Ronald Reagan's son: Alzheimer's seen during presidency



Reagan should have retired for health reasons at the end of his first term, if not before that. We have a system in place that will keep up a facade even when a president is incapacitated, dismissing anyone protesting as partisan.

Nancy and his other handlers did the same sort of things that Edith Wilson did for about 18 months from 1919 to March of 1921, only for a lot longer and with a lot more secrecy. The Presidency as an institution was vastly different from what it had been two generations earlier, much more "public."

Maybe our Presidential debates should have real qualified debate judges and scoreboards: Their current form relies on viewers to act as the judges, and most don't seem qualified to judge anything other than "how candidate X made me feel".

On the other hand, even the least-sophisticated viewer understands a scoreboard. If a debater consistently wandered off-topic and failed to respond to their opponent's points, then real judges would dock them points. A blow-out would make it very clear that the loser is not fit to serve, even if he or she IS good-looking or has an endearing personality.

I think that "judging" a debate is open to all sorts of subjectivity

Moe effective IMO would be mandatory yearly medical testing for cognitive impairment after the age of 60. and every 3 months should any test show potential cause for concern. After a fourth test with abnormal results, the results should be made public.

The political reality is that when a president loses power, those around him will also lose power... and so there is a tremendous incentive to ignore any problem.

Individuals afflicted with cognitive impairment become fairly expert at covering up their limitations... not wanting to admit the problem to themselves, or to others. Also, this sort of affliction tends to be variable in it's manifestation... so that, in the initial stages, very often the person will seem entirely normal and you think you must be imagining something.

IMO the Iran Contra affair was a clear indication of how government operations can get out of control when the chief executive is not in full command of his cognition.

Proper title of thread: Like, duh, dad had Alzheimer's.

When the good President would rather take naps and watch TV and turn things over to his VP, GHW Bush, former CIA Chief, Iran-Contra involver, Ollie North's WH contact - something is going on - and I dare say - not showing sound judgment by the good President.

...and just who authorized the midnight tours of the White House in 1989 while the good President slept?

Most likely, a Bohemian Grove attendee

It still isnt well highlighted just how ill Roosevelt was during the last year of his presidency.

I had a personal contact with President Reagan and my appreciation of his desire for individual freedoms began to fade in his second term. The morning he was shot, Maureen, his daughter was in my office. I wanted to discuss this pro-choice daughter if her father would continue his agenda. The Secret Service moved her out and onto a plane for DC. I attended a convention in Seattle where Ron Junior was given a lovely award for his work for individuals. I will receive his book probably tomorrow and hope he can clarify the difference in agenda items during his Dad's second term.

President Reagan did not have a quick-fire response to anything, including the debates, and took time to put his words before the audience. I received many emails claiming I have been lying about this great man's agenda. The religious right has come to believe that he brought in the Evangelical concepts into the government. I can never understand his lack of action under the threat of AIDs. I hope the book clears this up.

I understood the Fiscal Conservativism that brought Ronald Reagan into running for Governor. I was a Docent at the Hearst Castle where he was around for the new building that helped explain the Hearst Empire and how the castle was planned. It was the only Park that made money and helped keep the other parks open to the public. He loved this..... He was not an ogre and of course his coming from Hollywood put many people off as the center of sin in America.

Seeing many take apart several elected leaders of this nation, makes me very sad. If any leader needed a test for ethics, truth and leadership, it not President Reagan. I would look to the White House before President Obama was elected.

This supposed "secret" highlights how different the world is today. Journalist help cover up the fact that he was in the early stages of his disease. The Republicans have been in denial for many years, hell just alluding to the fact that he had the disease while in office sends them off the deep end. I've never understood how anyone could not think he was in the early stages given the slow progression of the disease. Rita Hayworth began her decent at only around 40 years old. It sad to see any family have to deal with a relative who has Alzheimer's but it pisses me off that no thought just possibly the leader of the free world should possess all his faculties.

If it is true that he actually was in the early stages of Alzheimers, does that mean he was not capable of carrying out the duties of his office? If so, perhaps it demonstrated that the president is superfluous to the running of the state (not to be conflated with the government). Just musing.
Yours,
Issodhos

There were rumors that GHW Bush was actually running the show - and even Nancy Reagan herself.

...so who really knows?

We never get honest answers from our government. Not even to queries I posted in my post on page one.

It all just gets ignored and swept under the carpet.

It appears that he has a manifestation of Alz. that grows up slowly. Typically, this happens over a very long term... with initial symptoms being barely noticeable and sporadic. Assuming this was true, then it is likely that Pres. Reagan was at least somewhat compromised during his term of office.


No, it means that his ability may have been progressively reduced

As I am sure you are aware, the "state" is a massive apparatus.... in which lots of people do things, hopefully based upon direction from above... and direction from above also depends upon the leader's ability to comprehend inputs form alls sorts of people... including his subordinates.

For the purpose of discussion, let us assume that a president was at some point significantly compromised by Alzheimers... the most likely result would be that his subordinates would continue running the apparatus.... and, most likely , that they would report to the leader in a way that would lead the leader to giving the direction they thought was appropriate.

None of this has anything to do with the degree to which an an uncomporomised leader may or may not impact the governance of the state.

Come what may. I think we can be well assured that the Iran Contra affair did happen under Pres. Reagan, and would not have happened under Pres. Carter. So, yes, it does seem that the president is not superfluous.

On the other hand, the president is also not able to exercise extreme power in all things. A president cannot wave his hands, issue a decree, and create a million more private sector jobs. Nor can the president arbitrarily decide how the Chinese, or north Koreans, or Iranians will behave.

So, the president is neither superfluous, nor massively powerful.

During one of his public reminiscences, he confused one of his movie roles with an actual personal experience. That's when I knew for sure.

Young Ron, stated that had his father had any notion of his mind in trouble he would have declined to stay another day in the White House. I believe that!

'
Well, at least we seem to have survived Reagan's non compos mentis state.

Always bearing in mind, of course, what Zhou En-lai said when asked whether the French Revolution was a good thing or a bad thing:

It's still too early to tell. · · ·

Hmmm.... While Known for Being Forgetful, Reagan Was Mentally Sound in Office, Doctors Say
Yours,
Issodhos

link

So, if Alzhiemers begins 10-20 years before the diagnosis is made... and Reagan was diagnosed in 1994....well, you do the math.

That said, the affliction is progressive, not binary... and so there is no reason the Reagan could not be fairly adequately functional while he was president.

Everyone progresses at a different rate, Rita Hayworth managed to keep working with her early onset of the disease. It was not easy though and she struggled to learn her lines. We will never know the extent of Ronald Reagan's progression while in office. I am glad to read he would have left and I do truly believe that when he stated "he could not remember" during Iran Contra he meant it. I'm not a fan of his presidency because I think he did great harm. I don't place any blame on him for getting Alzheimer's but the truth should have been reported and the journalist that covered the white house and knew had a job to report it.

WHich has been the main thrust of this thread -- suggestions that he was incapacitated by an illness for which there is no evidence of him having had during his presidency.
Yours,
Issodhos

He was also not my favorite cup of tea, Redheat, but I know of no "great harm" that he did and actually was happy to see him avoid being drawn into Lebanon after the Marine barracks was blown up. That said, who where the reporters that covered up and failed to report the illness he apparently showed no signs of having?
Yours,
Issodhos

The best documentary film on this subject is , with Kevin Kline as the president.

It depends upon what you consider to be evidence.... is there a specific lab test or Doctor's report... no

However his son says that he noticed evidence..... and Have no reason to believe that he would lie about that

And there are numerous incidents in the public record where Reagan's grasp of reality seemed tenuous... IE when he reported one of his movie roles as a historical fact, and when he testified regarding the Iran Contra affair.... saying he had no recollection of approving a major initiative that he had in fact apparently approved.... it is not like forgetting where you left your keys.

My dad had Alzheimers long ago...so am am at least somewhat familiar with how it can work. This was back when very little was known about the disease. Before the disease was diagnosed, I can remember having conversations with him where he smiled and nodded... and avoided a substantive response. People in the initial stages of the disease have good mechanisms to get along, and to avoid confronting the unpleasant reality of their compromised faculties. I can tell you that for most people outside the family, they saw no problem with the genial gentleman that had always known and loved. And frankly, most people did not WANT to see a problem... it just makes social interaction much more awkward. When my dad's mind obviously had slipped... his old friends mostly did not want to be around him... it was embarrassing for them.

'
That's putting it mildly, Ardy!

It almost rises to the level of English understatement.

Some would disagree with you that not uttering the word "AIDS" for seven years was indeed "harmful," but I digress.

However, look at "the harm" that did take place on during Mr. Reagan's Presidency. I do not believe he was aware of what those around him were doing:

• Iran-Contra
• Mena, Arkansas
• Barry Seals
• Midnight Tours of the White House by male prostitutes

Would a President totally involved in his Administration, with the moral fortitude that some claim that Mr. Reagan had, allow such shenanigans to go on in his Administration?

I'm suggesting that those very, very close to Mr. Reagan (wink, wink, nod, nod) fully took advantage of Mr. Reagan's capacity, or lack thereof, to perform his duties. This allowed "them" to run their CIA black-ops agenda.

Well, if I recall correctly, his relationship with his father was described as "estranged" so I am not sure if he was around his father all that much. Those who were, including his 4 different physicians, were. But, this is probably where I will leave it.
Yours,
Issodhos

As previously noted, none of the four physicians was known to be a specialist in the field in question. I doubt their testimony would be considered authoritative in a court of law. And as such, I decline to consider their opinions such

Nor is his estranged son.
Yours,
Issodhos

Which leaves us with the undisputed fact that Pres Reagan was unable to remember authorizing actions leading to the Iran Contra affair... and disputed that he would have done so.... until written evidence was presented that he had done this... in which case he said that he must have done that, even though he had no memory of having done so.

The evidence is that either Reagan was lying, or he had some rather severe problem remembering important matters of state.

And, assuming that Reagan was not lying in this case... it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that what ever memory problem the Reagan had... we have no reason to believe the effects of that problem were limited to this specific circumstance.

Knowing who Mr. Reagan's assistant executive officer was, it would not surprise me that a piece of paper was slipped in-between others and Mr. Reagan signed said authorization without his knowledge.

I'm just sayin'...


Keep in mind, that when Mr. Reagan was shot due to an assassination attempt - the Presidential limousine on its way to the hospital, the Secret Service completely familiar with the streets of Washington DC got "lost" for quite some time. The ambulance carrying James Brady, arriving to the assassination scene 5 mins after the Presidential limousine left with a wounded Ronald Reagan inside, arrived at the hospital before the Presidential limousine. When Mr. Reagan found this information out, his relationship with his co-executive was never the same.


...and least we forget that GHW Bush and John Henkley Sr, the father of "crazed for Jody Foster" John Henkley Jr, were friends.

The two families lived close to each other. They knew each other socially and financially. When the Hinkley oil company started to fail in the sixties, Bush's Zapata Oil financially bailed out Hinkley's company. It went from being Vanderbilt Oil to Vanderbilt Energy or Vanderbilt Resources in the 60s after Bush intervened.

Here is some Reagen testimony video concerning Iran Contra details. For me, it is fairly clear that the person (Reagan) that is testifying is a not particularly sharp elderly person.
Reagan looks a little dazed. I would not hire that person for a position of significant executive responsibility. But that is just my opinion.

link

Brother Michael has turned ugly over Ron Jr's writings. There has been dissension between the two that will now get the full force of social conservatives. Ron is out of the reach of Rush, Fox and any damage Michael might inflict.

I have been the Reagan Presidency fan here since the beginning but I myself witnessed changes in his agenda that was puzzling.

Sandy

Rick:

I wonder where you got this from; it does not match what I remember from when it happened. We who were in Dc at the time followed this mighty closely, and .Ii believe I would have taken note of a delay in reaching the hospital. Particularly since I had previously spent several years as a paramedic and ambulance driver.

This timeline sounds much more accurate:


http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/z_x40shooting_chronology_g.htm

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant about the co-executive. Did you mean VP Bush? If so, I cannot figure out why Reagan would have changed his professional or personal relationship with Bush because of something that happened when Bush wasn't even around.

Could you elaborate?

By the way, if you watch the video of Reagan's testimony, it is pretty easy to see that an encounter with alzhiemers symptoms makes people feel uncomfortable. No one wants to hurt Reagan, or make him look stupid... and so there is this elaborate dance that takes place where the matters at hand are presented in a way that the person can respond.... "do you agree that...." etc.

Also, if you look at the early tapes of the proceeding, you will see an entirely different President Reagan... who spoke clearly, confidently, etc. One Of the characteristics of Alzheimers that I noticed with my dad is the person has limited reserves of intellectual energy.... If I caught him when he was rested and fresh, he seemed fairly well. But if I caught him after some period of stress, then he was more like the Reagan in the video I linked to

Also, a characteristic of Alzheimers is an reduced to deal with detail.... Again you see this with Reagan..... he was comfortable with general concepts, but had a very difficult time with the details.

As Issodhos pointed out, Pres. Reagan did not have clinical Alzheimers while he was president. But I think there is pretty strong evidence that he was to some degree compromised.

[u]Mr. Bush[i] didn't have[/i] to be there![/u]

By-the-way Churlpy, have you done your Mena, Arkansas and Barry Seals homework that I assigned to you?

'
Please express only your own opinion, and not those of others! · · ·

Everyone in DC knew about the "connection" between the Bushes and the Hinkleys within hours after the shooting in 1981. It was news then not because of any suspicion or undercurrent that the VP was involved in an assassination plot but because it was viewed as an odd coincidence.

But you still have not answered my question as to where you got the stuff about the time-line of the aftermath of the assassination. And if you go back and look at what you wrote you will see that the antecedent to "this information" appeared to have been the route to the hospital.

I read that Flocco piece of crap until I got to the line:


Bolding and font color were in the original text.

That, of course, is just a pile of horsesh!t and is typical of the conspiracy theory stupidity that is so rampant on the Internet. Bolding and font color changes always raise a red flag in my face, and I immediately suspect that something is awry. That is certainly the case here.

Here's one statute, from North carolina::


Now, would you care to wager whether I could find a similar statute in every other state of the Union? Insanity is and has been part of English common law for literally hundreds of years, back at least to the time of Edward II, who ruled in the early 14th century.

So if Mr. Flocco is wrong about that, and even bolds the text and changes the color to high-light it, about what else is he incorrect? Inquiring and dubious minds want to know.

The bottom line is that there is a reason the letters l-o-c-o appear in Tom Flocco's name.

The question is: Was the statute cited the only one in effect - nationwide - in 1981?

Remember, it's been 30 years and a lot of statutes have changed - or been added - in 30 years.

By-the-way Churlpy, have you done your Mena, Arkansas and Barry Seals homework that I assigned to you?

Churlpy here is another link to the assassination attempt on Mr. Reagan's life.


I'm suggesting that GHW Bush = John Henkley Jr, Mark David Chapman, Barry Seals, Ollie North, and Larry King of Omaha and Bohemian Grove.

I'm not going out on a limb to say that Mr. Bush was in Dallas on November 22, 1963 as some allege. I need to see more evidence.



Picking one item out of an article and discounting its merits does not mean the rest of the article is wrong - even Sarah Palin is correct on occasion.

people get what the deserve when they elect a president was a former CIA director. nuff said.

Rick:

Have you ever seen anyone get shot in real life? The picked up and hurled stuff is CRAP! It's a matter of simple physics.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a bullet is fired inside the chamber of a gun, the amount of energy imparted to the bullet is EXACTLY equal to the energy that pushes the gun back in the opposite direction. Nu further energy magically flows into the bullet during its flight. In fact, ever meter it goes the slower it goes due to air resistance. NOT MUCH, but the point remains that the energy begins to drop off as soon as the bullet reaches the end of the barrel.

But back to the energy pushing on the gun. If there were enough energy in the bullet to knock a man ten or fifteen feet through the air the same amount of energy would kick the gun (and the shooter) backwards ten or fifteen feet. But the energy is just not there to do that. A typical 9mm slug leaves the barrel with around 400 foot pounds force (fpf). Sounds like a lot, but you have to remember that the bullet does NOT weigh a pound. It weighs perhaps 125 grains. There are 7000 grains in a pound (don't ask me why such an odd figure, but that's the truth of it.) If the bullet weighed a pound it would potentially push a 200-pound shooter back two feet. But it weighs 125/7000 of a pound, so it would push a 200 pound shooter back 2 times 0.017 foot. Or a bit less than half an inch. At the other end (when the bullet hits a person) the same amount of force is at work. And much of that force is expended in damage to the part hit, flattening of the bullet, etc. And in some cases, as in Rep. Giffords, the bullet goes right through, taking its remaining energy with it!

The scenes you see in movies where a guy is running forward, gets shot, and is blown backwards? Pure unadulterated bullsh!t. It does not happen. I've been shot. And I've personally seen people get shot. People do not get pushed around by a bullet like that. EVER! Go watch Schindler's List. There's a scene where a Nazi camp commandant shoots a gun similar to the one Oswald used into the head of a woman in the courtyard, perhaps 50 meters away. Does she fly backwards? No. She drops like a stone.

And that's exactly what happened to the people who were shot that day in 1981. You can look at the youtube tape. Did Reagan get knocked even six inches? Clearly not. Did Brady go flying through the air? Clearly not. Neither did the cop or the Secret Service agent. You can see it for yourself.

That TruthMove Forum thing you linked to is a real pile of crap. It actually contends that Hinkley was not the shooter. "The person placed as the patsy, not the person that actually shot Reagan but the person placed as the patsy in the case, was John Hinkley." Anyone who believes that is f**king stupid. Not ignorant, which can be cured, but stupid. Hinkley was apprehended on the spot with the gun in his hand. Dozens of people identified him as the shooter. How anyone could say with a straight face that he was a stooge is simply beyond me.

As to some parts of a document being correct and some not being correct ("even Sarah Palin is correct on occasion") I disagree completely with you. If one part of a document is demonstrably false, the level of confidence drops precipitously. How do you know what the writer has gotten right and what the writer has gotten wrong? Question everything.

I bet some of the punctuation is correct!

john judge is an interesting researcher. much of his work has been found to have merit over the years. yet conspiracy theories are an easy target. once the mainstream mind is fed the message, it's difficult for it to comprehend anything else.

indeed. everything.

Correct. Many believe it was actually the Secret Service guy jumping on top of Mr. Reagan inside the limousine and Mr. Reagan had not been shot prior to that time.

Churlpy, do you have a comment regarding the Hinckley-Bush family relationship? Don't you find their relationship odd in light of who is accused of shooting Mr. Reagan?

Thank you 2wins.

the world is full of strange coincidences. the bush family seems to be at the head of the pack here.

Well, there are coincidences and then there are "coincidences." The Bush family falls under the umbrella of "coincidences."

It is not a "coincidence" that two different WH male-prostitute scandals - where male prostitutes are roaming the White House freely - when two different Bushes are in the executive branch?

I find this "coincidence" to be very queer to say the least.

haha.

really, think about the coincidences. hinkley family, male prostitutes, bin laden family (that's all i will say about that subject). there was also a very interesting coincidence during the first gulf war. the vast majority of oil holdings in kuwait, after the royal family, were held by the bush family enterprises. there are too many coincidences surrounding this family. but i digress. this thread is about pres. reagan's setbacks, not the shortcomings of his vp and our subsequent presidential family dynasty.

'
I have long thought that a good plot for a Hollywood-ish movie would be that Reagan was actually killed in the shooting, and that the CIA or whatever had a double ready to step into his shoes and do their bidding. No one would be easier to imitate than an actor: Reagan normally had his face plastered with a ton of make-up anyway, and his remarkably wooden and stereotyped behavior and speech would also be easy to fake. As long as his wife and maybe a doctor or two were in on the plot, I don't see why it couldn't succeed.

didn't someone point out earlier in the thread that the film you describe was done? it was called "dave." albeit it wasn't reagan.

There never was a close relationship.
Reagan adamantly refused to allow Bush as a running mate, specifically stating that he wasn't about to stack his presidency with CFR members. At the convention Reagan was given a come to Jesus moment where he was informed that his ship was as good as sunk for even securing the nomination if he continued along this path and it was either take Bush or pack it in.

I am struggling to remember the book this is all taken from (no no, don't start diagnosing me yet LOL), I read it a while ago, perhaps five or six years maybe, but this was all laid out.

Reagan did NOT LIKE GHWB.

Now a bit of personal recollection via satellite...

In the early days when having satellite meant having a backyard B.U.D. (BIG ugly dish) the network news feeds were loosely scheduled and unencrypted. For instance, if the networks were going to run a presidential news conference or speech, they just hooked the van to the uplink, turned on the cameras and viewers got treated to color bars and then a few minutes of unattended camera feeds until the event started.
Basically we were getting exactly what the local affiliates were getting in those days.

Well I DO remember a presser like that on satellite around '83 or so, and President Reagan was led to the podium while the crews got the rest of it ready, and while we waited for the affiliate time slot to open (this was not a breaking news story, but rather a scheduled conference).

Reagan stood there at the podium, staring off into space, even PICKING HIS NOSE, then staring off slack-jawed into space again.
His expression was so detached that you might think he was reminiscing about "Bedtime for Bonzo".

Then suddenly the AD piped up with "ten seconds Mister President" and it was like a SWITCH clicked on, his posture straightened, his face lit up and then we were in...

"Good evening my fellow Americans...."

When the speech was over, it was as if someone had pulled a plug and deflated him, he went back to the slack-jawed thorazine fueled thousand yard stare again, until he was led back off the podium...then color bars...end of stream.

I've worked at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute, I've been a visitor to a few nursing homes and I had an in-law succumb to the disease, and Reagan's appearance and off into outer space behavior looked like a carbon copy of what I know to be Alzheimer's.

What ever else Reagan was, he was a performer. At early stages of the disease, Alzheimer patients are able to hold up a mask of normality... to do what they are expected to do, to perform as they have for many years. The problems arise when they are stressed, or tired, or when they are asked to do something new and different, when analysis or attention to detail is required.

The reason that early alzhiemers is so hard to diagnose is precisely because these patients become so very adept at covering up the problem.

I was researching this topics... and came across the testimony of the "four doctors" who said Reagan showed no signs of Alzhiemers. THey confirmed that he was never specifically tested for Alzheimers.... this despite having an extensive family history of other relatives that suffered and died from this disease.!





link


But, all this said, I also agree that what ever problems Reagan MAY have had, they were likely sufficiently minor as not to justify a transfer of power,

Hmmmm...

...that's odd.

im just going to go out on a limb here say that the so-called leader of the free world could prolly get as many doctors to say whatever he wants them to say.

...especially when it comes to this topic. It would scare the beejebus out of people if they knew the truth.

Kinda like the 'Great Depression 2.0' being labeled 'Great Recession' - so as not to frighten people.

Kinda like the recent govt report which blames Anderson Cooper for all the public outrage over the BP oil spill.
In this day and age, nay in the LAST QUARTER CENTURY, those in power can get any word to mean what they want it to mean.

rick brings up a good point. my direct experience with government officials and bureaucrats tells me that it is SOP to downplay a bad situation with language that doesn't come across as "scary." perhaps it is more frightening to think that doublespeak is a way of life now. n'est pas?

Interesting read: [u]Covering Ronald Reagan: Up Close, but Not Personal[/u]

'
No, it's just recognition of reality.

But, then, that's very un-American, isn't it?

recognition of reality is very unamerican? come on numan, you know that the two of us likely agree on more than less, but is it unamerican? perhaps it is at odds with human nature.
whatever the case, the reality, as you put it, is ever present and has been so for quite some time. you might be shocked at how many american humans actually see it that way. shocked, i tell you!

No. I would say the acceptance of a current reality would be un-American, numan.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Today's reality? Is not Reality Truth and Truth Eternal? What is Reality if it be not what is? What be Truth if it is not?

it is what it is and at this moment it is that.

Ah! Relativism:The first step toward Science and Solipsism.

'
Yes, few people are aware that Einstein disliked the term Theory of Relativity, which other people gave to his work. He preferred the "Theory of Invariance"---referring to the invariance of physical laws, and the invariance of the speed of light.

but even the singular existence of the self is in question, isn't it.

'
Not by me it isn't---no matter what you voices in my head might think.

As a government official (lowly and minor as I am) i would say it depends on what point you were trying to make, or if you boss had f*cked up big and were engaged in ass covering,

pretty much the same as any other large organisation, nest pas?

oui oui

or any small business, or family for that matter