Didn't the family spokesperson announce today that Merv Griffin was going to be one of the pall bearers?

For me, Reagan's impact spans a greater range of issues than his response to AIDS. It seems to me that villifying him for that alone is a result of the tunnel vision that is a naturally occuring phenonema in any minority group. Granted, the results of his administration's decisions on AIDS funding were tragic. But perspective is necessary. A year ago SARS was going to affect us all. Now it's a page four story. Public health concerns come and go. Some turn out to be minor, some catastrophic. The Reagan administration was wrong, but I cannot make the leap to evil.

President Reagan's greatest contribution is that he gave the world a beacon of hope for better days. That beacon was the USA. Bush 41 upheld that standard, as did Clinton. Bush 43 has done as much to damage that standard as any President in my lifetime.

In a speech in Berlin Reagan made mention of the protesters that marched at his public events there. He reminded them that if they ever got a government opposite of what he ws standing for, they would never be allowed to protest.

Specific issues notwithstanding, President Reagan stood for the idea of America. And, regardless of our opinions- by posting to this board, or speaking out in any other forum, we are all a part of his legacy. And to those that would dance on his grave, at least take a moment to reflect on the fact that you can.

R.I.P Mr. President

I admired President Reagan, as did many gays and lesbians in and out of the GOP, so I don't know who this "we" you speak of, or on behalf of, with such anger and bitterness is. And if this thread were so forwarded by anyone crass enough to do so less than 24 hours after the great man died, it would show that precious "diversity of opinion" that the left trumpets so loudly but really has no concept of at all. Does that answer your unhappy question?

My reason for respecting President Reagan as much as I do goes back to the sheer terror I felt as a kid, worried about nuclear missiles raining down upon my family and me, watching the details of the Cuban Missile crisis unfold and the stones of the Berlin Wall go up. President Reagan engineered and presided over the demise of the tyrants who created these terrors, which culminated in the destruction of the Berlin Wall. For that, and for his everlasting cheerfulness and optimism, I'll be ever grateful; for whatever faults he had, I readily forgive, though it's hardly my place to do so, just as it's not others' to condemn. RIP, Mr. President, you left a better nation to us ALL.

Raygun was making movies for the Army during World War II, not fighting it like John F. Kennedy or George H. W. Bush or Dwight D. Eisenhower, though he later claimed he had been fighting (shades of W). But then, with Raygun, so much of reality and fantasy were frequently conflated, which I guess is what's happening with all this right-wing driven nostalgia for the man, who certainly did NOT leave this place a better country for all of us.

The truth is, the gauzy nostalgia totally obscures his real record, which was mixed at best. In terms of civil rights, gay rights and AIDS, workers' rights, the environment, the drug war/crack epidemic, Iran-Contra, the invasion of Grenada (???), to name just a few issues, he was atrocious. In his standing up to the Russians, he gets high marks. His record on the economy is mixed. Given that he began his 1980 campaign in Nashoba County, Mississippi, where Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman were brutally assassinated by white supremacists, I can never forgive him.

I just hope his suffering has ended; he presided over a period of tremendous suffering for millions, and was quite blithe about it, so perhaps his hell is over, and he'll find some peace.

[ June 06, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

So?

Except...I don't feel guilty at all. Not one damn bit.

So, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll stop and watch some TV, and later on listen to the Broadway cast recording of "Evita." Seems appropriate for the day.

[ June 06, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Absolutely. There will always be issues upon which reasonable people disagree, even passionately. Unfortunately some people see some of these issues as litmus tests for the moral and intellectual worth of a person.

I'm happy that Reagan is no longer president, but I'm not happy that he's dead. I'm glad that one human is no longer suffering, and I feel empathy for Nancy, but other than that -- I. Just. Don't. Care. To me, he might as well have died the day he left office. And if not then, the day that Clinton won the '92 election.

His death is actually meaningless to me and to the world, except that it could unfortunately somehow bring a wave of support for G.W. Bush. And now we all have to suffer through days of television coverage.

Oh, hey, as I'm sitting here typing, I saw a promo spot on NBC for a Tom Brokaw interview with G.W. in France. In the brief clip, W looked and sounded like a fool.

Anyway, I got a good chuckle out of the Snoopy dance posting -- good one, Jim Allen!. But this person's death doesn't make me want to do a happy dance. It wouldn't stop me from doing a happy dance should the occassion arise, but it doesn't induce a happy dance in me.

Sorry for my rambling. Another case of weekend drinking and posting.

[ June 06, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

I think it's a given that when someone of Reagan's stature dies there will be detractors and naysayers who surface to point out the perceived imperfections. That's perfectly fine, and in keeping with our democratic traditions, as long as it remains ultimately respectful. Much of what I've read on this thread far exceeds the bounds of both respect and taste, and ultimately reveals much more about the writers than it does about President Reagan.

Whatever.

You can say that about almost every P&R thread, if you want to be honest. So to say something about this thread in particular is pointless.

[ June 06, 2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Ahem. Speaking of pointless.......

In other news, Ronald Reagan is still dead.

For most Canadians, the most memorable image of Ronald Reagan was probably on March 17, 1985 when Nancy and him locked arms with then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and wife Mila in Quebec City (of all places, one of the least Irish of our cities!) to sing "When Irish Eyes are Smiling". The event was part of what was later called the Shamrock Summit to discuss trade issues between the two countries. Hardly the most earth-shattering event of Reagan's presidency, but the one that stands out for those of us north of the border.

I was always dismayed at Ronald Reagan's apparent indifference to the AIDS crisis as well as his administration's tacit support for the right-wing death squads in El Salvador, not to mention the whole Iran/Contra-versy.

However, I was surprised to read in one of my local newspapers today that Reagan actually had a good record on the environment while governor of California, and that many of its state wilderness areas are protected because of his measures. Even more surprising was the comment that, also while governor, he forbid public schools from banning openly gay teachers from the classroom. Later he became the first President to give top clearance to gay personnel in the FBI and other security agencies.

While I doubt that I would have ever voted for Ronald Reagan if I were an American citizen, it would appear that he had a thoughtful and compassionate side which should not be dismissed, assuming what I read in the paper was accurate. His impact on my life was obviously a great deal less than it was to Americans, and understandably some of you are more saddened than others, but in any case I offer my condolences on the loss of your former President.

The most memorable remark he made about the environment went something like "a tree puts out more pollution than an automobile".

Call me MIB. What a sad and bitter person you are.

I shall pray for you.

Ronald Reagan made American's feel good about being Americans, and in his farewell address reminded us of how special our history is. I believe in the "exceptionalism" of America, and so did Reagan. There are many aspects of Reagan's policies I do not (did not) agree with or support - but that doesn't blind me from evaluating the man and his presidency in its totality.

To fully understand the impact of Reagan one must understand the time in which he came to power. Jimmy Carter's presidency was such an absolute failure on every level that American's took a chance on a supposed mental lightweight "B" actor "War-monger," ideologue. America was in retreat around the world and American's were questioning our political and economic ideals unlike any time since the Great Depression. Double digit interest rates, and inflation - most people posting on this board have never been of age during such a desperate economic time. Ronald Reagan turned all that around. We can argue over his winning the Cold War and his losing the AIDS war, but we can not argue the fact that America and freedom around the world were left better off due to Reagan's presidency. Compare Carter’s America as he left office in 1981 to Reagan’s America as he left office in 1989 and one can clearly understand why so many people, (not just Republican’s) respected and have actual affection for this man.

I believe history will be kind to Reagan and he will be viewed as a "near great" President. Second only to FDR in the 20th Century, Reagan realigned political constituencies, and enacted policies that effected political life long after he left office - any fair evaluation of the totality of the effect of his Presidency on America and the world would come to that conclusion.

I many actually go to Simi and pay my respects.

Well it appears from much of the fury abovem, that by criticising Reagan, I must be unAmerican, - Thats fine by me, cuz I am Australian citzen

What seems to be forgot, was Reagans little commie bash during the late 40s -50s when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild , and involved in the destruction of such evil men as palywright Arthur Miller et al, and his support to Cohen, and Sen McCarthy.

Reagans involvement in the black list will I imagine prevent some in Hollywood who have not forgotten to avoid his funeral.

Still it could have been worse, had you guys had Quayle for Pres... LOL

As for my home, well I have to choke on the crap that our own conservative John Howard calls policies

Smoothboy

You people are just some of the most bitter, hateful individuals I've ever encountered in my life. I'm glad I didn't waste my money going to that effing convention up in Philly.

This is just sick. I don't know where he stood politically and really don't care, but I'm sure if Charles Schultz saw his work exploited in this way he would think you are such a dipshit, and he would be so right.

Thanks, Marc, for a kind and thoughtful post, so refreshing after some of the clinically sociopathic earlier ones posted here. Your allusion to Reagan's opposition to California's Briggs Initiative in 1978 is especially welcome, since it ties in directly with the founding of Log Cabin that same year. John Briggs, a radical right winger in the Cal. Legislature, mounted a ballot proposition that would have banned gay and lesbian teachers in public schools at all levels. Log Cabin was founded in reaction to this ill-conceived idea and then-Governor Reagan came out and campaigned strongly against it, no doubt playing a key role in its failure at the polls.

Not many in the gay community know this fact; the gay press does a pretty good job of printing only the news it sees fit to print, which means pretty much anything showing the pro-gay side of the GOP gets squelched. (Mem., research amount spent by Democrats on advertising in/contributions to gay press and "community centers.") This fact illustrates not only the fallacy of Reagan's supposed "homophobia," but that the GOP was once a much more tolerant and inclusive party than now. Getting it back to that point - and moving it beyond to greater tolerance for all - is the goal of Log Cabin and if others don't have the patience to work towards this end, we do - and are.

Finally, what are folks' favorite Reagan movies? "Santa Fe Trail," with the inimitable Errol Flynn, and "Dark Victory," with Bette Davis, are two of mine.

I don't wish to speak ill of the dead but Reagan's policies to the poor, AIDS patients and people of colour were evil. And he cared nothing about how AIDS was growing and growing. If he really said that AIDS was a curse from god then he was really sick.

What is that "pro-gay" side of the GOP?

By the way gmg, I notice that of all the repugs on the board, no one wants to address Reagan's indifference towards AIDS...care to take a shot at it? To the best of my knowledge I think he went 4 or 5 years into the epidemic before he even mentioned it.

Yes, always be optimistic, positive, obscure the past and create halos around the "great"--let's see, whose political philosophy was that?

Joseph Stalin!!!

Yep, if you were a "defeatist," it probably meant you'd be heading to the Gulag...that is, faster than the optimists around you!

As I said, the man's record was mixed. He did reinvigorate the Right Wing, though, more so than any other figure in the late 20th century. For that, conservative Republicans have much to be grateful.

BTW, did other presidents who died late in life get state funerals? Did Dwight Eisenhower? Harry Truman? Lyndon Johnson? Richard Nixon? I can't recall--and Truman, Johnson and Nixon all died in my lifetime.

I used to have a very favorable opinion of him, but the more I read about his response to AIDS, the more I dislike him.

I dig his wife. "Just Say No" was brilliant.

I am not saddened by Reagan's passing. It's not because of his stance on AIDS. He just wasn't kind to the farmers in the 1980s. Tons of family farms folded during that time period. I remember the crap my Dad and my Mom went through during that time. It wasn't fun at all.

I believe the state funerals in some form has been given to all Presidents when they pass away as a tradition going back to George Washington. But it could only go back to WM Harrison the first President to die in office. Now, it depends on how the President's family wants the official service to take place.

I remember in 1994 hearing that Nixon told his family that he did not want a funeral in Washington, DC because it might upset people with the memories of Watergate. Nancy Reagan has asked for the full formal state funeral as did Lady Bird Johnson.

Lyndon Johnson got a full state funeral at Lady Bird's request. I believe Truman did as well, but I'm not certain. I believe Eisenhower's family selected the military funeral, although he's not buried at Arlington so that could be wrong. Nixon's family did not choose the state funeral for obvious reasons. William Henry Harrison was the first President to get a full state funeral, and most of the trappings of the ceremony today are traceable back to Lincoln's funeral. As for lying in state, I think the proptocol is that a President who dies while in office lies in the White House, while a former President lies in the Capitol.

He was as good a President as he was an actor.

Most former Presidents receive a state funeral. The only one that wasn't done in Washington was Nixon who's Funeral was held at his birth place and Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, CA

[ June 07, 2004, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

Stalin??? Jeez, dramatic much, FT?

At any rate, I think there's a slight difference between being dogmatically optimistic, obscuring the past, blah-blah-blah and objecting to the joyful celebration of a political leader's death (and to the despicable misuse and abuse of Snoopy's image).

Message: Don't get all pissy just because I don't hate President Reagan as much as yall.

[ June 07, 2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Having just read all these posts (my browser is f'ed up and I couldn't get on the Internet all weekend) I am not surprised to see polarization of responses, that is what politics has come to in this country, and now we are forced to watch the keening and wailing of today's "pro-family" conservatives for their beloved ex-President.

I bear no animosity toward Mr. Reagan, and find it hard to get too worked up over someone dying at 93. Alzheimer's is a horrible disease, and it is good his suffering is finally over. Apparently in his last coherent years he and Nancy actually attempted to reconcile with their children, so I hope he had some peace.

But I can still remember what it was like to live in Reagan's America. I was a high school student during the early 80s, a time when the vast majority of my classmates around the country believed that we would definately see the global destruction of a full-scale nuclear war in our lifetimes, and that many of us would not survive to adulthood. Having Reagan's hand on the button never made me feel very safe.

My parents struggled during the Reagan recession, which may have been necessary to finally kill the stagflation of the 70s, but decimated many lives in the 81-82 timeframe. And of course, as has already been noted, Reagan and, more importantly, his viciously bigoted staff decided to let the fags die rather than take AIDS for the serious disease it clearly was. The world now pays the costs of that decision. Had his administration actually seen the canary in the coal mine that the gay community represented, who knows what might have happened.

In all, his legacy will be mixed, and I highly doubt that 100 years from now he will be regarded as anything but a mediocre leader. The country was NOT united behind him, even in 1984, and the devil's deal his Republican party made with the "religious" right will hurt us for generations.

But lastly, I have to really detest the government for the complete lack of thinking as far as his funeral is concerned. Do we REALLY need to close two key east-west routes in DC DURING RUSH HOUR? They can't move the damn body to the Rotunda after 8PM on Wednesday?

There are times living in DC really sucks, and Wednesday will be one of them.

My only question...

What were the circurmstances surrounding his death!?
:confused:

Did Nancy 'pull a plug' - after consulting w/her psychic advivors...?

I mean... judging from Republicans LOVE for a photo op...


There was not a better time ... to mourn Ronnie... than during the 'D-day' rememberences!


It all seems just too convenient!


wink


.

And they're always the ones complaining the loudest that they can't find a lover/boyfriend/whatever -- but they never listen to themselves, do they, Williiam1865?

Anyway, I keep thinking back to a co-worker I had when the first Bush took office who predicted that Reagan would be completely forgotten when he died. I wonder if he feels stupid this week.

Still, none of the rethuglicans care to comment on Reagan and AIDS, how puzzling.

Here is information on state funerals, who has had them, and the entire protocol surrounding them.

Whats the protocol for federal judges?

Man you guys are hateful little queens today arent you? Well wait, just about everyday.

Here's something "hateful" from W. fan Chris Hitchens in Slate. He pulls no punches. From Not Even a Hedgehog: The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan. And we impeached a president basically over oral sex--amazing.

[ June 07, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: shawnq ]

You've gotta love Hitchens' satire. I won't ever love Reagan, but I do appreciate how Reagan did deliver on most of his promises.

That being said, I don't have any bitterness. I do hope he reconciled before the end with his kids.

I am not a fan of the policies of Ronald Reagan, and I was deeply upset by the lack of reaction from the White House during the AIDS epidemic. Iran-Contra was to me an impeachable offense.

However, President Reagan was a great speaker (I will never forget the speech he gave at the '76 Republican Convention after he had lost to Ford, I was a young kid who loved politics and remember being profoundly affected by his speech. He had a positive and expansive vision of the United States but rarely had to use force to back it up (the one exception, Granada, was silly and stupid). He was a leader with a bearing that was presidential, unlike President Carter, who had the unenviable task of trying to rehab the job after Watergate. He had three goals, lower taxes, reduce the deficit, and increase military strength, which were inherently opposites and could not be achieved at the same time. I never voted for him and oppose most of his ideas, but I do not think President Reagan was evil or took actions out of spite. He should be honored as a former President who led our country for 8 years, even though we disagreed with him much of the time.

We should honor President Reagan's death just as we had better honor President Carter when he dies, both Presidents Bush and President Clinton when they die. If the family of an ex-President wants a state funeral, they should be able to get it.

Hello pot, meet kettle.

To quote someone else: What a sad and bitter person you are.

And as I posted in another thread to one of your D.C. counterparts who also didn't show up for the convention: your loss. (This does not reflect the viewpoints of scottie or any other convention participants.) Are you incapable of separating political viewpoints from opinions on sports or other topics, to come to such a conclusion?

Well, he was certainly indifferent, but that's not the same thing as hostile or malicious. There's a big difference.

It's strange to look back at those years and remember how so many people (me too) thought that AIDS could be cured if the federal government just threw more and more money at it. No one at the time could foresee how intractable a problem AIDS is. I can remember so many people (me too) taking the line that, "If we can send a man to the moon, etc." Well, it turned out to be a much bigger challenge than sending a man to the moon.

And what's the point in speculating how different it may have been had AIDS stricken, say, children? Who knows what the response would have been? I mean, there's no parallel universe to which we can compare. Governments at the national level, at any time, in any place, are absolutely terrible at dealing with health crises -- just look at the 1918-19 flu epidemic (which killed at least 3 of my distant ancestors).

[ June 07, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Jerzoid ]

I actually sorta find you guys humorous with the whole ray-gun thing, and just how nasty ya'all become.

I didnt think any of you liked him, but it's pretty obvious that this man was the best president of my time.

He did, admit it or not, made it ok to be a proud american. Did not back down to the USSR when you libs said... oh dont say that, you'll make them mad.

and you know the whole aids things, well it was 1980. No politician had gay rights on the radar, nor did they care... and please save your handful or liberal wig nuts.

so now carry on with your little hate fest you wonderful tolerant folks...

Amen, brother!

[quote]BPT336:
[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
[qb] BTW, did other presidents who died late in life get state funerals?  Did Dwight Eisenhower?  Harry Truman?  Lyndon Johnson?  Richard Nixon?  I can't recall--and Truman, Johnson and Nixon all died in my lifetime. [/quote]I remember some of the state funerals. I think Truman didn't want one - I believe Johnson , & Eisenhower had one - as did Hoover in 64.

HIV may not be curable, even today, but we could have put a HUGE dent in the progress of the epidemic if the administration, which was filled with homophobes who thought it was fine to let the fags die, had simply accepted that a)gay men exist and they are going to have sex.

In the early 1980s, you couldn't even have a condom commercial on television - in many parts of the country, you had to ask a pharmacist to even buy them. How many infections could have been prevented if access to condoms and information about their effectiveness had been far more widespread in the 1980s? As it was, the slowing of HIV infection rates, which were widely estimated to be far larger in the 1990s than they in fact were, was largely due to the efforts of the gay community in getting the safer sex word out. It took nearly a decade for that kind of public health effort to take place.

Even today the federal government refuses to fund programs that help HIV-negative men avoid the virus, and lie to teenagers about the effectiveness of condoms. There have been aborted attempts to reach guys on the "down-low," who are least likely to use condoms, but have been abandoned because they "offended" people. We still bear the legacy of the Reagan years, particularly when the current President is far more concerned about the "innocent" victims (women and children in Africa, largely infected directly or indirectly because of heterosexual promiscuity) than about gay or MSM (men who have sex with other men) victims in his own country.

An interesting thought experiment - if HIV had hit just 5 years earlier, it would not have hit the gay population, but the "love children" of the late 60s, early 70s. What would the response have been if the straight children of America were dying of a sexually transmitted disease, instead of the gay ones?

A true leader would not have succombed to the bigotry of the day - and perhaps that is too much to have expected of Ronald Reagan. But he at least could have addressed the problem before 1987.

If you're asking me do I want to spend a weekend with a bunch of people who rejoice in the death of those with whom they disagree politically, the answer is no. Fortunately, I have tons of friends I can watch baseball or talk sports with, so I'm not necessarily jonesing for more.

[ June 07, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Jeez, let's just stipulate that President Reagan was 100% responsible for AIDS and drop this tiresome line of argument. (Wait, make that 90% responsible - I'd hate for yall to not be able to blame George W. Bush for at least part of it.) I mean, you hate the guy, blah-blah-blah, the only thing that's changed is now you're glad he's dead, and that's quickly losing it's charm.

Actually, I thought it was the CDC, and not ray-gun himself who would deal with this?

As usualy, the libs just want a little lip service of the "oh i love you speech"... Throw a little money to it..

Actually considering the gay rights movement had really not even started or hit the nainstream... isnt calling ray-gun a biggot and giving the KKK man who is the senior memeber of the dems in congress... just a little bit of oh.. what's that word i'm looking for.. MIB can you help me out.

[ June 07, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

I have resisted posting on this thread but I'm getting too angry not to say anything.

I disliked Reagan as a president, I don't remember one policy of his that I agreed with, and he hurt the gay community (and others) by not acknowledging AIDS as a crisis.

That said, I cannot feel happiness or joy at someone else's death, particulary someone who for the past 10 years, has been dying a slow death. I extend my sympathies to his family and to all of those who feel saddened by his death.

I am disappointed by the lack of compassion by some of the posters on this thread. Show that you can treat people better than those you criticize for not showing compassion.