Clinton demands 'spotlight' at funeral, Dems pettyness grows

According to various reports today, Bill Clinton's advisors are making their rounds to criticize Nancy Reagan for not inviting him to speak at Reagan's funeral. "It is a state funeral, using tax dollars" explains one Clinton aide. Clinton, who has a new book to promote, is angry that he's been shut out from any high-profile participation.

Clinton's pettiness simply adds to the bizarre situation this weekend when staffers at the DNC headquarters prevented interns from lowering the flags to half-staff. Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader, also scoffed when her office wanted to send flowers to the Reagan library, and nixed the idea.

Meanwhile, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan thinks the liberal media will bash Reagan next week, after he is buried. "[Journalists] are willing, over the next few days, to concede what is so obvious that they have to concede it - his personal goodness, etc.," Noonan told Matt Drudge on his radio show. "I'll bet they start pulling a few political [stunts] - kind of letting their biases out a little bit more. And I'll tell you, there's going to be an explosion next weekend [after Reagan is buried]."

-peekay

 

I don't understand this. Reagan has been out of office since 1988 and his legacy left office in 1992 so there has been plenty of time to bash the man or the administration to death. I was never a fan of Reagan but the Reagan-bashing bandwagon never came around for me. So why would it now? Why is anyone building any drama toward such a non-event? The man died and his years after office were very difficult for both himself and his family. I think everyone gets it.

Not to make excuses for Clinton (I wouldn't know where to begin) but aren't current former-Presidents typically invited as VIP's to funerals of other former-Presidents? Wasn't Jimmy Carter present at Gerald Ford's funeral?

 

Why is anyone building any drama toward such a non-event?

It's an election year, need I say more?

Not to make excuses for Clinton (I wouldn't know where to begin) but aren't current former-Presidents typically invited as VIP's to funerals of other former-Presidents? Wasn't Jimmy Carter present at Gerald Ford's funeral?

Clinton is of course invited as a VIP, but he's angry that he's not one of the featured speakers at the funeral. However, Reagan long before his death had asked his personal friend Margaret Thatcher to give an address at his funeral (that eulogy will be delivered via taped video), while George Bush will deliver the main eulogy. George Sr. will also speak at the funeral, and the family has asked former Canadian PM Brian Mulroney to say a few words as well.

With scheduled readings from Sandra Day O'Connor, Rabbi Harold Kusher, and singing from tenor Ronan Tynan, there's simply no room for Clinton to speak... apparently that isn't stopping him from trying to weasel his way in, though.

-peekay

 

I don't think the election year idea holds water when it comes to commemorating the passing of a President. Others will differ but I don't buy it.

That's gonna be one long service! Yeah, Clinton has no business trying to bump any of those folks off the schedule and they sure don't need to make that service longer. I sure hope those that do get the opportunity to speak will keep current events out of the ceremony.

 

The bashing begins...

I stand corrected... the liberal Reagan bashing party has started already...

"Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer" writes BBC TV reporter & journalist Greg Palast. "Good riddance," says Pallast, proclaiming that "the rat is dead."

Acclaimed by Michael Moore for his "courageous" reporting, Palast, who writes for the The Observer, also accuses Nancy Reagan of bribery.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=336

-peekay

 

What do you expect from a socialist.

 

Sorry.. you looked for some trash on the web. We should be surprised you found it?

 

I am with Robert on this one the net is full of trash.

 

The mainstream press is reporting the same... so I take that as fair game. E.g., from the Washington Times on Ted Rall's idiotic tirade:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040608-114726-8654r.htm

Ronald Reagan is "turning crispy brown right about now", says Rall, as the left shows its uglyness:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040608


-peekay

 

what makes you think that just because the mainstream press reports it, it is not trash?

 

Read it again: "The mainstream press is reporting the same... so I take that as fair game". No one disputes the abundance of trash from our liberal-dominated press. They simply make my job easier.

-peekay

 

okay, i get it...

but don't the conservatives dominate radio?
they got nothing but trash as well, just trash from a different neighborhood.

it still stinks just as much...

 

The Time's inflamatory headline: "Political cartoonist defends anti-Reagan Web tirade"

I think we need Editor Doyle back on this story!

 

How many people that you know get their news from talk radio?

Now haow many from TV, papers, mags?

 

I get my news reports from the back of the placemats at Stuckys. It comes with a maze and a word jumble.

 

the point i was making is that it is all sensationalistic trash, both sides.

neither one has the market cornered on it, regardless of the total viewership.

 

How many people form opinions, then use google to find links that agree?

 

Never. I read the Washington Post and Yahoo news to see what's going on in the world. I avoid their slant and just read it. Most times I already have an opinion but I try and keep an open mind. Hell, I'm not opposed to someone changing my opinion on something.

Reagan will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents (like it or not, it's going to happen). Clinton will be a foot note, down with Polk, Madison and Hoover.

 

I think "Most Loved American President" is more accurate. He's had that position since he left office and I don't see that ever changing. Not a bad legacy.