Hating Sarah

American Thinker ^ | 11-29-09 | C. Edmund Wright

[radioone]

The persistence and even growth of Palin's popularity and impact on the national discussion now makes unavoidable the reality of the elitists' worst fear: that there are more of us than there are of them. And we now realize it.

[samtheman]

The Alaska Governor is far more than someone who appeals to the (conservative) base, she is someone who can make the base appeal to America.

One of the best one-sentence descriptions of Sarah Palin's current place in the American Political Spectrum that I have read... though I do wish it would have started with her name, not her title, like this:

Sarah Palin is far more than someone who appeals to the (conservative) base, she is someone who can make the base appeal to America.

To me it sounds better that way.

[samtheman]

They will not admit this of course. In fairness, they may not even consciously know what is going on inside their insulated minds.

C'mon. They're smarter than you think. They "consciously know" what's going on inside their own hate-filled heads.

[samtheman]

And yes, many of the attacks on Palin today are the same attacks Reagan endured decades ago and they are coming from the same quarters.

And yet the Pundit Class lies about this, too.

Many of them, including the "conservative" (LOL!!!) David Brooks, say something to the effect of: "She's not like Reagan. We may have disagreed with Reagan, but we respected him."

They are all such lying POS. They hammered Reagan with the same bile-filled lies with which they now hammer Palin. But they pretend to remember that with Reagan, things were different.

[Diogenesis]

"If your life revolves around convincing Republicans
to nominate folks like McCain or around electing people
like Obama, this is a scary prospect indeed.

Like Reagan's, Palin's easy natural appeal shatters that delusion.
And she is the first one to do so for any length of time in a long time."

[Jim W N]

George Bush 41...misread his own lips on taxes and faded into an abyss with only 38% of the vote in 1992.

From my reckoning, there were only two true conservative presidents in the 20th century: Cool Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. (Says a lot about the staying power of our wonderful country.) My biggest gripe with Reagan was his choice of socialist-leaning Bush for VP, ostensibly to assure his election, but an unnecessary choice it turned out. It also turned out that whoever was Reagan's VP was "destined for the throne" because of Reagan's massive popularity, although this was also unknown in 1980.

I've often wondered how different things might have been had Reagan had a true conservative for VP. I also wonder if this choice was a strong-arm tactic by the weak-willed GOP officials on Reagan, and if Bush was really Reagan's idea and first choice. Love to hear from anyone who might know more about that.

On the same note, I wonder if Sara will be able to successfully deal with the ever-left-moving-GOP machine and what her chances are of actually getting nominated? As with 2008, the key to the election seems to be the right person getting the GOP nomination.

[samtheman]

You bring up a lot of interesting points.

Here’s a question for you on one of them:

Who do you think would have been a better VP choice for Reagan in 1980? Name some of the viable conservatives around for him to choose. (I’m not challenging you, I’m just curious on your take on this question.)

[stevem]

Yes, there are more of us than there are of them. Sarah Palin has reminded us -- and them -- of that fact.

We all have fears, I guess. Mine will only be overcome if this proves true at the ballot box.

[Jim W N]

Your question to me is kind of my question to whoever out there might have some some knowledge or insight: Was Bush a strong-arm tactic by the weak-willed GOP officials on Reagan, and was Bush really Reagan's idea and first choice?

The people Reagan gathered around him in his presidency were almost without exception people with gold-standard character and values. I don't know who was out there then, and very possibly the best would have come from an unknown or unlikely place, like George Schultz from Bechtel Corp., for instance. Seems that Reagan was like the 49er's Bill Walsh of the same era - they both knew what they wanted to do and they both recognized talent that others did not. I think Reagan could have found a good guy, my question is why he didn't.

[samtheman]

I don’t have the answer to your question but lately I’ve been wondering how history would have been better served if Reagan had chosen more wisely in 1980.

I like the idea of Paul Laxalt, except that I would prefer to imagine (if I’m going to play this Alternate History game) someone younger. Laxalt was 66 in 1988, not too terribly old but still...

What was Dan Quayle doing in 1980? Was he too young? Would he have been a good choice?

[militanttoby]

I think this guy has expressed what I feel - Palin has the ability to expand the base by attracting people to it core values, not by changing policies and principles to pander to different groups. The former is the Reagan way; the latter is the RINO way.

[Jim W N]

My question was more along the lines of "why" rather than "who." I know some qualified someone would have been available. Ostensibly, Reagan's VP choice was to secure an election, not for succession. It would be interesting to know the mechanics that brought the Bush decision about and how or if the Reagan v. GOP played a part.

It's germane in the sense that Palin's biggest challenge, IMO, will be the GOP and getting nominated on her terms.

[GrouchoTex]

“Palin does not have one whit of legal authority over these people or anyone else. Yet as her elected status has ended, her effect on the elites has only increased.”

Which baffles me as to why the MSM and the left are attacking her.

Just what are they afraid of?

Okay, Okay, I know. The question is rhetorical.