All I'd like to point out is that Clinton and Carter both spoke at Nixon's funeral and each gave classy speeches. And they aren't invited to speak at Reagan's? No further proof needed that the Repubs are politicizing the death of Reagan. They sully his name with their ruthless manipulation of his death.

Let's see here.  Well first of all Nixon didn't have a state funeral. There is a lot of pomp and circumstance within these ceremonies and restraints put upon them.

I don't see why you think it's a Republican assault on democrats. Once again you political jargon is messing your head up.  Why would carter or clinton speak at the funeral?  Reagan beat carter and took his presidency away.  Clinton had nothing to do with Reagan other than beating his succesor.  Bush sr. I think would be expected to speak because he was the damn vice president during the presidency and little Bush is the current president.  That would explain why Clinton spoke at Nixon's funeral.  Carter spoke at Nixon's because this is the era in which Nixon did much of his great work as a diplomat.

Jesus, put the political shit to sleep and learn something first.  You make a mockery of facts and a possible education.

Apparently bush decided on FIVE days of official mourning? Christ it sounds more like the king (or queen.... well if yo had one) were dead. Even then i don't think anyone (maybe china) would have 5 days of mourning.

It just seems totally blown out of proportion

out of interest were there (and if so how many) days of mourning after the 11th September attacks  ?

After reading all of the far out theories and reasoning, I can only come to the conclusion that the GOP had reagan killed.  I mean, if you are right why wouldn't they have done it.  They preserved reagan in a vegetable state so that they could off him at a time when the GOP was in crisis.  What other time could that be other than now?  Bush's ratings are through the floor so they enacted article 54235.4352342.52432 (Pull the plug on Reagan to divert attention rule).  This must be it.

Thank you for exposing the truth.

- by any chance do most of you fear the secret black helicopters that come and take discreet farmers away as enemies of the state? Or do you fear your toaster is a government device used to spy on your daily movements in an effort to quell rebellion?

Thing is, it's a state funeral.

I'm paying for it.

Nancy gets to have her private funeral at her discresion, but this one's for America.

And the Republicans clearly are policitizing Reagan's death. As was pointed out, just take a gander at Bush's election site. Additionally, Bush's campaign has been shipping thousands of letters across America telling mourners to visit his election site.

Then, we hear how the two surviving Dem ex-presidents are not going to speak at his state, publicly funded, mourning for all America funeral.

This one's for the People but all the people are not being represented. I am not going to sit quietly while the Republicans manipulate this event.

If you think about it, it may be better that neither Clinton or Carter Speak at the funeral.  There's so much talk about how great Reagon was as president, why mix up people's opinions with classy cherishings from the left.  Reagon was the best speaker and impressionable leader that I've seen in my lifetime.  But his policies have set America back quite a bit.

Lastly to see Bush talk about Reagon as if they're of the same feather is a joke.  Let Bush shoot himself in the foot.  Bush can't talk respectfully about Reagan without rubbing an equal amount of respect for himself.  It's sickening.

I would rather see Clinton speak at a grand state funeral for Ray Charles.  How cool and rightful is that?

This article is exactly summarizes my feelings towards Reagan.

Reagan should be on a $3 bill

Alaric....you are what, 19 years old?  That means you were 4 years old when this man LEFT office.  Well, while most of you on this forum grew up with Bill Clinton in the White House, I did not.  I grew up with Ronald Reagan in the White House, and I'm sick and tired of all of you revisionist historians who were shitting in your diapers (or weren't even born yet) telling me what I should think about a man that I know far better than any of you!

Think what you will. Reagan was the only president I knew for the first eight years of my life - kinda like how some people's grandparents might remember FDR. Hell, the first 12 years of my life was under Republican rule. I loved it when we whooped Iraq the first time. Made sense to me, it was the way things ought to be done - we brought all the Good in the world to stop a Bad thing.

And I will always love Bush I for publicly denouncing Broccoli for the sinful vegetable that it is. I fucking pwnd my mother that night when she served that filth to me again.

But we'll never all agree about these men. I find the cult-like fawning over Reagan to be silly and the media-campaign demanding we build thousands of monuments to the legacy of the "most popular president ever and the man who ended the cold war", to carve his face into Mnt Rushmore or replace Hamilton on the ten dollar bill ... all those things I find offensive.

I mean, Clinton's administration presided over eight better years than Reagan. Better economic upswing. More personal liberty than ever before. The dawn of a democratic Russia. The expansion of NATO. Amazing leaps in technology. A world that was largely at peace. Shall I go on? Not that Reagan didn't do his own good things; just to frame the fact that there are others who have done good, as well.

I remember Reagan pretty clearly, but my stickiest memories of him are mixed. I remember him as the kind faced man with rosey cheeks who gave moving speaches. I remember the day my class first found out that ketchup was a vegetable. I remember the time when it was explained to me what nuclear war was and that it was Reagan who controled the fate of our world in his hands. And I remember him calling the Russian's "evil" and thinking the world was going to end. Pretty stern stuff. And I remember when the word "faggot" became a popular modifier on the school yard. AIDs was a mysterious, farcical disease that affected fags ... and then one of my teachers died from it. I remember seeing images of the Iran/Iraq war - one of my clearest memories - and finding out as I grew up that Reagan traded arms with Iranians AND sold WMDs to Iraq.

In the end, my view of him is as a useful man who's ultimate contribution to America was not destroying it. As I said before, Reagan should be remembered as a man who helped bring peace to the world. It's a fitting end to a complex man with a shady past and mixed presidency.

But he is no FDR. No Jefferson. No Lincoln. He is a little man compared to the giants of our past. Some say that the circumstances make the man, but for Reagan the man simply survived the circumstances.

in fact, I'd say much the same of Clinton, as much as I love him.