Comments on: The Legitimate Comparison Between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin

By: hbgconservative

hbgconservative — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:17:18 +0000

I listen to Michael Reagan’s radio show frequently and always reaps her with praise whenever he talks about her. Her views and principles haven’t changed since then, either. While not an actual reincarnation of anybody, Michael’s point was she’s just as principled in conservatism as his father was. She just has a different style and method of how she wants to talk about conservatism.

By: Third Street

Third Street — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:20 +0000

And I have no desire to instigate a repeat of that. A lot of people aren’t going to like my opinion of Palin, which I am definitely keeping in mind as I write these comments.

You are absolutely correct that Palin or whomever we nominate needs to be defined as her or his own woman or man. The GOP has trapped itself into the nostalgic yearning for “another Reagan” every four years, setting a standard for its presidential candidates they can’t possibly meet. Ronald Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime figure; we’re never going to get another one, just as we’ll never get another Washington, Lincoln, or Coolidge (a personal favorite of mine). It’s unfair to Sarah Palin to compare her to Ronaldus Magnus because it invites all sorts of comparisons to the ways in which she is not. At the same time, it serves as a reminder of her deficiencies as a potential candidate.

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:40:28 +0000

My take away on the Reagan thing is simply the ability to connect with the people, there are analogies that fit. Reagan was Reagan, our next leader needs to be defined in their own right, not an “authentic” reproduction. Many of us are reading the diaries even if we are not commenting, and after the acrimonious discourse in the Palin diary the other day, your comment jumped out at me.

By: Third Street

Third Street — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:26:18 +0000

Factual statements aren’t “snark”, nor did I intend them to sound that way.

It’s funny that Swamp Yankee wrote this diary, ’cause I honest-to-God had been thinking about this particular Michael Reagan column over the last few days, and wondering whether he would still draw the comparison after her dramatic resignation and the things we’ve learned about her over the last year. I don’t know; maybe he would. I’m not going to tell M. Reagan he didn’t know his own dad. But neither am I going to agree that Sarah Palin is in any way R. Reagan’s reincarnation.

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:18:28 +0000

diary? Is that your plan, every Palin diary, come in say something like that? I’ve stayed out of the Palin diaries, due to too much discord, but neither do I think people should try to start trouble either.

Personally, I don’t see a problem between Swamp’s comparison of Reagan’s “ability to connect with people, inspire them, make them feel good about their country,” and his seeing Sarah in the same light. Many of us do, in the context of how we hear her connect to the traditional American foundation that is meaningful to us. Even people here who do not care for her, give her that much. Art, at least, gives us facts regarding the politics behind the issues that come up.

As far as Michael Reagan’s feelings go, well, I don’t think he was that politically unaware. And, as evidenced by the people who have turned out to see and hear her since then, the comments likely would still stand.

That is my two cents worth and I have no desire to aid anyone in starting trouble in these diaries, but remarks like this grow tiresome. IMHO, give it a rest.

By: Third Street

Third Street — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:13:10 +0000

…it was written when national familiarity with Sarah Palin was less than one week old. At the time, I was heard to make excited comparisons to Reagan, too.

I wonder if Michael Reagan’s feelings are the same today?