Today on Blogcritics
Home » Remembering Ronald Reagan

Remembering Ronald Reagan

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Reagan_tribute Today is the first year anniversary of the death of President Reagan.  Please join me in praying for Nancy and the rest of the family.

Michael Reagan wrote a column called, "A Year of Memories" it begins…

This coming Sunday marks the first anniversary of my father’s death, and I will mark it by visiting the aircraft carrier that bears his name, USS Ronald Reagan. At 8:00 a.m., with Captain Jim Symonds and the crew, I will lay a wreath in honor of my dad.

As I get ready for that ceremony I think back over the past year and what I’ve learned as I traveled all across America on speaking engagements to different organizations and listened to thousands and thousands of my fellow Americans express their love and admiration for Ronald Reagan.

As they shared with me their favorite Ronald Reagan stories or their favorite Ronald Reagan moments, I began to understand the reason why those vast crowds took the time last year to stand outside for hours upon hours just to be able to walk past my father’s casket for a brief moment, whether it was at the Ronald Reagan Library at Simi Valley, Calif., or back in Washington at the Rotunda where he lay in state."

Continue reading…

Cartoon by Dan Lacey creator of Faithmouse

Powered by

About Stacy L Harp

  • http://worsethanmybite.blogspot.com/ Nicolette Rivers

    I’ve learned over the years to be more tolerant for who Reagan was as a man and as a president. I would have wished the death he had on very few people — if anyone.

    At heart, I think he was a man prone to empty rhetoric who gave off the illusion of warmth. All of his kids seemed to have spent their lives with him seeking some elusive real connection.

    I wrote a story recently. In the story was a blazing fire that never gave off warmth, but people kept leaning toward it in expectation of that warmth. I believe Reagan to be like that fire.

    I think he believed his words — there seemed to be no malice there — but I think there was an emptiness at his core.

    I think he was The Great Communicator only if you considering communication to be one-sided. He had the ability to persuade, but that’s not the same. Communication is about making something clear, not laying dpwn a clever illusion.

  • dee

    I never cared for Regan as a president but I would not want anyone to suffer the affects of alzhiemers. Thought he and Nancy had a great love affair that lasted throughtout their lives but I did not think he projected the kind of warmth I would have liked to have seen to the people who served him. Not just the ones who had money but the ones who did not. I never saw him as a man who cared much about the men and women who had to put food on the table and couldn’t at that time. His policies are what I did not like about him. He as man was okay. Many of his policies affected the work in our area and many ended up being laid off during much of his administration.

  • dee

    I meant to say Reagan did not project much warmth to the people he was supposed to be serving. Not those serving him.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Whether he did or didn’t have this warmth doesn’t detract from his record as a leader. In the times that he was raised and became a husband and father, you were “supposed” to be aloof. The great parenting scientists of that day were saying that the man needed to never touch or kiss his children after a certain age.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    >>The great parenting scientists of that day were saying that the man needed to never touch or kiss his children after a certain age.

    Off-topic – but are you sure about this?

    Dr. Spock comes to mind but I’ve never read his views on a father’s role.

    This week’s Reader’s Digest has a great article about fathers. I was going to post about it later.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    pre-spock.

    Quite certain. No time to look up cites right now. Still the attitude in Muslim world. Dad’s have nothing to do with their sons until 13.

    Other cultures follow suit. Wish I could give you one great place to go find it. If you’re truly interested email at Quixote77@SBCglobal.net

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    No, I’ll take your word for it. Just sounds fairly alien. I had heard that fathers did so, of course, but I didn’t know they did so at the advice of others.

  • http://mediasoul.typepad.com Stacy L. Harp

    Nicolette,

    I’m glad you’ve learned to be more tolerant of Reagan over the years. I have learned the same for Clinton who brought shame to the White House during his years.

    As for his children, Michael Reagan had a great connection with his father, his other two kids have lots to be desired.

    And I think it’s a shame the MSNBC has hired Ron Reagan Jr. to host a show, that guy makes my stomach turn. I think he should just put his tights back on and keep dancing. :)

  • http://worsethanmybite.blogspot.com/ Nicolette Rivers

    So Clinton is bad ’cause he has a sex drive and Ron Jr is bad because he wore tights. At least you’re consistent. :) I mean, one post without a reminder of your feelings about gays would be oh-so-nice!

    Michael Reagan, back when I listened to talk radio, said nothing really interesting or thought-provoking, but rather parroted what others were saying. He struck me as a scared and small little man, constantly seeking approval.

  • friptoe

    Michael Reagan should crawl back in his gay closet. The guy really makes me ill.
    He creeps me out, much like a pedophile does. Him and Michael jackson should have their own show. “Michael and Michael”

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Um, friptoe, don’t saddle us with Michael Reagan. If he were gay, I’d turn in my membership card. I’m with Nicolette. Mikey is a scared little boy who never got daddy’s complete approval and now that he’s dead, Mikey’s acting like he is the only offspring qualified to preserve the Reagan legacy.

    As astounding as it may be, I loved Ronald Reagan. I consider him to be one of America’s best Presidents if not the best President of the 20th century. I didn’t always agree with his policies but at least with Ronald Reagan one knew where he stood. He was consistent, patriarchal and above all else I believe Ronald Reagan was a decent man. That cannot be said for 96% of today’s politicians.

    He had four children: Maureen, Michael, Patti and Ron, Jr. I knew Maureen and she was a wonderful woman. She used to say that she inherited her optimism from her dad. Insofar as Patti and Ron, Jr. are concerned, they had their problems. However, they are devoted to their mother and while they may not be in tune with all of their father’s philosophies I cannot believe that President Reagan would be anything less than proud of his youngest children for the way they have been at their mother’s side.

    Ms. Harp thank you for reminding us of this anniversary. Your comments in #8, however, tarnishes President Reagan’s memory. You see, when you gave credit to Nicolette’s tolerance of President Reagan you diminished it by the attack on President Clinton. You went even further by pulling the ‘gay card’ with Ron, Jr. Ms. Harp, this is what perpetuates the politics of hate in America and THAT, my friend, is NOT his legacy. Ronald Wilson Reagan was a tolerant man. He could compromise. He could be forgiving. He was a class act.

    When Clinton first won back in 1992, his first act after election was to take a trip to California to meet with President Reagan. I was totally impressed. Demonize Bill Clinton all you want, at least he understood Reagan and his approach. Before you read my final sentence you may want to take a deep breath. As far as I am concerned, Bill Clinton has more in common with Ronald Reagan than George W. Bush could ever dream of.

  • http://mediasoul.typepad.com Stacy L. Harp

    Actually Clinton is bad not because he has a sex drive, but because he commited adultery, and did it in the most disgraceful way he could in the Oval Office. Don’t you see shame in that?

    And where did I write Ron Jr. was bad because he wore tights? You might want to start reading what I wrote instead of projecting your feelings on what I write.

  • jarboy

    stacy, what you really mean is clinton is bad because he is leftist, reagan good, because he rightist. i thought ya’ll christians were not supposed to judge others, so how do you get off saying anyone is bad?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Cartoon by Dan Lacey creator of Faithmouse

    Huh? What cartoon? In a news item?

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    And where did I write Ron Jr. was bad because he wore tights? You might want to start reading what I wrote instead of projecting your feelings on what I write.

    OK, Ms. Harp, I went overboard with the “gay card” comment. Or did I? You didn’t say the words but the sentiment seemed very evident especially when based on your previous posts.

    Actually Clinton is bad not because he has a sex drive, but because he commited adultery, and did it in the most disgraceful way he could in the Oval Office. Don’t you see shame in that?

    If Hillary were barren and unable to fulfill her wifely duties, President Clinton would have had license to be with Monica according to the Good Book. He brought shame upon himself for his perjury. Insofar as his infidelity is concerned it’s none of my business. He has to account for that with the Creator. I have enough of my own sins to account for.

  • http://uncledexterity.blogs.friendster.com/lameass_blog/ Tristan

    This is an interesting thread of ideas because it fits in nicely with a theory of mine. This is a generalization of course, but here goes…

    It seems to me that there are two types of people (three if you count the in-betweens). Those that disliked Reagan and liked Clinton and those that feel oppositely. Whenever I hear somebody speak glowingly of Reagan, it is something like “He always wore a suit in the oval office because he respected the office of president.” Usually people talk about his character and have little if anything to say about the policies he pushed. This is ironic considering the character of Reagan led to the Iran-Contra scandal. But I digress. The people that like Reagan like him for who he is, not what he does. Personally, I don’t care if the President wears tennis shoes, sweats, and a beanie in the oval office as long as he gets the job done and done well. These people, in my view are more concerned with the president as figurehead than as public servant. To me, this is kind of silly. If I wanted a figurehead as leader, I’d move to England where I can watch the queen wave to the commoners all day long.

    On the other side of the coin are the people that like Clinton. Most people that like Clinton say that they don’t care what he does as a person, as long as he does the job well. This, they say, is the reason that the whole Monica fiasco was ridiculous. They believe that it had nothing to do with his job as President. Personally, I would say that Clinton should have been impeached, but not for the reasons that were ultimately given. It didn’t matter that he had sexual relations with a woman other than his wife. That’s a part of his personal life that should be left to his family to be taken care of. At best, it’s ‘behavior unbecoming a president’ but that’s something that is extremely subjective. Some might say that Iran-Contra was behavior unbefitting…but I digress. The real reason he should have been impeached was his affair took place with someone who was working for him. It is highly likely that he used his influence as her boss (and probably as the very powerful president) to have sexual relations with her. In any other working situation, you are fired for this. The fact that they tried to kick him out of office on the technicality is pretty lame. IMHO, it really shows the amount of respect our leaders have for women in this country. I’ll probably get a lot of responses saying she was willing and all that. But even if that is the case, which it more than likely was, this has never mattered in a business setting. You simply don’t have sex with the people that work for you.

    I guess this means that I’m in that third group of in-betweens.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    The thing that most impresses me about the Reagan/Clinton comparison is the fact that both men loved being President. They may have had a different approach and respect for the office but Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have more in common than President Reagan and the current President.

  • http://uncledexterity.blogs.friendster.com/lameass_blog/ Tristan

    Unless you take into account the policies that ruined the nation’s economic health ; )

  • dee

    Randy..I was not talking about the warmth he projected towards his children. He and Nancy both had to live with the choices they made on how they reared their children. I was talking about his warmth towards those he served..those lying in the street because they had no other place to go.Or, the families that were displaced because of job losses here because of some of his policies.

  • dee

    Jarboy… many so called christians forget that little bit about judging others when they are the ones doing the judging.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Unless you take into account the policies that ruined the nation’s economic health ; )

    Could you explain, please?

  • http://uncledexterity.blogs.friendster.com/lameass_blog/ Tristan

    Reagan: Deficit spending.

    W: A war AND tax cuts.

    When will people learn that supply-side economics doesn’t work? It’s been proven again and again. Republican leadership always chants “tax and spend” when referring to the Democrats, but I don’t see how cutting taxes and spending is better. And they claim to be the fiscally responsible party. Pfft.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    See, though Reagan operated at a deficit, I think he was more fiscally responsible than the current Administration. The Republicans are far from a fiscally responsible party and have been that way since George the First was President.

    I understand where you’re coming from Tristan, but can you honestly say that life was worse under Reagan? It wasn’t. We were secure. The world respected us. We were digging ourselves out of an economic disaster. The Democrat Speaker of the House (Tip O’Neil) and the Republican President actually liked each other and were able to communicate. Now we might as well place a barbed wire fence between the political parties in Congress. I’d take Jesse Helms, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Strom Thurmond any day over the schmucks in the leadership today.

  • http://uncledexterity.blogs.friendster.com/lameass_blog/ Tristan

    Things today are definitely worse. This administration is probably the worst in the history of America. I honestly can’t think of any administration that has shown worse leadership. But it’s our own fault. We not only voted for them, but we gave them free reign when we allowed the republican party to take over both houses of congress as well. That’s why their used to be debate during the Reagan administration. It was necessary to get anything done, but now nobody has to compromise about anything. I wasn’t saying that the Reagan years were worse. I was just saying that I felt that Reagan and Bush had much more in common than Reagan and Clinton.