Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Ron Binsrick: Palinism is Reaganism



Via Rob Binsrick of the Louisville Economic Policy Examiner:

Since the release of her new book entitled “Going Rogue” the popularity of Sarah Palin by her fans has hit stratospheric levels. Large and enthusiastic crowds have greeted her at each stop. The Associated Press dispatched eleven of their journalists just to research the book. And she even helped the almighty Oprah achieve her show’s highest ratings in over two years.

However, some people still do not understand the essence of Palin’s popularity. That was made very evident in the past couple of weeks by viewing the popular left-stream news magazine ‘Newsweek’. In its November 23rd edition, writer Evan Thomas tries to portray Palin as being a huge problem for the Republican Party, contrasting her with other popular GOP icons Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower.

[...]

Reagan’s appeal to the middle and to those ‘Reagan Democrats’ was not his policies but rather his optimism and more so his ‘Americanism.’ When Reagan went abroad he did not apologize for America like Obama has done, but instead he sold America as the best brand available in the world. He was completely unabashed in his pride for America and he was strong, forceful and vocal in his disdain for communism and other perceived evils in the world. Contrast that with how Obama presents America abroad and bows to leaders of communist states.

Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate with the leader of the Soviet Union sitting near him and told Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. Obama, on the other hand, sat silently as Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, berated the United States during the Summit of Americas back in April. Rather than defend his nation, Obama sought only to defend himself by declaring that he hoped Ortega was not blaming him for things that occurred when he was just a toddler.

Suffice it to say that Ortega would not have done the same had it been Reagan sitting in the room with him instead of Obama. And even if he did, Reagan would have leapt to America’s defense as soon as he had the opportunity. The same would be true of Palin, and that is why people feel so passionately about her.

[...]

Palin is a living example of what Reagan envisioned for all Americans – someone who could start out from humble beginnings but achieve high levels of success in life. As her book title suggests, she has lived ‘An American Life’ and it is just the kind of which Reagan would have approved.

Palin also wears her conservatism on her sleeve and is unashamed to talk about it. The same was very true of Reagan. He decried the ‘evil empire,’ socialism and government waste. And like Reagan, while she shares his conservative social views she has not tried to promote them via legislation – a fact about Reagan which Thomas correctly pointed out in his article. One of the scare tactics used by liberals against Palin was that she would attempt to push her social and religious values on all of America even though there was no evidence that she had ever tried to do so in Alaska.

Read the rest of Binsrick's article here. It's excellent.

(H/T Coda)

34 comments:

Steven,  November 25, 2009 11:35 AM  

I know Palin is doing this as a political move, but all this kind talk about Hillary is bordering on pandering. She needs to beware of Hillary too much credit and not forgetting who Hillary Clinton really is....an Alinskyite, liberal.

Whitney,  November 25, 2009 11:39 AM  

How about some Palin-Reagan analogies:

Reagan: jelly beans::Palin:___________?

:)

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 11:57 AM  

She will be able to point that out if it becomes necessary.

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 11:57 AM  

Diet Dr. Pepper.

KeeleyH,  November 25, 2009 12:08 PM  

It's true that that Hillary studied Alinsky, but she didn't agree with him 100%, she drew a line. Hillary is not in the same mold as Obama, far from it. She believed in empowering people, but not to the point of using underhanded tactics. She believed in working within the system. Obama believes in working from outside the system (i.e. ACORN).

Sarah is doing the right thing. She's not pandering, but reminding people, especially women, that she and Hillary do share common grounds. But she has always made clear that she and Hillary have very different views on most of the issues.

AKReport,  November 25, 2009 12:16 PM  

NEW POLL: Palin only 3 points behind obama head to head match up. 46% to 43%

panchita,  November 25, 2009 12:20 PM  

Steven: newsweek is urging hillary to become a stronger voice in foreign policy. Sarah just said the same thing.

KeeleyH,  November 25, 2009 12:21 PM  

Lou Dobbs is going to ruin the GOP chances and hand the election to Obama. I hope he doesn't run. Stupid people. NO THIRD PARTY!

sarah palin rocks,  November 25, 2009 12:35 PM  

Ak Report: Do you have a link to that new Sarah vs. Obama poll?  I know you're in Heaven these days w/ all these Sarah interviews!:)

Brian72,  November 25, 2009 12:40 PM  

Alaskan Salmon, of course.

William Henley,  November 25, 2009 12:41 PM  

KeeleyH, Sorry to disagree with you.  I spent days researching Hillory along with several members of Congress and she (HRC) is one of several card carrying Socialist Party members since 1984.  That is as far back as I was able to find listed Socialist Party Member lists and most have been removed from the Internet.  I am sure that they are cached somewhere.  FYI, others are Biden, Joe;  Pelosi, Nancy;  Kerry, John;  Feingold, Russell;  Kennedy, Edward (deceased) and many others.

PEC,  November 25, 2009 12:42 PM  

Agree.  Hillary is part Alinsky but not the full mold.  Look Sarah is playing Hillary right.  She praises in the common ground areas.  Hillary has not done bad as SOS.  Probably Obama's best pick (Gates was already there).  Of course the competition is bad.

William Henley,  November 25, 2009 12:42 PM  

moose chili

Whitney,  November 25, 2009 12:43 PM  

I was kind of thinking white chocolate mochas, but I like all of the answers.:)

Dan C,  November 25, 2009 12:43 PM  

I think dobbs is more likely to try for senate or something like that where he has a chance to win.

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 12:43 PM  

AKReport provided the link above, but here it is again:

<span><span>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/dobbs_in_2012_gets_up_to_14_of_vote_hurts_gop_chances</span></span>

The poll starts out trying to gauge Lou Dobbs in the race (way too early to tell what would happen about that).  With Dobbs out of the equation, however, Obama leads Palin 46% to 43%. Interestingly, same question as to Romney have them TIED at 44%, Obama leads Huckabee 45% to 41% (without the Dobbs factor).  Keep in mind that THREE YEARS before the 2008 election Hillary and Rudy were the "front runners".

Brian72,  November 25, 2009 12:43 PM  

Bold colors, no pale pastels. The Reagan Model is our foundation, with Sarah 2.0 building upon that.

Whitney,  November 25, 2009 12:44 PM  

Another Reagan Palin analogy:

 Reagan: evil empire:: Palin:________?

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 12:47 PM  

"Card carrying" as opposed to actually registered to vote with said Party?

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 12:49 PM  

Obama is attacking our "empire" from within: weakens our country and our security, trying to change our capitalistic system.

PEC,  November 25, 2009 12:53 PM  

Moose and cheese hot dogs.

juju,  November 25, 2009 12:58 PM  

This is interesting:

Ben Shapiro, in a Townhall.com <span>column</span>:
What would you think of a candidate the Baltimore Sun calls a symptom of "the right, the radical right, which cherishes notions that often are too simple, too negative and too risky"? What would you believe about a candidate one liberal columnist calls "patently ridiculous … frivolous"? What would you say about a candidate one writer says is incapable of "accuracy or depth"? A candidate who "cater[s] to the fears and anxieties of the great middle class"?

Would you back a candidate one New York Times columnist calls "primitive"? That The New Republic calls an "ignoramus"? That The Nation labels "the most dangerous person ever to come this close to the presidency"?

Would you support a candidate even moderate Republicans despise? A candidate whose simple legitimization by the party constitutes a "political dance macabre … the dance of death for the Republican Party"? A candidate described by a moderate competitor as plagued with a "penchant for offering simplistic solutions to hideously complex problems"?

You might simply dismiss such rhetoric as just more shots fired in the assault on Sarah Heath Palin, but you would be wrong. The intended target was another Republican former governor, one Ronald Wilson Reagan, and the rounds were fired at a time when Palin was in her early teenage years.

PEC,  November 25, 2009 1:12 PM  

This one needs a post.  And yes I remember those days.  Reagan was WWIII waiting to happen.  He was dumb and old.  Sarah is not completly Reagan but she is close enough.

PEC,  November 25, 2009 1:13 PM  

Let me caveat.  When I say close enough, I think she could be even better.

William Henley,  November 25, 2009 1:30 PM  

Trojan Horse

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 1:31 PM  

I like that, William.

JakeD,  November 25, 2009 1:33 PM  

She has been doing much better.  It's going to be tough taking on Obama, though, just like Ford was in the 1976 primaries.

ReaganTMan,  November 25, 2009 1:55 PM  

This article hits the nail smack dab directly on the head and drives it home with one swing of the hammer.

Sarah Palin is the embodiment of everything that drove me to and attracted me to Ronald Reagan politically.

Ronald Reagan was the candidate who agreed with me on every issue, shared my world view totally and stood forth as the powerful voice America needed in a time of trouble. Having Reagan so far up there and so far out there for all the world to see and hear was as good as having me there (at least in terms of what I wanted to see done). I had someone out there with a megaphone whose voice was the same as mine.

The same holds true for Sarah Palin.

ReaganTMan,  November 25, 2009 1:56 PM  

Death Panels

Bestbud,  November 25, 2009 2:19 PM  

Morning In America

Bestbud,  November 25, 2009 2:22 PM  

One Nation Under God

Bestbud,  November 25, 2009 3:16 PM  

IMHO...Palinism is vastly different than Reaganism?
What was It?... Reagan's eleventh commandment!... speak no evil against fellow Republicans.

Contrast that to what Gov. Palin accomplished against Republicans in Alaska... and again, IMHO, what she is and will continue to do on a National level.
To me, the 'Crown Jewel' of Sarah, is VIRTUE!... She applies virtue, (right action and thinking, general moral excellence, goodness, merit, value) to every aspect of her life... Political and Personal.. Regardless of where she finds is lacking.
Her record still astonishes me and Blows me away in this regard... It's her Crown Jewel! 

Also.. I don't recall Reagan ever taking on American Capitalism--BIG BUSINESS, aka; BIG OIL in Sarah's case, as stunningly and effectively as she was so bold to do. Again applying virtuous thinking regarding the good and evil of what was in the best interests of Alaska and It's citizens... sharing the wealth of Alaska's resources with It's people... not growing Government.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP