Story here
As Republicans try to cloak President Bush in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, their biggest obstacle may be Mr. Reagan's own family.Even before Mr. Reagan died, Nancy Reagan and her daughter, Patti Davis, made their opposition to Mr. Bush's policy on stem-cell research well known. But on Friday, at the culmination of an emotional week of mourning for the former president, his son Ron Reagan delivered a eulogy that castigated politicians who use religion "to gain political advantage," a comment that was being interpreted in Washington as a not-so-subtle slap at Mr. Bush.
The remark has provoked intense debate among Republicans about precisely what the younger Mr. Reagan meant. Some saw the reference to religion as a message to the administration on stem-cell research. Others saw it as a possible critique of the war in Iraq. Still others insist there was no deeper message at all.
I distinctly remember hearing him say that, and immediately thought it was a slap at the President. His body language, facial expression, and tone all indicated that this was more than just a random comment. It was intended to have a deeper meaning.
First families often cause trouble for presidents. Jimmy Carter, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton each had brothers who made them uncomfortable from time to time. But rarely does the family of one president step on the toes of another. The Reagans and Bushes, who have had famously strained relations throughout the years, may be an exception, as Nancy Reagan and her children guard Ronald Reagan's legacy, fending off efforts by both the right and left to trade on it for political gain."I think Nancy would not want that," said Barbara Kellerman, a Harvard expert on leadership who has written a book on first families. "She is not mad about the Bush family, and the last thing she intends is for W. to inherit her beloved and sanctified husband's mantle."
As I stated in the comments section of another BlogCritic's post, it is counter-productive for Bush and his supporters to try to portray him as "Reagan II." Bush should focus on his unique qualities, not his similarities with RR.
Ron Reagan, a television commentator who has frequently been critical of Mr. Bush, has already said as much. In 2000, he fired a shot at Mr. Bush in Philadelphia during the Republican convention, which featured a tribute to his father. "What's his accomplishment?" Mr. Reagan asked then. "That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - David Flanagan
RJ,
I remember the comment as well and I also interpreted it as a backhanded comment on Bush's overt faith. I thought it cheapened the whole mood of the ceremony and it reminded me of the time when Paul Wellstone's children turned his memorial service into a political rally. The whole thing was a disgrace.
Ron Reagan's comments were much less overt, but still quite obvious, especially given his previous comments against Bush. The fact is, during the service, Ron never bowed his head to pray, never showed any sign of grief that I could see, and had this ever-present semi-smirk on his face, as if he was above it all.
I had noticed that even before Ron made his comments. The guy is not a man of faith and doesn't like politicians who wear their faith on their sleeve. Okay, so he's entitled to his opinion, but it was very bad taste for him to use his father's funeral service as a vehicle to air his opinion.
The guy is not nearly so smart as he believes himself to be. Fortunately, his comments are irrelevent to the political process as his actions on Friday underscored. He had to borrow from his father's fame to be heard.
Now that he's had his brief fame, he'll be forgotten again.
Thanks.
David
2 - David Flanagan
And what was the whole "earlobe" story thing? I've never heard any such thing and I think it made his father look silly, not human. Perhaps that was Ron's intent.
Yeesh! RJ, I agree that Presidential families certainly are messed up at times. There are a few exceptions; Chelsea Clinton seems to be doing well and hasn't gotten herself in trouble.
Anyway, on with the show.
David
3 - RJ Elliott
David:
I agree. Ron Reagan has always struck me as a bit of an asshole. And this whle deal will likely be forgotten by the next news cycle.
Frankly, I don;t much care for any of the Reagan kids. Maureen is dead, and I know nothing about her. Mike Reagan was adopted, and his radio talk show is pretty horrible. Patty Davis is, if memory serves me, a slut and a bitch. And Ron Reagan is pretty much just a sneering dickhead.
At least Ronald Reagan left this world a legacy OTHER than his children! :-/
4 - boomcrashbaby
I agree that Presidential families certainly are messed up at times. There are a few exceptions; Chelsea Clinton seems to be doing well and hasn't gotten herself in trouble.
Families that go around preaching moral values, often can't live up to those values. Reagan's kids, Bush Sr.'s kids, Bush Jr's. daughters, etc. Families that don't go around preaching this unrealistic version of Father Knows Best as a way of life, (Clinton), tend to raise children who end up with a good head on their shoulders.
5 - boomcrashbaby
At least Ronald Reagan left this world a legacy OTHER than his children!
Good Lord, the man's barely been in the ground for a few days and you're already pissing on his grave by attacking his family.
6 - RJ Elliott
"Families that go around preaching moral values, often can't live up to those values. Reagan's kids, Bush Sr.'s kids, Bush Jr's. daughters, etc. Families that don't go around preaching this unrealistic version of Father Knows Best as a way of life, (Clinton), tend to raise children who end up with a good head on their shoulders."
I think there's some truth to this.
But there is also the fact that those who demand more of those around them are opening themselves up for both hypocrisy AND a let-down. Meanwhile, those who don;t seem to care one way or the other can't be accused of being hypocrites, nor can they really claim to be disappointed.
Those who talk a good game are held to a higher standard.
7 - RJ Elliott
"Good Lord, the man's barely been in the ground for a few days and you're already pissing on his grave by attacking his family."
LOL. Touche.
Though this is semi-related to my previous comment:
Those who revere Reagan are more likely to be held accountable for anything deemed "insulting to his memory" than those who fucking hated the man.
It's like, if I smoke pot, and my kids end up smoking pot, what's the story? But if I make a career as a Drug-Warrior, and my kids end up smoking pot, it's national news.
Therefore, those who promote difficult-to-achieve values are held to a higher standard.
Unfortunately, it seems only the Right is held accountable here.
Like, when Mike Moore attacks arrogant, dishonest, rich, white guys, the fact that he is one of them doesn't seem to be a big media story...
8 - boomcrashbaby
Meanwhile, those who don;t seem to care one way or the other can't be accused of being hypocrites, nor can they really claim to be disappointed.
First, RJ, your insinuation that those who don't raise their child with a Father Knows Best mentality end up being 'those who don't care one way or another' is wrong. I'm quite sure that Bill and Hillary care very much about how Chelsea is raised. They went to great pains to protect her during his presidency. There are other ways to raise a child with good decent values of right and wrong, and responsibility and a sense of humanity, without having to try and emulate an old black and white tv show's lifestyle because one cannot move out of the past.
Those who talk a good game are held to a higher standard.
Trying to live up to an ideal that is unrealistically high is not talking a good game. It's setting the children up for a lot of problems later in life. Refer to my previous post for 3 good examples.
9 - RJ Elliott
Meanwhile, those who don't seem to care one way or the other can't be accused of being hypocrites, nor can they really claim to be disappointed.
"First, RJ, your insinuation that those who don't raise their child with a Father Knows Best mentality end up being 'those who don't care one way or another' is wrong."
Hmm. I think we both engaged in the Strawman fallacy here. No sense even discussing this topic further, until we clear it up. (Otherwise, we'll just be talking past each other.)
I don't think anyone takes seriously the "Father Knows Best" worldview. That was fiction even back when the show was produced.
But SOME parents set a better example than others. And SOME parents are more concerned about the morals they instill in their children than others.
Reagan, Bush, and Bush are all Republicans. Therefore, it is assumed they are all going to be sticklers (vis-a-vis their children) for morality and decency. And all three failed.
Bill Clinton is pretty much the anti-thesis of a moral human being. If his daughter was a complete deviant, no one would be surprised. (Yes, political hay would be made out of it, but there would be no shock about it.)
This really isn't a political comment. I am simply asserting that those who set the bar higher than most will be held to a higher standard. Not just themselves, but their entire family.
10 - boomcrashbaby
Unfortunately, it seems only the Right is held accountable here.
When the Right (Limbaugh) preaches and rants against drug users, then turns out to be a drug addict himself, he is more accountable than a person who advocates legalizing marijuana is when he gets buzzed, wouldn't you say?
Of course those who promote difficult to achieve values are going to be held to a higher standard. They are just being held to the standard that they preach. No more, no less.
The fact that the majority go through a fall of grace is only icing on the cake.
And provide those of us, who believe in being realistic and still moral and ethical and wise in child-rearing, no end to entertainment.
11 - Al Barger
The opinions of the Reagan family frankly aren't that important. Who's waiting around for Patti Davis or little Ron to tell them who to vote for?
To the extent that this makes any difference at all, I call it a small plus for Dubya. It tends to suggest that he's his own man, no machine tool- least ways not of any machine involving the Reagan family, obviously.
Praise be to Bush for his actions on the stem cell research issue. I would probably tend to disagree with President Bush on the stem cell research issue, but his insistence on the point shows serious political courage. He knows that his stand here is clearly a political disadvantage, but he has stuck to his guns. Good on him for this display of courage and integrity.
12 - bhw
There's no integrity in blind allegiance to a personal religious belief that ignores science and denies medical research that could help so many. Or in turning a personal religious belief into a political policy that affects the whole country.
13 - JR
Praise be to Bush for his actions on the stem cell research issue. I would probably tend to disagree with President Bush on the stem cell research issue, but his insistence on the point shows serious political courage. He knows that his stand here is clearly a political disadvantage, but he has stuck to his guns. Good on him for this display of courage and integrity.
Huh. For something he allegedly feels so strongly about, he sure took a long time deciding to take his stand. Kind of like he was trying to do the math.
It should come as no surprise that he miscalculated. I bet he'll flip-flop before the election.
14 - David Flanagan
Reagan, Bush, and Bush are all Republicans. Therefore, it is assumed they are all going to be sticklers (vis-a-vis their children) for morality and decency. And all three failed.
I beg to differ RJ. Our current President has two intelligent daughters who are in college and will likely do just fine with their lives. The fact that they tried to get alcohol while in college doesn't say much considering that 99% of other kids in college are doing the same. So far, they sound like pretty normal kids to me.
As for the elder George Bush, he has raised a wonderful family, including two sons, one of whom is a VERY popular Governor for the state of Florida and the other who is President of The United States. Sounds like successful parenting to me. ;-)
As for the stem cell decision, I think he made the best possible decision. While the research in this area holds promise, it is not yet proven. Plus there is the debate over human life. We know that the fertilized embryo is human life in its earliest form. There is no argument over whether the embryo is human, it is.
Instead, the argument revolves around the person-hood of the embryo. Is it a person and does it deserve all the rights of person-hood. In light of scientific findings since Roe vs. Wade, I think this is a question that must be answered first.
I just don't think ignoring the ethical implications of such technology is healthy.
Thanks.
David
15 - JR
As for the elder George Bush, he has raised a wonderful family, including two sons, one of whom is a VERY popular Governor for the state of Florida and the other who is President of The United States. Sounds like successful parenting to me. ;-)
Wow. If I raised one son who's an alcoholic until he's forty, and another who cheats on his wife with Thai prostitutes, and neither of them can run a company without ripping somebody off, I wouldn't consider myself a successful parent.
Maybe I've over-estimated the moral standards of Republicans.
16 - Al Barger
BHW, you say "There's no integrity in blind allegiance to a personal religious belief"
You're just wrong. It might not be smart, or the right position. You could describe it as chauvinistic or any number of bad things. You may even be right.
Nonetheless, this is what the president truly believes about this issue, and he's sticking to his guns despite the fact that it is definitely not a majority opinion. That is integrity, whether you like his position or not.
Plus, you're making big leaps and presumptions to say that his position constitutes "turning a personal religious belief into a political policy" -- unless you want to contend that laws against murder and robbery likewise constitute an imposition of your own religious beliefs on the community.
The point would be that Dubya thinks that little embryos are human. You might reasonably argue against this position, but it is not just some arbitrary made up religious thing.
Plus, science and medical research tend to show more development, more distinctive human qualities earlier as we learn more about human development.
17 - boomcrashbaby
Dubya needs those little embryos to grow up, as the fastest and largest killing machine in the country* is always going to need a good supply.
(Texas Death Row - set records when Mr. Life-Is-Sacred was governor)
If it prolongs the suffering of those with Parkinson's or Alzheimers or a myrida of other diseases, so be it. All those stem cells in clinics across the country, who have no parents, no one to raise them, no life ahead of them beyond a frozen status, only to be ultimtely discarded anyway because nobody's planning on making kids with them, of course those should not be used for research to help the suffering. They should remain as is, until they are no longer viable and then discarded. It's the religious thing to do. Amen.
18 - Jim Carruthers
Jumped up Jeebus on a pogo-stick, RJ, if you're going to crib from Cole's Notes, and as a reknowned friend of Dorothy, you should know it's a Tinman analogy, allegations of corruption are known as "nothing behind the curtain", and when you need to talk about the economy or labour issues, you refer them to the Secretary of the Fudge-Packer's Guild.
When somebody comes close to asking a relevant question or comes up with evidence which contradicts your blanket of propaganda, you endlessly repeat: "and your little dog, too!".
Jeebus, don't you at least read your briefing notes, dumbass.
19 - Eric Olsen
very nice report, RJ, thanks! You have been doing a particularly good job lately. I didn't see much of the day because hagiography makes me kind of queasy, but I have a pretty good sense of what happened after reading this (and the comments, of course)
20 - RJ Elliott
Jim, seriously: Do you suffer from some form of aphasia? Your writings are barely comprehensible.
21 - Steve Rhodes
Bush is putting theology over the potential to save a lot of human lives.
And his compromise doesn't even make much sense. He said it was ok to use already existing stem cell lines, but not ok to start new lines from embryo which will be discarded anyway.
Already, one leading scientist left the UC San Francisco Medical Center for England where he can continue his research which will save and improve lives (funny how if Bush would call Blair a socialist if he were running against him since his best ally is to the left of Kerry on most issues except Iraq).
And Ron, Jr. has every right to speak out against Bush and others using his father as a political prop. I think it is good that three of Reagan's kids had better politics than their father. Though it would have been nice if they had let Ron, Jr be Ron, Jr so he could continue to dance rather than hosting crappy tv shows.
Neither generation of the Bush family did a good job raising their kids. W had serious problems and I'd say his daughters getting arrested for underage drinking with their father's history is pretty poor parenting.
22 - David Flanagan
Wow. If I raised one son who's an alcoholic until he's forty, and another who cheats on his wife with Thai prostitutes, and neither of them can run a company without ripping somebody off, I wouldn't consider myself a successful parent.
Behold the intelligent and skilled rhetoric of today's left-leaning Americans! :-) Get back on your meds JR.
David
23 - JOHN.
Ron Reagan is not the only person who takes advantage of his father's fame. George W. Bush would not have been managing partner of the Texas Rangers, Governor of Texas, or President if he did not have the father that he has. If he was not born into the family that he was born into, and born into a poor family with nothing, he would be cleaning toilets for a living right now. He started a bunch of companies, FAILED WITH ALL OF THEM, and then had to be BAILED OUT BY HIS FATHER AND JIMMY BAKER and then WALKED AWAY WITH HIS POCKETS LINED WHILE HIS INVESTORS LOST OBSCENE AMOUNTS OF MONEY. Neil Bush, his brother, went on a business trip and cheated on his wife with Asian prostitutes, and said that they "just showed up at his door." And Dubya's supposed to be the dumbass? Oh, and lets not forgets the whole Savings and Loan scandal, which cost the taxpayers of America ONE BILLION DOLLARS-figures--another useless Bush bailed out by the old man himself. What a pathetic bunch they are. What a pathetic family. So before you bash Ron Reagan, WHO I AM NOT A FAN OF, start looking at the Bush family and those pathetic sons of George and Barbara's. I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN OR A LIBERAL OR A CONSERVATIVE OR A MODERATE. LABLES ARE FOR BOXES. I DON'T LIKE EITHER PARTY AND PEOPLE ON ALL LOCATIONS ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM ANNOY ME.
THANK YOU.
JOHN-ceo93@hotmail.com.
24 - Steve Rhodes
You really don't need the all caps.
An example of how the Bush family is fucked up in Laura Miller's review of some Bush books for Salon:
Others make sense, like the probability that Bush, who surely experienced the usual sibling rivalry, felt some unconscious guilt over the death of his younger sister Robin, from leukemia, when he was 7 and she was 3.
Bush's parents dealt with Robin's death by squelching any expression of grief; there was no funeral and they played golf the day after she died. This, according to Frank, is a key example of the family's approach to all such painful emotions, and the result was to distort and cripple the psyche of their firstborn son...
from an early age, George W. Bush consistently failed in everything at which his father excelled. He got poor grades at the same schools where his father did well, and was a disaster in the same industry (oil) where his father made his fortune. His father was a varsity athlete; George W. had to settle for the cheerleading squad. His father was a fighter pilot in World War II; George W. was a desultory member of the Texas Air National Guard.
There's George W.'s first, abortive engagement at 20, the same age at which his father married. And then there's George W. celebrating his role in the purchasing of the Texas Rangers by printing up baseball cards with his picture on them, a pathetically transparent effort to erase the fact that "he could never be the baseball star his father was." Even the exhaustively analyzed "Mission Accomplished" charade on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 takes on new meaning when you interpret it as a "pantomime of [George W.'s] father's war heroism."
25 - Eric Olsen
assuming all this is true, then GW Bush's reelection would break the spell