Rea­gan’s shadow

The Washington Times Weekly - - National -

“They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Rea­gan gazed up at them with cour­te­ous in­ter­est. But be­hind the hope­ful can­di­dates, a dwarf­ing shadow loomed, a shadow al­most pal­pa­ble in its power to re­mind Repub­li­cans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only in­creased by his ab­sence. But enough about Fred Thompson,” Peggy Noo­nan writes at www.Opin­ionJour­nal.com.

“This is a piece about [the re­cent] Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial de- bates, but first I would like to note that the me­dia’s fix­a­tion with which Repub­li­can is the most like Rea­gan, and who is the next Rea­gan, and who parts his hair like Rea­gan, is ab­surd, and sub­tly un­der­min­ing of Repub­li­cans, which is why they do it,” Miss Noo­nan said.

“Rea­gan was Rea­gan, a par­tic­u­lar man at a par­tic­u­lar point in his­tory. What is to be de­sired now is a new great­ness. An­other way of say­ing this is that in 1960, John F. Kennedy wasn’t try­ing to be the next FDR, and didn’t feel forced to be. FDR was the great, loom­ing pres­i­dent of Demo­cratic Party his­tory, and there hadn’t been any­one as big or suc­cess­ful since 1945, but JFK thought it was good enough to be the best JFK. And the press wasn’t al­ways sit­ting around say­ing he was no FDR. Oddly enough, they didn’t con­sider that an in­ter­est­ing theme.

“They should stop it al­ready, and Repub­li­cans should stop play­ing along. They should try in­stead a pleas­ant, ‘You know, I don’t think I’m Rea­gan, but I do think John Ed­wards may be Jimmy Carter, and I’m fairly cer­tain Hil­lary is Wal­ter Mon­dale.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.