Furthermore, R. Reagan served in the Military, was at TWO-term Governor of CA, he was from the early-mid 60s one of the Conservative intellects of this great Nation. Mrs. Plain has achieved none of that. We aren't talking R. Reagan in 1968...R. Reagan became the leader he was more than a dozen years after that.
The notion that Mrs. Plain is ready to be POUTS/CinC after barely 4 years on the national scene is just silly and not serious. It is exactly what we have in the current fool Obama (only her politics are better). People have to start understanding, politics matter, of course, but so does sound leadership experience and years of tuning in ones intellect.
I will say this for Mrs. Palin. I think she is going to be the one to admit this to her "base" of fans. That she is not ready to run for POTUS in 2012. She sees another avenue for her to be a major credit to helping this Nation. In another fashion, that is not POTUS/CinC.
“We aren’t talking R. Reagan in 1968...R. Reagan became the leader he was more than a dozen years after that.”
Again, you don’t know your history. Ronald Reagan WAS the leader of the conservative movement in 1968, in the same way that Sarah Palin is its leader today. Reagan came within a hair’s breadth of snatching the nomination away from Richard Nixon in 1968 after a mere 18 months as Governor of California. He was a candidate at the 1968 GOP convention in Miami. He was just as well qualified to be President in 1968 as he was in 1976 or 1980. Mixing it up with Jess Unruh in the California Assembly for another six years prepared him not one bit for the Oval Office. And Reagan was ready to go for the brass ring in 1968. He just waited too long to begin actively campaigning for it.
Question for you: It is 1968. Your choice is Richard Nixon who has been in the U.S. House for 4 years, U.S. Senate for two years and Vice President for eight years or Ronald Reagan who has been Governor of California since January 1967, 18 months. Who was better qualified?
Strom Thurmond, who held the southern delegations for Nixon when they were ready to bolt to Reagan, thought that Nixon was better qualified because he had more years in public office, and that Reagan’s turn would come. Reagan had not campaigned actively for the 1968 nomination, yet he had won more popular votes in the GOP primaries than any other candidate. His critical mistake was the he failed to lobby the southern and western delegations hard, and one reason for that was Thurmond’s rock solid backing of the “more experienced” Nixon:
“Critically, Reagan did not seek caucus delegates in the South, where he was wildly popular, or in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast states, where he was the regional favorite. Had Reagan run hard, there is an excellent chance that he would have won the Republican presidential nomination in 1968.”
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0303/0303reagan68.htm
In 1968, I was for Reagan and it was a huge disappointment that he failed to get the nomination. But Thurmond held the south for Nixon and Nixon won on the first ballot.
In 1968, I thought Reagan was the best qualified candidate for President. My question to you is where would you have stood in 1968? With Reagan or with the more experienced Nixon?
Nixon had undeniably been in office much longer and had held a variety of positions in the government. If that is your measuring stick, you have an easy choice. It would be Nixon.
But being qualified for President is more than just parking your butt in a public office(s), as far as I am concerned.
Who had the courage of his convictions? Who inspired conservatives like no one else? Who was the real leader? Who was the the person whose goodness of character suggested the potential to be both a good and a great President? That person was Ronald Reagan, in my estimation. It was as true in 1968 as it was in 1976 or 1980.
Use whichever standard for “qualification” you wish but tell us who was better qualified for President in 1968, Reagan or Nixon?