Posted on 06/09/2004 6:37:34 AM PDT by jazzo
While trying to avoid ostentatious gloating, Republican operatives quietly confide their hope that the public tributes to the late Ronald Reagan this week will lift the sagging George W. Bush. That may happen for a time, just as the capture of Saddam Hussein briefly bolstered the President. By Election Day, however, memories of Reagan are unlikely to motivate anyone who wouldn’t have voted for Mr. Bush anyway.
Meanwhile, with typical taste and restraint, the Bush-Cheney campaign has erected a "living memorial" to Ronald Reagan on its Web site. Such strained attempts to associate their candidate with his professed role model may prove less profitable than they expect. Placing him alongside Reagan isn’t necessarily flattering to the incumbent, in terms of substance or style.
Both Presidents passed ill-advised and unfair tax cuts, but Reagan then raised taxes and closed corporate loopholes, which would be unimaginable for Mr. Bush. Both claimed to be opponents of bigger government, but Mr. Bush expanded federal entitlements and corporate welfare with his prescription drug bill. While both wielded American military power, Reagan did so without rupturing our traditional alliances, as Mr. Bush has so stupidly done. Indeed, this reckless, regressive Presidency has somehow made that one look cautious and prudent.
And although Mr. Bush resembles Reagan in his detachment from policy detail, the old actor’s public performance and rhetorical skills far surpassed those of his aspiring heir. For conservatives, this contrast must be painful to contemplate.
Invidious comparisons aside, the Bush team may confront yet another problem if they are tempted to exploit Reagan’s legacy. Her name is Nancy Reagan.
Officials who underestimated or ignored the former First Lady often learned they had made a bad mistake as their heads bounced down the White House driveway. They complained about her astrologer, her designer frocks, her epicene Manhattan friends and her expensive new porcelain. But she maintained an influence over her husband enjoyed by no other adviser.
The persona she projected in those days may not always have seemed attractive, but she usually exercised her extraordinary power in ways beneficial to her husband and, more importantly, to her country. Bright and tough, she showed little patience for the useless time-servers and right-wing extremists who had survived the transition from California. Despite her upbringing in a very conservative family, she was a political moderate in the Reagan milieu. Last year, she sensibly quashed the right-wing enthusiasm for replacing F.D.R.’s profile on the dime with her that of husband.
Now she’s the object of tremendous national sympathy and admiration—and the spokeswoman for a cause that cuts directly against the President’s "faith-based" aversion to scientific progress. She believes that embryonic stem-cell research may someday relieve the Alzheimer’s disease that destroyed Reagan’s mind, and in that conviction she possesses the kind of credibility that suffering can confer. (She wouldn’t be the first conservative to learn deeper compassion from a terrible personal ordeal.)
Her friends predict that in the days to come, she will speak out with increasing frequency and determination on behalf of stem-cell research, which the President has hindered with federal restrictions and constraints on spending. Surely she remembers how he spurned her private pleas three years ago, when he was pondering that decision. She must know that the Bush administration’s hostility to science goes well beyond the stem-cell issue, with its big, destructive cutbacks in funding for disease research.
According to press reports, Mrs. Reagan isn’t expected to appear at the Republican convention next September (though it isn’t clear whether she wasn’t invited or declined to participate). No doubt she remains a Republican, at least nominally, and she may eventually deliver a pro forma endorsement of the President, despite her well-known coolness toward the Bush family. Yet she hardly shares the religious-right ideology that motivates this generation of Bush politicians.
And lately, in pursuit of her passion for medical research, she has displayed no reluctance to consort with Democrats. Among her closest friends is Casey Ribicoff, widow of Abraham Ribicoff, the late liberal Democratic Senator from Connecticut, who told The New York Times that Mrs. Reagan was infuriated by the President’s stem-cell decision.
Last month she spoke publicly at a Beverly Hills benefit for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, where she received an award from the actor Michael J. Fox and a kiss on the cheek from singer James Taylor. Both entertainers happen to be staunch Democrats and supporters of John Kerry, an outspoken supporter of stem-cell technology.
"Ronnie’s long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him," she said on that occasion. "Because of this, I’m determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain. I just don’t see how we can turn our backs on this."
Let’s hope that her husband’s death brings some final relief to the grieving Nancy Reagan—and that she is as serious as she says about fighting for medical progress.
Nancy Reagan is a patriot. Which is why she denied Clinton a chance to speak at the funeral. Which is why she denied Nancy Pelosi a place at the Capitol service. Which is why she will wait until AFTER the election to step up her campaign for stem cell research.
Mrs Reagan has spent too many decades by her husband's side fighting Communists to assist Stalin's heirs in the Democrat party from gaining power on November 6.
And the public will ignore Bush's huge victory in the UN this week?
These guys are scared stiff.
Open your eyes, Reagan was great, no doubt, after all he had the ability to act as well as decide.
Bush has been quite bold, of course if your a "moderate" you can't see much of anything. You're just waiting to see what the majority does so you can join in.
Welcome to Freerepublic. Interesting perspective. Are you sure you're on the right forum?
Let me put this more properly...
"While trying to avoid ostentatious gloating, Democrat operatives quietly confide their hope that the public tributes to the late Paul Wellstone this week will lift the sagging Al Gore."
Projection is always a pathetic ego defense mechanism.
They are pushing this stem-cell stuff with a passion. There was a HUGE article about it in the Atlanta paper this morning, the second one in just a few days. This comes from the same crowd that made Paul Wellstone's funeral into a pep rally. I guess it's only fitting that they do this sort of thing with funerals since their cause is the Culture of Death.
I appreciate the opportunity. I am not a troll I have never posted on DU, I have posted on Daily Kos and I am disliked overthere and several posters have said my views are more comphortable over here some I am trying it. But I am a moderate. GWB wins if he is compared to Bill Clinton and he wins big if compaired to Al Gore, particulary what I have heard form Gore this year. But in my opinion something is missing from GWB. I could not put my finger on it but after watching replays of Reagan speeches it sort of came back to me. Reagan knew what to say when to say it and how to say it. They did not call him the great communicator for nothing, but it was more than that he was just that good. I did not agree with everthing he did, but I trusted his judgement as sound and in 1984 I cast my first vote for him. I do not have the same feeling about GWB, I think he was better than Gore, and from what I have heard from Gore lately I think a good bit better than Gore.
I hope this expains it better
"GWB wins if he is compared to Bill Clinton and he wins big if compaired to Al Gore,"
Yes I agree. I must have misread you original post. I thought you were saying that Bush would be lucky to be compared with Clinton and Gore. Suggesting he was beneath both. I am glad you explained.
Yes, she may take "drastic measures", whatever those might be, if she is ignored, but that won't happen this week or this month or this year.
TS
I misunderstood you as well. Glad you cleared things up. Let me just say that I don't think W is always the best communicator. He hasn't sounded quite the same since Karen Hughes and Ari Fleisher left. But Karen is back on board, so perhaps he'll get a boost from her--the knows how to create speeches that enhance W's comfort level, more in the Texas lexicon. Here's hoping.
Maybe so but why is it Reagan beat the pants off the dems but Bush barely beat of all people Al Gore and may have a fight on his hands against a person who stands for nothing in senator Kerry. Reagan was able to get alot of dems to vote for him during his years in office.
I'm not sure, but I have some ideas:
For one thing, Florida wasn't the only place where outright fraud took place. My son in St. Louis said it was terrible, right out in public, and not even a pretense was made to hide it. I think that there was massive fraud in Michigan, in Wisconsin, and many other states. I sincerely doubt that Gore won the popular vote, because even in states he clearly won, such as California, there was voter fraud. You may decide that Gore did win the popular vote, and that anecdotal evidence doesn't count, but I disagree.
In addition, the press was NOT the same during President Reagan's campaign as during President Bush's. I know, I lived through both of them (and Nixon's, and Carter's, and Bush 41 and Clinton's) as an adult. The fraud and bias by the media during President Bush 43's campaign was huge and horrible. Just think if it had succeeded...
</sigh> Sounds like it's time for me to bitch slap him via email once again. My work is never done, is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.