1
   

Were there negative comments when Kennedy died?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:20 pm
And the most amazing ending to that story was Gorby at the funeral today, with tears in his eyes. He loved Ronald Reagan.
0 Replies
 
tony2481
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:20 pm
Blatham-
Capitalism!!! The only purpose CBS exists is to make money. While they do serve other purposes to the public, they exist only to make money. They can't and won't broadcast if they don't have any money. It is a for-profit company and the people who make decisions, make ones that loose money, they get fired and no longer make money.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:21 pm
BBB
Then how do you explain Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, who had a reputation for never finding a weapons system he didn't like---and ordered?

BBB
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:22 pm
Quote:
The Democrats had a conniption fit--the very idea he would give others American technology!

There's an example fox. That's false. Talking with you becomes a waste of time when you are that careless with facts.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:25 pm
Sorry Blatham. It's absolutely true. I listened to the debates on C-span and the opportunists at the media mikes. Did you?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:28 pm
tony2481 wrote:
Blatham-
Capitalism!!! The only purpose CBS exists is to make money. While they do serve other purposes to the public, they exist only to make money. They can't and won't broadcast if they don't have any money. It is a for-profit company and the people who make decisions, make ones that loose money, they get fired and no longer make money.


tony

That is not evidence for the claims you made. That's a theoretical argument regarding how a corporately owned news organization will behave.

But I assume you are pointing to the threats that (we assume) landed on the desk of the biggies at CBS stating that if they ran this disagreeable tv movie that all sorts of advertiser dollars would not be forthcoming because activist campaigns would begin and would cause big trouble.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:34 pm
Wrong again, red suited one.

He formed a commission of Religious Righters to study how EACH of his policies affected 'the family'. He said the family was the underpinning of the country and he made several attempts to support the family through policy. He hated what welfare was doing to the family unit--giving benefits to women to remain unmarried and have more children outside marriage. I don't know if he instituted the changes, or tried and failed.

He believed the state was taking responsibility from parents and wanted to give options for parents to choose schools for their children-- The impetus for vouchers now.

He was strongly anti-abortion. He openly campaigned against it--Bush hasn't.

He chose judges who he felt were his ideological partners. (I guess everybody does this.)

And, one of his main beefs with Communism is that is was godless.

An interesting area. I may try to list Bush/Reagan religious based actions, and see how they measure up. I'd feel very safe betting Reagan out-Christianed Bush in initiatives....and possibly mentions of God in speeches...not at the end--but in the text.
0 Replies
 
tony2481
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:35 pm
It's difficult for me to find hard evidence to show why CBS dropped the movie. Do you really believe they dropped the show because of a secret, right wing conspiracy, or because the pontential risks of showing it greatly outweighed the possible benifits?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:39 pm
Out of curiosity Blatham, exactly what in my comment about SDI is it that you accuse me of lying? That Reagan wanted to give SDI to everybody? Or that the Democrats objected to the idea of sharing technology? Or that the Democrats objected to SDI?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:40 pm
Gorbachev and Reagan did something together which was very brave and very laudable. The world went in a better direction at that point. Reagan acted, to his great credit, in opposition to his own advisors in some of that. For this, I doff my hat with no hesitation.

For much else, I do not.

fox

You suggest in your sentence that Democrats were against the idea of sharing technology. That was not the issue. If you can find such a quote, where the context ensures that the disagreement was just that, then you win the point. But I'll also mail you ten bucks if you do.

The disagreement then, as now, was that the technology itself was of the pipe-dream category. Not to mention that it meant very big bucks to some weapons manufacters, as it does now.

Those companies have and had lobbyists who donate lotso bucks. There are no bucks coming from container facilities in Portland or Seattle or New York, which is clearly the more present threat to the US than a rogue missle.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 11:53 pm
Quote:
CBS didn't show the movie because they thought they could make more money by not showing it. It had nothing to do with any myths. Enough people saw the movie and stated that it was inaccurate, and offensive. This is the same CBS that has "60 Minutes" on it, so it sure took a convincing agruement to get those execs to drop the piece. All in all, enough people thought the series was a "myth" presented as fact as it should not have been.


tony

Who saw it? Or who read the script? How many people? In what ways was the portrayal false or misrepresentative? How do the dollars figure in here? You have to give some information (credible) on all of that in order to make your argument compelling to others that this had nothing to do with folks not wishing a myth be derogated.

When you make factual claim, the burden of providing evidence for them falls to you.

What I'm suggesting is that a myth (in the sense that Hofstadter defines it) has been growing regarding Reagan, and I talked a bit about that earlier. Quite a few folks get angry to see his story (as they perceive it) besmirched or derogated. Now that is interesting. Who would care if someone did a story on the life of Calvin Coolidge? Or even if a tv movie was done on Eisenhower? Reagan is falling into a class of American myth that includes, for example, Davy Crockett or Daniel Boone. If someone made a film of Coolidge suggesting he had had a homosexual lover, there would be not a whole lot of trouble. But imagine the same if a tv movie suggested Dan Boone and Davy Crockett were lovers.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 12:03 am
Sofia wrote:
Mesquite--

I picked up on that, as well. It was a glancing blow to Bush.

I was wondering if there was a flap between the Reagan family and the Bush Administration. Perhaps over the stem cell issue?

We may be able to see a replay on c-span. So far they are only showing the DC funeral.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 12:10 am
AP has been carrying some transcripts of speakers. Maybe we'll get lucky there. And I'd think the press, loving conflict as they do, will not pass that one by.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 12:21 am
Another quick note on myth-making before I hit the hay.

Coulter's recent exercise in trying to rehabilitate the image of Joe McCarthy is interesting to think about.

Coulter is NOT interested in accuracy. There's a truckload of evidence on how careless and even deceitful she is consistently.

And Joe was a very unnice guy. Joe represented pretty much the worst of American politics.

So why on earth would Coulter bother to make the attempt to have him sound like a misunderstood good guy?

One obvious reason is that it allows her to make an assault, however filled with falsehoods, on 'liberals', which is her thing.

But one can also see it as an attempt to revise a 'myth', to alter the way America perceives this man and his role in American history. In various ways, he is her predecessor and she follows in that mold. One could see that what Coulter is doing here as being similar to what neo-nazis are up to when they try to recruit others...."hitler was actually a good guy".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 12:42 am
Sofia wrote:
Blatham, re:myth-- [..]

Republicans give Gorby and the failure of Communism equal billing to Reagan in the collapse of Communism--but he had a pivotal, planned role. [..]

I challenge anyone to refute the facts you presented. No myth.


Sofia

"Reagan had a pivotal, planned role" - fact

"Reagan freed Eastern Europe and dismantled the Soviet Union" - myth.

I saw that latter ("Reagan and Thatcher", even!) come by a couple of times here just the last week alone, and eventually flipped about it.

Most myths have a fact at core - just distorted into hyperbole.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 06:52 am
mesquite wrote:
I had never seen young Ronald speak before. I would like to hear more.


Well, lemme just tell ya, you're gonna laugh out loud:

Quote:
Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" Since then he's been quiet about the current occupant of the White House -- until now.

Some observers have compared Bush's persona as an intellectually challenged but politically gifted leader to that of Reagan. But the younger Reagan vehemently rejects the analogy. "The gunslinging cowboy, the actor who just read his lines -- that stereotype doesn't fit who my father really was.

"My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California -- and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas. And he had already run for president, against Ford in '76, nearly unseating the sitting president in his own party. He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn't have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought.

"Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."


Salon (you'll have to watch an ad to read the story)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 07:36 am
PD....this needs to be pasted in full, I figure.

Quote:
April 14, 2003 | The Bush inner circle would like to think of George W.'s presidency as more of an extension of Ronald Reagan's than of his one-term father's. Reagan himself, who has long suffered from Alzheimer's disease, is unable to comment on those who lay claim to his political legacy. But his son, Ron Jr., is -- and he's not pleased with the association.

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."


Reagan spoke with Salon from his home in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, Doria, a psychologist. A former ballet dancer ("At 45, I'm afraid those days are over"), he has worked in recent years as a magazine journalist and a TV personality, currently hosting dog shows for the Animal Planet network ("I live 'Best in Show'"). He and Doria have three cats, but no children ("They're like kids, without the tuition"). Though he never followed his father into politics, Reagan takes a strong interest in public issues, serving on the board of the Creative Coalition, an organization founded in 1989 by performers like Susan Sarandon and Christopher Reeve to politically mobilize entertainers and artists. Reagan recently moderated a Creative Coalition panel discussion in San Francisco on the topic of free expression during wartime, featuring Alec Baldwin on the left and Michael Medved on the right (and a smoldering Sean Penn in the audience).

Reagan, still as lean as he was in his dancing days, has a sharp tongue -- but like his father, he has a knack for softening his barbs with a charming affability and disarming sense of humor.

Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" Since then he's been quiet about the current occupant of the White House -- until now.

Some observers have compared Bush's persona as an intellectually challenged but politically gifted leader to that of Reagan. But the younger Reagan vehemently rejects the analogy. "The gunslinging cowboy, the actor who just read his lines -- that stereotype doesn't fit who my father really was.

"My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California -- and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas. And he had already run for president, against Ford in '76, nearly unseating the sitting president in his own party. He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn't have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought.

"Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."

Reagan says he doesn't have anything personal against Bush. He met him only once, at a White House event during the Reagan presidency. "At least my wife insists we did -- he left absolutely no impression on me. But Doria remembers him very negatively -- I can't repeat what she said about him, I'd rather not use profanity. I do remember Jeb -- a big fella, seemed to be the brightest of the bunch. And of course their parents were very charming."

But Reagan has strong feelings about Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq, which he ardently opposes. "Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda -- and they didn't hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, 'Let's hit Iraq.' They've used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling."

Of course, Reagan's father was also known for his military buildup and aggressive foreign policy. "Yes," he concedes, "there are some holdovers from my dad's years, like Elliott Abrams and, my God, Admiral Poindexter, who's now keeping watch over us all. But that observation doesn't hold up. My father gave a speech a couple years after he left the White House calling for 'an international army of conscience' to deal with failed states where atrocities are taking place. He had no thought that America should be the world's policeman. I know that for a fact from conversations I had with him. He believed there must be an international force to intervene where great human tragedy was occurring. Rwanda would have been a prime example, where a strike force capable of acting quickly could have gone in to stop the slaughter.

"Now George and Dick and Rummy and Wolfy all have a very different idea about America's role in the world. It was laid out by [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz back in '92 -- Iraq is the center of the Middle East, its axis, and it's of such geo-strategic importance that we can't leave it in the hands of Saddam. We need to forcibly change that regime and use Iraq as a forward base for American democracy, setting up a domino effect in the region, and so on. My father, on the other hand, was well aware of the messiness of the Middle East, particularly after [the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in] Lebanon."

Reagan says his opinions about the war were not changed by the rapid fall of Baghdad. "Look, whether or not Saddam was a bad guy, or whether the Iraqi people were terribly oppressed, was never the issue. I mean I'm happy for the Iraqis, but that's not what this was all about. Nor was the military conclusion ever in doubt; this was the Dallas Cowboys playing a high school team. Their army was a third the size it was in '91, and it didn't give us much trouble then.

"And the weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to them? I'm sure we'll find some," he laughs. "They're being flown in right now in a C-130.

"There were, and will be, a lot of people killed over there. And if you don't care about the Iraqi casualties, what about the American? We stand to lose more people in the next months of occupation than we lost in the weeks of war. One of the reasons we escaped largely unscathed so far was because our military moved so fast. But now we're sitting targets -- we have to establish bases, patrol the streets, guard checkpoints. We're sitting targets for suicide bombers and other terrorists."

Reagan's parents were notoriously remote from their four children. Ron Jr. reportedly had the closest relations with his parents and he remains close with his mother, Nancy Reagan, who as the keeper of the Reagan flame is often called upon to dedicate public sites bearing her husband's name. Reagan says his mother shares his "distrust of some of these [Bush] people. She gets that they're trouble in all kinds of ways. She doesn't like their religious fervor, their aggression."

Reagan says his family feels particularly alienated from the Republican Party over its opposition to embryonic stem cell research, which could have significant benefit for Alzheimer patients like his father. "Now ignorance is one thing, ignorance can be cured. But many of the Republican leaders opposing this research know better, people like [Senate Majority Leader] Bill Frist, who's a doctor, for God's sake. People like him are blocking it to pander to the 20 percent of their base who are mouth-breathers. And that's unconscionable -- there are lives at stake here. Stem cell research can revolutionize medicine, more than anything since antibiotics."

Reagan, who says the label "progressive" would fit him, does not belong to a political party. "I'm certainly not a Republican; I couldn't belong to any party that had leaders like Tom DeLay. And the Democrats are too busy trying to out-Republican the Republicans."

His father entered politics at a relatively late stage in his life, after careers as a sports broadcaster, actor and General Electric pitchman. Has Reagan ever considered running for office? No, he insists, "I have no political ambitions. For one thing, I'm not interested in raising all that money. It's just not the life I want to lead. When is the last time you heard a politician speak his mind? McCain? Yes, he came close. But I once asked him at a Creative Coalition meeting, 'You talk passionately about this nexus of money and influence that is corrupting our democracy. Why don't you name names?' His response was a demurral.

"I have no problem with public service. And yes, better people should be running for office. But personally I just can't see myself doing it, to live in Washington D.C., the whole package. I was immersed in that my whole life. I saw politicians up close and there were so many who just repulsed me."

What if a group of concerned citizens approached him and helped raise money for his entry into politics -- would that make a difference? "You mean like they did with George W.? 'Hey, you've got name recognition, that's all that matters -- we'll give you millions of dollars to run!' Imagine coming to a man with just two years' experience in public office, and a ceremonial one at that. Imagine installing such a blank slate in the presidency of the United States! This is a regency, not a presidency.

"And they told us, 'Don't worry about W. not knowing anything, good old Dick Cheney will be his minder.' Dick Cheney? And this was going to be compassionate conservatism? Dick Cheney is to the right of Genghis Khan, he wants to drill in your backyard, he wants to deny black people their rights --it was all there in his voting record for us to see. What were we, rubes?"

While Reagan rejects a political career, he clearly doesn't shy from speaking out. What if GOP conservatives, who still lionize his father as the greatest president of the 20th century, pressure him to shut up? "That wouldn't be a smart thing for anyone to do."
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 08:33 am
A voice for sanity. Good.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 08:56 am
BBB
I've always like young Ron Reagan.

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 09:26 am
So Now They Think He Was Charming
So Now They Think He Was Charming
June 9, 2004
By Ann Coulter

America's greatest president has gone home. God worked through Ronald Reagan on Earth and now He's taken him back. Reagan is survived by his wife, three children, and the hundreds of millions of people he saved by winning the Cold War. Thanks to him, the United States of America never ceased to be, as Reagan said, "a place to escape to" -- the last stand on Earth.

No thanks to liberals, I might add. More enraging than their revisionist history of Reagan, is liberals' revisionist history about themselves. Now liberals claim they liked Reagan at the time. This is extremely believable -- aren't we all fond of someone who regularly exposes us as liars, cowards and hypocrites? It's just human nature.

In fact and of course, liberals loathed Reagan. Their European friends loathed Reagan -- the protests against our current president are positively anemic compared to the massive protests against President Reagan when he went to visit our dear "allies," whose sorry asses we spent billions of dollars defending against the Soviets for 50 years. Even the moderate Republicans currently trying to insinuate themselves onto Reagan's legacy weren't especially fond of Reagan at the time -- especially when attacking him publicly would get them invites to the tonier Georgetown cocktail parties. Only authentic Americans loved Reagan.

From the descriptions in the media, you would think the reason Reagan was beloved by Americans was that he was an affable fellow who could tell a good joke. That's a description of Bob Dole, not Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was a March hare right-winger. He had enough faith in the American people to know that as long as the facts were clear, they would rise to the occasion and be March hare right-wingers, too. As Reagan himself said, back in 1964: "Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and me believe that this is a contest between two men ... that we are to choose just between two personalities."

Reagan forced Americans to confront the real ideological divide between conservatives and, as he said, "our liberal friends." But now liberals are trying to muddy the political waters by passing off Reagan's popularity as a result of his personal magnetism. I note that liberals were strangely immune to that magnetism at the time. Only now do they talk about Reagan's outsized personality as if he worked some sort of beguiling magic over the electorate and tricked them into supporting policies they never quite understood.

While Reagan had undeniable magnetism, what set him apart was that he had the courage to speak the truth and trust the American people. In the 1964 speech that launched his political career, "A Time for Choosing," Reagan never smiled. He told no jokes -- though he did say some amusing things inasmuch as he was talking about "our liberal friends."

In the throes of the Cold War -- still hot in Vietnam -- Reagan forthrightly said liberals refused to acknowledge that the choice was not between "peace and war, only between fight and surrender." In words that would have come in pretty handy in Spain just a few months ago, he said liberals tell us "if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us." All who disagree with the "peace" crowd, he said, "are indicted as warmongers." To this, Reagan said: "Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender."

This wasn't sunny old grandpa carrying candy around in his pocket for children. After watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War in December 1972, Reagan told President Richard Nixon, "under World War II circumstances, the network (CBS) would have been charged with treason."

Reagan quoted "Mr. Democrat himself," Al Smith, for the proposition that the Democratic Party was no longer the party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland, but was now the party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. (And that was 30 years before they tried to push Hillarycare on us.)

Reagan was a bulldog, completely, implacably right-wing on every issue. He was the right-wing Energizer Bunny. He never quit and he kept beating liberals. He cut taxes 25 percent across the board his first year in office; he walked away from Gorbachev at Reykjavik; he fired all those air traffic controllers -- and wouldn't let them come back even when they wanted to; he gave speeches about "welfare queens" and polluting trees; he nominated Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; and he enraged grim liberals when he warmed up his radio mike by saying, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

But now they're telling us Reagan was a "pragmatist." Well, not according to him. As he was wrapping up the Republican primaries in 1980 and moderate weenies in the Republican Party were trying to move him to the "center," Reagan said: "No, I'm not moving my positions any. ... I believe the same things that I've been speaking on for years, and I don't see any reason to change."

Thank God he didn't. Because Reagan lived, the world is a better place.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 07:47:43