Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election'

[indigobusiness]

The widow of former President, and Republican icon, Ronald Reagan has told the GOP she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of President George W. Bush.
Nancy Reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the Republican National Convention and has warned the Bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the President’s re-election effort.

“Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither to most members of the President’s family,” says a spokesman for the former First Lady.

Reagan’s son, Ron, spoke at the just-concluded Democratic National Convention and writes in next month’s Esquire magazine that “George W. Bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. They traffic in big lies.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4935.shtml

[Catch22Dem]

1. What's that popping sound? Seriously!

Oh wait, it's just freeper heads exploding. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[indigobusiness]

3. Ain't it just

so?

[RoyGBiv]

2. Oh. My. God.

That's all I can say.

I'm not clear on whether this source is totally trustworthy, but, well, damn.

That's huge.

[indigobusiness]

4. If you're going ot listen to anybody...

might as well be them.

[wtmusic]

5. You can be certain that CHB is totally untrustworthy

It's not huge 'til you hear it elsewhere. They are liars.

[saracat]

7. Umm. it's my impression

that they are right more often than they are wrong!

[wtmusic]

8. I'd like to see one story they have run

confirmed by another source.

Got one?

:shrug:

[indigobusiness]

10. Talk to

Dr. Frank.

The myth that this is not a credible source is just that - myth.
Promulgated by the right-wing and folks at FOX News. Now THERE'S a dubious news source.

[cmkramer]

25. Clinton

Well, this was the same source that did a story -- later picked up by NEWSMAX -- that Bill Clinton had to leave Oxford because he raped a nineteen year old college student and that there were many other women who claim to have gotten the "Paula Jones" treatment or who were victims of violence at the hands of Clinton for not agreeing to have sex with him. So, no, I wouldn't assume anything they say is true.

I thought they were a predominantly rightwing site, but given the stories they've been doing about Bush, maybe they're equal opportunity gossip purveyors. In other words, a juicy story is a juicy story no matter if it concerns a Republican or a Democrat.

The Nancy Reagan quote would be a bombshell if it turns out to be true. I'm just not prepared to think it is just yet. I can see her saying that she wouldn't endorse the ticket, but to go as far as to say she wouldn't support them at all, no, that I have some trouble with. But we shall see what we shall see.

[Hoping4Change]

30. Sorry CHB is simply not credible.

To put the nail into its credibility google the story and there are lots of credible sources with the real story.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/9310872.htm?1c

[RoyGBiv]

9. Liars?

I'm aware they've gotten things wrong on occasion, but I'm not sure the term "liar" applies.

Could you expand on this point?

[indigobusiness]

14. First it's bitching that "media whores" have sold out

and won't report the news.

Then it is "liars" when the news is reported.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. This one has the smell of truth

RTFA - Read the Fine Article.

If the Repugs use Reagan's image in ads, you will hear from Nancy and Ron and Patty, make no mistake about it.

Why do you think you have not seen such ads yet? Why do you think you haven't heard anything about her speaking at the convention? Can you point to her on the Republican convention speaker's list? She is not mentioned in this article: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040716-120134-3590r.htm

GWB is more like a bitter paranoid Nixon, regardless of however much he'd like to be Reagan. He has appropriated stylistic elements for the campaign, but has not tried to put on Reagan's mantle yet. So far he is using his own Emperor's clothes.

[Demoiselle]

23. Agreed, Bernardo...

I watched Ed Gillespie squirming under a fairly healthy barrage of reporter questions the other day asking why Mrs. Reagan wasn't coming to the convention...He did a tap dance about the fact that she's had a tough year, is frail, etc etc, but ya gotta believe that if Nancy wished them well, she would, at the very least, videotape a brief message of support from her home. "She knows she'd be very welcome," he kept saying. He did not answer directly the questions: "Did you invite her? And WHAT was her response?" Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a country where mainstream media spotted possible stories like this one, vetted them with some energy and got them out there to a larger audience?

[saracat]

6. Wonder if mainstream media will pick up on this?

Ron's article is in a major publication.

[indigobusiness]

11. This can be easily verified.

And will be.

[indigobusiness]

22. How can they ignore this?

ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.

[depakid]

26. I can and do ignore Capitol Hill Blue

because they have a history of publishing "exclusive" unsourced, and ultimately false stories. You might as well be pushing the National Enquirer. Their drug story was total bullshit too-

As much as you may want to believe what they say, the bottom line is that unless you have a better source, you're trafficking in rumor, at best.

[holly73]

12. I think it is true

I would be more than a little po'ed if the man that wanted my support was against medical research that could have potentially helped my dying husband

[indigobusiness]

13. I think it is obviously true.

Nancy has stiff-armed Bush at every turn.

Her contempt for him is no mystery.

[indigobusiness]

15. And Ron Reagan's words in Esquire

pile it on.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so. And to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the Bush presidency, because that's not what this is. This is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. Call it the honest guy's critique of George W. Bush.

[indigobusiness]

17. more from Esquire (Bush Lies)

ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes.

Mr. Bush's tendency to meander beyond the bounds of truth was evident during the 2000 campaign but was largely ignored by the mainstream media. His untruths simply didn't fit the agreed-upon narrative. While generally acknowledged to be lacking in experience, depth, and other qualifications typically considered useful in a leader of the free world, Bush was portrayed as a decent fellow nonetheless, one whose straightforwardness was a given. None of that "what the meaning of is is" business for him. And, God knows, no furtive, taxpayer-funded fellatio sessions with the interns. Al Gore, on the other hand, was depicted as a dubious self-reinventor, stained like a certain blue dress by Bill Clinton's prurient transgressions. He would spend valuable weeks explaining away statements—"I invented the Internet"—that he never made in the first place. All this left the coast pretty clear for Bush.

Scenario typical of the 2000 campaign: While debating Al Gore, Bush tells two obvious—if not exactly earth-shattering—lies and is not challenged. First, he claims to have supported a patient's bill of rights while governor of Texas. This is untrue. He, in fact, vigorously resisted such a measure, only reluctantly bowing to political reality and allowing it to become law without his signature. Second, he announces that Gore has outspent him during the campaign. The opposite is true: Bush has outspent Gore. These misstatements are briefly acknowledged in major press outlets, which then quickly return to the more germane issues of Gore's pancake makeup and whether a certain feminist author has counseled him to be more of an "alpha male."

Having gotten away with such witless falsities, perhaps Mr. Bush and his team felt somehow above day-to-day truth. In any case, once ensconced in the White House, they picked up where they left off.

[saccheradi]

18. Reagan is with us...

The "GREATEST REPUBLICAN ICON THAT EVER LIVED" can no longer be counted among the republican fold. His family have reseated him in opposition to Bu$h... So Reagan republicans now MUST COUNT THIS the MOST POWERFUL of the MANY reasons NOT to support the Bu$h presidency.

HUGE is not the word... I honestly think this could be an enormous factor in the election.

[ItsMyParty]

19. The Reagans always detested the Bushes and openly snubbed

them in public. At the convention of 2000, it was announced that Nancy would not attend. Then the day of she showed up---they acknowledged her and she waived. A few moments later they camera panned back and she was gone. I will bet any amount of money that she was paid well to appear (she loves money). I think her appearance may just depend on how much money or goodies they can lay on her this time. Then again, this time, maybe she will stay true to her feelings and Reagan's and just snub them again.

[marlakay]

20. I wonder if she is the reason some of the repubs are changing?

Couldn't hurt...

[indigobusiness]

21. I think many moderate Republicans

are disgusted by Bush and the Neocons...and all the blatant hypocrisy,
dishonesty, pandering...etc.

[impe]

24. Taxi....

The Bush family and Hinkley's were friends as well.... even W's. brother was scheduled to have dinner with one of the Hinkley's before Reagan was shot. This information some how got lost....

[HuckleB]

27. So it's CHB vs. NM, and no one else is joining the party?

Oh me, oh my.

The rats at Newsmax are claiming that Nancy strongly endorses Bush.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/2/161745.shtml

Oh, I don't know why that makes me laugh. Maybe it's just hearing the word Newsmax in my head. Yeah, that does it. I can't stop giggling.

:)

Anyway, I just did a number of searches to see if I could find anyone else covering either version of this "story," and I failed miserably.

Anyone else able to do any better?

[HuckleB]

28. Hey, the Hampton/McTavish story is also on Bellacio.org

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2238

And here's CHB's response to the Newsmax article:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4956.shtml

[librechik]

29. update: Nancy supports Bush, provisionally one day at a time

so she could cut the cord any minute, I guess. This is not unexpected, but not welcome either.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040803-1227-ca-nancyreagan.html
snip
"Reagan son Ronald Prescott Reagan told delegates at last week's Democratic National Convention in Boston that he was unhappy with Bush administration opposition to embryonic stem cell research. He also gave implicit endorsement to the John Kerry/John Edwards ticket.

"Whatever else you do come Nov. 2, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research," the younger Reagan told delegates.

Mrs. Reagan, however, said Bush is the right man for the job. She joins Reagan's eldest son, conservative talk show host Michael Reagan, in supporting the re-election of the president. Michael Reagan will be speaking to delegates during the GOP convention."

snip