Posted on 02/05/2010 11:02:01 PM PST by factmart
I'm a Palin lover. I remember Ronald Reagan and to me if Reagan was a women he would be like her.
I'm 57 and before I knew that he was a running for president, he was a actor and he was my favorite male actor. When he became president I never got enough of him speaking. I feel they same about Sarah. She is what America means to me. (Same as Reagan) Like Reagan she has common sense.
Like Reagan she is hated but even more because of her pro life stand.
I'm a man but I do not know of a GOP man right now with her guts! But then again her strength comes from the LORD!
If someone else wins for the GOP in 2012 I will support he or she, if they are Conservative but it the will not be the same if it is not President Sarah Palin (AKA:Reagan in women)
ditto!
Also, Reagan and Thatcher were huge laughingstocks among the left in their countries for years—before and while they were in high office. To become and stay such a target from such opposition, as Palin has, puts her in very good company. And if we pass on our best natural leaders because they are such targets we’ll have nothing but weaklings and old losers as happens all too often.
You just described Sarah Palin.
One huge difference, Reagan was the oldest President ever to serve, and therefore, he had lots of “experience” (not only in gov’t matters) under his belt.
Palin’s naivete (she was surprised by Couric’s attitude, etc.) probably comes from her lack of experience and her relatively young age.
You must be missing something, she was an executive, the youngest person ever elected Governor in Alaska and the first female, in fact she also easily had the highest approval of any Governor in America.
People seemed to see her as an executive. If you mean executive like Romney was for a while, then remember that as an elected executive, he left office with a 65% disapproval.
I’m not talking about just governorship - see the whole resume of all three people, from birth to election.
“did more for her state as governor” is 1 point, AK is a tiny job compared to CA.
How many employees in each states government ?
AK=25,000+
CA=300,000+
Citizens ? GDP ?
This is similar to the really obvious thing about 0bama that dems should have noticed to not elect him, though, of course, he had NO experience, she at least has the governorship. He’s hiding from the media, it’s only been 1 year, and the media love him. But he’s not prepared, so he’s not confident.
As far as “doing” things for the state, AK is much easier to “shake up” than CA, 1/6th of the entire U.S. economy, with a population of over 36 million as compared to less then 1 million. As far as CA being “loony left”, that goes back to the 1960’s.. hey it probably goes back as far as the Gold Rush. From WWII until now all big cities and suburbs have headed left. AK has independent-minded people, a completely different culture. Sarah is not the reason that AK folks are independent and like their guns and have that nice small-town attitude, that’s just the way they are.
If you take the time to study the resumes, you will see what I mean as far as Everything else before governor. Sarah’s Education, careers, public service and/or business experience is not there yet.
I know Sarah is a good person. If she were the Repub nominee I would vote for her, of course. I absolutely loved her first speach, it was so refreshing.
I just think she needs to get into maybe 3 different executive-level corp jobs for at least five years, then have a repub president appoint her as an ambassador to an important country, then to the U.N. Then it would be very difficult for any repub to not support her wholeheartedly.
Reagan's essential message was embodied in a standard stump speech that he developed and honed over some two and a half decades before he was elected President. Palin has not yet developed a similar exposition of her political principles.
Reagan's geniality and his simple, direct style and polish as a speaker tended to overshadow his understanding of conservative principles and knowledge of politics, history, and economics. In this, Reagan often surprised those who got to known him.
For example, despite Reagan's two terms as Governor, conservative leader Lee Edwards was inclined to accept the common view among conservatives in Washington that Reagan was a lightweight. That changed when Edwards visited Reagan at his ranch.
The Reagans turned in early and left their guest with instructions to make himself at home. Unable to sleep, Edwards thumbed through Reagan's impressively large collection of conservative books. To Edwards' astonishment, the books had extensive underlining and perceptive notes in Reagan's small, neat script.
Edwards realized that Reagan was as knowledgeable as the best conservative office holders. He returned to Washington a Reagan supporter.
Similarly, before becoming President, Reagan had numerous briefings from a Hungarian emigre who was an economist in the Midwest. Reagan's questions and comments demonstrated a solid understanding of economics, but his greatest interest was in the details of the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Reagan was more informed on the subject than anyone other academic experts. To response better to Reagan's queries, his economist friend read up on the Hungarian revolution.
As best as I can tell, Palin does not have a level of knowledge equivalent to that which Reagan possessed. Plain is a gem, but she now seems more a diamond in the rough than someone ready to run for President. I sincerely hope that Palin quickly gets better. She may be our best shot at winning the White House in 2012, but we do well to recognize her current limitations.
Instead of running for President in 2012, Palin's greatest impact may be as a media personality. With a TV talk show, she could become as influential on public opinion as Oprah and Limbaugh are. Palin might even move American culture to the Right, something that she or any other conservative would be unlikely to accomplish as President.
In sum, I am a Palin supporter, but I am not sure that I support her for President. She may have a greater task before her than running for President in 2012.
Palin clearly is not naive or she wouldn’t be the most powerful conservative in America and the leading candidate in the Republican party for President.
Nobody could handle what she has handled in the last 17 months, yet here she is, on top, and unflustered, the key note speaker at the tea party convention no less.
Her many years of political experience seems to have served her well.
Palin’s naivete (she was surprised by Couric’s attitude, etc.) probably comes from her lack of experience and her relatively young age.
so you don’t want to side-by-side compare the resumes ?
I said as a Governor, she did more for her state than Reagan! By the way 40 years from now her state will probably be still GOP country. California has turned "loony left" pretty quick, HEY?
She was around 40 years old when she did more in 3 years than Reagan did in 8 years.
She may be more like Reagan than Reagan!
you simply identified yourself as a dunce
Why are you talking to me about old white men ? Just because I’m a Repub does not mean that I am a racist or sexist.
Please don’t do that.
I would be overjoyed to see Thomas Sowell as President, or anyone of his caliber. I’d vote for Michelle Bachmann, her confidence and control are convincing, though I have not seen her resume. Her manner of speech demonstrates the ability to think on her feat with minimal resorting to any “think time” delaying. I’ve seen Sarah vamp while she thinks.
I am speaking on merits, not physical characteristics. Again, her basic morality is great, and that is essential. She’s just not my number pick at this time. Well, I don’t have a number one pick at this time.
It is revealing that the standard that Palin is held up to, is the completed life of President Reagan.
Personally, I know that I prefer her to Nixon, Ford, H.W. Bush and George W. bush. I can even go back farther, Eisenhower for instance, maybe you guys can as well, or perhaps you would prefer Ford or Nixon or one of the others to a president Palin.
Outside of Reagan, I have never seen a conservative that is on top of the GOP primary process until now, usually we are stuck with remote, fantasy candidates that don’t stand a chance.
Who do you guys see as the conservative firebrand that can defeat a Mitt Romney and the liberal, Northeastern GOP machine?
Dick Morris likes her really well. He commented on Sarah on Greta. He thinks she is inspiring, with courage, confidence and smarts.
I take it you presume that I am not a Sarah supporter?
“She does not come across like an executive.
Clinton and Bush Jr. were a barely on this point, 0 is not worth discussing, Bush Sr. and Reagan had the executive confidence.”
This is what I was responding to. That she does not ‘come across like an executive’, and you didn’t think Clinton or W did either, when they and Poppy all had around 10 years of executive experience—as Palin has had.
So I presume you are talking about demeanor more than actual experience or accomplishment, and Reagan and Poppy were the two old white men among those compared. I would suggest that were Palin to have the presence of a typical male executive she wouldn’t have the power and potential that she has. And while you were chastising factmart for superficially looking at speechmaking and presence rather than executive accomplishment, it seemed that you were looking at executive ‘presence’ yourself.
If anything Reagan was overripe for the presidency by the time he held it, and somewhat past his prime. Palin, it appears, may be coming in on the upswing, still gaining in her powers. But opportunity and history can’t be micromanaged at this level, and so we may also be getting her at less than her absolute peak. CEOs are generally to be considered at prime age once they enter their 50s, so Palin would have the presidency from 2013 just a couple of years shy of that, whereas Reagan ascended to that role a couple of decades beyond that—and by his second term it really showed.
Will Palin be better served by speaking more often with a projection of ‘gravitas’? Probably so, and in the next three years I believe she will get that down. She mastered the style for mayor and for AK guv, now I believe she is finetuning it for the US presidency. But as factmart pointed out, she already has demonstrated speechmaking powers and charisma we haven’t seen since Reagan.
My comparison was between Reagan in his 1980 campaign and Palin today. Also, I am not sure that Romney is or would be as bad as you suppose. Romney and his allies were instrumental to Scott Brown’s campaign and its full embrace of tea party concerns. I expect Romney will do the same in his anticipated 2012 campaign and is likely to govern accordingly.
By come across as an exec, I meant that the capability makes the person have an easy confidence, it projects to everyone in the room.
If a bunch of diplomats are all in a room with Henry Kissinger, he knows what he is talking about, he knows he knows, and everyone else knows he knows. His words are spoken with calm confidence because of that, an us laymen see this polished presence.
Now if i’m elected President, I have to be the boss of people at that level. Of course, they know their fields better than i do, but if i am truly ready to be President, i can do a good job being manager anyway. mutual respect, openness - and so much so that i can focus on my President job while i manage them all. Do i have the guts to hire the best, or do i hire a not-so-good so I can feel more comfortable being the boss ? Done properly, the White House is supposed to be the big leagues.
It’s almost like I’m advocating that every president should have to have national-leadership-level diplomatic, business, economic, etc., experience in order to be allowed to run. I just don’t think our girl has enough of some of them. Take the new NJ governor, Christie, he would be in the same boat, just needs more broad experience.
The “presence” without the know-how hurts like the guy we have now.
‘Our girl’?
Palin has long executive experience, whereas your not-just-old-white-men examples of Sowell and Bachmann, laudable as they are, have essentially none.
I’d imagine you’d say Romney has what you’re talking about in spades, yet I want nothing to do with him in national office. Those with intelligence and without philosophical or other bias can see through Palin’s makeup to someone who is smart and steely.
That supposed ‘easy confidence’ to make people believe one knows what one’s talking about is about the only clear supposed virtue that Obama brought to the table, but those with intelligence and without philosophical or other bias saw through him in a minute.
I’m afraid you may be taken in by that professorial style of Kissinger or Obama, but fortunately enough big-stakes players recognize core beliefs and steady principles when across the table for them—even if they are held by a pretty woman.
And again, I fully expect Palin to adopt more of that gravitas affectation you seek, because on the national level enough people share your perspective for her to humor it. Far easier for her to add a dash of that than for a Romney to add core principles and charisma.
And you don't come across as anyone with even a modicum of sense.
Is that why she is leading in the polls right now, amongst likely Republican voters for 2012?
Your nonsense does not fit with the reality on the ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.