I am constantly astounded that so many give so much credit to a president that had so little to do with so much: "In her new book "Reporting Live," former CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl writes that she and other reporters suspected that Reagan was "sinking into senility" years before he left office. She writes that White House aides "covered up his condition"-- and journalists chose not to pursue it. Stahl describes a particularly unsettling encounter with Reagan in the summer of 1986: her "final meeting" with the President, typically a chance to ask a few parting questions for a "going-away story." But White House Press Secretary Larry Speakes made her promise not to ask anything. Although she'd covered Reagan for years, the glazed-eyed and fogged-up President "didn't seem to know who I was," writes Stahl. For several moments as she talked to him in the Oval Office, a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room. Meanwhile, Speakes was literally shouting instructions to the President, reminding him to give Stahl White House souvenirs. Panicking at the thought of having to report on that night's news that "the president of the United States is a doddering space cadet," Stahl was relieved that Reagan soon reemerged into alertness, recognized her and chatted coherently with her husband, a screenwriter. "I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile." At a disjointed 30-minute news conference in June 1986, the President served up consistently muddled answers (aides had to immediately "clarify" several of their boss' claims), but no reporter present was willing to ask publicly what was wrong. None were willing to say that the President had no clothes. A top White House official privately marveled to the Los Angeles Times about "how easy the press was on him" and said that reporters treat Reagan "almost reverentially." This view of a timid, almost reverential press corps was shared by others in Reagan's PR team-- notwithstanding their often disingenuous complaints at the time about liberal bias. In "On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency," author Mark Hertsgaard quotes former Reagan Communications director David Gergen as saying, "A lot of the Teflon came from the press. They didn't want to go after him that toughly." Today, such loopy public performances by a President might prompt nightly "White House in Crisis" specials on national television. Back then, establishment news outlets were in the habit of burying embarrassing personal facts about Reagan in stories adorned by misleadingly cheery headlines. During Reagan's 1988 Moscow summit with Gorbachev, the New York Times noted that the President had fallen asleep at a meeting with Soviet dignitaries. The Times subtitled the article: "REAGAN IMPRESSES SOVIET ELITE." Two days later, another summit-related article in the New York Times attributed this quote about Reagan to Britain's Margaret Thatcher: "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." The article's headline: "THATCHER SALUTE TO REAGAN YEARS." (Jeff Cohen) Tip of the iceberg.
Hmm, I agree W has the direction, but his supporting cast just seems inadequate in translating it the way he needs. The "lips-to-butt" appearance frustrates me also. Rather than disagree with folks outright he seems to want to be agreeable with most of the people who disagree with his outlooks. That really causes for some weird postures. He just can't seem to say, "No, you're wrong on that." It always seems to be a cordial smile and slight dodge (to me) when you corner him on apparent differences. While that might make for high (newspaper/press) poll ratings on the question of public support, it is weak for those looking for a definite domestic direction call on things. I'd love to ask him the follow up question of, "So, now that you feel that way on this topic, what are you going to do to make it happen?"
Hmm, fairly good EDITORIAL. Hope that's the section of the paper that this was relegated to. Lot's of opinions, plenty of suppositions and great "fillers" where and when the facts were missing. I can probably discern the writers positions on the matters from this piece also. Something that you really can't do when there's good, objective, factual reporting and writing involved.