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 ...
With that dumb answer, I’d say you’re another troll from DU or DailyKos. Say hi to Olbermann and your other liberal buds for us.
I read her speech. She pledged to support candidates regardless of party. And yes if she doesn’t leave I will still support her. And if she chooses not to run for President I support her decision. But the Republican party no longer has my ‘hold your nose and vote’ support.
Yeah, judging by the fact that I am defending Palin I am the Kossack in this conversation. Meanwhile, you bathe the masses in milquetoasian equivocating answers. Sounds like a liberal pretender to me!
Why does Palin think the attacks on her and her family are going to stop, now that she is no longer Governor? She better think again, or ask Larry Sinclair.
The Quayle analogy is a good one. Both are smart, young, attractive and conservative individuals who have/had a lot of promise.
Unfortunately, Quayle was never able to successfully challenge the unfair stereotypes placed on him by the MSM and, as a result, never became the conservative standard-bearer we might have had.
Had FR existed before 1996, I have a feeling we would have had a sizeable number of Freepers saying the same thing about Quayle they are currently saying about Palin.
I’d still take Palin over Obama, wouldn’t you?
Of course. This is not about Palin being better or worse than Obama (she is clearly better). This is about whether or not she made a mistake in resigning if she plans to run for President.
Stuart Spencer headed Ford’s campaign against Reagan in 1976. The damage he inflicted was tremendous, but the Gipper rallied and ironically like Rocky against Apollo Creed in the era’s great movie, was hammering the champ with blows as the bell sounded.
Spencer joined Reagan’s campaign in 1980.
Her speech was filled with rambling sentences, run-on sentences, heavy breathing before she rambled onto the next few words, and on and on.
She is not in any way an accomplished speaker, although she is the opposite of Obambi. While he punctuates his speeches with "hmmmmms" and "ahhhhhs" while he's searching his pea-sized brain, Palin fills the void with a lot of fragmented nonsense.
Were you a Mitt Romney for President supporter?
Playing catch up at work today so I'm lagging behind.
Every Presidency has been nothing more than a personality cult, ever since Washington.
Of all the facts you listed, only one, her being pro-life, had anything to do with policy.
Personality tells you a lot more about a person than their equivocating, fence stradling, hypothetical answers on policy. Politicians rarely tell you what they believe and they are always trying to tell you what they think you want to hear. Then they turn around and do precisely what they want to do.
Everything else was a personal characteritic of her's that you and others happen to like.
What is wrong with that? That what most Boobus Americanus voters with very limited knowledge, time, intelligence, wisdom and attention spans must base their votes on. Even though I'm a junkie, I don't know significantly more than they do and many times what I think I know turns out to be a deception or an outright lie. So we base our choices on age, looks, stereotypes, identity, academics, history, perceptions, promises, parties, families, public personas, subtle quirks, slurs, wit, jokes, shared interests, basic life facts and even stuff as shallow as name recognition or who we think is going to win. It's the best we can do. That's how it has always worked and that is how it will always ever work.
It's sad that the right is following the left and degenerating into a culture of personality cults.
Humble yourself and smile friend. We can't degenerate into the degernates that we already are :-)
You could be Todd Palin himself and think you really know the gal and she could still turn out to be a blood curdlingly evil and despicable President. I just have to pray that God, in his mercy and providence, proves different.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." ~ H. L. Mencken
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill
Psalm 2
1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Get lost troll!
The fact is the attacks on Palin and her family aren’t about to stop. Not until she goes away for good.
You’ve some nerve calling anyone a troll after your incessant posting of anti-Palin smears and lies.
Populist ideas are those that resound with the masses, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal. Some of Sarah’s “populist” ideas include bragging about sticking to the oil companies, and attacking Wall Street for the banking meltdown, instead of attacking the Democrats’ intermeddling and forcing banks to loan to unqualified borrowers.
Wow, this has to be the most disturbingly dumb thread I’ve seen here. The level of idiotic vitriol aimed at anyone who dares to question any move by Palin really reminds me of the Big O’s cult of personality (as others have mentioned).
And before some crank here decides to label me a leftist or some other such nonsense, I gave money to McCain only after he picked Palin. I would have sat out the election beyond voting had he not made that choice. I voted for Romney in my primary, but only because all other acceptable choices were already gone and it was him vs. McCain. You won’t ever catch me defending Romney beyond a lesser of two evils choice.
In spite of being vehemently conservative, I think Palin screwed up with stepping down. She doesn’t have the experience, and while it is a clear double standard with respect to the big O, it doesn’t matter. The independents already don’t think she’s smart enough, and cutting off the potential to have more experience is shooting herself in the foot.
Yes, she connects well with conservatives. That’s all well and good. That doesn’t get anyone elected. You’ve got to connect beyond that and she just keeps handing her detractors more ammunition which will enable them to poison her towards the independents.
A lot of people around here have to get it through their apparently thick skulls that the lack of belief that Palin walks on water does not make one a leftist.
You're vain if you think that you know anything about any politician's traits that tell you that they know how to lead a country. In the first place, you would have to know how to lead a country yourself to know. Have you ever lead a country? No? Then how do you know what it takes? Obama is leading this country. I think he's leading us on the road to hell but he is leading this country. For that matter, I think we have gotten worse with every predecessor, even Regan. We have things much better then we deserve for now, but it seems that we are always approaching exactly what we deserve: decadent disaster
However she would make a good minister of wife to a minister, if I could stand to listen to her rambling speech pattern.
Hey, if voice irritates you, that's a thing to consider. I find her voice and accent charming but even so, if she were to become President, I would probably not listen to her much anyway.
I never attacked Palin, never smeared her and never lied about her. I said she QUIT, 17 months early, which is exactly what she did and that is something you can't handle hearing. Grow up!
You have a problem with the truth. Tough!
You have a lot more faith in independents than I do. The Presidency is not about smarts or even a perception of smarts. The Presidency is about popularity.
A lot of people around here have to get it through their apparently thick skulls that the lack of belief that Palin walks on water does not make one a leftist.
Amen! Only Jesus walks on water.
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.