The enthusiasm of Palin's new fans
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:19:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  The enthusiasm of Palin's new fans
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The enthusiasm of Palin's new fans  (Read 2245 times)
Punditty
Rookie
**
Posts: 72


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 04, 2008, 04:49:31 AM »

I can understand the Evangelical support, but this mad rush to make her Reagan's heir is a little strange.

My latest column:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1251887-sarah-palin

Thanks for reading, and thanks for sending the link to friends of yours who might be interested as well.
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2008, 11:47:12 AM »

I can understand the Evangelical support, but this mad rush to make her Reagan's heir is a little strange.

My latest column:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1251887-sarah-palin

Thanks for reading, and thanks for sending the link to friends of yours who might be interested as well.

Especially since Reagan was an "appeaser".  (According to Kriston and the neos)
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2008, 11:49:23 AM »

The Sorceress's new acolytes...
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2008, 12:36:53 PM »

I can understand the Evangelical support, but this mad rush to make her Reagan's heir is a little strange.

My latest column:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1251887-sarah-palin

Thanks for reading, and thanks for sending the link to friends of yours who might be interested as well.

Especially since Reagan was an "appeaser".  (According to Kriston and the neos)

Reaganism isn't about what Reagan was, its about what people wish he was. Ironically had Reagan followed Reaganism, he would have been just as bad a President as his successor who actually tried.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2008, 03:14:12 PM »


I've heard her refered to as being the new Reagan AND the new Thatcher. 
Logged
JSojourner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,510
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.94

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2008, 03:28:55 PM »

I can understand the Evangelical support, but this mad rush to make her Reagan's heir is a little strange.

My latest column:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/1251887-sarah-palin

Thanks for reading, and thanks for sending the link to friends of yours who might be interested as well.

Especially since Reagan was an "appeaser".  (According to Kriston and the neos)

Reaganism isn't about what Reagan was, its about what people wish he was. Ironically had Reagan followed Reaganism, he would have been just as bad a President as his successor who actually tried.

Reagan, prepared to fight, chose to talk to the Soviet Union -- the second-most powerful nation in the history of the world and one that had weapons of mass destruction aimed at our cities.  At the time, and since, neocons have roundly criticized Reagan for this.  Whatever they liked about his domestic austerity policies vis a vis infrastructure and the needy, they DETESTED his approach to our enemies.

Now, after getting it wrong for almost eight years and attacking Democrats for being "appeasers", the Bush administration is -- according to Bolton, anyway -- "negotiating with Iran".  Bolton thought he was discrediting Obama's characterization of Bush foreign policy.  But what he really did is betray the conservative double standard:  When Republicans negotiate, it's diplomacy.  When Democrats negotiate, it's appeasement.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2008, 10:20:36 PM »

It simple, she communicates better to many voters than anyone since Reagan.
She seems (at least at this point) to be authentic in her conservatism: she lives it.
She has a sunny, upbeat personality and sees humor in much of the political process.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2008, 10:21:32 PM »

The Republican party has moved too far to the right to nominate someone like Reagan like they did in 1980.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2008, 09:41:42 PM »

The Republican party has moved too far to the right to nominate someone like Reagan like they did in 1980.

No the country move right when they elected Reagan.  It turned out to be the right choice.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2008, 11:28:16 PM »

The Republican party has moved too far to the right to nominate someone like Reagan like they did in 1980.

No the country move right when they elected Reagan.  It turned out to be the right choice.

What does that have to do with the fact that the country is now too far right to nominate Reagan?
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2008, 11:32:24 PM »

The Republican party has moved too far to the right to nominate someone like Reagan like they did in 1980.

No the country move right when they elected Reagan.  It turned out to be the right choice.

What does that have to do with the fact that the country is now too far right to nominate Reagan?

Sorry I misread it because such a shocking false.  Reagan could easily get the GOP nod, but I doubt JFK could by the Democrats.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2008, 11:43:04 PM »

The Republican party has moved too far to the right to nominate someone like Reagan like they did in 1980.

No the country move right when they elected Reagan.  It turned out to be the right choice.

What does that have to do with the fact that the country is now too far right to nominate Reagan?

Sorry I misread it because such a shocking false.  Reagan could easily get the GOP nod, but I doubt JFK could by the Democrats.

Now, is this a matter of opinion or what you really think and why? Though, you may be right. JFK was president almost 50 years ago, Reagan, only 28. What's the better comparison? For example, Jimmy Carter would probably be nommed by the dems before Reagan was nommed by the Goppers. For example, Ronald Reagan cut the top-income mariginal tax rate to about what they are today. John McCain wants to make NEW tax cuts....and he was the ultimate comprimise candidate.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 14 queries.