Poll: Even Republicans Say Limbaugh, Gingrich And Cheney Speak For GOP — But No One Names Palin!
You can already hear the high-fives over at the Democratic National Committee.
A new poll from Gallup strongly suggests that the Dem strategy of painting Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrich as the faces of the GOP — in order to cast the party as hidebound and lacking in new ideas and leaders — appears to be dovetailing very neatly with reality. Even among Republicans.
The poll finds that when national adults are asked who is leading the Republican Party, the names most often cited are Limbaugh and Cheney, with Gingrich and John McCain tied for third. Meanwhile, a majority — 51% — had no opinion or said no one.
And check this out: Even Republicans and Republican leaners agree that these are their leaders, with more of them citing Limbaugh, Gingrich and Cheney as speaking for the party than anybody else. Click to enlarge:
Also note that 43% of Republicans and leaners — nearly half — had no opinion or named no one as speaking for the party. You couldn’t ask for clearer evidence of the leadership crisis the party is facing right now.
The fact that the three most often cited as speaking for the party are male, white, old, and extremely conservative also underscores the challenge the party will face in shaking off its image as, well, male, white, old, and extremely conservative.
One other interesting tidbit: There’s one Republican who would perhaps like to be seen as speaking for the party more than anyone else right now. And she wasn’t named at all by either national adults or Republicans and Republican leaners, even though she was on the national ticket less than a year ago.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I think this poll tests the understanding of the phrase “speak for” more than anything else. If you measure it by air time on TV, Gingrich and Cheney should be near the top. Limbaugh also gets points for ratings. But it is also interesting that Michael Steele didn’t get more than 1%. Nor did the top elected members of the party, Boehner and McConnell. Meanwhile Bush hasn’t spoken publicly in several months.
DanP – yeah, recent media exposure looks to be key here. Had Palin been in front of the cameras as much as Cheney or Gingrich, she’d surely be near the top of that list. Of course, that assumes that when she’s in front of the cameras, she’d appear at least modestly educated and coherent. And that’s exactly the reason she hasn’t been in front of the cameras and isn’t on this list. It looks like even Republicans understand her unique unsuitability for such a post.
Steele’s rank is notable, as you say. Romney doesn’t fare well, either, but that looks like an exposure problem in part. Though I think Greg points to an important element with “extremely conservative”. Romney has tried to sound like that but can’t really pull it off. He has an inner equanimity which Gingrich, Cheney and Limbaugh in their respective pathologies can’t fake and which doesn’t correspond to the rhetorical themes of the modern movement – terror! commies! end of the world! we’re all being victimized! evil lurks in the hearts of men! the coloreds are taking over! etc
I dunno, Palin gets a ton of airtime. It’s just that she gets airtime for acting goofy. So perhaps that’s why people don’t associate leadership qualities with her.
greg
She’s still covered (often for acting goofy as you say) but doesn’t do the sit-down time expostulating in the manner of Cheney or Newt. She’s mostly object rather than subject.
If I’m anywhere near right in my reading of Romney and the dynamics of the modern conservative movement, it would lead one to conclude that Reagan, were he to arrive in this present situation, would not fare well at all. He didn’t really hate with enough zest. And of course he either would have not signed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge or would have violated it quickly.
Kathleen Parker’s column this morning considers why Palin is failin’ (sorry, couldn’t resist) and cites two factors, disorganization and “executive” unreadiness (by which Parker means neither intelligent nor educated enough nor self-aware enough to notice). Parker claims that (as you said yesterday, greg) that it’s the organizational deficits that have disenchanted the party boys. I’m not aligned with this thesis. I think the key problem they see is that it is now understood that Palin will continue to embarrass and work havoc on future electoral possibilities.
Kathleen Parker is so into Cheney pere that she may be trying to help lay the groundwork for Liz by hitting Palin again. (Just trying to think like a pol here.)
Another possible thesis on why Palin is presently so beleagured…the pastor who prayed to Jesus to protect her from “all forms of witchcraft” had a brief and passing mid-prayer thought concerning the Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man or some such.
“Reagan, were he to arrive in this present situation, would not fare well at all”
By the beginning of his second term Reagan was getting criticism from his right flank about not being conservative enough.
Yes, this did actually happen! (I was 24 and still remember it.)
ABC – seems certainly possible. From every perspective, Ms Cheney would be a more ideal and promising political figure than Palin. Not least being the certain re-establishment/strengthening of the gears of oligarchy.
oddjob – that’s correct. Bunch’s “Tear Down That Myth” is probably a book you’d quite enjoy (if you haven’t read it already).
Palin is the Britney Spears of politics: No one who matters actually takes her seriously; everyone just wants to look at her body. No one (except the lustrous Tina Fey) gives a rat’s rump about anything she has to say. She’s a terminal lightweight, a vacuous nincompoop and a confused beauty queen, and all but the most hopelessly enamored Palinbots see this with great clarity. But I remain hopeful the self-destructive, self-loathing, anti-democracy American Taliban will nominate her for a (spectacularly disastrous) run at the “prez-uh-dense-cee.”
What I think the GOPers don’t understand is that President Obama and Hillary Clinton quite simply (especially Obama, of course) raised the bar so HIGH for national politicians, that their camp just will not be able to compete for a LONG time.
.
Queen of Alaska, Mittens, Walnuts McCain, Rushbo, Newtwich, Cheney the Dark Lord, or those dippy governors from Louisiana and Minnesota are not, will not, and could not be viable options for 2012. Can you imagine the circus atmosphere of their presidential primary — where each tries to out crazy the other? I hear Rahm laughing his *** off somewhere…
.
At any rate, we all see what a brilliant, masterful (and yes, at times ruthless) politician President Obama is. What an enormous political talent looks like. Even Repub’s are secretly in awe over it. They have NO SHOT until (at least) 2016.
What I found most telling about this was the fact that 0% of Republicans were willing to call Bush a spokesperson for the party. When’s the last time that happened to a former president? Even Nixon was more respected by his party after he left office. Just goes to show how much of an albatross he’s become to the party.
“The fact that the three most often cited as speaking for the party are male, white, old, and extremely conservative also underscores the challenge the party will face in shaking off its image as, well, male, white, old, and extremely conservative.”
You should also note that these three people are currently not holding positions they were elected to. You could argue that all three are actually unelectable on a national (and possibly state) scale.
If you are a Democrat, you couldn’t get better news than this if you just made it up out of whole cloth. Rush, Newt, and Cheney are the Voices of the GOP?? Pinch me!!! Now if only I could be sure that “Other” really means Sister Sarah, I would know that I had died and gone to heaven. I know that 6 months into a four-year election cycle is dangerously early to start getting cocky, but honest to God! In my 40+ years of adult life, I have never seen the GOP as thoroughly unhinged as this before. Even after Goldwater’s defeat and Nixon’s resignation, there were still a handful of high-visibility Republicans who were at least marginally coherent and respectable. But this gaggle of fools is just dysfunctional.
xochi said – “Just goes to show how much of an albatross [Bush has] become to the party.” True, but who on this list, besides “No One”, is NOT an albatross for the Republicans?
“Even after Goldwater’s defeat and Nixon’s resignation, there were still a handful of high-visibility Republicans who were at least marginally coherent and respectable. But this gaggle of fools is just dysfunctional.”
EXACTLY.
The only people who think Palin is popular are her radical followers on Sarah Pac and Team Sarah. They have a thing going that anytime there is an online poll, they “Freep” the poll by voting for hours and days to skew the poll. This is not reality but for some reason they feel a need to fake these polls. The only accurate polls are the telephone polls when they cannot stuff the ballot box. Palin is a fraud, a hypocrite, a liar and a manipulator. Those of us in Alaska NOW know what she is…an extreme narcissist with a personality disorder. Lord help us all if she gets even close to the White House. So……4 votes out of 1,015…..I think her chances are SLIM.