While Bill O'Reilly-Michael Moore was less Ali-Frazier and more Laura Ingalls-Nellie Oleson, Michael Reagan came out slugging, in a brotherly sort of way, in expressing his disapointment in Ron Reagan's recent words and actions. Saying on Hannity & Colmes that his brother, who addressed the Democratic National Convention last night, was being "used" by the Democrats, Michael called Ron Reagan: "the typical liberal"--something anyone watching MSNBC this week can attest to. Michael acknowledged that Ron Reagan would never be addressing the Democrats' gathering if he were anyone else's son. He added that Ron was always Nancy Reagan's "favorite." Perhaps most startling was Michael Reagan's remembrance of something Ron had told him upon refusing to attend the ceremony christening the USS Ronald Reagan: "To me, it's a weapon of mass destruction."

Yes, this _was_ interesting. On MSNBC's Convention after-party, headed up by Scarbourough with Trippi, Ron Reagan, Vander Heuvel, Buchannan and a few others, Ron didn't respond that I saw to those comments (perhaps he hadn't heard them yet?), but he did come off as decidedly and solidly liberal.

There was a rather vociforous debate regarding whether or not the media was giving Theresa Heinz-Kerry too hard of a time for telling that Pittsburgh Gazette reporter to shove it. Reagan stoutly maintained that she was being given a harder time of it than Cheney had after his "Go eff yourself" comment to Senator Leahy at that photo op, while of course JS and PB dissented.

I do think that he is a big (B-list celebrity)voice for stem cell research --which Michael rather ineptly tried to maintain "isn't working out as a cure because it gives cancer to rats"-- but I have to agree that he would not be addressing the party faithful in Boston were he not Ron Reagan.

But frankly it's just tasteless of Michael Reagan to air dirty family laundry on national TV. Ron was the "favorite"? Where does he think he is, in the "trust tree" of "Old School" fame?

He's on FOX for goodness sake. He should show some tact. I guess he was just being USED BY FOX.

I saw Michael's comments, and it came off as odd, but as matter of fact, not mean spirited toward Ron (unlike Gadly's comments toward Michael).

Regarding stem cell debate, the best moment of the evening came when Gephardt (a Catholic) disingenuously claimed to Chris Matthews that he and the people he's talked to 'just don't understand' why anyone would oppose embroyonic stem cell research. Matthews responded that the question regards when human life begins and he understands the position perfectly. Matthews is a bit more honest.

And Michael is right to point out the problems that embroyonic stem cell research has encountered in rats. All the libs who talk about it are hysterically optimistic. It is an hallucination, brought on by too much sci-fi, that this will cure everything from men losing their hair to my attitude problem -- if only evil Bush who hates the sick and handicapped would stop standing in their way.

Not to mention the fact that Bush isn't in their way at all. When liberals are in favor of something, they are incapable of distinguishing between making it illegal and refusing to fund it with public money.

That is the critical point Mols. ANYBODY who wants to can fund stem cell research. Why don't the Dems convince George Soros, or hold a posh Hollywood fundraiser for stem cell research if they are so flipping hyped up about it. I want it to be illegal but it isn't so it shouldn't even be an issue.

Is it true that Nancy dised the Rs convention?