The first divorced President

I can remember when people questioned Ronald Reagan's electability because of his divorce and remarriage.

The personal lives of Presidents -- at least before they are elected -- is now not as much of an issue in elections. Clinton could have his affairs, and Bush could have his DWI.

Will the day come, when the first gay President will gain acceptance from American voters?

My guess is that she will be a lesbian. I'll go way out on a limb and predict that she will be black.

Good of him to die just in time to give Bush a predictable boost in the polls as people are reminded that Bush has shown the same courage and leadershp against our foes as Reagan showed in his time. Reagan in his time was vilified by the liberals in much the same way as Bush: cowboy, dunce, puppet, yada, yada, yada. But history has shown that he was right most of the time. The timing couldn't be better. Maybe somebody up there does like George.

OK, so now does the silly season where we all suffer from collective alyzmers, and only say good things about him because he is dead?

Are we to forget that he governed California as a bigot and a racist, launched his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Missoissippi, as President never abandoned support for apartheid South Africa, and made racism acceptable to be a racist again. He chose how to live his life, and in death should be judged accordingly. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

>Good of him to die just in time to give Bush a predictable

>boost in the polls as people are reminded that Bush has shown

>the same courage and leadershp against our foes as Reagan

>showed in his time. Reagan in his time was vilified by the

>liberals in much the same way as Bush: cowboy, dunce, puppet,

>yada, yada, yada. But history has shown that he was right most

>of the time. The timing couldn't be better. Maybe somebody up

>there does like George.

my response to the above..........ROTFLMFAO.......what a shlub.

It won't come as a surprise to any regular reader here to learn that I'm not overwhelmed with grief at Reagan's passing. His presidency marked the beginning of the ascendancy of the wacko right wing and the glorification of mediocrity in American life.

The right wingers, of course, are going to go into paroxysms of grief that will make the self-flagellations of the Shiites seem like mere child play. They're convinced that Reagan was the greatest leader since Jesus. Maybe even greater than Jesus! Brace yourselves for moves by his worshippers to rename everything from the local dog pound to the national capital for Reagan! And to have his mug carved in stone onto Mt. Rushmore. Maybe some of them will kindly commit suicide to join their idol in right-wing paradise? That's the one reserved for rich white people whose idea of heaven is to spend eternity in a celestial country club built out of Wonder Bread? I'd be happy to attend the funerals of his worshipful acolytes, like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly and on and on and on. . .

And meanwhile CNN Headlines is saying he's mourned around the world!!! Huh? What world is that? With the possible exception of his mad passion, Maggie Thatcher, the rest of the world knew Reagan, like Shrubya, was an increasingly senile mediocrity being run by the "advisors" behind the scenes. And even Maggie wasn't above manipulating him!

Bleah!

Tri,

let me say that I am glad the old Fuck is finally dead! May he rot in Hell!!

I had plenty of relatives who were just like him... kindly old white patriarchs ... By day they wore cowboy hats, by night, white hoods.

Even as a teenager, I could see Reagan for what he was. Rascist, fascist, homophobic... Evil in the guise of Daddy.

Not one to mince words,

La Trix

RE: Liberal Goodness

>Good riddance to bad rubbish!

>let me say that I am glad the old Fuck is finally dead! May

>he rot in Hell!!

Thank God "hate speech" is something that only occurs among the right-wing. As everyone knows, those on the Left are simply too good and kind and just to ever succumb to such base, ugly drives - and whenever it seems that liberals are spitting up "hate speech," it's all just an illusion, since anything they do is always for the greater good, so even their "hate speech" is justified!

Anyone who wants to understand why the word "liberal" is political poison in this country needs to do nothing other than come and read this Board.

RE: Liberal Goodness

I don't know if I follow party lines enough to be called "liberal", dear Doug, I simply am what I am. But yep, I hate the old dead fart.

Trix

Several Threads

There are several ideas being bandied about in this thread:

Will the first homosexual president be a black female? I believe it is far more likely that we may have had a homosexual or bisexual male as president and it is far more likely that the first homosexual president may be a closeted male than a female. In spite of the Republican's extreme desire to see Senator Clinton run for President, especially in 2008, I do not believe she will. In any event, notwithstanding the negatives attached to her personally, I do not think this country is prepared to elect a female as president anytime soon. Women still are not willing to support a female as president over a male, with the possible exception of Oprah, and notwithstanding her repeated assertion of having no political aspirations, the first female president will be white.

Secondly, the only real comparison that can be made between Reagan and Mr. Bush is that both were govenors and both were underestimated as candidates. Mr. Reagan won election with a highly popular majority. Once elected, he was never underestimated again. Vice President Mondale made the mistaken belief that his age and other perceived shortcomings could be a sufficient vulnerable issue to exploit but Reagan was far to charming and the country was doing far too well for a change of course. I think any suggestion that Reagan's unfortunate death might benefit Mr. Bush (for any death is unfortunate - from that of a army ranger killed by friendly fire in a effort to find terrorist in Afghanistan to that of any infrantyman killed in Iraq because so many simple automated weapons were simply abandoned and stockpiled all over Iraq in the Spring and Summer of last year) is simply wishfull thinking.

Finally, while I certainly disagreed with many actions and inactions of his administration, any number of individuals whose politics were rarely, if ever, in agreement with Reagan, have made expressions of loss, including Congresswomen Pat Schroeder to Senator Kennedy and presumptive nominee John Kerry. This is not to say that disagreeing with his politics or even expressing pleasure at his death is inappropriate. These comments are certainly no worst than the kind of remarks being made by some on television and in the radio about President Clinton a few days ago at the start of the promotional tour for his new autobiography.

Reagan and Saddam: Old Friends

>I believe it is far more likely that we may have had a

>homosexual or bisexual male as president

I guess Buchanan has been dead long enough that it's OK to bring up those ugly rumors. (I've always thought that Pat Buchanan was his illegitimate descendant, and that's why he's so homophobic.)

>I do not think this

>country is prepared to elect a female as president anytime

>soon.

Since when do we elect Presidents? Either they are picked by the Supreme Court, or they never won a national election (Gerald Ford is only 2 years younger than Reagan; let's get in our digs before his "speak no ill" period begins).

>>This is not to say that disagreeing with his politics

>or even expressing pleasure at his death is inappropriate.

I think his death puts the nail in the coffin, so to speak, of the Bush presidency. Wimp Jr. pales in comparison with the image created on the silver screen, in such classics as Bedtime for Bonzo. Tom Delay told Wolf Blitzer this morning that Reagan and Bush are "very sim-you-lar," which tells you all you want to know about everyone involved. Compare Reagan's Normandy speech, on the 40th anniversary, with Bush's speech there on the 60th.

Meanwhile, one detail not mentioned in most obituaries:

By Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas

Newsweek, September 23, 2002

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

THE ONCE AND FUTURE Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed “vigorous and confident,” according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by NEWSWEEK. Rumsfeld “conveyed the President’s greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad,” wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries. Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America’s big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam’s armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.

To be perfectly un-PC, describe the perfect minority: a black jewish lesbian with a club foot.