Comments on: Nancy Reagan Tells Jim Webb Not To Use Video Of Her Husband

By: diana price

diana price — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:28:34 +0000

Yes, I read that too. Still no dates on any of his bio material. That's what I'm after. Anyone?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:13:35 +0000

According to Wikipedia, Webb graduate Annapolis in 1968 and he left the service to go to law school in 1972. He went to Vietnam right out of the Naval Academy (presumably, with a stop in Quantico for Marine Officer Basic School) and got the Navy Cross in 1969.

By: diana price

diana price — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:03:19 +0000

Although I would agree that Jim Webb seems to be quite a guy, he also has a lot of awards from his time in Viet Nam. All of his web pages mention his Nam service, but none state his length of service in Nam. From the list of awards, seems he had to be there for a while. Any one know the arrival/departure date of this gentleman?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:00:14 +0000

Amusingly, Webb’s status as a war hero is both undisputed and the primary basis for his candidacy. It’s interesting that he’s spending money trying to convince people of something that they presumably already know.

Yeah, John Kerry and Max Cleland also were undisputed war heroes until GOP election-year politics tried to depict them as anti-American traitors. Webb is obviously smart, so I'm betting this is a pre-emptive defense against the probable "swift-boat"ing he's likely to come up against. If that is the case, just making the public aware of Reagan's past support may be enough to cut such an attach off before it can gather steam.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:52:23 +0000

Given the extent that the GOP has explicitly rejected Reagan's western-style limited government conservatism in favor of Bush's southern-style populist conservatism, I wouldn't be so sure he'd necessarily be endorsing today's Republican candidates.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:48:42 +0000

SD: It’s hardly a great leap of faith to guess that Reagan, a staunch Republican since at least 1964, would be supporting a conservative Republican nominee.

So James, who do you think Reagan would be supporting in the CT senate race? Oh, and who is Bush supporting again?

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:06:17 +0000

A better Meese quote has him talking about fraud. The problem seems to be how the footage was used, and that President Reagan isn't around to condemn it himself. It has more to do with deceptive advertising than the public domain.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:46:39 +0000

I for see a devastating ad coming up. Nancy Reagan saying she doesn't normally get involved with political campaigns these days, but Webb has forced her to become involved by trying to drag her husband into the fray. Then she points out that Ronald Reagan believed that America was a wonderful country that needed to be defended against those who would do the country harm. Webb apparently disagreed with her her husband and resigned from the Reagan administration rather than help her husband. So if you think America is a wonderful country that deserves to be defended, vote for Allen and not for those who quit before the job is done.

By: MetaDC

MetaDC — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:45:59 +0000

A Curious Strategy...

James Joyner on Nancy Reagan's request that Jim Webb not use her late husband for campaign purposes:I can see where Mrs. Reagan and Meese would think it “inappropriate” or “improper” — and perhaps even “unethical” — for a Democrat to.....

By: lily

lily — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 15:10:46 +0000

I don't give a damn what a Republican thinks is appropriate or not appropriate-- not after Republican money and Republican scriptwriters and a Republican Senator created the massive disinformation campaign of the 911 movie.

By: lunacy

lunacy — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:43:06 +0000

Perhaps I've overlooked something. But it isn't clear to me that using this quote of Reagan's in any way implies or infers that Reagan would endorse him for office. If you said, "Lunacy is a great waitress!" in no way suggests that you think, "Lunacy would be a wonderful chef." Lunacy(neither waitress nor chef)

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:53:19 +0000

lunacy:

I think Webb has the right to use it and Republicans, certainly those closest to Reagan's legacy, have a right to question its appropriateness.

That Webb was a member of Reagan's cabinet and that Reagan called him a war hero are part of the historical record. Still, using that fact to imply that Reagan would be endorsing his bid to oust a conservative Republican--and quite possibly turn control of the Senate to the Democrats--is a bit tacky.

Amusingly, Webb's status as a war hero is both undisputed and the primary basis for his candidacy. It's interesting that he's spending money trying to convince people of something that they presumably already know.

By: lunacy

lunacy — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:46:10 +0000

Political affiliation should have no bearing on whether one man uses another man's quote about him to further his career.

Either it is alright to use such a public endorsement in this manner or not.

And frankly, it seems ludicrous to expect someone not to use it. If Reagan gave him praise in public than, the way I see it, Webb has at least as much claim that video as Nancy does.

Now I'm no fan of Webb and I'm no fan of Nancy. But I'm sure I'd see it the same no matter who the players are.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:56:04 +0000

SD: It's hardly a great leap of faith to guess that Reagan, a staunch Republican since at least 1964, would be supporting a conservative Republican nominee.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 01:27:15 +0000

Personally, I'd say presuming to speak for the dead (e.g. "Clearly, were Reagan alive and of sound mind, he would be campaigning for Allen, not Webb, in this contest.") is far more “inappropriate” or “improper” than playing a clip of something they actually did say in the past, but which his hangers-on don't agree with.