RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Ron Reagan Jr. on George W. Bush.(43 posts)

Ron Reagan Jr. on George W. Bush.czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 10:49 AM
On comparisions of the current Administration to his father's:
    "The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now. . .Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."


On George W. Bush:
    "Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."


On Dick Cheney:
    "And they told us, 'Don't worry about W. not knowing anything, good old Dick Cheney will be his minder.' Dick Cheney? And this was going to be compassionate conservatism? Dick Cheney is to the right of Genghis Khan, he wants to drill in your backyard, he wants to deny black people their rights --it was all there in his voting record for us to see. What were we, rubes?"


On the current war:
    "Look, whether or not Saddam was a bad guy, or whether the Iraqi people were terribly oppressed, was never the issue. I mean I'm happy for the Iraqis, but that's not what this was all about. Nor was the military conclusion ever in doubt; this was the Dallas Cowboys playing a high school team. Their army was a third the size it was in '91, and it didn't give us much trouble then.

    "And the weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to them? I'm sure we'll find some. . .They're being flown in right now in a C-130.

    "There were, and will be, a lot of people killed over there. And if you don't care about the Iraqi casualties, what about the American? We stand to lose more people in the next months of occupation than we lost in the weeks of war. One of the reasons we escaped largely unscathed so far was because our military moved so fast. But now we're sitting targets -- we have to establish bases, patrol the streets, guard checkpoints. We're sitting targets for suicide bombers and other terrorists."


You might have to jump through some advertising hoops to read the full interview, which also touches on the neo-con agenda, unilateralism, stem-cell research and Bush's lack of political qualifications compared to President Reagan's: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/14/ron_reagan/index.html
What a twitPaulCL
Apr 14, 2003 11:03 AM
I'm sorry but 'junior' was an embarrassment to the family when Ronnie was in office. "junior" was never on the same side as his father politically in the '80's so why would we expect him to be pro-Bush now??? And most importantly, why does anyone pay any attention to him now???? He's a failed ballet dancer/magazine writer/newsman/talk show host.

Now where is Gerald Ford's son?? Has anyone quoted Nixon's daughers? Miss Clinton?? Carter's sons?? Nope. Because none of them have being in the news (getting press) as their foremost agenda. Heck Gerald Ford's son is even an actor (he played the first boyfriend in "When Harry met Sally"). Also, I had a drink with him once at Churchill Downs. nice guy. Paul
Umm. . .czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 11:12 AM
. . .the reason why we don't hear from other President's chlidren is that their fathers can speak for themselves.

I don't think a person needs to be on Reagan's side to understand the difference between Reagan and Bush. Anysay, it sounds like Nancy shares some of Ron Jr.'s reservations about Bush.
Nixon ain't talkinPaulCL
Apr 14, 2003 12:23 PM
I guess Ronnie Jr. gets more press becuase of his father. He's just another "celebrity". Like him, hate him, agree or disagree, his opinion is no more important than yours or mine. I'll choose to ignore him.
Bush "junior" is an embarrassment to me!!cycleaddict
Apr 14, 2003 7:57 PM
Sour grapes...TJeanloz
Apr 14, 2003 11:13 AM
I didn't want to jump through the advertising hoops, so I read no more than you posted. But this is another example of a celebrity who knows little about the situation spouting off with heated hyperbole. He uses effectively shocking language with little basis for his positions except that he feels like his father is being shafted somehow. This actually reminds me a lot of Greg LeMond lately.

What's funny is that he has apparently very little understanding of the current Administration. Note: "-- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people." I'd say that almost every member of the Bush Administration who might fit that description was also a member of the Reagan Administration.

I don't see where his political qualifications were all that much more impressive -- Governer of California, Governer of Texas; seems pretty similar to me.

It seems like a bunch of whining and complaining about his father's legacy to me. And I don't really see what makes his opinion so unbiased and interesting.
. . .yours?czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 11:34 AM
A "celebrity who knows little about the situation"!!?? He's talking about his father, and basing his comments on a lifetime of conversations with him. They may not have agreed, but that doesn't mean they didn't understand each other.

From the interview:
    Yes, there are some holdovers from my dad's years, like Elliott Abrams and, my God, Admiral Poindexter, who's now keeping watch over us all. But that observation doesn't hold up. My father gave a speech a couple years after he left the White House calling for 'an international army of conscience' to deal with failed states where atrocities are taking place. He had no thought that America should be the world's policeman. I know that for a fact from conversations I had with him." (Emphasis added.)


(Almost) everyone knows that the Governor of California and the Governor of Texas are very different. The Governor of Texas is a largely ceremonial position. The Lt. Governor holds more power.

It sounds like the sour-grapes here are actually yours, likely because it pisses you off to see someone close to Reagan point out Bush's obvious short-comings.

Again we here the plaintive charge of bias. Apparently, even interviewee's are now expeted to offer objective opinion (oxymoron?).
It seems like what he says is pretty objectively true.OldEdScott
Apr 14, 2003 11:42 AM
Truth is an absolute defense against bias as well as libel.

I think GWB is a likeable anough fellow who's was tapped by a bad crowd to be their frontman. Remember when they all tooled down to Texas and told him he was going to run for president? Or that they were going to run him, rather. Should have told us something right then.
I don't think so,TJeanloz
Apr 14, 2003 11:45 AM
I caveated my comments by pointing out that I had not read the entire interview -- and your new quote comes from a part that was not available to me.

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a big supporter of Bush, or any politician, for that matter (actually, I am becoming partial to Mitt Romney, but he's pretty far from the White House). I have more support and respect for positions than people. Nobody is without their shortcomings, GWB included.

I would say that Mr. Reagan is a celebrity, and 'conversations' with his father are almost certainly historical in nature, given the current (assumed) state of his father's mental health. Nobody, in legitimate political discourse, should resort to declaring who's "crap" was bigger. That eliminates any shred of objectivity. And yes, I expect objectivity from everybody.

From where I sit, it seems that Mr. Reagan is trying to make his father's Administration out to be not-all-that-bad, compared to what we have now. A lot of current problems can be traced to President Reagan (Saddam Hussein's power not being the greatest), and Mr. Reagan seems unable to accept that his father had any shortcomings at all. An admirable position, but hardly an objective one.
So, is <i>anyone</i> allowed to criticize Bush?czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 11:59 AM
Or does that automatically disqualify them as a non-objective source. It makes no sense to expect objectivity from everybody.

The entirety of the interview didn't come off as a defense of Ron Jr.'s father. My impression is that Ron Jr. wasn't really a fan of his fathers politics in the first place. He admitted that Reagan employed some questionable people and I beleive the only direct contrast that he made was Bush's unilateralism vs. Reagan's call for "an international army of conscience", which was made two years after he left office.

Finally, Ron Jr. didn't compare his father's crap to Bush's. He compared his father's crap to Bush. Very different meaning.
Good question,TJeanloz
Apr 14, 2003 12:10 PM
What it comes down to, for me, is that you get a lot more milage out of criticizing a position on an issue than you do in making a personal attack on a person. Saying that "George Bush has led his Administration down a dangerous road with his unilateralist policies" is far more effective than saying "George Bush is an idiot". Both statements might be true, but the second one isn't helpful. Critical analysis of policies is interesting, emotional analysis of personas is not.

I understand that personal mudslinging is a time-honored American tradition, but it doesn't further the political debate and is uninteresting except from an entertainment perspective.
Good answer. Point taken. (nm)czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 12:13 PM
" basing his comments on a lifetime of conversations with him"Live Steam
Apr 14, 2003 12:03 PM
I don't think they spoke that much when Ronnie was able to. He pretty much wanted nothing to do with his father and always opposed his father's political views. His homosexuality caused a rift that was never reconciled from what I have read. He believed he could never live up to his father's image. His father's persona represented the All-American hero. Jr. is not even a shadow if his father.

I really resent this "ballet dancer", uhhum (clearing my throat), for speaking now about his father, his legacy and what he stood for, especially when he was staunchly against his fathers policies. And for him to be speaking for him now, when he cannot for himself, about how he would not be supportive of GWB, is presumptuous at best and perfidious in it's tone. To paraphrase Jack Palance, GWB craps bigger ones than this panty waste, poor excuse for a man. Look at the source of this interview. That explains it all.
Some of your best work. Pure genius. (nm)czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 12:05 PM
Thank you! nmLive Steam
Apr 14, 2003 12:11 PM
Not at all. Now that you've demonstrated your ignorance . .czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 12:30 PM
. . .for all to read, I don't have to waste my time pointing it out.
You have a propensity of resorting to personal ...Live Steam
Apr 14, 2003 12:42 PM
attacks when someone disagrees with your point of view. I think if you check back to any post I responded to, I give the poster the courtesy of not making a direct attack on them. The tactic of attacking the messenger is usually reserved for those with a weak position. (that would be you if it wasn't obvious) salon.com is hardly a source for objective editorial. To post it here as some affirmation of your open-minded perspective, is foolhardy and disingenuous.
You the one who called Ron. Jr a panty waste(sic).czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 1:04 PM
Is that your version of courtesy? How about basing your entire thesis on the "homosexuality" of a man who has been married for over twenty years?

I never said that Salon offered "objective editorial" (an oxymoronic concept).

But I guess I should be the better person and say that I don't know you and I don't know if your posts represent you as a person, but they are stupid and misinformed.
I'll tell you what, I won't respond directly to ....Live Steam
Apr 14, 2003 1:46 PM
any of your didactic posts and please do me the favor of not responding to mine. You obviously have a hardon (sic) for me and I don't swing that way :O) So please do me the favor and keep your droll comments to yourself.
I see you have a homophobic response for every occasion. nmczardonic
Apr 14, 2003 2:05 PM
I see you have a homophobic response for every occasion. nmLive Steam
Apr 15, 2003 5:29 AM
Living here in NYC I have made quite a few "queer" friends. They would be the first to tell you they are queens and proud of it. At this juncture in time, they no longer have the same problems with the terminology you site as being emblematic of my alleged homophobia. They would tell you that the only ones that do have a problem with it are still waiting to come out of the closet. Hmm? They would also tell you that marriage is not a cure for homosexuality. My friend Phil was married for 10 years, with 2 children, and he is as gay as lark. My fiancé always laments of what a waste it is because she thinks he looks like an Adonis. So your homophobic allegation is way off base. However it sounds like you may have some issues to deal with :O
Yet another. (nm)czardonic
Apr 15, 2003 9:44 AM
Yes he does. I've pointed that out several timesNo_sprint
Apr 14, 2003 1:48 PM
Just a lot of hot air. I don't bother reading him.
ActuallySteveS
Apr 15, 2003 9:43 AM
If you follow most of Czardonic's responses, it becomes clear that he likes sniping. (hey, a sniper in our midst). Very rarely adds anything of insight or pith, just puts zingers up after someone posts. (I am excepting his plagiarized patrick henryesque missive of awhile back; the one with the 'soft tyranny' phrase. Still makes me laugh)

So expect a bit of personal sniping or picking at nits, especially if you are providing information on a topic to which he can add nothing pithy.

And Ronnie Jr. is and was a twit, nothing 'objective' in this twirps interview in Salon. Really, the idea of criticizing policies or positions makes more sense than attacking personalities. It just a lot more effort to back up and argue successfully than sniping.
sounds like a big "so what?" to meDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 11:42 AM
I never heard one word from Ronnie, Jr., until now. He never appeared to me to be the apparent heir to his father's statesmanship.

Doug
He never wanted to be the heir to his father's statesmanship.czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 12:03 PM
Background from the article:
    Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" Since then he's been quiet about the current occupant of the White House -- until now.


What's your point, anyway? That Ron Jr. isn't a big enough celebrity to make his opinions worth your while?
not the pointDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 12:09 PM
The point is that he is no statesman, therefore, among other reasons, his opinion isn't worth any more than yours or mine.

I never suggested that any celebrity had opinions worth my while, and from what I can tell, Ronnie Jr.'s celebrity status is about as valuable as Billy Carter's once was.

Doug
Except. . .czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 12:16 PM
. . .that he has conversed personally with President Reagan and has first hand knowledge of the apparatus behind the current President.
that's a stretchDougSloan
Apr 14, 2003 12:35 PM
Of course he spoke with his dad. So what? You think Ron Sr. has let Ronnie Jr. in on some inside info on the recent Bush administration? Sounds like that would be the only relevant thing he might have to say. (and we know the answer to that)

Doug
Well, never mind then. (nm)czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 1:13 PM
Tell us all in you infinite wisdom what Clinton'sLive Steam
Apr 14, 2003 12:10 PM
qualifications for the Presidency were. Also let us know what Jimmy Carter's were and what Al Gore birngs to the table. Gore never ever held a real job. He never ever ran a business, much less a state in the Union. He is the son of a senator and grew up with the silver spoon in his mouth from the hotel in Washington he lived in. Duplicity at it's best!
Czar you have so conveniently failed to ...Live Steam
Apr 14, 2003 3:32 PM
respond to this post, though you have been able to ferret out each and every other post I've made, and respond to them. Any answer to what Clinton's qualifications were for occupying the highest office in the land after governing the poorest, least educated and least productive state in the nation? What about Al Bore and Jimmy Cata'? What are/were theirs? Carter was certainly no International charge d'affaires during his tenure and what experience does Al have? As I understand it, he had trouble handling the budget for his small Congressional staff. How would he be able to handle the budget for the entire US?
None of these other Presidents can boast. . .czardonic
Apr 14, 2003 6:29 PM
. . .the record of business failure that Bush has, and all held offices that at involved more responsibility than the Governorship of Texas, which is something akin the mascot of a sports team.
Live Steam, your preposterous posts areOldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 5:22 AM
the best no-nothing comic relief from the Right since Archie Bunker was new and fresh. You're a comedic genius! Keep 'em coming! Don't let these humorless commissars here get you down!
Speaking of know-nothing ...OldEdScott
Apr 15, 2003 5:25 AM
I'm proud to see I typoed it. Surely because I was laughing so hard at Live Steam's wit.
I am glad I am not entirely unappreciated ;O)Live Steam
Apr 15, 2003 5:31 AM
Say Old Ed I have always appreciated your ...Live Steam
Apr 15, 2003 2:36 PM
witty banter, however, though I thought I would let it go by the gunnels, it may be better to set the record straight. Your backhanded stab at my character was not really appreciated. My social consciousness should not be judged by you or anyone else here; and I nor anyone else should judge others. Is it always necessary for someone from the Left to attack the morality and intellect of those holding a different point of view?

I think we all post here, as opposed to the General Cycling Forum, because there are secular issues that dismay and astonish us in some sense. It isn't to be taken seriously, but I am distressed at how often many here feel the compulsion to attack rather than discuss. If you feel differently about Clinton and Carter, state your position. I think I can take it :O)
You mean you're SERIOUS??OldEdScott
Apr 16, 2003 5:25 AM
I thought it was a joke! Shoot, now I have to be offended by all the crap you write about me and my Liberal pals being hypocrites and generally unsavory people etc; but even more, I need to be concerned about your mental state because of your pathological obsession with Bill Clinton.

Gee, Live. What can I do to help? Here's a mantra: "Clinton's not president any more, and he can't be elected again ... Clinton's not president any more, and he can't be elected again..." Repeat till the nerves unjangle. Then picture President Big Dick Cheney's smiling benign face as he contemplates another righteous invasion, paid for with a tax cut, and all will soon be right with your world. :0)
You mean you're SERIOUS??Live Steam
Apr 16, 2003 6:11 AM
Where did I say you were unsavory? Hypocrite, yes. Unsavory, no I never made any derogatory remarks about you. I actually like reading your posts. But you responded to a post directed at Czar in some sort of defense of Clinton and Carter, - Archie Bunker reference was a backhanded attempt at impugning my social consciousness and you knew it.

No Clinton cannot get elected again. Thank God and the Constitution for that. It must hurt to see your hero get bashed though. So I understand. But I guess I shouldn't be shocked at the response from a staunch Liberal. It is apparent that your hatred of Bush/Cheney is overwhelming and it gets the better of your emotions. So I forgive you :O) Oh by the way, Cheney is not President, no matter how many times you say it. I am not sure how old, Old Ed is, but I am certain that you had no problem accepting Kennedy's tax cut plan and Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War, correct? I know they aren't around any more either. You see that is where the hypocrisy part comes in :O)
Ummm... Let's see ... I had a TINY problemOldEdScott
Apr 16, 2003 6:43 AM
with Johnson's escalation of the war, since he escalated ME straight to Saigon, via DaNang with a side trip to Hue and one truly wretched month doing 'superstition psy-ops' in the Delta. I know just a little bitty bit of something about war. I guess that makes me hypocritical for being dubious about these little military adventures undertaken by people who know nothing about it. Very well, I accept your analysis. Solidly done.

For the rest of it, I suppose calling me a hypocrite would be considered by MOST people a derogatory remark, but if you say it isn't, very well on that too. It's not a big deal. It's not like you insulted my DAWGS or anything.
Ummm... Let's see ... I had a TINY problemLive Steam
Apr 16, 2003 7:02 AM
Hey I respect that fact that you served this country. I also respect your right to disagree. Actually I never called you a hypocrite, unless of course you identify with the premises that I described of being hypocritical :O)

I really believe that you, probably better than most here, as a function of your age and the fact that you served, can see a difference between Vietnam and this war - and I don't mean the sand from the trees :O) I imagine Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism, but that was idealistic pursuit. Iraq is a direct shot at a terrorist nation that never hid their desire to destabilize the region and to harm the US in any way possible - using other rogue terrorists groups to perpetrate the crime. I know, show me, right? I think we will get some of that proof, but much of it will not be revealed because it would jeopardize our intelligence ops, don't you think?

You have to give Bush some credit here. If anything, he took a huge political risk here. At least credit him for having political balls if not balls enough to go into battle himself. McCain backs this war fully. Does that weigh in anywhere?
No one could deny the administration has political balls.OldEdScott
Apr 16, 2003 7:13 AM
They've rolled the dice big time on several issues. They're gamblers, all right.
GWB ran three businessesrufus
Apr 14, 2003 3:43 PM
right into the ground. and then daddy's buddies bailed him out each time.