Skip to comments.In Defense of Sarah Palin
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
I love Sarah and her message. But as a Presidential candidate? *shudder*
Way to go.
This is not a pie in the sky world. Nobody is perfect.
Sarah is doing exactly what she said she was going to do...good on her. In terms of the trashing she gets - she’s got an iron will because she fears God more than the opinion of men. May she live & be well....and may her tribe increase.
The way I understand it, he accepted amnesty to get enforcement, after which no further amnesties would have been needed. We got the amnesty, but not the enforcement we were willing to accept the amnesty we were willing to exchange for it. I don't know if Reagan was a knowing part of the bait and switch, or a victim of it like the rest of us. He seemed like a pretty straightforward guy, so I assume the latter.
Then you have no worries - she’s never said she was going to run for the presidency.
Yesterday you wrote that Palin had “jumped the shark”. Not sure how loving—or accurate!—that observation is.
Just because of an (R) after the name does not mean we should blindly support everything they do - been there, regrettably done that, with GWB.
Congrats on a good point!
As well remember Reagan selected a RINO for his VP pick in 1976 if he was going to be the nominee and Jesse Helms got mad and threaten to pull his support from Reagan
Reagan was and is the best President we had in modern times, and it is embarrassing the way people turn against Palin...If she is wrong then disagree but don’t turn everything good that this woman has done in the past few months upside down and use liberal spin against her
Reagan did a variety of things that fit poorly into the conservative box, Like his push for national catastrophic health insurance( which came to nought--the 'rats in the House ironically said it was a "budget buster")but his convictions and goals were beyond dispute.
Likewise Palin, who is still finding her footing as a national spokesperson, is using judgment as well as litmus tests in making decisions.
Bush was no stranger to Washington. He spent a lot of time in his father's White House and knew first hand what the 'rats did to his father, but he didn't learn from watching that close up. A serious defect in judgment that cost him and the nation dearly.
I do not have words to tell you how much I related to your words-wise words-regarding President Reagan, President Bush and Governor Palin. I think you are spot on and I certainly appreciate your common sense attitude. Many thanks for an excellent essay.
That is unacceptable...because EVERYTHING she is doing is trash by these people even when it’s helping the overall cause, what she did with Brewer is considered wrong by the haters because it involves Palin...If one spend more time trashing Sarah than Obama then something is terribly wrong
To be truthful, I don’t understand how ANYONE can have any faith in the National GOP, or its cheerleaders. The GOP is to blame for everything that has happened in this country since 2004. Their crippling fear of the media, and being branded “racists” allowed the the Left to have their way with America. I mean, where do you think Obama got the b*lls to nominate Kagan? She is not qualified to watch my kids, yet she will probably join Sotomayor in the dismantling of the Document.
When the GOP was in complete control after 2002, the Democrats still had them by the short and curlies. When the GOP retakes congress this year it will be more of the same. The Democrats (who have been down this road before) will claim it is now to “time to heal” and “reach out across the aisle”, and just like 2002, the GOP will fall for it.
The criticism of Palin, largely based upon her endorsements and the belief that she "quit" her job, are not logical.
Only God is perfect. Nothing of men ever is. Demanding perfect purity in Politics is a sure prescription for political irrelevance. This is why the Libertarian wing of the Conservative movement has been so completely ineffective for the last 20 years. This is why Conservatives always lose to the RINOS.
The Purist choir all keep wasting all their time making the perfect the enemy of the good. They are so busying spending all their time worrying about the dogmatic purity in their political allies they never have any time, or energy left to fight the Leftists on anything. They are so busy factionalizing their political base into competing interest groups, they have nothing left to ever fight the progressives. No wonder the Left is continually kicking the their asses in election after election.
As one famous Conservative leader said " A man who agrees with me 80% of the time is a trusted friend and ally, not a 20% traitor"
Curious what these sort of ideological purist would of said about a President who presided over a worse recession then this current one, appointed a Liberal to the Supreme Court, Raised taxes 6 times, doubled the size of the Fed Budget in 8 years. Spent, prior to this regime, record deficits. Ran away from a Muslim terrorist threat. Signed an illegal Alien Amnesty. Lost control of the US Senate to the Democrats on his watch.
What would they say about that? Using the sort of purist dogma shouted on every possible thread daily around here, I suspect, the Purist Choir would be screaming "RINO" at that former President and assigning him to rank down there with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, U.S. Grant, and Warren Harding as one of Americas worst Presidents because he did not pass their personal ideological purity test.
That President was Ronald Reagan. Probably the greatest President of the 20th Century.
Reagan had words for your sort of ideological 100%er.
By Ronald Reagan in his autobiography An American Life
When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didnt like it. Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldnt face the fact that we couldnt get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you dont get it all, some said, dont take anything. Id learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average. If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and thats what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
Believe me, I understand your frustration. The GOP is rife with wishy-washy careerists who will advance just as much of the liberal cause as they think they can get away with. When they first tasted power in in Congress during the Reagan era, they were shell-shocked embarrassments after all their years under Democrat thuggery. They came in more strongly in ‘94, then fizzled again. Clearly they need to be shaken up again.
But this is what I don’t get: in Palin we’ve got someone with a demonstrated willingness to effect reform within her own party. Someone who speaks more effectively for conservatism than anyone we’ve had since Reagan, and someone who has galvinized the base like few other. Yet, she’s clearly a political natural (I’d say genius) who is doing a masterful job of maintaining and building her political viability without selling out. She’s someone who is actually likely to get the nomination and win in 2012, rather than excite the purists who comprise 1% of the electorate.
What more do you or could you want in a political leader? No, she’s not perfect—but no human being is.
It is pretty obvious that were FR around during the Reagan administration he would have been criticized as a tax raising, amenesty granting, big spending, cutting and running in the middle east Rino. Anyone with any logic who reads much around here can not escape that conclusion.
Many people here will criticize Sarah on one thing today (Fiorina) then loudly applaud her the next day on AZ/immigration.
Yes there are a few who seem not to like her regardless, but let's not become like the "Yes we can, change, change, change!" Obamulan zombies.
there is a small group of folks here who like Romney or Paul or whomever like Rabs or BobJ and have always smeared Palin.
there is another group of Palin supporters here like me who don't like a few of her choices of endorsement or funding...Quueg and Fioriana endorsed, gave 1000 to Graham...not the end of the world but one wonders....btw...the founder of this forum is in this group of Palin admirers but has critiqued her dismissal of DeVore
then there are freepers who have a cow over any dissent over Palin....and they label it destructive politics while they themselves attempt to control this forum...just like they did when Bush strayed....these folks get very personal and vulgar very quickly
hopefully Palin’s flaws will be few but it is quite normal to admire and support a candidate and oppose some things they do
i personally just don't want another Bush where they wheels fell off like in the second term
don't worry about Palin...give her an issue and a camera and an audience and she will get the job done...that is where she is magnificent
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.
Good post. Remember the Rudi-bots?
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
- Got the country going again,
- Whipped inflation,
- Transcended Communism, and
- Got the Energy Crisis in remission.
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."
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.
FR would have despised Reagan and called him a RINO due to amnesty.
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!
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.
You did?! Holy cow what did you say? :o0
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
“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.
Sarah Palin is the only potential candidate at this point who could inspire enough people to go to the polls and evict Obama from the White House. She has my full support.
She also has endorsed a senate candidate in CA that says that Diane Feinstein has been a fine senator and that Jesse Jackson is a great man who has done more for more people than anyone else. California Republican voters are conservative, but Republican leadership is a bunch of spineless moderates. They are in the Fiorina camp and were probably pushing this endorsement. Since all three candidates are claiming to be conservatives, voters are confused and hence the polls showing the best known candidate, Campbell leading. With McClintock endorsing DeVore http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2513854/posts and Sarah endorsing Fiorina and all three touting their conservatism (real or not)voters will be confused but will sort it out.
Just because we support a candidate doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree with a decision they make. It doesn’t mean we support the candidate less.
You can point out Palin’s folly all you want, it won’t change a thing by trying to say that attacking Palin is identical to attacking Reagan.
FioRINO would not be endorsed by Reagan in any sense. He was smart, owned up to his mistakes and adapted. He would not attack any RINO in particular but would define what the RINO phenomemon is and attack it generally. He would then withhold any endorsements of RINOs or packaged faux conservatives.
Palin on the other hand has not and cannot own up to her mistake because she has entered into personal territory, once a personal mistake is made it is not possible to backtrack, until after the election outcome, just as Gingrich apologized for his dumb endorsement of Scozzafava AFTER the election when it no longer mattered.
And yes my countering counterfactuals to the lame counterfactuals of the Palinistas here is apropro because Reaganites always eschewed the desperate hypotheticals posed by morons of the ‘gotcha’ games.
Just wondering...I get pretty heated myself sometimes but never banned...get I'd better watch it..:o)
I'm a Palin supporter but disagree with her sometimes...
We don’t know what Reagan would have thought about Fiorino, and we must not set up Reagan as this paladin of conservatism, immune from all liberal influence. After all, his wife and children are liberals. On the issue of abortion, Reagan gave less than he received from the Pro-life party. he had to consider than many of the people in his administration gave only lip service to the cause or were themselves pro-choice. The Party was and remains divided on the issue.
Say what you want. The Palin supporter of this thread started the Reagan comparison nonsense, take it to them, not me.
If one is talking about the pre-1976 Reagan, I think the comparison is valid. What launched Reagan, I think, was the 1976 Convention speech. I still remember the look on Jerry Ford’s face as he realized how the audience was taking the speech. Reagan stole the show and I remember thinking that the Convention suddenly realized it had chosen the wrong man.
Well it’s up to Palin to fix Palin.
As for her endorsement of Fiorina, she can’t take it back, she can’t apologize for it until after the election.
Reagan can be excused for his poor choice endorsements and nominations, he had little to choose from and he did not have the hindsight we have today.
Palin on the other hand had DeVore to consider, and any conservative or TP member can see that Devore is a very strong conservative choice.
Palin screwed up and lost credibility. I am not sure a 1976 type speech can save her, I am not sure she has it in her. She has some sharp views and a manner of cutesy folksy one-liners, but she is not steeped in conservative philosphy, rather she has a knack for slogans but unfortunately she is predictable. That said she can be an asset for fundraising.
I hope that she will take a sabbatical from politics and reappear when the time is right. Timing is everything. Her running around the country endorsing this one and that one is uncalled for, and is making her a repetitious uninteresting also-ran.
We can not spare this woman, she fights for us.
I stand with Sarah Palin.
I wonder how many more times this inane question is going to be asked.