Noonan: Mischievous Media Wants to Make Palin Face of GOP

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Why does Sarah Palin continue to receive so much media coverage? Peggy Noonan has a theory. The Wall Street Journal columnist believes the MSM is up to what she considers "mischief": attempting to make Sarah Palin the face of the Republican party.

Noonan propounded her premise during an appearance today on Morning Joe.

View video here.

[rintense]

This want to compare Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan is pointless. She isn't Ronald Reagan in a skirt. She's Sarah Palin in a skirt. I absolutely admire and hold Reagan in the highest regard. But he wasn't perfect. And I'm going to end all the speculation and say that Sarah Palin isn't either.

By continuing this exercise in futility, conservatives only hurt the cause, not help it. To say Sarah Palin is the next Reagan lessens both her potential legacy, as well as Reagan's. The reality is, there will never be another Ronnie. And it has nothing to do with conservative principles.

The future, however, is bright for Sarah Palin, for she has the undeniable opportunity to redefine American conservatism at a time when it is truly needed, just as Reagan did. Her legacy is still being written. Just think, in 25 years, we could very well be looking for the next Sarah Palin.

But if you are looking for a candidate who you will agree with 100%, you are setting yourself up for abject failure.

[roamer_1]

for she has the undeniable opportunity to redefine American conservatism at a time when it is truly needed, just as Reagan did.

If it is your intention, or hers, to redefine American Conservatism, it is you who are practicing an exercise in futility, and it is against that motive that I rise so strongly in dissent. Conservatism does *not* need redefining. As Reagan said, Conservatism is timeless. What we believe is true, and the people know it to be true. It rings like a bell.

What is truly needed is to return to what made the Republicans great. Return to Reagan Conservatism. Defining a "conservatism" to fit the Republican mold will not solve the problem, and neither will it staunch the flow of Conservatives abandoning the party for greener pastures.

That is why I asked if Palin could harness the typical 3 pillars of Conservatism, and beyond all the insults, and meager defenses, it turns out that we must redefine Conservatism to fit Palin?

That is *not* a plan for success. That is a plan of division.

[rintense]

Conservatism and Republicans are not mutually exclusive. You should know that. And you are also the one who is making the tie Palin must be like Reagan tie as well.

[roamer_1]

Conservatism and Republicans are not mutually exclusive. You should know that.

That is certainly true. This is a site which promotes Conservatism, not Republicanism, and my point precisely was to address the fact that Palin is hardly Conservative.

And you are also the one who is making the tie Palin must be like Reagan tie as well.

It is not I who is calling Palin Conservative. Quite the opposite- It is the others here who are calling her conservative, and drawing comparisons to Reagan... It is my position that she is more of a moderate with libertarian leanings, as my first post on the thread laid out: #225.

My only argument has been that Palin cannot harness the three pillars of Conservatism, and for that reason, should be rightly rejected.

Your position, which I replied to, suggests that Conservatism needs to be redefined. I take great exception to that remark. The problem all the way along has been the ongoing attempts to redefine Reagan's House, when the only palpable successes have come when it is honored. It is a fool's errand to go against it.