Texas Rainmaker » If It Were a Fundraiser, He’d Be There…

If It Were a Fundraiser, He’d Be There…
December 28th, 2006 11:46 am

You’d think something as rare and significant as a state funeral for a United States President would be important enough to attend… but incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided a vacation (isn’t that what you liberals call it when Bush is working in someplace other than Washington, D.C.?) to see some old ruins is more important.

WASHINGTON - Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will miss the state funeral for former President Gerald Ford at the Capitol Rotunda on Saturday night, opting instead to lead a delegation to South America with an expected stop at the Machu Picchu Inca ruins.

Ahhh, the priorities of a Senate so-called leader…

22 Comments »

…and, ahhhhh, the priorities of a lame duck President. I hate to break it to you, but Bush will be missing the Capitol Rotunda ceremonies and state funeral as well.

Reid is on a trade and diplomatic mission with a bipartisan group of senators. They will be meeting with foreign leaders. What work will Bush be doing in Crawford?

Comment by forrest — 7:58 pm
Ah, Forrest, why don’t you take a hike and then maybe we won’t “see the forest for the trees”?

Comment by Judith — 11:53 pm
Well this isnt all bad. I think it was when the King of Jorden died a few years ago, our Prime Minister didn’t bother going. He was skiing somewhere. All this despite the fact that the wholeworld knew that this guy was near death. He didn’t even try to make it. Hell all of your ex presidents went ( except Regan, but he was already pretty much out of it by then anyways.) Our leader made us look really bad there.

Comment by MrCynic1 — 12:34 am
“…but he will return to Washington from his Texas ranch on Monday, pay respects to Ford while his remains lie in state at the Capitol, and speak Tuesday at services for Ford at the National Cathedral.”

Forrest, will ol’ Potentate Harry also attend the funeral?

Comment by Old Soldier — 7:37 am
John, I assume you didn’t read the article Jason linked to, because you’d see that they will try to. They will be meeting with Peru’s president that day though, so it could be difficult.

Manley did not rule out the possibility that the delegation might return to Washington for at least one Ford-related event, perhaps a church service Tuesday morning

They will be meeting with Peru’s president that day though, so it could be difficult because it would be hard to reschedule, so we’ll see. But hey, W didn’t even attend Reagan’s funeral and he was in the US.

And Judith, how about you contribute a substantive topical comment for once? I’m not sorry that I feel the need to point out the hypocrisy of this post and its underlying attitude for you and others, because you just seem to be incapable of recognizing it yourself. Its unfortunate that you seem to believe the best response to the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing is to tell me to leave.

Comment by forrest — 11:58 am
Is that not the responsibility of the Executive branch?

Presumably on his new Iraqi strategy.

Comment by digitaldon37 — 3:17 pm
quote: They will be meeting with foreign leaders.
my thoughts: Is that not the responsibility of the Executive branch?

quote: What work will Bush be doing in Crawford?
my thoughts: Presumably on his new Iraqi strategy.(link here: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2450288.php)

Comment by digitaldon37 — 3:19 pm
“But hey, W didn’t even attend Reagan’s funeral and he was in the US.”

Wrong again, Forrest. President Bush gave the eulogy at Reagan’s funeral.

But nice try. Now how about YOU try to contribute something FACTUAL for once.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:34 pm
Forrest, my words were specific… I did not say; will ol’ Potentate Harry “try to” attend the funeral? Nice attempt at wording obfuscation, but no cigar.

”Manley said the senators opted to skip Ford-related ceremonies over the next few days because of the long-scheduled meetings with the South American presidents, noting that U.S. relations with some of the countries are in need of improvement.”

And…

”They will be meeting with Peru’s president that day…”

As Digitaldan37 points out… foreign policy is a matter for the executive branch. I guess since the Democrats have won a majority in the House foreign policy now is in the bailiwick of the legislature. My, how the responsibilities change depending upon which party holds the majority.

I find it very interesting that the incoming Senate Majority Leader (?) believes his service to the citizens of this nation is better served visiting ancient Inca ruins rather than attending a State Funeral for a past President.

Comment by Old Soldier — 9:01 pm
Jason, W did NOT attend the state funeral. You are criticizing Reid for not attending the state funeral of President Ford, so lets try to be consistent here. Reid may very well attend memorial ceremonies for President Ford outside of the state funeral.

My, how the responsibilities change depending upon which party holds the majority.

John and digitaldon, if you were not aware, the Senate has a Foreign Relations committee. Now, if you want to argue that foreign relations is outside the responsibilities of the Senate, then you would need, in order to consistent, to acknowledge that when the Republicans controlled the chamber, they also made trips to foreign countries. But I really don’t expect you to be logically consistent when doing so would cost you an opportunity to attack Democrats, even your preferred Republicans did the exact same thing.

Comment by forrest — 12:57 pm
Forrest, TR gave you a reference indicating President Bush attended Reagan’s funeral and here is yet another. Perhaps you care to give a reference or two backing you two-time claim that he did not attend President Reagan’s funeral? OBTW, If you enlarge the picture at the linked WaPo article, you will see President Bush along with Laura.

In regards to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; I am entirely aware of the committee. IMHO, entertaining and interacting foreign heads of state is outside the realm within which Congressman/women should operate – especially overseas. Interacting with foreign cabinet figures, etc., on a parity should be within the level of foreign interactivity. A Congressman dialoging with a head of state could conceivably damage the President’s policies. IMHO, regardless of party, a Congressman interacting with foreign heads of state is outside their bailiwick. IOW neither GOP nor Democratic nor Independent Congressmen should be interacting with foreign heads of state – there is that clear enough? If a Senator or Representative desires an overseas vacation, let them pay for it themselves; thus keeping their sticky fingers out of the public coffers. So there is no misunderstanding, I know my opinion has neyet impact on Congress and that Congressmen of all parties will continue to travel overseas at your and my expense.

Comment by Old Soldier — 5:50 pm
John, Bush missed the service for Reagan in the Capitol. Here’s a link.

Bush, who is on vacation, missed Reagan’s service in the Capitol, too, because he was attending a G-8 summit.

He attended a later ceremony for Reagan in the National Cathedral, but missed the ceremony at the Capitol for Reagan, just as he is with Ford. And here we are commenting on a post that criticizes Reid for missing the same thing. Simply astounding.

Regarding the Senate Foreign Relations committee, I find it terribly convenient that you only complain about its existence when the Democrats have taken control of the chamber. I have absolutely no problem with Senators meeting with foreign heads of state. They can do nothing until the President initiates/signs a treaty or other form of agreement. However, once said agreement has been signed by the President, the Senate must approve of these international agreements, according to Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Comment by forrest — 6:51 pm
”…Bush missed the service for Reagan in the Capitol.“

That’s just a wee bit different than, ”…W did NOT attend the state funeral.” Those details are tricky things, aren’t they Forrest? The point in fact is that President Bush did attend Reagan’s state funeral and I expect he will Ford’s state funeral. Will Reid? Oh, yeah, I forgot; unchangeable schedules and all… I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Ford was a Republican President who pardoned Nixon. I’m sure old Harry has put all that behind him years ago…

TR’s post states, ”You’d think something as rare and significant as a state funeral for a United States President would be important enough to attend…” and I believe the quoted article states, ”Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will miss the state funeral…”

So, you see, we are NOT criticizing Reid for the same thing that you accuse Bush of, because Bush did not miss Reagan’s state funeral. You’re not looking real good on this one, Forrest. You might want to quit while you’re behind.

Regarding the Senate committee, I gave you an opinion that is not open for further discussion. So, let’s stick to the posted topic.

Comment by Old Soldier — 8:35 pm
John, the state funeral for Ford WAS the Capitol service tonight.

The state funeral will be conducted in the Capitol Rotunda that evening and after that, the public will be able to file in to pay last respects. Ford was expected to lie in state until Tuesday morning, in a closed casket.

Bush missed it, plain and simple. So criticizing Reid for missing while not criticizing Bush, who I will point out once again was actually in the country, is terribly inconsistent.

I will grant that Reagan’s state funeral actually occurred in the cathedral. I was confused by the fact that the official state funeral for Ford was in the Capitol, while Reagan’s was not. However, my original point still stands: criticizing Reid for missing this while Bush missed it as well is pathetic.

I guess since the Democrats have won a majority in the House foreign policy now is in the bailiwick of the legislature. My, how the responsibilities change depending upon which party holds the majority.

I understand that you don’t want to discuss this now that I have clearly demonstrated your lack of consistency yet again with this particular issue, but its related directly to the topic of this post. Jason criticized Reid for leading a Senate delegation of the sorts that Senate Republicans were a part of dozens of times. If Bush can miss Ford’s state funeral due to his official business in Crawford, why is it a problem for Reid to do the same?

Comment by forrest — 12:22 am
Wrong, again, Forrest. You are conjecturing and not doing very well at that… From your ‘MyWay’ source comes this article which states:

“Ford will lie in state for two more days before his funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral on Tuesday…

”President Bush and his wife, Laura, on vacation in Texas, planned to view the casket upon their return to Washington on Monday. Bush will deliver a eulogy at the cathedral service.”

So when is Harry attending?

What is even more pathetic than my not admitting that Bush has missed a funeral that has yet to conclude is your inability to assimilate and understand facts.

”…I have clearly demonstrated your lack of consistency…” The only thing you have “demonstrated” (in your own mind) is to bear out your arrogant insolence. What I refused to discuss further was what I rendered in the form of an opinion.

Democratic congressmen, for whatever reason, bask in the limelight of “visiting with, entertaining” (or whatever you wish to call it today) foreign heads of state. I do not recall the GOP congressmen doing the same in the same numbers and with such publicity. That point is debatable – my opinion is not.

Now, shall we return to the topic of the post, or are we through in that subject as well?

Comment by Old Soldier — 4:41 pm
There are many, many, many things about Sen. Reid that deserve criticism, even condemnation.

This isn’t very high on the list.

Comment by Beldar — 7:09 pm
You are conjecturing and not doing very well at that…

I am sorry, John, but that is flat out incorrect. Let me break it out for you since you seem to be having trouble doing so yourself.

1. Jason criticizes Reid for missing the state funeral.

You’d think something as rare and significant as a state funeral for a United States President would be important enough to attend… but incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided a vacation (isn’t that what you liberals call it when Bush is working in someplace other than Washington, D.C.?) to see some old ruins is more important.

2. The state funeral occurred on Friday evening in the Capitol Rotunda.

The state funeral will be conducted in the Capitol Rotunda that evening and after that, the public will be able to file in to pay last respects. Ford was expected to lie in state until Tuesday morning, in a closed casket.

3. Bush missed the Friday service, which was the state funeral, in the Capitol.

Therein is the inconsistency. Criticizing Reid for missing the state funeral while Bush missed the exact same state funeral is inconsistent.

What is even more pathetic than my not admitting that Bush has missed a funeral that has yet to conclude is your inability to assimilate and understand facts.

I’m the one who can’t understand the facts? You aren’t even reading the original post, in which Jason attacked Reid for missing the state funeral. The state funeral is NOT the service that is occurring on Tuesday in the National Cathedral. Maybe you ought to learn the difference between a state funeral and a private funeral before claiming I don’t understand the facts, because in doing so, you have made yourself appear an idiot.

I really don’t understand what is making this so difficult for you to grasp.

Comment by forrest — 2:59 am
Forrest, a state funeral especially for former presidents encompasses much more than a single ceremony. It starts, ”Once the president officially announces the demise of a former commander-in-chief…” and it basically ends with interment. Within the entire period there are many ceremonies, one which generally is acknowledged as the “official” state funeral. “Upon the coffin’s arrival at the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol a short service (the official “state funeral”) is given with members of Congress present.”

Yes, Bush missed the Rotunda ceremony for Reagan and Ford, yet delivered a eulogy for Reagan at the more public ceremony later. Bush also plans to attend the ceremony tomorrow for Ford. I would not expect a president or a congressman to spend the entire five or six days associated with a presidential state funeral attending all ceremonies. Attending one or more ceremonies should be sufficient. So what part of Ford’s five day state funeral will be graced by the incoming Senate Majority Leader? If he doesn’t show, Jason’s post stands confirmed – with no hyprocisy. Yet, I have no doubt that you will continue to fault Bush for “missing” the state funeral for both Reagan and Ford.

Comment by Old Soldier — 1:32 pm
Forest,

You are a typical intellectually dishonest Liberal idiot.

Where’s Harry Reid at the nationally televised funeral?

President Bush has just given a beautiful eulogy for President Ford.

This is THE Funeral for President Ford. Period.

Where’s Harry Reid? Where’s Nancy Pelosi?

CLASSLESS.

Comment by SgtTaylor — 10:36 am
And Judith, how about you contribute a substantive topical comment for once?

Perhaps Judith could muster a “substantive topical comment” like your repeated “chicken hawks like you” drivel? If that constitutes a “substantive topical comment”, then Mikie Moore is a svelt buff stud.

Comment by crushliberalism — 6:10 pm
Perhaps Judith could muster a “substantive topical comment” like your repeated “chicken hawks like you” drivel? If that constitutes a “substantive topical comment”, then Mikie Moore is a svelt buff stud.

You’ve got the wrong person, Jonathan. That would be Nate, from a different post. Try reading things more closely in the future.

Comment by forrest — 1:23 am
I stand corrected, Forrest. My apologies, and thanks for the correction.

I get my leftists mixed up from time to time!

Comment by crushliberalism — 1:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI