Archives for 2004

Alright, Ezra, DU denizens, and Clinton supporters:

Why SHOULD Clinton speak at Reagan’s funeral?

Bear in mind, the only reason a Democrat spoke at Nixon’s funeral was because clinton was the current President, I believe Nixon was the only Republican (he was the sitting President) to speak at LBJ’s state funeral, and no Republicans gave eulogies at JFK’s funeral.

So, explain to me- Why should Clinton speak at Reagan’s funeral, and shouldn’t Reagan and his family have a say in the matter?

*** Update ***

Stupid Comment #1- “For balance. To make the whole thing non-partisan.”

Someone take the time to explain non-partisan, partisan, and bi-partisan to these people. I have lost the desire to try to even talk to the intentionally obtuse.

Last On Clinton and the FuneralPost + Comments (78)

This is the funniest comment yet in the whole ‘Bill Clinton not speaking at Reagan’s funeral” nonsense:

Do you idiots actually think Clinton (or Carter) would actually step up to a mic and denounce Reagan at his own funeral?

This is a classic example of Clinton-hating on the Right being much stronger than any Reagan-hating I’ve seen in the last week.

Clinton is an eloquent speaker, who would read a well-prepared speech, that would represent the HALF of this country who aren’t Republicans. After all, Reagan was everybody’s President, not just you wingnuts.

After Dubya is halfway through screwing up his speech, you’ll be wishing it was Clinton up there speaking.

– Mr. Furious

We certainly have set a high bar, haven’t we? The qualifications for speaking at someone’s funeral now are only that the person won’t ‘step up to a mic’ and denounce them.

And hell, if we are choosing who will speak at the funeral based on who is the best public speaker, put me down for Jesse Jackson.

What is funny about this is that the funeral is about Reagan, not about partisan politics, and not about Clinton. Can’t you guys get it?

Bush will speak at the funeral because he is the current President. Clinton will not speak, because there is simply no reason for him to say anything? How hard is that to understand? I mean, if it bothers him that much, can’t he just stage his own press conference/memorial for reagan, ala the 2000 Inauguration?

Funniest Comment YetPost + Comments (20)

Ezra can’t read.

A.) I did not call you idiotic. I called your attack on Rumsfeld. As Democrats are the smart people, I am sure you can figure out the distinction.

B.) The attack I called idiotic was a series of links and an assertion of general incompetence of the current administration. IN your words:

“Exactly what, may I ask, are these people doing all day?”

C.) If he had bothered to follow the links in the post (alas- he was too busy seeking victim status to peruse all the links), or to read the Tagorda post and the entire transcript, he would note that Rumsfeld was talking about the collective effort in the War on Terror. Had Ezra read that (better yet, comprehended it), he would not make flippant statements like:

“I actually suggest reading the whole quote as it proves that Rumsfeld is quite aware of what needs to be done in the war on terror. Oddly enough, he’s not doing it.”

He would clearly understand that the quote references the global fight, the collective fight.

Make sure you read the rest of the silliness that Ezra passes on as informed commentary by hitting the Continue reading “Idiotic? Hardly,” and recognize how Ezra’s opinions aboutthe current war in Iraq overshadow anything that was actually said in thetranscript provided by Tagorda.

Projection, Ezra. Projection.

Ezra and the War On StrawPost + Comments (4)

People keep talking about revisionist history, so I think it is important to remember how much the left really HATED Ronald Reagan. We are talking a level of hatred on par with the ugliest of the Clinton bashers- he was ‘the dumbest President ever,’ he was a ‘cowboy,’ a ‘warmongerer,’ and on and on and on.

That is why I am laughing every time I see a Liberal praising Reagan in order to attack George Bush- as in today’s Krugman article, which I will save you the time of reading.

Shorter Paul Krugman– Reagan was Bad. Bush is Worse.

Can these guys be more transparent and phony?

TransparencyPost + Comments (7)

This made me giggle:

Former President Bill Clinton has privately expressed anger he has apparently been left off the speakers list of Friday’s Reagan State Funeral, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

“President Clinton really held out all hope the funeral would be a nonpartisan event, like Nixon’s was,” a top Clinton source said on Tuesday morning. “He’s angry and disappointed neither he nor President Carter have been asked to speak, as of yet.”

The top source says Clinton has been critical that both Bush presidents will address the crowd gathered at National Cathedral.

Nixon’s vice president Gerald Ford did not speak at Nixon’s funeral.

Clinton’s inner circle is convinced Nancy Reagan has personally shut out Clinton from any high-profile participation.

Does anyone ever remember one polite- screw polite, one positive thing that the Clinton’s ever said about Ronald Reagan? I mean, just one. All I remember is the ‘decade of greed’ mantra along with systematically blaming Reagan for all the ills of society.

Is anyone really surprised he will not be a keynote speaker at Reagan’s funeral? Does anyone want him to be the speaker at Reagan’s funeral? Did anyone expect him to be the speaker? I didnn’t think so…

How would Clinton feel about Ken Starr speaking at his funeral? Just curious, you know.

*** Update ***

Dearest Ezra,

I am aware who Ken Starr is- and the analogy I was trying to make was not between comparable persons, but people who held comparable opinions. Having listened to Clinton prattle on about the decade of greed during his entire Presidency, my point was that Clinton feels about Reagan the way Ken Starr probably feels about Clinton.

Sorry to confuse you, sweetheart.

PS- are you natural blonde?

PPS- At Nixon’s funeral, Billy Graham, Bill Clinton (the current President), Bob Dole, Henry Kissinger (someone who knew the man well and served in his administration), and Pete Wilson spoke. No Carter. Was that political?

Name one reason Clinton should speak, other than his Schumeresque desire to be on camera 24/7?

If all the prominent Democrats are booed when they enter the funeral, and, if Reagan’s son comes on stage, starts pointing at Democrats, and wails for them to vote for George Bush to maintain Reagan’s legacy, I would agree it is as tacky and tasteless as the Wellstone pep-rally.

*** Update #2 ***

Question: Who are Earl Warren, Mike Mansfield, and John McCormack, and why would I ask this question?

OH, Boo-HOO, The Spotlight Won’t Be On YouPost + Comments (50)