Its all about him.
Its a conspiracy. He was looking forward to coming out in blackface and roasting Reagan thereby adding some well-needed comic relief to the whole affair.
Which is why Nancy Reagan would not allow him to speak.
Politics is insansity…
After reading a number of your posts I realize that you are not the typical knee jerk liberal and your views are thought out (even if I disagree with your stances on a number of issues). So please explain to me why it is insanity for Nancy Reagan, who was married to a man of principle and character not to want Clinton, a man who is…less then optimally principled to speak at his funeral (and to seek attention as Goldberg has indicated).
Clinton is more than a little narcissistic, but this is a State funeral. I’m surprised all living presidents aren’t being invited to speak.
If he could restrain himself from promoting his book, Clinton would be an interesting speaker – fully capable of honoring Reagan. He’s a great public speaker and keeping him off the list might be a request of the Bush White House, so as to help their guy, who has half of Clinton’s IQ, not to look less capable than he already does.
In the end, it’s Nancy’s choice – he was her husband. Her wishes should prevail. No matter what anyone thinks of his policies, Reagan was very loved in this country, by as many liberals as conservatives.
That’s just bullshit, it’s nothing about him. What about Jimmy Carter? Is he “less than pricipled” too?
Is it just a coincidence that two of the only three former presidents alive were left off the speaker list? That they just happen to be democrats? Or is it just more scumbag partisan politics? Pretty fucking disrespectful, and I seriously doubt this was Nancy’s decision.
After reading a number of your posts I realize that you are not the typical knee jerk liberal and your views are thought out (even if I disagree with your stances on a number of issues).[/quote]
Thanks, I’m not used to kind words in this place.
Scott, it’s merely insanity because it appears to be politics. I’d wonder who made the decisions and why. I’m guessing any leader, including Clinton or Carter, could find appropriate things to say.
Reagan was a man, and other former leaders of the US are his peers. I can imagine his peers wanting to say something, to remember him. We all have strong feelings for these previous leaders, why wouldn’t Clinton or Carter.
People need to let go of the hatred, respect and like people on the other side of the fence, even if you disagree with them.
It’s insanity because politics is so pervasive that you can’t even escape it after your death.
You doubt Nancy was consulted on who would speak at ther husband’s funeral?
“Or is it just more scumbag partisan politics? Pretty fucking disrespectful, and I seriously doubt this was Nancy’s decision.”
Please explain to me why if you added up the posts on the board and tallied comments into (for the sake of argument) liberals/democrats/etc vs conservatives/republicans/etc. I suspect you would find more…purple prose and outright hostility (scumbag, fucking, etc) on the democrat side (and I’m far from a blind Bush follower).
Hell… they could at least let him play the sax.
How bout the fact that it is Nancy Reagan’s husband’s funeral and if she wanted howdy doody to speak she could have him speak. Gerald Ford is also not speaking I dont believe. Who cares if its a state funeral? The family has every right to do what they want at their own relative’s funeral. The fact that people are questioning this is insanity.
I can’t imagine why she’s bothering to let Brian Mulrooney speak then…
I’m pretty certain Clinton wouldn’t say anything too controversial - he is still more concerned with what people think of him than with anything else, and he wouldn’t want the kind of negative pub that would come with either criticizing Reagan or going political.
Plus, Goldberg hit it on the head: The family controls who speaks.
Lastly, I really do hope the Reagan funeral isn’t politicized at all. I thought the Wellstone funeral last year was shameful, and I would hate to see the Republican version of that debacle overshadow Ronald Reagan.
If I were Mrs. Reagan, It would be a no brainer to leave Clinton off speakers list.
The greatest president of our time - arguably of the last 200 years - does not need to be eulogized by the president who has brought more disgrace to the office of the presidency than any other president in our nations history.
Clinton’s greatest tribute to Reagan would be to sit down, shut up, and stay in the corner.
Amen to that rainjack!
i would say nixon was the one who brought more disgrace to the presidency than anyone else… andrew jackson did some messed up things too. i would list w bush as a more disgraceful president before i list clinton… being indirectly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of almost 1000 soldiers is more disgraceful than being responsible for a deep stain on some dress…
the fact that carter wasn’t invited to speak supports the suspicions that this funeral is being politicized.
those are my opinions… i dont expect you to have the same opinions.
Very well stated!
I agree immensly!
The majority of republicans we hear on the news or that post on most forums practice their negativity in a very insidious way. They come off on a high horse approach as if they are above sin and democrats are either slow witted hippies are satan loving orgy throwing demons. I don’t think they can or choose to look at most issues in a grounded realistic way.
Very well stated!
I agree immensly!
The majority of republicans we hear on the news or that post on most forums practice their negativity in a very insidious way. They come off on a high horse approach as if they are above sin and democrats are either slow witted hippies are satan loving orgy throwing demons. I don’t think they can or choose to look at most issues in a grounded realistic way.[/quote]
Goldberg was correct about the family has the right to choose who they want to speak. I think the reason that the dems were left off the list is because of what they did with the Wellstone mishap.
I agree that Clinton would be a excellent choice to speak, but because of the political climate in Washington (i.e. We cut each stab the other side when ever we can get an open mic), that chance will never happen. If Dutch died back in the 1980’s, there would be no question that all people would have been invited.
You guys are missing the point I was trying to make. The actions of Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon were a pox on the office. Each was faced with their own disgrace. The office of the President was still held in respect worldwide - especially in Nixon’s case since he was forced to leave. The office healed itself.
In Clinton’s case, and the point I was trying to make, he showed absolutely no respect for the office. I’m not talking about a “stained dress” here. He lost the respect of the military, of the american peoplr, and of other past presidents.
While he was in office - he whored out his position to the highest bidder, turned the oval office into a tittie bar and generally degraded the standing of his position to little more than a trailer park office.
Evidently, my opinion is held by at least one other person in this world - Mrs. Reagan.
Incidently, I was rather disgusted with the Congressman fron Alaska, and his speech last night - I would have liked to see the repubs keep partisanship out of the funeral.
On Nixon - I agree. Next would be Harding.
On Andy Jackson - Old Hickory was a stud. The Democratic Party is the opposite of the one Jackson led in his time. He wasn’t a disgrace to the Presidency, not even close - in many ways, he redefined the office.
On Bush - responsible for the unnecessary deaths of nearly 100 soldiers? Nonsense. Defense of the West is not an unnecessary cause.
On Clinton - I would have preferred that he did speak. Reagan himself left politics behind in choosing his friends. He was close with many liberals; a former Democratic President would not have diminished the ceremony at all. But perhaps the Reagans, in particular Nancy, did not get along with the Clintons personally.