PDA

View Full Version : Reagan Jnr blasts Bush




diamond geezer
Sep 27, 2004, 03:56 PM
link (http://www.sundayherald.com/45046)

In an exclusive interview, the son of the Gipper brands the current Republican leader an opportunist and a cheat … but fears Kerry has shot himself in the foot
By Jenifer Johnston


*

He’s a hypocrite. He “plays farm” on his ranch. He cheated to get to the White House. He lied about Iraq, and used national grief from September 11 to his own advantage.

Those are the kind of criticisms the left has levelled at President Bush for months, but just 37 days before the election, those accusations are coming from Ron Reagan – the son of one of America’s most revered Republican presidents.

In an exclusive interview, Reagan has spoken frankly to the Sunday Herald about his anger and deep resentment of the Bush administration for “hijacking” his father’s legacy through the campaign.

Ronald Reagan, who was president between 1981 and 1989, died, aged 93, in June after a 10-year battle with Alzheimer’s disease. George W Bush’s father, George, served as Reagan’s vice-president.

The present Bush team have recruited several of Reagan’s presidential aides and speechwriters to the 2004 campaign. But Ron Reagan accused Bush of trying to re-invent himself in the mould of his father, who was near-idolised in the US as an immensely strong president in the face of the cold-war threat.

Reagan said: “This administration will use whatever they can – they will try to hijack that legacy, they will pretend that Mr Bush is the reincarnation of my father. I don’t feel terribly happy about that; I certainly don’t remember Bush being at any Thanksgiving dinners.

“ I don’t know Mr Bush well, but from what I can gather, he’s nothing like my father as a man.”

Ironically, Reagan says he sometimes finds Bush “amusing, when you see pictures of him on his ranch with his little chainsaw as if he actually does any work there”.

Reagan, a broadcaster and writer, told the Sunday Herald that he is determined to speak out about the tactics of the Bush administration in this election campaign – especially when viewed against the struggle of the 2000 result.

He said: “The reality of this administration is so ugly that most Americans, even those who are more or less opposed to the administration, really don’t want to come to grips with that.

“This is an administration that has cheated to get into the White House. It’s not something Americans ever want to think about their government. My sense of these people is that they don’t have any respect for the public at large. They have a revolutionary mindset. I think they feel that anything they can do to prevail – lie, cheat, whatever – is justified by their revolutionary aims.”

Although confirming he has no ambition to stand for political office himself, Reagan admitted that his address to the Democratic convention in July raised eyebrows, not least with his family.

“I wouldn’t want to be a politician, because politicians are constrained in what they can say. My mother probably gets a little nervous if I’m too rough on George Bush – I mean, she has to speak to these people every once in a while. But she knows I have to speak my conscience.”

His conscience drives Reagan to campaign on a single, personal issue – stem cell research. The Bush administration is firmly against it, so stem cell research receives just $25 million in federal funding and has evolved into a political hot potato . Reagan’s convention speech received a standing ovation, in tune with public opinion that shows three quarters of Americans favour more stem cell research. But Republicans and the Christian right (a considerable voting force in the US) continue to brand it immoral and equate it with abortion .

“This is an issue that has become extremely divisive in American society,” he said. “They always say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged – well, I wonder how they would feel if a child or a loved one developed diabetes or Parkinson’s, and then see where they lie on the debate. Most people have no difficulty in choosing between a petri dish and a human being.”

Even the first lady Laura Bush has been tasked with opposing it – despite her own father dying, like Reagan Sr, after a lengthy struggle with Alzheimer’s . She stated last month: “To hear people say that a cure for Alzheimer’s is at our fingertips is just not right.”

Reagan has a sharp reply to her assertion. “If Laura Bush went back and did her homework, she would see that nobody thinks there is a cure around the corner for Alzheimer’s.

“Diabetes, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries will come first in the search for therapies. It was thought that stem cell research would help Alzheimer’s, but it’s clear other things will come first. Mrs Bush was either uninformed or disingenuous in her comments, but perhaps, with federal funding, we could address the issue properly.”

In the run-up to polling day on November 2, Reagan will be keeping an eye on the three key television debates pitting Kerry against Bush in front of the nation for the first time.

Reagan is quietly hopeful of a Kerry comeback , but is realistic about the impact the media has on the campaign. “Kerry has made a slight comeback in the polls, but it doesn’t really matter how many people watch the debates. When Gore and Bush debated four years ago, Gore did a better job, but the press focused on his mannerisms and his make-up and ignored Bush’s lies. The American media is not healthy.

“I do think Kerry has an uphill battle on his hands, and it’s of his own making. He made a huge mistake in saying: ‘If we knew what we know now, we would not have gone to war.’ He should have come out forcefully and said he made a mistake about the war in the first instance.”

The war in Iraq, and the Bush administration’s attitude after September 11, are viewed by Reagan as “terrible”.

“September 11 was a huge opportunity for the Bush administration. When you read accounts of insiders who were close to the top of the administration on September 11, it’s shocking. Within hours of this terrible atrocity they were looking for opportunities to take advantage of it. They turned it into a situation where they could attack Saddam, who had nothing to do with September 11. This wasn’t a wake-up call for them.”

In a recent book called Five Minutes With The President, for which Reagan wrote the foreword, he called on Bush to look into his heart and ask what kind of Christian he really is. He told the Sunday Herald that he would like to hammer home to Bush the consequences of his actions.

“I would ask him whether he felt that the innocent Iraqis and Afghans who died under our bombs were going to heaven as he imagines it. I think the answer to that would be very telling about Mr Bush’s character and his outlook on the world.”

Reagan lives with a constant legacy of his father – in name, but also in his strong sense of right and wrong . The world-wide grief and mourning for his father is something he found “gratifying ”.

Despite being at opposite ends of the political spectrum, does he think his father would have been proud of him?

“I hope my father would be proud. All I’m trying to do is lend my name and voice to what I see as an unaligned good cause. I hope that he would be supportive of that. I have no reason to believe that he wouldn’t be.”

26 September 2004



jefhatfield
Sep 27, 2004, 07:28 PM
reagan is definitely not a fan of bush, but i am not going to pretend for a second that he is a democrat, either...i don't think too much attention can be paid to the son of a president if he's not thinking about political office himself...he seems bent on a one issue agenda, and even though i agree with reagan on that one issue, i cannot condone anybody so bent on just one issue on the left or right...many on the left are so skewed with the education lobby and the same on the right are so skewed with the gun lobby and the christian right lobby...the power is in the middle with moderates of both parties who balance many issues

but at the same time, i am not going to try and believe that counterfeit christians, mostly on the christian right because it's trendy and in some cases, lucrative, dictate or define my faith

my faith is defined by jesus christ, but that's something the christian right, or most of them, does not know about...individuals from every denomination may or may not have a true faith and i am stuggling with an employee of mine who has some very narrow minded beliefs, which he spreads door to door every week to infect people with "dogma" (and to empty their wallets) vs real faith which can free a person's soul...but, he he, that's a topic for another thread, or another website ;)

SPG
Sep 28, 2004, 01:42 AM
I don't know if this is relevant or not. I had the chance to meet Ron Jr this year and was very impressed by him. I didn't know much about him before meeting him and his wife, but after talking to them for a while it was obvious that he was a very sincere person who doesn't shy away from doing or saying the right thing even when it may not be well received by some people.

kilpajr
Sep 28, 2004, 02:23 AM
reagan is definitely not a fan of bush, but i am not going to pretend for a second that he is a democrat, either...i don't think too much attention can be paid to the son of a president if he's not thinking about political office himself...he seems bent on a one issue agenda, and even though i agree with reagan on that one issue, i cannot condone anybody so bent on just one issue on the left or right...many on the left are so skewed with the education lobby and the same on the right are so skewed with the gun lobby and the christian right lobby...the power is in the middle with moderates of both parties who balance many issues

but at the same time, i am not going to try and believe that counterfeit christians, mostly on the christian right because it's trendy and in some cases, lucrative, dictate or define my faith

my faith is defined by jesus christ, but that's something the christian right, or most of them, does not know about...individuals from every denomination may or may not have a true faith and i am stuggling with an employee of mine who has some very narrow minded beliefs, which he spreads door to door every week to infect people with "dogma" (and to empty their wallets) vs real faith which can free a person's soul...but, he he, that's a topic for another thread, or another website ;)

I believe there are a lot more people on the Christian right, including me, whose faith is defined by Jesus Christ than there are on the liberal left. Any candidate who claims to be a Christian and is OK with gay marriage or "unions" and is OK with abortion is simply trying to gain votes. A president with Christian values (not just on the issues I mentioned above) will make our country a better place. I have no doubts about that.

jefhatfield
Sep 28, 2004, 07:08 AM
I believe there are a lot more people on the Christian right, including me, whose faith is defined by Jesus Christ than there are on the liberal left. Any candidate who claims to be a Christian and is OK with gay marriage or "unions" and is OK with abortion is simply trying to gain votes. A president with Christian values (not just on the issues I mentioned above) will make our country a better place. I have no doubts about that.

first, what do you define as christian? john 3:16 summarizes it very well...many of the american churches that have been defined by christ's teachings and salvation were in the south, a region the liberal democrats could solidly rely on before the age of reagan and the bushes

now there has been a shift in demographics and i don't think it's a spiritual thing, but a clever ploy for the gop to capture votes from christians...christians have been duped into believing the gop=christianity and that it's an exclusive arrangement...it's a great way to water down one's faith and assure that the children of christians will grow up worshipping a political agenda and not the lord

a true christian will profess their faith in christ first, and not attach gop beliefs with equal value to the holy scripture...billy graham is a democrat, tony campolo is a democrat, and jimmy carter (the only serious bible believing president in recent memory) is a democrat...it's only in recent history that the gop has attached itself to christianity and it is scary how the two ideas of christianity and the republicans have melded into a new psuedo religion...the democrats never claimed to be christianity, even when the south was solidly democratic for over 100 years

one of the topics that i learned in bible college was about the last days and armageddon...many scholars believe that there is going to be a major political movement to deceive the followers of the church and to set up the political stage for the anti-christ

next time you see a member of the christian right, ask yourself who is their lord, jesus christ or george w bush?

in the end, only god knows a person's heart, but personally, i don't think a religious movement that caters to white people only who happen to be republican and hate homosexuals and intellectuals are my idea of what christ had in mind for a religion...there is a saying, "hate the sin, not the sinner", but today's christian right in america is bent on hating as many people as possible...there was a similar movement in 1930s germany that tried to mix religion and politics...called, believe it or not, the nazi party

i believe in my faith and mention christ even when it's not safe...i have had machine guns pointed at me in unsafe areas and i spent my time proclaiming christ, not proclaiming hating blacks, homosexuals, liberals, or anybody else

give a person christ and they will have salvation, not some instant conservative voting record and a penchant for worshipping reagan, bush, dole, and mr W

...whew...sermon over

btw, i am a registered democrat but i don't go around saying democratic party=john 3:16, because if i did, then i didn't get the point of john 3:16 in the first place

when it's all said and done, we are to worship christ, not one political party or another...even athiests know the difference between a christian and a psuedo christian more interested in winning elections than converting people

i want kerry to beat bush, but neither are out to proclaim christ, as that is not their job, but to run america with a gop or democratic point of view...religious christians should vote how they please, but realize that among the body of christ, there are democrats, republicans, libertarians, american independents, and members of many political parties

no party should try and get a monopoly on christianity...christianity is not about political monopolies and power struggles with national/local leaders, but christianity is about a personal relationship with jesus christ

when i share my faith, i never mention what party i vote for...it is counterproductive

the two political parties of jesus christ's time, who also had their ties in religion were the saduccees and pharissees...christ did not attach himself to either to preach their dogma and platform

join the true faith and make it christ and christ only...adding political amendments to your faith is a great way to destroy your faith

jefhatfield
Sep 28, 2004, 07:22 AM
but to get back on topic, he he, ron jr, does not see W as his father, right?

in many ways, president reagan was better than our current president...but reagan got into the white house on one major issue, which was carter's government spending and how out of control it was

president reagan, though we now know he was a nice fellow personally, was a much bigger spender than president carter

i hope W does not continue to spend like crazy in his second term, if he wins, and spend the way president reagan did...what happened to conservatives anyway? i thought their main agenda was to conserve money and not spend all of the piggy bank? instead they spend like crazy and are interested in rewriting christianity