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 ...
Exactly, Kevin. Hunter's great, pissant, but is there anyone who's not on psychotropic meds who believes he could win a general election? He couldn't win an election on FR last time - among a very conservative subset of conservative Republicans who are themselves a small subset of American voters in Presidential elections!
And we're not electing President of FR in 2012. Would that were so! As we all gripe around here that the rest of our fellow citizens are pass-the-barfbag liberal, we'd do well to remind ourselves that all those libs & semi-libs we're moaning about also vote, and we need to look for the most rightward candidate possible who can also - realistically - appeal simultaneously to a far greater subset of voters than Freepers & one who at least has a chance of crossing the finish line in a general election.
No, this does not mean we should nominate another unprincipled professional pol whose allegiance to the conservative directed agenda is erratic at best, as we did last time. Dem light ain't gonna cut it either, that much is clear. (What would be the point?)
But if we also recklessly overplay our hand, we'll alienate the less informed voters (i.e., most voters) who are easily frightened by the Dem-owned media & drive them unhappily right into the other camp. We'll consign ourselves to marginalization & watch Obama waltz right back in for a second even more damaging term, courtesy of our unrealistic, albeit quite understandable, desire for ideological purity.
The stakes are just too damn high for the next generation to allow any of us who care about the future of this country the luxury of playing principled martyrs again.
and went on to lose the nomination in 68 and 76. If Reagan had quit the CA governorship after the 68 election you might have a point. But he didn't. He served two full terms before finally getting nominated.
What? I repeat, the only reason why Reagan didn't resign as governor was because he didn't win the nomination in '68.
The point remains.
He understood and communicated, as did Lincoln, that ideas have consequences, that the American Constitution's heart and soul were embodied in the words and ideas of the Declaration, and that the light of liberty in the world can be extinguished if we do not hold ourselves to those ideas.
As well as Palin communicates, if she will devote herself to a study of the writings of the Founders, of the meaning of the words of the Declaration, and if she will prepare herself to articulate those ideas as Reagan did, then she will, indeed, fulfill a "higher calling" for our time.
The Founders believed that "Divine Providence" directed their efforts. If Providence still has a purpose for America, then perhaps a leader will be prepared to deliver it from its present wanderings in the wilderness of tyrannical government control.
No, I don’t think it’s flat out wrong.
I thought it was January 2011, but okay, let’s say it’s 2010. That’s still not a lot of time to get prepared. Remember the last election and how early everyone started?
The first of the Republican debates was on May 3, 2007. Building a national network in 5 months is ‘plenty of time’? I have my doubts about that. Remember how flustered the morons were about Fred Thompson missing like 3 of those stupid debates?
I think that she didn’t resign because she was backing down from a fight. I think she resigned, because her hands were tied so she couldn’t fight in her current position. I have almost zero doubt that between the RINOs and Rats in the AK legislature, that they would have tried to start impeachment proceedings the moment they got the slightest whiff that she might be running for another office. She made a lot of enemies in the AK Republican party and the Rats are desperate for any excuse to derail Palin. So, she removed the problem from the equation. Call it the Jack Traven ‘shoot the hostage’ political strategy. Risky for sure, but also solves problems that need solving in a quick and final way.
Frankly, I also agree with her sentiment that it’s a lousy state of affairs when politicians collect a paycheck from their current job while doing nothing but running for another. It IS part of the problem.
You make a good point. Like Obama, Palin receives "fanatical, fawning loyalty," as another poster aptly put it, without having done anything to earn it.
It think it's very sad that so many on the right are, with their worship of Sarah Palin, mimicking the behavior of Obama's supporters on the left.
That argument, while accurate, didn't work in 2008 and is less likely to work once the Zero has four years' experience as PotUS. Life isn't fair. Like it or not, a double standard exists and someone like Obama (liberal black man) will get breaks that Palin (conservative woman) won't get.
Some people will never respect heavy artillery, unless you prove you are willing to use it.
Reagan would have resigned if he WON to take higher office. Palin resigned after LOSING.
Given what sort of idol we seem to have made of him, these days even Reagan is no Reagan.
I happen to disagree with your view of Romney. I think he's a far superior candidate to Palin. I'll be more than happy to have a debate with you about Romney, but not here. This is not a thread about Romney, but Palin. If you wish to have a discussion about him, let's take it offline.
Sign me up for “her army of apologists.” Where do I enlist?
If he wins the nomination, he will win the general election. He’s not a McCain/GHWB/Ford/Dole/Romney milquetoast rino, that steps on his John Thomas every time he speaks.
The problem is the GOP has stars in their eyes and think its all about name recognition. Who the hell ever heard the name Obama before 2007? Yet he trounced a milquetoast McCain because he fired up the leftie base with promises of left-wing agenda. An energized leftwing versus another squishy jackass resulted in what?
No more squishy jackasses. Let’s try a Reaganite this time.
“Frankly, I don’t like people who quit in the middle of a fight.”
Then you didn’t like Reagan cutting and running in Beirut after the Marine Barrack bombing.
Reagan was a great President but the facts are the facts.
Palin had no choice. The campaign to set up an effective organization and assit GOP midterm candidates, starts right now. To think otherwise is political naievette.
“She doesn’t need to be Reagan. She needs to be Sarah.”
THAT is the truth writ large. Sarah has never claimed to be Reagan. Every other ex-candidate for president tried to claim the Reagan mantle, and none could.
Sarah is Sarah. She will set her own course and make her own legacy no matter what she does.
Trying to place her in a mythical mold is a disservice to her and to conservatives who are NOT pining for a “reincarnation of Reagan,” as so many know-it-all pundits claim. We are YEARNING for a return to CONSERVATIVE principles and values, and Sarah has them. She lives them. If she runs, it is HER run, not Reagan’s, and certainly not the Rino elites’.
If she doesn’t run, no one can say she has not been an inspiration to many conservatives feeling damned hopeless because of McCain and the turncoat republicans we have had to deal with.
Whatever she does in the future, she has ALREADY made a heck of a difference in today. The lines between today’s Republicans could not be clearer. The hypocrites of the republican elite could not be more disdainful toward the Conservative base.
Sarah frightens them because that is who she connects with and they don’t. Instead of trying to be a poor Reagan imitation, they should be trying to understand Sarah Palin’s connection to the base and emulate it. She, or someone like her, is the future. Michelle Bachman is catching up real fast.
D@mn straight, she need to carry the water for all the real losers running, maybe have another baby.</ Sarcasm>
“Worse, she kept on repeating leftist platitudes that the financial crisis was due to “greed and corruption on Wall Street.””
I hate to break it to you, but the Wall Street firms that were greedy and corrupt were Dem/Lib supporting machines. And thanks to the bailouts, Goldman and the rest will have plenty of money to continue to fund the lib agenda.
Maybe you should read what Michael Reagan said about Sarah, reagan man.
Did you listen to her resignation speech? How can anyone say that Palin is an effective communicator? The only time she has spoken well is when she had expensive speech writers and lots of time to work on her speeches!
That resignation speech was one, big, long, rambling mess.
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.