Posted on 07/06/2009 7:22:56 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[C]omparisons do a disservice to Reagan, who not only served two full terms as governor of California, but also spent decades studying the issues and immersing himself in conservative philosophy. His writings and radio commentaries make this abundantly clear. He proved people wrong because they objectively were wrong. This does not mean that whenever the media writes off or attacks a conservative politician that he or she is the next Reagan
****
to win and govern effectively you have to do more than "galvanize the party base" and "convince conservatives" -- you also have to convince independents and even some Democrats, as Reagan did [but] instead of going back to Alaska to gain more governing experience as many advised, Palin resigned after just two and a half years on the job. And there’s nothing to indicate that she has the slightest interest in boning up on policy. Honestly, what’s her incentive to study policy and do the boring task of governing? No matter what she does, her army of apologists will make excuses for her and lash out at those who dare to criticize her by accusing them of being liberal elitists who are threatened by her sheer awesomeness....
[N]one of this really matters if Palin intends to leave elective politics and become some sort of television or radio personality. My comments are only meant as a response to those who are still seriously suggesting her as a potential presidential candidate. Last October, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that only 35 percent of Americans thought Palin was qualified enough to be president, yet now her boosters expect us to believe that an additional nine months in office is all she needed to assauge Americans' concerns, allowing her to resign and prepare for a presidential run.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Gorby baby, is that you?
Yes yes and YES, MrB. She is the first “Sarah Palin.” Exactly what I was going to write.
Most people who strongly support her will continue to do so.
The question is how to overcome the 65% of the population who think she is too inexperienced to be President.
Governing for a full four-year term was the most obvious way to gain experience, as was the suggestion by some to run for the Senate (although I don’t personally think the Senate is a good launch point).
But she could gain experience through other means. It would have been easier if she could have gotten an appointment in a republican administration like a cabinet secretary; she could have taken over leadership in a foundation, and maybe she will.
It may be unfair, but Palin was defined by the media, and reality is what it is at this point. She has a difficult task ahead to convince a majority of America that she is ready to be President.
Sure, Obama wasn’t ready. But it is absurd to use him as an example, and the more he screws up the more people will be looking to NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE, which means that experience in many different arenas will be more critical in 2012 if we want to beat Obama.
I wouldn’t write her off, but she’s got some hard work to do, and since she’s hardly the only conservative in America today, I don’t see the point in unreasonable comparisons to Reagan, or hitching onto her wagon as the only hope for conservatism.
And no matter what she does those who are RINOS will back stab her and claim she is a) stupid; b)to inexperienced; and c) not like a real savvy politician ( eg McCain or Arlen)
I am suspicious of “ticket-punching” your way to career advancement. The truly great individuals have historically tended to blaze a new path. Another poster mentioned Teddy Roosevelt. He was a trailblazer. His nephew, FDR, slavishly followed Uncle Teddy’s career path to the WH (asst. sec. of Navy, Gov. of NY).
Sarah Palin has a chance to be great. Career politicians, analysts, and Media-types will point to her thin resume. Why wouldn’t they? And frankly, it’s where many voters will look when forming an opinion.
I wish her well, but I think that the Republican primary process is hopelessly stacked in favor of centrists. A guy like Romney (I’m just throwing his name out there), is going to persuade another values conservative to get in the race and cancel her out.
For this reason the Republican party needs to get rid of cross-over voting and open primarys. States that refuse should have their delegates stripped & the Republican party should institute a caucus to award delegates. It’s the only way to ensure that we don’t get another Democrat-lite, like John McCain, who will not vigously debate the underlying assumptions of the welfare state.
We need a candidate with the following:
1) NO amnesty. If we get a pro amnesty guy, the conservatives will not vote for POTUS....like they didn’t vote for McCain
2) tax cuts and credits for small business.
3) No global warming morons.
4) A fighter. The msm attacked Bush mercilessly, and Bush hid.
Uh, ever hear of Dwight D. Eisenhower? Petraeus is a dedicated Republican, believe me! He's been in the Army now 35 years and will soon be retiring and looking for other things to do...he also has earned a Ph.D. from Princeton so it's gonna be pretty hard for the elite media to pooh-pooh him as naive and under-educated as they did Palin.
“And therein lies the problem with this analysis. It assumes that the only way she can win is to “be like Reagan”, and follow his path exactly.”
That’s not what the author is saying at all. He is saying that Reagan was much better prepared, much better at understanding and articulating the conservative message. Palin doesn’t know the difference between conservatism and populism. She couldn’t answer questions that someone with an interest in politics should have been able to answer.
Do you know if that's really her twitter page? (shaking head)
I am not an Palin Apologist. I am a Palin Cult member. Get it right.
Lordy, I hope not. TD would by today’s standards be considered a McCain style Republican. He did much to enhance Washington and diminish the states’ and individuals’ rights
The word for today is; Authentic.
That’s right Sarah Palin is Authentic and we are lucky to have Ronald Reagan as a template and to learn from.
I think anyone over the age of 40ish can look to Ronald Reagan, his character, achievements and philosophy to build their own platform.
Is Sarah Palin Ronald Reagan? Of course not, no more so than anyone could be Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. But there you have it, people who are admired and looked to for how we should shape this country for our fellow country men, our family and ourselves.
We and I think Sarah feels the same way, intend to throw off the yoke of government, their deep intervention into our lives and their ridiculous assumption that the know what is best for the rest of and can spend our money for the good of everyone.
Never mind the fact that many aren’t even being charged an admission to the American Theme Park. In fact, their citizenship is being subsidized by checks from other citizens.
While others very existence is due in large part to the productive people who pay tremendous sums of money to keep the government machine afloat so they push their “progressive” agenda.
Every time I hear the word “progressive” I hear enslavement and that a person is beholden to the government.
Every time I hear “we are going to take some things away from you, for the good of everyone” I hear “From each according to his works, to each according to his needs”.
Enough!
You have gone too far. Your policies are about redistributing my money to people who cannot be bothered to get up off the couch and earn an honest day’s wages.
Enough!
You are out of bounds and seriously beyond the pale. That may be redundant but, so is a government that presumes to be my parent. I don’t need your permission to drive a vehicle, to buy a light bulb or sell a home (as is, stuff your green initiative)
I don’t live with parents anymore and I can do whatever I want.
You, that’s government people and bullshitcrats, have no right to reach into my pocket and give my money as subsidy or subsistence check. We have plenty of charities around I will decide who to give to, what cause to support and what cause I want to volunteer for.
I don’t need your medical assistance, which you say will necessarily need to be rationed. Your plan is Eugenicare and presumes a life to have a fixed dollar amount base on survival rates and presumed years left to live.
Well, you are wrong and you are an asshole.
Today I am celebrating my friend’s birthday. She turns 99 and she is a magnificent woman with more than 200 offspring. 2 1/2 years ago she broke her hip and spent the next year receiving 4 operations. The subsequent 3 were only necessary due a mistake by the doctor and her receiving a pin that was not pristine. The results were it came loose and introduced MRSA into her body.
Luckily and in no small part due to God’s grace, she is still with us and sharp as a Stileto. In fact, we will be dancing this evening but that will be after she cries for the gift of a very long life and tells us some stories. Some of those stories will be more than 90 years old.
Imagine, listening to someone who tells you things, from their point of view, with total clarity and recall, of events that shaped their lives more than 90 years ago!
That would not be possible under your plan, Eugenicare, because you would have written her life off, and even though her family can easily pay for the expensive operations that would have extended her life, you would make us criminals for doing so.
Help another human being with the resources at hand or having the ability to get those resources and just doing it, would make us criminals? Really?
From whom do construct your stupid argument that we would supposedly be stealing from?
You are assholes and if your plan does get approved you may rest assured their will be an American Haig style court and when we are through prosecuting each and everyone of you, your vile, communistic and God denying lives will be ruined.
Today my friend will receive more than 100 phone calls and will have 50 friends and family at her party.
Of course there would be more but she outlived everyone and more than 80% of her phone book is crossed out.
FU!
As I’ve said before, echoing Philip Hoffman’s character from “Charlie Wilson’s War”, most of the conservative commentariat are no Bill Buckleys, or even Bob Tyrrells...so let’s call it even.
The state-run media is irrelevant to me. I think Hasselbeck would win in a debate between the two.
I can’t support anyone that doesn’t voice clear opposition to Amnesty.
Ever read the part of NativeNewYorker's post where he said "right now"? Eisenhower was 50 years ago and was the hero of a popular, generation-defining war. Plus, it's worth pointing out, he was hardly a conservative champion. The guy basically was going to run for president one way or another and the Republicans gave him a better offer.
Here I was just thinking chauvinism is alive and well in the US. We may be ready for a black president, but we are not even close to being ready for a WOMAN president.
Good possibility.
Between Palin and Hasselbeck?
No matter what she does it’s not good enough for her detractors - both dem & rep.
I’m starting to think that what they are really afraid of is the Sarah has left or is in the process of leaving the Republican party and starting something new. She is shaking up the status quo and nobody likes change.
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.