Son of Ronald Reagan Claims Nancy Would Vote for a Criminal

There’s plenty of “explosive” news being covered today.  The most incredulous in the minds of many may be the revelation expressed by Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman, that Nancy Reagan would vote for Hillary Clinton, a criminal, traitor, and malfeasant.  Michael Reagan declared the Republican Party so off the track in this election that his late father would not lend his support to it.According to the article at Newsmax:

In fact, added the veteran political analyst, even his late mother Nancy Reagan would have bailed on the GOP and its candidate Donald Trump and instead have supported Hillary Clinton.

Reagan dropped the bombshell in a scathing tweet posted Sunday, hours after The New York Times revealed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump might not have paid federal taxes for as many as 18 years.


There is a big difference in not supporting a campaign and having a platform difference with the Republican Party and totally bailing to vote for a platform anathema to the republic’s founding as well as voting for a criminal, traitor and malfeasant.  While many children know a good deal about their parents and their parents’ values, principles, and viewpoints, one cannot truly know exactly what one’s parents would do when alive much less speak for them after death.  Can anyone truly say that Ronald Reagan would cast a vote for Hillary Clinton?  What about Nancy Reagan?  Would she?

And, tax claims and reports for presidential candidates seem to surface quite frequently during election cycles.  However, the Constitution does not require a presidential candidate to release their filed tax forms;  nor should the public expect the candidates to release that type of information.  It amounts to the average citizen being asked by a potential employer to see that citizen’s tax return thereby making it a requirement for employment consideration.  Who in the united States today does not take every deduction possible to lessen their tax burden?  Trump and other prominent, wealthy individuals as well as wealthy politicians hire numerous accountants and lawyers to find every deduction possible, which can mean their tax burden would be zero.  Considering that the federal government was not established under the Constitution to receive their money from the citizens through taxes, any citizen who can whittle their burden down through deductions to zero absolutely should.  It’s a non-issue.

Reagan made the following statements on “Newsmax Prime” on Newsmax TV Monday.

When I looked at what Trump said over the weekend … and he followed it up and then he made fun of [Clinton] walking the way she walked where she tripped and fell into her car when she had pneumonia.

I think it turned off more women. It certainly turned off my wife and daughter, and I think many other people around the globe. I thought, ‘Gee, if Nancy was watching this, where would she be with this?’ Nancy would be in the HRC column, the Hillary Rodham Clinton column.

This was in response to the comments made by Trump over the weekend about a former Miss Universe, the many indiscretions of Bill Clinton and Hillary’s manner of walking before she tripped and fell into the car.

Trump is Trump.  He’s always been brash.  And, if anyone thinks Hillary is “pro-women,” they have not paid attention to how she treated the women who exposed her husband as a “womanizer,” “sexual predator,” and “rapist,”  after declaring women who report sexual assault and rape should be believed.  These women who outed Bill Clinton have had their accusations substantiated by eye witness testimony, including individuals on the security detail for Bill Clinton.

Moreover, any candidate conducting an election campaign is fair game for satire, sarcasm, and mocking.  Mocking someone’s health issues and possible severe illness is considered uncouth at best. Instead of mocking, Trump could have used the moment to express general concerns, as many in the alternative media have, about her physical “fitness,” as well as mental “fitness,” to serve as commander-in-chief.

Michael Reagan would certainly know Nancy Reagan better than the media, the people, and other journalists and bloggers.  However, it would be difficult for many to believe that Nancy Reagan would actually support a woman like Hillary, much less cast a vote for her.  Many are of the opinion that Nancy Reagan exhibited class, elegance, integrity, and sincerity while First Lady.  In the later years of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, she supported Reagan staunchly, fiercely, and lovingly as she helped him with the onset of Alzheimer’s.  To many in the public, Nancy Reagan possessed a good moral character that would not condone criminal activity, treason or malfeasance, which Hillary Clinton has done.  Casting a vote for someone of this caliber would go against the public image of Mrs. Ronald Reagan.

Michael Reagan also took issue with people comparing Trump to his father.

I have had it up to my eyeballs and so has the whole family with this whole thing of trying to equate Donald Trump to my father. He’s not even close to that.

One can agree here that Donald Trump is not Ronald Reagan.  Who is?  Who could capture the support of as many Americans as Reagan?  So far, no one has even come close.  But, Reagan was not perfect, nor was he a perfect president.  He even admitted his mistake on supporting “amnesty” under his tenure as president.  There is no comparison of Trump to Reagan.  As some may have tried to equate Trump with Reagan, no one as yet, in the opinions of some, have been successful.

So, why are many jumping ship from the Republican Party to endorse a criminal and a traitor over someone who is not?  That’s the million dollar question.  Because many Republican party members and supporters are bailing on Trump to support a criminal, traitor and malfeasant, it signals a turn of the page whereby it is more palatable to them to support a criminal, traitor and malfeasant than an individual who is popular amongst the American public.  More importantly, it is more important to “keep the status quo” and the current direction “on track” than risk a “grass roots” awakening with a nonconventional individual as president.

It would be marvelous to have better choices in candidates from the Republican and Democrat parties.  However, it has been quite some time since either party put forth quality candidates.  And, both parties choke out any establishment of a third party or more.  The grass roots support for Donald Trump, who is not part of the Republican establishment or Democrat demagogues, is signaling the rejection of the establishment of both parties.  While Donald Trump does not stand solidly on the Constitution or constitutional principles, grass roots America sees enough of a hard stand on issues important to them by Trump to award him their support.



About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in General, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.