Posted on 12/03/2009 6:45:55 AM PST by MaxCUA
Steve Flesher of The American Thinker wrote a very nice piece on exactly how I and many Sarah Palin supporters view The Governor: Sarah Palin's Reagan Qualities.
While some progressive types scramble to suddenly defend Reagan conservatism by writing articles titled "Sarah Palin is NOT the new Reagan," the life stories of Reagan and Palin contradict their theories by revealing stark similarities between these two fascinating Americans.
Reagan and Palin were raised with similar values, attended similar schools, had similar competitive interests, and embarked on authentic, gradual segues into public service, with an undeniable connection to conservative Americans.
Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin was born in a small town. Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, while Palin debuted in Sandpoint, Idaho -- both in February. As a youngster, Reagan had a job as a lifeguard and developed an enriched passion for competitive sports -- particularly football -- in high school. Sarah worked with her family, getting up with her father on many early mornings to hunt for the family's meat supply. In high school, she became known as "Barracuda" on the basketball court, and she eventually led her team to the state championship.
Just like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin never attended an Ivy League college. Reagan chose Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois, while Sarah Palin attended local and state-level universities. Both obtained bachelor's degrees and sought work as sportscasters -- Reagan for the University of Iowa, Palin for local Anchorage news station. etc...
Just like Palin, Reagan resigned without completing a single term....oh, wait...nevermind.
Well, they WERE both born in February, and they both like sports, so that settles it for me.
Whatever works for ya,Huck.
I can't name a single great president we had that came out of the Ivy Leagues. And I can name serveral duds without breaking a sweat, including the poser there now.
Check out this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_college_education
It’s pretty much failsafe that Ivy League=bad president. Even in the very early years, the worst presidents were ivy leaguers (Adams, Madison).
The more they compare Palin to Reagan, the more people laugh and draw votes away from her.
Her supporters love it. It makes me laugh and cringe all at the same time. But whatever. All the GOP nominee wannabees are pretty jokey. And I’m going to vote for whichever one comes out ahead. I’m just exercising my right to bitch.
But your theory sure holds once college-educated presidents became the norm.
I get a particular chuckle over Columbia-- BO was the only one to finish; even the two Roosevelts had the sense to withdraw from that den of pinheads!
Go figure!
Jumping the gun here. Palin needs to be canonized prior to sainthood.
Adams was a bad president because he was a big gubmint Federalist. Madison was simply a weak executive. h
As for James Madison, he was handilly re-elected in 1812, right at the start of the war. The Federalists ended up getting blamed for the burning of Washington two years later due to their tepid support for the war and never ran a candidate for national office again. Far from being a weak executive, Madison did a yeoman's job of uniting the country and ensured we had great presidents for the next 20 years after he left office.
Madison’s the one who fled the White House while DC burned. He gets the credit for that. As for the Federalists, didn’t they basically just morph into the Whig Party, and then eventually the Republican party?
The Whigs were no more the heirs of the Federalists than ObaMao is the heir of Andrew Jackson.
The Whigs fielded their first presidential candidate in 1836, more than 20 years after the Federalists died. You may have heard of him, the war hero William Henry Harrison who managed all of 38% of the vote against the worthless Martin Van Buren, who went on to make most historians ten worst presidents lists.
The last pure* Whig presidential candidate was another war hero, General Winfield Scott, who managed 44% against Franklin Pierce in 1852 who (unfairly, I think) also generally makes that ten worst list.
The first Republican presidential candidate was explorer John C. Fremont four years later who managed 33% against 45% for James Buchanan, who (deservingly, at least until BO) makes #1 worst president on everyone's list.
Incidently, there was a thrid guy in that contest, Millard Fillmore, the last Whig President who garnered 22%. The big issue dividing the Whigs and Republicans at the time was slavery and the expansion thereof into the new territories. The Republicans took a hard line. The Whigs generally hated the institution but wanted to see it gradually phased out in an even handed manner so as not to provoke a civil war, the very postion which Lincoln tried to sell in the 1860 election with less than stellar results. People often forget there was a middle of the road party in that election as well which was called the Constitutional Union Party and carried three border states: Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.
So while it might be fair to say the remaining rump of the Whigs sort of morphed into the Republican Party, it is not fair to draw the same analogy between the Federalists and the Whigs because there was a clean break of 20 years and a total realignment of parties.
* Note: I say Winfield Scott was the last pure Whig candidate, because Millard Fillmore, four years later, understood the Whigs were pretty much dead and used the party label only in areas where it still had signs of life. His party was officially the American Party, dubbed by opponents as "Know Nothings". Fillmore was a far better president than history treats him, but that's another story for another day.
I agree there was a political realignment after the Federalists, around the time "sectional interests" (slavery) became the overriding issue of the day. In reality, by the time you get to Andrew Jackson, the whole Constitutional system was coming unglued.
Under the chivalrous rules of war honored at the time, it was thought that Dolly would face less risk even if captured by the British whereas James would be a valuable war trophy. The president, of course, was against her remaining behind, but Dolly had other ideas. To suggest James was somehow cowardly is dead wrong.
I also think your statement that the whole Constitutional system was coming unglued when Andrew Jackson became president is a gross exaggeration. Jackson is considered one of our great presidents because he took some decisive action on things like killing the Bank of the United States. His immediate predecessor (John Q. Adams) was a nice fellow, but only a so-so president. The guy before that (James Monroe) was truly one of our greatest presidents because he ended European colonization of the Americas and the rest of the world actually respected the Monroe Doctrine up until the Bay of Pigs fiasco with a couple of minor exceptions.
The exceptions ended in disaster for the would-be colonizers. Just ask Emperor Maximilian how that French colonization of Mexico during our civil war turned out.
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.