Ron Reagan to speak at Dem Convention

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Ron Reagan to speak at Dem Convention
30
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 2:45am
Zell Miller a democrat?!?! LOL LOL Could have fooled me! ;-)

Democrats give Ron Reagan prime time speaking slot

Kerry aide: Late president's son to address stem cell research

From Kelly Wallace

CNN

Sunday, July 11, 2004 Posted: 10:58 PM EDT (0258 GMT)




Ron Reagan will speak at the Democratic National Convention.



(CNN) -- Ron Reagan will speak in prime time at the Democratic National Convention on the importance of stem cell research, a senior adviser to presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry told CNN on Sunday.

The Kerry adviser, who did not want to be identified, said the appearance of the younger son of the late former President Ronald Reagan came about after "overtures were made by both sides -- friends of both."

The adviser did not say on which night Reagan, 46, will speak. The four-day convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts.

Ron Reagan, a self-described liberal whose political views were often at odds with his conservative Republican father, has said publicly that he does not support President Bush's re-election.

Reagan raised eyebrows during his father's burial service in June when he said in his eulogy that his father "never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage."

Many observers thought the remark was aimed at Bush, who often speaks publicly of the role faith plays in his life.

Reagan later told CNN that he did not set out to take a dig at Bush, though after so many other people made that connection, "I began to think maybe I was. I just didn't know it."

Bush has limited the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, citing moral and ethical concerns about performing experiments with fertilized human embryos.

Proponents of such research insist those restrictions interfere with efforts to develop new treatments for a variety of diseases, including Alzheimer's, which slowly killed the former president.

Former first lady Nancy Reagan has also called on Bush to reverse course on his stem cell policy.

A Bush campaign official said it was not surprising that a liberal would be speaking at the Democratic National Convention, and noted that Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia would speak at the Republican National Convention, which begins August 30 in New York City.

The Kerry adviser said Reagan's appearance at the convention would communicate to the American people that the Democratic ticket of Kerry and Sen. John Edwards "won't put ideology in front of sound science and let politics get in the way of what is best for the American people."

The adviser also said Reagan's speech would have "big appeal" to independents.

But the Bush campaign official predicted that the remarks by Miller -- who supported key parts of Bush's agenda -- would resonate more with independents.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Wed, 07-14-2004 - 1:57pm

<>





Creepy!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 07-14-2004 - 2:37pm
Thanks.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 07-14-2004 - 2:44pm
Science will advance. Resistance is futile :)

Oh my. My scifi geekisms are showing again.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 07-14-2004 - 3:00pm

'We don't know,' is not the same as 'probably won't,' and

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-14-2004 - 8:54pm


Can't come up with a way to talk about that other research and bash conservatives at the same time, probably, especially given that alot of that research is being performed by the evil pharmaceutical companies.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 4:13am

Science advancing is wonderful, as long as it does not turn people into Borg-type beings.

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 8:14pm















Ron Reagan's Pere Pressure

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 3:01am
True, but Clinton did it and Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't.

Welfare reform was advocated by many people, Democrat and Republican, in various ways going back to Patrick Moniyhan in the 1960s.

And of course when Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress he had to rely on Republican as well as Democrat support.

Clinton in many ways with the Republican congress governed as a "moderate Republican/ conservative Democrat", which wasn't all bad, in fact it was quite good, especially on issues like balancing the budget and welfare reform. George W. Bush should govern as well, especially in regard to balancing the budget.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2004
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 3:31am
Compare obiesity rates, infant mortality rates, the number of people medically uninsured, and the percentage of GNP spent on health care in each of the 52 most industrialized countries. America is nowhere near the top. Our system is as flawed, if not more so, than most other industrialized countries.

------------------------------------------------------------

Germany has lost many industrial jobs. So has every other industrial country.

The 4 largest economies in the world today are the U.S., Japan, China, and Germany, and Germany has a relatively small population (compared to the larger countries) of only 82 million people ( U.S. has 300 million, Japan has 115 million, China has 1.3 billion). Germany, by world standards is still incredibly rich and successful, and they do it with much less natural resources per capita than many countries and less landspace, than many countries.

-----------------------------------------------------

The biggest problem Germany has is relatively low birthrates. Without an increase in the birthrates or more immigration, Germany will start to depopulate within twenty years and will have to raise taxes even more on workers to pay for the higher percentage of old. All industrial countries face any aging population but of the first world countries Germany, Japan, Italy, and Spain, have the lowest birthrates. All of these countries will have to do what the Scandinavians did in the 1980s and 1990s, they will have to pay bonuses to young couples to have more kids. This worked to some degree in Sweden, Denmark,Finland, and Norway. The Scandinavians, Irish, and Portugese now have the youngest populations in West Europe. The Germans, Italians, and Spanish, the oldest.

Germany though because it is relatively rich, can pay people to have more kids, or bring in more Turkish, Yugoslavian, Polish, and Albanian immigrants to supplement their population.

Of Germany's 82 million people, already 8 million or nearly 10% are of East European origin from countries as far south as Turkey and as far north as Russia.

------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S.A. has the highest immigration rates and birthrates in the industrial world. Unlike most industrial countries that are stagnant or shrinking in population, America is witnessing tremendous population growth. (300 million at present, projected population in 2075, 440 million).

Ideally neither rapid population growth or a declining population is all that desirable, for a number of reasons.

--------------------------------------------------------

Because of a longer longeivety rate in virtually all first world countries, no doubt the retirement age will also have to be eventually raised to at least 70 if not 75 as more and more people live into their 80s and 90s, thanks to modern medicine (despite our poor health habits, smoking, drinking, drugs, and obsiety, modern medicine expensive as it is, can keep people alive longer).

Something has to give, either cut benefits for the elderly or raise the retirement age, otherwise too much is spent on the old and not enough on children and young families.

I don't believe however that countries should overpopulate their way out of aging problem by flooding their countries with too many immigrants too quickly or encouraging unusually high birthrates. I believe that causes too much social and infrastructure disruption. It needs to be done moderately and gradually.

Sorry about getting off on a tangent but bringing up Germany reminded me of these issues.

Edited 7/16/2004 3:34 am ET ET by bayareajay


Edited 7/16/2004 3:35 am ET ET by bayareajay

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-16-2004 - 9:05am

You are mistaken about population growth being a neutral factor. It results in an expanding economy which raises everyones standard of living.


The stagnant population growth is only part of the problem. Among other things, Germany (and the rest of the EU) are suffering from

Renee ~~~

Pages