Replies

I'm late to this discussion, but when I read your post I had to reply.

Are you

actually

comparing Reagan's qualifications to Palin's? Do you really believe that being Governor of California, the 8th largest economy in the world for two terms (8 yrs) is the same as being Governor of Alaska for three years? I don't think that is the same at all. Reagan was also president of the screen actors guild and had circulated nationally for quite a while, something Palin is doing, to a lesser extent, now. I think she is more qualified than Barry, but that is not saying a lot.

I have seen names like DeMint, Christie and Jindal, and I like all three. The problem is that while DeMint has some management experience, his primary experience has been in the house and senate. That may convince many in America, but I prefer someone who actually has run more than campaigns. Christie has been in office only a short while - long enough to make an impression, but not long enough to prove what he can do. Jindal has a very impressive background. And while he has had to deal with quite a bit in LA, I think it has only been 2 years. I do not like Romney. Huckabee - maybee - I will wait and see, and the same for Palin.

She was a successful, popular, and effective Governor of Alaska. She's had successful experience as head of an executive branch of government and has demonstrated she can do a good job. There are quite a few similarities with Reagan not to mention the fact that they said he wasn't qualified either.

People will vote for whomever they want, but I'm tired of hearing the same phony mantra that she's not qualified.