Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Shea** · (This post was last modified: 12-31-2010 02:58 AM by Shea.)

just as many of us thought.

He was President from 1981 - 1989. According to a new book by Ron Reagan, he first noticed symptoms of his father's memory loss in 1983. In 1989 Ronald was officially diagnosed, but Nancy withheld the information from Ronald (and the world) until 1994.

Most of us noticed the same symptoms young Ron noticed; but the final clue to the deception was when he was diagnosed and they told us his case was progressing unusually rapidly. No, it wasn't -- they just didn't count the first 6 years or so -- all when he was President.

Normally, I wouldn't link to the source below, but since they're paraphrasing from Ron Reagan's new book, I assume the story is probably correct.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ronal_re...rity/69909

"But Ron confirms in the book that his father was actually diagnosed with the brain-robbing disease in 1989 after a fall from a horse required him to undergo surgery to relieve pressure in his skull.

SNIP

"Ron writes that he noticed his father's mental faculties slipping as early as 1983 and was alarmed to see him confused and to hear him repeating stories.

"Early in the course of his disease, Reagan had moments of delusion."

**Hekate** · 12-31-2010, 04:11 AM

And yet the GOP -- which long ago lost all sense of decency -- ran him for a second term. Who the hell was running the country, then? Who actually ran the country? Was it Bush the Elder, the entire time? Was Bush's "one term presidency" in reality his third term?

**Born_A_Truman** · 12-31-2010, 09:12 AM

(12-31-2010 04:11 AM)Hekate Wrote: And yet the GOP -- which long ago lost all sense of decency -- ran him for a second term. Who the hell was running the country, then? Who actually ran the country? Was it Bush the Elder, the entire time? Was Bush's "one term presidency" in reality his third term?

My guess would be Donald Regan, his COS.

**Sheepshank** · (This post was last modified: 12-31-2010 11:15 AM by Sheepshank.)

(12-31-2010 04:11 AM)Hekate Wrote: And yet the GOP -- which long ago lost all sense of decency -- ran him for a second term. Who the hell was running the country, then? Who actually ran the country? Was it Bush the Elder, the entire time? Was Bush's "one term presidency" in reality his third term?

That is a freaky scary thought...but one that should be addressed.

I remember taped investgation questions where Reagan, repetedly would respond to quetions...not with pleading the 5th, or executive privileges, but merely with "I don't recall" and he honestly looked comfused and not engaged with the proceedings.

**sandnsea** · 01-01-2011, 01:17 AM

(12-31-2010 04:11 AM)Hekate Wrote: And yet the GOP -- which long ago lost all sense of decency -- ran him for a second term. Who the hell was running the country, then? Who actually ran the country? Was it Bush the Elder, the entire time? Was Bush's "one term presidency" in reality his third term?

Nixon was a protege of Prescott Bush. Oil folks were heavily involved in Eisenhower's Presidency as well. Bush was an Ambassador to China. Bush invested in India before trade barriers were lifted. Yes, I believe the Bush's run a lot more than most folks could ever imagine. I don't think there's much question they ran Iran/Contra.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...62c6d.html

**PresidentObamaIsMyHero** · 01-02-2011, 04:47 AM

(12-31-2010 04:11 AM)Hekate Wrote: And yet the GOP -- which long ago lost all sense of decency -- ran him for a second term. Who the hell was running the country, then? Who actually ran the country? Was it Bush the Elder, the entire time? Was Bush's "one term presidency" in reality his third term?

I doubt it -at least for much of his term. For example, if you look at Bush the Elder's foreign policy record when he was in power and you compare it to Reagan's foreign policy record, you'll find that the latter's foreign policy agenda was much more right wing and reactionary. Bush the Elder tended to be more internationalist and moderate in terms of foreign policy.

I think it was more likely to be people like Don Reagan, Edwin Meese and those types who were the power behind the throne -his presidency has their handprints all over it. I suspect there was probably an internal power struggle between the right wing reactionary neo-cons and the moderate camp in the White House. I think the right wing reactionaries probably held sway throughout much of his presidency -as witnessed by most of his domestic and foreign policy decisions during that time -but I think the moderate camp may have won out in the post-Iran Contra aftermath -that's why you had Reagan take drastic steps towards constructively engaging with Gorbachev and finally showing some interest in the Mid-East peace process during the final two years of his presidency

**jaxx** · 12-31-2010, 09:42 AM

I wonder how the pubs will take this? They idolize Reagan, everyone of them wants to be Reagan. Might get interesting.

**Arkana** · 12-31-2010, 10:55 AM

And this is news how? Reagan was conking out at Cabinet meetings early on.

Even his advisors admit he zoned out at national security briefings and didn't read memos if there was something good on TV.

(12-31-2010 09:42 AM)Sass Wrote: I wonder how the pubs will take this? They idolize Reagan, everyone of them wants to be Reagan. Might get interesting.

They've already tossed Nancy overboard for her support of stem-cell research.

**Shea** · 12-31-2010, 11:45 AM

To have Reagan's son going public with this IS news. There were certainly signs but there was never any proof that he had Alzheimers. Cheney conked out at meetings, too, but that had nothing to do with Alzheimers. He never showed a sign of the memory problems we could see in Reagan.

Democrats won't be surprised, but his ardent admirers will argue against this vociferously, and the knives will be out for Ron.

**Andy823** · 12-31-2010, 12:31 PM

Well I guess then it's OK to compare Palin to Reagan then since neither one of them was, or is in their right mind! Although I think that Reagan probably made more sense with his alzheimers than Palin does! Shrug

**sandnsea** · 12-31-2010, 08:13 PM

(12-31-2010 12:31 PM)Andy823 Wrote: Well I guess then it's OK to compare Palin to Reagan then since neither one of them was, or is in their right mind! Although I think that Reagan probably made more sense with his alzheimers than Palin does!

Probably? No, he absolutely did. God that is pathetic how low we have sunk.

Funny, but sadly true, observation.

**Shea** · 12-31-2010, 03:21 PM

Reagan was a talented reader and performer, and since both of those skills are things that are "over-learned," as an Alzheimer's patient he would be able to function in those areas long after losing ability to answer questions at hearings or press conferences.

I think that after their success with Reagan, the neo-cons decided that that was the best way to go: a charismatic performer as a figurehead, disabled enough to have to rely on them. The formula worked with the shrub (we hated him but those who elected him thought he was the guy they wanted to have a beer with) and next, I think, will be Sarah Palin.

Their insight is that the average American voter isn't smart enough to understand the difference in thinking between an Obama and a Palin -- most of the wonky arguments go over their heads. And they resent the implication that Palin isn't smart enough, because that implies that they aren't smart enough. Because anyone should be able to handle the job of President, right?

Sarcasm

**Hekate** · 01-01-2011, 12:36 AM

That's a pretty good insight, Shea, both about RR's talents as a performer and about the Neo-Cons deciding a charismatic yet controllable figurehead would be their best bet going forward. Scary implications for our future as a democracy....

(12-31-2010 03:21 PM)Shea Wrote: Reagan was a talented reader and performer, and since both of those skills are things that are "over-learned," as an Alzheimer's patient he would be able to function in those areas long after losing ability to answer questions at hearings or press conferences.

I think that after their success with Reagan, the neo-cons decided that that was the best way to go: a charismatic performer as a figurehead, disabled enough to have to rely on them. The formula worked with the shrub (we hated him but those who elected him thought he was the guy they wanted to have a beer with) and next, I think, will be Sarah Palin.

Their insight is that the average American voter isn't smart enough to understand the difference in thinking between an Obama and a Palin -- most of the wonky arguments go over their heads. And they resent the implication that Palin isn't smart enough, because that implies that they aren't smart enough. Because anyone should be able to handle the job of President, right?

**Willinois** · 01-02-2011, 03:28 PM

(12-31-2010 03:21 PM)Shea Wrote: Reagan was a talented reader and performer, and since both of those skills are things that are "over-learned," as an Alzheimer's patient he would be able to function in those areas long after losing ability to answer questions at hearings or press conferences.

Playing President was the best acting performance of Reagan's career.

**NYC Liberal** · 12-31-2010, 06:32 PM

Well it's part of what makes it tough for me to hate him as I do, say, Bush, because in reality he really wasn't running anything. Now Bush may have been a puppet, but he was a willing puppet who actively allowed people like Cheney to run things.

Not that he wasn't terrible as president...he never should have BEEN president.

**yellerpup** · 01-02-2011, 10:15 AM

"According to a new book by Ron Reagan, he first noticed symptoms of his father's memory loss in 1983." Actually, he was never the same after being shot. He was easily confused and often incoherent after that event, which sparked a series of neocon presidencies, Reagan, Meese, Weinberger, Nancy--whoever happened to catch the ball. Ronald Reagan was really only president for about 4 months and the trauma of getting shot (along with the attending surgeries and anesthesia) pushed him over the edge. IMO.

**The Stapler** · 01-02-2011, 05:06 PM

Here's a story I recall from St. Ronnie's regime, relating how he began talking off-the-cuff to reporters about his 'military service' - all imaginary, of course. The moment I heard this story, I knew dementia had claimed another victim:

Quote:"I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform four years myself."
--President Reagan, in an interview with foreign journalists, April 19, 1985. ("In costume" is more like it. Reagan spent World War II making Army training films at Hal Roach Studios in Hollywood.)

http://thereaganyears.tripod.com/reaganquotes.htm
(plenty more proof of Alzheimer's during his presidency at above site)

**Shea** · 01-03-2011, 02:45 AM

(01-02-2011 05:06 PM)The Stapler Wrote: Here's a story I recall from St. Ronnie's regime, relating how he began talking off-the-cuff to reporters about his 'military service' - all imaginary, of course. The moment I heard this story, I knew dementia had claimed another victim:

Quote:"I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform four years myself."
--President Reagan, in an interview with foreign journalists, April 19, 1985. ("In costume" is more like it. Reagan spent World War II making Army training films at Hal Roach Studios in Hollywood.)
http://thereaganyears.tripod.com/reaganquotes.htm
(plenty more proof of Alzheimer's during his presidency at above site)

Now that you mention it, I remember that quote. I'm amazed people didn't respond more strongly at the time. This wasn't some ordinary mistake.

**Drunken Irishman** · 01-03-2011, 01:24 AM

Goes to show how remarkably easy it is to fool the American people and press.

Reminds me of the movie Wag the Dog, where the President creates a war to fool the American public. Even though there is actually no war, no one is the wiser.