Well gee, we all know that Reagan was not perfect. What I question is the strategy that some use that diminishes one person to justify the elevation of a person who has far fewer credentials and less of a track record.
Eight years as Governor of the most populated and largest economy in the US as opposed to person who served 32 months as Governor of one of the least populated states?
How is using this strategy a winning strategy? I would even go as far as to say Sarah Palin would not use this as a winning marketing strategy. One thing she is? good at marketing.
Even the democrats never resorted to dissing FDR for Obama. He is their “fetish”. Instead they created a whole new persona for him. The messianic uniter who is oh so eloquent.
Of course, I've never bought into comparing Reagan to Palin, or Reagan to anyone. To do so diminishes his legacy, and boxes Sarah or whoever into a ridiculous comparison.
The reality is this: Reagan would not have become President for two terms if people believed in his baggage, or if they only saw the 'unconservative' things he did, if they knew he'd grant amnesty, etc.
Did his record indicate he'd grant amnesty?
Yet, so many say he became more and more conservative with time and experience. Regardless of what you believe, Reagan as President was a joke for at least two years into his Presidency until he earned his stripes. A divorced actor with a dysfunctional family who used folksy humor all the time? He was hammered before, during, and after his Presidency for these things.
He was not perfect.
Nor is Palin.
Nor is anyone else who may or may not run for President.
America took a chance with a man who had similar baggage and comparable conservative views as Palin. Yet, you would rather dismiss what's possible with Palin than accept reality that she *could* be a great President, much like Reagan *became*, all in spite of the obstacles in from of him.
I'd rather roll the dice with Palin than any other person that might run.