Greg Sargent has a blog post up at the Washington Post about what the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows about the general electorate’s attitude towards a candidate that has been endorsed by half-term former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:
The poll asked people how they’d respond if a Congressional candidate had various hypothetical attributes. Asked how they’d feel if a candidate were “endorsed by Sarah Palin,” the response was….
Enthusiastic about this attribute 8
Comfortable with this attribute 17
Have some reservations about this attribute 15
Very uncomfortable with this attribute 37
So a majority, 52%, reacted negatively. And an astonishing 37 percent would be “very uncomfortable” about a Palin endorsement, more than four times the eight percent who would be “enthusiastic” about it.
Even better, there were only two attributes a candidate might have that were seen as worse than a Palin endorsement: Supporting Bush’s economic policies; and supporting the elimination of various Federal agencies and/or Social Security.
Have John Kasich & Rob Portman been endorsed by Palin? Check. Yep, the Kasich-Taylor campaign has received a substantial donation from Palin’s PAC (SARAHPAC). Same thing with Rob Portman.
Did Kasich & Portman support Bush’s economic policies? Is the Pope Catholic? CHECK.
Kasich has tried to present himself as a rogue, renegade Republican, particularly when it comes to the Bush years, but, at best, all he’s distinguished himself from Bush on is that he opposed Bush’s deficit spending and Bush’s Medicare prescription drug entitlement. When it came to economic policy, though, Kasich and Bush were, as Kasich himself put it “soul brothers.”
Incidentally, the poll also shows elsewhere that a large number of Americans continue to believe that it was the last Administration, and not the Obama Administration that is responsible for the current state of the economy:
72 percent say Obama is only somewhat or not really responsible for today’s economic conditions (with 51 percent putting themselves in the “somewhat” responsible category) compared to 27 percent who hold him mainly or solely responsible. 60 percent says Bush is only somewhat or not really responsible, while 40 percent still hold him mainly or solely responsible.
Did Kasich and Portman call for eliminating various Federal agencies and/or Social Security? Check.
Portman supported Bush’s ruinous plan to privatize Social Security that lead to the Democratic takeover of Congress.
I’m surprised Kasich’s past doesn’t get more attention on this front. If Rand Paul and Sharron Angle are considered extremists for saying they’d support legislation to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, but Kasich actually authored such legislation!
Again, the NBC/WSJ poll shows that nationally, that’s a political loser:
When asked how they felt about a candidate who “supports phasing out Social Security and instead supports allowing workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market,” only 24 percent said they were enthusiastic or comfortable while 66 percent said they were not. Almost identical results (25/67) were discovered when voters were asked if they support “abolishing some federal agencies, including the Department of Education.”
Chairman Kasich went even further than either Angle or Paul has publicly stated. During his time in Congress, Kasich advocated abolishing the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, end funding for legal aid, and end funding for public broadcasting. That’s right, John Kasich wanted to kill Elmo.
If as Ohio goes, so goes the nation, then isn’t it equally true that as the nation goes, so goes Ohio? If so, there goes the candidacies of Rob Portman and John Kasich…