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 ...
And we know polls never change. How lame to use a poll as evidence of her inexperience. Fact is if Zero can convince people he had legit experience then Palin can easily do so as well.
The only downside is that after people realize how little zero really had...then it may actually hurt her as she doesn't have a heck of a lot more than zero does.
She has nothing that needs apologizing for. What she DOES have, in spades, is an army of like-minded enthusiasts.
McCain, Romney, and the other “compassionate conservatives” who utterly compromised their conservative ideals have apologists... and they need them.
Sarah Palin is the “winnowing fork”, separating the wheat from the chaff. People can’t help but have to choose a side. We know whose side she’s on, and we know whose side those who oppose her are on.
As for the Reagan comparisons - she’s not “the next Reagan” anymore than she’s the “next Margaret Thatcher”.
She’s the first “Sarah Palin”.
So Klein is gay?
I’m just saying. Gays. Unhinged about Palin.
Beginning to see a pattern.
What’s funny is imagining the gay mafia expending so much desperation drying to tear her down - and watching the exact opposite happen.
Looking at each other, hugging then as they tremble and whine:
“It’s not working Bruce, I need a hug!”
-
To be fair I don’t know klein is gay.
But then again, don’t know he’s not...
All we have to go on, is the reality check: what heterosexual American guy could get angry about Sarah Palin?
Well THAT contributed to the intellectual depth of the discussion.
**No matter what she does, her army of apologists will make excuses **
You’ve been in ITHACA too long... you need to visit some place more Conservative...like San FranSicko, or Minneapolis
“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.... “
I see that here, a lot. The disturbing thing I see is that any Palin thread here MUST be a love fest. Anyone who sees any flaws is immediately branded a DU infiltrator.
The great thing about conservatives versus liberals is that conservatives calmly and rationally discuss issues. In general conservatives will calmly try to reason with someone in an effort to get them to think clearly.
Not when it comes to Palin. Heck, I’m going to catch lots of flack for this post.
She is not a Reagan or a Thatcher, that is true enough. She is a lot like Elisabeth Hasselbeck on policy.
Did anyone catch the look of confusion and stunned dismay on Obama’s and Axelrod’s faces as Sarah
spun around
saw her opening
and ran toward HER goal?
In the words of Vince Lombardi, if you want to win, “Run to Daylight”
Thanks for proving my point. Rather than address the article's arguments and explain how they are mistaken. You went immediately for the "you're an out of touch liberal."
The simple fact of the matter is that I think Palin is great. I was an early advocate of her for McCain's VP slot, in fact.
However, there's a difference between support and enabling. Unless Palin comes out soon with an announcement that either (a) demonstrates she's taking on a new national role [ex: head of RNC or US Senate run]; or (b) makes clear that she's retiring from politics to be with her family [which is a perfectly legitimate decision], her decision is a baffling one. And it ill serves both her and the cause to pretend otherwise.
Sounds like Mr. Klein got his butt spanked here on FR.
Palin’s chief asset is the dearth of conservative Republicans.
Reagan the legend, the high water mark that never existed.
No, the point is that I'm a Palin supporter, NOT an enabler. I thinks she made a mistake her and it saddens me because I have great respect and affection for what she stands for and what she's accomplished.
Hunter 2012. More Reaganesque than Reagan.
I’d love to see the admin moderators start nuking Sara threads this week.
Sick to death of wading through them to find any that aren’t someones opinion of why she quit, why she shouldn’t be considered, why she should sue the blogger, NYT, Washingtonpost.
If Sara had a statement, that would be worth reading.
Yet another pundit who views Palin as just another pol with an eye on the White House. I’m convinced that’s not even on her scope right now.
You did catch the author's byline? The American Spectator. Hardly the New York Times or Vanity Fair.
Yeah I know, just being a smart a.
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.