[Windflier]

I like Sarah Palin. I think she's a thoroughly decent woman and a forceful advocate for the America we all want back. But Ronald Reagan she is not.

I don't think we do a disservice to The Gipper by comparing Sarah Palin to him. It's only a comparison. No one (that I know of) has said that she is his equal, but she bears such a striking resemblance to the man, that it's hard not to link the two.

Reagan had 20 years more seasoning on him when he ran for the presidency in 1980, than Sarah does today. Give her another 20 years, and she will likely be just as deep as he was then.

I see Palin as a Reagan disciple and heir of the first order, and one who has inculcated his (and the Founders') wisdom as well as we could ever hope to find in a presidential candidate.

It's these, and other similar attributes, that have caused me to give my full support to Governor Palin, should she decide to run.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

It's a comparison anyone is free to make, I just haven't seen anything that warrants it personally. As far as I'm concerned, Reagan was the greatest thinker and communicator since Churchill. I don't see that in Palin. Not now, not twenty years from now.

The post above describes Palin’s argumentation as thin and scattered. I think that description is spot-on. That's my main concern with her. It's also the antithesis of what Reagan was, even in the early days of his political life.