What are they talking about? It hasn’t been wall to wall since Tuesday.
Don’t you understand that this is what elected officials do best?
Vague gushing without specifics, without critical analysis, without cost, comes naturally to your veteran politician. It’s like admiring a baby. All babies are beautiful, or at least sweet. All apple pies, all hot dogs, all mothers are praiseworthy, even when the crust is like leather, the meat is all rectums and snouts and she was an abusive drunk who would sleep with anybody who looked even remotely interested. All dead Presidents are great statesmen. It’s all balderdash designed to placate the peanut gallery. The essential political skill is to stand up on your hind legs and utter the most irrational nonsense conceivable with a straight face and every appearance of complete sincerity. They did us all proud again.
Anybody want to speculate about what happens when Bill Clinton kicks the bucket? Remember there were those who waxed nostalgic when Richard Nixon passed on to his just reward.
There are things we can all agree on. First Ronald Reagan is dead. Second, lots of people think he was a good President. Third, lots of people think he wasn’t a good President. Which ever it was, the republic has survived, so far. About the rest, ask in fifty years.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. I’m going to put this one in the statistics category. Lib, if you want to make comparisons to history with Reagan’s wins, use percentage of the popular vote, please. Please recall that there was a time there weren’t even 17 million voters! Using percentage you will find that his election was by no means a landslide. A healthy victory, yes - he spanked Carter - but not a landslide. His re-election? Now that was a landslide by any measure. But throwing out his victory margin as if it means anything is incorrect; it doesn’t mean a thing for comparative purposes.
Okay, well in 1980, he won by 50.8% to 41.0%. And in 1984, he won by 58.8% to 40.5%. What margin do you consider to be a landslide?
Oh, I dunno, maybe above about 57-58%, somewhere in there. I’m not going to consider winning just over half the votes a landslide, that’s for sure, even though, as you correctly point out, the margin of victory was about 10% of the voters. I’d call maybe 53-57% a thumping victory. How do ya like the technical terms and preciseness in this post? I’m just going by my feelings, and that presidential elections are not usually so one-sided. The only thing that really bugged me about your post was the use of the victory margin. I’m almost out the door for dinner, so I can’t go look right now, but I’d expect we can find some elections that were clearly one-sided and were decided by far fewer than 17 million votes. Does that make them less of an accolade than Reagan’s re-election was?
Even on that standard, FDR had a 66% when he died, and if you want to talk statistical tie, then Eisenhower and Kennedy have to be counted too, since they were within 4%. Also, I believe Reagan had a 63% and Clinton had a 66%
But that’s just on that specific claim, which wasn’t all I was talking about. I’m reffering to phrases citing that he enjoyed unprecedent popularity, or was at least more likeable. The fact is, on any of those standards, Reagan’s performance in office was still mediocre, not exceptional.
I doubt he was hated as deeply by some as Bush is or that Bush is anywhere near as beloved by some as Reagan was by some, and those polls don’t cover depth of feeling. And he may well have been an immensely popular ex-President, I have no stats on that.
But in general Reagan was not remarkable in terms of overall popularity of likeability in office, which is exactly what news orgs are implying over and over. It’s no illusion that a lot is riding on turning Reagan into a singular saint, painting him as radically different from all other Presidents. And that’s exactly what’s being done.
I gotta hand it to President Bush. His visit to the casket was as apolitical as Kerry’s. I did see Bush make eye contact with one lady in the line, and he smiled slightly, but it didn’t seem over the top. His visit was extremely brief, and he seemed to be aware that he was holding other folks up. In a moment, he was gone and that was that. On the other hand, I do not understand why he did not cut his excursion short and return right away. I don’t think he quite grasps priorities sometimes.
Well, he does get his big face time today: “Bush Joins Thousands to Honor Reagan”
I’m a little confused as to why, other than Thatcher and Mulroney, more government people that were actually close to him personally aren’t speaking.
Come on people, your missing the WHOLE point here. Lets look at the facts:
-
Regan is being buried on 6/11
-
6 upside down is 9
-
6/11 is 9/11 upside down!!
Dont you see?? I dont either, but I’m sure one of our resident conspiracy friends can come up with something.
Anyway, having just seen Bush jr give his speech at the funeral I can almost say…I am a bit impressed. He didnt screw a single word up, he sounded sincere, and eloquent, if a bit long winded. Dont get me wrong, hes still a dumbass and I wont vote for him, but still, give him a little credit here.
Me, too. Nevermind that it’s already 4 hours long. I don’t see why they can’t do the funeral and the burial simultaneously in two places at once.
I mean instead of people that had rather cold relationships with him and Nancy.
Oh, I’m still with you. I cannot imagine for what bizarre reasons Nancy selected the President of the United States and her husband’s Vice-President to speak.
Because, yeah, those two were such close friends.
Nice thought…but don’t bother. The probability of Illinois electoral votes going to Bush is zero. Less than zero if such a thing were possible. I live in the Chicago area and I’m currently feeling somewhat frustrated by the fact that I can’t do anything more effective than preaching to the choir.
I’m currently considering moving to Florida or some other battleground state for at least a few months so that my vote might have some influence. Join me, Lux Fiat?
Well, Al Franken is trying to recruit folks to move to Ohio for the November election and turn it into a blue state for Kerry. Apparently you can register to vote in Ohio if you’re living in the state one month before the election and have intentions to stay afterward, so it’s not that difficult to pull off – just think of it as a two-month Fall vacation…
Ohio is a big deal, and it’s actually fairly within reach for Kerry. Without any major screwups, it should go in the win collumn for Kerry.