I agree. Palin would be a true outsider, the first president elected this century by the people and not by corrupted political machines. It would be the first step to completely overhauling the mess we call the US Government.
Sarah sticks to broad themes. Her statement about folks wanting to work hard without interference from Govenrment is as clear as can be. No need to state some grand micromanaged goverment policy. Let people work and keep the money they earn. If only Omaba could make it so simple.
Reagan spoke in broad themes and was called a Dunce by the media of his day. The problem she faces is the democrats have suceeded in getting the bottom 50% of taxpayers off the tax roles so half the people can't even relate to what it means when she talks about getting the government off their backs.
Well actually I haven't seen anything that indicates O. or Palin are qualified for the position at all. (I do like Sarah, - - or at least as much as you can like someone you haven't actually met face-to-face, and is thus only a media image to me personally. A nice looking gal, who can handle herself in the outdoors - what's not to like ? ) But, I havent heard her say anything of real substance. I also really liked Reagan. Unfortunately, government did Not actually shrink, nor did taxes under his watch after the first couple years or so of his administration. It was all paid for with phony funny money printed up by the Fed. The urge driving both parties, is the further expansion of govt - and thus, the limiting of personal liberty. This needs to change, or it'll all come crashing down completely and we'll have a society like Mexico. A few very rich on the top, with the vast majority in poverty. - - - http://mises.org/daily/1544 P.S. - my complete guess (or 'hope') is that Reagan really believed in the principles he campaigned on, but that the weight of a large central govt made up of so many bureaucrats and politicians takes over 'good intentions'. - - 'Good intentions' and promises are irrelevant, only the results have any meaning.
I see a strong correlation between increased military spending and additional spending. Both Reagan and Bush needed to spend more on the military. To get Congress and the Democrats to agree to military spending they had to be paid off and allowed to spend more on their pet projects and domestic spending. Clinton cut military spending and thus no pressure to grow domestic spending,.
It is hard to believe that the republican party once boasted having a gentleman and intellectual like William F Buckley as one of its spokesman. Now they have Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck, what a group of clowns to follow. From GW Bush to Palin, a sad decline in the intelligence of the party. Palin shouldn't win any national election, but the average person isn't very bright and the average republican is even less intelligent. So anything is possible.
Q: What's the difference between Pat Paulsen and Sarah Palin? A: Paulsen knew his candidacy was a joke.
I find all this Palin controversy fascinating. She is a huge problem for democrats and establishment republicans, because she has repeatedly shown an unrivaled ability to dominate the media. She kicks Obama off the front page. She was even able to revive Oprah, if only for a day. Anyone who doesn't see a parallel with Reagan is deluding themselves. Like Reagan, Palin has an uncanny knack of connecting with ordinary voters, she is a charismatic speaker and ordinary voters instinctively trust her. Obviously, and like Reagan, she is not a great intellectual or authority on the minutia of government. People identify with her values and trust her to get the big decisions more or less right however, which is a hell of a lot more than we can say for the current incumbent.
I like Glenn beck because he takes the time to expose the whole entrenched institutionalization of the left's tentacles and the individual players of the obama administration. It drives the loser lefties apoplectic.