"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," he said.
Some highlights from the interview with Ron, Jr. (you need to sign up for a free one-day pass at Salon.com to read the entire interview)...
Ron Reagan, Jr. wrote:"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."
"The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
"Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."
"Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda -- and they didn't hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, 'Let's hit Iraq.' They've used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling."
"And the weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to them? I'm sure we'll find some," he laughs. "They're being flown in right now in a C-130. There were, and will be, a lot of people killed over there. And if you don't care about the Iraqi casualties, what about the American? We stand to lose more people in the next months of occupation than we lost in the weeks of war. One of the reasons we escaped largely unscathed so far was because our military moved so fast. But now we're sitting targets -- we have to establish bases, patrol the streets, guard checkpoints. We're sitting targets for suicide bombers and other terrorists."
"And they told us, 'Don't worry about W. not knowing anything, good old Dick Cheney will be his minder.' Dick Cheney? And this was going to be compassionate conservatism? Dick Cheney is to the right of Genghis Khan, he wants to drill in your backyard, he wants to deny black people their rights --it was all there in his voting record for us to see. What were we, rubes?"
I've never been a fan of self-applied endorsements from the dead. I think it's ridiculous how quickly both sides want to turn the deceased into icons for their causes. It's totally disrespectful and 99.9% of the time totally dishonest as well.
Ronny Jr makes a few good points but ruins them by going off on a paranoid leftist skreed. It would be nice indeed if he would, or even could, back up that garbage. But instead he ruined a pretty good speech with it.
Oh well, he was funny when he hosted SNL one time back in the 80s.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Stormbringer wrote:I've never been a fan of self-applied endorsements from the dead. I think it's ridiculous how quickly both sides want to turn the deceased into icons for their causes. It's totally disrespectful and 99.9% of the time totally dishonest as well.
Just wait until the Republican national convention this fall.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
Stormbringer wrote:I've never been a fan of self-applied endorsements from the dead. I think it's ridiculous how quickly both sides want to turn the deceased into icons for their causes. It's totally disrespectful and 99.9% of the time totally dishonest as well.
Just wait until the Republican national convention this fall.
Stormbringer wrote:It would be nice indeed if he would, or even could, back up that garbage.
Give me a break. Most of what he said is completely true, or it doesn't even try to be an argument, and your critique is thus irrelevent.
His remarks on the Veep are rather extreme and unsubstanciated, but the spirit of the point--that he's one of the extremists, one of the Administration's hardliners and none of this "compassionate conservatism" stuff ever turned into anything.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
Stormbringer wrote:It would be nice indeed if he would, or even could, back up that garbage.
Give me a break. Most of what he said is completely true, or it doesn't even try to be an argument, and your critique is thus irrelevent.
His remarks on the Veep are rather extreme and unsubstanciated, but the spirit of the point--that he's one of the extremists, one of the Administration's hardliners and none of this "compassionate conservatism" stuff ever turned into anything.
You might not have noticed, but I agree with the idea that Cheney and the like were the hawks. And I agree that the methods of the Bush administration have little to do with Reagan's.
But the fact is, if he meant that whole thing to be an arguement then all the wacko conspiracy crap and simple flat out bullshit he spewed ruins it. Of course that craps utterly irrelevant but trying to write (and take seriously) an essay that's only half serious and the rest sheer partisan lunacy reduces the quality of the whole thing.
Stormbringer wrote:I've never been a fan of self-applied endorsements from the dead. I think it's ridiculous how quickly both sides want to turn the deceased into icons for their causes. It's totally disrespectful and 99.9% of the time totally dishonest as well.
Read the article. This interview was back in April of 2003, which was well before Reagan died.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Stormbringer wrote:I've never been a fan of self-applied endorsements from the dead. I think it's ridiculous how quickly both sides want to turn the deceased into icons for their causes. It's totally disrespectful and 99.9% of the time totally dishonest as well.
Read the article. This interview was back in April of 2003, which was well before Reagan died.
I'm not a Salon.com subcriber. I thought given that it was brought up now, that it was current. My mistake.
Still doesn't mean I like the phenomenon any more though.
evilcat4000 wrote:The things he said about Bush is right. Bush has indeed hijacked the War on Terrorism for his own personel gain.
I find it hard to believe that he did what he did for personal gain. I have yet to see what exactly this alleged personal gain is beyond some unsubstantiated claims that it was done 'as a distraction.' Never have I heard of anything that backs up that claim.
Bush used the war on terrorism as a pretext to attack Iraq even though Iraq was not involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. It was all because of Iraqs oil weatlh.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
evilcat4000 wrote:Bush used the war on terrorism as a pretext to attack Iraq even though Iraq was not involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. It was all because of Iraqs oil weatlh.
Or, to be more precice, the commericial rights to rebuild Iraqs infrastructure, oil or otherwise..A glorified jobs for the boys scheme.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Mike Reagan definitely took some shots at Dubya in his eulogy last night, too. Veiled ones, but it was pretty clear who he meant when he said "My father was a man of deep faith, but unlike some, he never tried to use that faith for political gain."
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
RedImperator wrote:Mike Reagan definitely took some shots at Dubya in his eulogy last night, too. Veiled ones, but it was pretty clear who he meant when he said "My father was a man of deep faith, but unlike some, he never tried to use that faith for political gain."
RedImperator wrote:Mike Reagan definitely took some shots at Dubya in his eulogy last night, too. Veiled ones, but it was pretty clear who he meant when he said "My father was a man of deep faith, but unlike some, he never tried to use that faith for political gain."
I'm sure Dubya was completely oblivious to it.
He wasn't at the funeral in California, but he was probably watching it on TV, and if he wasn't, his aides were. You can bet Karl Rove knows who Mike was talking about. The thing is, the administration isn't going to react because badmouthing Ronald Reagan's son over a comment that's really not going to influence many people anyway is entirely counterproductive.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Stormbringer wrote:I've never been a fan of self-applied endorsements from the dead. I think it's ridiculous how quickly both sides want to turn the deceased into icons for their causes. It's totally disrespectful and 99.9% of the time totally dishonest as well.
Read the article. This interview was back in April of 2003, which was well before Reagan died.
I'm not a Salon.com subcriber.
You don't have to be. The date is in the URL.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
RedImperator wrote:Mike Reagan definitely took some shots at Dubya in his eulogy last night, too. Veiled ones, but it was pretty clear who he meant when he said "My father was a man of deep faith, but unlike some, he never tried to use that faith for political gain."
I'm sure Dubya was completely oblivious to it.
He wasn't at the funeral in California, but he was probably watching it on TV, and if he wasn't, his aides were. You can bet Karl Rove knows who Mike was talking about. The thing is, the administration isn't going to react because badmouthing Ronald Reagan's son over a comment that's really not going to influence many people anyway is entirely counterproductive.
