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

'plain o joe'

Membership Revoked
Bush Leagues
Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election'
By TERESA HAMPTON & WILLIAM D. McTAVISH
Capitol Hill Blue Staff
Jul 30, 2004, 08:12

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.”

Ron Reagan is joined by his sister Patty in opposing Bush’s re-election effort. Only brother
Michael Reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the President and claims Ron is
manipulating his mother.

Unlike the other Reagan children, Michael is not Reagan’s biological child. He was adopted
by Reagan during the actor’s first marriage to actress Jane Wyman and often complains that his
stepmother, Nancy, likes Ron best.

“He is her favorite,” Michael Reagan told Fox News. “Ron can do no wrong. I mean, basically that's it,
Ron can do no wrong.”

Ron, however, claims George W. Bush has destroyed the Republican Party his father helped build.

“My father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself,” Reagan writes in Esquire.
“His Republican Party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance
to the religious right.”

The Reagans’ split with Bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can
help find a cure for Alzheimer’s, the disease that crippled President Reagan in his final years. Bush and
the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party oppose use of new stem cells. The Reagans, with
the exception of Michael, support such use.

There’s more to the feud than that, however. Nancy Reagan has told close followers she believes Bush
and the current Republican leadership have divided America with their extreme views. She has told
Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or Bush.

During the week of Reagan’s funeral, the former First Lady “went ballistic” when she learned the Bush
campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan’s photos and speeches in an effort to show he
supported Bush and his re-election. She personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to
demand the ads be destroyed.

Republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. They were pulled after scoring
poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in “poor taste.”

“Mrs. Reagan doesn’t care why the ads were pulled. She just wanted to make sure they never went on
the air,” says a spokesman for the First Lady. “She does care about whether or not the memory of
President Reagan is used for political purposes.”

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

Green

Paranoid in Los Angeles
Something tells me things go way beyond the stem cell issue.

No doubt, Nancy has far more insight into W than she is letting on.

Disturbing.

Green

:usfl:
 

CanadaSue

Membership Revoked
As a private citizen

she has the right to her opinion. I think she's had as much time in the spotlight as she cares to handle. She's frail, older lady who's just lost her life's partner.

I hope they respect her wishes.
 

Infoscout

The Dude Abides
Yeah,

Vote Kerry in, then everyone here will be complaining about the Democrats. You unfortunatley can't have it both ways. You have to choose a side. I don't really care what Ms. Reagan says, or what her biological son says, I don't even care what here husbands adopted son says.


sheesh
 

Maiden

Membership Revoked
inynmn, I seriously doubt that and that was most disrespectful taking into consideation the circumsances. :shk:
 

Fred's Horseradish

Membership Revoked
I dislike that woman even more. I'll confess something to you people. I never voted Reagan. "you didn't!!" No. Reason, as a modern "prophet" said, the Reagans introducted witchcraft into the Whitehouse. Long back as governor, I could not vote for someone who was sworn in at midnight. And sets everything else by astrology. That's dysfunctioinal. I never considered Mrs Reagon very smart.And she is of the Hollywood crowd. Just showing her true self now. Liberal, leftist. She can not stand someone who professes to be a Christian.
But I want to tell you something: someday, every knee will bow to Him. The others will cry for the rocks & mountains to hide them from His face.
If she had married a demoncrat, she would have gone that direction.
It is sobering. The two sides aare going further apart. Christians & Jews will be persecuted by the union of Leftists & Islam
Fred :) :shk: :usfl:
 

RobinYyes

Deceased
I agree with you Fred. You know what tho? All this bashing of Christians and Jews alike just brings us a day closer to that great feast with Jesus!
 

Fred's Horseradish

Membership Revoked
Maiden,

inynmn may of hit the nail right on the head. There is an enormous oppostion to concervative, Bible based believers. I realized she could have opposed Pres Bush w/o her astrologers advice. You need to study what are the forces behind astrology, occult. These are the forces fighting against Bible believers.
I don't have time here to go into all the evidence. I'll stand by the word of God.
It's because people reject that, that they turn to these other paths.
Fred
 

Hoosier Daddy

Membership Revoked
There is one thing I got kinda creeped out about with this weeks Dem convention.
Their speeches are eerily similar to those of Hitler.

I am at a loss as to what to think.
Bush is on SSSI drugs?
Kerry going to give the rest of the country away?

I think Nancy's snub echoes the feelings of many repubs, only they are keeping quiet.

But the thought of Kerry? OMG....
 

Mike 9 or 10

Deceased
I have never cared for Nancy Reagan. That is irrelevant.

She is his Widow. She should have the first and the last word on matters of this type.

If we were discussing a biography or documentary that would be a different matter.
 

Rob

Inactive
inynmn said:
nancy's physic probably told her not to support Pres Bush

Physic- that's an enema! Are you saying her enema told her to do it!!
The word is psychic!
The GWB dictionary of common words add that to 'nucler'. (SIC)
 

Rob

Inactive
Fred's Horseradish said:
Maiden,

inynmn may of hit the nail right on the head. There is an enormous oppostion to concervative, Bible based believers. I realized she could have opposed Pres Bush w/o her astrologers advice. You need to study what are the forces behind astrology, occult. These are the forces fighting against Bible believers.
I don't have time here to go into all the evidence. I'll stand by the word of God.
It's because people reject that, that they turn to these other paths.
Fred

paleezee,
Here’s what I don’t want. I don’t want an individual standing on a dais in front of a flag that represents every individual and denomination in this country and giving his religious perspective. That’s what GWB does and did and I resent it. I imagine Mrs. R does too by her statements.
If an individual wants to follow sooth sayers that is his or her prerogative and every individual who defended this country, including myself, defended that right. It’s called freedom of religion and if two individuals want to walk down the street holding hands we defended that right also regardless whether they are two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
 

Rattlehead

did someone say BBQ?
Gingergirl said:
fairbanksb,

are you suggesting that Capital Hills Blue is "slanted" in its reporting? :lol: :lol:
Really?! Ya don't say! Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :lol:

BTW, remember, Nancy Reagan is the one who spearheaded the War On (some) Drugs, and all the 4th & 10th ammendment nullification that it entails. Take that as you may.

IMHO, YMMV!
 

piggyandpeewee

Membership Revoked
Earth to Nancy: We Don't Care! Thanks for taking such good care of Ronnie, but you're

usefulness is now at an end. You're welcome to vote, but the influence of you and your ballerina son is quite limited, I'm afraid.

Let's put this "endorsement" in the same category as the elderly Florida Democrat activist who died this week, but only after requesting that everyone who mourned her loss do all in their power to defeat George W. Bush in November.

What gall! I mean really... I wouldn't consider doing that if it was the dying request of my own mother! These DemoQuacks
are a strange breed (Nancy included). :rolleyes:
 

Libertarian

Deceased
IIRC there were reports of hostility towards GHW Bush by Nancy while he was VP. Perhaps she just doesn't like the whole family? I can't blame her. I don't either.
 

milkydoo

Inactive
Fred's Horseradish said:
I dislike that woman even more. I'll confess something to you people. I never voted Reagan. "you didn't!!" No. Reason, as a modern "prophet" said, the Reagans introducted witchcraft into the Whitehouse. Long back as governor, I could not vote for someone who was sworn in at midnight. And sets everything else by astrology. That's dysfunctioinal.
If astrology is dysfunctional, then you must really dislike secret society members occupying the highest offices in the land (hint: Skull and Bones, Bush and Kerry).

This country needs a law permanently barring any past, present or prospective member of a secret society from holding *any* JOB, at any level of our government. I don't care if it's a minimum wage janitor job at the public works department for a town with a population of 25 people, forget it! Go work at McDonalds!
 

Rob

Inactive
I love these people who cling to one book as the absolute word of God like there are no other holy books in the world and everyone else’s perspective of God is wrong. What’s worse is they think their interpretation is the ‘one true interpretation’, ‘the word’. It’s myopic and arrogant and it sows the seeds of war.
It’s just as easy for someone on the other side of the world or two doors down, to say his or her book is the only word of God and everyone who doesn’t adhere to their perspective of God is saying, ‘It's because people reject my book, that they turn to these other paths.’
We are all entitled to our specific belief system so kindly don’t wear yours on my shoulder, stuff your religion down my throat or try to bring your church and our state together.

<B>piggyandpeewee
usefulness is now at an end. You're welcome to vote, but the influence of you and your ballerina son is quite limited, I'm afraid.</B>

Let’s look at this statement:
First you’re deciding that Nancy Reagan’s usefulness is at an end. Who are you to decide that? Isn’t that gall? How would you like someone to decide your usefulness is at an end?
Second, that her son’s influence is limited because he was a ballerina. After you arrogantly make these two judgements you have the audacity to say, “ The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” I’m putting a lot of credence in your understanding of Jesus Christ.
 

Vector

Veteran Member
Capitol Hill Blue....

First, Bush is on drugs, and now this? You know, one should read CHB the same way one reads the National Enquirer or Weekly World News ("hey, this just might be true...").

...and before those of you who take great delight in pointing out how little you believe sources like WorldNet Daily or The Washington Times pounce, remember the story last week about the three nukes that were allegedly found in Iraq. WT, through UPI was the source. Nobody believed it without further corroboration. That story died the death it deserved.
 

piggyandpeewee

Membership Revoked
Rob:

Still trying (well, not really) to make sense of the first paragraph of your rant. Take a pill and chill, buddy... It's only politics...

As for Nancy's usefulness, of course if you'll take off the pink glasses, YOU'LL understand that I am referring to her political
viability and influence, which died along with her husband. It's nothing personal, remember, as with this reply.

And Ron, well his accomplishments and certifications were just too numerous to mention, so I opted for the one with which he stuck the longest. Happy? No conspiracy here. No factual dispute. Just a difference of opinion.

If you truly believe and hold sacred the separation of church and state, you'd be able to separate political opinion from
personal attack. Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to cast
aspersions on the condition of my spirit. Unless of course you
claim to know more than my Creator knows about me. :shr:

Don't take this (also) personally, but after reading your post, I
don't put too much stock in your political sophistication or your "religious" appraisal. Fair enough? :D
 

Rob

Inactive
<B>Still trying (well, not really) to make sense of the first paragraph of your rant. Take a pill and chill, buddy... It's only politics...</B>

The reason you didn’t make sense of it was because it was directed at HorseRadish’s statements and while I wish you no animosity I’m, quite frankly, not your buddy.

<B>As for Nancy's usefulness, of course if you'll take off the pink glasses, YOU'LL understand that I am referring to her political
viability and influence, which died along with her husband. It's nothing personal, remember, as with this reply.</B>

Nice of you to decide that her political viability is over. I’d say from the impact her actions made they aren’t.

<B>And Ron, well his accomplishments and certifications were just too numerous to mention, so I opted for the one with which he stuck the longest. Happy? No conspiracy here. No factual dispute. Just a difference of opinion.</B>

I’d say the reference to his being a ballerina was an attempt to diminish him. That because he was a ballerina he had little political viability and worth. Why was it necessary at all to reference or catagorize him or any of his accomplishments especially since his being a ballerina had no political importance?

<B>If you truly believe and hold sacred the separation of church and state, you'd be able to separate political opinion from personal attack.</B>

Political opinions usually have facts to support them, I didn’t see any facts in your comments. You’re giving me apples and oranges. Church overlapping state is when a president uses his political platform to express his religious perspectives. I can recognize that immediately.

<B>Then maybe you wouldn't be so quick to cast
aspersions on the condition of my spirit. Unless of course you
claim to know more than my Creator knows about me.</B>

You made aspersions on three people. Now you want to say that I’m confusing the issues and that they are only political views. Without pertinent facts your opinions become nothing less than biased aspersions.

<B>Don't take this (also) personally, but after reading your post, I
don't put too much stock in your political sophistication or your "religious" appraisal. Fair enough?</B>

<B>"DemoQuacks"</B>

I’d say that remark defines your political sophistication, I’ll leave your spirit to the creator. Fair enough?
 
Last edited:

sally

Inactive
Nancy Reagan *did* marry a Democrat. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat who changed parties. She may be reverting to her true beliefs.

Sally
 

fairbanksb

Freedom Isn't Free
It's dueling ideological web sites. We report, you decide. I must say that this story makes more sense.




http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/2/161745.shtml

Exclusive: Nancy Reagan Strongly Endorses George Bush

Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2004

In a statement made Monday to NewsMax.com, Nancy Reagan said she is strongly endorsing George Bush's re-election for President and categorically denied a published Internet report that she was not backing his re-election.

Joanne Drake, the chief of staff for former President Reagan’s office in Los Angeles, said in a statement on behalf of the former first lady, “Mrs. Reagan supports President Bush’s re-election 150 percent.”

Story Continues Below

Published reports have suggested that Mrs. Reagan was unhappy with President Bush for his strong opposition to stem cell research, which Mrs. Reagan has supported after her husband’s long bout with Alzheimer’s disease.

Mrs. Reagan’s son Ron spoke last week at the Democratic National Convention. Young Ron indicated his mother supported his speech and that she was unhappy with the Bush administration for opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Ron Reagan also gave an implicit endorsement to the Kerry-Edwards ticket, who support that type of stem cell research, when he told his national audience, “Whatever else you do come Nov. 2, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research.”

Drake, however, noted in her statement on behalf of Mrs. Reagan, “I think everyone would understand that while she may not agree with the president on every issue, this campaign is more than just one issue – it’s about leadership and she believes that President Bush is the right man for the job.”

Mrs. Reagan’s statement came on the heels of a July 30th report published on the website capitolhillblue.com.

The web report, headlined "Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election,'" quoted a “spokesman” for Mrs. Reagan as telling the site, "Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush’s re-election and neither do most members of the President’s family."

Drake also denied the website’s claim that Mrs. Reagan told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or President Bush, or that she "went ballistic" when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan’s photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election.

Capitolhillblue.com also claimed that Mrs. Reagan personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.

“The quote that appeared in Capitol Hill Blue is incorrect,” Drake said on behalf of Mrs. Reagan. “Further, I do not know where the information came from [indicating that ] the former first lady went ballistic when she read the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads. She did not speak to Ed Gillespie on the telephone and demand the ads be destroyed...”

By endorsing President Bush’s re-election, Mrs. Reagan joins President Reagan’ eldest son Michael, who had al

ready announced his strong support for the president's re-election. Michael will also be speaking at the upcoming GOP convention in New York.
 

piggyandpeewee

Membership Revoked
Rob, pal:

Do you still love Nancy now (vis a vis fairbanksb's post)?

Welcome back Nancy; All is forgiven... :D

I did NOT cast spiritual aspersions on any of those people.

Fact: Ron Reagan was a ballerina.

Have a nice day...

Grouchy because there was no "bump" for Kerry?

Boo hoo!

Buh bye!
 
Top