First of all, Ronald Reagan never, ever, had polls this utterly toxic.
FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)
Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.
Sarah Palin:
.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of
ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%
Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%
Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%
Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%
Secondly, Ronald Reagan knew his foreign policy and showed it:
In regards to foreign policy, Sarah Palin is totally clueless and painfully shows it.
See Post 45.
Sarah Palin: "In Libya, the U.S. should overthrow Gadhafi and then get out."
What about the fact that that would hand Libya over to the rebels that are highly infiltrated by al Qaeda?
Sarah Palin is not educated enough in the very basics of foreign affairs to have thought that far ahead.
"So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion. I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government" .... Sarah Palin in interview with Greta van Sustern
Good to hear from you.
The poll you've quoted (and have been relentlessly thumping, promulgating, posting, and generally shamelessly plugging for close to a couple of months now) is a sham.
Speaking of which, you seem to post the same stuff a lot.
I already debunked the poll here.
With respect to foreign policy? Palin has already explicitly modeled her foreign policy after Reagan's foreign policy, as she indicated in Going Rogue>. Furthermore, foreign policy has changed somewhat since Reagan's day: Russia is no longer an active existential threat in the way it was, but China is trying to become one. And Palin is right on the mark, as opposed to the educated enlightened auto-fellating globalists who sold out the US manufacturing base and defense industry to China for short-term gain. This is from the Wall Street Journal:
Sarah Palin was pounded by the media as a foreign-policy novice during last year's presidential campaign. But when it comes to the U.S. approach toward China, she has ideas worth listening to.
"Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow," the former Alaska governor and Republican nominee for the vice presidency told a Hong Kong audience yesterday. "Unfortunately that has not come to pass."
Mrs. Palin sees China's authoritarian nature as a security concern for the U.S. and its allies in Asia-Pacific, and she has a point. North Korea, Burma and other rogue regimes couldn't sustain themselves without Chinese support. Not to mention the hundreds of missiles Beijing has pointed at Taiwan and its navy's increasingly muscular attitude in the South China Sea. "How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India's rise?" she asked.
It's funny how you systematically misrepresent her qualifications by comparing her to Reagan: as though if you can make her seem inferior to Reagan in any one respect, everyone is obligated to go into a PDS trance and reject her candidacy out of hand immediately; upon pain of being labeled a "CULT MEMBER".
Those aren't the only two choices: merely the false horns of a dilemma on which you want to skewer supporters of Palin, in order to gain ground without any substance of your own.
Rational thought is not your strong suit; or else you are a mere shill, whore, and propagandist for parties unknown.
As for Libya? The entire hue and cry among everyone is that we cannot get bogged down in yet another war, that Bush's "nation-building" (with associated expense of an occupying force, and large numbers of troops maimed or killed by various guerilla tactics) is no longer tenable.
And of course, your argument is begging the question -- hasn't it been bandied about on FR that the entire round of uprisings (beginning in Egypt) was instigated by Obama's cronies? In other words, the comparison isn't valid, since under Palin, the uprisings wouldn't have happened.
Incidentally -- have you noticed that Palin's response largely agrees with John Bolton?
"Had we acted in those early days, we could have tipped the balance conclusively against Kadafi and this whole thing might be over," Bolton told hundreds of delegates over dinner in the ballroom of a downtown hotel. "Instead the president dithered, and he watched, and he waited, and he temporized." "In the course of his ruminations, he said Kadafi has got to go — and then he still didn't do anything about it — thus exposing the United States to an enormous credibility problem with our friends and allies, as well as our adversaries."
And hasn't he been one of Palin's main advisors?
Good luck calling *him* a dolt.
Nice try, though, troll.
Cheers!