Ron Reagan on Bush





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Ron Reagan on Bush
By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 08:33 am: Edit

Ron Reagan has written a scathing, sweeping, 4,100 word critique of President Bush (not on stem cell) that will be appearing in next month's ESQUIRE magazine. Reagan doesn't hold back in this candid piece where he shares his real feelings towards our 43rd President.


"The Bush Administration cannot be trusted."

"George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience."

"They traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on."

"When Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos."

"Given candidate Bush's remarks, it was hard to imagine him, as president, flipping a stiff middle finger at the world and charging off adventuring in the Middle East."

"Even as of this writing, Dick Cheney clings to his mad assertion that Saddam was somehow at the nexus of a worldwide terror network."

"What followed was the usual administration strategy of stonewalling, obstruction and obfuscation."

"But image is everything in this White House, and that image of George Bush as a noble and infallible warrior in the service of his nation must be fanatically maintained, because behind the image lies*nothing?"

"He is ineloquent not because he cannot speak but because he doesn't bother to think."

"His Republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious Right and its kill-anything-that-moves attack instincts."

Impacting...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge

By Massdad (Massdad) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit

This is news?

I thought the things quoted above were why 1/2 the voting population LIKES the guy? Seriously. Think of it from a supporter's perspective:

Nobel laureates? Not our people.

Stiff middle finger at the world? Never travel outside the US, and they're all just trying to steal our jobs anyway. Look at NAFTA...

Noble and infallible warrior? He sure kicked b*** over in the middle east, didn't he? SH was a bad guy and deserved to go, and same for Iran.

Kill anything that moves attack instincts? Yea, security is not easy. If you wait to be sure, it may be too late.

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

Massdad you have very simplistic logic. It is easy to see things in black and white. It does not require any thinking.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit

I dub thee....

massdud

Arise, Sir simple!

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit

It is not surprising. Just because his father is similar to Bush, doesnt mean Ron Reagan is conservative. Ron Reagan for those of you who dont know is extremely liberal and opposed his dad's ideals, even when they proved to be successful. For example, he opposed the arms build up with the Soviet Union which led to their collapse and an arms reduction.
He is using his fathers name for political reasons.

By Calkidd (Calkidd) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Massdad is right; he seems to be stating the obvious - that most of the Bush's negatives (according to democrats) are spun as positives by his handlers.

Of course the democrats are going to try to use anything remotely attached to Ronald Reagan, one of the most popular presidents in the past century, for political gain. I'm sure the GOP would have gotten Nancy to speak at their convention were it not for the stem cell issue. Both parties do it because they know it's part of the political game; if we as voters really wanted them to focus more on issues and not grandstanding, we'd (statistically) vote for people because of their positions on economic and social issues, not because of their background and "character."

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:50 pm: Edit

I really don't like Ron since he seems to be riding on his last name a lot. If his last name wasn't Reagan and his father wasn't president, there's no chance he'd even be on the 10 o'clock news. Ehh...

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

sounds like this other guy i know whose last name is bush...

By Macramequeen (Macramequeen) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:33 pm: Edit

So what if no one would care about him if his name wasn't Reagan? He's taking advantage of his opportunity to voice his beliefs--I don't find that outrageously selfish.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Anyone whose main purpose in life is to fight for the right to create and destroy human life for scientific research purposes has zero credibility with me. He spent his entire speech claiming Bush is against stem cell research without ever mentioning all the research the administration does support with adult stem cells (which has had far more positive results). Seems to me he's the one with a truth problem. The only reason he and others are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is to try and further solidify abortion rights.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit

I was wondering when that was going to come.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

chavi,
do you even know who ron reagan is?!?!

By Chavi (Chavi) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Do you?

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

it's very ignorant for you to accuse a man whose father died of alzheimers of disguising his fight for stem cell research as a fight for abortion rights.

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:02 am: Edit

I have not much to say that I've either not already said or that would really do much good on this particular thread, but Massdad, I've seen many of your posts before, and those ones seem sensile. However, the one you posted above is just plain illogical. Rather than critique every word of your post, as I would normally and if the post following it didn't already do a fair job anyway, I have just a few things to say.

First of all, "SH was a bad guy and deserved to go, and same for Iran". Don't you mean Iraq, because Bush doesn't seem to care about Iran very much, a country that, although there are really no countries in the world right now that aren't justified for war, is probably a better bet for a country that has a great deal of problems.

And what about that NAFTA comment? "They steal our jobs"?! Are you serious?

And "if you wait to be sure, it may be too late". Yeah, like the security guards at the mall, who should just tackle me when they see me, because if they wait till I show any real evidence of being a criminal, it may be too late.

Well, that's it for me.

By Calkidd (Calkidd) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit

"The only reason he and others are pushing for embryonic stem cell research is to try and further solidify abortion rights. "

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard about stem cell research. I've worked with neonatal (from baby rats) stem cells for a few years and plan on continuing; I'm no expert, but I'm sure I know more than Rush Limbaugh or whichever other talk radio personality you heard that from.

Here's a quick lesson: adult stem cells are somewhat programmed already to have a certain lineage; an adult stem cell from your bone marrow can't become a neural crest cell - it would, however, likely become a bone cell or, potentially, a cardiac progenitor. An embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, is truly able to become ANY sort of cell. There are other biological factors making it more useful for certain studies.

The fact that adult stem cells are already clinically useful has to do with many technical issues, not the least of which is immunological (your own stem cells vs. someone else's; similar in a way to blood compatibility). It's true, before embryonic stem cells are directly chemically useful, it would take quite awhile because many of the technical and scientific issues are unanswered. However, from the point of view of basic science, embryonic stem cells are probably more useful than adult stem cells. One line of research being pursued is to use stem cells to grow organs - so that instead of studying a human liver disease in an animal, one could study it in a liver grown from stem cells - this potentially could speed up drug development (and forget animal rights issues. It would be a cost issue; for the price of doing twenty animal tests, you could run possibly hundreds of tests on the "engineered" tissues).

I wonder if you're opposed to in vitro conception? For consistency's sake I hope you are, because sometimes in this process some of the fertilized embryos are discarded.

Do you really think that biologists and physicians throughout the world are all commie pinkos who would waste their valuable time pursuing research (which is already being done in many countries and is, in places, still done here) that was purely political? Apparently you do think so, since this group of people overwhelmingly supports embryonic stem cell research.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

Hey, CalKid, you might have a few organs we could harvest and make use of right now. How about it, you going to volunteer?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:44 am: Edit

Interesting article on Ron Jr. by Bob Novak:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040712.shtml

By Lucifersam (Lucifersam) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

I'm sorry, Chavi, but that article was actually quite uninteresting. I found the layout of the piece to be very abrasive, and the syntax, though correct, really didn't agree with me. Next time pick something more interesting! You really ruined my day.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Novac hasn't written anythibg worthwhile.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page