Bush Should Fear Nancy Reagan’s Ire (Barf Alert)

The New York Observer ^ | 06/09.2004 | Joe Conason

[montag813]

Her friends predict that in the days to come, she will speak out with increasing frequency and determination on behalf of stem-cell research

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.

[Mike Darancette]

that the public tributes to the late Ronald Reagan this week will lift the sagging George W. Bush.

And the public will ignore Bush's huge victory in the UN this week?

These guys are scared stiff.

[Mister Baredog]

. I do not see that vision in this President

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.

[sarasota]

Welcome to Freerepublic. Interesting perspective. Are you sure you're on the right forum?

[Mister Baredog]

Correction: And the public media will ignore Bush's huge victory in the UN this week?

[glaux]

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.

[madprof98]

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.

[THE MODERATE]

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

[FrankR]

...just the media TRYING to start a riff between Nancy Reagan and Bush; the libs desparately need to somehow distance Bush from the Reagan legacy...so they're trying to start something that isn't there.

Nothing to see here...let's move on....

[KJacob]

"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.

[Tanniker Smith]

I have no doubt that Nancy Reagan will continue to push for support. That, however, does not mean that she will decide to become a Democrat or vote for Kerry to get it. She will try to persuade Pres. Bush, try to persuade cabinet members to persuade Pres. Bush, and try to persuade Congressman and Senators to persuade Pres. Bush. She will also vote to re-elect Pres. Bush.

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

[ILS21R]

Years from now Reagan will still be one of the greatest presidents in history and conason will be...."who??".

[MHGinTN]

"... the President’s "faith-based" aversion to scientific progress(What?). 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.)" Joe Conason is a deceit-filled liberal elitist. He will never get it, that the President's faith constrains embracing the cannibalism liberals like Conason want this nation to rely upon for 'miraculous cures', none of which have even been remotely observed while adult stem cell cures are becoming more numerous and in many areas of medicine. Nancy Reagan is a liberal and her plea for embryonic stem cell exploitation is far from a pro-life position ... but then she never professed to be pro-life like her husband, President Reagan.

[sarasota]

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.

[Independentamerican]

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.

[Judith Anne]

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...

[NYC GOP Chick]

Looks like your favorite author has laid another turd on the table.

</sigh> Sounds like it's time for me to bitch slap him via email once again. My work is never done, is it?