(Semi-OT) Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004
David Marc Nieporent
Former President Ronald Reagan Dies at 93
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), the cheerful crusader who devoted his presidency to winning the Cold War, trying to scale back government and making people believe it was "morning again in America," died Saturday after a long twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites). He was 93.
Reagan's body was expected to be taken to his presidential library and museum in Simi Valley, Calif., and then flown to Washington to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda. His funeral was expected to be at the National Cathedral, an event likely to draw world leaders. The body was to be returned to California for a sunset burial at his library.
The family had turned to making funeral arrangements, a friend of the family said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040605/ap_on_re_us/reagan_obit
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Chris
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-21DA35...@individual.net...
I always liked that guy even though I am a Democrat.
Userb3
$a32e...@news.nntpservers.com:
> I always liked that guy even though I am a Democrat.
He will certainly go down in history as one of our most charismatic
Presidentws, whatever you thought of his politics.
JCMumsie
He was a Democrat too, before he switched parties.
J
Daave
I absolutley agree.
-Dave
moravaman
unnecessary security risk? I hope W pays his respects in private and stays
away.
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-21DA35...@individual.net...
>
Chris Free
news:Xns94FFB849890...@207.14.113.17...
ronald wilson reagan changed the fabric of politics,
economics, foreign affairs, and the world's history --
and he did it with perfect pitch and an affable smile.
Dan Kimmel
"Chris Free" <free2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:B7zwc.278$CR6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Wrecking the country in the process. We'll be undoing the damage (and
paying off the debts) of his years in office for generations to come.
My condolences to the family, but I shed no tears. We would have been
better off without him.
Luddite Wacko
} and he did it with perfect pitch and an affable smile.
Perfect pitch? I think you are talking about Frank Sinatra here, but I
will be polite and not go into that.
I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags should be
flown at half-staff for *30 days* - that seems excessive for any head of
state (other than the monarch of england who is mourned for, what, a
year?)
Chris Free
news:20040606083...@news.blarg.net...
> Chris Free wrote:
>
> } and he did it with perfect pitch and an affable smile.
>
> Perfect pitch? I think you are talking about Frank Sinatra here, but I
> will be polite and not go into that.
it was an oblique attempt at a semi-on-topic reference
to sorkin's notion of words as music.
> I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags should be
> flown at half-staff for *30 days* - that seems excessive for any head of
> state (other than the monarch of england who is mourned for, what, a
> year?)
it may be an indication of how revered he was
by the party that has been given majority power
and possibly by the majority of people in the united states.
Chris Free
news:ZbDwc.40182$_k3.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
and yet the american people continued to
cast their vote for him; and continue to cast
their votes for the ideas and ideals he set forth.
Dan Kimmel
But they ultimately rejected his failed ideas and elected Bill Clinton
twice, who began the long process of reversing the disastrous course Reagan
set us on. The American people voted to continue that process in 2000 but
the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush. We will get back on course
this year.
BTR1701
<spa...@hammy.com> wrote:
> If heads of state attend the funeral together, will this create an
> unnecessary security risk?
Not anymore than them all attending the G-8 Summit down in Gerogia
together.
Zach G
> If heads of state attend the funeral together, will this create an
> unnecessary security risk? I hope W pays his respects in private and stays
> away.
>
>
I expect many heads of state (and former heads of state, like Thatcher
and Gorbachev) will attend, and I'm not really sure it qualifies as
"unncessary." Sure, they aren't having a summit or something but
diplomatic protocol pretty much dictates that most countries will send
someone, most likely the head of state, to attend.
And President Bush will definitely attend, because, again, protocol
pretty much requires it. For the current president to stay away from
the state funeral of a former president would be almost unthinkable.
I'm sure he'll make some remarks, just as Clinton made remarks at
Nixon's funeral (the last former president's funeral).
Bryce Wray
> I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags
> should be flown at half-staff for *30 days*
That's SOP when Presidents die, whether during or after their
terms.
Stephen Stein
ClIwc.41057$_k3.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Dan Kimmel"
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> "Chris Free" <free2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9yHwc.5782$n65....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> and yet the american people continued to
>> cast their vote for him; and continue to cast
>> their votes for the ideas and ideals he set forth.
>
> But they ultimately rejected his failed ideas and elected Bill Clinton
> twice, who began the long process of reversing the disastrous course Reagan
> set us on.
Reagan himself (and the Democratic House of Reps) reversed the disastrous
course he set for the nation.
Read "Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green in The Washington Monthly:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
- Steve Stein
Victor
"Zach G" <zaryza...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bc31970.0406...@posting.google.com...
> "moravaman" <spa...@hammy.com> wrote in message
news:<Xlywc.7065$_V4....@read1.cgocable.net>...
> > If heads of state attend the funeral together, will this create an
> > unnecessary security risk? I hope W pays his respects in private and
stays
> > away.
> >
> >
>
> I expect many heads of state (and former heads of state, like Thatcher
> and Gorbachev) will attend, and I'm not really sure it qualifies as
> "unncessary." Sure, they aren't having a summit or something but
> diplomatic protocol pretty much dictates that most countries will send
> someone, most likely the head of state, to attend.
Well, the assasination of a FORMER head-of-state is seen internationally as
an act of war, the same as the assasination of a SITTING head-of-state.
One of the few things leaders agree upon is the preservation of their
collective heads!
T
> If heads of state attend the funeral together, will this create an
> unnecessary security risk? I hope W pays his respects in private and stays
> away.
>
Here's hoping Clancy is no prophet after all.
TBerk
Derek Balling
<sy...@wafirst.net> wrote:
> I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags should be
> flown at half-staff for *30 days* - that seems excessive for any head of
> state (other than the monarch of england who is mourned for, what, a
> year?)
There's a presidential proclamation dating back to Ike that determines
"the length of time at half-staff for various and sundry things", and
the death of a former president clocks in at 30 days.
It's well-documented SOP, and has been followed for the deaths of
previous presidents as well.
Cheers,
D
Linda Terrell
> > I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags should be
> > flown at half-staff for *30 days* - that seems excessive for any head of
> > state (other than the monarch of england who is mourned for, what, a
> > year?)
>
> it may be an indication of how revered he was
> by the party that has been given majority power
> and possibly by the majority of people in the united states.
>
30 days is SOP for Presidents.
LT
--
Chris Free
news:epxRkhlUwRo0-p...@user-2iveg2a.dialup.mindspring.com...
sometimes a jellybean is just a jellybean.
Michael H.
And sometimes they're black licorice jellybeans :)
Jonathan
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ZbDwc.40182$_k3.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> news:B7zwc.278$CR6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94FFB849890...@207.14.113.17...
> > > "Chris" <chrissi...@netzero.com> wrote in news:40c24a4e$0$34776
> > > $a32e...@news.nntpservers.com:
> > >
> > > > I always liked that guy even though I am a Democrat.
> > >
> > > He will certainly go down in history as one of our most charismatic
> > > Presidentws, whatever you thought of his politics.
> >
> > ronald wilson reagan changed the fabric of politics,
> > economics, foreign affairs, and the world's history --
> > and he did it with perfect pitch and an affable smile.
>
> Wrecking the country in the process. We'll be undoing the damage (and
> paying off the debts) of his years in office for generations to come.
>
Given the surpluses at the end of the 90s, I would bet that those debts were
already paid.
However, is it possible that his unwillingness to act in response to the
attack on the Marine barracks at Beirut airport inspired terrorists to take
action against US interests?
People accuse Clinton of running away after Somalia, which is said to have
inspired Al Qaeda... Yet, Reagan ran away as well.
> My condolences to the family, but I shed no tears. We would have been
> better off without him.
>
Possibly, however, I look at the potential alternatives, Carter serving a
second term (and the Iranian hostages kept until 1984), or Mondale running
the country in 84...
What would the reaction be of a Democrat making conciliatory gestures
(START) to the Soviets?
The Star Trek quote still applies, "Only Nixon could go to China"...
Jonathan
Clell Harmon
Jonathan wrote:
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:ZbDwc.40182$_k3.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>"Chris Free" <free2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:B7zwc.278$CR6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>"Userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns94FFB849890...@207.14.113.17...
>>>
>>>>"Chris" <chrissi...@netzero.com> wrote in news:40c24a4e$0$34776
>>>>$a32e...@news.nntpservers.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I always liked that guy even though I am a Democrat.
>>>>
>>>>He will certainly go down in history as one of our most charismatic
>>>>Presidentws, whatever you thought of his politics.
>>>
>>>ronald wilson reagan changed the fabric of politics,
>>>economics, foreign affairs, and the world's history --
>>>and he did it with perfect pitch and an affable smile.
>>
>>Wrecking the country in the process. We'll be undoing the damage (and
>>paying off the debts) of his years in office for generations to come.
>>
>
>
> Given the surpluses at the end of the 90s, I would bet that those debts were
> already paid.
You would lose that bet. The surplusses were spent, little of the
national debt was actually paid.
TLOlczyk
wrote:
Reagan is ( was ) the most powerfull man in the free world.
I'm certain that he had a lackey pick them out.
The reply-to email address is olczy...@yahoo.com.
This is an address I ignore.
To reply via email, remove 2002 and change yahoo to
interaccess,
**
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
There is a difference between
*thinking* you know something,
and *knowing* you know something.
Dan Kimmel
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aVKxc.6280931$iA2.7...@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:ZbDwc.40182$_k3.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Chris Free" <free2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:B7zwc.278$CR6...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > "Userb3" <use...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns94FFB849890...@207.14.113.17...
> > > > "Chris" <chrissi...@netzero.com> wrote in news:40c24a4e$0$34776
> > > > $a32e...@news.nntpservers.com:
> > > >
> > > > > I always liked that guy even though I am a Democrat.
> > > >
> > > > He will certainly go down in history as one of our most charismatic
> > > > Presidentws, whatever you thought of his politics.
> > >
> > > ronald wilson reagan changed the fabric of politics,
> > > economics, foreign affairs, and the world's history --
> > > and he did it with perfect pitch and an affable smile.
> >
> > Wrecking the country in the process. We'll be undoing the damage (and
> > paying off the debts) of his years in office for generations to come.
> >
>
> Given the surpluses at the end of the 90s, I would bet that those debts
were
> already paid.
And you would guess wrong. By the time Bush I left office the national debt
was in the $4 trillion range. It was not paid off by a year or two of
surpluses. President Clinton *started* to pay down the debt, but that Bush
II (the court-appointed one) threw out sound economic policies and started
the debt growing again.
>
> > My condolences to the family, but I shed no tears. We would have been
> > better off without him.
> >
>
> Possibly, however, I look at the potential alternatives, Carter serving a
> second term (and the Iranian hostages kept until 1984), or Mondale running
> the country in 84...
I agree that both were terrible choices. Reagan was worse.
> What would the reaction be of a Democrat making conciliatory gestures
> (START) to the Soviets?
>
> The Star Trek quote still applies, "Only Nixon could go to China"...
In other words, the current generation of Republicans so hate America that
they would sabotage a Democrat doing the right thing. This proposition was
proved under Clinton.
Victor
Here's a political reality: the National Debt, in dollar value, will always
be higher than the administration before it.
However, in the case of Regean, the national debt was 2.8% of GNP both
before and after he was in office.
>
> >
> > > My condolences to the family, but I shed no tears. We would have been
> > > better off without him.
> > >
> >
> > Possibly, however, I look at the potential alternatives, Carter serving
a
> > second term (and the Iranian hostages kept until 1984), or Mondale
running
> > the country in 84...
>
> I agree that both were terrible choices. Reagan was worse.
What's even worse is your hatred of things you clearly do not understand.
>
>
> > What would the reaction be of a Democrat making conciliatory gestures
> > (START) to the Soviets?
> >
> > The Star Trek quote still applies, "Only Nixon could go to China"...
>
> In other words, the current generation of Republicans so hate America that
> they would sabotage a Democrat doing the right thing. This proposition
was
> proved under Clinton.
I don't buy your argument that Clinton sabotoged America. Maybe he acted out
of his own selfish self-interest, but not out of malice for the USA. His
staff was idealistic, but their youth belayed their obvious inexperience.
The worst you can concede is that Clinton was a weak manager, but he didn't
hate America as you claim. When Ron Brown died, Bill Clinton lost his best
advisor and that's when things went into the toilet for the Clinton
administration. I think he really tried his best after that, but he was
given wrong advice, which is why he lost the House and Senate.
As for your ridicuous statement that "Republicans so hate America", that's
just blatant stupidity on your part.
And, as far as Republicans sabotoging Democrats, you clearly don't remember
your history. When the House had a Democratic majority there was a rule that
allowed minority (Republican) argument to be halted by the Speaker at any
time. It was blantant politcal censorship. I know that this sounds ugly, but
it is absolutely true. It was partianship at it's absolute worst. When the
Republicans took the majority in the House they over-turned that rule. That
says it all.
>
>
Peachy Ashie Passion
> dOn Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:25:49 GMT, "Michael H." <mdhal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Chris Free" <free2...@aol.com> wrote in
>>news:0rpxc.6355$zO7....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>
>>>"Linda Terrell" <lin...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:epxRkhlUwRo0-p...@user-2iveg2a.dialup.mindspring.com.
>>> ..
>>>
>>>>>>I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags should
>>>>>>be flown at half-staff for *30 days* - that seems excessive for
>>>>>>any head of state (other than the monarch of england who is
>>>>>>mourned for, what, a year?)
>>>>>
>>>>>it may be an indication of how revered he was
>>>>>by the party that has been given majority power
>>>>>and possibly by the majority of people in the united states.
>>>>
>>>>30 days is SOP for Presidents.
>>>
>>>sometimes a jellybean is just a jellybean.
>>
>>And sometimes they're black licorice jellybeans :)
>
>
> Reagan is ( was ) the most powerfull man in the free world.
> I'm certain that he had a lackey pick them out.
Damn. I want a lackey.
Anyone want to apply?
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> TLOlczyk wrote:
> > Reagan is ( was ) the most powerfull man in the free world.
> > I'm certain that he had a lackey pick them out.
>
> Damn. I want a lackey.
>
> Anyone want to apply?
How's the pay?
Dan Kimmel
"Victor" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wKqdnQ8JeuL...@comcast.com...
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:tfXxc.38702$Gx4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > In other words, the current generation of Republicans so hate America
that
> > they would sabotage a Democrat doing the right thing. This proposition
> was
> > proved under Clinton.
>
> I don't buy your argument that Clinton sabotoged America. Maybe he acted
out
> of his own selfish self-interest, but not out of malice for the USA. His
> staff was idealistic, but their youth belayed their obvious inexperience.
> The worst you can concede is that Clinton was a weak manager, but he
didn't
> hate America as you claim. When Ron Brown died, Bill Clinton lost his best
> advisor and that's when things went into the toilet for the Clinton
> administration. I think he really tried his best after that, but he was
> given wrong advice, which is why he lost the House and Senate.
Sorry, is English not your first language? I didn't say Clinton sabotaged
America. I said Republicans so hate America that they undercut Clinton
right from the start and never even made an attempt at bipartisanship.
>
> As for your ridicuous statement that "Republicans so hate America", that's
> just blatant stupidity on your part.
Sorry that you don't read the newspapers.
>
> And, as far as Republicans sabotoging Democrats, you clearly don't
remember
> your history. When the House had a Democratic majority there was a rule
that
> allowed minority (Republican) argument to be halted by the Speaker at any
> time. It was blantant politcal censorship. I know that this sounds ugly,
but
> it is absolutely true. It was partianship at it's absolute worst. When the
> Republicans took the majority in the House they over-turned that rule.
That
> says it all.
No, what says it all is that the Republicans now don't even bother inviting
Democrats to sessions where bills are marked up or Senate and House versions
are reconciled. It's why the trends are going Democratic. We've had
Republican government for a few years now and people see why that's such a
bad idea so long as the rightwing ideologues are running the once Grand Old
Party.
Peachy Ashie Passion
it's pretty much a volunteer position, but
if you are really good you might get praise
now and then.
--
Usenet is like Tetris for people who still
remember how to read. -Joshua Heller
Michael H.
news:l9qfc01lm9lvf8m4l...@4ax.com:
> dOn Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:25:49 GMT, "Michael H." <mdhal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Chris Free" <free2...@aol.com> wrote in
>>news:0rpxc.6355$zO7....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>> "Linda Terrell" <lin...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-obRIRS61dWdx@user-
2iveg2a.dialup.mindspring.com.
>>> ..
>>>> > > I am a little disturbed by the executive order that flags should
>>>> > > be flown at half-staff for *30 days* - that seems excessive for
>>>> > > any head of state (other than the monarch of england who is
>>>> > > mourned for, what, a year?)
>>>> >
>>>> > it may be an indication of how revered he was
>>>> > by the party that has been given majority power
>>>> > and possibly by the majority of people in the united states.
>>>>
>>>> 30 days is SOP for Presidents.
>>>
>>> sometimes a jellybean is just a jellybean.
>>
>>And sometimes they're black licorice jellybeans :)
>
> Reagan is ( was ) the most powerfull man in the free world.
> I'm certain that he had a lackey pick them out.
Nah, he probably had special all Licorice bags made for him.
Victor
> It's why the trends are going Democratic.
Who the hell knows what the trends really are??? The polls are politicized
anyway. A NY Times "poll" will always show the liberals leading, and a Fox
News poll will always show conservatives are leading. And you should be
afraid of the new electronic voting machines. The Miami Herald won a
Pulitzer Prize for an investigation that proved that elections in Miami, and
possibly other parts of Florida, were being rigged for three years (remember
Mayor Daly and Chicago)?
Don't talk about trends. Trends are up for sale. Bidding starts at $500M.
Dan Kimmel
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3Fgyc.3497$Di3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > It's why the trends are going Democratic.
>
> Who the hell knows what the trends really are??? The polls are politicized
> anyway. A NY Times "poll" will always show the liberals leading, and a Fox
> News poll will always show conservatives are leading.
Of course that isn't true, but if you don't like the way the polls come out
you can always claim they're biased. If they actually were -- and as
obviously as you claim -- no one would pay to have them done because they
would be worthless.
>And you should be
> afraid of the new electronic voting machines. The Miami Herald won a
> Pulitzer Prize for an investigation that proved that elections in Miami,
and
> possibly other parts of Florida, were being rigged for three years
(remember
> Mayor Daly and Chicago)?
A different issue entirely. There's mounting pressure to force
manufacturers to provide a paper trail. Yesterday's Boston Globe carried a
story that the League of Women Voters is dividing over the issue, with the
national organization claiming it's not necessary and more and more
affiliates insisting that it is.
> Don't talk about trends. Trends are up for sale. Bidding starts at $500M.
Utter nonsense. If they were, Bush would be leading in every poll in the
country.
Victor
No, you misunderstood what I wrote. It's not about the details.
David Marc Nieporent
>> > It's why the trends are going Democratic.
>> Who the hell knows what the trends really are??? The polls are politicized
>> anyway. A NY Times "poll" will always show the liberals leading, and a Fox
>> News poll will always show conservatives are leading.
>Of course that isn't true, but if you don't like the way the polls come out
>you can always claim they're biased. If they actually were -- and as
>obviously as you claim -- no one would pay to have them done because they
>would be worthless.
Newspapers pay astrologers to do horoscopes, even though they don't predict
anything. That's because not predicting anything (*) and being "worthless"
are entirely different. Newspapers are in the business of selling
newspapers. Things that attract readers are not "worthless." The same is
true for polls. It gives them something to write about, that superstitious
people want to read.
(*) (Regardless of whether the polls are biased or not, or even whether
they're accurate or not, they're not much use in June for answering the
question, "How will the November election turn out?")
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3Fgyc.3497$Di3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> It's why the trends are going Democratic.
>
>Who the hell knows what the trends really are??? The polls are politicized
>anyway. A NY Times "poll" will always show the liberals leading,
The New York Times does national polls?
Brett A. Pasternack
Yes, in collaboration with CBS News.
A quick search shows that in the March poll, the leader was that noted
bleedingheart liberal, George W. Bush. B^)