Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Exactly. Maybe "I'm gonna fight for you" Schrum and Rollins can set up their own consulting firm for loser candidates.

Rollins is just job-trolling letting all the Beltway folks know he's still on the statist team. But it is interesting to see all the Scarborough/Parker/Noonan crowd getting smoked out of the woods so early on in the process. My guess is the Tea Party is just sitting back, taking notes while sides are being taken.

Reagan would not have torn apart the Republican Party.He would have embraced the new members and he would have found a way to bring everyone together.The man did his best to unite the entire country. His love of the USA was his guiding light nothing else. So Rollins et al,should be ashamed and they are the ones who "Are not Reagan."

Great comment.Go Sarah.

Anyone willing to unfalteringly support Reaganite ideals of small government, strong defense, and American freedom and individualism deserves the wear the mantle- no need to pay any mind to others' bias or agendas- sounds like Cuda to me

But if they can't stick to that... they're not even a potential Reagan then.

I honestly don't know if anyone can come close to filling the Gipper's shoes... but somebody better try pretty quick.

And like you said earlier William- Joe Scarborough IS the Alan Colmes of MSNBC (lol), but imo a bit more sinister and disengenuous... definitely a tool of the Left

Many in DC claim to 'know' Reagan; its one thing to 'talk the talk', quite another to 'walk the walk'. Ed Rollins? Well, "there you go again". Rollins is NO Reagan.

Strange how Ed Rollins knew Reagan- yet somehow Rollins apparently never heard of Reagan's famous Eleventh Commandment...

I'll take the word of Reagan's son over Rollins. When Palin was picked by McCain, Reagan's son said, "Welcome back, dad."

These are the same establishment Republicans who are always making up "rules" like the "Reagan rule" (never criticize a fellow Republican) and "William F. Buckley Rule" (always vote for the most ELECTABLE conservative). Yet, here they are again violating the former after spending the past year violating the latter undermining conservatives who won the nomination (doesn't that make them "the most electable" conservative candidate?).

If there is going to be a GOP after 2012, these entrenched establishments elitists will have to be removed. We failed miserably on that score this year and the new "Tea Party" crop is already subordinating their principles to the old GOP leadership.

In my mind Sarah is the GOP frontrunner and should expect fire from all quarters (Scarborough/Parker/Noonan, et al) until November 2012. So far she has exceeded my expectations. Is she electable? I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, and I'm a former California Peace & Freedom Party liberal.

These leading lights can't be particularly bright if they can't get it through their thick skulls that every time they make such idiotic pronouncements they bolster Palins image amongst the base.

They just don't seem to understand how much they are despised by those people they purport to represent.

IIRC, Reagan fought these same, safe, self-interested establishment Republican types in his 1976 Presidential run, when he lost out to incumbent Ford (whom I supported as a young college kid because I was told Reagan's base was scary throwback conservative.)

Thank God and Zeus, Reagan was elected in 1980. In 2012, let's win one for the Gipper.

Rollins' column looks like a cut-n-paste from every Internet forum that has ever mentioned Palin. And like most, he cites nothing concrete about Palin more than the tired old, "she quit" and "she's stupid."

He mocks her education path. That says more about Ed Rollins than it does about Palin.

um, let me make this perfectly clear:

By "win one for the Gipper", I meant we should support the Tea Party movement that is perfectly consonant with Reagan's ideals of small government, self-responsibility and love for America. We have to reform and reinvigorate the GOP and ultimately unite its factions, as Reagan did, so that our next President can bring us out of the Progressive wilderness.

This is no time for has-been professional Republicans to try to destroy any promising prospects.

Reagan talked great talk. And yes, the Soviet Union imploded on his watch. But government and deficit both grew on his watch too.

@sb 10

So what? It has under almost every President. When will congress be pinned with the scarlet 'S' for the serial spenders that they are? I would much rather have a President that enthusiastically 'talks up' the United States rather than engage in guilt-riddled self-flagellation. Ever hear a CEO throw his own corporation/company under the bus? Didn't think so, it isn't good for business or the people that work there. So why does anyone think this current crop of elites is good for the United States? Help me out here.

“The era of Ronald Reagan is over !”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/

to be replaced by the New Order
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2E2aEfs-wQ&feature=player_embedded

Celebrate with their Victory speech as they dances over the dead corpse of Reaganism
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/02/HP/A/18127/GOP+Town+Hall+Meeting.aspx

Where is Joe Scarborough and Ed Rollins when they were needed.

jayne cobb said: "These leading lights can't be particularly bright if they can't get it through their thick skulls that every time they make such idiotic pronouncements they bolster Palins image amongst the base."

The operative word being "base." Who cares if Palin is bolstered with the base? She doesn't need the base to win the WH, she needs beyond the base. That's what Rollins et al are talking about. The current incarnation of Sarah Palin could barely scare up a single vote from independents, let alone anybody else beyond the base. Get it now?

And how does bailing out 18 months early on her governorship square with personal responsibility and determination to do the right thing for "the people"? You think she's getting slammed now on that item? Just wait 'til the primaries.

I do find it telling that a significant swath of Republicans/conservatives have latched onto a woman who dumped her commitment to Alaska to become a reality tv star. This is what it has come to? Maybe Palin can get Snookie as her running mate...

Matt, how does it square? Well, if you knew anything about the situation beyond what the MSM has told you, you'd already know the answer to that; and as for the primaries, there, she'll have the chance to make her case direct to the voters.

How does bailing out 18 months early square with the determination to do the right thing. Well, she accomplished pretty much everything you set out to do. After the 2008 election, she was seen as the threat to the Obama administration and spurious ethics charges were regularly files for such things as answering reporters questions in her office. It was costing the state a lot of money, it was costing her a lot of money and nothing was getting done because the Democrates, who had previously worked with her no longer did. By passing on the job to the Lt. Governor, the work could go forward again. In basketball, if your shot is blocked, you pass to someone who is open.

Yeah, primarily because the Demoscum continued to control the purse strings for his entire Administration. Same Demoscum who always pronounced Reagan's budgets to be "dead on arrival".

Try reading the Constitution, son. You might learn something.