Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Text of Ron Reagan Jr.'s Remarks at Father's Burial Service
AP ^ | june11, 2004

Posted on 06/11/2004 9:00:42 PM PDT by nuconvert

Text of Ron Reagan Jr.'s Remarks at Father's Burial Service

The Associated Press

Jun 11, 2004

Text of remarks by Ron Reagan Jr. at Friday's burial service for former President Reagan, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

RON REAGAN JR.: He is home now. He is free. In his final letter to the American people, Dad wrote, "I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life." This evening, he has arrived.

History will record his worth as a leader. We here have long since measured his worth as a man. Honest, compassionate, graceful, brave. He was the most plainly decent man you could ever hope to meet.

He used to say, "A gentleman always does the kind thing." And he was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. A gentle man.

Big as he was, he never tried to make anyone feel small. Powerful as he became, he never took advantage of those who were weaker. Strength, he believed, was never more admirable than when it was applied with restraint. Shopkeeper, doorman, king or queen, it made no difference, Dad treated everyone with the same unfailing courtesy. Acknowledging the innate dignity in us all.

The idea that all people are created equal was more than mere words on a page, it was how he lived his life. And he lived a good, long life. The kind of life good men lead. But I guess I'm just telling you things you already know.

Here's something you may not know, a little Ronald Reagan trivia for you, his entire life, Dad had an inordinate fondness for earlobes. Even as a boy, back in Dixon, Ill., hanging out on a street corner with his friends, they knew that if they were standing next to Dutch, sooner or later, he was going to reach over and grab hold of their lobe, give it a workout there. Sitting on his lap watching TV as a kid, same story. He would have hold of my ear lobe. I'm surprised I have any lobes left after all of that.

And you didn't have to be a kid to enjoy that sort of treatment. Serving in the Screen Actors Guild with his great friend William Holden, the actor, best man at his wedding, Bill got used to it. They would be there at the meetings, and Dad would have hold of his earlobe. There they'd be, some tense labor negotiation, two big Hollywood movie stars, hand in earlobe.

He was, as you know, a famously optimistic man. Sometimes such optimism leads you to see the world as you wish it were as opposed to how it really is. At a certain point in his presidency, Dad decided he was going to revive the thumbs-up gesture. So he went all over the country, of course, giving everybody the thumbs up.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I found ourselves in the presidential limousine one day returning from some big event. My mother was there and Dad was, of course, thumbs-upping the crowd along the way, and suddenly, looming in the window on his side of the car, was this snarling face. This fellow was reviving an entirely different hand gesture. And hoisted an entirely different digit in our direction. Dad saw this and without missing a beat turned to us and said, "You see? I think it's catching on."

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.

Humble as he was, he never would have assumed a free pass to heaven. But in his heart of hearts, I suspect he felt he would be welcome there. And so he is home. He is free.

Those of us who knew him well will have no trouble imagining his paradise. Golden fields will spread beneath a blue dome of a western sky. Live oaks will shadow the rolling hillsides. And someplace, flowing from years long past, a river will wind toward the sea. Across those fields, he will ride a gray mare he calls Nancy D. They will sail over jumps he has built with his own hands. He will, at the river, carry him over the shining stones. He will rest in the shade of the trees.

Our cares are no longer his. We meet him now only in memory. But we will join him soon enough. All of us. When we are home. When we are free.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: burial; funeral; reagan; reaganfuneral; ronaldreagan; ronreaganjr; transcript
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 301-314 next last
To: SuziQ
In hearing some of President Reagan's old speeches this past week, I was struck with just how much Dubya sounds like him in describing an America that he believes to be truly blessed, but with a huge responsibility to bring that message of freedom to the world.

I agree with you. One good example is the "evil empire" speech where the context is usually omitted but is so instructive.

Oh, I just happen to have it here in my pocket. The famous stuff has been bolded but probably wont come out in HTML.

Reagan's "Evil Empire" Speech Heritage Foundation ^ | March 8, 1983 | President Ronald Reagan

Reverend clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you:

I can't tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome. I'm delighted to be here today.

Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for your spiritual and humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn't discharge right now one personal debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many ways. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference.

The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, “Yes, I am. I've felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer.”

But I couldn't help but say to that questioner after he'd asked the question that -- or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. [Laughter] I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.”

From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. [Laughter] Now, I don't know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story -- [laughter] -- which I'll share with you.

An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

And he couldn't help but ask, he said, “But wait, how -- there's something wrong -- how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?” And St. Peter said, “You have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're the first politician who ever made it.” [Laughter]

But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. [Laughter] So, I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said, “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.”

Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.”

And it was George Washington who said that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius -- and he said, “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America….America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty -- this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I'm involved, I've been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed “sexually active” -- and that has replaced the word “promiscuous” -- are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation's leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives?

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We're going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. “In God We Trust” is engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court Justices and Congressmen.

Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.

Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students' own time. The First Amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.

Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress considers these bills quickly. And with your help, I think it's possible we could also get the constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of 50 States statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will some day pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and, indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life -- infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.

I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of Federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that “discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by Federal law.” It also lists a 24-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant's life.

In addition, recent legislation introduced in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.

Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you know, perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness.

One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.

I think the items that we've discussed here today must be a key part of the Nation's political agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer and abortion issues -- and that's enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your Biblical keynote, I say today, “Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.”

Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.

I know that you've been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for ourselves but for millions of others around the world.

And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.

This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.

A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.

A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the Cold War, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people's minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, “I love my little girls more than anything -- -- “

And I said to myself, “Oh, no, don't. You can't -- don't say that.”

But I had underestimated him. He went on: “I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.”

There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable “Screwtape Letters,” wrote: “The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ‘dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

Well, because these “quiet men” do not “raise their voices”; because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace; because, like other dictators before them, they're always making “their final territorial demand,” some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.

While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, “Ye shall be as gods.”

The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, “but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism's faith in Man.”

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength….But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary….”

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, “We have it within our power to begin the world over again.” We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.

God bless you, and thank you very much.

101 posted on 06/12/2004 6:37:15 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: All
Anybody who has ever listened to Ron Reagan on television or his brother Michael on the radio can only interpret Ron's remarks one way, IMO.

Michael has often agonized over Ron's political beliefs which are diametrically opposed to their fathers.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Michael addresses this issue when he comes back on the radio on Monday.

Stay tuned......

102 posted on 06/12/2004 6:37:46 AM PDT by moondoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

I think Ron Jr. was taking a swipe at the clintons (with the biggest, black Bible they could find), the kerry's who tried hard to make a real sign of the cross and the rest of the phoney politicians who find a church for a photo op. I didn't think it was a swipe at GWB. I don't think he's that distasteful but who knows for sure, he's a Seattle leftie.


103 posted on 06/12/2004 6:43:11 AM PDT by Lucky2 ( 2004 is the year the Yankees will win the World Series and GWB will be re-elected!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky2

Ok the only comment by Ron was the optimism vs. realism comment. Is he saying that the reality is we should be reactive vs. proactive? Its going to take me hours to find the freepers comments on this..but frankly I found that to be a jab at his fathers nature of good vs. evil. A pessimistic person normally lives a sheltered sad life.

Anyway lead me in any direction on FR if this was discussed.


104 posted on 06/12/2004 6:46:49 AM PDT by alisasny (GODSPEED DEAR SWEET PRINCE OF MEN RONALD REAGAN : ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Ron Jr.'s remarks were the worst made the entire week. The moment he opened his mouth he affected a pose that said, "I'm here to explain it all for you." He was condescending, pompous and self-conscious. The "earlobe" story was all wrong for the setting and the occasion. It kind of made you go, "WHA?" I mean, why is Ron Jr. talking about Dad stroking William Holden's earlobe at his father's funeral? Was it supposed to be funny? It wasn't. And just mentioning Holden's name was a tacky, name-dropping type of thing. The "finger gesture" story was only marginally better. Ron Jr. has none of his father's grace and none of his smarts, but he thinks he's much smarter, much more graceful and way more sophisticated. The guy's a dweeb.

If what we saw this week was a movie, written and scripted and acted four our entertainment, perhaps your review would be fair. But it isn't. It is not a movie, it is not for us, it is what it is. It belongs to the Reagan family.

How would your own family fair under that kind of situation? Would everyone be equally beautiful and eloquent? Would all spout the right political mantra with perfect grace, humor, and heart?

Or would they look like a mix of people that is a family. All doing what they can do. Shame on anyone who thinks they didn't fit your agenda or should have been something else.

105 posted on 06/12/2004 6:46:55 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog (farewell to a great president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: upcountry miss
I truly agree with you. I myself was with c-span for the rerun of the day's events in D.C. That was beautiful and I treasured the silence that c-span gave to us. When the west coast stuff started live, I did have chris matthews on msnbc because he had some good guests and the tone was right. And they were silent thorughout the ceremony, although Chris kept saying he tought Ron's eulogy was really worth hearing, he thought there would be some suprise in it, blah, blah blah.

He shut up thorughout the ceremony and then afterwards started in with Howard Fineman and Pat Buchanan attacking GW. What a bad taste they created--after such beauty.

Maybe I am poisoning others on FR by even telling my experience, but, I do not know--I am ambivalent about whether thisis the place to talk about it, I certainly realize how you feel.

106 posted on 06/12/2004 6:47:28 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
I'm inclined to think he took a shot at W and a shot at Michael.

From Michael's eulogy:

Knowing where he is this very moment, this very day, that he is in Heaven, and I can only promise my father this. Dad, when I go, I will go to Heaven, too. And you and I and my sister, Maureen, that went before us, we will dance with the heavenly host of angels before the presence of God. We will do it melanoma and Alzheimer's free. Thank you for letting me share my father, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

According to some threads, some thought that Ron p and Patti were not 'religious' enough or perhaps of the wrong faith, who knows. One thread suggested it was Michael that thought this way, another thread suggested it was President Reagan that thought this way. Knowing that somebody thought this, its possible that ron p, took Michael's words above as a 'shot' and retaliated with his own:

ron p:

Humble as he was, he never would have assumed a free pass to heaven.

Which brings us to this portion of ron p's eulogy:

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.

The mention of politicians and mandates removes the suggestion that this was about Michael. In my opinion it was a clear shot at W.

I also noticed when he went back to sit down that Nancy seems to be smiling and turned to him as if to say 'good job'.

Considering Nancy's position on stem cell research and W's stand, I can't help but wonder if ron p merely said what Nancy wished she could have said.

I would think that with all the time the family had together over the past few days, especially on the plane, that Nancy knew what each was going to say ahead of time.

This makes me think that she approved. Whether it was a slap at W. or a slap at Michael (I think he got swipes in at both), its really too bad, considering that both Michael and President Bush (W), had the same day, given great accolades to her beloved Ronnie.

jmo

107 posted on 06/12/2004 7:12:29 AM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (Isaiah 47:4 - Our Redeemer, YHWH of hosts is His name, The Holy One of Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)

"I'm inclined to think he took a shot at W and a shot at Michael"

Naahhh..............


108 posted on 06/12/2004 7:20:17 AM PDT by nuconvert ("America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins." ( Azadi baraye Iran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
My immediate sense at hearing the three eulogies by the children was that each was so strong and articulate, their father and mother would be so proud. They are each different and very smart communicators, it is good to see this kind of excellence.

All there were different but good. I did not like the slam at W, but that is who Ron Reagan is, and he is RWR's son. I won't get upset about it.

I do have to admire Ron's polish and cool understated economy and elegance in his speaking.

Chris Matthews just taught me not to get lured in by his attempt to disarm by playing to what he thinks we will like. I heard Russert doing this on Rush's show thursday. His going on about this big russ stuff, brokaw going on about the greatest generation, matthews appaearing to enjoy the reagan people and making observations which appear to be divorced from the left wing mantras, All seem to be like a sophisticated seminar caller's line which he delivers to the host before he gets to his point--at the point where he is still trying to lure the audience into a false sense that "here is on of mine.

109 posted on 06/12/2004 7:24:15 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

My thoughts the next morning....

Michael Reagan's speech touched me the most. It was a "common" speech. Meaning the sort of thing the everyday, workaday person would say.

This is not to compare the grief of the Reagan children. It was obvious the entire family is in deep mourning over the loss of their father and Mrs. Reagan's "Ronnie."

Patti gave a wonderful speech, but it had the tinge of the stereotypical California "I'm okay, your're okay" theme. Nothing wrong with that, but I am from the South and I tend to identify more with Michael Reagan.

Ron's was more "It's Showtime!" I am not finding fault. People deal with things differently and Ron may have been trying to draw laughter (or smiles at least) from the tears. After all, there have been so many tears across the nation this week.

Ron had me hooked until he spoke of religion being used by some as a "mandate." The cynic in me said "leave it to the most liberal one in the family to politicize." My interpretation was this was a swipe at President Bush. Lately, the left has tried to use President Bush's faith as a weapon against him. A religious zealot who feels he has been ordained by God to "save the world, the cost be damned."

But in the end, I do not like his politics, but it does not lessen the tug on my heart when I think of his loss.

I am sure there was not a dry eye in the country when we witness those final moments Mrs. Reagan soon joined by the Reagan children at President's Reagan's casket.

I felt like a voyeur, almost ashamed because I did not turn away from such a private moment. I then realized I had said a prayer for comfort each and every time I witness a moment like this during the past week. I am sure I am not alone. Imagine all of the prayers for comfort going to God at that moment!

The prayers of an entire nation at the same moment in time. Not the generic prayers one often hears. But the spontaneous prayer from the heart. Please God, take care of this family.

We all should be so lucky.


110 posted on 06/12/2004 7:35:37 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckett

thanks for posts 67 and 68 on ron reagan. I mostly agree with you. It still does not mean that Ron was not very effective and ....funny, the lind of funny relief at a funeral that goes to the edge, provides needed relief and.....is OK. The ear-lobe story was definitely not OK, it was slanted to try to appear homoerotic or at least hint at it. This was a terrible to deliberately do to your father at his grave.


111 posted on 06/12/2004 7:37:21 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: hobson; ontos-on

Chris Matthews is an a$$.


112 posted on 06/12/2004 7:50:09 AM PDT by nuconvert ("America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins." ( Azadi baraye Iran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jammer

"As closely as I listened, I must have missed him zeroing in on that as a sharp rebuke of GWBush. Of all the places where one could and should protest Christian bashing, to quibble over this seems a waste of time and energy."




Then you certainly missed his commentary afterwards, where he, Fineman and Buchanan all pointed to this moment as a definite rubuke of GW Bush. I really paid no attention to it at the time, but Matthews is the idiot, who all week long has been making comparison's of RWR and GWB.

What's worse is that Matthews is just plain wrong. RWR very much wore his faith in public, as almost every speech he gave was laced with religious overtones. From the City on the Hill to even his fight against the Godless communists. For those (like Matthews and Ron Jr.) trying to impart this great difference with regards to Faith, between RWR and Bush...they are wrong.

Matthews went as far as to say that RWR wouldn't approve of this war in Iraq. How does he know? This was a man who tried to assassinate the leader of a country for the bombing of a dicotech in another country; this was a man who led an invasion of a small Carribean island because of the threat communism was making.

To say that after 9/11 RWR wouldn't have done the same...we don't know. And neither does Matthews. My wife who is apolitical actually was disgusted by the whole segment, as was I.


113 posted on 06/12/2004 8:03:16 AM PDT by cwb (If it weren't for Republicans, liberals would have no real enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on
I did hear them, start to finish. From 1976, Carter's first run, through 2000 with a large gap in between, I was sickened by Carter and Clinton using religion to gin up support. It goes beyond them all the way back to northern churches in the Civil War being used, through the Prohibition era, through Civil Rights era, etc. Why would you choose one president to be hypersensitive about?

As for the "divorce[ing]" President Reagan from GW Bush, I was offended by quite the opposite. I think they tried to LINK their policies, especially Fineman. And that's the absurdity. As I said on here last week before Reagan died, GW Bush couldn't clean Reagan's boots. I really resent linking them.

114 posted on 06/12/2004 8:04:42 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
The Bible says that if you believe in Christ, you will be saved. Being saved includes Heaven. From that, I conclude that since I believe in Christ, I will go to Heaven.

Where are I and Mr. Reagan wrong about that?
115 posted on 06/12/2004 8:06:34 AM PDT by Xenalyte (It's not often you see Johnny Mathis in the wild.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: whadizit

He's forty-something...


116 posted on 06/12/2004 8:09:43 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Must be difficult for the former professional ballet dancer who looks the part to go through life denying the conclusions reasonable people reach about him.

Nicely put.
117 posted on 06/12/2004 8:10:22 AM PDT by Xenalyte (It's not often you see Johnny Mathis in the wild.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cwb
My initial post addressed the public use of religion as a way to get votes. It was posted to people who are offended because they thought it referred to Bush. I don't think Bush does that. I think Clinton did, insincerely. I think Carter did, more sincerely.

You're right, I must have missed them saying it was a rebuke of Bush. I'll have to get the transcript. Please see my reply #114. I will say that I didn't watch Matthews except yesterday.

I agree with you that Reagan wore his faith in public--but more wrong than Matthews was Ron Reagan; however, I suppose I inferred the eulogy to be referring to the false piety of Clinton types.

I also agree with you that none of us knows about the war in Iraq. It's all guesswork. The main point of agreement with you is that the discussion had no place here. But, if we are guessing, I would have to agree with Matthews--Reagan would have gone for the real threat, Saudi Arabia and Iran. But that's grist for another forum, and you are certainly correct about not being appropriate.

118 posted on 06/12/2004 8:14:53 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
Reagan, who says the label "progressive" would fit him, does not belong to a political party. "I'm certainly not a Republican; I couldn't belong to any party that had leaders like Tom DeLay. And the Democrats are too busy trying to out-Republican the Republicans."

Translation:

"There's no party far enough left for me."
119 posted on 06/12/2004 8:15:55 AM PDT by Xenalyte (It's not often you see Johnny Mathis in the wild.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

I was so moved by the ceremony, I did not even "catch" the jab at GWB, which it clearly was.. And trust me, most of America, who are a heck of a lot less political than those of us who spend time here,didn't catch it either.. And I doubt whether they spend much time watching Chris Matthews.

Nothing to worry about as far as the jab to GWB, folks...

However, one thing that does worry me, is Ron Reagan JR getting air-time with Larry King, or speaking at the Dem Convention and supporting Kerry, or spending 5 months bashing our current President. I know he's a Nader man. He is a VERY good speaker.


120 posted on 06/12/2004 8:25:19 AM PDT by Chuzzlewit (music, music and more music)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 301-314 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson