[EyeGuy]

Sarah Palin is 46.

Ronald Reagan was 46 in 1957.

I’d say the Sarah Palin of 2010, compares very favorably with Ronald Reagan circa 1957.

I have to believe The Gipper would wholeheartedly agree.

[goldstategop]

Reagan had a lot of accomplishments before he ran for Governor and he served TWO FULL terms. You’re embarrassing yourself, please. Palin isn’t in Reagan’s league. Not by a long shot.

[earlJam]

Sarah Palin is 46.
Ronald Reagan was 46 in 1957.
I’d say the Sarah Palin of 2010, compares very favorably with Ronald Reagan circa 1957.

I agree. And I would be willing to take a hard look at her in the year 2030, assuming she has that kind of staying power.

[Kirkwood]

Ronald Reagan was still a liberal democrat when he was 46. Sarah Palin’s ability to learn and establish her leadership skills has been nothing less than of amazing.

[70times7]

Sarah Palin is 46. Ronald Reagan was 46 in 1957. I’d say the Sarah Palin of 2010, compares very favorably with Ronald Reagan circa 1957.

Excellent! That means she has more than 18 years to: move to California, establish residency, be elected Governor, serve for eight years there and run it effectively, and then begin pursuit of the presidency.

I have to believe The Gipper would wholeheartedly agree.

Well then ask the palinesta (politely) who is holding the gun to your head to put it down. Otherwise, learn the difference between "have" and "want".

[curiosity]

I’d say the Sarah Palin of 2010, compares very favorably with Ronald Reagan circa 1957.

Perhaps. However, like the Palin today, Reagan wasn't ready to be president in 1957.

When she starts comparing favorably to the Reagan of 1980, let me know. Right now, there's absolutely no comparison.