I'm surprised this isn't getting more press.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_4935.shtml

NJ

This does not surprise me. I do not think she wants her husbands name to be used in this election. Her stance is probably similar to Ron Reagan Jr, but again she does not want to take sides in this election. She doesn't support his re-election but did not state she supports John Kerry. Kerry wouldn't use her in that manner.

It hasn't gotten press because it's not true. The writer is so busy making shit up that he doesn't even have time to correct his typos:

Regardless of whether you agree with his position on stem cell research (which I would venture most people generally do), the notion that Ron Reagan hasn't taken sides in this election is as erroneous as his statement that his DNC speech was not "political" is wholly disingenuous.

The administration all but gave her the middle finger on this issue, but I don't think she will say outright if she doesn't support him.

Hell, Ronnie Jr. never even supported his father's election and re-election. Jr. voted against his dad, and now he runs around using his dad's name for political purposes. The kid's an idiot.

You want he should change his name?

How does that make him an idiot?

NJ, This story isn't getting more press for several reasons. First, it shows some Republicans in a more-than-reasonable light, something the majority of the media have no interest in portraying, being far more content to cast all GOPers as slavish devotees of President Bush. Conversely, the rightist media are not about to print anything showing dissension in their camp, lest it be picked up and expanded upon by others. Third, it gives credit to the secret desire of many Republicans for something that will make for an open convention, in which President Bush's nomination is NOT automatically assured but is actively contested, if not eventually denied. Call it crazy, but it IS possible, even if improbable. Finally, Mrs. Reagan is understandably shy of publicity right now and is still being a good GOPer(esse/ette?) by refraining from taking this further. Her point about stem-cell research was made and not lost on right-thinking Republicans, who will bide the present time for more enlightened times within the GOP.

I believe the term you're looking for is "Republican." I've never gotten the who "Grand Old Party" thing. The Democratic party is older.

Can't ... resist. Must ... Google.

Origin of \"GOP\"

How the hell do you know who he voted for?
Read it in one of your briefs?

I contacted them about this and the other article, on W's treatment for depression, and they responded that they have at least two verifiable sources for everything they print. The response was somewhat flip, but I've come across other reports about Nancy Reagan's distaste for W's use of her husband's name and image, so the one on CapitolHillBlue isn't the only one reporting this.

Watching your father die of a debillitating disease could soften and mend many fences. You have no insight into what his life has been like for the last few years. I have the most heated and destructive relationship with my dad, but if he were on his death bed I know I would want to help him and make his death mean something.

Well, for one thing, genius, it was all over the news recently.

Ditto.

Well if it was "all over the news" there must be plenty of links you could provide to back up your claim.....go for it judge.

from what I understand that Nancy Regan was upset of Bush using her husbands in a commercial but she supports his relection 150%

Fantomas, there's a difference between saying she/the family doesn't like W's use of Reagan's name and image (which has been reported widely) and the outright fabrication of a statement by "a spokesman for the former First Lady" saying that she doesn't support Bush’s re-election.

No spokesperson for Nancy Reagan made that statement. If that statement were made by someone in her camp, it would be huge news. This two-bit hack wouldn't have an exclusive on it. The guy's a liar. He made that quote up. It's not a respectable publication.

Now, judging by what Michael Reagan's been saying, Nancy favors and supports Ron Jr., Ron Jr. hates Bush and wants him voted out(read his Esquire piece), and Michael appears to be the only one in the family gunning for Bush. Put two and two together and it's possible, if not likely, that Nancy doesn't support Bush's reelection. But it's not slam dunk. And certainly no spokesperson of hers has come out and said she doesn't support his reelection.

There's no doubt that if Nancy Reagan had come right out and opposed W's re-election it would be big news in the mainstream press. It hasn't happened, and I don't think it will - Nancy's too good a soldier. That said, I think she's going to be very outspoken about the fact that she disagrees with the White House on the issue of stem cell research. I guess it's somewhat analagous to Lynn Cheney breaking with GOP dogma on the issue of gay marriage, although I think Nancy will be more consistently outspoken and pointed. I also think that she either has or will let it be known that those in the GOP who try to invoke President Reagan's name risk her wrath - she was very protective of her husband in life and is clearly going to continue to be so in death.

As for Ron Reagan, I think he's never made any secret of the fact that he disagreed with most of his father's politics - he was saying that on talk shows twenty years ago. But it's clear that that never diminshed his love or respect for his father. As his son, and someone who bears the name, he has every right to invoke his father's spirit in the name of scientific research or any other cause he feels is appropriate.

Oh really? "150%"? Proof?

TomFord, do you know for sure no spokesman of hers said this? The media refuse to report so much that's negative about W, for whatever reason, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nancy Reagan had made her thoughts quite clear and the truth were suppressed. That said, I agree with Munson Man that Ron Jr. made it clear over the years that while he disagree with his father's politics, he did show considerable love towards him. (And whether he did or didn't is his business; who am I or you or anyone else to criticize a child's relationship with her or his parent when we don't know what fully went on between them. By any measure, Raygun's coldness towards his children--and many others, Nancy notwithstanding--is well documented.) You may be too young to remember, but Patti Davis (Reagan) made clear the turmoil she experienced during her upbringing by Raygun and Nancy.

You cannot be serious. After all the hype surrounding his funeral, Nancy's Vanity Fair and Newsweek covers, etc., you really think the media would refuse to report an official statement saying she doesn't support Bush's reelection...just because it's negative? You really think Bush haters like Graydon Carter would let that slide?

That statement is an outright fabrication. No official Nancy Reagan spokesperson said she doesn't support Bush's reelection. If the statement--"Nancy Reagan does not support Bush's reelection"--were true, it would be front page, above the fold, Drudge siren news.

Since it's not, I know the quote is a fabrication "for sure" (which isn't surprising considering the source). It's a bit odd that you're so eager to give this shyster the benefit of doubt. Capital Hill Blue is a bit Weekly World News, isn't it? What's wrong fantomas? W hatred clouding your judgment? Yes, she can't be a big W fan. Yes, she loves and supports Ron Jr. and favors him over Michael (the only one who vocally supports Bush). Yes, we may surmise that on stem cell research, she's in Kerry's camp and anti-Bush. But all of this isn't the same as an official spokesperson saying she flat out doesn't want to see him reelected. Let this one go man.

Who knows? Does Drudge, or anyone in the media, ever truly report on what this president or his administration is up to? Do they ever look into his past? Do you seriously think if a Democrat had a DUI or was coking it up for YEARS or may have arranged for his girlfriend to have an abortion or went AWOL for weeks, that we'd EVER HEAR THE END OF IT?

First, I think it's hardly WWN, and you know it. Maybe the disreputable New York Post (does that cutie Jonathan Capehart still waste his talent on that rag?) or the slightly less right-wing Daily News. I don't see any posts about aliens coming out of horses' heads or Elvis living in a hut in Zimbabwe on the site. Do you? Also, they post right-wing articles too: read the one by black conservative wannabe Star Parker on Al Sharpton, or the ones attacking Kerry. Doesn't sound or look like a WWN ragsheet to me.

Second, aren't you studying to be a lawyer? So that means you have to read carefully and analytically. Here's the exact quote from CapitolHillBlue:

Nowhere does it say an "official spokesman." Or if it does, perhaps you can show me. As with the article on Buddy Fletcher, I'd say the text speaks for itself.

At any rate, I'm not so "clouded by hatred" towards W. There is only one person on this earth I dislike strongly enough to use the term hate, and it isn't W, believe me. Criticizing Bush or pointing to the fact that numerous Republicans disagree with him is not "hate," just as pointing out that some Democrats may not like Kerry--and I don't just mean pseudo-Democrats like Zell Miller--hardly constitutes "hating" Kerry. Pathological hatred against a political figure was clearly in evidence during Clinton's presidency, when fanatics claimed he "killed" Vince Foster, drummed up that multimillion-dollar Whitewater investigation, and tried to impeach him based on matters that were alleged to have occurred BEFORE he became president!

BTW, I just heard on "Air America" that Nancy Reagan's official spokesperson said that she does support W, and may campaign for him. But that official spokesperson is different from a "source close to the Former First Lady." Hell, that could be Patti Davis Reagan!

But then again...check this out, from guess who:

Capitol Hill Blue: Reagan staffer uses pro-GOP site to rebut CHB report

[ August 03, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Whether or not the media is or isn't investigating those things, I can tell you that if Nancy Reagan actually made a statement -- speaking herself, or making it through her family or through a spokesperson -- that she wasn't supporting Bush in the election, it would definitely be reported. It would be too good a story for the media to pass up, just like they were quick to report when Ron Reagan was announced as a speaker at the Democratic convention.

I don't think that website is a reliable source or has reliable sources.

A spokesman for Nancy Reagan today released a statement affirming Mrs. Reagan's support for the re-election of George W. Bush. It states, in part, that Mrs. Reagan disagrees with Bush's view on stem-cell research but views the lection as being about "more than just one issue."

Her support of Bush should come as no surprise--she was a loyal Republican long before Ronald Reagan changed his registration from Democrat to Republican.

~Adam

Read with care? Maybe if your oh-so-reliable source hadn't fabricated the quote from a Nancy Reagan's "spokesman" (with a glaring typo) that I cut and pasted above, and then have been forced to change it, it would still be there. The statement, again, was (as cut and pasted from the article the day it was linked):

He's since changed it to:

So it went from a "spokesman" telling us she doesn't want him reelected to "a source close to" her telling us she won't campaign for him. Big difference. I suspect he's changed other parts of the article as well. As you can see from the title to this thread, the major thrust of the piece was that she and the family doesn't support his reelection. Looks like he was forced to make changes and downsize it to they won't campaign for him.

And just days later, her real spokesperson--a woman, Joanne Drake, is forced to set the record straight (note that it's a woman, unlike the unnamed \"spokesman\" in the first draft of that bogus piece). And now you know Nancy Reagan does, in fact, support Bush's reelection.

Busted.

He totally made the quote up, and the right wing NewsMax forced him to change it. It also prompted the response from Nancy Reagan's real spokesperson.

How pathetic is Capital Hill Blue?

You were off your rocker to think a statement that she doesn't want him reelected from an official spokesperson on a piece of shit website was in any way believable. Especially considering how no reputable outlets said the same. And now you know he's full of shit and no official spokesperson made the statement AND she actually wants him reelected.

Am I studying to be a lawyer? Yup. As you note, that means I have to read carefully and analytically. I did. Now, suck on this.

[ August 04, 2004, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Uh, I'll pass. At any rate, two points. First, there were TWO bylines, not one, on the original article. Not some \"him\" you keep naming. Second, as you say, a right-wing outfit issued the statement. But as I said above, \"Air America\" is even reporting Joanne Drake's comments. And from the CHB site itself:

Maybe "he" changed the quote. Whoever "he" is. I think Patty Davis is the real culprit.

TomFord, just a hint, I have found that rarely does a judge or jury or opposing side respond favorably to an attorney's argument that contains "Now suck on this". Well, have to admit I have never tried that approach before, maybe I will use that line before the judge next time.

Damn. There's a certain cool finality to the phrase that I thought would go down a treat if paired with the proper gesture or the right trousers or something.

btw there's an ever-so-important comma signaling a pause between "Now" and "suck on this." About trying it out: nothing ventured, nothing gained!

[ August 04, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]