Posted on 11/26/2008 6:54:02 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
By continuing this exercise in futility, conservatives only hurt the cause, not help it. To say Sarah Palin is the next Reagan lessens both her potential legacy, as well as Reagan's. The reality is, there will never be another Ronnie. And it has nothing to do with conservative principles.
The future, however, is bright for Sarah Palin, for she has the undeniable opportunity to redefine American conservatism at a time when it is truly needed, just as Reagan did. Her legacy is still being written. Just think, in 25 years, we could very well be looking for the next Sarah Palin.
But if you are looking for a candidate who you will agree with 100%, you are setting yourself up for abject failure.
If it is your intention, or hers, to redefine American Conservatism, it is you who are practicing an exercise in futility, and it is against that motive that I rise so strongly in dissent. Conservatism does *not* need redefining. As Reagan said, Conservatism is timeless. What we believe is true, and the people know it to be true. It rings like a bell.
What is truly needed is to return to what made the Republicans great. Return to Reagan Conservatism. Defining a "conservatism" to fit the Republican mold will not solve the problem, and neither will it staunch the flow of Conservatives abandoning the party for greener pastures.
That is why I asked if Palin could harness the typical 3 pillars of Conservatism, and beyond all the insults, and meager defenses, it turns out that we must redefine Conservatism to fit Palin?
That is *not* a plan for success. That is a plan of division.
Conservatism and Republicans are not mutually exclusive. You should know that. And you are also the one who is making the tie Palin must be like Reagan tie as well.
That is certainly true. This is a site which promotes Conservatism, not Republicanism, and my point precisely was to address the fact that Palin is hardly Conservative.
And you are also the one who is making the tie Palin must be like Reagan tie as well.
It is not I who is calling Palin Conservative. Quite the opposite- It is the others here who are calling her conservative, and drawing comparisons to Reagan... It is my position that she is more of a moderate with libertarian leanings, as my first post on the thread laid out: #225.
My only argument has been that Palin cannot harness the three pillars of Conservatism, and for that reason, should be rightly rejected.
Your position, which I replied to, suggests that Conservatism needs to be redefined. I take great exception to that remark. The problem all the way along has been the ongoing attempts to redefine Reagan's House, when the only palpable successes have come when it is honored. It is a fool's errand to go against it.
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.