Look, I can't stand Clinton, but I have to say the man could sell a deep freezer to an Eskimo, and there's something magical in the political world about that.

I honestly wished at times during the run up to the Iraq war that we'd have enlisted Clinton to talk to the rest of the world instead of President Fumbletongue. The man was a powerful speaker.

I dont want to Eulogize anyone. I just want to say, I am a lifelong Democrat, and I stood against everything that Reagan stood for, but I feel just as you do about the snipes. Now is NOT the time. I look at Poor Mrs. Reagan's face, and I am moved beyond words. The woman is more beautiful, serene and classy in her grief than I think I have seen ever. I said on my Blog, let God be the judge of Reagan's works. I do not feel qualified to judge the man for good or for worse. I can only admit my staggering ignorance of the world he lived in and the motivations he lived by. So I say to you my rightest friends, this is one liberal that joins with you in the celebration of a humble man's life, who went on to lead the world, and give us all a vision of a better America, even if some of us, at times did not agree with how to achieve that vision.
God Bless the Reagan family, and keep them strong in this a time of grief and a time of challenge. Knowing how Mr. Reagan appeared to be, I think he is probably not happy with all the stress people on both sides are putting on his family right now. Many are trying (with noble purpose), to use his death to elevate him to diety status, while others seek to rob him of the very humanity that made him... at least in my eyes, a Great Man. Sad on both parts, because I think Mrs. Reagan needs to be allowed to define her husband's legacy, after all she shared with him in creating it.

_Nuff Said-

[Deleted by Jay Tea]

(As I asked, Ian: Save it for Saturday.

J.)

I think supporters of both parties need to take some yoga lessons or meditatin or something. I'm truly appalled at how under the surface unity there is such intense partisan hatred. I just got back from driving 900 miles in two days. During that time I got to listent to ALL kinds of talk radio and read a ton of newspapers.

The far left is going after Reagan with relish. One talk show host tonight said that Reagan Democrats were all racists and that's why they voted for RR. That's news to me. I've been in both parties and was a Reagan Democrat. I liked him on the ISSUES and for the same reason I voted for Ahnold here in CA, because he had issues but wasn't peddling hatred of his opponents and could work together with people. A rightist talk show host was gloating about not having Clinton or Carter talk at the funeral. That's the family's decision and they would probably need duct tape to end Clinton's speech. But this talk show host talked of how Democrats had no right to talk about RR.

Yet others insisted only Democrats would bash a dead President. I will be quite interested to see what happens when the highly flawed Bill Clinton kicks the bucket. I basically think both parties have become mirrors of each other and that's unfortunate. When we lost RR we lost a way of doing things that you don't see much anymore...but you DO see it in Sacramento (and it's reflected in the governor's poll ratings).

In short, RR isn't even in the ground yet, and he's a political football for both parties -- each paying him homage and using him as a way to score points about the other.

Yoga. Meditation. Eat some Hershy bars. Better yet: jelly beans....

In an effort to keep this short, please forgive a little generalization.

One of the significant differences between the "left" and "right" is that the left is generally much quicker to resort to attacks on a personal level. Clinton was attacked by the right for bringing disgrace upon his office and for lying to the court and the American people. When the left attacks Bush, they call him stupid, cowardly, and make remarks about his past problem with alcohol.

Reagan posessed an air of honesty that is woefully rare in political circles (on both sides of the aisle). Clinton, on the other hand, reminded me of the salesman who you really didn't trust, but you still couldn't turn down the offer. Reagan was candid; Clinton was polished.

Were the shoe (boot?) on the other foot this week, you'd see conservatives (excepting the radicals) being respectful and not critical of Clinton. You'd also see liberals lining up en masse to crucify any who made statements about Clinton such as have been made about Reagan.

Are the Republicans using the week for political gain? I don't think so---but the political gains they'll see from the week are undeniable. To vilify the party for those gains, however, is akin to vilifying a widow for accepting her late husband's life insurance payout. It's an obvious benefit from an unforseeable occurance.

Aside from tallying up points for the deadpool, I'd probably respond with a simple "Whoah" and leave it to greater and calmer minds to comment on.

Which is what most people should do in such an instance. But sadly, the fringe elements will shriek the loudest in such an opportunity to sink their probosci into the lifeblood of the grieving nation.

Ford & Bush are maintaining a low profile in retirement, which I think is what ex-President's ought to do. Clinton - well, I don't like much of what he did, but he managed to be very well-liked while he did it, so I give him partial credit for that.

Carter - After what he did in office and after office, I'm afraid I won't have the class to say nice things about him.

But I suppose I can acknowledge the Middle East peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. It seems to have held, as far as I know.

Sorry for the anon email, I just see your site doesn't encode addresses.

If the terrible happened, and all fourt died, the one thing you can say about all of them is that they have conducted themselves with dignity (some more than others, admittedly, but still) since leaving office.

As George Washington illustrated, the most fundamental quality in an American President is the ability to walk away, gracefully and quietly, from power. All of the former Presidents have brought credit to themselves by holding fast to this tradition. Even Bill Clinton has done so, though he retains a taste for the spotlight. That's regrettable, but understandable due to his relatively young age and personality.

As more of a Reaganite, I disagreed with the political views of each of these ex-Presidents to some degree, but if such a tragic event happened, I would hope that the right side of the field would have the good sense and decorum not to start dancing on their graves while the bodies are still warm.

This morning Glenn Beck played a clip of what Reagan said on learning that George Wallace had been shot. At the time Reagan spoke it was not known if Wallace would survive.

Reagan's comments were aimed at the idea that it's all right in politics to speak hatefully of those with whom you disagree. And once he got wound up, he let fly with this:

"As God is in Heaven, do we have to hate each other?"

'Nuff said, IMHO.

I can't say about the others, but is suspect that if Carter died tomorrow, there would be a small service in Plaines, Georgia, not a week long extravaganza.

Just a note for those too young to remember: When JFK was shot, it was less than 3 days from death to his burial.

I think logistics played a part in the time difference between Kennedy's and Reagan's funerals, Rance.

Kennedy was the sitting president, who "lived" in Washington at the time of his death, and was also buried there. Reagan had been out of office for over fifteen years, and lived in California. Especially since he was a much-loved former Governor of that state, it was only fitting that they should have their own recognition of his passing.

Less than 48 hours after his body arrived in Washington, it will be flown back to California for burial.

Put in context, it seems pretty reasonable to me.