Debate: Should Bill Clinton speak at President Reagan's Funeral.

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Sirius
The family should decide who speaks at the funeral. As for the the Fox (Faux) News report . Here's what Nancy Peolsi said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Ronald Reagan served our country with dignity and he died with dignity. As an American, I appreciate Ronald Reagan’s great leadership and service to our country. As a Californian, I admire the special grace and humor that endeared him to millions. I hope it is a comfort to Nancy Reagan and the entire Reagan family that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this sad time.”

I think this is more accurate. Democrats could possibly be committing political suicide if they spoke out against Reagan. I don't think they're that stupid.

Though, I freely admit, I an no fan of Nancy Peolsi.

 

[DawnCt1]

Prior to the election and certainly since his inaugauration, GWB has often been compared to Ronald Reagan. He has been described more like Reagan than his own father, so the comment that he is making political hay out of RR's death is wrong. Its not a new statement and its not a new comparison. Before the Democrats start whining about not being able to grand stand at RR's funeral, lets all recall the political rally funeral of Paul Wellstone.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but to call drudge credible is beyond ridiculous, no matter how much you like the trash he throws out.

.

Drudg'es web site consists mostly of links to other news sources than most find credible. Now and then he breaks a story and most of the time he is correct. This story is already being broadcast this morning on Fox News. Oh, I suppose you don't think that is news either. You may not like what he thinks is news but you would be wrong to say it isn't news.

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

I could see more of a argument for Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to speak than Bill Clinton. At least they have the connection to Reagan of having run for President against him.

If a former political adversary were to speak, it should be Gorbachev. Tip O'Neill would be perfect also, but I believe he's passed away.

Ultimately, though, I agree that it's the family's decision who speaks.

 

[Schmeck]

Dubya compared to Reagan? Reagan, one of the best speech-givers in US history, Dubya one (if not the) worst. I always think of Dubya as a poster child for 'no child left behind', LOL!

 

[AirForceRocks]

IF the comments attributed to President Clinton are true, then I think he is out of line. It should be left up to the family (or the late President, as plans for these things are made ahead of time)to determine who will speak at the funeral. I know that President Clinton spoke at President Nixon's funeral, and I attributed that to the fact that he was President at the time President Nixon died. My guess is that if a Democrat were in office now, that President would be speaking at President Reagan's funeral.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Schmeck
Dubya compared to Reagan? Reagan, one of the best speech-givers in US history, Dubya one (if not the) worst. I always think of Dubya as a poster child for 'no child left behind', LOL!

I don't think that the comparison extended to speech giving but to policy. If you compare policy, the similarities are obvious.

 

[peachgirl]

the comment that he is making political hay out of RR's death is wrong

You mean to tell me that drudge is WRONG?????


Edited to add:

As reported by the sludgereport:

Bush advisers, meanwhile, insisted that they weren't trying to compare Bush to Reagan for political gain, even as they did so.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Prior to the election and certainly since his inaugauration, GWB has often been compared to Ronald Reagan. He has been described more like Reagan than his own father, so the comment that he is making political hay out of RR's death is wrong. Its not a new statement and its not a new comparison. Before the Democrats start whining about not being able to grand stand at RR's funeral, lets all recall the political rally funeral of Paul Wellstone.

Yes...The only grandstanding will be done by Repuglicans, dadgumit !



Oh, and while we're remembering the Wellstone fiasco, let's not forget the gnashing of teeth done by the Republicans at the time....Apparently, though, they weren't indignant that the Dems had turned a funeral into a campaign rally...Just that they didn't get to play at the same time...lol

Oh, and can we please keep up the comparisons between Shrub and Reagan ? I can always use the laughs...I hate to tell you, but the only people doing that comparison are Shrub shills in the media and his own staff. Reagan united this country in a lot of ways (just check his popularity ratings), and you'd have to be an idiot to think Shrub has done anything of the sort.

 

[wvrevy]

Oh, and as to the original "question"...No, I don't think Clinton should speak at Reagan's funeral. Much as some are attempting to turn it into something else, the funeral of a president should NOT be a place for political grandstanding.

As for the political ramifications of having only Republicans speaking...Frankly, I think that Shrub speaking actually works against him most of the time, as anybody with a decent command of the English language can't help but cringe when they listen to him

 

[Pop Daddy]

What ever Nancy wants

 

[jrydberg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the comment that he is making political hay out of RR's death is wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You mean to tell me that drudge is WRONG?????


Edited to add:

As reported by the sludgereport:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush advisers, meanwhile, insisted that they weren't trying to compare Bush to Reagan for political gain, even as they did so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I noted earlier, if Drudge is to be believed, then Bush's campaign manager made comparisons between Bush and Reagan *to his staff* That's not making the comparison for political gain, it's making it to inspire his staff. It is deliberately misleading to have posted that and given the impression that Bush's campaign manager made such statements publicly. The statement to the public had none of these comparisons. There is no story here.

 

[Eeyore1954]

It would be unseemly for anyone to complain or whine that they were not invited to speak. The funeral is not a photo op or platform for some to revise or redeem their legacy. It is a time for the country to honor someone who served as President.

As much as I am not a fan of former President Clinton, I would expect his family to have the final say on his funeral arrangements and who will or will not speak at the services. I would hope that when his time comes, his funeral will not be the subject of partisan bickering.

 

[KarenC]

I can see why Clinton would not be included as a speaker at Reagan's funeral. That said, I hope that the funeral doesn't become politicized (a la Paul Wellstone). As a state funeral, it is being funded by the taxpayers, and should be above politics. I'll take a wait and see approach before deciding whether or not it was handled appropriately.

 

[Doug123]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You actually believe the drudge report?

Yikes!

The Drudge Report is a two-bit gossip rag. I suppose some people believe the headlines and photos in the Enquirer like "Headless Alien Baby Found Alive!" or "Wolfman Delivers Twins!"

If true and not taken out of context to play politics (whoa, that wouldn't happen, would it?), then Clinton was out of line. With that said, however, I also believe each of the US Presidents should be given the opportunity to speak.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by jrydberg
As I noted earlier, if Drudge is to be believed, then Bush's campaign manager made comparisons between Bush and Reagan *to his staff* That's not making the comparison for political gain, it's making it to inspire his staff. It is deliberately misleading to have posted that and given the impression that Bush's campaign manager made such statements publicly. The statement to the public had none of these comparisons. There is no story here.

Inspiring the "staff" most certainly has political gains. I think it's sleazy to use President Reagan's death as a motivational tool no matter who it's directed at.

Your position is that as long as they keep it secret, it's ok? I suppose then that the Bush campaign can say or do anything as long as they manage to keep the public from knowing about it.

Under that theory, it's perfectly fine for President Clinton to voice his opinion as to whether or not he should speak at the funeral. If he actually said it, I'm sure he didn't intend for it to be made public either.


At any rate, why you assume those statements were made available to the public is beyond me. I'm actually quite sure that Bush's campaign chairman never intended for the public to know about them. After all, it would come off looking like just what it is....a sleazy thing to do.

 

[jrydberg]

Sorry, but to me that just seems like you're looking for an excuse to slam Bush. My position is that I don't particularly care what a campaign manager does to get the most out of his/her staff. You do understand that these are hard core Republicans that, for the most part, revere Reagan and firmly believe in what George W. Bush is doing? He's not trying to sway anyone here. They're already on his side. Seems an appropriate motivational tool. Nothing sleazy whatsoever about it.

If Clinton wants to gripe to his wife, friends or staff about not being invited to speak, fine. What do I care? If he gripes in a more public forum, that's inappropriate.

 

[caitycaity]

this is one of those hookaires threads for me.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Doug123
With that said, however, I also believe each of the US Presidents should be given the opportunity to speak.

Wowzers -- that wouldn't be a state funeral -- it'd be a talk-a-thon.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
I don't think that the comparison extended to speech giving but to policy. If you compare policy, the similarities are obvious.

I don't see the similarities at all. If it were Bush at the Berlin Wall, he would have said "Gorbachev, tear down these walls or I'm going to shoot them down myself."