NEWS: The Reagan Diaries, Rumor Squelched

CULTURE: The Reagan Diaries, Rumor Squelched

I have received a gazillion emails recently from (otherwise intelligent) people letting me know that Ronald Reagan talked shit about George W. Bush in his recently published diaries. How about you?



Here is the paragraph that is rumored to be in The Reagan Diaries.

My first thought was, "Wow. I never knew so many of my friends went out and bought The Reagan Diaries." I also heard this quote read and not challenged on a few (otherwise credible) progressive radio talk-shows. So, I went along with it like a dumb-ass. I proudly forwarded it to people in my family who voted for both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. I brought it up over dinner with friends of mine.



I decided to actually look it up today after I'd gone and run my mouth off. It's a rumor. Reagan never wrote that in his diary. Just check out Snopes.com or every other site on the Internet that comes up when you simply type, "Reagan Diaries" + "George W. Bush" in Google. The quote is actually from a satirical article, "My Lunch With Reagan" written by Michael Kinsley in The New Republic.

Kinsley wrote in his article:

And then the article continues with the satirical May 17th "Bush is a ne'er-do-well" entry.



Kinsley reports that on May 17th, 1986 Reagan actually did make an entry into his journal. But there is no mention of George W. Bush. Instead, Reagan talks about Ferdinand Marcos, a meeting with the Russian ambassador to discuss Gorbachev and Billy Graham dropped by for dinner.



Not only do I feel like a shithead for repeating this rumor before I checked the facts, I feel let down. I really wish Reagan said that. I didn't like Reagan either and before I knew it was the Alzheimer's talking, I made fun of him for being an idiot. So, why should one former idiot's opinion on today's idiot make me feel better? Why would two wrongs make a right in this case? I suppose it would prove to neo-cons who think they are Republicans that no matter what W said at Reagan's funeral, he's not a president who is keeping the 1980's Republican ideal of conservative principles alive.



When we have Democrats who won't stand up for impeachment hearings, Democrats who continually fund the war and Democrats who try to tell us that getting them elected in 2008 is more important than defending our Constitution right now… people like me don't know where to turn. It's romantic to turn to the dead in our time of need. Please Ronald Reagan, speak to us from the beyond through your recently published book and knock some sense into folks. Please Ronald Reagan, change the culture. Make it cool again to speak out against stupidity.



Although if Reagan had criticized George W. Bush in his diary, that stubborn 23% of America that stands by W will continue to stand by.



A member of my family responded to my email by writing, "Reagan was just pissed because Bush senior was actually running the country. Bush may have needed a job but don't forget! 9/11 changed him and everything. So what if Bush junior was a little lost in 1986? You liked Michael Jackson in 1986."



I still like Michael Jackson. 9/11 didn't change that.

I can respect someone that is true to their convictions and is willing to admit a mistake. I appreciate the honesty of this post even though you and I probably live on different ends of the political spectrum. In the end, there is enough about W to ridicule without creating fiction.

Mommie? He called his wife 'Mommie'?

I feel badly that I called Reagan an idiot. He's not a total idiot.

Anyway, yes, I think he used to call Nancy Mommie as her nickname but again that quote from above where he says 'Mommie' is not really from his diaries.

i see now. thank you.

i wouldn't feel bad though. he was a terrible actor, and a snitch, and yet, he was able to pull off the greatest performance of his career in fooling the American public into voting for him. twice (with a little help from the ascending Religious Right).

We need Zombie Reagan!

*slowest slow clap in the world*

So, you just did a whole column on an e-mail forward?

Hmm. I'm having serious problems with the de facto characterization of Ronald Reagan as the sainted High Father of "true" conservatism, either. Gimme Goldwater, not the casting couch slut who laid the first bricks of foundation for the house of shit the current administration holds court from.

Seriously, your writing is like a LiveJournal bot with a healthy sprinkling of sound-bite ad sloganing from '80s Saturday morning programming. ...and I'm not just talking about this column.

I think it is disingenuous at best, and manipulative at worst, to characterize the diseased political situation in this country as solely the fault of weak Democrats and "understandably" misguided neo-cons and that somehow, the sainted ghost of Ronnie will somehow make things better.

One last thing, and this is meant in all good humor: You're even still a little disingenuous at the end, I think. I don't think you liked Michael Jackson in 1986, I think you looooooooooooooved him.

So why was he an idiot again? Just wondering if that whole having "facts" thing was getting in the way of your fun.

Anyhow, I know that's a snippy comment to make, but I'm in a mood. Good on you for admitting your mistake.

I heard on the lettermen show that over one presidential lunch Reagan had with Bush senior, that he brought along Bush junior,..during the course of the lunch Bush junior placed a bread roll on his head and said "look everybody,..i have a bread hat."...this paragraph from the reagan diaries make me squeeze a tiny bit of piss out....i am sadden to know that if maybe false now.

I SAY WE NEED ZOMBIE GOLDWATER

Iran Contra, arming Afghanistan, rich got richer - etc.
however....he did prevent a nuclear war.

"Seriously, your writing is like a LiveJournal bot with a healthy sprinkling of sound-bite ad sloganing from '80s Saturday morning programming. ...and I'm not just talking about this column."

This is an insult, right? I couldnt understand. It was so self-indulgently descriptive.

Stop reading me?

The column was not on an email forward but a recent book that's been published and pretty popular radio and internet rumor about said contents of book. To make it more personal, I included a detail about something I'd done.

He prevented a nuclear war ? Could you show some evidence of that ?
I mean, yeah the U.S.S.R. collapsed on his watch and he didn't push the button. W00t !
But To give him credit for the prevention of nuclear war ? Jimmy Carter did it too. So did Gerald Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.
Come to think of it, SO FAR George W. Bush has prevented nuclear war too. Yay ! , Go George !

Wow... You really understood this piece. It was totally Sleepylady's intention to start a debate on the merits of Ronald Reagan.

Bravo, Dummy!

Another thread enriched by your ham-fisted, asinine take...

Thanks, I look forward to your next failure of an article junior.

oh and flag.

So you would characterize her take on Ronald Reagan as informed and realistic, or did you just want to take a swipe at another poster?

It was her intention, based on her response to me, to comment on the release of a new book. She even showed the cover, which was very nice of her. It is a very nice photo of somebody who was probably a very nice man who did a lot of very nice things.

How is it surprising, again, that we ended up talking about the merits of Ronald Reagan after a column with such gems as:

SleepyLady said:

I am now asking sincerely: How is one not supposed to take this as being implicitly very pro-Reagan? Is that not, then, a commentary on the merits of Ronald Reagan? I don't really care about your pee contest with Chainlink, but I think it's really disingenuous to say that the OP didn't invoke discussion on Reagan's merits herself. Maybe you just need a little more ham-fist in your diet.

So, to get at least a little bit back on-topic:

How did Ronald Reagan make it cool to speak out against stupidity, again? His wife consulted astrologers. He built his entire popularity on an anachronistic mischaracterization of the Soviet Union. He misunderstood the Middle East just as much as GW, but he did it in a much more subtle way. (I'm not giving somebody credit for not waging pre-emptive war.)

I truly feel like somebody had to have slept through most of the '80s to think it was a time when people spoke out against stupidity.

I would argue that Reagan was a much better actor than President. I guess that could be taken many ways, but I actually think he was a decent actor. He wasn't half bad in Dark Victory, The Killers, Dr. Clitterhouse, and a few other films. I guess the Monkey movie is the one most people think of, though.

One dumb ass American screw-up didn't say something about another dumb ass American screw-up. Stop the presses.

Pro Reagan? Are you nuts? That paragraph you highlighted was SARCASTIC meaning things have gotten so bad that Reagan doesn't look all that bad now...even though I would not have voted for him back then.

For God's sake!

Hahaha, indeed. As it should be. Sit there like a nothing, waiting, readying your next unfunny, culled-from-last-night's sitcom "joke," to lob at your better come eight o'clock. A joke that will undoubtedly be greeted with silence.

Honestly, (though I'm sure your lack or originality will force you to ask the same of me) be funny, ONCE. ONE TIME, on your own terms. Show me you can do it, then come after me.

Baby steps, dummy.

The day I feel the need to prove myself to a Newswire writer whose comment count is predominantly his own comments desperately trying to defend himself, flailing like an out of control two year old is the day I shoot myself in the head.
It's not a fucking joke and I'm not even trying to be funny.
Unlike you, trying so hard to be funny and winding up just a fucking joke.

Pro Reagan? Look at the context. She calls the man an idiot, says that she DID NOT LIKE HIM, then makes the point that as bad as "former idiot" was, she hoped his position as a right-wing saint could maybe wake people up to the fact that the "current idiot" isn't a true conservative and is someone that Reagan would not approve of. Boy, what a diehard Republican!

She didn't say that Reagan ever "made it cool to speak out against stupidity," merely that it once was cool and then sarcastically mentioned that he should be the one to bring that back by mocking the current batch of idiots in charge.

The dummy who responded is either an idiot who didn't get the piece or was intenionally picking a fight with someone who has no interest in doing that. You tell me which scenario you favor.

Hahhaha... I can almost see you angrily trembling with a "half-cry/half-whimper" as you type that. A "newsire writer" whose posts you read RELIGIOUSLY. You're like, a disgruntled fanboy...

Still waiting, troll. BE FUNNY. Do it for yourself, and the others who are forced to watch your impotent ranting, if not for me. Trust me, being funny is enjoyable. You'll like it if you can ever get there.

Later Dummy!

Alright, then it was done clumsily at best. It's all well and good for you to white-knight for SleepyLady, but by even the most forgiving standards her articles are a mixed bag. This one just seemed especially lost. After two reads I still thought it was an article responding to an e-mail forward. I don't know where she watches news, but it's not the same places as me.

And for being so blatantly anti-Reagan the piece sure did show the front of his new book and use a lot of words to tell us that he had a new book. Who could possibly mistake all of that zazz and tongue-in-cheek "My Family is So X" humor for left-handed pro-Reaganism? It's happening a lot on blogs and forums, after all. I really wasn't trying to twist anybody's knickers up.

It wasn't clumsily done. It's called SARCASM you dolt. And the exclamation points usually lend to that.

If my articles are a mixed bag here is something you can do. NEVER READ THEM or...............comment when you LIKE them and not just when you HATE them. If you can't find it in your heart to do that...you're mentally ill. If you find that you HATE all 4-5 articles a week that I write....again DON'T read them or feel free to write to the Lead Editors or start a petition to get me fired. I'm not joking. It would serve your goal a lot more than doing it here on my stupid article.

Again, this was in culture/rumor - not "the most fucking important news in the world."

This simply was an article about a popular internet rumor...I thought maybe other people had heard it ..........................

Yeah, it's recommended that we use pictures in our articles and what sloppy writing would it be if I didn't mention that Reagan had a book? What the fuck? That's what this is based on.

Of COURSE you were trying to twist knickers up. You were insulting my writing, someone you don't know.

I'm not sure if people with any decency realize that comments on an intelligent website are best used to stir up discussion about said topic - not attack individual writers who have outside lives, concerns, bad days, etc like the rest of you....again....go look at a naked girl or two and stop being so fucking crabby.