The son of Ronald Reagan talks about the younger Bush, this is great!
Check it out!
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html
Great article!
I can’t wait to see the ad hominem attacks in response.
Lumpy, I must disagree with you. That was not a great article. It was a Kick Ass, take no prisoners, Both Barrels loaded with a Magnum dose of double out buck Truth article. All kidding aside, I respect Ron Reagan Jr quite a bit. He is a very intelligent man who can rise above the Bullshit and see the situation for what it is nothing more nothing less.
I find it so hard to believe how many people especially those who claim righteousness can embrace such lies!
Ron Jr. needs attention! While his father was a great President (in my opinion) he was not a great father. Ron was first a failed actor and now he fancies himself a journalist of sorts. He is trading on his fathers name. And unlike President Bush, ole’ Ron didn’t get very far.
He should be writing for the Village Voice.
Excuse me, but who really is “trading on his fathers name”? And who “didn’t get very far”? As far as I can recall, pretty much each and every one of Bush Jr’s business ventures failed and/or bankrupted…but it was either his daddy or the Saudis who came in to help the poor guy. He couldn’t even win the election by himself… he needed help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris (wiping out thousands of registered voters in Florida), Fox network (Declaring him as the winner) and in the end from his father, whose biddies in the supreme court stopped the recounting of the Florida votes.
In my eyes and ears, thet’s pretty fucking “far”!!!
“When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy. His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bush’s economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. You’re the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, you’ll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet.”
That’s classic. Great article.
I like this quote, referring to the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan:
“His (Ronald Reagan’s) Republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious Right…”
And this is why I no longer consider myself a Republican but a Libertarian.
tme:
Yes, that is the classic sterotype! I hope that you don’t sterotype ethnic, religious and racial groups in this fashion.
It’s not a stereotype in any way, shape or form, ZEB. It’s just a fact. I try not to stereotype anyone, even you right wing neocon religious fanatics (that was kind of a joke, go ahead and pull that knot out of your Olga briefs now).
Bushlite has never worked a single day in his life, and if you think you matter as much to him as kenny boy you have another thing coming. Enjoy those shrimp toast crumbs!
Somebody call the Whaabulance…
See Y’All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.
BY ZELL MILLER
Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I’ll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.
Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve changed much at all. At 72, I don’t feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn’t attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders–including our nominee, John Kerry–don’t hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.
In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state’s governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by–FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.
I spoke of Americans who were “tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services.” I excoriated Republicans who “dealt in cynicism and skepticism.” I accused them of mastering “the art of division and diversion.” And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat “who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they’re both wrong.”
Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.
Today, it’s the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn’t have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent “the heart and soul of America.”
No longer the party of hope, today’s Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry’s many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry’s going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about “the misery index” and the Depression. What does he know about either?
And when it comes to taxes and services, you’d be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don’t understand how small businesses can create jobs if they’ve got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.
Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror–most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment–not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he’s proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they’re out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.
I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren’t able to hide the truth of what today’s Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.
Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.
I do agree that Bush is the lessor of two evils. I’d rather see him re-elected than Kerry put into office.
Junior is an interesting person.
He certainly has strong opinions.
The problem is that they are spiteful. The guy reaks of hate, and I think it is for himself and not living up to his potential.
tme,
It’s the classic sterotype! All republicans care about are the rich. Republican cronies have their own jets bla bla bla.
It’s not original thought. It’s sort of lazy thinking. A thinking handed down from generation to generation. You don’t need facts to back it up. You just know it’s true. It has to be true!
You also sterotype “religious” groups with your broad brush stroke. Many would call this narrow minded. Again, I just think it’s lazy thinking
I fail to see the difference between this mode of thinking and sterotyping for ethnic groups.
It’s all beneath you…I am sure.
Wall Street Journal Editorial
The (Political) Science of Stem Cells
August 12, 2004; Page A10
You might not know about it from listening to the news lately, [but] the President also looks forward to medical breakthroughs that may arise from stem cell research. Few people know that George W. Bush is the only President to ever authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
–Laura Bush
The First Lady was way too polite: The way stem cells have been reported, you’d think we were in a new Dark Ages, with government-backed religious inquisitors threatening scientists on the cusp of life-saving treatments.
Reinforcing this misimpression are the headlines and commentators talking up a “ban” on research. “First lady Laura Bush defends ban on stem-cell research” is how the Philadelphia Inquirer spun Mrs. Bush’s talk. A sampling of other headlines shows the Inquirer is far from alone: “Rethink the stem-cell ban” (Des Moines Register); “Stem cell ban stays, despite Reagan pleas” (Newark Star-Ledger); “Kerry says he’d reverse stem cell ban” (The Grand Rapids Press); “Kerry ‘would lift stem cell ban’” (BBC), and on and on. You get the drift.
The problem is that the drift is wrong. As Mrs. Bush gently reminded her audience in Pennsylvania this week, far from banning embryonic stem cell research, George W. Bush is the first President to expand federal funding for it. The nearby table shows that, as a result of his decision, federal funding went from zero in 2000 to nearly $25 million today – and this doesn’t include the many tens of millions more being spent by the private sector. As Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson points out, the supply of embryonic stem cell shipments available is today greater than the demand.
In other words, this is not, as Ron Reagan characterized it during his prime time slot at the Democratic convention, a battle between “reason and ignorance.” It’s an argument about taxpayer money and how to draw the lines around it.
On the whole this would be a healthy debate for America to have. But the Kerry campaign seems more interested in politicizing the issue by continuing to advance claims for a ban that simply does not exist. Typical was the press release by the campaign Web site this week entitled “Edwards Calls for an End to Stem Cell Ban and a Return to Scientific Excellence in America.” This is no slip: It’s the same language Mr. Kerry used in his radio address when he declared he intends to “lift the ban on stem cell research.” And it’s the same language Hillary Clinton used during her own convention speech, drawing cheers when she invoked the “need to lift the ban on stem cell research.”
All these people know better. The issue is federal subsidies. The need for a Presidential decision arose from an appropriations rider passed by Congress in the mid-1990s forbidding federal funding for any research that creates, injures or destroys human embryos.
The President’s answer was that there ought to be no restrictions on the private sector but that federal subsidies should be limited to lines that had already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of embryos. In short, it was a reasonable middle ground. It’s worth noting that other countries, such as Germany, Ireland and Austria, ban even the private sector from creating embryos for stem cell research.
The potential for embryonic stem cells is that they are malleable and can differentiate themselves into needed cells. That gives them tremendous potential, but it also presents a liability because we can’t yet control what these cells will turn into. In one animal study, a fifth of the mice injected with embryonic stem cells developed brain tumors.
Which helps explain why we still have not had a single human trial for embryonic stem cells. And it means that political claims that cures for diabetes or Parkinson’s are just around the corner are cruelly raising false hopes.
Meanwhile there is another alternative we don’t hear much about in the headlines: adult stem cells. Unlike embryonic research, adult stem cells do not get us into questions about the destruction of human life. In addition, a report in the journal Nature this summer suggests that adult stem cells may have a broader differentiation potential than previously thought.
Plainly this is one of those subjects that involves clashes of goods, in this case the sanctity of human life versus the needs of scientific research. The best way to resolve the issue of taxpayer funding is to let the American people make that decision themselves, through their elected representatives. And dealing, we hope, with the science – not just the Kerry campaign sound bites.