"Why you need to make a silly, caustic comment about a son's heartfelt rememberance of his father, totally escapes me. If there was something wrong with the passage that you quote, it would still not be a fit subject for discussion by non-family members. But there is absolutely nothing really even controversial about it."
William, I was going to reply to your comments yesterday, but didn't want to waste the time. Instead, today, I'll let the NY Times waste theirs:
Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow It
NY Times June 15, 2004 | Sheryl Gay Stolberg
...But on Friday, at the culmination of an emotional week of mourning for the former president, his son Ron Reagan delivered a eulogy that castigated politicians who use religion "to gain political advantage," a comment that was being interpreted in Washington as a not-so-subtle slap at Mr. Bush...
...Ron Reagan, a television commentator who has frequently been critical of Mr. Bush, has already said as much. In 2000, he fired a shot at Mr. Bush in Philadelphia during the Republican convention, which featured a tribute to his father. "What's his accomplishment?" Mr. Reagan asked then. "That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"...
..."The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," Mr. Reagan said then. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the 80's. 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."...
There is no question about it. Ron Reagan used the funeral of his father for political purpises...he "Wellstoned" the moment so he could slap Bush.
Know your enemy.
And now that the tears from the funeral have dried, I will express my own thought that it is absolutely outrageous for the President's supporters to compare him to Ronald Reagan. Reagan fought for the reduction of Government. Reagan did not allow a Karl Rove to shape his policies to appeal to groups as indicated by old polls. He sought to lead his party, as well as America in general, to do what he considered right, according to the lights that God gave him. He sought to lead, not accommodate.
It is that leading, not accommodating, that makes all the difference. The Medicare, Education, Aids aid to Africa, are all examples of seeking to accommodate the Left. So is the continued exposure of women in combat. (Reagan, remember, is the President that finally shot down the E.R.A..) I could go on, but I do not want to tarnish this period of mourning with a political spat. But do not get sanctimonious over the political debate.
Frankly, I did not realize that the comments about young Reagan's politics went in the direction that you have clarified. I had rather assumed that he had become a "Liberal," from the types of comments that have appeared above. He obviously has not. I hope that you are not suggesting that we on the right do not have a right to criticise the President. That would be a very novel interpretation of Conservative duty.
But again, even if Ron Reagan was the biggest "Liberal" on earth, his rememberances of his father at a funeral ought not to be subject to debate!!
William Flax Return Of The God Web Site