Comments on: Reagan should be on a $3 bill

Reagan should be on a $3 bill

Postroad — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:03:21 -0800

Reagan should be on a $3 bill "For the funeral of Ronald Reagan, they took the body from Beverly Hills to Simi Valley, the white Los Angeles suburb, where it stayed for a day and a half or so then they drove it in one of these two hearses to the airport and flew it to Washington and then they had a march and afterwards put the casket into the Capitol for crowds to pass by and now there was to be another march and a religous service and then a drive to the airport, where the casket will be shuttled back to the airport south of Los Angeles and in a hearse to the final ceremony at his library on Friday. That is quite a funeral. They buried George Washingon in half the time. You keep thinking of Harry Truman, whose code was, "Do not impose." He left an order that there were to be no eulogies at his funeral."

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:09:28 -0800

Reagan's still dead, right? I mean, nothing has changes since I last saw his coffin on television, right? I'd hate to be out of the loop if there is some change in his deadness.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:09:52 -0800

Jebus, Postroad. we know you don't read MetaTalk, but do you read the sidebar, at least? "If you have something to post about Reagan, please post about it here in lieu of making a new post. Thanks."

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:09:59 -0800

Funerals are for the living. The dead get the service that the living require. So, you can make the argument that it's our fault.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:23:22 -0800

Man, do I have Reagan fatigue or what ? *Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........*

By: MrAnonymous

MrAnonymous — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:31:50 -0800

I think he should be on a $0.99 bill. So when you buy something for $2.99, you can take out two one's and a ninety-nine.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:36:06 -0800

They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity. The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights. I've always loved Breslin, and never more so than today. : >

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:37:32 -0800

I think he should be on a $0.99 bill. So when you buy something for $2.99, you can take out two one's and a ninety-nine. What about tax?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:42:50 -0800

Would that make some of us queer as a 4 dollar bill? Although tough call, Reagan vs. Andrew Jackson for most dispised banknote figure. If I was king of the USA, I'd probably avoid the historical issues and just go with critters.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:44:40 -0800

we should do arts figures--Ray Charles on the 50.

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:45:33 -0800

Hey, you think you're sick of it...poor Nancy must be tough as titanium to get thru this week.

By: kablam

kablam — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:53:14 -0800

Dan, Peter and the other guy also squirmed in their seats at the thought of having to honor *him*. However, the nets took one look at the ratings and told them to put a sock in it. On the plus side, when Bill Clinton pegs, he'll be put in a nice canvas bag inside a trailer, and Hillary (or Ken Starr) will get to kick the chocks out, so it falls into the abandoned quarry. The Marine honor guard will then shoot the trailer full of holes so it will sink.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:06:57 -0800

Warren Gamaliel Harding had a big funeral, too.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:17:09 -0800

I think he should be on a $0.99 bill. So when you buy something for $2.99, you can take out two one's and a ninety-nine. What about tax? Not here in Montana -- no sales tax. Price says $2.99, you pay $2.99.

By: palancik

palancik — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:19:54 -0800

Canvas bag? Trailer? Must really rot your socks that Clinton was more popular than Reagan: The highest approval ratings recorded by the Gallup organization: Ronald Reagan: 68% Bill Clinton: 71%
Total term average approval ratings recorded by the Gallup organization: Ronald Reagan: 53% Bill Clinton: 55%
Final approval ratings recorded by the Gallup organization in the final weeks of their administrations:
Ronald Reagan: 21-Oct-88: 51% 11-Nov-88: 57% 27-Dec-88: 63%
Bill Clinton: 15-Dec-00: 66% 5-Jan-01: 65% 10-Jan-01: 66%

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:20:06 -0800

You know what? I think, really, that it might be worth working toward a two-week funeral for President Clinton, when his time comes. Preferably with just as much historical-comparison aggrandization (many more deserved, frankly) and religious platitudes and appearances. They could put the coffin on a bus, and drive it around, especially if it's campaign season! I think this would be especially effective in Texas and Florida. We'll all join hands and celebrate our glorious national unity, which we were led to with loving kindness by the wise and knowing grasp of detail that President Clinton showered upon our happy, happy land! In fact, if it's at all possible, could we arrange for this sort of treatment to be provided for Jimmy Carter as well? It's clearly a great way to unify the country in joyous celebration of the flawless historical legacy of our beloved leaders. Also, did I just hear John Kerry, on the radio, note that RR would always remain a great President to him? Would someone please tell me if that is in fact what I heard?

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:23:04 -0800

kablam: I'm sure Hillary & Ken are both one step ahead of you planning it. As far as Breslin: what a disgusting pig. "He was a callous man..." and "Ronald Reagan hated children...". And this: "And almost all the reporters agreed that Reagan was the man who brought down Russia in the Cold War. Just saying this is absolutely sinful." What a jackass. Surely he can't be THAT stupid, can he? What the reporters -- and most Americans & other people, too -- know is that more than any other SINGLE person, it was Reagan who contributed to the demise of the U.S.S.R. Of course he didn't do a literal Rambo on the Kremlin - but it was his policies, ideals, and unwavering conviction that forced the Soviets to abandon their decades-long nightare. Oh, and real smooth, Jimmy - referring to the Soviet Union as "Russia." Big difference.

By: ook

ook — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:24:47 -0800

Pickle their bodies and put them on tour. All of them. Candidates for future elections, too, while you're at it; they can lie in state in the back row. It'd be like Tussaud's, only better.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:24:53 -0800

FDR always stated that if a monument was ever built in his honor, it should be no bigger than his desk. So at the northwest corner of the National Archives building, shaded by some trees on the lawn, stands a single block of granite the size of the presidential desk used by FDR. Apparently, however, that simple block of granite wasn't enough for the politicians of the 1990s, so in 1997 a newer, larger memorial to the nation's 32nd president was dedicated along the cherry-tree walk next to the Tidal Basin across from the Jefferson Memorial. That small National Archives memorial is one of my favorite landmarks in DC, actually. I was also impressed, when I visited Truman's Little White House in Key West, by how Spartan the accomodations were. nowadays an obscure State Senator would probably insist on 5-star luxury treatment, nevermind the President (btw there was no air conditioning in Camp David, when it was first built and it was called Shangri-La. very little hot water, too. only for the President and his family, not even for the top aides. but it was good enough for FDR, Churchill, Truman, etc. I seem to remember that it was Eisenhower who decided to put air conditioning. back then, Camp David was only open 3 months a year, in the summer. now it's a luxury resort)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:26:34 -0800

but it was his policies, ideals, and unwavering conviction that forced the Soviets to abandon their decades-long nightare. Bull.

By: ook

ook — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:27:16 -0800

(and davidmsc, did you stop reading at the paragraph you quoted? Because the one after that must have really pissed you off.)

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:28:01 -0800

Kerry Leads Bush By Seven Percent is what I heard--plus a majority of US voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq. The Reagan bounce, as it were...

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:29:35 -0800

re Shangri-La: I've always loved anecdotes of FDR and Churchill and a chaffeur going for a drive to kill time, and stopping to drink a whiskey and soda in country bars. no security detail, no press. just the three of them. bah

By: jfuller

jfuller — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:31:41 -0800

> They buried George Washingon in half the time. By contrast it took them what, ninety years, to bury Lenin? Imagine how sick your average rooski got of Vladimir Ilyich, and rest content. Speaking of rooskies, I notice Gorbachev came and waited through the line for his moment to stand respectfully at the coffin. But then both men were incomparable greater than any of the pipsqueak snarkoids one meets around here. That's the knowledge that really brings out the hate, I daresay.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:02:15 -0800

poor Nancy must be tough as titanium to get thru this week. No kidding. Sometimes you can really see the pain and loneliness in her eyes, though. I feel very sad for Nancy.

By: Durwood

Durwood — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:05:33 -0800

Geez...stop the whining! You guys will get your chance for a state funeral (and the media gush) when Clinton dies someday. Of course, if he lives to be as old as Reagan, the funeral will be in in 2039.....

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:07:04 -0800

I bet Ford is next. And when Carter goes, i demand equal time, funeralwise.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:13:10 -0800

"They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity." It's the media's porn.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:13:45 -0800

Must really rot your socks that Clinton was more popular than Reagan How about real number instead of samples: First Term Election Reagan wins with 51% of the vote in 1980. Clinton wins with 43% of the vote in 1992. Second Term Election Reagan wins with 59% of the vote in 1984. Clinton wins with 49% of the vote in 1992.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:15:51 -0800

1996, rather

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:46:12 -0800

Westboro Baptist Church honors the late former president in their own inimitable style.

By: John Smallberries

John Smallberries — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:47:27 -0800

For partisan crying out loud! A former President of the United States has passed away. That is pretty significant - for the Americans among us, anyway - and a little pomp and ceremony about his funeral is not out of place. And yes, just as much attention should be paid when Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, etc. pass on. Loathe one side or the other, all these men served as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It is about respect for the office they held. Grow up and stop counting tit for tat over who is going to be mourned more.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:49:51 -0800

Thank you, S@L.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:57:02 -0800

I'm glad to see Steve suddenly embracing the merits of the popular vote.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:59:12 -0800

BWAHAHAHAHA

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:01:45 -0800

Ryland, i think this was them

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:04:26 -0800

Jeez, we don't like that much when Fred Phelps does it, do we?

By: raysmj

raysmj — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:09:40 -0800

George Kennan gets most of the thanks. You'd have to be on crack to argue otherwise, if you'd ever studied history or int'l relations in more than a cursory fashion. Do not mess with George K.

By: ChrisTN

ChrisTN — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:11:21 -0800

How about real number instead of samples: First Term Election Reagan wins with 51% of the vote in 1980. Clinton wins with 43% of the vote in 1992. Second Term Election Reagan wins with 59% of the vote in 1984. Clinton wins with 49% of the vote in 1992. Faulty and meaningless comparisons. In 1992 and 1996, a third-party candidate (Perot) got 19% and 8% of the popular vote, respectively. Of course the winner got less of the popular vote than he would have otherwise. Apples and oranges.

By: PsychoKick

PsychoKick — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:19:30 -0800

So anyway... think he's actually in that box? [/refuse to take this whole darn thing so seriously]

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:23:03 -0800

Somewhat following up on what ColdChef said, this weeklong ceremony wasn't for you amberglow, y2karl, ook, postroad, etc. It was for the millions of people who approved of him as president, and liked him as a man. I don't fall into the former camp, and didn't much fall into the latter, either. But I don't begrudge the millions who did -- they're Americans, too. So suck it up -- stop watching, stop snarking. Let the ceremony be for the people who want it. Most importantly, now that I'm watching the actual burial, for the family. I'm sure your favorite president(s) will get a ceremony commensurate with the wishes of the people who loved and supported them.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:27:42 -0800

I did like that little Ron got bitchy just now at the funeral...clearly poking Bush about religion.

By: owillis

owillis — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:36:56 -0800

This Reagan... he's dead?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:38:15 -0800

Ron Jr. has expressed displeasure with Bush before.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:43:12 -0800

Well, finally, at least, I can see one advantage to Joe Lieberman being President. When he kicks the bucket--boom!--he's planted.

By: smcniven

smcniven — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:48:21 -0800

Just happened to catch the ceremony at his gravesite. I feel so sorry for Mrs. Reagan. She looks utterly devastated, but still is maintaining a dignified aura. (and this is coming from someone who lined up for 5 hours to pay my respects to Trudeau, so can people drop the sniping for a few days)

By: smcniven

smcniven — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:49:59 -0800

I wish they turn the damn camera's off and let her grieve in peace.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:59:56 -0800

It's a made-for-tv thing. Multiple cameras, closeups, a preacher right out of central casting.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:05:18 -0800

I wish they turn the damn camera's off and let her grieve in peace. It's my understanding this all was long planned to the tiniest detail. She wanted to do right by her guy--I don't fault her for that. She has suffered for so long previous to all this. And certainly the surrounding pundit hoopla--which is the source for my fatigue--is not her doing.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:16:11 -0800

on MSNBC they just said it was the ultimate starring role for him.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:32:57 -0800

> This Reagan... he's dead? This owillis...he's alive? O, you used to be, like, underfoot. Now I have to search to find you. Welcome back, silly opinions and all.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:36:12 -0800

on MSNBC they just said it was the ultimate starring role for him. Well, Bush gave the eulogy, so he's still co-starring with chimps.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:38:33 -0800

was Maureen adopted too?

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:41:11 -0800

How about real number instead of samples: Since not all people vote, it is indeed a sample as well. One is no more "real" than the other.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:41:59 -0800

On the plus side, when Bill Clinton pegs, he'll be put in a nice canvas bag inside a trailer, and Hillary (or Ken Starr) will get to kick the chocks out, so it falls into the abandoned quarry. The Marine honor guard will then shoot the trailer full of holes so it will sink. This is comedy gold.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:45:46 -0800

Refugees and AIDS activists mark Reagan's funeral with protests

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:49:02 -0800

"His failure, their deaths, our mourning" exactly.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:52:40 -0800

pardonyou? -- Thank you for your honest assessment and advice. No snark - I appreciate it - seriously. And Oliver -- come on, Dub, that was just lame.

By: David Dark

David Dark — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:17:15 -0800

This seems somehow appropriate here.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:24:37 -0800

You keep thinking of Harry Truman, whose code was, "Do not impose." He left an order that there were to be no eulogies at his funeral."

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:26:59 -0800

Transcript: Reagan's Children Deliver Remarks at Service

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:38:17 -0800

David- are you one of those conspiracy loonies and you think Reagan was murdered or something? That's the only way I can figure how you want to compare the coverage of a 93-year old man dying to the fact that an ongoing developing criminal investigation has... umm.... ongoing developments. Is there supposed to be a joke there or something?

By: shoepal

shoepal — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:45:45 -0800

Thanks, homunculus. Ron Jr's jab at Bush was genius. "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."

By: y2karl

y2karl — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:54:12 -0800

This seems somehow appropriate here, too !

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:12:33 -0800

Hey, look, a Reagan thread! What are the odds? Okay, fine, people have been relatively well behaved about it. Still. Has anyone skull-fucked Reagan's lifeless body? 'Cause I'd turn on the TV to see that.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:20:09 -0800

This seems somehow appropriate here. That's the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:38:12 -0800

I'm glad to see Steve suddenly embracing the merits of the popular vote. In so far as as show of popularity. The Electoral College is still how the President of the United States is elected. Again, if you want to scrap the Electoral College that is a valid debate. Call your Congressman. Faulty and meaningless comparisons. In 1992 and 1996, a third-party candidate (Perot) got 19% and 8% of the popular vote, respectively. Of course the winner got less of the popular vote than he would have otherwise. Apples and oranges. Not faulty or meaningless. In 1980 there was a strong third-party candidate, John Anderson who got 7% of the popular vote, near that what Perot got in 1996, and Reagan still received a majority. Aside from that, a third-party candidate has little to do with how popular someone is. Plenty of Democrats voted for Reagan, even though there was a Democrat in the race. Just because a third-party candidate in in the race, it doesn't mean any one will vote for them. There are third-party candidate in every election, it is just that they rarely get anyone to vote for them. (Nader has ran how many times, and just last election actually got a noticeable percentage of the vote.) Since not all people vote, it is indeed a sample as well. Opinion polls are a sample of likely^* voters, not the country at large. So, no, the popular vote is not a sample, it is the whole.

^*This isn't even registered voters. The polling organizations use some formula to narrow the field from registered voters to registered voters who are actually likely to vote.

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:40:57 -0800

A few of us know that Reagan died months ago and the Bush camp was saving the whole funeral deal to cover up something worse than we can imagine. The whole thing is so scripted it's too obvious. Remember Jodie Foster's Army?!!

By: interrobang

interrobang — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:31:36 -0800

From the link: The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights. Jimmy Breslin is awesome.

By: majcher

majcher — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:07:12 -0800

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:11:15 -0800

From the Breslin article: In government, he was as real as his trademark line. He was a callous man with a smile who cut taxes in 1981 and left this city and state without funds for such things as help for dependent children. He proudly hurt the boroughs of this city more than anyone before or after him. If you live in Brooklyn, the record shows that Ronald Reagan hated children. The city and state had to raise taxes to make up for money lost because of Reagan's great conservative movement. Reagan then raised taxes six times. He walked off, leaving us an enormous deficit but with a smile on his face that even the Gipper's fakery couldn't help us with. Reagan, one of the phoniest presidents we've ever had, is dead and finally buried. Rest in peace. Far better men and women than he are dying right this moment, without a whisper of recognition. But I'm mildly intrigued with this popularity nonsense. First, the Repubs clamor that Reagan is more popular than "any recent President". When that's shown to be a lie, they start scrambling for any statistic that might rationalize their initial exaggeration. (The Repubs have had plenty of recent practice at this kind of backpedaling: Terrorist alliances --> WMDs --> "Roadmap to Peace (sic)" --> liberating Iraqis from "torture", etc etc). The latest dumb spin above is apparently that Reagan must have been popular because of "the popular vote", a magnificent snapshot of American opinion on a grand total of, uh, one or two days. Being the Political Animal I am (and despite the statistical duncery at work here) I couldn't wait to try out the brilliant new Steve@Linnwood Presidential Popularity Predictor, since popular vote is now really the last word in measures of a president's lasting popularity and all (unfortunately, Stevie conveniently ducks the fact that voter turnout for presidential elections over the last 40 years has been a "sample" of only 50-60% of voting age Americans on those, uh, one or two days, but never mind that now...) Reagan wins with 59% of the vote in 1984. But Tricky Dick Nixon wins with 60.7% of the vote in 1972. Oh. Sweet Beloved Nixon was a more popular president than Reagan. But "Gulf of Tonkin" Johnson wins with 61.1% of the vote in 1964. Oh. Dear Cherished Johnson was a more popular president than Reagan. No word yet on when we can expect the exhumed bodies of The Cherished Nixon (I think his body was drawn, quartered, and may have been buried in unmarked graves) and The Lovable Johnson to be flown into Washington for a belated outpouring of carefully orchestrated national grief, revisionist history, and political coattail surfing. 'Course, we can go even farther back and find such hallowed and idolized figures as, um, Warren Harding with 60.5% of the vote. Gosh, Steve@Linnwood and the other Repubs touting Reagan's popular vote must have outright, worshipful wet dreams over Big Warren's historical star appeal....and popularity. ~ahem~ 39.8% Abraham Lincoln 1860 ~chortle~ Yeah, hell. Popular vote really describes the lasting "popularity" of a president....probably as well as any of the other "statistics" used by silly propagandists trying desperately to prop up the Republican party any way they can.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:49:02 -0800

Seriously, we need to add some graphite to soak up the neutrons before this pile--and I use the term advisedly--has a total radioactive meltdown. Bring on the inanimate carbon rods! Keep these guys apart! Jeez, where's the Stan Chin on this one? memo to majcher: punk, if not dead, is--at least--in the same shape Reagan was three weeks ago. Dead or alive: what's the difference ?

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:49:14 -0800

S@L: Unless every person voted, it is still a "sample". This is not a political discussion, but a technical one. You're implying that the voter turnout is more "real" than other sampling methods, and it simply is not. Both are samples. To deny it is just to show a fundamental ignorance of statistics and what they mean. Also: foldy wins.

By: ChrisTN

ChrisTN — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:57:46 -0800

Not faulty or meaningless. In 1980 there was a strong third-party candidate, John Anderson who got 7% of the popular vote, near that what Perot got in 1996, and Reagan still received a majority. Aside from that, a third-party candidate has little to do with how popular someone is. Plenty of Democrats voted for Reagan, even though there was a Democrat in the race. Just because a third-party candidate in in the race, it doesn't mean any one will vote for them. There are third-party candidate in every election, it is just that they rarely get anyone to vote for them. You're making my point...the winner's percentage of popular vote, by itself, stripped of its context, is meaningless. You have to look at the particular election in which it took place, who the other candidate(s) were, how similar/distinct their platforms were, etc. The fact that a third-party candidate just happens to capture public attention in some years and not others doesn't automatically say anything meaningful about the popularity of the eventual winner--only that election politics can be more nuanced than the American system likes to give it credit for. So just because Reagan's winning numbers happen to be higher than Clinton's--so what?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 06:04:48 -0800

President Reaganesque

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 06:20:00 -0800

I'm Jim Nantz welcoming you to the Quaker State Halftime Show presented by Budweiser, and so far, this has been just the way you want to determine a Nextel Greatest American President of the 20th Century. I'm joined here as always by Billy Packer, the nation's foremost college hoops analyst, and one of the country's leading political commentators, Bill Schneider. Turning first to you, Billy: F.D.R. is definitely bringing the pressure we all expected him to, but Ronald Reagan is more than withstanding it. Surprise? Packer: Not at all, Jim. The big problem when you go up against F.D.R., of course, is his tremendous length, something Reagan didn't see in his matchups against Eisenhower and Wilson. But, to his credit, Reagan's maintaining excellent communication on the floor. Nantz: Putting the lie to those who thought the Roosevelt-Roosevelt semifinal was the real championship. Bill Schneider, your analysis? Schneider: There are strong arguments to be made on both sides, Jim... from Who Was the Greatest President of the 20th Century?

By: konolia

konolia — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:36:31 -0800

Patti Davis rose in my estimation last night, and Ron Reagan Jr sank like a stone. He can be bitchy all he likes about Bush in other places and other venues....but there at the burial service it was NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE LEAST. Not least of all because it is the kind of thing his father would have never ever done. Oh, and someone needed to tell that pastor that the service was not about him...and it was so jarring to hear him praise Nancy for her composure-when just minutes later she basically broke down over her husband's casket. That poor woman.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:37:23 -0800

I am sorry. I do not read the sidebar...I read very little. My only excuse? I spend much time with my taped Jerry Springer shows...I have a tape of every show he has so far done! It gives me insights into my family life.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:05:01 -0800

Now--especially, coming after konolia's prattle--that is comedy gold!

By: konolia

konolia — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:19:41 -0800

y2karl, I am hurt. I do contribute my fair share of prattle to this enterprise but that last post came deep from my heart. (Yes, even though I am a registered Republican, I still have one.)

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:33:47 -0800

Oh, do tell, Ms. Nancy's-grieving-let-but-fuck-the-son-if-he-speaks-from-the-heart-and-doesn't-follow-my-political-wishlist. Here's a clue: he's grieving, too. He's entitled to speak his piece.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:57:56 -0800

So's Nancy, even though Reagan's devoted followers want her to shut up when she mentions, you know, the stuff she supported that could have eased her husband's suffering. When are people going to shut up about a goddamn Reagan dollar bill and start LISTENING to his family and work on the Ronald Reagan memorial research fund?

By: konolia

konolia — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:05:47 -0800

Y2karl, it isn't like Bush drove a stake into Reagan's heart. Junior just saw an opportunity to diss Bush and he took it, and it was opportunistic as Hades. And at the same time he managed to prove that Reagan's civility was not genetic. I have been to some doozies of a funeral...one where the sister of the deceaced got up and stomped out when the husband of the deceased got up to speak, one where a Mormon pulled out a book of Mormon and read from it -at a Charismatic Christian funeral (the deceaced was NOT Mormon nor were any of the family.) I could go on and on. A funeral is the place to honor the deceased and give comfort to the family. It is not the place to give opinions on whether or not the spirituality of other people is genuine or not. It is not Ron's place to judge Bush's faith-or my faith, or your faith-to begin with, but if he has something to say about Bush let him be a man and say it directly in a real interview and not at a ceremony where they are about to stick his father in the ground and no one can challenge him. A lot of us who were watching tv are actually MOURNING Ronald Reagan and it was a slap in the face to us. Especially as it was one of the last speeches given this week....what a petty thing to do. It was hurtful and mean.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:16:23 -0800

This was not a normal funeral. It was the very definition of a public event, and in the context of politics. Ron's comment was entirely appropriate. If you and other people who have had no personal relationship with the man and his family had not been watching the funeral of television, for crying out loud, on a federal holiday declared in the deceased's honor, you'd have a point. But you were and you don't. This wasn't an ordinary funeral.

By: konolia

konolia — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:42:34 -0800

That was my President. And yes, that was no ordinary funeral. It was the funeral of a great man, and one of the things that made his so great was his civility. Oh, and not that it matters, but I happen to BE a Reagan.

By: 11235813

11235813 — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:23:30 -0800

in 1986, the commemorative works act prohibited the authorization of a memorial to an event, individual, or group before the 25th anniversary of the event or the death of the individual or the death of the last surviving member of the group. The premise behind the 25-year stipulation is that succeeding generations can often provide a more objective viewpoint when evaluating the most appropriate way to honor people of historical significance or historical events (http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2001/hr452.htm) that bill was signed into law by: president ronald reagan.

By: 11235813

11235813 — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:33:11 -0800

and now thinking of it what a perfect suggestion ... imho regan on a $4 bill .... i mean ... given regan and the expression "queer as a" .....

By: 11235813

11235813 — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:33:41 -0800

i mean 'reagan' ....... seriously i did ......... ughh

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:03:46 -0800

Oh, and not that it matters, but I happen to BE a Reagan. (How do you mean? You share a surname or you're actually a blood relative? Just curious...)

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:06:49 -0800

Konolia, my apologies for my intemperate remarks. You did not need to read them. I wish I had not posted them.

By: lathrop

lathrop — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:48:26 -0800

My celebration was to reread: "Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan" from J G Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition (1970) http://www.univ-perp.fr/master-heterologies/cours/1/girard/master1litimp16.html

By: konolia

konolia — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:54:51 -0800

No harm done, y2karl. We're cool.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:46:46 -0800

Alzheimer's: Beyond Stem Cells

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:39:36 -0800

Reagan tributes to be followed by Clinton memoir.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:54:21 -0800

good catch on that commemoration thing, 1123... here's my last ~~word~~ on the subject

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:53:07 -0800

Perhaps Ron Jr. really does admire his fatehr's keeping his faith a personal thing. You know, it is a good quality.

By: konolia

konolia — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:26:05 -0800

Jesus wouldn't agree with you, Space Coyote.

By: crank

crank — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:01:23 -0800

Jesus wouldn't agree with you, Space Coyote. Oh? I don't imagine you could trot out a few silly lines of scripture to serve as the be-all and end-all of this debate? I prefer the statements of a son for a dead father than the hollow sentiments of the Bush reelection campaign that has already begun trying to take full political advantage of Reagan's death... Maybe they could do something meaningful in his honor, like support the stem cell research that would have possibly eased his burden when he was still alive.

By: konolia

konolia — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:46:35 -0800

Jesus said if we were ashamed of Him before men He would be ashamed of us before His Father.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:07:53 -0800

Didn't he say something about praying in private, too? Unlike the pharisees who made such a show of their professed faith? It seems to me that using Jesus to make yourself right by making someone else wrong counts more toward the latter. You are defending your own self-indulgence here of belaboring us with your personal opinions of a celebrity's children, i.e., your gossip. I understand He had a low opinion of hypocrites.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:29:34 -0800

Jesus preached against displays of piety for show. Otherwise, though, the Christian ethos is evangelistic and proselytizing. You have no more right to avoid being offended by Christian sensibilities than they have a right to avoid being offended by your non-Christian sensibilities.

By: konolia

konolia — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:30:30 -0800

I dug out my coffee table book about Ronald Reagan and he was not secretive about his faith. How soon people forget.

By: riviera

riviera — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 07:33:25 -0800

He can be bitchy all he likes about Bush in other places and other venues....but there at the burial service it was NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE LEAST. Not least of all because it is the kind of thing his father would have never ever done. Um, konolia, I don't think you have any fucking right to pontificate about what someone says at his father's funeral. And Reagan may have not been 'secretive', but he was much less of a whited sepulchre than Appointed-By-God Bush. (Curious, that, about the 80s; the same applied to Thatcher, apart from that absurd capitalist re-reading of the Good Samaritan. But we're in Antinomian Land now, where those who consider themselves 'elect' are convinced that no amount of immorality will keep them from salvation.) You have no more right to avoid being offended by Christian sensibilities than they have a right to avoid being offended by your non-Christian sensibilities. Um, 'sensibility' in its classic definition is entirely about show: the idea that if you fake it well enough, you become it. (Read some Jane Austen to learn more.) Reagan faked statesmanship sufficiently well to become statesmanlike (though, now he's in his tomb, I can say that he was a rotten statesman). Bush, on the other hand, has a pious sensibility with no piety, no humility, and no conscience.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:46:05 -0800

Bush rejects calls from Nancy Reagan, John Kerry to relax stem-cell policy

By: shoepal

shoepal — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:48:25 -0800

well put, riviera.