Chris Reeve's sad death and the political flamefest
 

I find it pathetic today, that people are using Chris Reeve's death to attack another party. Mr. Reeve said at one time he was not political and would not take a public stance in support of any candidate or party. However, today listening to the radio I was amazed to find people already using his life and death to flame another party.

I'm talking of course about how Glen Beck rambled about how the Dems would use his death to promote stem cell research and crucify Bush for not supporting it. I have not heard 1 person yet on the Dem's side use his death in any way. Yet, I have heard right winged radio personalities flame his death by telling their listeners what the Dems were going to do. Hell, even last night as Drudge was reporting Mr. Reeve's death (not even 24 hours after his death) he used it as a platform to flame the Dems. Pathetic.

Is the Right so desperate they need to start flaming the Dems. the second someone dies? Am I the only one that sees this as pathetic and distasteful, full of hatred. Who are the Right to start telling people how the Dems will use his death?

If the Right had shut up and not said anything and the Dems used his name I would be just as upset and the Right would then be able to flame and rightfully so. Now it just is distateful and highly ignorant of the family's feelings.

Let Christopher Reeve rest in peace and leave his name and death out of politics.

Sorry if this in itself is a flame or a troll but what I have heard today and last night from Beck and Drudge is sickening and lower than low even in politics.

I was afraid the dems WOULD use his death as a way of bashing bush, but, like you, i have only heard right wing nutjobs (if leftwingers aer pinheads, rightwingers are nutjobs) spouting that dems WILL use his death as a springboard to bash bush....

So, it's not what someone IS spouting, but it's what someone is saying someone else WILL spout...that is freaking horrendous to me...

Kinda off topic, but I am way right of you guys yet you listen to more conservative stuff then I do. I will listen to Hugh Hewitt if I am in my car at the right time (which is rare) and a local guy named Mike Rosen (also rare as I listen to Sirius mostly--music).

So far, I haven't heard a peep about Reeve from either side.

I find it interesting that you guys listen to stuff even I don't like. On the flip side, I don't listen to liberal radio commentators either.

I've heard it from both.

Frankly it's good to have a springboard to bring this back up to discussion since it's so important to everyone and their health. While I hate to take the lime light from terrorism (Yes, a very serious threat) but there's more to this world then simply foreign policy.

Now iti s a shame when people's names are bindly thrown around for political reason, but hopefully this will become a cause that he's wanted for, not a "Bush=Evil" "Bush=good, Reeves=Evil"

Kerry mentioned Reeves in his comments in favor of stem cell research in Debate II, _before_ Reeves died. Haven't heard anything from the Kerry camp subsequently.

Haven't heard anything from left or right politicians or celebrities, but I've heard things from leftist message board members. Nothing from the right-leaning ones thus far.

But I don't listen much to pundits.

I admit, I like listening to Limbaugh. I disagree with what he says but he's got a conviction behind him that others who are in it just for the money don't have.

Beck I listen to because I my car radio is busted and I only can get 1100 WTAM on it. And he's on when I go to school. (To be quite honest Beck takes things to such an extreme he actually helps Liberal causes by his spewage).

i heard it mainly on the local newscast and local stuff, which is very conservative in general..

His death is tragic and I wish they would not use his death to benifit either side. And I didn't respect Mr. Reeves, I still wish that he could fade out peacefully.

For whatever you reasons (and you don't have to discuss) I truly respect you as a person for being able to wish a peaceful fadeout of someone you didn't respect. That shows a great humanity and heart something some of us (myself included) could learn. :thumbsup:

From what I saw on TV yesterday afternoon....Kerry did indeed take the time during a speech yesterday to bash the other side using Reeves death as a reference, talking about how Reeves had called him after the debate last week to "thank" him for what he'd said during the debate it was extremely pathetic in my opinion.

Did Kerry just say Mr. Reeve called and thanked Kerry for his devotion to stem cell?

Just a question as I didn't see anything or hear anything other than he was a strong advocate of stem cell research.

If Kerry acknowledged Mr. Reeve's desire for stem cell and was respectful that maybe what he wanted, since the latter part of his life was dedicated to the research. There's a huge difference but thin line between respectfully honoring and remembering a friend and supporter and using him and his tragedy to advance yourself. Hopefully, Kerry was/is wise enough to pay tribute then move on and only bring up Reeve as a supporter of Stem Cell, no more and preferably a lot less.

However, if Kerry came out and said that Bush caused his death and some of the truly hateful things Beck and Drudge said that Kerry would say ( for example: blaming Bush for his death, using him as a martyr), then yes, Kerry is pathetically using a tragedy. (No more so than Bush uses 9/11 though).

edit.....I cant remember verbatim what I heard on TV last nite during 20/20's tribute to Chris Reeve so Im deleting what I said here.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_2079992.htm

That's all I could find. Kerry very well could have said what you think you remember Shani, but unless you can provide a source, forgive me for not believing your recollection of what he said.

I feel really bad for Christopher and his family and all they wen't through to this point.
Reeves was a smart man. He didn't throw his support into the national ring behind any one candidate. Trying to do that would only polarize this nation and the parties more.
We don't need stem cell research to be an election issue the way abortion is, where one party is seen as for and the other against. As it is now stem cell research is still non partisan at the congressional level with overwhelming support from both sides. Only between Bush and Kerry is it an actual election issue. Reeves did what he did to make sure that anyone from any party could embrace it if he wanted to.

Sorry...all I saw was what they ran during the 20/20 show last nite, I havent seen anything in print

Rush Limbaugh is certainly not lacking a conviction.

/snickers then runs away.

Ditto.

On Mike Rosen, I have alot of respect for him, even as I disagree with him.

I called his show once and contrary to how some radio heads try to make a fool of you while ignoring your points just to prove theirs, Rosen actually listened and conceded a few points.

Lebell-

I got a free shirt at last year's G3 and had Rosen sign it along with Dave and Scott.

I like his stuff because of his background in economics.

/end of threadjack

Superbelt,

Senator Kerry did and does claim that Reeves was supporting his candidacy. They spoke together at a political rally and Kerry used his name in support of stem cell research during the 2nd debate. Two nights ago, he claimed that Reeves called him right before he died. Kerry wasn't home (or didn't answer), but apparently Reeves left an encouraging message on his answering machine.

From his description, Senator Kerry is definately claiming that Reeves supported his candidacy and desired stem cell research to be one of the pivotal issues during the campaign.

I know neither man, but I am inclined to believe the Senator unless someone produced evidence contrary to his claims. Reeves may have certainly been an intelligent person, but stem cell research is a partisan issue in much the same way abortion is. I don't know why you think it isn't, but it doesn't have bi-partisan support in the public, the presidential candidates, although I'm not sure about the Congress--so I'd like to see who you are referencing from the 50 Republican Senators who don't want research to be limited. After all, how did the bill limiting such research pass Congress if there is bipartisan support of the research?

In any case, his intelligence notwithstanding, Reeves might have felt strongly enough to take sides during this cycle, given his ailing health, the contaminated stem lines, and the fact that if Bush is re-elected, Congressional support aside, stem cell research will still be limited in it's current form.

My question is, as The Onion foretold, who will place Christopher Reeves atop the Washington Monument? I'd include a link, as it is really funny, and quite representational of what happens when someone stops becoming a person and becomes, in their words, a national "Inspirational Cripple". Does anyone have a link to that that doesn't involve paying The Onion, incidentally?

A little off topic
 

My wife was a friend of Reeve's long before "Superman."

She said that back then, he was very up-front and public about being an atheist.

Does anyone know if he changed in regard to atheism?

I guess Senator Edwards pulled the carpet out from under this thread yesterday.

I'm sorry, how is that wrong?
Edwards is not using Reeves against the Republicans. He is saying that his administration will work towards beating the maladies that beset people like Christopher Reeves. As a spokesman for his spinal debilitation and advocate for Stem Cell Research he obviously was ok using his name to further these goals. Nothing is wrong with using him positively .
Nowhere did Edwards say that Bush enjoyed watching Reeves waste away in his wheelchair, petting his scottie, while laughing maniacally.
http://members.aol.com/barebods/sphynx/evil.jpg

I don't see anything negative. LIke I said and Super pointed out. using Mr. Reeve's name the way he was using it as a supporter of Stem Cell there is nothing wrong with. If Edwards had started saying Bush allowed this to happen and the negativity and hate I heard Drudge and Beck saying the Dems would say then I'd be upset. Not saying I agree with them using his name, but it is a positive message and one Mr. Reeve, himself, stressed.

Show me something negative. This was actually positive, he said that as president Kerry would continue to work on Stem Cell and that someday people (like Chris Reeve) will be helped by it.

I don't think Stem Cell will be a "cure" but I do believe that it will help. I think you may be building false hope but who knows the research must be done.

naww... i don't buy it fellas.

the core of the discussion was whether either side would use reeves' name to furthur their political cause, senator edwards undeniably did just that. i would see your point if the senator weren't quoted as saying "When John Kerry is President..." in the same context. when he did, he is clearly implying a distinction between the two candidates: that kerry's policy will stop deaths like reeves' and that the president's will not. exactly the kind of rhetoric being discussed.

No, the core of the discussion is if either side would use Reeves and his memory to attack the other. Not if he would be used to further the cause.

I'm gonna disagree with Pan's initial post that Reeves name should be left out of politics. He would definately abhor splitting the parties with one denigrating him and the other using him as a saint for Stem Cell Research. But his name, condition and wishes, I believe are all valid to be used in this election process. If it can be used to get what he wanted so desperately, then he should be invoked.

There is a clear distinction between the candidates. One is in favor of stem cell research and the other is opposed. There is NOTHING wrong, with saying you side with Reeves and will work dilligently to see that his condition can be corrected in the future. He is not being used as a club against Bush in Edwards statement but as a honeypot. Nothing wrong with that, admirable in fact.

I agree, but.
I do not think that either side is against stem cell research. I think that both sides would like to see that we will one day be able to help those in Reeves' position. They differ in how they see getting there


And to answer a question of me above, I feel that Mr. Reeves was self centered in his movement. And as someone who will one day work to help those in need like Mr. Reeves, I wish that he would have cared about a noble cause before his accident.

The Bush side is against Embryonic Stem Cell Research. They gave only a couple dozen out of several hundred thousand lines of existing embryonic stem cells funding and said that's the cut off, no more money. It was a compromise between his religious base and the rational voting segment of america.

For Reeves, that's just the way life is. Often times people don't even KNOW of a cause until it affects either them or people close to them.
I won't fault him for getting to it after his injury. Most americans wouldn't even know about Stem Cell Research if it wasn't for Reeves, Fox and the Reagan family. It may have started off self centered, like all human interests are, but it grew beyond him and he has had a huge impact (and will continue to) in the furtherance of stem cell research.

this is a quote from his readers digest interview found here
http://www.rd.com/content/openConten...ontentId=13712

I watched the Biography show on Reeves last night right before Dog the Bounty Hunter. He supported a lot of causes before his accident (i.e. special olympics, the possible execution of artists in Chile, etc.) so I think your last statement is absolutely incorrect.

The accident changed his focus, it didn't suddenly make him "charitable".

"Reeve: It gives me a moral compass. I often refer to Abe Lincoln, who said, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion." I think we all have a little voice inside us that will guide us. It may be God, I don't know. But I think that if we shut out all the noise and clutter from our lives and listen to that voice, it will tell us the right thing to do. The Unitarian believes that God is good, and believes that God believes that man is good. Inherently. The Unitarian God is not a God of vengeance. And that is something I can appreciate."

Reeve's quote on God from Shani's link..... (THANK YOU SHANI)

I post this for one reason, Christopher describes the Unitarian Church as it believes in a single type of God. I appreciate his views and he is partially correct. I AM A UNITARIAN, and what we have learned through the teachings of the Church is that ALL RELIGIONS (Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam/Muslim, Hindi, Pagan, Wiccan, New Age, etc) AND ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL, hence the name Unitarian. It is a very spiritual and peaceful church, that teaches the wisdom of all the religions and philosophies and allows one to decide which they want to follow and that will lead them to a spiritual oneness and peace.

I suppose what he may have done is generalize the whole Church as a group. Which many people do. Anyway it is quite nice that he did find some spiritual peace in a form he appreciated (that's what the Church is about in a nutshell). It sounds the way he talked that Unitarianism is what he needed.

I'll step off my soapbox now.