Only one point I disagree with. Reagan was damaged goods as well. The reason that the left can successfully run a candidate with close ties to terrorists, racists, anti Semitics, and proud marxists, is because they could not care less what the right calls their candidate. On the other-hand, if the left makes any attempt to demonize, or marginalize one of our candidates that they actually fear, we are quick to throw in the towel and say, “He / She is un=electable now” Palin could energize the base and that is what wins elections. Romney can’t even energize his own family as his son’s praise of Obama demonstrates and yet nobody is suggesting he is unelectable.
The big difference I see between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin is that he had two successful terms as California governor. In one sense, I don’t blame Sarah Palin for resigning as governor of Alaska. The way the rules in Alaska are written, trying to stay in office would have ruined her family’s financial future in defending against the baseless charges that the left made. On the other hand, justification for her decision doesn’t change the fact that she had only two years as governor. As ugly as things were in the 60’s, Ronald Reagan governed California in a better time, and he took less damage than Sarah Palin did. By 1980, he was an older and more accomplished candidate. Sarah Palin won’t be able to boast the same resume this year.