Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Defense of Sarah Palin
Opinion Mine | May 16 2010 | Friend of George

Posted on 05/16/2010 9:26:13 AM PDT by Friendofgeorge

Watching the daily attacks on Sarah Palin and wondering how Reagan would have done if he was on the Conservative front today? We can ask 2 questions? Firstly how would Reagan have been welcomed by the folks at Free Republic today, assuming that Reagan was just coming on to the scene, and 2ndly what if Free Republic could magically be placed back in the Reagan 80`s era.

Certainly the Reagan that appointed Sandra Day O`Connor to the Supreme Court, would be thoroughly trashed here, no butts about it! Not to mention his position on immigration.

Imagine Reagan had just finished his second term in 2008, and was just releasing his book. How would it have gone over today when the book would show that he had no regrets about appointing Sandra Day to the High Court? His Presidential notes show that is what he said, and he had such respect for her that he wanted her to take a prominent part in his funeral service that he planned. And what about the Notes that he mentioned...(I paraphrase) The pro life groups have their shorts in a knot over the Day appointment.

I suspect Reagan would be trashed at Free Republic , just as so many have trashed GW, and now Sarah Palin. I fully suspect the same Palin Trashers would have dumped on Reagan just as they did on Bush. Probably would have said throw the bum out.

Just how I see it. BTW I liked Reagan and Bush, I never turned on GW as so many did here, and I am not turning on Sarah. She is a once in a generation candidate and quite frankly I am ashamed of the people here that are turning on her. Just know that you would do the same if it was Reagan today.

Republicans here basically threw the 2006 elections to the Democrats, because of 1 issue, that being immigration, which BTW was not even an issue in the 2008 election. Now we have Obama seemingly set to remake the High Court in his own warped NON Christian image. God Forbid he gets a 2nd term


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: palin; palinfreeperping; reagan; sarahpalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: Friendofgeorge

21 posted on 05/16/2010 9:57:23 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

Sarah Palin remains my top choice, heck my only choice for president at this point.

But I’m not cheering her on in supporting John McCain or Carly Fiorina. They are progressive Republicans (RINO’s).

If that makes me a hater of Sarah, I guess I am.

Otherwise, go get em Sarah.


22 posted on 05/16/2010 9:58:19 AM PDT by Nextrush (Slocialist Republicans and Socialist Democrats need to go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

Good post. Remember the Rudi-bots?


23 posted on 05/16/2010 10:01:47 AM PDT by cardinal4 (In Obama Land, it is racist to be white..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Prove it! 90% of those continuously trashing Sarah currently are not saying “I disagree with Sarah on Carla,McCain but she is right on this and that”

No they are spinning everything she says about the border, illegal immigration....etc.... as though she is the SPAWN OF THE DEVIL....only a few have admitted an “agree to disagree” attitude

It’s not Sarah worshiping; it’s the fact that no one of the other potentials are coming to the forefront on these current issues right now, and Sarah doing her best to speaking out,you don’t have to say that she will be the next POTUS, you don’t have to agree on everything she says....bu to dog her left and right calling her a WH*RE, “enemy of the State” as some here has said is wrong


24 posted on 05/16/2010 10:02:49 AM PDT by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Finally, a little perspective on the world of politics that at least attempts to maintain contact with reality.

Reagan was the greatest president since Lincoln. Yet, he pushed amnesty for 3 million illegals, he nominated a RINO as his VP, and he supported many candidates that would today be considered RINOS. Reagan negotiated with the devil (Tip O’Neil) and made an ill-fated agreement to raise taxes with the promise of future reductions in spending. Quite frankly, he would have been savaged by the same group that is going after Sarah Palin from the right side today. There are many reason why Reagan compromised and in the end he was successful in bringing a more conservative nation for 20 years through those compromises. It really is hard to call them compromises; instead, like Palin’s forays into areas that are counter to her conservative principles, these “compromises” are really an attempt to coopt those that might not be supportive to gain power. Only then will she have the ability to influence as Reagan did. I know we have been burned by false conservatives in the past, but Sarah Palin is not the false conservative some here would try to portray her as.


25 posted on 05/16/2010 10:07:29 AM PDT by OwatonnaNative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Well, here is what I don't want in a political party..
26 posted on 05/16/2010 10:12:25 AM PDT by cardinal4 (In Obama Land, it is racist to be white..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

I got a one year suspension here over amnesty fights...those same harpies became rudibots

now a few are even Palin supporters..

as am I but I will critique her if i disagree

(my neg history with the harpies will always have salt in it)


27 posted on 05/16/2010 10:12:57 AM PDT by wardaddy (never been particularly pious but I stand with Franklin Graham...bigtime...you betcha...ya'll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge
Sarah is the only person really taking it to Obama, Holder and the administration in general. She has stood up for AZ Governor Jan Brewer. How do you think she would be handling the Gulf Oil Crisis? Meetings until Midnight the first day, 18 hour days until this thing was capped. Contrast that to "Ugh er, lets have a meeting tomorrow." You Know she would Really have been on this 'since day one'. Bottom line: She is our Conservative voice and we're either with her or against her. Be her fighting troops on the front lines, go to the other side or stay home. I hope none of you stay home. The other point to ponder is who may really shake up Washington D.C. when he/she gets there? Who but Sarah! Also, ask yourselves, Do I find Sarah saying a lot of the things I'm thinking? I do. Collective unconscious? I pray she runs. . . Protect our Children. Vote for the Mama Grizzly!


28 posted on 05/16/2010 10:15:24 AM PDT by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4; 9YearLurker

Me, too!


29 posted on 05/16/2010 10:15:36 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

Thank you!


30 posted on 05/16/2010 10:30:57 AM PDT by citizencon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; cardinal4

I am so with you both on that!

Just like with immigration, I think it is something two-thirds of the country would back, if simply her obviously Marxist and anti-Constitutional ways would be brought to light. They’ve had enough of what Obama is doing to the country and are primed for the pure Marxist dots to be connected. This could be a 40-year hit against our government and way of life if she’s approved, and the perfect opening to expose Obama’s more destructive intentions,if she’s fought.

It’s the sort of thing that perhaps only Palin could get the country behind, given the rot within the national party, but I don’t know how much political capital she can spread how thinly.


31 posted on 05/16/2010 10:34:51 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

bttt


32 posted on 05/16/2010 10:36:41 AM PDT by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge
I think you are missing something in your formulation: you are retroactively expecting Reagan to address problems that were not on the front burner in the 1980s. You might as well belabor George Washington about the Great Depression or something.

Ronald Reagan

Those were the priorities of the nation at the time, and that was what he did. He was not prescient about the result of the amnesty we now know didn't work, nor about the fact that Islamic terrorists would train in Afghanistan and conduct four coordinated airline hijack/kamikazee attacks on NY and Washington.

If you go back a little further in time, to the Ford Administration, you can critique the entire Republican Party over the fact that its priority was balancing the budget because it had not yet - as it did in 1980 behind the leadership of Reagan and Jack Kemp after the disastrous 1970s - committed itself to the principle that the public interest required low taxes as the first priority. We still want balanced budgets, but now we know that the Democrats will overspend any level of revenue which might be extracted from the public via taxation. So our first demand is tax limitation - and only then do we want a balanced budget.

My priority for the next presidential election is a conservative nominee who is a former governor who can and will effectively attack a Democrat with a brown skin. And right now the list of people willing and able to do that is headed by Sarah Palin - and perhaps ended there as well.
I insist on a governor for the next presidential nominee, for the simple reason that no senator has ever defeated a sitting president, and only one senator (Harding) ever defeated a governor running for president.
Governor Palin has a lot of critics, including some Republicans - but you can't beat somebody with nobody and, IMHO, compared to Palin the rest of the nominal presidential timber is "nobody."

33 posted on 05/16/2010 10:49:18 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

Reagan came on the cusp of a new vision of conservatism. He would have adapted and led conservative members in the same spirit that many members of FR have adopted.

Reagan would have helped articulate what it means to be a RINO, Reagan would have welcomed Rush Limbaugh to the White House and encouraged people to tune into Rush. Likewise Reagan would have singled out many other conservatives for praise and promotion.

FR would be firmly behind Reagan and Reagan would be our conservative leader.

Reagan in his time did not have the numbers of conservatives members to draw upon for supreme court nominations. Conservatism in legal circles was nascent and undeveloped.

As to your attempt to drive a wedge between FR conservatives and a beloved historical leader of theirs in history, you are wasting your time.


34 posted on 05/16/2010 10:50:04 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

FR would have despised Reagan and called him a RINO due to amnesty.


35 posted on 05/16/2010 10:51:50 AM PDT by ShandaLear (The price of Obamacare? 30 pieces of silver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Friendofgeorge

Of course he would be “trashed here”, (he already has been). What would you expect from the savants here? They don’t sit in front of a PC 24/7 because they’re merely social misfits!


36 posted on 05/16/2010 10:55:36 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShandaLear

With hindsight, Reagan would never allow amnesty. It was the first such attempt and it failed.

That Reagan made mistakes is known by his admirers. The difference is he owned up to them. In particular he owned up to the amnesty mistake after his presidency.

So no, FR would not despise Reagan because FR did not exist at the time Reagan authorized amnesty, and by the time amnesty could be seen as a failure and FR was born, Reagan and FR would be in agreement.

Keep trying the divide and conquer approach, it will be fun to see how frustrated you become.


37 posted on 05/16/2010 11:00:13 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I got a one year suspension here over amnesty fights..

You did?! Holy cow what did you say? :o0

38 posted on 05/16/2010 11:00:56 AM PDT by Niteflyr ("Just because something is free doesn't mean it's good for you".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Niteflyr
i got into it with howlin and sinkspur (both gone now..i think) over Travis Mcgees banning...this stuff had brewed hard here in 2005/2006

it's old news now..who cares but me...FR can be a fickle place for those of us who have been here a long time

but this mindset by some here who won't allow any criticism of Palin is the same mantra and even a few of the same players

39 posted on 05/16/2010 11:10:50 AM PDT by wardaddy (never been particularly pious but I stand with Franklin Graham...bigtime...you betcha...ya'll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

“As to your attempt to drive a wedge between FR conservatives and a beloved historical leader of theirs in history, you are wasting your time.”

No one here is attacking Reagan. Many are however pointing out that the attacks on Palin over endorsements and other made up controversies are counter productive. No candidate agrees with us 100% and if that is our standard then Reagan, as has been pointed out by the author of this thread and others, would have been destroyed before he was given a chance to govern and move our country in the right direction. This is a cautionary tale of destroying our chance to once again have influence as we had under Reagan; attacking Sarah Palin (the attacks go beyond just policy disagreements or disagreements over decisions) because she sees the political opportunities differently than we do will ensure our defeat. Do I wish she would have opposed John McCain’s relection? Sure, but I can understand why she made her choice. I can also understand backing Fiorina to deny Campbell (a true RINO) the nomination and to ultimately have the best chance to defeat Boxer. Some here see those as unforgiveable: they are the same people who would have turned on Reagan simply because they could not understand his decisions at the time.


40 posted on 05/16/2010 11:20:37 AM PDT by OwatonnaNative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson