The Faux Reaganites and Sarah Palin

Whenever Sarah Palin's name is mentioned in the same sentence as Ronald Reagan's, there is a screech of indignation, which generally comes from people who only glommed themselves onto Reagan AFTER he became President. These people used Reagan to advance their own careers, but now set themselves up as experts on all things Reagan and arbiters of who can, and who cannot, be fairly compared to the Gipper. [For example, you never hear such criticisms voiced by those who actually campaigned for Reagan in 1976 like Mark Levin or the "St. Paul of the Conservative Movement", Rush Limbaugh who came after Reagan, but whose fidelity to Reaganism is beyond cavil]

I am referring, of course, to the kerfuffle over "Sarah Palin's Alaska" and the scorn it has received as a "reality show" that is not Presidential, from the likes of Karl Rove, a Bushie who never supported Reagan and, to the extent he did anything, probably worked against him in 1980. Karl Rove is a charter member of the Bush dynasty, which presided over the deconstruction of the great Reagan coalition from 1988 until 2008. As Palin and the Tea Party burst onto the scene to revive and reinvigorate both conservatism and the GOP, the Bush surrogates like Rove and Michael Gerson and others have been quick to slam them both as "lacking gravitas" or "unsophisticated".

In response to the Rovian smear, Palin observed quite correctly that the same species of canard had been aimed at Ronald Reagan, who was derided as an actor who appeared in such movies as Bedtime for Bonzo, co-starring a chimp. In the 1980 campaign, this was a favorite attack against Reagan, employed by (guess who?) George Bush, who used it as a principal piece of evidence to prove that Reagan lacked the "gravitas" (another word borrowed by the serpentine Rove) to be President.

Enter Peggy Noonan, late of the Obama campaign and the lower East Side of Manhattan, to remind us all (as if we needed to be reminded) that Reagan was much more than an actor. He was a "great man", according to Noonan, and Palin is a "nincompoop". Reagan, you see, had been the president of the Screen Actors Guild and served TWO FULL TERMS as governor of California. He had built the conservative movement and had nearly defeated an incumbent President. What Noonan doesn't say is that she was nowhere to be found until well after Reagan became President. She drafted speeches for the Gipper who, I daresay, didn't really need her services. She takes abundant credit for the Challenger speech and for Pointe du Hoc, but a wordsmith like Reagan undoubtedly only needed her for very rough drafts. His columns and radio addresses were outstanding long before Noonan ever darkened his door.

But back to Reagan. What was it that commended Reagan to those of us who supported him for so long, even going back to 1968, when he made his first run for President (and came closer than many people realize to winning the 1968 nomination)? Well, it wasn't principally his time as SAG President, although many of us admired how he stood up to Communists there. This was not a difficult or unusual position to take in the 1950s. What about his two terms as Governor of California? Again, these were never really examined in any detail in his Presidential campaigns and were never really his chief selling point. (Indeed, the state budget doubled under Reagan and he signed a steeply progressive tax increase, as well as a liberal abortion law, which he bitterly regretted; His tenure as governor was basically overlooked by most conservatives and, to the extent it diverged from orthodoxy, it was blamed on his predecessor, Pat Brown, or written off to the giant idiosyncrasy that is California).

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Ronald-Reagan-Governor-of-california.html

But Noonan isn't completely wrong. In 1976, Reagan did challenge the Establishment by challenging a sitting President of his own party. And he did build the modern conservative movement.

And Palin? She challenged the same Establishment in 2010. And she is RE-building the conservative movement, the original House of Reagan, so demoralized and decimated by Bush, Rove and company who now have the temerity to give her and us their advice.

Well, then, if not his experience, what were the features that commended Reagan to conservatives as a more or less ideal candidate for President? I believe there are three salient features which Reagan possessed, and which he coincidentally shares with Sarah Palin, that made him such a formidable candidate and such a great President.

First, Reagan had charisma, which is defined as a trait found in individuals whose personalities are characterized by a powerful charm and magnetism (attractiveness). Palin has charisma as well. It is difficult to define but it is a solid gold attribute in a politician and relatively rare among the breed. In my own lifetime, I have seen it in JFK and Reagan but it has been conspicuously absent in most politicians even those who, like Nixon and the Bushes, have attained high office. Reagan and JFK could light up a room, in effect fill it, just by entering. Palin has exactly the same effect.

Second, Reagan had a unique ability to articulate conservative principles in a way that ordinary Americans understood and to inspire and energize voters. Reagan's speech in 1964 in support of Goldwater was more significant to his future success as a candidate for President, and as President, than anything he did in his eight years as Governor. His contributions to the lexicon ("evil empire" and "we win; they lose") are the stuff of legends. Palin shares this ability with the Gipper, and her ability to drive the debate by brilliantly articulating what is at stake, be it the death panels in ObamaCare or the threat to our currency posed by printing money willy nilly, the so-called "quantitative easing"or QE 2.

What about the third, perhaps the most important, of the three traits, courage? Let's take a little walk down memory lane.

Courage is perhaps the rarest of character traits for politicians. But it is the single attribute which binds Reagan and Palin most closely. And the two major elections which immediately preceded their White House runs (assuming I am correct that she runs in 2012) are proof positive that when it comes to political courage, Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin are in a class by themselves.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged the Establishment. Although he failed to secure the nomination for President in 1976, he laid the groundwork for his successful run in 1980. For his trouble, Reagan was blamed for Ford's loss to Jimmy Carter, and he earned the enmity of the Establishment which tried mightily to defeat him in 1980 and only grudgingly tolerated him while he was President.

In 2010, Sarah Palin challenged the Establishment, endorsing numerous Tea Party candidates, many of whom were successful, but some of whom were not. Like Reagan, she struck a blow at the DC establishment, but she did not vanquish it totally. It will try to exact a measure of revenge by blaming Palin for losses in the Senate while failing to credit her for the numerous successes not just in the Senate but in the House and in the Governorships (where she was 7 for 8). As Reagan laid the groundwork for his Presidential run in the unsuccessful 1976 bid, she has laid the groundwork for a 2012 run with a much more successful, although not complete, smashing of the Establishment in the 2010 midterms.

Both Reagan and Palin knew they would be savaged for their actions in 1976 and 2010, respectively. Yet both had the courage to do it because they knew it was both the right thing to do, and because they took the long view. Without 1976, there would have been no 1980 landslide. And without the great victories in the 2010 midterms, and their success in moving not just the country but the Republican caucus to the right, there could be no successful Palin run for the Presidency in 2012.

The keys to Reagan's near miss against Ford in 1976 as well as to his landslide victories and to his great legislative and international successes were his charisma, communications skills and, most especially, his courage. His successes had far less to do with his tenure as Governor. I suspect he sensed this early on, since he tried to wrest the presidential nomination away from Richard Nixon in the spring of 1968 and at the Convention in Miami Beach after barely a year as Governor. Even after only 18 months as governor, I imagine Reagan realized that eight years of bickering with Jess Unruh and the California Assembly had its limits as far as experience was concerned. Ronald Reagan was at best a fairly good governor of California (which is, perhaps the best one can expect of any governor of California) but he was a spectacularly successful President of the United States.

Palin's own tenure as governor is far briefer than Reagan's, but it was marked by many accomplishments that eluded the Gipper during his much longer tenure in Sacramento, including a reduction in state spending, slashing earmarks, reforming energy policy and forcing the big oil companies to drill on state leased land and rebating the royalties to the Alaska taxpayers. After the 2008 election, she tried to return to her duties as governor, but Obama's henchmen were waiting in Alaska to execute a preemptive strike on her 2012 presidential ambitions with a flurry of bogus ethics complaints. Instead, she preemptively struck THEM, resigning as Governor and going national, wreaking havoc on Obama's agenda and dealing both the Democrats and their GOP Establishment confreres a body blow in the 2010 midterms. File Obama's Alaska "bogus ethics complaint" strategy under the header: "Hoisted by your own petard."

As successful as Palin was as Governor, her tenure in Juneau is not the principal reason she is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination for President, any more than Reagan's tenure in Sacramento was the principal reason he garnered support. Like Reagan, she has the ability to lead and to inspire, to add to the GOP coalition so decimated by the Roves and the Bushes for the last 20 years. Like Reagan, she is the bete noir of the Establishment, which will employ all means fair and unfair, to take her out. And like Reagan, she has the courage to take on the Establishment, regardless of the costs, and to beat them.

Oh, one more thing. Lyn Nofziger once said of Reagan, "He was the most competitive [person] I ever saw." (although Nofziger used another, more colorful word in place of "person", undoubtedly for emphasis). When Palin remarked last week that, if she runs, she will be "in it to win it", I thought of Nofziger's remark. Yet one more similarity between the Gipper and Sarah Barracuda.

Perhaps from the world of conservatism you inhabit where Amnesty, mortgage bailouts, TARP, and LOST are “conservative”. In mine, they are all left wing tripe.

Your precious DH voted for the Prescription Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind, the Auto Bailout and the Freddie and Fannie Bailout.

LOL!

You lying chump. I showed you EXACTLY the vote that allowed the f/f bailout into the unrelated House legislation. His vote was NO and you know it.

BTW, did your precious call for the repeal of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit yet? How about NCLB? Last time I saw it, she was praising it. BTW, Hunter is on record as wanting to ELIMINATE the Dept of Ed altogether (DOE too). OF course, you knew that too.

Why don’t you tell us which departments and agencies Precious would eliminate. Then why don’t you tell us which policies she’s laid out that deviate from the GOP mainstream.

I’ll be waiting *crickets*

You lying chump. I showed you EXACTLY the vote that allowed the f/f bailout into the unrelated House legislation. His vote was NO and you know it.

You defend your lie by lying again. I specifically told you that the vote you showed me was only a one chamber vote. Both chambers were working on separate amendments. Both chambers didn't vote on the same Freddie and Fannie bailout amendment to unrelated House legislation until the vote that I showed you.

You known Uri-Ant, when you lie it's bad enough but when you lie to yourself, you become a pathetic liar.

It would take a mallet pounding on your forehead to make you understand how legislation works. The SENATE AMENDMENT WAS THE F/F BAILOUT, retard.

Careful Piss Bug. Anything more than lightly touching a pin to your stupid, ant-sized, brainless forehead, would result in a tiny, catastrophic splat.

(How many times have I said to you), both chambers have to vote on the same piece of legislation, for it to become law you brainless piss bug.

You have never, NEVER demonstrated the final vote, that both chambers voted on, for the Fannie and Freddie bailout.

How about we apply this test to the prospective nominees:
Are they in the race because they want to be president, or are they in the race to do things which they are sure will promote the general welfare in the long run? What is their signature issue, and what gives us reason to believe that they will be up to the task?
Because that's what Reagan wanted to do, and did. He wasn't there because being in politics was an opportunity. He was there to get the country going again and whip inflation, which he accomplished with Reagan Kemp Roth. And he was there to tame the Energy crisis, which he did with his dealings with the Saudis and with price deregulation. And he was there to transcend communism. He did all three, against determined domestic opposition - including all of journalism without Fox News Channel and the internet.

All of them will say that they are the latter, of course - but it seems clear to me that Romney is in the race because he grew up expecting to be president because his father was a contender before him. Why is Huckabee running, what is his signature issue? Why are any of them running?
I think we know that Palin, at least, got into politics to fix things that bothered her, after she had already had a life. At the federal level, her thing is the economy in general and the energy basis thereof in particular. And freedom.
I think we should not only have term limits, we should also have age minimums so that nobody entered "public service" as a career because was a business opportunity.

I specifically told you that the vote you showed me was only a one chamber vote

The House only gets to vote in the House. They are ALL one chamber votes.

You have never, NEVER demonstrated the final vote, that both chambers voted on, for the Fannie and Freddie bailout.

The "final vote" ALSO was an amendment to the now gargantuan bill. And there was no certainty or reason to believe that it would be a "final vote" at all. The Senate could have rejected the house amendment and added who knows what else into the bill.

There was only one vote that took the House Bill, a bill unrelated to bailing out F&F, and added the "Senate Amendment" - the F&F bailout - into it. Hunter voted NO

The House only gets to vote in the House. They are ALL one chamber votes.

Both chambers have to vote "yes" on the same exact language for it to become law.

There was only one vote that took the House Bill, a bill unrelated to bailing out F&F, and added the "Senate Amendment" - the F&F bailout - into it. Hunter voted NO.

There were TWO votes, one in each chamber, each on the same language, that made the F&F Bailout, law.

Link to that final vote in each chamber, and then document Hunter's vote of "no" in the House vote.

You have never, over all these months done that. The last time you tried to do that, you were incorrect.

(Take your time, I'll look for it when I get back).

There were TWO votes, one in each chamber, each on the same language, that made the F&F Bailout, law.
Link to that final vote in each chamber, and then document Hunter's vote of "no" in that House vote.

You have never, over all these months done that. The last time you tried to do that, you were incorrect.

It’s useless arguing with someone who does not know the difference between voting on an amendment and voting “for” a bill.

Bzzzzt!

Assignment Fail!

LOL!

Wrong. THere were multiple votes for multiple amendments. At some point, the Senate agreed not to make any more amendments and agreed to the ‘final’ house amendments, sending it to the Prez.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE AMENDMENT THAT ADDED THE F&F BAILOUT TO THE BILL. ONLY ONE. IT PASSED. HUNTER VOTED NAY.

There were TWO votes, one in each chamber, each on the same language, that made the F&F Bailout, law.

Wrong. THere were multiple votes for multiple amendments.

Argh!

Read my full sentence. I didn't say that there weren't multiple votes on multiple amendments. I said that there were two votes that made the F&F bailout, law.

At some point, the Senate agreed not to make any more amendments and agreed to the ‘final’ house amendments, sending it to the Prez. HERE WAS ONLY ONE AMENDMENT THAT ADDED THE F&F BAILOUT TO THE BILL. ONLY ONE. IT PASSED. HUNTER VOTED NAY.

Posting to you now for the skateyeighth time...

Link to the final vote, of the same language, in each chamber, that made the bailout law, and then document Hunter's vote of "no" in the House's vote.

Reagan was great long before he became prez.

Among those who got their opinion in print, that was a minority view back in 1980. And it was some years after he was out of office before any Dem would begrudge him any credit.

If greatness is calculated by achievements, then Reagan wasn't 'great' until he was prez. Churchill was prescient when he was a back-bencher, but became seen as a 'great man' due to his achievements as Prime Minister. Had he never made PM, and all his warnings been ignored, he'd have just been another footnote in the history books with a reference to Cassandra.

Had Reagan never made prez, he might have been 'great' in your eyes, but would have at best made the 'had potential' list in the history books.

Not so sure about that. Even if not president, he gave some of the finest speeches on conservatism in history. The linked speech was from 1964. So even if he did not run for president, he would still be considered the leading intellectual of the modern conservative movement. And his two terms as CA gov were solid as well.

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.