President Reagan’s health said to have deteriorated

[MWM]

I agree with the sentiment that death does not turn someone into a saint and that evaluation of the person's accomplishments ought to be balanced and fair. But I also believe that focusing on the shortcomings before the person is even buried seems a bit tacky. But that's just my opinion.

There will be plenty of time to discuss Ronald Reagan's legacy.

[Dom Heffner]

TD, you should know better than to voice an opinion against the coalition on here. There will be no discussion, just a "shut up" and a question thrown at your woman/manhood, your morality or patriotism.

On a side note- anyone hear if old Rush Limbaugh has been making any funny jokes about Reagan the way he did when JFK, Jr. died?

That ol' Rush has such a good sense of humor during sensitive times, that I'm sort of pining for an Alzheimer's joke from the guy.

[Dom Heffner]

I agree with the sentiment that death does not turn someone into a saint and that evaluation of the person's accomplishments ought to be balanced and fair. But I also believe that focusing on the shortcomings before the person is even buried seems a bit tacky. But that's just my opinion.

In a perfect world, yes, but if we don't balance the record -funny how fair and balanced doesn't apply to a person's death- then we have to put up with this:

GOP hopes Reagan death boosts Bush

Officially, Republicans say it's unseemly to discuss the political impact of Ronald Reagan's death. Unofficially, GOP strategists tell the Los Angeles Times the Gipper sure did hand Bush a golden opportunity.

"Several Republican strategists said the nation's outpouring of nostalgia and respect for Reagan may have offered Bush an opportunity to improve his flagging popularity -- if he can find a way to don the mantle of his well-loved predecessor. Even before Reagan's death, Bush and his campaign deliberately borrowed some favorite themes from the Republican revolution of 1980: optimism, national confidence, military strength, tax cuts, economic recovery."

"This week, trying not to sound overtly political, Republican spokesmen again looked for polite ways to remind voters that Bush is, in many ways, Reagan's ideological heir. 'The life and example of Ronald Reagan reinforces how important conviction and determination are in a president," Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said in an apparent dig at Bush's presumed Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), whom Republicans have accused of flip-flops. 'Reagan's legacy of optimism and of patriotism should inspire everybody, regardless of political party.'"

"On Friday, in a eulogy he is to deliver for Reagan at the Washington National Cathedral, Bush will have a chance to make that point himself -- if only by implication. The eulogy is being prepared by Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who also wrote the president's moving speech for a memorial service in the same cathedral after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The cycle of mourning for Reagan could bring Bush one other bonus, Republican pollster Bill McInturff said: It will take Americans' minds off the recent spate of bad news from Iraq."

[RollyInRaleigh]

You know guys, I was just stating my own personal opinion. Maybe I am not entitled to that from your point of view, I don't know. Just because I believe something to be appropriate or innappropriate doesn't mean you have to conduct yourself in that particular manner, and have no unrealistic expectation that you do so . You guys can do, or say whatever you wish. I'm nothing but a poor country boy who was brought up in a way that said you had a quiet respect for folks and their family at the time of a death, even if you didn't really care for them or the way that they lived. I would conduct myself the same way, if it were someone that I may not have had respect for in life, and whose ideas and actions that I may have disagreed with vehemently.

As my dad always told me, I am more concerned about my son, growing up to be a gentleman, than just about any other facet of his life. Maybe it is a trait that many don't value anymore, but it is still one that I put at the top of the list. I have no unrealistic expectation that you folks would agree with me or feel the need to change the behavior that you might deem appropriate.

As far as the "telling what kind of person that I am," comment, I would be interested to know what I told about myself with my comments?

[Dom Heffner]

Randy, your point is well taken. I would point out that you were probably also raised to not say anything at all if you couldn't say something nice, but did you always follow that with Bill Clinton? Is it polite to make fun of a man's infidelity when his wife is still alive to hear it? Help me to understand the good ol' boy manners system here. I sure hope you raise your son to be a man who doesn't delight in someone's infidelity.

You are trying to make us all feel guilty with your home grown wisdom, but manners never seem to affect the Grand Old Party when it comes to Democrats. BIll Clinton has an ugly kid? Call her a dog. Don't like someone's political views? Pander videotapes telling made-up stories of murder. JFK, Jr. dies in a plane crash? Tell a joke about how he can walk on water but just not fly over it.

I realize you did not do these things, Randy, but I've never read as eloquent of a criticism of those people as you've written towards us.

And I would never go to a man's funeral and point out the negative side of things. I just lost my father two months ago and someone did just that at the funeral home to my face. It was very hurtful, indeed. But I wouldn't be so bold as to say that person could not express their opinions about my father to their friends, or on a message board that I would never read. A funeral is as much a time for mourning as it is a celebration, and my comments on this board would undoubtedly be inappropriate for such an occasion.

But we aren't at a funeral, the Reagans don't read this board, and quite frankly, I'm not going to give a grace period in which some sort of mythological legacy is built up in the name of manners. What you guys want is a blank check upon which to write out your version of history, and in my opinion, that's more rude than what you are accusing us of. You are taking advantage of a person's death to perpetuate things that aren't so.

[MWM]

Dom, good points. Trying to intentionally capitalize on a person's death is defintely no better, and even worse IMO, than pointing out flaws. If it's a coincidence that they will gain political capital from this, not much you can do. But if they are actively looking for ways to profit from this, then that's disgusting.

I realize you did not do these things, Randy, but I've never read as eloquent of a criticism of those people as you've written towards us.

OK Dom. You know I have to do this, but let's hear your eloquent and well-reasoned criticism of Bill Clinton. You did such a good job on Reagan.

[Rojo]

I went through this thread and the first political utterance was this:

A truly great President, whom I always admired. In my opinion, the greatest President of my lifetime. RIP President Reagan.

By Randy on post #8. If you don't want politics then don't talk politics.

[Rojo]

Clinton was a good, not great, second-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the worst.

[RedsBaron]

Clinton was a good, not great, second-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the worst.

Clinton was a poor, not good, third-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the best.

[letsgojunior]

Kind of ironic that insults can be passed all through this thread to other LIVING Redszone members, but the sacred cow that has died should be off limits, simply because he died.

Just wow. A man just died. His family and most of the nation are in a major state of grief. A woman has to wake up tomorrow knowing she'll never see the love of her life again. Kids have to wake up knowing that the guy who helped shape their life died a pretty horrible death.

I can't at all see the correlation between insults in the heat of debate with insults thrown at someone who passed hours before, leaving behind a major ripple effect of pain and sadness.

No one is saying his presidency is off-limits - they are just saying that there should be a period for the family to grieve and pay their respects.

[M2]

I don't understand what metric you'd use to separate Reagan and Clinton.

Both redefined their parties and practiced brazen partisan social politics. Both overcame rocky starts to win a comfortable re-election and experienced disappointing second terms mired in scandal. Both enjoyed wild economic booms, Clinton's lasted a bit longer. Both talked a good game on foreign policy, but headed administrations that were spectators more than participants on the international stage. The chief strength of each one was his optimism, Reagan's took on the form of nationalism, Clinton's the form of humanism. Both gave great speech. If you look at the final record of both, the long-term accomplishments are a little lacking. Mostly they made their party faithful happy campers.

Frankly, I wouldn't go carving either one of their heads into the side of a mountain.

[Redsfaithful]

Clinton was a poor, not good, third-tier President. Reagan, IMO, was one of the best.

If selling weapons to Iraq (knowing full well that they were committing war crimes with said weapons) and Iran, killing tens of thousands of Central Americans, deregulating the S&L industry, and tripling the national debt make for a good president, than yes Reagan was indeed one of the best.

I think the Reagan presidency was when Republicans stopped caring about the size of government, although they continue to give lipservice to the idea.

As far as speaking ill of the man so soon after his death ... he's been as good as dead to this country for the past decade. If people are attacking the man personally, then yes I agree that that's distasteful. But there's nothing wrong with discussing Reagan's record as president.

[RedsBaron]

Both talked a good game on foreign policy, but headed administrations that were spectators more than participants on the international stage.

Reagan's administration was a "spectator" rather than a "participant" on the international stage?

[RedsBaron]

Historian Michael Beschloss is not normally regarded to be a Reaganite Republican. In the current issue of Newsweek, he wrote the following (page 41):
"After FDR's death in 1945, The New York Times predicted that 'men will thank God on their knees a hundred years from now' that FDR had been the president to fight Hitler and Tojo. It is not too much to suggest that, with Ronald Reagan's death, Americans might now give similar thanks that they twice elected a president who saw the chance to end the cold war in his own time."

[Johnny Footstool]

His family and most of the nation are in a major state of grief.

That's a little melodramatic. I think "most of the nation" would mourn the death of a sitting president, since that loss would be quite startling and would put the leadership of this country into disarray. Reagan has been out of power and the public eye for so long, I can't believe "most of the nation" is really that shocked or upset at his passing. I think many people are paying their respects, but I doubt there exists a "major state of grief," even though MSNBC and Fox would have you believe otherwise, what with their round-the-clock coverage of the event.