Posted on 11/29/2010 8:04:05 AM PST by kingattax
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) praised former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) on Sunday, calling her an "incredible force" in American politics, but stopped short of calling her a parallel to former president Reagan.
"I think that anybody who has the visibility that Sarah has is obviously going to have some divisiveness," he said, adding that "a guy named Ronald Reagan used to be viewed by some as divisive."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Thank you for posting that. Please post it often.
Calling her a RINO is a political comment, and you are free to your opinion. Your comment that she is “She’s a low rent version of Gloria Steinem “ proves you are a screaming liberal, as only a liberal Romney supporter would use a term like that to describe their opposition.
I will remember your FR name and treat you like the scum you are.
Two major ways:
(1) Her executive experience is not quite the same - Reagan served two terms as the governor of a state with a population larger than that of a lot of European countries and she served less than one term as governor of a state with a population smaller than San Jose.
Their resumes prior to presidential runs are not identical.
(2) Reagan had a broad appeal to independents and created the "Reagan Democrat" - Palin has not been able to replicate this phenomenon: there are no Palin Democrats.
Yes it should be posted often, it annoys the liberino pds crowd, and that is always fun to watch. Even Michael Reagan thinks Palin is similar to his father, and his judgement of that is obviously much better than anyone else’s here on FR, pro or con Palin.
Likely though, the pds crowd today was the rds crowd in the 70’s and 80’s anyway.
Even Michael Reagan thinks Palin is similar to his father, and his judgement of that is obviously much better than anyone else’s here on FR, pro or con Palin.I didn't know that Michael said that, but I'm not surprised. Thanks for posting that.
The question I have about Sarah isn't whether or not she's capable of being one of the best presidents we've ever had (I do believe that would be the case if she could get in), it's whether or not she can break through the wall that the media, the left, and the "moderates" (such as here in FR) have built around her.
It's going to be tough. Very tough.
She might decide to not run at all but to keep her current role as Tea Party spokesperson and ranking Conservative At Large. I don't know. Whatever she chooses to do... she has my support.
She’s a woman, didn’t need a conversion to pro-life, and wouldn’t sign amnesty?
Remember, though, that when Reagan was her age he had none of those credentials. She needs a few more years to mature politically and to ad to her resume. Reagan didn’t become president until he was 68 or 69 years old. She has plenty of time (although the country might not...)
Here is where Michael Reagan compared Palin to his father:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28389
When you compare ideologies, Gov Palin does match up well with President Reagan.
If President Reagan were alive today, who do you believe he would be most likely to endorse from the current crop of Republican candidates?
Palin helped lead us to a history making 2010 mid-term election, the election would have looked a lot different if the 2008 veep candidate had instead set out to destroy her Presidential candidate; that would have dominated the election cycle, and would have strengthened Obama’s image as the reasonable choice when the public learned that the 2008 GOP ticket had only been a sham and that the Republican party was in total meltdown.
Your spamming with your message from thread to thread, only marks you as the troll that you are.
Of course.
However, she is not in a position to accumulate those credentials.
She resigned her only governorship - she will likely never be elected governor of AK again, and she will certainly never be elected governor of any larger, more nation-sized state.
The only executive position she apparently has any interest in is being President of the USA, and she has shown no interest in accumulating any further elected executive experience ahead of that goal.
She is focused on building her brand using innovative (for a politician) means: social media and reality TV.
Governor Palin was operating arguably the most powerful Governor's office though, the Alaskan Governor is one of the 2 or 3 most powerful Governor's offices in America, my understanding is that the state is more complex to run than it's number of people indicates.
I do love that with Palin, the standard for comparison is always Ronald Reagan, she is the only person that I know that we automatically think of Reagan when seeing her.
No one compares to Reagan because he is the father of our movement. Sarah shares a number of the traits that Reagan had. She is unapologetically conservative. She is articulate and has an ability to communicate directly to the people, and around the media. We have the benefit of viewing Reagan through the prism of a successful eight year legacy as President. There were major doubters inside and outside the GOP previous to 1980 that Reagan was electable, whether he was competent to be President, etc.
Where there is a difference is that he spent the better part of 20 years as a movement conservative advancing the cause before he ended up as our candidate. Sarah is new on the scene. If anything, I would say Sarah carries on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and has the opportunity to make a major impact in furthering his agenda.
Governor was the end of that road, and after the vice-Presidential run, she is running for President, Governor Palin has more experience than Mitt Romney, and more than many Presidential candidates.
More importantly for conservatives, is not whether we have found another Reagan resume, but whether we have found another Reagan, the man, it seems that we have in many ways. Governor Palin is the closest thing to Reagan that we have seen since, or before Reagan.
For almost 20 years we wondered if that Reagan tree, had produced any young, future, Republican politician fruit, Palin is proof that it did.
You gotta be Prez to be compared to Reagan.
Reagan has his reputation today largely because of what he did as President for the US and the world (tax cuts & economy, standing up to Russia, etc.)
Four months after Gov. Reagan was sworn in, he wiped the floor in a televised debate with Sen. Robert Kennedy, who was considered a top-notched debater. Palin did fairly well in a debate with Joe Biden, a total doofus, and had an excruciatingly bad performance with Katie Couric in which she could not name a Supreme Court decision (even though she herself was involved in one as Gov. Yes I know that RINO bitch Nicole Wallace set her up, but c'mon) . Reagan used to go out speak and debate constantly in open forums. She needs to show a lot more before people put her in the same category. I do agree with your point regarding ideology--she is saying all the right things, and is FAR younger than was Reagan at this stage. I hope she does not run in 2012 and continues to grow in stature. My wife and I were fans of her before she was named by McCain after watching knock-out interviews with Glenn Beck and Maria Bartiromo about energy. THAT is the Sarah Palin we need to see more of. And I think we will.
She does indeed have nine more weeks of experience in being a vice-Presidential candidate than Romney does.
Romney has a year and half more experience as an elected executive than she does.
But we're not really talking about Romney - who is not a conservative and not a very strong candidate.
We are talking about Reagan - and the main thing about Reagan is that he was a real conservative who was still able to win over a ton of Midwestern and even Northeastern Democrats - he won New York, New Jersey, Vermont and Massachusetts in 1980 despite the vote being split in those states by liberal Republican defector John Anderson. Reagan won in the Kennedy stronghold of South Boston.
Palin, who is - despite some of her critics' claims - also a real conservative, does not have that same crossover appeal.
That's the difference. She knows it. And that's what this whole Sarah Palin's Alaska/Facebook/Dancing With The Stars/Twitter/America By Heart book tour is all about.
“She does indeed have nine more weeks of experience in being a vice-Presidential candidate than Romney does.
Romney has a year and half more experience as an elected executive than she does.”
Nope. Remember that Palin was the elected mayor of a town before she was elected governor of AK. The only elective office that Romney has ever held was governor of MA. Palin also was on the town council of Wasilla before that. She has won more elections than Romney has.
Now, if you want to say Romney has more executive (not elected) experience, I’d definitely have to concede that point. Then again, Romney’s also about 20 years older, too. He has also NOT run a small business that I know of, just big ones. Palin’s family has a fishing business that Todd and Sarah have run for some time now, on top of all the rest. Sarah also seems to be doing quite well in building herself a small media franchise.
Palin has also done a LOT more for the GOP than Romney has done, especially if you adjust for party efforts not directly supporting them personally. Palin raises money and ground troops. Romney opens a checkbook.
I know it’s heresy here on FR, but I’m not anti-Romney per se. It’s just that there are so many BETTER possibilities. Can’t really argue with Romney’s financial acumen, but he fails on most of the social issues that are also very important.
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.