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.
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.