I don’t agree with much of what Uncle Ronnie did for America, but right now isn’t the time or the place to state my disagreements.
President Reagan was loved and adored by many Republicans, and Democratic leaders remember him as a man who was willing to comprimise, which is less than I can say for the current crop of Republican leaders.
Long story short, I think we owe Reagan his due, and I think he deserves this week-long rememberence.
I just hope that his death isn’t over-exploited as a political issue. Even though I know it will be.
June 9, 2004 – DAN Rather and Tom Brokaw work for different networks but agree one thing ? coverage of Ronald Reagan’s death has been excessive, they say.
Interesting, they never thought there was too much exposure on e.g. the recent Iraq prison scandal vs a few days for the death of a recent president, and a great one at that. But of course there is no media bias, it is just my imagination.
[quote]AlexPSU wrote:
I don’t agree with much of what Uncle Ronnie did for America, but right now isn’t the time or the place to state my disagreements.
President Reagan was loved and adored by many Republicans, and Democratic leaders remember him as a man who was willing to comprimise, which is less than I can say for the current crop of Republican leaders.
Long story short, I think we owe Reagan his due, and I think he deserves this week-long rememberence.
I just hope that his death isn’t over-exploited as a political issue. Even though I know it will be.[/quote]
Well said. He was a good man and had the most stressful job in the world for 8 years. We can bicker about political stuff (as I did), but really, Reagan was an honorable guy.
I’m still waiting for Lumpy to post a link to a web article proving that Ronnie timed his death or was killed by bush to increase sympathy for the republican party and bolster support for the prez.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And being closed up this Friday is not the creation of a federal holiday in perpetuity - it is a tradition to honor a state funeral.
Besides, who the hell would actually vote against another day off if it were in fact a proposed federal holiday?
[/quote]
I must have been mistaken. Somehow I got the idea it was going to be a new national holiday.
And why the hell would Reagan time his own death to help Bush’s campaign?
Media coverage has been excessive - do we really need to see all 105,000 people walk around the flag-draped coffin? No. Honor him and move back to issues.
We spent weeks on the prison scandal because:
It was a good, no great news story
It was an important story (actually news!)
It raised further questions about the US’s occupancy of Iraq - what we’re doing there, why we’re doing it, and how it’s being run.
I don’t think Reagan “timed his death.” But, I do think the Republican campaign and the conservative media (FOX and some others) will somehow try to use Reagan’s death to bolster Bush’s ratings…perhaps by long winded, euphemistic, truth stretching comparisons…
I think it is great to remember Reagan. It’s good for the nation to be reminded of what we as a nation overcame. Things like the cold war, an economic recession, high interest rates, etc.,
It has been uplifting to here something positive from the news for a change.
I mean how long have they drawn out the iraqi stuff. That’s negative. If you only here negative you start to believe it. I’m glad that they are covering the Reagan funeral.
Has it been excessive? Not really. As a matter of supply and demand, it’s quite clear that many people are interested in reminiscing and reflecting on the 40th President. The visitations, long lines, and media coverage are all evidence of that.
Also, this is an event with an endpoint: when Reagan is laid to rest, the coverage will effectively ends. There has been a huge ceremony leading up to that moment, and naturally the coverage will follow a big ceremony. But when it ends, so will the coverage.
RSU:
I’d say the Nick Berg beheading met all three of your criteria, but it’s coverage couldn’t hold a candle to the Abu Ghraib story in the media. Why?
“But, I do think the Republican campaign and the conservative media (FOX and some others) will somehow try to use Reagan’s death to bolster Bush’s ratings…perhaps by long winded, euphemistic, truth stretching comparisons…”
Will conservatives try to rally this election year and honor one of their favorite Presidents? Of course. Would liberals do the same? Of course they would.
And FYI, that’s what Republican campaigns do - they try and get Republicans elected.
Why not cheer for the democrats! Take for instance, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. He penned a bill to ban ALL SUPPLEMENTS. That’s right, forget about going to Walmart and buying some vitamin C or a bottle of One-a-Day. His reasoning is that the World Heath Organization knows better than you. You can get all your nutrients from eating your Wonder Bread or Lucky Charms. Are the republicans any better? Probably not, that’s why I vote libertarian. Just be careful about blaming one party or another. At least Ronald Reagan didn’t ban your supplements. Is the media coverage overkill? Ask all those who are standing in line to see him. And if it is overkill, it’s the media’s fault. Aren’t you sick of the Koby, Martha Stewart or Scott Peterson trial?
Very enjoyable when people try to correct people about Reagan with false information. Republican President that took in 10% more revenue with his tax cuts, military build-up was approved by Democrat house and Senate. Then with the 10% increase in revenue because of tax cuts, the Democrat House and Senate spent 11%. Those are the GOVERNMENT facts from the Budget Office. Good try to spin the thing, but Reagan succeded with Democrats help so dont get the facts wrong.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
On the Reagan Economy,
(some good points)
Also, check out this source on the Reagan economic record: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
[/quote]
however, check this http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1544 from the Mises people (love those Mises to…sorry)
Maybe Cato is comparing Reagonomics favorably to other policies, where Mises is comparing it to the (gold) standard of what they want done.
When it come to being honorable, I figure I have to let my actions and my beliefs, and how I express myself speak indirectly on the topic. Saying I’m honorable doesn’t mean too much.
greenwhiteneon:
Those guys at mises are always trying to get their best case scenario. They won’t be happy unless we’re back on the gold standard and the government completely stops spending on anything but courts, military and police.
I’d say the Nick Berg beheading met all three of your criteria, but it’s coverage couldn’t hold a candle to the Abu Ghraib story in the media. Why?[/quote]
–>What more was there really to uncover about the case? The prison scandal was, well, a SCANDAL, and it is crucial to explore the lengths to which it went. The point is, he was 93 and he died. Many consider him a great president, but there are news stories out there that ought not be bumped so that news stations can show every freaking minute of the processions.
[quote]“But, I do think the Republican campaign and the conservative media (FOX and some others) will somehow try to use Reagan’s death to bolster Bush’s ratings…perhaps by long winded, euphemistic, truth stretching comparisons…”
Will conservatives try to rally this election year and honor one of their favorite Presidents? Of course. Would liberals do the same? Of course they would.
And FYI, that’s what Republican campaigns do - they try and get Republicans elected.
[/quote]
Thanks for making that information mine, Thunderbolt. However irrelevant that little comment is, my point was that the Bush campaign will, I suspect, attempt to capitalize off Reagan’s death.
