Posted on 11/09/2010 12:19:01 PM PST by LaybackLenny
Sorry for the vanity, but did anyone see Megyn Kelly's interview with Michael Reagan in the noon (MST) hour? I've searched for a post here, as well as for a link to the interview at Fox News, to no avail. He was "handicapping" GOP Presidential contenders for 2012, and essentially seemed to put Huckabee at the head of the field, and basically said Sarah hasn't a chance because she's "too polarizing."
Palin has that effect on people also, once she got into the Governor’s office, she then became the most popular Governor in America.
Yep. No “compassionate conservative” he. That map shows the power of REAL conservatism.
Yes, a real conservatism can appeal to the entire country. So why do we continue to pick people that can only win in Kentucky and Utah?
Last I looked we hadn’t picked anyone yet. You know something I don’t?
I don’t think she’s that popular anymore in Alaska. The rest of the country certainly doesn’t feel that way despite their disgust at Obamanomics. If she’s going to be our nominee, I will have to vote for her over Obama but you and other Palin supporters will have to explain how she’s going to have a chance at beating Obama.
Because if she’s the nominee and loses in a landslide, you will not want to use the internet for the next 4 years.
I think what Michael Reagan meant by “too polarizing” is that the left and some moderates detest Palin as much the Palin fans here on FR love her. If she runs in 2012, she will draw out Dem voters who would otherwise have stayed home, just so they can vote against her. She motivates the left to go out and vote to keep her out of office.
The situation is just like Hilary Clinton’s position in 2008. You know we conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers to vote against Hilary, even if that meant voting for McLame. I know Dems who backed Obama instead of Hilary because they thought he wouldn’t draw as much opposition from the right.
I don’t think Michael Reagan’s “too polarizing” remark has anything to do with Palin’s positions as a conservative. He is not saying we should nominate a moderate. His new comment is consistent with the comment that she is Ronald in a skirt. She may be Ronald in a skirt but she will get out the Dem vote for the Dem candidate. She faces a much more difficult battle than another candidate.
Post #13 absolutely well said.
I was pointing out how universally loved she was in office as she became the most popular Governor in America, it was a response to you posting the map of Reagan’s reelection, just like Reagan, when Palin is in office she overcomes the media bashing and has the effect of uniting the people.
You trolls will have to figure out a way to keep the conservative with 82% republican approval from winning the primary against the other two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Because if Romney is the nominee and loses in a landslide, you will not want to use the internet for the next 4 years.
Ooooo. Well, that’s pretty scary. Guess I’ll dump Palin and throw in with the “Mitt ‘n’ Huck Finger in the Wind Minstrel Show.” Now THAT’s a winner from coast-to-coast. /sarc
Post-1988, the GOP is not going to nominate a candidate with clemency problems as bad as Michael Dukakis’. Let alone even worse. It’s simply not going to happen. Huck is done.
Well, Michael Reagan certainly remembers the media smears against his father. He also remembers that the smears never altered Reagan's personal negatives, only the perceptions about Reagan's qualifications. This is because Ronald Reagan had been a household name for decades before he ran for president. The public liked him.
In a strange sort of way, I think he may be saying that this is what Sarah Palin needs to overcome in the next 2 years -- the media-induced personal negatives. If that's true, I think he's right. I also think he's telling SP something she already knows.
We need a Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski, or perhaps a George Pataki as our nominee so that we don't turn-off Moderates and Independents. “Tax Hike” Mike is a fine choice, too.
It'll be a fair trade-off: new taxes and a trillion dollars in new “Compassionate” spending, but he'll probably be a Pro-Life President. Sounds like a good deal, yes?
No polarizers! Only folks who get along!
She only has to win the Electoral College! The fact that people in Mass,NY,Road Island,Delaware and California etc dislike her
BIG DEAL, we do not need them anyway!
The fact is, whoever wins the Republican nomination will be demonized and hated by these same folks. Only way you are going to find someone that will be acceptable to the States I mentioned, is if the nominee support infanticide etc.
Roll on down the Highway
This is what I call pre-wedding jitters. I mean, the ring is in the pocket and the invitations have been sent. This is no time to act like a spineless wimp.
Don’t need to click it. I’ve read it.
Woo-Hoo! You betcha ;)
Thanks for the link. Just damn, Michael, who got to you? He has definitely had a change of Heart. Too polarizing? Crap, any true conservative is going to be polarizing if you allow the left to define polarizing!
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.