To: Neocon who wrote (37370 ) 3/9/1999 4:27:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Read Replies (5) | Respond to
Poor little Neocon, so protective of the ghost of Reagan past. My understanding is that, as President, Reagan was never quite there to begin with. There wasn't that much to fade away. A view supported below. I was actually looking for something about Donald Regan's book, which, aside from blowing the cover on the role of Nancy's astrologer, said that Reagan was a very reduced presence after the assassination attempt. From NYT, 10/9/88,AN EMPTINESS IN THE OVAL OFFICE, a review of LANDSLIDE The Unmaking of the President, 1984-1988. By Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus. Illustrated. 468 pp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. $21.95. The most striking result of the authors' reporting is their portrait of the President as an astoundingly uninvolved figure with little interest in the business of government. The Tower board report on the Iran-contra scandal condemned the President's detached management style, and some of his closest aides, such as Michael K. Deaver and Donald T. Regan, have described Mr. Reagan's passivity in their memoirs. But this volume adds some vivid new details, such as this comment from Edward J. Rollins, the President's campaign manager in 1984, about the re-election effort: ''He would make small talk . . . But there was never any real inquisitive effort to get to the nitty-gritty on his part. I don't think he ever focused on it. The truth of the matter is that Ronald Reagan is the perfect candidate. He does whatever you want him to do. And he does it superbly well.''
