Republicans trying to exploit Reagan's death to help Bush
Reagan's Posthumous Campaign
By Charles Cutter
Jun 10, 2004, 19:49
Magic City Morning Star
A single day had passed before it began: "Mr. Bush and his political advisers embraced the legacy of Ronald Reagan on Sunday, suggesting that even in death, Mr. Reagan had one more campaign in him - this one at the side of Mr. Bush." (Adam Nagourney, New York Times, 6/7/04) Ed Gillespie, Republican national chairman, was quick to compare Bush and Reagan: "The parallels are there. I don't know how you miss them."
Parallels? To a great extent, it's just wishful thinking.
It's generally conceded that George W. Bush lacks not only Mr. Reagan's telegenic charm (which was considerable) but also Mr. Reagan's presidential bearing; he "looked the part." But Bush & Co. are willing--at least for now--to run the risk of comparison. A visit to the Bush/Cheney campaign web site reveals more than a simple memorial to Mr. Reagan, instead demonstrating "
the Bush campaign's unabashed exploitation of Reagan's passing as part of their reelection effort." (Joshua Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo.com). Among other memorabilia, the web site currently links to several key speeches from Mr. Reagan. For the most part, people visiting the site will content themselves with the large color photo of Reagan amidst a bouquet of American flags.
But let's take a look at the speeches.
Mr. Reagan, in an apparent reference to the Viet Cong (but, more likely, to the broader threat of communism): "We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind
"
In 1964, referring to reports of poverty and malnutrition in America, Mr. Reagan joked, "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet." He liked this so well that he offered a revised version ten years later: "Ninety-five percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients - and a part of that five percent that don't are trying to lose weight!"
Regarding racism and the lack of equal opportunity, he pointed out, "When I was your age, believe it or not, none of us knew that we even had a racial problem."
Hmmm
War-inciting hyperbole? Lack of empathy for those less fortunate? Oblivious to critical social issues?
Maybe Mr. Gillespie is right: "The parallels are there."
But the speeches also offer some warnings on the Bush ideology.
Mr. Reagan's view on deficit spending (advice he didn't follow himself): "
even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future, leaving a legacy of debt for another generation
"
It would be interesting to hear how Mr. Reagan would reconcile the following lines with Mr. Bush's Patriot Act: "
those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on [a] downward course
Government programs, once launched, never disappear
How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant?"
Indeed, Mr. Reagan sounds as if he foresaw the dangers of the Bush/Ashcroft attacks on civil liberties: "Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment."
Finally, referring to presidential candidate Barry Goldwater: "This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war." Would Reagan have felt comfortable saying the same thing about George W. Bush?
It's understandable, if a bit tacky, that the Bush campaign wants to jump on the posthumous Reagan bandwagon; what is less understandable is the intensity of the public response to Mr. Reagan's death. The week-long eulogizing of Mr. Reagan has been delivered with a reverence not warranted by the man's accomplishments. Granted, Mr. Reagan embodied optimism after the gloomy and inept Carter years. Still, it's well worth remembering:
"By his last years in office, [Ronald Reagan's] presidency had been soiled by scandal and stained with red ink; his Shining City on a Hill was then $2.4 trillion in debt
The poor, meanwhile, got poorer, or at least more numerous. More than one hundred administration officials had been charged with various offenses
His presidency was pinned down for a year and more by the proliferating inquiries into the Iran-Contra affair. His best defense was that he hadn't known or couldn't remember what was going on; the worse suspicion, widely held, was that he was lying
"(The Quest for the Presidency 1988, Peter Goldman, et al).
Despite his failings, Mr. Reagan served two full terms, and was even able to pass the presidential baton - for one term, at least--to his loyal successor, George Herbert Walker Bush. In the years since, the country has more forgotten - rather than forgiven - Reagan's sins, and embraced his memory with piety and a sense of grandeur.
And this is the full legacy Mr. Bush would like to inherit, particularly that "loyal successor" part. With the thickening odor of high crimes and misdemeanors wafting from this White House - certain to intensify should there be a second term - such a hand-picked successor might be counted on to hamper investigations (or, conceivably, to grant pardons).
It's more gratifying to remember the first (and only other) father-son presidents, John Adams (our second Chief Executive) and John Quincy Adams (our sixth). They were also our first two presidents to be rejected in their bids for second terms.
Like father, like son. This is the legacy George W. Bush more richly deserves.
Back to the original question:
I was a 5th grader when JFK was killed and so didn't spend a lot of time reading newspapers from around the country, but I do recall hearing that when the news of his death was announced in a southern HS, some students cheered. God knows whether or not there was any truth to this tale, but it was horrific at the time. Most likely an apocryphal tale told by Liberals with their classic regional bias. :wink:
If there are any notable members of the Democratic party trying to counter the recent flood of praise for Reagan, I haven't heard them. I agree that they tend towards minimizing his impact by lauding him in terms of geniality and optimism, but they would be insane to take up a sword against his romanticized memory.
If there are would-be iconoclasts posting in blogs and forums similar to this about how really putrid they believe the man actually was, who cares?
Social convention frowns on speaking ill of the dead, but since when does everyone bow to social convention? It's not a crime to be stupid and rude.
There is nothing at all wrong with anyone reiterating the reasons for the opposition to the policies Reagan advanced.
I think a lot of people were taken by surprise by the national outpouring of affection for Reagan. It's not surprising the both parties have eyed the phenomenon for political ramifications. Nor is it particularly disrespectful. However great a leader Reagan might have been, he was a politician himself. I'm sure he would have understood, and not been overly offended by the fairly moderate element of politics that has been injected into this week's events.
Young reagan did give an admirable speech, but this hardly makes his prior rough comments about Bush particularly credible. Sounded more like a "My father can beat up your father!" boast than a carefully constructed analysis.
Personally, I found it a positive thing to see the nation come together to mourn the passing of an American leader and to speak well of him. I hope for the same when Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton passes away.
In the mean time, if the experience gives Bush a boost in the polls - great!
PDiddie wrote: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:
And that I did! I just knew when I heard his eulogy that something was boiling underneath. It looks like he has inherited his father's gift of communication. Too bad he has elected to stay out of politics. I believe he could be a great one.
Considering that this interview was last April, his take on Iraq was quite prophetic.
Quote:"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."
C-span is replaying all the funerals today.
Quote:Young reagan did give an admirable speech, but this hardly makes his prior rough comments about Bush particularly credible. Sounded more like a "My father can beat up your father!" boast than a carefully constructed analysis.
Hello finn
Carefully constructed analyses don't often arise within an interview. But what Ron jr voices here is hardly to be described as a daddy vs daddy neurosis. He clearly despises the policies of this administration, and many of the personalities involved. Much careful analysis arrives at the very same response. Poindexter, indeed!
We ought to acknowledge too that the fellow's familiarity with many of these people is to some degree more priviledged than is the case for most of us.
Blatham, thank you for posting the Ron Reagan Jr article. He impressed me with his short speech at his fathers funeral, particularly with his observation on politics and religious belief. I suspect that even if he does not go into politics, he may at least be more vocal during this presidential election
aqu
PD brought it to our attention (fine fellow PD). I really didn't know much at all about Ron Jr. other than that he'd had a career in dance. I'm impressed by the fellow's well-spokenness and his independence of mind. Very refreshing indeed.
This is the way I always remember him. I also liked other lines, such as:
Ron Reagan wrote: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."
and,
Ron Reagan wrote: I saw politicians up close and there were so many who just repulsed me.
The worst of two evils <sigh>
Ann Coulter said:
"Only authentic Americans loved Reagan."
This woman is secretly writing for the left, right? Hoping by her outrageously ridiculous writing to disgust even the nuttiest Americans with the ultra-right?
Man she's good!
That is a very funny statement.
It is scary that there are those who take this brilliant mind literally....
Foxfyre wrote:It just seemed to me that those who felt it important that 'the record be set straight' could have left alone those of us who genuinely wished to remember and respect and mourn him. We would just get a good thread going and here came the critics to pour as much cold water as they could on anything good that was said.
I didn't think it too much to ask that we have one thread of good stuff. I guess that was too much to ask.
Yeah - it's a tough call. I avoided the adulatory ones - but it gets to be way hard to keep your mouth shut all the time - even if only to inject a little irony into the proceedings - imagine you righter folk staying mum if Clinton snuffed it tomorrow, and there were adulatory threads about him! It'd be a stretch, eh?
Heehee - you can see why the Romans ended up deifying some of their leaders - the evil that men do is oft buried with them - to paraphrase.....well, actually, to reverse. But I digress...
Ron Reagan has something of a broadcast career. He hosts the Eukanuba Tournament of Champions (it's a big dog show, almost as big as the Westminster Kennel Club show) on Animal Planet. See:
http://animal.discovery.com/tuneins/eukanuba.html
I was in jr. high school when we got the news on Kennedy. I was the only person in the classroom who didn't burst into tears, not because I didn't like Kennedy but because I'm not nor ever have been that demonstrative. they let school out early and everyone was afraid that we would be nuked by Russia.
Here is the part of Ron Reagan's speech at the internment ceremony at the library that I am sure was directed toward GWB.
Quote:Dad was also a deeply unabashidly, religious man, but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage.
True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate, and there is a profound difference.
Humble as he was, he never would have assumed a free pass to heaven, but in his heart of hearts, I suspect he felt he would be welcome there. And so he is home. He is free.
That was only a small excerpt from the eulogy. He definitely has the communicative skills of his father. I would look at him as the new and improved Ronald Reagan. Too bad he has elected to stay out of political life.
C-SPAN has a recording of the internment ceremony
www.cspan.org Select "Ronald Reagan Interment Ceremony at His Presidential Library" Ron Reagan's speech begins at 35 min in if you want to fast forward to it.
Quote:a responsibility, not a mandate,
Ain't that a bright and subtle differentiation.
You strike like a snake, blatham.
(Not that I'm opposed to that)
blatham wrote:Quote:Young reagan did give an admirable speech, but this hardly makes his prior rough comments about Bush particularly credible. Sounded more like a "My father can beat up your father!" boast than a carefully constructed analysis.
Hello finn
Carefully constructed analyses don't often arise within an interview. But what Ron jr voices here is hardly to be described as a daddy vs daddy neurosis. He clearly despises the policies of this administration, and many of the personalities involved. Much careful analysis arrives at the very same response. Poindexter, indeed!
We ought to acknowledge too that the fellow's familiarity with many of these people is to some degree more priviledged than is the case for most of us.
That his musings with Salon coincide with Progressive (nee Liberal) notions of Bush and his administration signifies very little. There are any number of Washington insiders who love Bush, but I doubt that persuades you of his merit.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:Young reagan did give an admirable speech, but this hardly makes his prior rough comments about Bush particularly credible. Sounded more like a "My father can beat up your father!" boast than a carefully constructed analysis.
Hello finn
Carefully constructed analyses don't often arise within an interview. But what Ron jr voices here is hardly to be described as a daddy vs daddy neurosis. He clearly despises the policies of this administration, and many of the personalities involved. Much careful analysis arrives at the very same response. Poindexter, indeed!
We ought to acknowledge too that the fellow's familiarity with many of these people is to some degree more priviledged than is the case for most of us.
That his musings with Salon coincide with Progressive (nee Liberal) notions of Bush and his administration signifies very little. There are any number of Washington insiders who love Bush, but I doubt that persuades you of his merit.
I confess it does not. Tiny Tim had his admirers too.
blatham wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:blatham wrote:Quote:Young reagan did give an admirable speech, but this hardly makes his prior rough comments about Bush particularly credible. Sounded more like a "My father can beat up your father!" boast than a carefully constructed analysis.
Hello finn
Carefully constructed analyses don't often arise within an interview. But what Ron jr voices here is hardly to be described as a daddy vs daddy neurosis. He clearly despises the policies of this administration, and many of the personalities involved. Much careful analysis arrives at the very same response. Poindexter, indeed!
We ought to acknowledge too that the fellow's familiarity with many of these people is to some degree more priviledged than is the case for most of us.
That his musings with Salon coincide with Progressive (nee Liberal) notions of Bush and his administration signifies very little. There are any number of Washington insiders who love Bush, but I doubt that persuades you of his merit.
I confess it does not. Tiny Tim had his admirers too.
Yes, I read once that he was presented with the key to Chilliwick Canada
