Probably because stem cells and Alzheimer’s don’t mix.
Angie Dickinson had nothing but nice things to say about him though…
Do you feel that way about Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? I’m not saying Reagan is in the same league with them, but to what extent is one required to manufacture good will towards someone, simply because they’ve died?
Why on Terra would one want that?
First of all, well, newsflash, he’s dead. Whether he is in the Kingdom of Heaven or just fizzled into nothingness, he’s not much use for your opinion of him, now is it?
Second of all, when I die, I don’t want a bunch of people standing around making niceties. I want my enemies to hate me with all their venom, and I want my friends to be raising hell.
If I die and my earthly foes leave a flower and mutter something nice, I obviously didn’t do a good enough job in pissing them off. If I die, and my friends are not drunk off their asses, I obviously needed better friends, and I’m better off dead anyway.
I saw the same thing, Sam. I believe they said his approval rating at the time he left office was 70%. If true, this would make his approval rating the highest. I’m not familiar with **Desmostylus’ ** cite and don’t know about the accuracy of the figures they cite, and/or how it would or would not be parsed, but I would think CNN would be a more reliable source.
To placate the Reagan is God people, I vote we honor him by putting his face on a newly designed piece of our currency. I suggest putting it on a $1,000,000.00 note so that I personally will never have occasion to see it.
You sure a $1,000 note wouldn’t accomplish that?
Lee Marvin just didn’t have the time. [/obscure movie reference]
This ABC News piece confirms Desmo’s figures. It ranks the post-WWII Presidents thusly in terms of end-of-term approval ratings:
Bill Clinton (2001)…65%
Ronald Reagan (1989)…64
Dwight Eisenhower (1961)…59
John F. Kennedy (1963)…63
George Bush (1993)…56
Gerald Ford (1977)…53
Lyndon Johnson (1969)…49
Jimmy Carter (1981)…34
Richard Nixon (1974)…24
And in terms of average job approval ratings:
…Approve…Disapprove
John F. Kennedy…70%…17
Dwight Eisenhower…65…21
George Bush…63…33
Ronald Reagan…57…39
Bill Clinton…57…39
Lyndon Johnson…56…31
Richard Nixon…49…38
Gerald Ford…48…35
Jimmy Carter…46…39
So Reagan was second-highest in end-of-term popularity and middle-of-the-pack (tied for fourth out of eight) in average job approval.
A lot of people would, that’s why there’s so much ignorance in this country :rolleyes:
The link Demo provided is simply an article from the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel (lord, I may have to move to Baltimore to get some fairness and balance) which quotes extensively from FAIR, the media watchdog group. If you read the article, the FAIR material is mainly a review of Gallup polling data, and the website mentioned at the end of the 5th paragraph links to an article FAIR wrote in 1989, right after Reagan left office.
The reporting on Reagan’s “real” impact on this country, IMO, reveals what will truly be his only lasting legacy: the phrase, first uttered during the Iran-Contra hearings:
A few thoughts.
First, a hearty high five to Zagadka! Hands off Hamilton – his were the brightest brains of the American Revolution. Let’s have a little respect here.
Second, all the Kennedy memorial-type things. I can appreciate the point of view that his was a short presidency, and that judging his time and actions in office by the usual standards might not make him stand out among modern era presidents. However, I will argue that the many memorials to him are entirely appropriate, because in addition to honoring the man, they are also a testimony to the notion that we, the American people, abhor the idea of assassination. I think this is a fine sentiment to get behind. The OP states this might be “overemotional” – I agree with the emotional part, I think people should be emotional about it.
Which finally brings me to the OP. I think it’s difficult to set a firm standard in regard to the timing of memorials, because the circumstances will inevitably enter in to the decision making process. Had Reagan not survived the attempt on his life while he was in office, I think he would already be on the money (and memorialized in other ways), and that there would not be as much debate about it. As the man died at a ripe old age, even while suffering from a terrible disease, I don’t think there’s much need to rush into memorializing him tomorrow. I’d go with the 25 year waiting period that Reagan himself endorsed, as mentioned by Ravenman, for any grandiose memorials.
No, I saw a $1,000.00 note once; I might see one again someday. Besides, a $1,000.00 note isn’t enough glory for Reagan.
In response to the OP, I think a proper amount of time to wait is the amount of time it takes to pay off the Reagan deficit. I would not mind seeing his face on a bill. The back of the bill could include some of the Reagan administration accomplishments. It could show dollars being diverted from Iran to Nicaragua. Meanwhile there would be a picture of the Constitution being ripped apart. Maybe even a picture of a person dying of AIDS while the Reagan administration did nothing at all. Oh I have a lot of ideas about the design of this bill.
Marley23, scotandrsn, thank you for the information. I’m not necessarily pleased to learn it, of course, but things are what they are.
And LouisB, you’re right. I didn’t think of it that way. 
If nothing else why waste time complaining about Reagan? Even before he died, he had been out of power for fifteen years. As I said in a conversation earlier today, I’d rather dedicate my anger against our current president - that’s still an open book.
I’m not saying I plan on pretending I suddenly think Reagan was a great president. But I realize there’s no point in saying otherwise, so why bother?
As for the idea that I should go around saying things just because they would offend other people and make me enemies; well, I guess we’re different people, but I don’t see the attraction there.
See last picture here.
Not sure about that: he’d only been in office a month or two. But I do agree
Thanks to all those supplying the requisite partisan vitriol. Desmo, gtbiehle, LouisB, et al, your valuable contributions have done ever so much to move the discussion forward.
Gah. Meant to say “I do agree that 25 years would be a good rule of thumb;” except I’d say out of office 25 years (and dead).
If you ask me (I realize you didn’t, but I’ll pretend you did because it gives me a chance to rant), no one heard “Reagan’s a corpse” and immediately started posting on message boards about how bad of a person he was. Most of us probably thought something along the lines of ,“meh, hope he rots quick” and went on with life. However, a split second after that meh, flocks of people showed up to hump Reagan’s (dead) leg. While this is the norm, especially in political circles, they began making wild claims rewriting history and propositions to deify the man. To THAT, the rest of us said, “wait a second… first of all, while well liked personally and publicly by many people, he was an ass and didn’t accomplish what you said he did.” To which they replied various things, to which we replied various things, and it kinda snowballs from there. So don’t blame the “dissenters” for leaping on his death to spread propaganda. We’re fighting the ass kissing, eyeball licking deification movement.
I guess I see it as the equivalent of going to a funeral and saying “I heard your father died. But cheer up. After all, he won’t slapping around your mother everytime he gets drunk anymore.” It may be true, but it’s not going to be appreciated by its intended audience.
Some people venerate Reagan (almost literally in many cases). Let them have their moment. Anyone who’d have their opinin changed by hearing of the man’s failings has already had plenty of time to have heard of them. The rest are just going to be offended. As I said before I see no point in offending people needlessly and further have no wish to energize these people by poking them with a sharp stick.