Just as my disgust at Bill Clinton was starting to fade, he brought it all back with his grubby publicity-seeking. He’s trying to surf the tsunami of pro-Reagan and pro-American sentiment that’s currently washing over the country. And of course he has a book to promote.
Drudge is helpful in pointing out precedents for an ex-president’s not being invited to speak at the funeral of his predecessor or successor (Ford didn’t speak at Nixon’s funeral, for example). And it’s just possible that the Reagan family is not inclined to do any favors for someone who was openly contemptuous of Reagan’s values and tried to reverse his achievements.
The arguments from Clinton’s flacks are almost comical:
“It is a state funeral, using tax dollars,” the top Clinton insider explained.
I don’t recall Clinton ever being troubled by such details during his own administration.
Hey, Bill, it’s not about you. Put a sock in it for a couple of weeks, OK?
UPDATE: Martin Devon sees things differently.
UPDATE 2: I don’t like Clinton but I don’t object to his speaking at the funeral. He was president, and if the people who are planning the funeral wanted to invite him to speak it would be fine by me. What I object to is his public complaining.
All through the latter 90s I worried that President Reagan would die, and Bill Clinton would have to be afforded a chance to speak at the funeral. It would have turned my stomach.
It is fine with me if this or that Democrat speaks. The late Pat Moynihan would have been a particularly good choice, for example.
I just don’t want to see Clinton up there.
Good for Nancy.
It seems to me that all the speakers at the funeral will be those who knew Reagan well in his public life and had respect for his values and principles. Clinton does not fit the criteria. I agree with you, however; to complain is classless.
Right. Let him get a blog to bitch and complain.
Anyone taking bets that Billery’s taking notes on Ronnie’s and we’ll have a funeral plan w/in 12-18 months that’s along these lines? But of course, giving more time for people to pay their respects to him.
Let him get a blog to bitch and complain.
Like you? Ohhh. . .. you mean his own blog.
I don’t think he needs one, freddie. There are plenty of people in the media who are happy to broadcast any message he wants to transmit. Blogs are for suckers and little guys. Clinton is too much the big man to engage in rational argument with the hoi polloi. God forbid he should have to defend his positions in the comments sections of his posts — without being able to use soundbites or softball interview questions, ignore difficult questions or intimidate critics.
See you at the ice cream parlor.
We’ll see what Clinton really thinks about Reagan in his book. Or, rather, we’ll see what he wants us to think he thinks. Which is as close to the truth as we’ll ever get with him. In fact, it may be all the truth he is capable of generating, even inside his own head.
The two other recent presidents who had the worst problems telling the truth as a regular matter were Johnson and Nixon. They both wrote long, self-serving and dishonest memoirs which are almost useless, and must be cited and used “with caution” if at all. I suspect Clinton’s memoir will be in the same mold. Which is too bad. An unvarnished, cards-on-the-table, insider’s view told by one of the master political tacticians of our history would be an engrossing book and a valuable record. But, part of being a master political tactician is never showing your cards, and Nixon and Johnson were from that school, too — though they both won landslide victories Clinton could only dream of.
Please..nothing that Clinton could do would make you like him so let’s skip the phony outrage.
How about the fact that Bush will be using this solemn moment to get sphinx VP Cheney in front of the nation for long minutes. Kerry has shown more class than any of the Bush administration has during these days. It’s bad enough that Karen Hughes has been all over the screen trying to compare her pipsqueak boos to Ronald Reagan. Well, I knew Reagan and Bush is no Reagan! BTW, don’t you think it’s somewhat credulous to accept as fact something you read on Drudge?
-How do you know that my outrage isn’t genuine?
-I didn’t say Bush is another Reagan (see my comments on this post). I said Clinton is a self-centered putz. Notice also that I didn’t say anything about Jimmy Carter, who is another ex-president I’m not a fan of, but who at least behaves like an adult most of the time.
-If Drudge’s report about Clinton was false, why didn’t Clinton deny it? Sure, it’s possible that it didn’t happen the way Drudge said it did, or even at all. But the report was consistent with Clinton’s past behavior. I think the simplest explanation is that it’s true.
President Reagan is dead, and Clinton’s first thought is of himself. Figures.
It is amazing that Clinton accepted the credit for the result of Reagan’s vision and policies that benefitted him, and has thus far failed to accept any blame for allowing the spread of terrorism against American interests during his watch. That Clinton now should believe he could share center stage at President Reagan’s funeral with the likes of Margaret Thatcher? Clinton hasn’t the style, dignity, or integrity that Reagan and his contemporaries shared.
If Clinton were to get up there do what he should, that is to thank Reagan for providing the foundation for the growth of the 1990’s, I’d be fine with that. Somehow I don’t think he’d get around to that.
If Clinton and Reagan had somehow become close friends during the course of the last decade or something, then maybe I could see it. But if I’m not mistaken Clinton had basically met Reagan a couple of times. With the exception of clergy this is unheard of at any funeral.
I guess Bill just can’t stand not being the public eye any more.