I'm certainly glad to see that the Bush campaign is approaching the Reagan mourning festivities in a completely nonpartisan way. Check out the Bush-Cheney campaign page at:
As of this morning (8:30am PDT), the opening page is completely devoted to Reagan hagiography.
Meant in a completely nonpartisan way, of course. Not at all intended to influence people to identify Bush in this campaign with what they might like about Reagan. What a relief!
By contrast, John Kerry's page http://www.johnkerry.com/ features only one item about Reagan. And it doesn't have a photograph of Reagan showing, and it doesn't even get top billing.
Those crassly partisan Democrats! How dare they indulge in such gross politicization of our national grief over Ronald Reagan the Great Republican!! Thank God for nonpartisan statesmen like George Bush and Dick Cheney to save us from such awful political polarization.
8 comments:
Funny, but I totally miss your point here.
I clicked both of the links you provided. On the Bush-Cheney site, I found no claim whatsoever that their tribute to Reagan had any intention of being nonpartisan. Since Reagan WAS a Republican, I think most people would EXPECT that the Republican candidate's site would do more to honor Reagan upon his death than the Democratic candidate's site.
On Kerry's site, the link sends the reader to Kerry's statement, completely complementary of the president, choosing to be respectful without criticising Reagan's non-Democratic motives. In other words, Kerry seems to be showing exceptional class here.
I'm sure that if Reagan had been a Democrat, Kerry's website WOULD have included a picture and the type of tribute you complain about on Bush's site, and Bush's site in that instance would have a small mention of him, if any at all. Do you honestly believe that the Democratic party wouldn't try to use a similar tactic?
Are you really surprised by the differing levels of "coverage?" Did you expect either side to IGNORE Reagan's passing?
Patrick
Now, now, Bruce. Isn't it just a bit typi-critical of you to gripe about someone else's failure to be anything but partisan?
In all you wrote here, all I remember you saying is, "Hello, Pot. It's me, Kettle."
I don't really know what either of you are getting at here. And, sorry, Armandt, I don't have a clue what "tipi-critical" means.
Of course, the Republicans are remembering Reagan in their usual partisan manner. I didn't really expect anything else. I've just had a good chuckle this week about Republican partisans muttering about it being "inappropriate" to remember any of the negative consequences of Reagan's policies. While the Reps cheerfully use the parts of his legacy with which they agree in a crassly partisan way and pretty much ignore the parts that don't fit with their present-day agenda.
It's politics as usual, which is why I saw no need for Kerry to cancel all campaign events this week. But the "aura of Reagan" isn't likely to help Bush much. Most of the coverage of the funeral is celebrity coverage and it's political effects in 2004, even there are any at all, probably won't last for long. - Bruce
Come now...
First, no one said we should not remember the negative consequences of Reagan's policies. I'm sure those liberals who have apparently made it their life's mission to bring them up at every possible turn will make sure no one does. I merely suggest that it's more than a little tacky to begin criticizing the man before he's even buried...that's all. It's not about sweeping the negatives under the rug...it's about setting differences aside long enough to show respect for someone who just DIED.
Second, "crassly partisan?" I refer you to Armand's remark about the pot and the kettle. If you're going to lament the fact that "politics as usual" is little more than partisan bickering, it seems to that you'd refrain from taking part in it: if it wasn't for "politics as usual," you wouldn't have much to say here, would you? If "politics as usual" is such a bad thing, then be big and get past it: Let's see YOU raise the bar by being UNBIASED. If "politics as usual" has value, then what are you complaining about? When you make these outrageous arguments just to "dig" at Republicans, you're only doing what you're accusing Republicans of when you say they aren't "playing fair." If Republicans are being opportunistic by using his death to cheer for their party, how are you being any different when you use the SAME event to lampoon them?
Third, do you stand behind every single idea put forth by every Democratic leader in history, or would you most likely embrace a Democratic leader for his agreement with those issues you hold most dear? When you claim that Republicans are ignoring those parts of the story that don't fit the present-day agenda, do you mean to suggest that Democrats are incapable of partisanism?
Incedentally, "typi-critical," I'm sure, was a shortening of the words, "typically-critical."
Wait, I was the one who was complaining that Kerry was making a mistake by not actively campaigning this week and even cancelling fundraisers!
I'm not at all surprised at the way the Reagan's remembrances have developed this week, with the Reps hyping them to maximum partisan advantages while professing to be shocked, shocked that the Dems might point out problems with Reagan's approach to government.
But I'm sure the Republicans are happy to see Kerry's display of nonpartisanship this week. Especially the not campaigning and not raising money part. - Bruce
I'll break it down for you...
Typically Hypocritical.... Typi-critical.
Read what you wrote Bruce. You are doing exactly what you are complaining about.
By this point I don't even know what you guys criticizing me for here.
Making fun of the Republicans' silly attitude about this? Not making fun of them? I'm lost.
Or was it too much of a mind-bender that I assumed a Republican "voice" in this post? Beats me. - Bruce
Let me break it down for you...
I wrote "Now, now, Bruce. Isn't it just a bit typi-critical of you to gripe about someone else's failure to be anything but partisan?" - and now you are confused about what I was saying?
Is that strategic ignorance or just a lack of focus?
Post a Comment