuclear and responsible drilling are not evils that should be avoided.

Also on topic I agree that the fact only 33% think she'd be effective makes the fact 70+% of Republicans would vote for her very very scary. Why would you vote for someone if you didn't think they'd be effective? That's the total antithesis of why you should vote.

Posted by: mtcooley | July 14, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

This is silly advice. The watchword in the last election, and maybe any election, was authenticity. Advising a whole-sale personality transplant (so that Palin becomes as Mr. Spock-like as Obama) is ridiculous.

Like any politician, Palin would need to find a winning political strategy and style that reflects what is best in her. (I don't think there's enough there to work with, but that's what would have to happen.) This column's advice, instead, reminds me of all the gratuitous pundit advice to candidate Obama to act like Bill Clinton, getting mad, emoting, feeling people's pain, etc. That worked for Bill Clinton because that's who he really is. Being calm, steady, and sensible worked for Obama because that's who he really is. It would feel stifling and odd for Palin.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | July 14, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

nodebris, I get the part about the nations electric vehicle fleet being the overnight battery if you will for renewable but intermittent energy sources.

But it is my understanding that there are very, very large heat/power losses in the grid, the smartgrid included.

It is simply the problem of pushing that many electrons through metal (resistance).
I was told the webs of lines crisscrossing the country can never be buried because the cost of cooling the wires to keep them from melting would be huge.

That is a lot of heat loss. Hydrogen as a "storage device", should not take that much energy transport. Though of course, the Hindenburg is a good example of the downside of moving lots of explosive gas around.


Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"33, the number of people who actually care about this story.

Posted by: vbhoomes"

True. Most Palin stories are filled with comments. I guess its a little strange to be told that even the silent majority doesn't think much of her.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

NEWS BULLETIN:

OBAMA TELEPROMPTER GLASS SHATTERING ACT

• Was it "magic," or something more mysterious?


The TelePrompTer glass shattered without the stand tipping over, as the video shows.

Either the glass got loose (something technicians should have noticed) and fell out of its frame intact and hit the floor, where it shattered...

OR the glass spontaneously shattered while still being held in the stand, which did NOT tip over.

The key question: Did thew glass shatter BEFORE or AFTER it hit the floor?

What kind of force would cause thick 'prompter glass to shatter? This defies the laws of physics...

...unless some invisible force beam ("directed energy weapon"?) hit that glass.

Real journalists should follow up. Start here:

blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/presidents-secr.html

nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa

nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-
network-terrorizes-america

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 14, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

33, the number of people who actually care about this story.

Posted by: vbhoomes | July 14, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"We could talk to RickJ and Shrink and DDAWD about energy and hope "mnteng" joins in."

I'm a lot more adept at Palin bashing than I am at talking about energy, but I really enjoy reading what you guys write about it.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 14, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with wind and solar energy is, of course, storage"

Distributed solar, tied to the grid. You require less energy from the grid during peak power times, and may even sell your excess production back to the grid. Reduces demand from expensive central power plants burning dirty fuels. Small local storage for homes can help in power outages to keep essential equipment running.

And if your car is the battery, than your solar house can sell excess power to the grid during peak daylight energy times, and you can buy cheaper energy back from the grid at night to recharge your car's battery. You are leveling demand, which is very efficient. Also, automobiles are now made independent of their fuel source -- ultimate source could be coal, oil, wind, geo, solar, or fairy dust, as long as it is delivered as electricity over the grid.

There are more pluses than can be easily listed.

Add in cogeneration at manufacturing and industrial facilities, and you are talking massive energy efficiencies in the U.S.

Worth some incentives to get rolling.

Posted by: nodebris | July 14, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

wow!

Posted by: DDAWD | July 14, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, RickJ and ChrisFox8 for the enlightenment on hydrogen cells. What Shrink said was my concern about hydrogen cells.

CF8, are you familiar with the Generation III+ and Generation IV [Thorium based] reactors? The Canadians say they have 80 year life expectancy and low waste from theirs. Do you have any experience with this?

With a Nobel Laureate nuclear physicist at DOE [Chu] who believes in nuke plants, as I do, I do not understand why we have so much resistance to them.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I'd say the exploding federal debt and/or this year's growing deficit (now over $1 trillion this year alone) would be "The Most Important Number in Politics Today."

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Posted by: vapolitik | July 14, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The problem with wind and solar energy is, of course, storage.

I wonder if there are any large scale solar driven hydrogen manufacturing facilities?
Hydrogen seems like a better way to store "green" energy than batteries (or as they do now, in unburned coal).

Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The fuel cells that we were testing back then were stationary fuel cells that used hydrogen and oxygen. I believe they used a form of hydrolysis. (Sorry, it's been awhile...)

The concept would allow for homes or businesses to have a 'fuel cell generator' that would provide energy for their use. The generator could be placed on their property (or a larger one could be purchased for a subdivision...) United Technologies uses one to provide power for their use..

Posted by: RickJ | July 14, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

@msame: Middle age is not the time to begin one's civic education to take on the most demanding responsibilities in the world. For Palin the train left the station decades ago. At the age of 45 all she can do is babble words and phrases.

Her interview prep fed her canned responses, and when questioned she was unable to reason inside her memorized framework, and descended into incoherence. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

"What threadjack would be most appropriate here?

We could talk to RickJ and Shrink and DDAWD about energy and hope "mnteng" joins in."

Sounds good to me. As a sidebar, we're receiving some much-needed rain here; the so-called 'million dollar rain' that saves ag producers' butts.

On energy policy: we can save a lot of energy merely by changing our thinking on waste streams. MPR recently did a story on a local greenhouse operator who's heating his greenhouses with pellets he's making from waste products. Instead of buying natural gas, he's making his own fuel - which makes his heat source carbon-neutral and saves money. For a guy in that business its the difference between making a profit or going under.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 14, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

No, hydrogen gas is in a high energy state (and that is why it explodes). Creating stored energy takes energy.

Apart from splitting atoms in a reactor, the sun generates or generated all our energy (by splitting atoms and raining heat and light energy on the world).

But using hydrogen can help clean up the air in local environments, inner cities in particular. The byproduct of its manufacture will involve heat and waste produced and dumped somewhere else.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

If Palin wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, she needs to do what Barack Obama did even before he adopted a grave and even keeled tone -- that is, get a first class education on: the government, the constitution, separation of powers, foreign policy, economics, jurisprudence, american history, world history and geography. That should keep her busy for at least the next four years -- so I don't think she'll be ready by 2012.

Posted by: msame | July 14, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Imagine if every car could be fed from a municipal power station with no loss in the grid. The biggest problem with fossil fuels, aside from their emissions of course, is that they are limited by the Carnot cycle to something like 20% efficiency, the rest being wasted as heat. So cars really burn five times as much fuel as they need to get around and there is no way to incresae that effiency other than to run engines a lot LOT hotter, not really an option, since any accident would destroy a city block.

With fuel cell technology you can perform the energy-inefficient part of the process at a point-source like a power station, using much greater efficiencies, and then distribute the cracked hydrogen to fuel cells, and no distribution loss. The real advantage is the centralization of the process, and yes it does take power.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Agree with Bsimon1.

What threadjack would be most appropriate here?

We could talk to RickJ and Shrink and DDAWD about energy and hope "mnteng" joins in.

RickJ, do hydrogen fuel cells require hydrolysis to create the hydrogen or do we get it from natural gas or as a byproduct of burning something else? Is there an easy, energy efficient way to get free hydrogen?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Love her or hate her, Palin is a traffic generator. Compare the number of comments on Palin stories to any other.

==

Everyone slows down to look at an accident

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Palin needs to reverse those numbers? Oh my.

Meaning she needs to change the perception of her ability to do a responsible job in the nation's highest office. Not that she needs to acquire the skills, intelligence, and strength of character for the job. That's not going to happen. She's 45, nature gaveth in the looks department but nature also tooketh away in the brains department. She's not going to get smarter, not going to get more organized, shesd never even going to discover her voice's lower register.

Odd .. 33% of GOoPers say she's qualified, 71$ say they'd vote for her. What the hell is up with that 38%?

"We'll vote for someone who'll screw up the nation with her incompetence but that's OK 'cause it'll irritate the liberals"

Yes, they really have sunk that low.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 14, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"More Palin? Really? If you've ever wondered why inside-the-beltway types get no respect, this is why."

---

Love her or hate her, Palin is a traffic generator. Compare the number of comments on Palin stories to any other.

I read yesterday that one of the big factors in Dan Froomkin's firing was a drop in web traffic. You can bet your house that all post writers are going to keep a close eye on their traffic from here on out.

As a result, we get more sensational Palin-type stories and less of the boring nitty-gritty.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 14, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"RickJ, sure it does, it says, if you liked America's energy policy through the Bush administration, you should vote for more of the same from me."

I meant that it says nothing new and is derivative of uninspired thinking...

Posted by: RickJ | July 14, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

RickJ, sure it does, it says, if you liked America's energy policy through the Bush administration, you should vote for more of the same from me.

Just another Republican trying to reattach the mask of caring for the little guy, Joe the Average, you know, white hard working American...ooops sorry that was Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 14, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

In order to increase her support, Ms. Palin needs to get her facts straight. She is wrong to call cap-and-trade a tax. It is worse than a tax because only 15% of the proceeds from auctioned permits go into our national treasury.

– Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com

Posted by: Rmoen | July 14, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I think the nation is Palin-weary. She should go away for awhile and let another freak show grab the media's attention.

And her op-ed piece in today's Post is derivative at best. It really doesn't say anything.

Posted by: RickJ | July 14, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

More Palin? Really? If you've ever wondered why inside-the-beltway types get no respect, this is why.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 14, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company