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 ...
Palin wouldn't have appointed a RINO her Veep.
And the base consistently caves to the MSM/DNC/Hollywood/Academia war room.
You said you learned this from Palin posts...I learned this during “maccaca”.
How so?
Perfect.
You claimed you expect better from a candidate. But the candidate, Romney, you supported was a flipping RINO on numerous issues.
Thus your statement of expecting better is silly.
Actually, she has more than a little more experience; maybe almost the same amount as GWB had! (if you count the time she was in as Mayor of Wasilla) But nobody should deify anyone as the perfect conservative leader. They are human, and can still disappoint their followers!
Sarah could be a wonderful conservative leader, like R.Reagan and G.Bush were. But let them do anything, and slip off of the conservative pedestal just a little, some of their supporters will turn on them in a fury! Yes, they did it even to R.Reagan and G.Bush! Heck, people turned on G.Washington and J.Adams not a few years after their terms began!
People on here have already seemed to forget that G.Bush and Dick Cheney ever existed as national leaders! They’re still looking for a political “god” or “saint” to follow!
Anyone who has been paying attention can see that it’s very likely that she resigned because it’s the only way she can run in 2012.
Remember all those stories about Palin ‘snubbing’ Republican bigwigs and backing out of appearances? Remember the CPAC cancellation?
Her political enemies, both Dem and RINO in AK have been making her life miserable about leaving the state for political functions.
If, as a lame duck, she had gone on those trips, I have no doubt that they would have started impeachment proceedings, which REALLY would have killed her chances of wining the primary.
If she wants to run in 2012 and run against Zero’s laundered money network, she needs to start raising money about a week ago.
If she were to finish out her governorship, she would be tied to Alaska until January, 2011. That is FAR too late to start running for President in 2012 these days. Especially with Zero’s aforementioned illegal fund-raising games.
I suspect that this is the reasoning behind her resignation, which I predict will be old news that people are tired of hearing in say about a week. The ‘inside the beltway’ crowd and the policy wonks and RINOs have their panties in a bunch over this, but in the end, it doesn’t really make much of a difference. She was an extremely effective governor for the state and accomplished things that had been ‘in the works’ forever in just two years.
Right. Ronald Reagan was a conservative and so is Sarah Palin. Both Reagan and Palin WERE Governors. Beyond that, I see few similiarities. Reagan completed two full terms as Governor. Palin quitting before her first term was over with.
Btw, Michael Reagan also spoke highly of liberals Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney in the last race for the WH too. He even said Republicans should vote for either man, should they win the nomination.
In fact, didn't you endorse and support Giuliani for president? Or was it, Romney?
Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet over her resignation? She didn’t have a choice. Either finish out the term and don’t run in 2012, or resign and run in 2012.
George W Bush was governor of a state that has four cities (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin) that have bigger metropolitan populations than the entire state of Alaska. Texas has almost 30 million people. Alaska has just about 680K, it's only the 47th biggest state in the union, with a total budget of $2.9 billion. Texas has a budget approaching $170 billion.
It's a bit fanciful to claim that Palin has "maybe almost the same amount (experience) as GWB had".
curiosity: Yup. It's amazing how many Freepers fit this bill.
If I could surgically remove the anti-statist parts of Ron Paul from his moral equivalance parts, and attach them to Sarah Palin, I would be politically delighted.
But a Perfect Conservative? Hardly.
2012 is a long way down the road, but I think it’s doubtful that Palin will be able to rehab her image for the electorate that exists outside of FR in time for any sort of serious run at the Whitehouse.
Yeah, she's good at taking vague positions policy that are hard for anyone to disagree with, I'll give her that.
Seriously, is there a single politician who says he's for bigger government? Is there anyone who says he's against small business? Or for nationalized healthcare?
Sorry, but a few vague statements nearly everyone agrees with doesn't a cosnervative make.
A conservative fit for the presidency proposes specific policies that are based on conservative principles and then argues for them in a persuasive manner. I have yet to see Palin do that.
But who knows? Maybe she start doing that in a couple years. If she does, she'll earn my support.
She has a very strong stance against corruption in both business and government, and her record on this is further strengthened by going after corruption in both parties.
She deserves credit for that, I agree. It doesn't make her much of a conservative, however. Curruption is not a conservative or liberal issue.
I don’t believe GW was a very good conservative leader. He was great for the war and defending our nation, but so was FDR and Truman.
GW was a Republican first...and did things to help the party more so than help the cause (at least he thought he was helping).
There’s a big difference in motivation. Doing things to win political favor vs. doing what you believe is right and best for the country.
The Republican establishment is what got us Obama ;-)
Are you referring to the current president?
Nobody cares about any other Republican. Should she run as an independent, the Republican would finish third.
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.