« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Palin Rage Syndrome: Contagion spreading from the Left to the GOP?

Democrats are expected to exhibit the symptoms of Palin Rage Syndrome. As conservatives, we battle the disease quite effectively when it rears its ugly head on the other side of the aisle. For example, when Richard Cohen of the Washington Post penned a transparently unabashed snowjob hit piece on ex-governor Sarah Palin, it was swiftly met with a two-by-four to the face by Lori Ziganto.

However, I can’t help but feel more upset about the exhibition of PRS by those of our supposed allies in the GOP. First, Mona Charen at National Review Online takes a page out of the Left’s playbook and attacks Palin’s supposed lack of experience. Now, via HotAir.com, it appears that even our newly minted star Chris Christie is developing PRS:

Faced with the prospect of a President Sarah Palin, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the Republican party’s darling from another coast, shook his head and rolled his eyes.

“I don’t know, but it’s an amazing world,” he said to Jimmy Fallon during a taping of Tuesday’s Late Night show.

This really pisses me off. What is so funny / strange / ridiculous / eyeroll about a potential Palin presidency? The woman has at least as much experience as our current organizer-in-chief. As Jedediah Bila points out in response to Charen’s criticisms, if you take a fair and unbiased look at Palin’s record, she is quite accomplished in both her public service and private careers:

As Governor, Sarah Palin actualized AGIA, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, the largest private sector infrastructure project in North American history. Palin’s administration opened up drilling for oil and gas at Point Thomson for the first time in several decades. As Governor, Palin reduced earmark requests for Alaska by 80%, established Alaska’s Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee safe energy development, placed the state checkbook online, and reduced spending for Fiscal Year 2010 by over one billion dollars from Governor Murkowski’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget. Palin signed ACES, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share bill, into law, incentivizing development and ensuring that Alaskans would receive a “clear and equitable” share of oil profits. She cut costs by selling a private jet purchased by the previous governor and saying “no thank you” to the Executive Mansion’s personal chef. She has served as Chairperson of the AK Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Vice Chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource Committee. Prior to her time as Governor, Palin served as Mayor of Wasilla, AK, and city council member in Wasilla. She has also been involved in running a commercial fishing business with her husband Todd.

Republicans are simply falling for an Alinsky-style liberal meme that is becoming more and more accepted as it is reinforced through repetition by more and more credible sources. Chris Christie should be ashamed.

As I look at the potential lineup for the 2012 presidential election, I can’t identify anybody who I’d prefer to vote for over Sarah Palin. Nobody. Sure, many of the potential candidates would be acceptable. For example, I love Huck for his folksy style and his unapologetic Christianity, as well as his support for the FairTax. I’m sure that if elected, Romney will turn out to be whatever the tea party wants him to be (he’s cool like that, ya know?). I doubt that Gingrich would ever have the opportunity or support to pass any further expansions to the welfare state.

But none of these candidates feel, at a gut instinct level, like the right choice to challenge and ultimately replace Barack Obama at this point in history. At least, not to me. Each one of them has something specific as well as something intangible about them that just doesn’t feel right. With Daniels, it is his statement in support of a VAT, reported here and here, that does him in. As for Thune, he is totally shady on the earmark issue; a deal-breaker for many, including me. Who is left?

And yet it is so easy to dish out the throw-away lines eagerly provided by the Left: she’s “unqualified” “crazy” “dangerous” “nutty.” But she isn’t, really, it’s just that we know that this is how the Left will attempt to portray her in an election against Barack Obama – we know this because they did it in 2008. So instead of standing by our champion, many are casting her to the wolves. She is being unfairly attacked with the Left’s own rhetoric by Republicans and even conservatives. I would like to emphasize unfairly, as in, these people are distorting the facts or drawing unsupported or illogical conclusions.

I can’t help but take it personally. And why is that? It is because Sarah Palin is the real deal: I see in her a reflection of my own values. And not just the values, but also the way she speaks about them and communicates her worldview. Palin sees the same ridiculousness in the world of the ‘elites’ that many average Americans see – and she isn’t afraid to point it out in plain-spoken ordinary English.

The more I see and hear Republicans taking cheap shots at Palin, the more angry I get. I don’t mind if you would rather support Tim Pawlenty (yawn) or Mitch Daniels or whoever else might be running in 2012. Go ahead; that’s what primaries are all about. Just don’t tear Palin down with cheap, underhanded, and unfair attacks.

Personally, I want to see her run. Despite what the polls show today, almost two years out from the election, I believe that she not only can defeat Obama, but I think the result would be inevitable. Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air among a slate of mostly boring, ho-hum GOP candidates expected to run in 2012.

Right now, there is nobody on my radar I’d rather vote for – or, perhaps even more importantly, volunteer to work tirelessly to elect.

Crossposted at Florida Liberty Project.

COMMENTS

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    when you are up with almost no time left in the 4th quarter? Run the clock out, win the game and move on.

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      Aside from the fact that I don’t accept your premise (that Palin is a long-shot candidate) for the sake of argument lets assume she is.

      The GOP may be up on the Democrats, but the United States is down by six on our own 35 yard line, third down in the fourth quarter with ten seconds on the clock.

      We are out of time. If we don’t elect a strong conservative leader who will push the policies that will save our country from bankruptcy and socialism, we will get both: bankruptcy and socialism. This is the last chance to do it. It is that serious.

      Electing a Republican Bill Clinton isn’t going to do it. We need to elect a true conservative along the lines of Senator DeMint or Sarah Palin. Show me one who is running: my mind is open. I just don’t see it right now.

      • Goldwater_Conservative

        no one is running right now, so I cant show you anything. But my premise that she is a longshot is based on current polls (and dont give me the dont believe the polls mantra). Romeny and Huckabee, both weak candidates but they are very well vetted as is palin so they get the head to head match ups and are already ahead of Obama while Palin is way behind. I know you are suffering from a sugar rush from too much koolaid but the most clear path for an Obama re-election is to nominate Palin. Palin is already despised by over half the country, you dont get a do over.

        • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

          A sugar rush from too much kool aid? Seriously? I relate to the woman and I happen to like her. Oh yeah, and I agree with her on the issues 99% of the time. That isn’t kool aid.

          You know, it’s funny the way polls work. They change over time, ever notice that? In the summer of 2009, Marco Rubio was pulling between four and eight percent of the vote against Charlie Crist in the Republican primary for Florida senate. Hmmmm.

          Just as you say, don’t rush to support Palin because, look, these polls, I am saying, don’t disqualify her because of polls two years away from election day. Not only do polls change, and yes they can sometimes change dramatically, they often change for the better as people hear a conservative message.

        • David123

          Most Republican presidential candidates will work to get rid of health care reform and death panels because:
          it conforms to their general philosophy
          they believe it’s the right thing to do
          they understand it’s important to the base
          most Americans don’t like health care reform and death panels

          Sarah Palin will get rid of health care reform and death panels for all those reasons, but she has another life-and-death reason to to fight passionately to get rid of health care reform and death panels; they are a threat to her child. You know that using left-wing (im)morality and death panel cost-benefit calculations, Trig Palin will be at the back of the line when it comes to getting medical treatment. Sarah Palin isn’t merely opposed to the pro-death ideology of death panels for political gain – she is opposed to them because she is pro-life to the center of her heart and soul. And because pro-death ideology threatens her family.

        • rsexteriors

          are made to get the result they want. We are two years out and NOBODY will be held responsible for bad polls right now so they just call where they know what the result will be and they poll very low numbers of people.

          Second the “hatred” you speak is not as bad as you state and was MANUFACTURED by the Liberal media and establishment politicians of both parties.

          Right now, 2 years out, favorability ratings don’t matter much. What matters is name recognition. All Sarah has to do is tweet 10 words and the media is buzzing and the white house is reponding.

          And your wrong about a “Do-Over”. Once Sarah is the Republican nominee and people start HEARING what she has to say instead of being told lies by the media, democrats and Rino’s then they will know they were duped and her favorability ratings will sky rocket.

          Once she is wiping the floor with Obama in the debates he will be finished.

          I seem to remember the same na-sayers talk about how BAD BIDEN would beat her in their debate, yet we saw her win easily

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

        We’re not winning and just need to run out the clock – and we’re not in a situation where our only hope is a “Hail Mary” play.

        Rather, the game is fixed with corrupt referees and scorers. If we just go along with the game, we’re sunk even if we manage to complete a long pass.

        And they’re playing for keeps…

        We need to change the sport to…Thunderdome ,perhaps? (Movie buffs can tell me if I’ve got the right analogy.)

        Or to paraphrase an old Star Trek dialog

        Spock: We’ll it’s checkmate, I’m afraid

        Kirk: Nope, I’m not playing chess anymore – time for poker.

        • JSobieski

          we have the ball, but we need to score on every drive.

          Incomplete passes are ok.

          Turnovers are not.

          Field goals are not an option.

          We need more than one touch down to win.

          There is however 10 minutes on the clock, our defense looks pretty good, and their starting QB and RB are shaken up.

          Our odds are far better than anything Spock would have calculated in the original Star Trek Series, but nobody with an R has even been as lucky as Captain Kirk.

          in the Star Trek role playing game, Kirk had a luck score of 99.

          We need two touchdowns (repeal of Obamacare).

  • http://www.cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com/ Bill@cityonahillpolitics

    Not only do I think Palin can beat Obama in 2012, but I think she has much more experience than he did. And more appropriate experience.

    The criticism most of us on the “right” had against Obama’s credentials in 2008 was that he was the student of crazed left-wing ideology and that he had never run anything.

    His prior political experience was as a state senator from 1997 to 2004 and then United States Senator from January 2005, a job which he largely did not actually do because from January 2007 on, he was MIA and campaigning around the country for the presidency.

    He had never met a budget, ran an organization or business, or had any real life experience in managing different department entities or military personnel.

    While many in recent days seem to dismiss Alaska’s importance, Palin’s political experience there has much better prepared her for the on-the-job responsibilities of the presidency than community organizing, palling around with terrorists, and legislating via missing votes and voting “present” a huge amount of the time.

    She was first elected to office in 1992 (4 years earlier than Obama) as a member of the Wasilla town council, then served as mayor from 1996-2002 (6 years). During that time she was also elected by her fellow mayors in Alaska to chair the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

    She chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission for a year before being elected governor. Her tenure as governor allowed her to accomplish many great things thought impossible by generations of Alaskan politicians like the Murkowskis. She managed a state budget, oversaw the same types of departments that exist in the federal level and was Commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard.

    How anyone can look at all of that experience and claim that she isn’t qualified is beyond me.

    The reality is that nothing, NOTHING “qualifies” you fully to serve as President. It is a job unlike any other. Palin’s political experience in Wasilla and Alaska, and her personal business experience give her a good foundation on which to draw in governing.

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      . . . that experience prior to assuming the presidency should be viewed as preparation as opposed to qualification. If Sarah Palin is “unqualified” then it would essentially be impossible to envision an Alaskan POTUS.

      The presidency is about leadership more than anything else. Sarah Palin has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is a leader.

      • azaeroprof

        is the most prescient thing I’ve read here in a long while. The only person legitimately “qualified” to be president, is a sitting president running for re-election. Not even 2 full terms as governor of the largest state left Reagan qualified to be president, but he was as well-prepared as one could be.

        Those who are hung up on government resumes miss the boat in my opinion. Richard Nixon served 4 years in the U.S. House, 4 years as U.S. Senator, 8 years as Vice-President, and thus was one of our most well-prepared presidents. And look how well that turned out. Jimmy Carter served his full term as governor of Georgia. That didn’t exactly leave him well-prepared.

        On the flip side, Abraham Lincoln served a whopping 2 years in the U.S. House, and was one of our most “poorly-prepared” presidents (at least on paper).

        The fact of the matter is that the best preparation is strength of character, and a fundamental understanding of the concept of the USA and the principles that make it exceptional. And an inherent ability to communicate with and lead people. And the courage to make tough decisions. Obama fails on all these counts except maybe the communication part. Palin, among others, is pretty solid on most or all of them.

  • jtlfromfredmd

    and my raw, gut and first reaction upon listening to her is the same as whenever I hear her: I like her. I like to hear her speak. She just comes off as a very plain and simple person. And, that is a compliment! One thing is for sure, she is creating a ton of anxiety in lot of people for two very different reasons. One side fears that she will run and the other side is fearful that she won’t. I myself am on the fence about her running for prez. I want to see more but as far as likeability…she’s got it all.

  • Scope

    I couldn’t agree more that “the establishment wants to control the Tea Parties.” Rove is so no Tea Party, and, has tried to exercise his voice/credibility/influence on who our candidates should or could be. I don’t care how anyone felt about O’Donnell, Rove was dead set to make sure she never was elected. He in essence supported the far left radical Coons. Thanks Karl Marx Rove. I’ve read articles about Santorum being a big elitist Republican, ensconced in the cocktail party crowd.

    chihank, I think the Tea Party supporters have passed the GOP wannabe controllers by. No matter what they say, the electorate is much more aware of the candidates, the positions they support, and, are in a mood for anti-Washington insiders. Rove just hasn’t gotten that message yet, because he is still propped up by FOX, unfortunately. I suspect that will change, God willing.

    • Scope

      will not even go to the starting line. Gringrich also said in the 2008 election season that he would enter the race, if he got enough support over a few week period. He backed down, enough said.

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      I agree with your view of Rove as a classic establishment insider. Political expediency trumps ideology at all times and any cost. He was the ‘architect’ of Bush 2.0 and that presidency is a testament to statist Republicanism if there ever was one.

      However, O’Donnell and Palin aside, I also like the way he analyzes the political landscape — he is truly a brilliant political strategist. In my view, the tea party shouldn’t be about dismissing these types out of hand . . . otherwise, Sharron Angle.

      Activist conservatives and tea partiers ought to bring these people in and subjugate them to principles. If Sharron Angle’s campaign had been led by a competent political strategist, she would have certainly thumped Harry Reid.

      It is truly about finding a way to both dethrone the current Establishment but also to keep them on board. We just need new masters. A candidate like Palin would be the perfect rebel to overthrow the GOP machine once and for all.

      PS. it is very difficult for these types to hide anymore . . . the blogosphere is fully matured and I believe it is damn near impossible to hide your true colors at this point in history.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    …We always seem to have a race to see who is perceived as the brightest Luminaire in the room when choosing our Presidential Candidates.

    Lowell Weicker was the IN candidate in 1980 amongst the Thurston Howell Republicans. He was SO moderate, he appealed to the eastern Patricians, he looked fine in his Leisure Suit. He was SO anti-Southern-Hick Carter… except that Weicker’s politics and Carter’s had hardly a breath of air between them…

    Reagan, meanwhile, was a (possibly senile) grade-B washed-up has-been actor and California governor that stooped to such stunts as appearing on the “Sonny and Cher” show. He was a joke, a rube, a dunce. All of the literati, from George Will to Gerald Ford said he was unelectable, and wasn’t it a shame, seeing as how weak Carter was electorally by 1979. Reagan was SO passe for the Bright and Glorious 1980′s. We needed someone young… Like Howard Baker, or George Bush (-which no one had ever heard of). Reagan? Bah…

    Governor Cristi, meanwhile, seems perfectly at home rolling his eyes about the leadership abilities of a person who’s only been governor for 34 months. Of course, he’s only been governor for 10 months. But, shoot, at least he’s a…, er…, ah, I don’t know WHAT he is, I guess, other than an approved Palin critic.

    Perfectly sober Prediction: Sarah Palin will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on January 21st, 2012. And Chris Cristi, and Mona Charen will enjoy the splendor of all the galas and balls. And then later pen columns and memoirs about what a magnificent choice they all made.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    are you actually comparing Palin to Reagan in 80? Reagan was the very successful and popular 2 term governor of California, had barely lost in 76 to Ford in the primaries, and had been championing the conservative movement with extremely detailed and articulate policy positions through radio addresses for years. Palin has virtually no list of real accomplishments, is divisive in her “home state”, has essentially no well articulated policy stances (other than being against Obama), and is still a relative newcomer to the political stage. While Palin may be able to beat a downtrodden Obama in 2012, she is no Ronald Wilson Reagan.

  • powertothepeople

    but all of you who are so infatuated with her need to know this, he poo stinks just like the rest of us.

    The pedestals you are placing her on will crumble if she makes the wrong choice to run for president. Gov Christie’s comments aside, she has less experience now to be president than Obama did when he ran. She quit her elected job “because people did not like her and there was some heat” so why would we want her to be in a job where the heat and hate will be many times worse.

    We need some great candidates to run in 2012, ones that are strong, honest, conservative, and proven. Palin may be all of those, but she is yet to prove it and for now, needs to keep doing what she is doing. There is no one in the game as good at raising money or getting candidates across the win line than her and there would be a big gaping hole if she was to stop. She needs to not run for president if she wants us to win.

  • JSobieski

    What you really mean is “typical of the squishy center-right”

  • Scope

    and Christie is not an all around conservative himself, I would consider him a moderate. The best question I’ve heard asked about Christie was- If NJ was not in such a budget crisis, would Christie still be doing what he is on fiscal issues? Christie cut money for the Teachers Unions (thankfully), but turned around and put much of those savings into a a windmill farm project off the NJ coast. He ordered all waste facilities to convert to solar for electricity. He took many of the functions away from the Public Utility Commission, and gave those responsibilities to a NJ Environmental group. Chris Christie has apparently joined the Republican elite cocktail party class. I would guess that those that are calling for him to run for the presidency only know of his toughness against the Unions.

    Barbara and old George have of course made their classless statements against Palin, and have come out in strong support of Mitt Romney. For the old elite GOP club, it is Romney’s turn. They, and those still trashing Palin, in the right leaning media (especially Krauthammer), and Republican political circles, they are all trying to tell us that we already have our candidate, he has been chosen for us. I say- You must be kidding, have you ever heard of such a phenomenon as the Tea Parties? or are you still thinking that you can once again ignore the will of the people, like you have in the past? We will pick our own candidate thank you.

    I don’t know yet how I feel about Palin for the Presidency. I think there is a 50/50 chance of her even running. I would take her over Obama, Clinton, Romney, Huckabee and a few others. I want to wait and see who all of the choices are before deciding. This will be a whole different election season than at any time in the past. A dark horse does have a chance. My fondest wish is that the majority of Republicans get behind a candidate early, and run with him/her to the finish line.

  • JSobieski

    In terms of getting behind a candidate early, I share that general wish. I think the only way we can get behind a candidate early will be if Palin doesn’t run but instead endorses someone fairly early.

    Palin as king maker would likely put any Tier 1 candidate over the top. Nobody else among the Rs has that kind of clout.

    otherwise, I think it will be a long and heated series of primaries.

  • fpete13527

    Christie’s videos are Conservative porn for me and I WISH there was a little of that backbone almost ANYWHERE in Congress.
    However, like you said, in MULTIPLE other areas he IS NOT Conservative.

    I also pray for an ACROSS the board Conservative Pres candidate that can get endorsed and empowered from beginning to end by all. WOW would that be a miracle from God. I’m not holding my breath

    With respect to early visionary fantasizing I want the following three things:

    Christie’s tenacity an boldness against Unions and spending.
    DeMints Conservative record and principles across the board.
    Sarah/Michele B’s star power and charisma.

    I want that all in one person and I want that person to be as far as possible from the liberal elite Republican bunch:))

    My two cents rant:)

  • Scope

    the day the cats are herded around one candidate will be nothing short of miraculous. It would probably be easier to get the majority around to rejecting some of them. I do think the stage will be crowded. We can wish all we want though, it’s free and pleasant. LOL

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    I caught the third installment of Fox News’ “The Right All Along” which picked up with Nixon’s excommunication and Reagan’s ascendancy. The reason I bring this up is because after watching that program, my perspective on the whole Reagan thing changed.

    Being too young to remember anything about the Reagan presidency, I used to see Reagan as someone who quite ‘naturally’ rose to the top and became the nominee and eventually the POTUS. However, I now know that such a view is mistaken. Reagan fought tooth and nail for every inch on his way to the Presidency. He was mocked and ridiculed every step of the way. Nothing was ever ‘inevitable’ about him except his values, beliefs, and unashamed advocacy for conservatism.

    Death_of_the_Donkey, it is true that Palin is “no Ronald Wilson Reagan.” Nobody but Reagan is Reagan, and I think we’d better realize that there is and will ever be only one Ronald Reagan. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be other great conservative leaders who rise up to seize the levers of power in American government. They will do so, and it will always be in their own way.

    If you read my diary in its entirety, then you will no doubt realize that you’ve just done what I criticized Christie and Charen for: spitting out the untrue catch-phrases about Palin that have been spoon-fed to us about Sarah Palin.

    She’s “divisive.” Well, yes, of course she is, but so was Ronald Reagan and so is Marco Rubio. How do you expect to be an unashamed advocate of conservativism without being divisive?

    She has “no list of real accomplishments.” Red herring. See the block quote in my diary above for a few (there are more, if you go out and look).

    She is a relative newcomer to the political stage. Really? She’s been in politics for years – perhaps she is a relative newcomer to the national political stage, but how is that different from Reagan? He ran and lost in 1976 – Palin ran and lost in 2008. Prior to 1976, Reagan had been a state governor and involved in state politics. Ditto for Palin. Reagan ran 4 years alter and won. Palin is considering running 4 years later and — could very well win if she does.

    Back to the point of the diary. Does it serve anybody any good for you to lodge these faux attacks against Palin? I’ll answer it for you: no, it doesn’t. The only people it benefits are the liberals and statists. And maybe Mitt Romney.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    …I am comparing the circumstances, and the moderate Republican angst that seems to always mis-guide the winnowing process of our candidates. I am pointing out how divisive the Republican Party can be (as your response somewhat illustrates) when attempting to search for the “electable” candidate.

    If there is any straight-line comparison to Palin vis-a-vis Reagan, it is probably more Reagan-Ford,1976. In ’76, Reagan was seen as an even BIGGER joke and loser by the establishment Republicans, who said, of course, that Reagan cost Ford the election (or, so went the narrative by the Thurston Howells of that day, irrespective of the lackluster governing of Ford, who, of course, seems fit your evident resume requirements for Leadership, with his having worked inside Washington since Christ was a corporal.)

    History allows the aggrandizement of Reagan (which is most startling on the left, giving how they absolutely DESPISED him at the time,) but he struck fear and loathing during his time, much as Palin does today.

    I have no absolute knowledge of how Sarah Palin would actually govern as President when and if the opportunity arises. But the fact is, neither do you (or anybody else). The world changes a lot in two years (North Korea, anybody?) We DO have a set of well-defined principles that she’s articulated: She would absolutely not raise taxes, she would cut taxes, she would not Mirandize enemy combatants, she would not sign onto foolish transnational treaties, or impose strangulating energy taxes, or allow the boarders to remain as porous as Swiss cheese (something the benighted Mike Huckabee would be loathe to do). She also seems to have laser-level moral sensibilities.

    As for her list of “real” accomplishments: How many 2+ million bestsellers have YOU penned? Been on any blockbuster reality series’ lately? Been Governor? Mayor? Council Member? Mother of five? Run a successful commercial fishing business? Had the entire western world discussing with rapt attention your every move and tweet? All by the time you are 47?

    And, of course she’s divisive in her home state: She ran ol’ Frank Murkowski out of town on a rail, and he was the Herd Boss of the Gravy Train. But, don’t forget, when McCain asked her to run, she was riding on an 80% approval rating. Let’s see how long your approval ratings last under the withering attacks of the entire Liberal Democrat Journalist Complex. They could make Mother Theresa look like a street-walker.

    Let the winnowing process go on apace. Don’t be afraid of anybody, especially someone who is so, well, Gosh Darn Happy.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    Reagan ascended the national political stage in 1964 with his famous “time for choosing” speech. He then went on to become California governor for 2 complete terms (ending in 1975). The next year he ran a nearly successful primary campaign against Ford and followed that up by becoming the nominee in 1980. But please remember that along the way Reagan was articulating actual policies and not just criticizing the president in frequent radio addresses. Finally, the big difference here is that Reagan was a natural communicator, an area that Palin definitely not mastered at this point.

  • JSobieski

    Palin is great, she truly is. I definitely think she is far better then people like Romney or Huckabee for example.

    However, comparing just about anyone to Ronald Reagan is going to make the person look weak.

    Ronald Reagan was a articulating conservatism in a public way and on national basis for decades. Palin has been on the national stage for two years.

    Reagan had far more executive experience than Palin has. He was President of a union during a very challenging period. He was governor of the largest state in the country for 8 years. Palin was governor of a much smaller state (population wise, and private sector of the economy wise) for 2 years.

    Reagan was not most well known for botching a question about what magazines he read. To the contrary, he was well known booster of the publications like Human Events and National Review.

    Palin is a credible candidate in many ways. However, don’t complain about all the attacks on Palin if you are going to compare her to Ronald Reagan. I am no Palin hater, but any comparison of Palin to Reagan is going to attract negative comments on the Palin side.

    Palin herself said in her interview with Sean Hannity over the Karl Rove “reality show gravitas comments” that nobody is reallty comparable to Ronald Reagan.

    Thus, Palin herself would disagree with your comment to some degree.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    . . . she would be a net positive contributor as a candidate. This whole “she needs to do this” or “she needs to do that” is so patronizing its disgusting. I think she ought to run as hard as she can for the nomination and if she loses, deliver a full-throated endorsement of whoever wins — and then campaign as hard as she can for him or her.

    That’s what we expect of our candidates, right? Unless, of course, their last names are Specter, Crist, Murkowski, or Castle.

    Or, I suspect, many other “moderate” a/k/a “unprincipled” Republicans.

  • kestrel

    here at RS that you sound like an idiot, which I don’t think is normal for you, PoP:
    “she has less experience now to be president than Obama did when he ran”
    “She quit her elected job

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    So again, who are you suggesting conservatives rally behind? If you’ll notice, I never said: PALIN FOR PREZ!!!!!111 I also never said she was perfect, nor did I say she outperforms sliced bread.

    My mind is wide open and I’d like to hear some suggestions. And like I said, I’m not enthused about the usual suspects I named in my diary. I would definitely get behind a no-nonsense guy like Rick Perry, but alas, he has unequivocally stated he is not running.

    My default position is Palin. Give me a reason to support someone else, I am all ears.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    but, I am in the camp that believes not only can Palin not win, but that she isn’t qualified (for many of the same reasons we all beat on Obama back in 08). When everyone has declared and started to articulate actual policy proposals, then I will make my choice.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    I defended her against anti-comparisons — look at what I was replying to. Breath-dog or whatever was the one who made the comparison, and I defended her. The only comparison was in passing to point out that Reagan also fit the same criticism that donkey man was making of Palin.

    In fact, I said:

    Death_of_the_Donkey, it is true that Palin is

  • Scope

    tenacity and boldness, conservative record and principles across the board, and star power and charisma. I’d also like to add Jindals crisis management ability and leadership.

    While fiscal conservatism is going to be cruicial to getting us out of the deep financial holes Obama has been putting us in, we cannot forget that the terrorists still want to kill us, so, national security strengths are important to me, but, not by way of the TSA though. Also, good moral character is important to me. No more Lewinsky presidents. Yes, conservative record and principles across the board.

  • fpete13527

    Agree on Jindal for crisis management skills.

    I can’te believe I left out a foreign policy example. I am so pissed about the Obama train wreck to domestic right now, I’m blinded. The foreign policy part is CRITICAL.

    So for that category (since we’re doing dream list) I would want the foreign policy person to be a combination of
    the following:

    Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin http://bit.ly/ba9X8X
    John Bolton
    Allen West
    &
    Pam Geller

    (I can dream can’t I?)

  • JSobieski

    You acknowledge that there is only one Reagan in a general sense, while trying to compare them on more specific attributes.

    Acknowledging the specific differences makes for a less heated discussion.

    Palin is a lot like Reagan except that the differences are important. More so than simply saying Reagan was unique.

    Both were adept at explaining conservatism when given a friendly opportunity to do so. Reagan however was good at it even in a hostile interview. Palin doesn’t really do hostile interviews, at least not since 2008

    Both were governors, except that Reagan filled two entire terms and Palin resigned halfway through hers. Its hard to measure Palin’s record in terms of spending given the short time frame and the impact of oil revenues in the Alaskan economy.

    California was and is the largest state of the union, with a diversified economy (at the time) and a thriving free market economy (at the time). Alaska is far more of a government run entity with an economy dominated by energy (with a corresponding magnitude of government intervention).

    Reagan was a national spokesperson for conservatism for decades, Palin for about 2.5 years.

    Lets consider Palin’s time on Alaska’s energy commission/city council/mayor a step as a wash with respect to Reagan’s time as President of the union confronting communism.

    The point is in terms of qualifications and record, Reagan’s is objectively superior in several respects. A fact that Palin wouldn’t argue with.

    It is undeniably true that Palin is not Ronald Reagan. What people are looking for is an acknowledgement of the underlying facts that make them different, besides being different people.

    The issue is really her qualifications. The fact that liberals hate her as much (or at least in the same ball bark) as RR makes me like Palin, but it doesn’t constitute a qualification for being President in the eyes of many people.

  • Scope

    She said “If she becomes a distraction, she won’t run.” That is putting her country before her own political ambitions.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/palin-if-i-become-a-distraction-i-wont-run/

  • azaeroprof

    and tired of hearing *so-called* conservatives telling me who can and cannot win. That kind of thinking is exactly what got us John McCain (and Bob Dole, GHW Bush, etc). It is also the same thinking that might have gotten us Senator Crist (sorry, just threw up in my mouth a bit).

    As Conservatives, we need to get behind a candidate who can effectively articulate conservative principles, has the moral fabric and courage to stick to those principles, compromising only enough to move the country in the right direction, and most importantly, can get people excited enough to give of the time, money and votes necessary to get them elected. Let’s find this person, then get behind him OR her, and open up a can of “whoop-a**” on Obama in 2012.

  • powertothepeople

    just another nonsense post from people who can not see past their noses concerning Palin.

    And why is it so many of you assume because we do not support all the is Palin that that infers we do not like the lady? I think she is the best at what she is doing, but I also think she has no business running for president.

    By the way, please show me I and others are wrong to say she has less experience than Obama did considering her “lengthy” time in public office as mayor and gov and how I am wrong that she tucked tail and quit when things got tough. I have not seen anything proving all of us are wrong from the Palin lovers other than their inflated opinion. But please be the first to show us………Please show us all her experience and a valid reason she quit the job she was elected to do.

  • runner12

    what he is doing in N. J. and admire him for taking on the unions, but he is not a conservative. Hopefully, we can make him see the light.
    As far as Palin goes, I personally like her. She is smart, funny, and refreshingly honest. She is not a part of the elite and those who are a part know that they cannot control her or make her bend to their wishes. This is precisely why the elite on both the Left and the Right seek to destroy her.
    I am not sure she is the best candidate. Not because she is not qualified, but because of her media over-exposure. Palin herself knows this and I believe her when she states that she will only run if the country needs her. I interpret that to mean that if the field is full of RINO’s she will run for President. If that is the case, I will be one of the first to support her. However, if a true conservative is in the mix, she will step back and stay in the role she is in. Palin does not worry or concern me one iota because I believe that she (unlike most politicians) truly puts her country first.

  • powertothepeople

    you are correct she would need to do it with all that is in her and when she lost concede with dignity.

    But the better job for Palin is to continue what she is doing, for her to look at the field of candidates, see who is the best conservative and who can beat Obama, and then she needs to get behind that person 100% from the start with her power, prestige,and money making ability. That way we can have a true DeMint type as president rather than a McCain type.

    Palin may have her day in the big house, but it is not now or at least it should not be. She needs more time establishing herself as a viable candidate and more importantly, she needs to erode the distrust so many on our own side have with her so that they will not have so much of an issue voting for her. Not too mention she would lose Alaska if she ran and that is her home state. She needs to bring back harmony in that state concerning her before any run is attempted. It is only 3 electoral votes, but to lose them would be a huge embarrassment. Palin is not liked there at all and that is something she needs to fix as well with the many on our side who do not trust, like, or support her across this country.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    Back to my original point though — we need to stop expecting someone to embody Reagan, and when they don’t live up to the comparison, reject them out of hand as unqualified.

    And then rewind some more back to the diary, where I am trying to point out that when you fairly look at Palin’s record, without comparing her to the greatest conservative leader in the 20th century, you will find that she is in fact qualified by experience and ideology to be elected president.

    I mean, compare her experience to Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter or God forbid Barack Obama.

    And on ideology she runs with the best of them (on our side).

    For what its worth I acknowledge Sarah Palin isn’t Ronald Reagan, but I don’t believe that is a fair comparison. Like I said, if Reagan is the benchmark, we might as well just let the dems have the White House for the next 100 years.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679
  • Scope

    Palin is overexposed, and, I’m not sure that she isn’t at least partly to blame for that. Having just finished with the mid-term elections, if I heard one more ad from any candidate, including the ones I supported, I thought I would scream.

    I also get the feeling that Palin will run only if she doesn’t think there are any good all around conservatives in the field. She could be a powerhouse in throwing her support behind someone early, if that is the case, as JS previously said. Whatever happens, I hope she helps before someone like a Romney or Huckabee gain any momentum. Old George and Barbara are beginning to remind me of Carter with their unhelpful proclamations, such as saying that Bill Clinton is so likable, and, that Romney would make a great president.

  • Scope

    don’t know much about Geller or Boykin.

    I have much respect for Bolton, and would love to see him the next Secretary of State. I doubt he’d be taking a big red reset button to Russia, that says “big discounts” or whatever. He also would not be insulting and disparaging our allies in Israel, and everywhere else. I would like to see West as Defense Secretary, he would show the respect and honor to our military members that they deserve. He would also make sure that our military was equipped with the best equipment and weapons of any modern army.

    Since we are dreaming-

    Mike Pence or Jim DeMint- President of the United States of America
    John Bolton- Secretary of State
    Allen West- Defense Secretary
    Dan Benishek- HHS Secretary
    Joe Barton- EPA head
    Ken Cuccinelli (my VA Atty. General) Attorney General of the US
    Art Laffer-FED Head

  • Scope

    sorry

  • fpete13527

    Sarah’s cheer leading would be excellent and beneficial.

    Those others….God help us.

  • fpete13527
  • Xasteius

    It’s a typical statement from someone who has been asked the question ‘do you want to run for president?’ It strikes me as a little ridiculous, since it is fairly obvious that she (and her family) are obviously a distraction; her kids can’t even make offhand remarks or dance without getting immediate media attention (or death threats).

    I honestly think that Art Chance, despite his flaws, was right about Palin best at poking someone in the eye with a stick and not that effective at actually running the government. The topic of Palin came up the other day with someone I know to not readily enter political conversations, but whom I know to be fairly conservative, She had read ‘Going Rogue’ and had concluded that Palin was somewhat self-serving and egotistical in her own right.

  • chihank

    Currently, Palin has a skeleton crew of advisers on creating a media presence. That Palin has done. According the last week’s NY Times Magazine, she is looking to assemble a team of political advisers. I also think Palin will discuss 2012 with her pals at Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Express.

    I have a feeling Palin will run only if Tea Party Express is willing to back her in the primary. TPX has said they liked Palin, but will look at others like DeMint, Pence, or Newt.

  • Scope

    and that’s fine. I respectfully disagree with your opinion, as you are coming to the conclusion of Palin’s statement with personal pre-conceived notions. I think many people can find fault with any politician if they already are against them for whatever reasons. I find it difficult to find anything positive to say about Romney or Huckabee.

  • Scope

    DeMint and Pence in the same sentence as Newt are like trying to mix oil and water.

  • chihank

    For the 2010 Mid-terms, Palin wasn’t the only big name at TPX rallies. When the TPX bus visited San Diego, Newt was the featured speaker. Newt has been attending many local tea party events along with Santorum and Rove. The Establishment wants to control Tea Parties to prevent primary challenges.

  • acat

    We forget that Newt is far better as a strategerist than as the guy actually leading the charge at our own peril.

    Newt would be an asset to any campaign smart enough not to put him on the ticket.

    (i.e. Palin/Jindal with Newt as a strongly-rumored chief-of-staff)

    Mew

  • acat

    but they’re hardly Palin’s only competition, eh?

    Right now, I’m watching Herman Cain, we’ll see whether he jumps in or not. If he does, things get, as they say, very interesting.

    Mew

  • Xasteius

    While I cannot claim the level of knowledge as He Who Shall Not Be Named, I’ve interacted with my share of state-level politicians, known the image they like to project, how they treat their subordinates, and the disparity therein.

    I’ll concede that I could be wrong about Palin’s motivations. But I’ve seen too much of this false humility to be optimist. Obama, as I recall, wasn’t going to run for president either in 2006.

    I think that none of the current forerunners for president are acceptable (mainly because we know their stances, or they don’t have the ability) and the true candidate is a dark horse.

  • Scope

    the site looking for your next debate from anyone who is willing to enter that debate, eh? Could be wrong, but, seems that you have developed that pattern lately. Thanks, but no thanks. Have at it, and say what you will, I just ain’t goin’ there, with all due respect.

  • acat
  • rsexteriors

    Those who SAY they are conservative, but who just outright lynch Sarah Palin and try to destroy her are either (1) not conservatives at all or (2) very shallow and worry more about what their liberal friends will say about them then what is best for this country.

    Palin is the most competent and conservative candidate that is being mentioned for a 2012 run and don’t give me that “We need a moderate who will compromise” BULL. We had that with McCain and look where it got us.

    Without Palin, McCain would have lost by 15 – 20 percent.

    What is it that Romney, Huckabee or Pawlenty have accomlished that so outshines Palin.

    Putting up Romney totally takes Obamacare away as an issue and will ensure that it is never repealed.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    While Palin isn’t the ONLY one who fits this description, she is certainly the most prominent and, IMO, the only one openly considering a 2012 run for president.