Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin to meet Thatcher in upcoming London visit.
London Times ^ | 06/14/11 | Nico Hines

Posted on 06/05/2011 3:20:02 PM PDT by winoneforthegipper

Brace yourself London: #Palin is coming your way http://thetim.es/lx85ns (£)

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: dreamcometrue; ironlady; london; margaretthatcher; obama; palin; romney; thatcher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-177 next last
To: winoneforthegipper

Prayers for Baroness Thatcher, that she will remain healthy enough to be able to meet with Sarah. Woo Hoo for Sarah! Run, Sarah, Run!


141 posted on 06/05/2011 7:31:26 PM PDT by Jemian (One cannot have a media frenzy unless it is started by ... THE MEDIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winoneforthegipper

This news made me cry, too .. these two ladies need to meet quickly while Mrs. Thatcher still can. The torch is ready to be passed.


142 posted on 06/05/2011 7:43:36 PM PDT by CatDancer (I want to call Sarah Palin "Madame President". And I'm old. So hurry up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

What did Michael Reagan say against Palin???


143 posted on 06/05/2011 7:46:47 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Trains. Who'll remember the ones who only rode in them to die? Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: rintense

AGREED! Can’t wait - and, like others have said-—love to be a fly on the wall!


144 posted on 06/05/2011 7:50:54 PM PDT by NordP (Common Sense ConservaTEAves - Love of Country, Less Govt, Stop Spending, No Govt Run Health Care!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
What did Michael Reagan say against Palin???

From what I recall of it, he basically began parroting all of the well-worn PDS talking points about her, with a 'concern troll' attitude for flair.

Someone else may chime in with the specifics, but in a nutshell, he's now closer to being a detractor, rather than a supporter.

145 posted on 06/05/2011 8:05:19 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Last thing I see on google is that he defended the Tea Parties and Sarah against attacks from his goofy brother. I hope that this is wrong. You won’t ever hear Rush or Levin talking silly trash about her. Bob


146 posted on 06/05/2011 8:13:07 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Trains. Who'll remember the ones who only rode in them to die? Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

There are a lot of those across America. They are usually people who have become disenchanted with the main-line denominations. These “community” churches seem to them like safe “unauthoritative” places to worship. In some towns they become “the” place to belong.


147 posted on 06/05/2011 8:42:57 PM PDT by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
The passing of the torch? Maggie has been taking care of it since Ronnie went to his reward.

Someone else might have mentioned this upthread, but it is 7 years today that Ronald Reagan was promoted to Heaven--June 5, 2004.

148 posted on 06/05/2011 8:43:14 PM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
Last thing I see on google is that he defended the Tea Parties and Sarah against attacks from his goofy brother.

He can't let his libtard brother upstage him, now can he? I think he was just being reflexive, there.

In his own, self-determined commentary, he's been somewhat dismissive of Sarah in the last year or so.

149 posted on 06/05/2011 8:52:52 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
JP2 and Lech Walensa had AS MUCH to do with the wall coming down as Reagan and Thatcher.

And thank God Helmut Kohl was in charge in Germany during those days, he deserves some credit as well.

150 posted on 06/05/2011 8:57:58 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Maybe after she resigned, MR lost confidence in Sarah as a serious threat to BHO. If that’s his problem, he’ll be back on board soon, I hope. Just today, she said it was “noble” of Obama to “go down with the sinking ship”. Rhetoric doesn’t get any better than this, and I’m surely glad that she’s on MY side! Bob


151 posted on 06/05/2011 9:01:27 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Trains. Who'll remember the ones who only rode in them to die? Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
Maybe after she resigned, MR lost confidence in Sarah as a serious threat to BHO. If that’s his problem, he’ll be back on board soon, I hope.

I have no such hope for any of these so-called "friends" of ours in talk radio and the MSM.

90+% of them are still parroting the left-wing's anti-Palin talking points, and those who aren't, are expressing strong doubts that she will run, or if she does, that she stands any chance of winning the nomination, or of beating Obama.

Thankfully, the top tier conservative talk show hosts all agree that she's a force to be reckoned with, and has the potential to not only win the nomination, but to go on and trounce Obama in the general.

Rush, Levin, and Hannity, all sing a completely different tune than what I'm hearing out of the 'back-benchers'. Rush, in particular (and more recently, Levin) is a staunch Palin advocate and defender. Read between the lines of what he says, and it's pretty clear that she's his personal favorite to unseat Obama, and become the 45th president.

For what it's worth, Greta is also in the top tier camp, but she stands nearly alone as a talking head who gives Sarah a fair and unbiased hearing.

152 posted on 06/05/2011 9:19:54 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Perhaps Chris Wallace could be considered fair after Sunday’s interview and critique of it. I think that Michael Reagan, once the debates commence, will be back in her corner, but who knows? Rush and Levin have been virtual spokesmen for Palin during the last few weeks. THEY don’t want the left to choose our candidates.
Rush indicated that he had a tiff with one of his friends over Palin recently. It’s fair, I think, for some to believe that she is “damaged goods”. But then when I hear her cogently and cleverly express solid principles every day, I tend to think that it won’t be difficult for her to win fair-minded people over to her side.
Her caricature has low ratings. The real Sarah impresses more and more folks each day. I think that we’ll soon be calling her “45”. Bob


153 posted on 06/05/2011 9:34:23 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Trains. Who'll remember the ones who only rode in them to die? Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: All

Interesting post from (C4P....”Technopeasant”)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

I posted on this topic earlier but let me elaborate. Two keys events happened in early May 2011 which might have changed the course of American history.

On May 1, 2011, five weeks ago, the news came down late on Sunday evening that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Once it was officially confirmed a few days later, President Obama’s overall job approval number soared and as well as his foreign affairs rating. His people knew that Obama’s job approval on his handling of the economy, the budget deficit, fiscal and monetary policy would not immediately follow suit but I think anticipated his domestic poll numbers would show signs of moving out of the doldrums by the end of May, feeling that the American people would be caught up in the euphoria of the BL killing to at least suspend their anger or antagonism towards Obama on what the media refers to as “pocketbook issues”. In turn this would give another “rocket” boost to his overall approval number and in turn his re-elect number and take Obama into the mid 50’s range in approval and in the high 40’s in his re-elect number from which he could then leverage over the course of the next 17 months to gain another 2-3 % in his re-elect number to sail to re-election.

About two weeks later, on May 14, 2011, Mike Huckabee, who had told the world about 3 and 1/2 months before he would NOT be announcing his presidential plans until the “latter part” of summer, apparently had a change of heart or mind and decided to move up his timetable and tell the world his plans. Prior to his announcement, most polls had shown Huck to be first or second in national polls and first or second in most state polls with most pundits predicting if Huckabee did run that he would be a serious player in the 2012 GOP presidential race. Catching some political watchers off-guard (not myself or most people at C4P due to firelight’s inside information) despite the highly favorable poll numbers, Mike Huckabee bowed out of the 2012 race throwing the race into temporary chaos and the status of each candidate into complete discombobulation or into a state of acute uncertainty.

I need not bore you again with the difference in poll numbers released by PPP on May 10th with Huckabee in the race vs the June 2 national poll with Huck no longer in the mix except to say that there was merit in the extensive political anxiety or uneasiness brought about by Huckabee’s departure as many candidates saw their poll numbers either increase exponentially or decrease dramatically over a period of just 3 weeks.

Now let’s merge these two events together and here is what I think happened. Sometime around the week of May 15-21, I believe the Obama war room (OWR) and even maybe with Obama himself present huddled together to brainstorm certain possibilities regarding the significance of both events and one of those scenarios they looked at but hoped would not unfold was Obama’s poll numbers stagnating after his initial boost in fortune from the BL killing and not getting the secondary boost from voters feeling more kindly towards him on the economy and at the same time Sarah Palin getting a major boost in GOP primary support due to Huckabee leaving the race.

One thing you have to remember PPP was not the first poll post-Huckabee to show Palin surging and being virtually within thhe margin of error tied with Romney or at least securely entrenched in second place in the horse race. So the Obama war room most likely had a general idea of what was happening in the GOP presidential race (Romney losing conservative support and Palin gaining among conservatives especially among those self-identifying as VERY CONSERVATIVE). And once the OWR realized the above, that Obama’s approval number had plateaued in the high 40’s with his re-elect number still being no better than 45% and Palin finally beginning to hit her stride despite not having thrown her hat into the ring yet, I believe they decided to perhaps contemplate changing their political strategy fundamentally towards dealing with Sarah Palin.

For the last 2+ years or even going back to the 2008 election, the Obama WH has run two parallel political strategies in their attempt to take down Sarah Palin: from the WH to virtually ignore her despite her ongoing attacks on Obama and his radical agenda (Sarah Palin in an interview with Greta Van Susteren even hinted at that when she suggested that “President Obama doesn’t know me from Adam”) and for the MSM to continually deny her the opportunity to further legitimize her political credentials and worthiness through a steady stream of smears, ridicule and vituperation. The WH even went so far as to not attack Palin in the lead-up to the 2010 midterms knowing full well she was mobilizing TP supporters, helping to get TP type candidates to win their primaries and to finally helping to maximize conservative turnout that would prove disastrous to the Democrats in both the House and the Senate as well in state houses and governor races nationwide. And because of that, the MSM was largely ineffective in their attempts to diminish Palin in the eyes of conservatives and Republicans. In other words was the WH so obsessed with not giving Palin any window of opportunity to further enhance her political status to protect Obama’s re-election bid that they were willing to throw many Democrats under the bus? I can’t prove it but the thought has definitely crossed my mind.

Now to present day. I think about two weeks ago the decision was made by the Obama WH in collusion with the “state-run media” (MSM) to put out a trial balloon to signal a change in strategy regarding Sarah Palin. And that change in strategy imho involved acknowledging that Sarah Palin could win the GOP nomination and/or beat Obama in 2012 thus further legitimizing Palin, but at the same time paving the way for a new strategy of demonization, running over the next 17 months against the newly legitimized Sarah Palin resulting in a campaign of fear, terror, disinformation and propaganda full of daily demagoguery of Palin foisted on the American people to warn the nation of the dire consequences of Sarah Palin winning the 2012 election and that if you didn’t want armaggedon to occur that they dare not risk changing horses in midstream (the 1864 Abraham Lincoln strategy) but instead embrace “the devil they did know” instead of the devil they didn’t know.

And on the broadcast last week by Andrew Sullivan proclaiming on the Chris Matthews show that Palin could beat Obama in 2012, soon to be echoed by fellow panelist Leftist Joe Klein who invoked Carter and Reagan, and then to be followed up by Howard Dean the other day suggesting that Palin could beat Obama, the Donna Brazile op-ed singing the praises of Palin’s political skills and finally Jan Crawford of CBS writing that “Sarah Palin is a seasoned executive more than qualified to be President” what you have are several trial balloons launched to ready the fear scenario once it becomes more apparent Palin will win the nomination.

But for the WH to even consider such a fundamental change in strategy so early in this election cycle suggests to me they don’t think Romney will be able to beat Palin and that the de-legitimization strategy of the past 2+ years has simply not worked to stop Palin in her tracks. Once Palin gains the nomination she will be seen as a much more serious political figure than she is now. The OWR is not stupid. Why start to demonize Palin only after she win the nomination? Instead let’s assume she will win the nomination and use the additional months to fine-tune our strategy and muster the resources necessary to “go nuclear” on Palin.

And if Romney wins, we can always pull off the shelf our Romney strategy of demonizing him to evangelicals and conservatives and hanging him with the Romneycare albatross causing a third party to arise, allowing Obama to sail the victory coming up the middle.

Bottom line: Obama, his war room and the MSM are becoming more and more convinced (especially after the first leg of the national bus tour) that Palin is going to win the GOP nomination. Don’t be fooled on who they say publicly is the most dangerous GOP candidate to Obama’s re-election bid. I certainly won’t be. Will you?


154 posted on 06/05/2011 10:06:30 PM PDT by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

MR a couple of weeks ago had a column out somewhere comparing Rick Perry to Reagan.


155 posted on 06/05/2011 10:26:18 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: lonevoice

She’s an intellectual genius


156 posted on 06/05/2011 11:12:04 PM PDT by SarahPalinForPresident2012 (She's runnin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: exit82
Someone else might have mentioned this upthread, but it is 7 years today that Ronald Reagan was promoted to Heaven--June 5, 2004.

Thank you for the reminder.

It doesn't seem that long.

157 posted on 06/06/2011 1:01:19 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. -- John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Ever notice that homo Charles K never suggests anybody else get educated?


158 posted on 06/06/2011 6:08:56 AM PDT by Friendofgeorge (SARAH PALIN 2012 OR BUST, SARAH PALIN BEAUTIFUL INSIDE AND OUT, ALSO APPLE OF THE LORD`s EYE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
MR a couple of weeks ago had a column out somewhere comparing Rick Perry to Reagan.

If Michael Reagan is looking at Palin and Perry, and picks Perry as the one who most closely reminds him of his father, then he's shortsighted, and a very superficial thinker.

159 posted on 06/06/2011 7:04:08 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick
So tell us what really lies behind your hatred of Thatcher? There’s no way such a petty and now almost completely forgotten incident as the Grenada business can be behind such vitriol.

For my money, Grenada was the boldest thing Reagan ever did and arguably it turned the tide of the Cold War in Latin America. He bucked world opinion, elite opinion here, and did exactly the right thing. Our "closest ally" responded:

"This action will be seen as intervention by a western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime. I ask you to consider this in the context of our wider East-West relations and of the fact that we will be having in the next few days to present to our Parliament and people the siting of cruise missiles in this country. I cannot conceal that I am deeply disturbed by your latest communication."

So, forgive my "vitriol", but I never forgot that. I don't "hate" her, but I sure don't worship her. Also, we were darn lucky that Argentina didn't fall to the Castroites after the fall of the generals. But, Reagan kept his criticism quiet.

160 posted on 06/06/2011 7:08:52 AM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (Laws named after kids are tyrannical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-177 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson