To no one's surprise, the New York Times is on (and perhaps is driving) the media bandwagon that is seeking to use certain Reagan family members to savage the Bush administration. A June 15 article focuses extensively on the discomfort certain Reagan family members feel toward the faith that motivates the presidency of George W. Bush. The article begins thus, and goes downhill from there:
As Republicans try to cloak President Bush in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, their biggest obstacle may be Mr. Reagan's own family.
Ron Jr., Patti, and to a large extent Nancy herself never embraced the cultural and religious conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Yet the NYT and many others have anointed these three as the gatekeepers of the Reagan legacy. Here's an example (my own wording) of how the logic works:
Ronald Reagan's clearly- and publicly-stated positions on abortion and other Life issues leave the reasonable person beyond a reasonable doubt that Reagan would have opposed embryonic stem cell research, even if it held forth a possible cure for his own disease. However, Ron Jr., Patti and Nancy all support such research, and therefore George W. Bush is a horrible Reagan-hating cretin for opposing it.
Got it?
Completely missing from the NYT article is any mention of Michael Reagan, who articulates the true Reagan legacy better than any of the other surviving members of "Mr. Reagan's own family". I'm not shocked, mind you, but this does get a bit wearying after a while.
1 comment:
Not to mention Reagan's late daughter, Maureen, who was closer to Michael's worldview than she was to Ron & Patti's.
I didn't know until after Reagan's death that Michael was adopted. He seemed the most like Ronald that I figured he *must* have had some of his DNA!
Post a Comment