Notes on theDemocratic Convention:

Day one, con't.

What's up with Ron Reagan?

The son of the late president Ronald Reagan, and his namesake, has popped up publicly in a big way over the last few weeks. He gave the eulogy at his father's funeral, then began appearing on the CableSpews channels advocating stem cell research. Careful always to declare himself neither a Republican nor a Democrat, he is nevertheless going to speak at the Convention on the stem cell research issue, one that the Republicans oppose.

Shortly thereafter, Ron was signed up by MSNBC as a political analyst. Smart move, keeping any political affiliation out of the public eye.

Then the convention started, and things have gotten very interesting. Not only is Reagan willing to speak counter to conventional wisdom, he conducted an interview with Michael Moore that was the best I've ever seen with Moore. More on that in a minute. Following the opening night's speeches, Reagan was on one of those goofy panels with the likes of Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Howard Fineman, a very sorry excuse for a journalist. (Read: pandering sycophant).

The subject was Al Gore's opening speech, where he made a few joking references to the 2000 campaign, but also sounded the serious theme that would be repeated all night: Every vote counts, and every vote must be counted.

Reagan, asked if the 2000 election was still a big issue with Democrats responded, essentially, "Of course. At the time they felt the election had been stolen, and now they know that Al Gore actually won Florida, " I'm paraphrasing here, but those comments launched a barrage of "how do you know that" and "it is still in dispute, depending on who you talk to" and whatnot. Reagan stuck to his guns, citing a report put together by a consortium of newspapers, who went back and actually counted every last vote. Gore took Florida in the only full recount that has ever been done. Major newspapers like the Washington Post ran the story under nebulous headlines suggesting that the recount proved Bush the winner, though the opposite was to be found if one bothered to read deep into the story, somewhere on page A39.

The Michael Moore interview was conducted very casually, the two standing up in a room or hotel lobby - hard to tell. It was fairly long, and to MSNBC's credit they ran the entire thing in two long segments. Reagan kidded Moore about the success of Fahrenheit 9/11, and laughed at many of Moore's responses. In fact, he laughed with Moore about many of the things both of them were saying about the upcoming election, the film, politics generally. I got the distinct impression Reagan lost the distance an interviewer should have with his subject very early on.

It is true that Ron Reagan has been quoted at least once saying the Republican party today, captured by the neocons and religious fundies, is not the Republican party of his father. I mostly disagree, as much of what they do today was originally implemented under the Reagan administration, and the philosophy isn't that much different today, just more virulent. I'll grant Ron Reagan an out on this, chalking it up to nostalgia, to the fact that no one likes to think ill of their parent, especially one recently deceased.

But somehow it seems Ron Reagan is a free man now, free to speak on any political subject, and so far, he seems to have an affinity for the truth. Let's see how long he can last.

A further word about the former president's son turned advocate.

His speech was well done, explaining in simple terms the underpinnings of embryonic stem cell research, citing examples that made the concept easy to follow. Reagan framed the debate as one between science and progress on the one side, and superstition and fear on the other. There is no doubt whom he believes are on which side:

Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.

He goes on to say:

But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?

And finally:

In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.

Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.

Full funding for embryionic stem cell research is part of the Kerry/Edwards platform. There can be little doubt which way the son of the godfather of modern conservatism is going to vote.

Later, interviewed by Tom Brokaw, he referred to a well known "conservative commentator's" remarks on the subject as "right wing bloviating.."