Wow, it’s hard to live up to Cliff’s introduction. The thing is, he only told you half the story, only 40 percent, really. The truth is that “Tear Down His Myth” would never have happened without Cliff’s friendship – virtual friendship, no less, since we’re about 600 miles apart here. When I have having a bit of a mid-career crisis, it was Cliff who came forward and introduced me to his agent, now my agent, Will Lippencott. And since “Tear Down This Myth” was published a couple of weeks ago, no one has been a bigger or better supporter. I am eternally grateful to Cliff – he is simply the best — and to everyone at Firedoglake including my friend Jane Hamsher and all the people who have read the book and will be joining us today. Thank you, and thank you fellow chatters.

One of my biggest worries when I started writing a book about the Ronald Reagan myth in early 2008 was whether the topic might lose some of its relevance after the November election, especially if the Democrat (who turned out to be Barack Obama, as you may have heard) won. Would a repudiation of the Bush legacy also mark a repudiation of the Reagan legacy. Hah! As we’ve learned these last 40 days, the Reagan myth is alive and well and continuing to threaten our economic recovery, with calls for tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts rather than the spending on things like infrastructure and green jobs that will not only get us out of the deepening recession but make the country a better and healthier place to live. The anything-goes unregulated economy, especially on Wall Street, that arose under Reagan and its cousin that I call Reaganism – the damaging myth perpetrated by Grover Norquist and company — has caused so much harm, and yet despite that there are still those who think the answers lie in even less regulation.

That’s why undoing the Reagan myth — for good — is still so important. So how to proceed? And what can I tell you about the Reagan myth, the mistaken yet entrenched ideas that his tax cuts saved the economy or that “he won the Cold War”? I’m here to talk about it, and answer your questions.

Will, Welcome to the Lake.

Cliff, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Welcome Will, always glad to share a bit of Cyberspace with you. Hope the book selling treats you well :)

Thanks so much Bev. Thanks for inviting me!

Welcome to firedoglake!

It should now — I was so moved by your intro I just bought 5 copies myself :-)

And thanks for the kind words Will. I appreciate it. But whatever I did to help, you would have gotten there without me. You, and this book, are too good my man…

See if you can get the author to autograph them. I hear he’s a swell guy.

Cliff, Will, great to have you both here!

Welcome to the Lake, Will.

I was an intern at the State Department back in 1981 — my first day there was the day Reagan was shot — and I commuted via the Metro. The Foggy Bottom Metro station is right across the street from GW Hospital, where Reagan was taken, and every day I’d see the crowds of cameras and well-wishers gathered outside.

Will, I’m only part way through the book, but I’d love for you to elaborate a bit on the political effects of the assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981 that you mention in passing. My sense is that it gave Reagan a much deeper well of sympathy as he began his presidency, but I was wondering: how long do you think this was a factor in his dealings with Congress and the American public at large?

Mr. Bunch,

I haven’t read your book yet, and am not sure I could stomach it (but I could be convinced). Way too much time has already been spent on the dunderhead. So my first Q is: how could you bear to spend the necessary time documenting the emperor’s lack of clothes? Was it fun, or the opposite?

Good afternoon Will and Cliff and welcome to FDL this Sunday.

I have not had an opportunity to read your book but have w-a-y too much memory of actually having lived through “St Ronnie of Ray-gunz” mis-rule.

There were all sorts of areas where Reagan got the laws changed, to the detriment of most individuals, including “supporting the troops” by blocking folks from collecting unemployment if they left the military without re-enlisting, if they had been accepted for it.

I have said this many times here and elsewhere, Carter tried to force the US to live up to its professed ideals. Reagan made everyone feel OK about their hates and prejudices.

One way that I think Reagan is relevant is the sense that Obama — I believe — is trying to adapt some of “the Gipper” verbal bravado to the economy, but with the idea — unlike Reagan — of linking optmistic words to policies that make sense, and that aim to renew a sense of common purpose. Reagan’s “optimism” was in part a response to Jimmy Carter’s “politics of scarcity,” which actually was the very sensible notion that we should end our dependence on foreign oil. Obama’s optimism is to appeal to the idea that together as a society we can strive to cure cancer or send more of our kids to college than any other nation. In that sense, I think he’s probably more of a throwback to JFK, who most of either don’t or barely (in my case) remember, not like Reagan.

I’m right in the middle of the Reagan years in Legacy of Ashes. Weiner argues that Bill Casey was numero uno in running Reagan foreign policy. Which, as near as I can tell, was incoherent: support Saddam Hussein (including his possibly getting stinger missiles from his CIA supported friends in Chad), sell arms to Iran, military into and out of Lebanon. Do you agree with Weiner about Casey’s prominent role, and how do you assess Reagan’s foreign policy in general. I know he gets good grades for defeating the evil empire, but I always thought that it fell of its own weight (U.S. might have given it a push or two).

Will, I had to buy your book for two reasons. (1) The idea that Reagan tore away at the moral fabric of our nation was something I first learned from Jane Hamsher. I’m sure Jane wasn’t the first to say it, but I learn a lot from her, because she makes stuff so accessible.

(2) As FDL’ers will be happy to confirm, I am the furthest thing from a word-smith or a defender of the English language, but imvho you properly used the word, “myth.”

Writers are so afraid of using the word, lie, they started substituting “myth.”

Since I haven’t read the book, I hope this question, isn’t too off the wall. Pre-Iraq/Afghanistan, any speculation about why Republicans forgot all the criticism Ronnie heaped on the notion of “nation-building?“

In a talk in 1990 in Glasgow, Noam Chomsky made the following statement about Reagan:

Furthermore, contrary to much pretense, Reagan’s popularity was never particularly high, and much of the population seemed to understand that he was a media creation, who had only the foggiest idea of what government policy might be. It is noteworthy that the fact is now tacitly conceded; the instant that the “great communicator” was no longer needed to read the lines written for him by the rich folk as he had been doing most of his life, he disappeared into total oblivion.

What happened between then and now?

Obama sounds like a mish mash of optimism and pessimism to me.

My father always used to say of Ronald Reagan was that he was an empty suit who only could repeat the lines that were given him. Since George Bush and his failures, I have seen some conservatives try to distinguish between the two by trying to make Reagan be more of an “intellectual” than Bush. There are lots of rocks in this country that could claim as much.

The truth is that both were empty vessels into which conservatives poured essentially the same demented message. The difference between the two is that Reagan was relatively lucky whereas no amount of luck could have saved Bush from the number and severity of his disasters.

Peterr,
Absolutely. Tip O’Neill, who was House Speaker in 1981, had hoped to water down some of Reagan’s economic plan but after the assassination said what are you going to do, the man is a hero. Charlie Wilson (yes, THAT Charlie Wilson) said after the vote on the tax cut that “at least he didn’t try to outlaw f—ing.”
eCAHNomics,
Are you kidding, it was a blast, as a journalist, to uncover evidence that helped undo the Reagan myth. For example, uncovering a USA Today poll from 1989 asking Americans who was responsible for the Berlin Wall. Only 14 percent said Reagan (43 percent said Gorbachev).
dakine01,
You’re right, and in the book I give props to Carter’s substance, if not his style.

It’s hard work, and somebody had to do it. Thanks.

During this last election we heard over and over again about the “Reagan Democrats”

Were there such a thing? It is now 20-25 years later, if there were these type of Democrats aren’t mostly 90 years old and no longer a voting bock as Pat Buchanan keeps harping about?

As a technical note, if you want to reply to a specific comment, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right of each comment box. Click on it and it will specify the person to whom you are replying (and save you extra typing :}) )

Thanks, Will and Cliff.

I think we need projects that visibly demonstrate the take down of Reagan’s name.
I’ve suggested before we should remove Reagan’s name from Washington National Airport and George HW Bush’s name from the CIA sign on the beltway.
Specifically we need to take down the Republicans monuments where they have been improperly erected.

How to restore the name ‘Washington National Airport’? How to remove the words that have been tacked on by the ‘Reagan Legacy Machine’ as Cliff refers to it?

Maybe we could talk In the name of bipartisanship.

Let’s honor Washington who was President in a time of national unity and before political parties.

Maybe we could talk in terms of safety. Our nation should expect intelligence agencies to provide intelligence that makes us safe. Attaching a politician’s name to CIA only reinforces the impression that our intelligence agencies have been politicized.

In the chapter “Prospero Unmasked,” you write

Still, the inner workings of the Reagan White House were considered unimportant “inside baseball” by most everyday Americans, and not surprisingly so. But this behind-the-scenes disorganization [described earlier] was critical to understanding the scandal that was nearly the undoing of his entire presidency, that could have killed the Reagan myth before it was ever floated: the Iran-Contra affair.

The parallels between Iran-Contra and the Scooter Libby mess are not surprising, given the overlap of some of the characters involved. One reason I think that the GOP is now afraid of any kind of evaluation of the deeds of the Bush administration is that it will not only undo Bush’s reputation, but bring back some of the old Iran-Contra ghosts as well, spilling over and tarnishing the Reagan legacy.

Are there some lessons you think the folks considering looking into the Bush years can learn from how Iran-Contra was handled?

Reagan’s trickle down tax cuts and gutting of unions began 30 years of stagnation in wages for ordinary Americans. His Administration laid the foundation for the paper economy we have seen create bubble after bubble and then last September finally explode.

The housing bubble and financial meltdown have already led to a fairly major re-examination of the Clinton Administration’s role through Rubin, Summers, and Geithner in the deregulation which has led to the current depression. Roots for this also go back to the Reagan years. How much do you think will stick?

But the CIA has been politicized. Let’s face facts.

SouthernDragon,
Great question — it’s the essence of the book. Actually, by the last two years of Reagan’s presidency, a majority of Americans consistently said that the nation was on the wrong track (George H.W. Bush had to run one of the dirtiest campaigns in American history in 1988 to get around that).
After Clinton’s overwhelming re-election in 1996, with his policies working mostly very well, especially his economic policy, which was a clear repudiation of Reaganomics, the Republicans who believed they had taken over D.C. in the 1980s, like Grover Norquist, had to do some serious rebranding. They hit on this notion of Ronald Reagan as the iconic U.S. president who won the Cold War, saved the economy and restored the nation’s image — all twisting of relevant faces. They launched the RR Legacy Project in 1997 with the goal of naming something for Reagan in each of 3,067 counties in America. They also, not coincidentally, turned a focus on Clinton’s personal life to make him an anti-Reagan. And they recruited candidates to match the Reagan myth (or lie, as another commenter suggests), including “Reagan’s disciple,” George W. Bush. They were aided by a lazy or complicit media and circumstances (his Alzheimer’s disease and 2004 death, which made pointed criticism difficult in the public arena.)

Actually they are not all that old by any stretch. The son of one of my first cousins was in his early twenties during the early Reagan years and at a Christmas dinner, (very quietly) mentioned that he had voted for Reagan. He said it quietly as his grandfather might well have dis-owned him if he’d been overheard, but he is part of the group that fit the Reagan Dem definition.

Blue Collar, former Marine, etc.

I will tell you what bothers me even more than the fact that right-wingers have spent time and money turning him into a hero, the media has lionized him as a result and many people who don’t remember have fallen for it.

It is that even those who absolutely should know better don’t seem to. Comment on this if you like, or don’t as I know you are swamped with questions here. But did you see the recent poll of HISTORIANS by C-SPAN (65 of them overall) where they ranked Reagan 10th, an improvement from 11th the last time they did it in 2000.

So after the Bush years, for which Reaganism was a blueprint, he has GONE UP A NOTCH! To 10th no less, while Clinton is at 15 (up from 21) by comparison. I mean, I am a dissertation away from my Ph.D in American History, and I am embarassed for the profession. These are supposed to be the best minds on this stuff, and they are falling for it.

Has the myth penetrated so deeply, that even the intellectual class accepts it as fact now?

Yes, there is such a thing as “Reagan Democrats,” blue collar voters responding to a message of white resentment (The “welfare queens” thing that Cliff referred to.) There’re still there, but now the economy was so bad many drifted back in 2008.

paper economy

Great term, thanks.

Thanks for being here, Will. The question that has haunted me for years is when did Reagan’s mind start to slip away. I can’t help wondering how long we had a president who was not fully in control. Did you get any sense of this?

It’s a worthy idea, and it would surely focus attention on the Reagan myth, which we want. But politically I think that would be impossible while Nancy Reagan is still alive.

Reagan in his second term was decidedly Alzheimer-ish. The idea that he was at once this great statesman per the rightwing mythmaking machine and the fact that he couldn’t distinguish between reality and movies seem really in conflict with each other.

Do you write much about his medical condition and/or how it was covered up?

Come on Cliff; with Newt Gingrich having been a college history professor? Surely he is in the “mainstream” of history professors in a lot of (unfortunate) ways.

Thanks. Here they are 12 years later having to rebrand again and we hear St Ronnie of Rayguns’ name repeatedly in the process. Even their rebranding is nothing more than part of an infinite loop.

Good point. I guess the opposite could be suggested: With a former CIA Director becoming US President ‘The WH has been intelligencized’ (if that were a word) but during BushCo that fact was not proved.

In the Iran contra affair, I believe there were 14 convictions but some of the key players were pardoned by another GOP president, Bush 41. That’s not an issue between now and 2013. What is an issue is to move quickly, but America quickly moves on to the next thing.

Will — I am certainly old enough to remember Reagan — in fact I remember FDR, and it would be interesting to hear your commentary on how much Reagan borrowed as to style (not substance) from his much earlier strong support for FDR, and his campaigning for him in the 3rd and 4th term elections?

While researching a project on the US Communist Party’s cultural programs in support of FDR during the war, I did run across a quarter page ad in the Daily Worker announcing a benefit for FDR that Reagan was hosting in Hollywood in late 1943 (this was when I was in the last years of Grad School in about 1981.) Did you get into any of this stuff?

Anyhow, I was so bothered by Reagan in 1984 that I gave the lost cause of Walter Mondale six months of my life. Thought lightening would strike. It Didn’t.

Have not read your book. I have one Reagan book on my pile, Sean Wilentz’s “Age of Reagan” — when I get my pile down a little more, then I’ll look for your book.

I think if anything undos the Reagan myth successfully in the short term, it will linking his policies to the current economic crisis, because there is so much anger out there. It’s important to remind people of the 1980s S&L scandal, which should have taught America a huge lesson (to the tune of $150 billion) but did not.

Hugh,
Yes Reagan set the stage for just about all the economic debacles that followed. Supply side economics and all that, which lives on in even more rabid form despite zero evidence to bak it up and lots of evidence to the contrary.

But the economy bottomed early in Reagan’s tenure and grew nicely after that. So, for those looking at the record rather than the long run consequences of the policy, Reaganomics doesn’t look so bad. For example, the average 2.1% per year job growth during Reagan was the best of any R admin (worse than any D admin, admittedly), and would probably be even better if you offset the jobs numbers by a year, on the proposition that the first year of an admin is the legacy of the predecessor’s policies.

Will. I loved your appearance on Terry Gross’s show Fresh Air

I’m curious, who are some of the biggest current spreaders (Mythspreaders?)
of the Reagan Myth? Rush? Hannity?

What myth do they spread that is the most dangerous? Reagan and his tax RAISING 7 out of 8 years? Others?

What can we do to get you in front of those people to counter the myths?

I’m drivin’ myself into the poorhouse buyin’ books covered in the Book Saloon.

Well, Cliff, let’s not forget that some of those historians are also Heritage Foundation types, not just the usually lefty Volvo-driving professors that we envision :-). It is baffling, I was followed on NPR’s “Fresh Air” by Douglas Brinkley who said Reagan was one of the 5 best presidents, and then proceeded to validate most of what was in my book. Sort of a reverse political correctness of some sort? I don’t know.

Interesting about the historians.

I will tell you what bothers me even more than the fact that right-wingers have spent time and money turning him into a hero, the media has lionized him as a result and many people who don’t remember have fallen for it.

This seems standard media labeling and laziness. McCain may be two-faced, hardcore conservative but for the media once a maverick and a straightshooter always a maverick and a straightshooter. The same was true of Reagan as the Great Communicator, even when he was deep in Alzheimer’s and not sure of what was real and what wasn’t.

Interesting point dakine01. All I can speak to is my experience as a history major as an undergrad at U Penn and 3 years of Ph.D classes at American U. And I can tell you that certainly was not my experience.

I ran into one hardcore Libertarian history professor, and a bunch of moderates, but it is almost impossible to study the history of this country and be conservative. Unless you want to skip over a few things, like you know, the Trail of Tears, slavery and the Great Depression.

It does raise a good point about which historians C-SPAN talked to, because if they reside at Liberty and Bob Jones, that makes sense. But among those in the profession I have dealt with, in no way is Newt Gingrich mainstream (remember he started out as a Rockefeller, or liberal Republican in the 70s, and when it made sense to move hard to the right, he did, to move up in a right-wing party)…

Will, you were on WMNF Tampa with Rob Lorei a couple weeks ago. Great interview, by the way.

People remember the S&L crisis fondly, at least for now. The $150 billion was a third of the $450 billion that it was estimated to cost at the time. So I’m not so sure the link would work quite the way you think. More evidence of nostalgia, for times when the financial crises were manageable. *g*

So doubt Reagan’s mental state was an issue as his presidency advanced. Seymour Hersh wrote in 1990 that senators secretly decided not to go after Reagan in the Iran-contra hearings a) because America could not brook yet another failed presidency after Nixon, Ford and Carter and b) they didn’t think he had the capacity to understand what his aides were doing in his name. Sad. Was it actual Alzheimer’s at that time? That’s for a medical historian to decide.

I think there’s a human tendency to focus on the bad parts of a presidency while that President is in office. Since I didn’t live through those times, it was quite a surprise to me that Lincoln and FDR were so villified in their own times. In a sense, historians may be doing that, too. That both recent Presidents advanced in the standings would seem to support that notion.

Oops I meant the myth that is spread that Reagan cut taxes all the time when in fact he raised them 7 out of 8 years and only cut them the first.

Has your PR team pitched you to Hannity? Fox and Friends? The Mark Lavine show? Hugh Hewlitt? Are you going to be speaking at the AEI or the Heritage Foundation?

What percent of the media are getting paid by the CIA? The Mighty Wurlitzer details the propaganda of the past, but who is to say there aren’t programs going on to this day? Just because we don’t know about it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. The DOD was incredibly successful at their media propoganda program.

In other words, it’s not necessarily laziness, but that they’ve been bought off.

Thanks Sara — I consciously avoided the Wilenz book which was publishing right when I was writing mine and I didn’t want it to influence me, even subconsciously (I had read there’s no original research in the book). I think he takes a middle of the road approach. But there is no middle of the road with Reagan.

And what do you know Will, I was just quickly looking at an article on this, and Douglas Brinkley was on the panel. Well, Penn was one of the more conservative Ivies (Wharton being there attracted more conservatives than at, say, Brown or Yale), but American is quite liberal. I do know profs from other universities too. But perhaps my experience has been limited to the more lefty types…who knows.

Is this useful to a political wordsmith? There is a word “repugnatorial”, which I saw while flipping through the dictionary on my way to the “S”s. It sure looks like it would apply to gubernatorial Repugs, or Republican governators. However, it refers to the glands possessed by insects which emit stinky or poisonous liquids used for defense.

If there were ever a word that looked ripe for “re-purposing” — “Ah yes, Reagan’s repugnatorial days …”

Mr. Bunch there are seeral things about reagan I hope you go into in your book

1) He was totally gagg about a quarter inot his first term. The entire press knew this and they covered for him. I was writing for the “Los Angeles Herald-Examiner” at the time so I know about this in detail.

2) One of the many ways Reagan destroyed this coutnry was by opening the doors of the nation’s mental hospitals and throwing dangerous insane people into the streets. We wer told they were all on drugs and therefor e harmless. But as Hinkley proved that was far from ture.

3) When he said there was no arms-for-hostages deal he believed it because the characters who were actually running the country at the time never told him.

There is of courze TONS more.

Mr. Bunch,
Perhaps you missed my Reagan foreign policy question at 15?

I was not a History major but had some decent professors (if we were within 10 years of a date, we got credit but got more credit by explaining WHY something happened in history) way back when and have always enjoyed the subject.

It was especially fun listening to professors de-bunk the myths of other “great” Americans (Douglas MacArthur getting his MoH for losing for example).

List of historians in the C-SPAN survey here.

Like I said, Reagan was lucky in ways that Carter very obviously wasn’t. Reagan was able to benefit from Volcker’s work, then have growth and big deficits, and finally dump it all on George W. before it all went south on him.

Spocko, Hannity is one of the worst, he has a segment called “What Would Reagan Do?” Of course, remember that Hannity isn’t even selling the real Reagan — dangerous as that would be — but the fictionalized version that is even worse (more militaristic, for example).
My people have certainly pitched the book to right-wing hosts, and one — Medved — took the bait with a “balanced” debate between me and a conservative guest and him (i.e., a 2-on-1, that’s right wing balance.) If you have a path to get me on Hannity, I’d love to do it.

That was me, thanks! I wish there were more shows like that.

We are very proud of our little radio station. There are a lot of us who work hard to keep it on the air. Rob is a great interviewer and is one of the founders of the station.

You know I think I’ll throw this out to the community and to Cliff. Why ISN’T Bunch on Hannity? Don’t you think he should be? What do you suppose it would take to get him on Hannity (TV not just radio)?

Thank you for this Peterr. I was looking around myself, and only found a partial list. And this made one thing clear. It wasn’t just historians, but also “presidential observers.” The latter being guardians of the CW. That at least partially explains it to me.

This survey was mislabeled when I read it in a number of news sources, when it only said “historians” were involved (again, not saying profs are perfect or anything like htat, but wouldn’t think Reagan would make their top 10, IMHO)…

Don’t you mean George H.W. (AKA “Big Bush”)? My perception is that he and Clinton were left to clean up the deficit mess. George W. then went and made it far worse than it had been.

Lots o’conservatives on that list. One of them, Paul Kengor, is the one I debated on the Medved show. He’s the author of a book called “God and Ronald Reagan,” so…
There were a couple of major rankings of the presidents in the 1990s, when Reagan was still fresh on the brain (as was the end of the Cold War that he supposedly “won”) Both ranked Reagan as “low-average”! And the funny thing is it’s not like anything happened that would have improved his reputation. I mean, his Ayn Rand-style free-for-all economy imploded, yet he rises to No. 10? It’s all in who you pick for the survey.

Also which Reagan Myth is the most dangerous to people? Who has died because of Reagan myths? Or been destroyed financially? Which ones do Hannity and his friends spread?

Honestly Spocko, probably an Act of God. When he had the show with Colmes, they had to have a liberal (or moderate) on every once in a while. But why does he need to do that now? He would probably only have Will on if he were a crackpot, to discredit his point. But will is articulate and can back up his points, no matter how much Hannity blows a gasket and filibusters. So I don’t see it happening.

I got banned from that show (from what I was told behind the scenes), for simply hurling the same level of invective at Hannity as he sent my way. And that was when Colmes was still there….

What do you suppose it would take to get him on Hannity (TV not just radio)?

Hannity to get a brain? Or a clue?

Hannity is in the same mold (full pun intended) as BillO and neither will have someone on that they cannot brow-beat or who is smarter than they are.

Here’s a fun paragraph from Legacy of Ashes:

On September 1 [1982], President Reagan announced a grand strategy to transform the Middle East. It had been put together in secret be a small team that included Bob Ames. Its success depended on a harmonic convergence in which Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the PLO cooperated at the command of the United States. It lasted all of two weeks.

Geez, I can’t imagine why that didn’t work. Sounds like the perfect predecessor to W’s domino plan. If it didn’t work without force, surely it would work with U.S. force.

Hannity always struck me as being the “can dish it out but can’t take it” type. Condescending little prick.

Was it actual Alzheimer’s at that time?

Alzheimer’s doesn’t happen overnight. And after he left the White House he went pretty quickly into effective isolation. Alzheimer’s used to refer to a specific form of dementia. It was a diagnosis of last resort after everything else had been ruled out. The problem was that diagnosis could only be made post mortem by examining slides for accumulations of plaques and tangles within neurons. But even here there was a problem since many elders had such plaques and tangles but had not exhibited unusual memory deficits. Eventually all of this got pushed aside and Alzheimer’s is used to all forms of dementia which do not have a specific etiology, like say multi-infarct dementia.

Given how much responsibility there is in being President and that despite the WH’s best efforts anecdotes of Reagan’s “forgetfulness” were prevalent long before his leaving office, I don’t know which is worse that others were making the decisions for him or that, despite his disability, he was still making them.

Cliff interesting. So if Will is NEVER going to get on Hannity other than an act of God maybe we should invoke God. Hannity is a Catholic. It is a sin to lie. Let’s have Hannity get an email from his Pastor suggesting he have on Will Bunch to help correct Hannity’s lies about Reagan.

And folks I’m quite serious. I think that a campaign to put Will up against ANYONE who is guilty of spreading Reagan lies is an easy thing to do for our community. And what is just is as important as the campaign is showing people the NEGATIVE result. What are they afraid of? The truth? Duh.

So I’m suggesting we pitch Hannity. Send him notes and email and calls and see what his people say. When he rejects Will CAPTURE the rejection.
I want to SEE what his fear of Will looks like. His fear of the truth.

I think he is too afraid to have Will on. They are ALL afraid of the truth about Reagan. And I’d like the world to know that. Even their fans should be able to say, “Gee Sean, let the guy on you can kick his ass!”

Yes, sorry if I wasn’t clear. It was G.H.W. Bush.

As much a creature of fantasyland as was Ronald Reagan, he was a realist compared to George Bush.

Reagan did confuse his past with his movie characters’ past, much like John Wayne (as Glenn Greenwald discussed). But he’d spent decades touring the rubber chicken circuit in moderately paid speaking engagements, and got to know slices of Americana in a way Bush never dreamt of doing because he didn’t have to. (Much of Reagan’s wealth, unlike Bush’s, came after he retired. His coastal California ranch was, for example, a post-presidential “gift”, presumably for services rendered to the wealthy.)

Bush hasn’t Reagan’s depth…. He was less realistic and more grasping, and he engaged lowlier lifes than even Ed Meese and Ollie North. He cared little about what he really left behind; he cares about what Rove tells him he’s left behind. The easiest way to answer that is to ask the circus clown with broom in hand who follows the elephants.

But Ronnie, like Rove and Limbaugh and other Beltway creatures, is as much a myth as the slogan that what goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas. (It may be the most activity-recording city in America.) The persona is meant to keep you from looking and asking and thinking. Thank you Will Bunch and thank you Cliff Schecter.

Reagan’s foreign policy was a mixed bag — ready?
The worst of the worst — backing a band of death-squad goons in Central America and calling them “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers,” invading the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada because…because we could (19 Americans died for no reason in that), a murky policy in the Middle East that included looking the other way when Saddam really did have and use WMDs yet trading arms secretly with Iran at the same time, and an unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon buildup that — despite what any wingnut tells you — had little or nothing to do with “winning” the Cold War.
So what was good? He didn’t believe in the U.S. causing civilian casualties (I know, I know, death squads, but he didn’t beleive in America doing that) and he would have been horrified by “shock and awe,” he was smart enough to “cur and run” when he saw Lebanon was a bad idea in 1983-84, and he was sincere in his interest in reducing or even eliminating nuclear weapons — as I write in the book, he was actually influenced by the liberal-minded movie, “The Day After.”
On the whole, not good — but I’d take him over Bush 43 in a New York minute.

Toxic ideas poison weak minds which fill a societys sustaining/water reservoir and can take generations to naturally cleanse itself.

simply put, I am amazed democrats don’t call out the myths whenever reagan is discussed;

he raised taxes more then any peacetime president in history, he shrank the middle class and devastated our economy

if not for reagan, clinton could have NEVER run on;

“it’s the economy stupid”

reagan redistributed middle class assets to the wealthy, created the landscape and reducing funds for education, making it harder to send our kids to college, making it harder to support a family on one income and making it harder to retire on the savings from labor

his “tax reduction” was nothing but a redistribution of tax burden, TO those who live from the fruits of labor FROM those who live off of those who work

the man and his class warfare, redistributing tax burden to the middle class, eliminating vital regulations that forced industry into responsible commerce, is singly most responsible for the economic failure we see today

we had a slight reprive by clinton, then it went on steroids under the sociopaths that ran this country for 8 long yeara

Spocko — when you see campaigns to either build up a myth, or indeed to tear one down, you need to ask hard questions as to the motivations of the campaigners.

I haven’t thought so much about the Reagan build up — but I have spent lots of time tracking the effort to tear down FDR, beginning in the late 1960’s. The motivation, it seems to me, was to clear the way for the attack on Financial Regulatory Systems, and other key surviving elements of the New Deal. The campaign began at the beginning of Nixon’s first term, and to some extent you can identify many elements of it today as the need to disqualify the New Deal as a model for what Obama can or should do is front and center. But in the case of FDR it really hasn’t worked very well. It was Arthur Schlesinger who pretty much sponsored the polls for years, and FDR has been #3 most of that time. One poll dropped him to #4, and in another one, he was #2. I don’t think he will be moving much in the future.

Contact info for the Hannity RADIO Show

Who’s who at the Hannity Radio show

James Grisham, exec producer

Elisha (no last name) Elisha’s duties include working with Lynda and James every day on research, guest booking,

He didn’t have a coherent policy in the Middle East at all. His efforts to free the hostages were a classic example — at the end of the arms for hostages secret plan there were more hostages than when he started.
One thing I will say is while he was certainly pro-Israel (duh), not as knee-jerkedly so as our recent administration. He voiced a lot of anger over the 1982 refugee camp massacres.

I have ceased attributing our current economic debacle as ‘Supply side economics’ and begun blaming the problem exclusively on “Reaganomics”

I’ve joked occasionally that W had managed to make me nostalgic for Reagan. I didn’t think such a thing was possible. At least, I was hoping it wasn’t.

reagan was clearly the victim of his disease and clearly did not know what bush sr was doing

I think it’s quite fair to say bush sr is responsible for most of the crimes that happened during the reagan presidency

rumsfeld/cheney added to that depravity

one of the few things I respect about reagan was the fact that he admitted he was responsible and admitted it happened behind his back

that’s about the only thing I give credit for

the BIGGEST mistakes we made was not prosecuting the criminals that defyed congress during his presidency

It’s a fascinating issue — it would not surprise me if someone writes a book strictly about RR’s Alzneimer’s someday. It’s hard to find any stone of the man’s life that’s not been unturned at this point.

Legacy of Ashes points out that the Grenada invasion was 36 hours after the marine barracks bombing in Beirut, i.e., a wag the dog op. And that between the bombing of the embassy and the marine barracks, U.S. ships lobbed bombs into the hills of Lebanon with no idea what they were hitting. So whatever his “feelings” about civilian casualties, his performance not so much. Though, on that front he pales in comparison to W, as you point out, and probably to Clinton, who liked to bomb.

I’m not familiar with his work on reducing nukes so I look forward to learning about it. That certainly seems like the low hanging fruit if you’re worried about terrorists getting WMDs.

there is a simple argument against “trickle down” and “supply side” economics

it is thus;

products are produced and then distributed, it is impossible for wealth to trickle down in that scenario, it necessarily has to migrate up since it starts from the bottom before any money is made on any product

Branding is important.

RayGuns getting the credit for ending the Cold War is such a bunch of hooey. I don’t doubt for a minute that the Beltway pooh bahs knew Russia’s economy was heading toward the toilet.

Good post, one thing that people really need to know is that middle class Americans actually paid a HIGHER percentage of their income in taxes at the end of his presidency than he started. How could that be. It’s because payroll taxes, the brunt of which are borne by the working class, rose during Reagan’s presidency, even as marginal income tax rates on the wealthy went from 70 percent down to 28 percent. So how can you raise bronze statues of the man as a great tax cutter when the majority of people saw their taxes go up.
He raised taxes a number of times as president after the big tax cut in 1981 which is all the conservative mythmakers want to talk about. His 1982 tax increase — which even business lobbied for because his initial plan went way too far — was the largest ever at that time.

Greenspan Commission. TEFRA and TEFRA II.

in addition, to make believe he didn’t “raise taxes” while he did, he taxed things never taxed before like unemployment

how REDICULOUS, taxing unemployment benefits to hide your tax increases

He also killed the GI Bill. I found out the hard way that I wouldn’t be able to use my college benefits because I had been out of the service over 10 years.

“He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can’t even carry on a conversation about the budget. It’s an absolute and utter disgrace.”
–House Speaker Tip O’Neill, after a meeting with Reagan, November 23, 1981

“For the last 30 years he’s been in a dream world…. I think he actually believes that giving more to rich people will make them work harder, whereas the only way to make poor people work is to tax their unemployment benefits.”
–NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks commenting on Reagan’s economic policies, January 25, 1983

“At his seventh press conference, President Reagan…responds to a question about the 17% black unemployment rate by pointing out that ‘in this time of great unemployment,’ Sunday’s paper had ‘24 full pages of…employers looking for employees,’ though most of the jobs available–computer operator, for example, or cellular immunologist–require special training, for which his administration has cut funds by over 30%.”
–Paul Slansky, The Clothes have no Emperor

and other great hits

He raised taxes a number of times as president after the big tax cut in 1981 which is all the conservative mythmakers want to talk about. His 1982 tax increase — which even business lobbied for because his initial plan went way too far — was the largest ever at that time.

It is important for us to know this so we can push back instantly about the line that Reagan cut taxes. If I know my wingnuts (and I do) the next comment will be, “Yeah, but is first cut was so big that any other tax increases were still not as bad as the taxes before, so Mr. Mythbuster what do you say to that!”

Reagan raised taxes 7 our of 8 years.

That one I’m not sure of. I enlisted in Dec ‘76 (just before the cut-off for the end of the Vietnam era GI Bill) and knew going in that I had ten years after discharge or 1989, which ever came first, to use the education benefits.

That’s a great point about branding, and linking the current fiasco to Reaganomics (because it is linked.) The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project is all about positive branding, and the notion that naming a highway or an airport for Reagan is lot better and more effective than trying to explain or justify his actual policies. The man that Norquist tapped to run the Legacy Project in the late 1990s (who turned out to be an illegal immigrant from Australia — heh, indeedy) said that people driving down Ronald Reagan Boulevard 40 years from now will say “Who was this great man to have so many things named for him.” On the other hand, there is negative branding — consider the term “McCarthyism.” Surely the same could be done for Reagan (and Bush!)

one of my favorites;

“The Agriculture Department [under Reagan proposes] cutting the size of school lunches…. In addition, condiments such as ketchup and pickle relish would be reclassified as vegetables.”
–Paul Slansky, The Clothes have no Emperor

sick sick people

Good stuff — maybe I should hire you as a researcher for my next book (when I figure out what that is).

Cold War Historians (big center for them at the Wilson Center in DC) are pretty much in agreement that the key event in setting in motion the process which ended the Cold War was the Helsinki Agreements, which were part Ford, part Carter. Most US diplomats discounted them at the time, but it was the formation of the Helsinki NGO’s that really set in motion the E. European Human Rights groups — and while it took fifteen years or so, those groups were the change dynamic. (except in E. Germany).

Cold War History is a big sub-set these days, lots of new journals, conferences and the like. Very detailed agreements on exchanges of archives, translations and all the rest. Huge field. No involved historian gives Reagan much credit for anything.

Has there ever been any serious medical/scholarly work done to determine to what extent Reagan suffered from Alheimer’s disease in his second term?

I got out in 75. Was working at VA when the change was announced. I hadn’t planned on quitting my job and going to school but that ended any thought of doing so. Finally did quit in 96 and paid for school out of pocket for 2 years and then student loans for the next 2.

sorry to keep doing this but these are too good to hope you click my link;

“The epitaph of the Reagan presidency will be: ‘When Ronald Reagan became President, the United States was the largest creditor nation. When he left the presidency, we were the world’s largest debtor nation.’”
–Lester Thurow, MIT professor of economics

“[A] lapse into fiscal indiscipline on a scale never before experienced in peacetime.”–David Stockman (Reagan’s budget director) describing the 1980’s, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed

“In the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States.”–Richard Darman (Reagan advisor), Who’s in Control? Polar Politics and the Sensible Center

do click my link

Bushims has already been done, but there’s surely some serious negative branding that can be done on W, like Bush torture policies (though the CIA seems to have tortured at all moments of their history), etc.

You should have figured out the topic for your next book before publishing and included post cards (email) for readers to send you their info. Have them write your book for you.

about “branding”

I WISH democrats would start referring to taxes as “useage fee”

then we could assign specific issues addressed by taxes so the industry would have to address that issue if they expected tax relief

for instance, home depot uses the roads system thousands of times more then any person does, a tax on that industry would include

“road wear and tear created by store commerce”

then if they lobbied for tax relief they would have to address that expontial wear they added to infrastrucutre

things like that, where taxes were actually documented with where the revenue is spent, if there is excess or deficit

It was a bipartisan effort with the likes of Reagan and Moynihan but the 1983 Social Security reform was put together by Greenspan. It was in the later 80s that the higher taxes started producing significant surpluses, but it has always amazed me that people still think that those surpluses actually exist somewhere rather than having been spent as general revenues. If there had never been a cent of surplus, shortfalls in SS beginning in 2017 would still be there and still need to paid either out of general revenues, reducing benefits, or increasing the FICA (by, for example, taking off the caps on it and establishing a maximum payout). As it was Congress and Presidents of both parties had more money to spend (all the while understating the size of deficits or lying about their commitments in 2017 and later).

It’s not just that but one of the key points of the book is that the tax cuts — whilelaunching the massive redistribution of wealth in this country — had little if anything to do with the turnaround of the economy in 1983-84 that led to Reagan’s resounding re-election. The factors that did matter were a) the steep global drop in oil prices, which I don’t think you can credit Reagan for b) the normal bounce-back of the business cycle (even Stockman, Reagan’s budget chief, admitted as much and c) the tight money policies of Paul Volcker, the fed chairman appointed by JIMMY CARTER.
Ironically, Mondale lost the election in part by his honesty with Americans about the need for tax increases in the wake of Reagan’s first term. And of course Bush 41 won the 1988 election by lying about the same issue.

I was able to finish my degree while on active, and used the GI Bill to pay for it so it worked out OK for me. Each course I took, pretty much was equivalent to a month of the GI Bill benefit (I needed 11 courses for the degree).

As a health care worker, what Reagan did to cause the homeless situation with the closing of the long term mental health facilities. It is a situation now that is accepted but when I was in Europe the last two summers, I didn’t see homeless people.

For that crime only I think Reagan should burn in hell for eternity.

The switch from creditor nation to debtor nation is a central point of the book, While China and other nations owning so much of the debt, when Reagan did really resonates today.

But I was impacted by Reagan’s changing the rules on unemployment for GIs who chose not to re-enlist (while those kicked out could collect a full 26 weeks) AND the taxing of unemployment.

I’ve seem some articles but nothing definitive. The party line is that he wasn’t diagnosed until the early 1990s.

I don’t know enough to say whether homelessness causes mental illness, or the other way round, but it seems obvious that many of the homeless that I see are mentally ill. Reagan made that situation far worse, and no one’s dared to fix it since.

That’s the one thing that turned the mental health community against him. It didn’t take a lot of smarts on the part of us working in mental health that we were going to have thousands of people out on the streets with no support whatsoever. With the HMO business model VA uses the only place we could house people was the Domiciliary and that wasn’t a long term solution. Feeding the homeless with Food Not Bombs I see people that are obviously in need of treatment but it’s not there.

No involved historian gives Reagan much credit for anything.

Sara, this is why I was harping on getting Bunch on Hannity and going to Heritage Foundation to argue with their biggest mythspreader. (I do understand why they don’t want it, it would make for some great TV. Conflict!)

It’s swell that no “involved historian” gives Reagan credit, but they are not the ones on TV and the radio. Maybe they are quoted when they talk to the press, but usually they haul out the people who make themselves available with easy sound bites. It’s Hoover Institute this and Heritage Foundation that. I understand how the producers think, “Who is easy, who is soundbitable and who won’t upset the host? (as Cliff found out the hard way, he was too damn good–but in the wrong way.)

Now if we had a list of these “involved historian” who are camera ready, we can push them to the producers. The problem is (as Cliff noted) they have a right wing slant which is what makes the producers happy. If they don’t have a right wing slang they need to be mild mannered.

These TV and Radio NON-involved Historians are the people pushing the myth to folks like my mom. I personally don’t have any credibility with her, but if she see someone with a Ph.d on TV talking about something well maybe she might listen to them.

Has there ever been any serious medical/scholarly work done to determine to what extent Reagan suffered from Alheimer’s disease in his second term?

The people around Reagan either downplayed or refused to talk about it. The physicians doing his physicals almost certainly did not do even the most cursory mental exam. So basically the record we have is the record we have and unless one of Reagan’s inner circle opens up which is doubtful evidence to establish his level of dementia is not going to happen.

I’ve heard it from several key people in the 84 Mondale Campaign that they had some understanding of it prior to the 84 election — perhaps one of these days that may emerge. Apparently Mayo Specialists were consulted about early symptoms during the first term. Eventually it would be Mayo Clinic that did the formal diagnosis — but they had been following for some years.

Thought disorders, e.g., schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are chemical imbalances in the brain and aren’t “caused” by anything, although a traumatic event can trigger a first psychotic episode, known as first break. Schizophrenia has been proven to be hereditary.

Great point — also I think the Soviet collapse had a lot to do with economics and not militarism. It was the ’80s, and I think the Soviets coveted our computers more than cowered from our missiles.

Hi Will Bunch! Thanks for writing this exciting book. I’ve always despised Ronald Reagan, and I despise the mythos around him even more. Reaganism is much more dangerous than Reagan ever was!

Here’s my question — have you pursued an opportunity to chat with Grover Norquist about the error-ridden Legacy project? You bring such an excellent fact set to bear on the topic, I’d sure like to see the two of you head-to-head on the entire scope of his enterprise.

Again, thanks for this terrific book. I know I’ll refer to it again and again! (And thanks, for the intro, Cliff, and welcome back to FDL!)

Well, there you go again.

Ironic that now most computer viruses originate in Russia or Eastern Europe.

One thing about Reagan is that to pay for his arms buildup he cut all kind of scientific and medical research, including some very promising early research into Alzheimer’s, how sad is that? Yet today we have the Ronald Reagan Medical Center at UCLA — thanks to $50 million from his rich friends, not because of any passion or interest in funding science.

We planted defective software which caused their Siberian gas pipeline to blow up in 1981. That act of U.S. terrorism helped bring down the Soviet Empire.

I’m sure that Hannity will bring Norquist along in the name of “balance” after Spocko badgers him to get me on the show.

“These TV and Radio NON-involved Historians are the people pushing the myth to folks like my mom. I personally don’t have any credibility with her, but if she see someone with a Ph.d on TV talking about something well maybe she might listen to them.”

Very few academic historians do the TV talk show circuit. It just isn’t done. Now if you want to read the papers, they are mostly on the Internet at the Wilson Center Cold War History Project at the Smithsonian, and there are hundreds of them. There are about five centers around the world that are part of this project — several hundred Historians have participated over perhaps the last 15 years.

We planted defective software which caused their Siberian gas pipeline to blow up in 1981. That act of U.S. terrorism helped bring down the Soviet Empire.

So in retaliation they are turning all our computers into spambots?
Those bastards!

The switch from creditor nation to debtor nation is a central point of the book, While China and other nations owning so much of the debt, when Reagan did really resonates today.

james galbraith (chap 14 of the predator state) attributes it (if i understand correctly, and that is certainly in doubt) to reagan’s early macroeconomic policies which re-established dominance of dollar. is your take similar or something different?

the Reagan Plan (as I remember it) was that the mentally ill do not need to be housed inpatient but could be treated as outpatient and save a huge amount of money. The problem is that the government closed the inpatient facilities and never funded or got around to setting up the outpatient treatment centers and staff the follow up process. Without their routine psych meds, and no one to make sure they were taking them they could not function in society.

I remember hearing from families who had dealt with their mentally ill family member for years, nearly destroying the family with the stress, finally qualifying for a MH bed and residency and then to have them throw out years later.

Interesting, had not heard that. As you obviously remember, Reagan gave a horrible performance in his first debate with Mondale, highlighted by his closing monologue that had something to do with driving down the Pacific Coast Highway.

Ha!
By the way, did you know what Reagan said “there you can again” in response to? It was, in part, a plea for national health insurance from Carter.

Blowback.

Actually most spambots originate here. Couple of folks have gone to jail for it. While technically a virus their purpose is to separate folks from their money for usually counterfeit products. Different from a worm that reformats your hard drive so somebody can get their jollies.

Can’t answer that authoritatively but it makes sense — looking forward to reading Galbraith’s book, it’s on the runway.

Very few academic historians do the TV talk show circuit. It just isn’t done.

Well damn it then let’s pick one, coach her and get her on TV. It’s too bad that the Universities are smart enough to figure this out. Cliff or I could coach ‘em so they could be on TV. Did you folks know that Politico has three full time PR people pitching their writers? We need to pitch Will on this topic if we can’t get an academic historian on, since he is a journalist they will automatically think they can kick his ass on rw radio. They will be wrong.

I think that’s a problem with the C-Span poll, a lot of “pop historians.” The best presidential historian we have here in Philadelphia, a guy at Temple by the name of Jim Hilty, who’s not a TV groupie like a lot of those selected, is not on the C-SPAN list, I noted.
Not to diss C-SPAN — I was taped for Book TV and should be appearing very soon, hopefully next weekend.

I’m lovin’ that “show text” is back.

Carry on.

Is this what happens in the last 10 minutes of book club — “spambots” :-)

Thanks for the heads up. Lot of the pups here are fond of BookTV.

The academics can call themselves public intellectuals. It’s a nice fancy term that should appeal to them. Krugman is gradually easing into such a role.

Sorry for the tangent. *head bowed in guilt*

Ask someone here to alert us. I’m a book-tv junkie.

thanks.

“the Reagan Plan (as I remember it) was that the mentally ill do not need to be housed inpatient but could be treated as outpatient and save a huge amount of money. The problem is that the government closed the inpatient facilities and never funded or got around to setting up the outpatient treatment centers and staff the follow up process. Without their routine psych meds, and no one to make sure they were taking them they could not function in society.”

What is called “deinstitutionalization” really began in the mid 60’s, and since the states controlled the State Hospitals (which were terrible) it was, for the most part, the choice of State Legislatures to close the hospitals and depend on the then new psycho-active medications in an out patient setting.

But what Reagan should be charged with is tearing apart the Public Health System — massive cuts in the CDC for instance, and ironically, taking down the whole TB survailance program, which had to be re-invented in the mid-80’s, due to the relationship between drug resistant TB and AIDS. But it was not just a disease by disease destruction, it was the whole idea of something called “public health” that irritated Reagan.

The conversation can move all over the place – especially with guidnace from the guest and/or host. :})

No need — it’s amusing. Have you ever seen my blog — “spambots” would raise the intellectual level, certainly of the discussion and arguably the posts.

I lived through that era in San Jose as a counselor therapist for the adult mentally ill. They had been kicked out of Agnew’s Hospital and some were in board and care homes.

I remember one client getting a letter from Reagan saying that they were going to cut his SSI and that he needed to get a job. He had been institutionalized for 12 years and had multiple psychotic breaks, he wasn’t going to be getting a job anytime soon. It was just tragic talking to his elderly parents who didn’t know what to do.

I’ve lurked at Attytood and find it interesting and well done. Won’t comment about the commenters.

As we come to the end of this lively Book Salon.

Will, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon discussing
your new book and the Reagan myths.

Cliff, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, this is a great book, if you haven’t bought it yet, here is a link.

Thanks all.

Well, it would be great if a few of you migrated to my blog, where I write about the book amongst over topics. But newspaper blogs are a completely different animal than a community like FDL. It would take another two hours to explain the social dynamic, but it’s easy in that setting for 5 or 6 angry conservatives to take over the conversation. I pay them no mind — I think it drives them crazy. But it’s nice to blog among people who are actually supportive, even if for just 2 hours :-)

Thank you, Will, Cliff and BevW. Another wonderful evening. I’ll be checking out BookTV’s schedule.

Here is the link to ATTYTOOD Wills’ site.

Yeah, we get hijackers too. They don’t last long here. *g*

Thanks, Bev, thanks Cliff and especially thanks to all of you who participated. I hope a few of you can pick up the book, it clears up a lot of the ground we covered today (but not spambots :-) )
I’ll come back a little later tonight to answer any belated queries — FDL rocks.

thanks will and cliff.

if i may be so bold as to suggest a follow on book – i’d love to see the D myths of the clinton era challenged and where appropriate, debunked.

Well, you should obviously feel free to stop by anytime as the waters in the Lake are most hospitable and can soothe many a fevered brow.

Thanks guys. Will read. Joining late. On 68th St. NYC subway walls is now scrawled lots of “liberals hate America” … that shocked and disheartened me! Sorry I missed another I am assuming super salon. Will now read.

Thanks so much Bev for the invite. I always enjoy my time here at FDL, especially these book discussions. Thanks to all the commenters, it has been lively and fun as always.

And Will my man, keep it up. Lots of good pr so far. I hope to see you when I am in Philly for my next college reunion :)

Folks, now that you have learned some Busted Reagan myths (and more after reading the book) be sure to push back when you hear the Myths spread on TV or talk radio. Don’t just complain, point out the error and say, “Hey, don’t take my word for it, talk to an expert, Will Bunch, he wrote a book on it, that’s where I heard the opposite of what you just said.” And then BCC Will on the letter.

Thanks here too.

Please buy this book and talk it up among like-minded friends. The unlike-minded should definitely be steered to it as well. They will meet a Ronald Reagan they have never known.

I never had any involvement with Reagan’s medical care.

While practicing in West LA, I was told that when Reagan was treated for brain injury sustained in an equestrian accident after he left office, brain scans revealed the “new” intracranial bleed we all heard about ( and which had been and was to be the object of acute medical care) as well as imaging consistent with an “old” brain infarct. The date of the “old” infarct was not determinable.