Posted on 10/09/2010 2:18:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
At a reception and dinner attended by fifty conservative movers and shakers, Sarah Palin implicitly compared herself to President Ronald Reagan. At the same time she suggested that she is mulling a Presidential run in 2012.
According to Politico:
"Speaking to a group of well-connected Republicans at a private dinner in Florida this week, Sarah Palin implicitly addressed questions about her own electability by noting that critics also said Ronald Reagan couldn't win in 1980, three attendees told POLITICO.
"Palin, at an event organized by the conservative magazine Newsmax, told the right-wing crowd that those who don't have the same convictions will always say a true conservative can't win.
"Pointing out that the knock on Reagan was that he was also too far to the right, the former Alaska governor repeatedly invoked the 40th president and conservative icon, at one point citing the quotation he was most fond of: that America is a "shining city on a hill."
"'I think she sees herself as heir to Reagan,' said one attendee."
While just about every Republican politician invokes Ronald Reagan, just as Democrats like to invoke John Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt, Sarah Palin's implicit suggestion that she is the heir or even the second coming of Ronald Reagan would seem somewhat presumptuous, at least at first glance.
There are some parallels. Like Reagan, Palin was a state governor. Like Reagan, a large percentage of the liberal intelligentsia has labeled her, mistakenly, as somewhat dim. Like Reagan, she is beloved by many, hated by many more. Like Reagan, Palin is something of a media star.
There are differences, of course...
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
I cannot understand how we are watching what happens when someone not ready for that position, what damage that can cause (outside of the mere politics)...and yet we possibly may go that route with Palin.
No.
Oh, it bothers you when freepers bring up actual in-office positions of hers as opposed to political-celebrity words? Why would that be?
I can agree with you in regard to young leadership, turning into more under the job/position. However, my take, and I've seen plenty of leadership in my days, both good and bad. Is I don't have that same perspective as you, currently. I see Palin routinely looking to shoot back quick answers rather than taking time to 'think'. I see her leaving the Governorship as a calculated move, based on what was best for her...not necessarily what was the right thing to do. I see her and her family more and more literally looking obsessed with the need for 'attention'. By any and all means.
With all that said, between Palin, Newt, Romney and Huck (if that is the awful choices we are left with). I'd take Palin in a heartbeat and hope she grows into the job/position.
When she can deliver a speech without a “You betcha” or a “by gosh” I would consider listening. The homey BS sounds too cute by half. And agree with most of what I read.
______________________________________
It's more than that. Most if not all of the palin-adoration here is based on her words not her actual record on positions while she was in office.
Her support for lost was an action, a verifiable, in-escapable overt action; as was her quitting act. I'm sure that many here are anxious for us to forget her actual deeds while in office and focus only on her words as a celebrity.
oooohhh...what you said!
Like Ronald Wilson Reagan, (Ave Ronaldus Magnus!), the statement has been given: “I will run for President, if the people want me to run for President.”
The order has been given! GRIZZLIES UP!
You’re right. Hers is pimping 12 to 20 million. Reagan’s was only supposed to be 1.5 to 2M
You are arguing religion with a Moonie...it’s a fun way to kill time waiting for a plane but pretty futile here.
That's pretty much my take at the moment. She's just not "The One", but judged in comparison to our other current options she does come out on top.
Truthfully, I'd so love to see something remotely resembling a level playing field. Everyone with (R) after their name is so universally demonized by the media that considering the dimwitted gullibility of the average American, it is something of a surprise that Republicans ever occupy the White House.
Don't know if she used any "you betcha's" or "by golly's" but, by golly, those phrases don't bother me. Maybe that's because I grew up around down home phrases like that still use them today.
Sarah Palin is in the SAME position Ronald Reagan was in in 1978.
Only three people could have been elected prez in 1980—Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy or Reagan.
In 2012 there are only three people who can win—Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Sarah Palin.
That’s it. You are either with us or you are doomed to lose more ground and time to the Marxists.
DING DING DING DING. WE HAVE THE WINNER
Speeches mean NOTHING! Obama gives great speeches. Speaks eloquently. Palin can give a good speech. But in an interview with anyone other than Beck, or Hannity she sounds like she is not too swift. If Palin was 200lbs and not attractive she would NEVER have been picked as VP candidate. Never.
Now why is it if one says that she is not going to be president we are automatically called RINOS or liberal Romney supporters? Palin is a punchline to 60% of Americans. that is a fact that nothing will change. There are many more who are qualified to be our nominee. Ryan, Pence, Pawlenty, Jindal, Huckabee, Giuliani. She does herself no favors on her pro life defense. I am pro life and think it should not be leagal in ANY state. She brushes it off as a states right issue to look thoughtful and open minded. I guess she is saying that she is pro life, but it is ok in California if they like killing babies. That is more disingenious than Rudy saying he doesn’t like abortion, but has a problem telling a woman what to do with her body.
Nominating her will guarantee a RAT in the white house till 2016.
Exhibit #17, your honor, demonstrating that these folks, who call themselves conservatives, are in fact, a cult.
And in this particular case, dumb as a sack of rocks.
What a crock.
Reagan was the first president i ever voted for...and the ONLY one for whom I had any degree of affinity.
Palin is Reagan in that regard...she speaks, as he did, what all Americans think and would like to say.
As Reagan did, she walks the talk as well.
I look forward to casting my vote for her.
Best post of the thread.
You see what most others in this thread (even being the smart Freepers they are) miss entirely.
Sarah Palin does not need to be “another Reagan” any more than Margaret Thatcher needed to be (and was not).
Mrs. Thatcher was who _she_ was.
Political giants walk side-by-side, not in each others’ footsteps.
I was initially opposed to Palin when McCain first chose her. I specifically remember posting to this forum that she would do better to stay home and care for her kids than run for high office. Boy, was I an @@@hole insofar as that is concerned.
But I’ve come around. Like you, I see for who — and what — she is.
Next to her, every other Republican would-be candidate is a pipsqueak. Every one, a non-entity, a wannabe.
EVERY one of them.
Don’t you actually have to have accomplished something first?
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.