Nov 14 2008
Governor, You’re No Ronald Reagan
Ever since her much-publicized introduction to the American people last August, 44-year-old Alaska governor and former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has put many conservative pundits in a swoon. They proclaim that she represents “the future of the Republican Party” and some have even compared her to GOP icon and former president Ronald Reagan.
Sorry, but this writer ain’t buying it.
If Palin truly does represent the future of the Grand Old Party, then the Republicans may end up in a worse situation than they are in at the present moment.
I believe that Governor Palin is a smart woman and a capable leader. But she is no Ronald Reagan – far from it, actually.
The 40th president of the Untied States was a uniter, a man who could inspire people from different backgrounds and belief systems to join his cause.
In contrast, Palin is a deeply polarizing figure. As we saw during the recent presidential campaign, she apparently had no problem pitting people against each other in her pursuit of the second-highest office in the land.
Consider this statement she made at a campaign rally in North Carolina last month:
“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. … We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”
I can’t imagine the Gipper saying anything like that.
While it’s true that Palin often drew enormous crowds at McCain rallies, she didn’t seem to have made a good impression with the 70+ percent of Americans who don’t think that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a great thing for this country.
Although Reagan is considered by many to be a symbol of the Right, people forget that when he ran for reelection in 1984, he won a whopping 49 states out of 50. That means he took hardcore blue states like Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin; none of these states, by the way, have gone Republican since that election.
Reagan also won 58 percent of the popular vote, while his opponent, Senator Walter Mondale, only received 40 percent. According to Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, in the 1984 election, the Gipper got the votes of 61 percent of independents and at least a quarter of registered Democrats. Like FDR before him, Reagan used his amazing political skills and likable personality to forge a large coalition of traditional conservatives, neoconservatives, free-mark libertarians, blue-collar Democrats (a.k.a. “Reagan Democrats”), foreign policy realists, and moderate Republicans.
Can you imagine Sarah Palin doing all this?
Oddly enough, Barack Obama reminds me of Reagan more than Palin does – at least in terms of his optimistic personality and eloquent speaking style. Of course, Obama is no Reagan either, though. So far as I can tell, our new president is like John F. Kennedy – mostly style and little substance.
Palin, on the other hand, reminds me an awful lot of Hillary Clinton – another woman of great ambition who seems to have no qualms about taking on the role of a divider.
So, in conclusion, I never worked with Ronald Reagan. I never knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was never a friend of mine. But I can still tell, Governor, that you’re no Ronald Reagan.
I have to agree, wholeheartedly. She has not the wisdom or intelligence that Reagan had nor the leadership qualities. She never will.
Her popularity among dihard conservatives is a stark sign of how desperate they really are. I don’t like Obama either, but i can see why people find him inspiring.
In all honesty, Ronald Reagan was no Ronald Reagan, but Rapture Ready Bible Spice is certainly a blithering idiot.
Nice article, and I agree.
I do NOT agree that Obama has no substance. He has had plenty to say, if you actually listened to him instead of focusing through a Republican lens.
You will see in time.
I couldn’t disagree more. Like Reagan, Palin is an attractive public figure with charisma to spare. Both represent conservative ideas with an optimistic face to them. Palin is not deeply polarizing; that is an absolute myth. Most people don’t have anything against her. No, polarizing is a word best saved when speaking about Hillary Clinton. Did some doubt that Palin could do as good of a job as John McCain in the role of Commander in Chief? Absolutely. However, in tracking polls up until election day, many people also said that they did not consider Barack Obama qualified enough to lead either; his ratings in that sense were only slightly above those of another failed presidential nominee who ran against Reagan, and was crushed. The interesting and quizzical thing about this campaign was the way in which Obama staffers lithely turned the race between Obama and Palin, rather than between the ACTUAL competitor, John McCain. Just keep watching - Palin is the new face of the Republican Party… and not too shabby a face, either.
Susie, as usual, you are hallucinating.
Of course, Palin was polarizing. She scared the crap out of moderates, as election results clearly showed. The only folks that she “excited” were the Republican base that shared her religious beliefs and weren’t put off by her participation in ceremonies safeguarding her from “witches”.
Nobody is saying she wasn’t a striking figure, anybody that young and attractive would in $150,000 bucks worth of high end clothing from Sachs Fifth Avenue!
But she needs to clean up her rhetoric and learn some stuff about the rest of the world besides Alaska, and do something that will expand her world view.
Till she does, she will be a small town mayor turned governor with little real experience or knowledge to recommend her for national office.
To read comments by a “real” conservative, I suggest this site: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/ron-paul-answers-your-questions-part-one/.
Governor Palin is attractive, is an excellent speaker, and shows some leadership. However, she also seems unable to separate church and state interests, seems to engage in using her executive powers for personal purposes, and was not yet experienced enough to really qualify for the job that she pursued. She will clearly be around for some time and may well run again.
Could we forget about the clothing? It should never have been a factor in anything.
President Reagan was a leader who created an atmosphere of success in our nation. His leadership was very much responsible for much of his success. Unfortunately, the good he accomplished was tarnished to some degree by some of the bad things, such as mixing church and state, and allowing Ollie North and his confederates to ignore the law.
True, she may not be Reagan, but keep in mind that she did (despite what some people are saying) help McCain in this election. If it weren’t for the choice of her as VP, McCain would have lost by a double-digit margin. Everyone thought he’d choose Romney, Crist, or Ridge, and the selection of her woke up the campaign and this race a bit.
Rwahrens, thinking that Obama lacks substance is not “looking thru a republican lens.” I heard every word he said, i was just not impressed or sold on him. Nothing personal. Hell, i thought the exact same thing about George W. Bush when he first ran in 2000. (and i still do)
But we’ll just have to wait and see. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong. I hope so, for the sake of our country. We don’t need eight MORE years of BS leadership.
Susie,
Welcome to my blog! Great to see you!
Now to the arguing part. You and I must have been seeing two different Sarah Palins during the campaign.
The only thing i liked about her was that she had a record of being a reformer (and i agree with her on social views as well) and that was one of the only reasons why i was willing to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket (knowing that there was a chance that McCain would not be able to finish his term if elected). That and i didn’t like Obama or Biden.
That being said, i did feel that she was very divisive in many of the things she said. And i wasn’t impressed with her resume, either.
McCain was right to pick a woman, but there were infinitely better choices. My personal picks would have been Senator Susan Collins of Maine or Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii, but i realize that they would have infuriated the conservative base due to their moderate views. As far as conservatives go, I think Kay Baily Hucinson would have been a good choice.
Ethwc,
Welcome to you also!
Thanks for posting the link. I supported Ron Paul (or as i call him, “Ron Quixote”) during the Republican primaries, but i knew the GOP was too warklike and corrupt to let him win the nomination.
And you’re right about the Gipper. While i think he was a great president, he made some serious blunders while in office. MIxing chruch and state was the least of them, btw. IMO, his biggest mistake was to let the Pakistanis acquire nuclear weapons (or turning a blind eye to their nuke program in exchange for cooperation during the Afghan operation).
And welcome to you, Tincup, or should i call you 007?
I agree that Palin helped McCain but only with conservatives. But it’s also true that even with Palin, many in the GOP base still didn’t come out for McCain or give him money because of their dislike of him. Palin also scared the hell out a lot of moderates and independents, but then again, Obama was probably going to get the lion’s share of their votes anyway.
And Rwahrens, as usual, you are bloviating… not to mention simply inaccurate with your facts, playing fast and loose. Simply, no more ad hominem arguments … not so attractive. That being said, your comment about Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe is completely out of context, misleading and simply unsubstantiated. Did you ever see a receipt, or bother to check the facts and confirm that such a large amount was spent? I’m sure you did no such thing. And if you actually took one second to listen to the other side, you’d hear the shock and the denials that such an amount was ever spent. In addition, whatever WAS spent, it was in no way Palin’s suggestion, as the money was donated by an RNC member, of his own accord. AND at least one third of the clothing items were returned, as they were the wrong sizes, and Palin is keeping none of it, and donating it either to charity or returning some. Speaking honestly, I, like you, don’t actually know the exact plan for each and every piece of clothing.
Just in case you get confused R, tisglorious is the name of Susie’s new blog at today.com and so that is her new username here. Great blog, btw.
Welcome to the blogosphere!