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 ...
I'm going to borrow an illustration from ESPN's Bill Simmons here...sort of like when the video store is having a going-out-of-business clearance sale, and you get there too late after all the worthwhile DVDs are gone and you talk yourself in buying "Terminator 3" because it's on the shelf next to "Don't Mess with the Zohan"?
The point isn’t so much whether or what about “gams” (a horrid term to bring to this discussion, if you don’t mind me saying so).
The point is why are gays so hostile toward the new Reagan?
Stay on topic please.
So. Is Klein gay?
You said it better than I did in post number 7.
There will never be another Reagan, much the same way there will never be another Oscar Robertson or Michael Jordan. But, that doesn't mean we have to settle for the first promising rookie point guard that comes along.
Palin was well positioned to be the one to inherit Reagan's mantle. The first legitimate contender in two decades. But, that was presuming (like I did) that she, like Reagan, would work in earnest to build her bona fides and CV. Quitting after 30 months in office is not building your bona fides.
Like so many today, she seems impetuous, impatient and perhaps even entitled. Just because the Democrats participate in idol worship, doesn't mean that we should. As others have pointed out, the bedrock of conservatism is meritocracy. No one who's only held state wide office, especially with no federal government experience, or business success, should be a conservative candidate for President.
I’ve repeated it often enough on FR lately I might as well make it my tagline.
“The amiable dunce is back wearing a skirt and high heels.”
“Cleveland sports fan eh? Well your used to supporting losers so the fact that you’re not a Sarah fan speaks volumes.”
Thank you for making my point. An ad hominem in response to a tepid observation.
Well done.
Reagan could not have pulled off the slit skirt as well as she does...
For me, I think Palin is the 21st Century version of Barry Goldwater, a polarizing presidential candidate in 1964, who inspired a generation of conservative voters. These Goldwater conservatives helped bring Ronald Reagan 16 years later.
With Palin out making stump speeches and raising money for conservatives, she could motivate a new generation of conservative voters to get involved. Palin may have killed her chances at the Presidency, but she may pave the way for someone else to be Reagan’s heir.
Todd would be pretty bummed if she was Reagan.
“She is not a Reagan or a Thatcher, that is true enough. She is a lot like Elisabeth Hasselbeck on policy.”
Anyone can seem stupid when they have to restate and defend John McCain’s core beliefs beyond National Defense. The VP candidates job is to attack the head of the ticket on the other side, not to make huge policy speeches. Bottom line is that Palin has run a state with a budget, manuevered spending cuts thru the legislative process three years in a row, and finalized the largest energy infrastructure project in North American History with Private Funding.
Since the campaign, the only news that gets out is ethics complaints. She has not been able to frame the debate or get any kind of message out. Likely because she has been focused on Alaska business as her job dictates.
Comments like this belie the conservative movement’s problem, we want validation from the state run media. It will never happen.
And the A Spectator is no spokesman for the Grassroots. Go have another box of Chablis.
Pray for America and Gov Palin
Who do you support?
(guessing Romney - also guessing you won’t admit it)
We got very lucky when Reagan ended up being the Republican nominee. At that point in time we were looking for anyone but Jimmy Carter. We could have ended up with someone (shudder) even worse, or not much better with a New World Order idea and no image to put us in a good spot.
Ergo the trolls approacheth.
“However the hero worship of Ms. Palin on this site is just as bad as anything I have seen from liberals and the President”
See post #53, the first of the looming personal attacks because I dared express anything other than undying love for Palin. It’s kind of creepy.
People disagree with me? Now I see the error of my ways!
Gosh, you sure told me. I'll shut up now.
(Which part of my post gave you the impression I was unaware that many people disagreed with me? I bet it was the part where I referred to people's fanatical loyalty to her.)
Beats the hell out of the RHINO stew the GOP is serving up.
BS...Reagan never compromised principles to allow people to join with us. He had the ability to articulate why Conservative principles work, something that the current crop cannot do.
They don't argue against policies offered by the dems based on core American values, they accept the premise but say they can do it "better", or cheaper
There is no comparison
Yeah...her appeal is to heterosexual guys. And if you're not a guy, you're jealous. Right?
(eyes rolling)
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.