“For you to even suggest, that by Reagan choosing Pro-Life champion Richard Schweiker as his running mate, “that it actually COST him the nomination”, is about dumbest thing I’ve heard in quite some time. Again, some folks never did like Reagan. You appear to be one of those folks.”
Yea. resort to calling names and cursing. And ignore the facts. You repeat the same assinine argumenat about Schweiker being an asset to Reagan . I give you news sources, interview excerpts from Helm on the convention floor and you dismiss them as coming from liberal rags.
“Why else would waste so much time”
Trying to educate you, since you seemed to be ignorant of the facts surrounding the 1976 primary. Now I see you are too small a man to acknowledge that you were wrong.
You are right. FR is an anonymous forum. I did not lie about myself. Why would I? To convince someone who obviously does not know what he is talking about that I do? No. I am familiar with the Schweiker fiasco and I don’t need Tony Perkins, who was 13 in 1976 to educate me about what I observed first hand.
“Again, some folks never did like Reagan. You appear to be one of those folks.”
That statement is ridiculous. BYE.
I ignored nothing and the issue is not what you posted, but rather why you posted it. I've run into this same problem for years with RudyBots, RomneyBots and more recently with BrownBots who choose to run wild around the forum making outrageous remarks and comparisons in order to make their candidates appear as though they're political conservatives. Didn't think the PalinBots would revert to the same tactics. After all, Palin is a traditionalist and a conservative of sorts. An instinctive conservative.
News flash, bucko, Ronald Reagan is not running for anything and his legacy is not open to cheap pot shots as a way of making Palin look better. You dredged up all of this rhetoric about Richard Schweiker to divert attention away from any criticism directed at Sarah Palin. You want to obfuscate any negativity to the Palin factor and for good reason. Her record is short and limited and any deficiencies (aka. black marks) on her record stand out for all to see.
Yes, Palin is a phenomenon and I like her, but she has a lot of work to do in the next year to prepare herself for a Presidential campaign run. More importantly and contrary to the opinion of a few of her most ardent supporters, there is no evidence whatsoever that she's running in 2012. In about a year we'll all know who the major and minor players are for the GOP nomination, and we'll know if Palin will be one of those players.
Joining Fox News was a good move to help improve Palin's debate skills. Lively debate and discussion on the issues with major blowhard's like Bill O'Reilly, Bob Beckel and Juan Williams could only be helpful to Palin's future in national politics. Going toe to toe with firebrands and taking direct fire from political hell-raisers is good for Palin. But all that back and forth, give and take, does not remove or lessen the impact of recent decisions Palin has made which have left black marks on her record. Btw, all politicians have black marks on their record. Nothing to be proud of, however. Some learn better then others from their bad decisions. Still, its always good to look at a politicians full and complete record, warts and all, and not just one or two issues that may stand out and sway voters one way or another on a particular issue.
If you want to help Palin, stay away from the comparing her political career with that of Ronald Reagan's. There is no comparison. Reagan is an historic figure of immense proportions. For all intent and purposes, Palin is the new kid on the block. If you think otherwise, you're about as brain dead as they come.