Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Neither Ron nor Nancy ran the presidency.  They were like the
    British monarchs, sorta figure heads.  As someone once said, Blaming
    Ronald Reagan for the wrongs in the society or the government is like
    blaming Ronald McDonald for getting a bad hamburger.  And vice versa.
    
    Eugene

> What does that say about the running of the adminstration, regardless 
> of who was doing it?  It says that the presidency was, in retrospect, a
> successful one, a popular one, certainly a strong one.  

The jury is still out. It was popular at the time. Success and strength are
yet to be determined. There is evidence that history will judge the Reagan
presidency one of the worst of the 20th century. I certainly believe that.

> Has Nancy simply used an avenue to success many feminists are loathe to
> use - men? 

Perhaps. It makes no difference. The Reagan years were some of the worst for
women in recent history. If Nancy was the agent that makes it worse, not better.

> Has Nancy Reagan nonetheless run one of the most successful presidencies in
> American history?

Successful for whom? I would not hold the Regan Years up as an example of
success for women. Perhaps for a woman, but that simply gives the lie to the
notion that women make more caring, less warlike leaders. Nancy Reagan does not
embody my notions of why we should have more women in politics. She's as bad
as the worst male politicians I've ever seen.

Nancy Reagan a triumph for women? Don't make me cry.

	-- Charles

    Sorry, Charles, not interested in either making or seeing you cry.
    
    The book deals with media, popular opinion and the like, which is
    very subjective as is the interpretation of same.   I didn't intend
    to debate whether or not the Reagan years were successful, whether 
    or not they helped women, minorities, wasp males or Manatees in the
    Florida Intercoastal waterways.
    
    I was discussing Kitty Kelly's, (Kelley's? I should know these things),
    book, her "accusations" and condemnations of Nancy, and weighing them 
    against the media image of the Reagan presidency.  As far as how
    history judges the Reagan Administration, for purposes of my point,
    it's irrelevant.  If and when that happens, Nancy will be long dead 
    with a smile frozen on her face, I am sure.     
    
    If one hasn't read the book and/or doesn't care to discuss it, that's 
    fine.  But this topic is dependent on understanding and accepting
    the message of the book and being willing to weigh it against the
    message of the media during the Reagan years, (and those following, 
    up to the date the book was released!), and exploring what I think may 
    be an interesting connection between the two.  It isn't intended to piss
    anyone off.
    
    Sandy

> But this topic is dependent on understanding and accepting the message
> of the book...

That means I'd have to READ the thing. California has a drought and can ill
afford the water I would need to rinse off in afterwards. I'll leave this topic
to those willing to read the book.

	-- Charles

  

> ...blaming Ronald Reagan for the wrongs in the society or the
>government is like blaming Ronald McDonald for getting a bad hamburger.

It would depend on *why* the hamburger is bad, no?  If it's because RM 
uses only ground chuck at 60% fat and then steams them to a lovely grey, 
he kind of *is* to blame.  (I'm not saying McDonald's uses or does
the above, I'm creating a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the
flaw.) It's a cute little comparison but a meaningless one.
    
For the record, I wasn't doing anything of the kind.  But those who are 
assessing blame, columnists, editorialists and pundits, just may know 
something from their professional proximity that we don't.
    
Sandy

    re -1:
    
    The comparison between RR and RM, as I read it, was this:  suppose
    the McDonald's corporation did do what you suggested they did (and
    as a further CYA, I recognize that what you stated was hypothetical)
    
    Anyway, suppose they did what you suggested -- what good would it do to
    get angry at Ronald McDonald?  He's just the clown on the television.
    
    					andrew

    Most of the women I've heard discuss Nancy Reagan dislike her intensly.
    They dislike her as a person, as a woman, and as an example.  They
    consider her attitude and treatment of people totally disgraceful
    for someone of high office or associated with high office.  They
    most frequently criticize her lack of family values and lack of
    social grace and intelligence.  They do not believe anything she says.
    
    mwr
    

    re:.6
    
    	� Anyway,  [...]  what good would it do to get angry at
    	Ronald McDonald? He's just the clown on the television. �
    
    For that matter, so was Ronald Reagan.
    
    --- jerry

    
    Jerry, I think that was exactly .1's point!
    

what sums up N.R. for me -- that totally specious dispute with Raissa G.  What
foolishness.  Count me as one of the women embarrassed by sharing the same
gender with N.R.  I wouldn't bother to read any book by or about her, but such
a tome might make good tinder for the woodstove.

Sara

    So "getting angry at" or "blaming" Ronald Reagan is pointless.  Is that
    what I'm hearing?  But "getting angry at" or "blaming" Nancy is ok. 
    Is that what I'm hearing?
    
    Please don't misunderstand and think that I love the woman, or respect 
    and admire her for her contributions to anything.  I really know
    nothing about her and don't know anyone who does, except possibly a few
    journalists and even they may have agendae of their own.  I'm just
    considering what one source out of literally millions has suggested,
    considering it only because it's quite interesting.  If Dan Rather had
    suggested it, it would have triggered the same line of thinking for me.
    But Dan Rather didn't suggest it.  He can also be fired.  A freelance
    writer can't be fired.  A publisher will simply publish what sells.  
    Who's more inclined to tell the truth?  The logic is open to examination.
    Where is the avalanche of defamation lawsuits?  Kitty Kelly can't
    *really* go around publishing books full of lies about such powerful
    and still living people such as Sinatra and Nancy, can she?  She was
    told last week to be careful because there was "a hit" out on her.
    Why can't she just be sued in a court of law?  Someone got something to
    hide?
    
    Why the automatic resistance to the info from this particular venue, the 
    one that did more research into Nancy and her world than anyone before her? 
    Maybe the title should read "Kitty Kelly". 
    
    This is obviously a broad topic and apparently an emotional one.  So how
    about if I try to narrow it down to an unemotional appraisal of the
    following:
    
    It was alledged that Nancy was the driving force, the power behind the
    throne.  What do you think about that assertion and why?  Try not to get
    bogged down in who made it or react to the image of a woman in such a
    position.  Simply decide first whether or not you agree with the
    initial premise.  If you don't, then stop there.
    
    But if you do think it's possible that Nancy was indeed the "Laura", 
    (was that her name? I certainly know *his*!) in the "Remington Steele" 
    situation, what's the difference between the two women?  The position of 
    public trust?  That's a good start.  Would it have been ok if she was 
    "only" running a private business?  Is it ever ok?  Does it prove that 
    she was weak enough to need to go through a man or strong enough to be 
    pragmatic about the cultural situation and remain focused on her goal?
    
    And of course, how do we know Raissa isn't the wicked witch of the east 
    in a designer fur?
    
    Is it just a question of whom we choose to believe, with Kitty Kelly
    among the popular "unchosen"?  What makes her work "trash" - that it
    might be a lie, or that it might be the truth?
    
    Sandy
    
     

    Kitty Kelly can't
    *really* go around publishing books full of lies about such powerful
    and still living people such as Sinatra and Nancy, can she?

Yes. She can. You clearly don't know what the laws regarding libel and slander
of public figures are. It's very very difficult for a "public figure" to win
such a case.

I put as much credence in Kitty Kelley as I do in the Star or the National
Inquirer. Their methods, sources, and reliability are of the same standard.

	-- Charles

    why sue?
    
    Just Say No.
    
    Now the Reagan presidency is over, it is like beating a really dead 
    horse.
    
    

    I found Reagan's actions to be lacking in intelligence.  If Nancy was
    the power behind the throne, I'm underimpressed with her actions, too.
    
    I really have to agree with Charles, though.  My opinion is highly
    colored by my feelings about the Reagan presidency in general: how
    could we have elected him once, let alone twice?
    
    Bob 
    who, at 33, has *never* voted for a winning presidential candidate

> .12 Sandy
    
>    It was alledged that Nancy was the driving force, ...
                                      |    |      |
                                      V    V      V
I'll buy the phrase if you make it:   a driving force, ...

I think she was "a driving force" because so many people have said so,
at many times and places. There were lots of others, both public and
private.  No big deal. (My touchy-feely take is that Regan had about four 
to nine "driving forces" thru out his public life; Nancy was just the
most constant. Thank heavens he had some driving forces; left to
himself, there is no telling what ...!)

>    Does it prove that ...
>    she was weak enough to need to go through a man or strong enough to be 
>    pragmatic about the cultural situation and remain focused on her goal?
    
The "weak" there sort of startles me. People lean on each other, we
cooperate for a zillion reasons, paybacks, ambitions, emotions.

Nixon had Bebe Rebozo, Franklin Roosevelt had Harry <mumble 
(Hopins?)>, Claire Booth Luce had Helen Lawrence, Luci had Dezi, 
Woodrow Wilson had Ms. Wilson, George Burns had Gracie Allen, 
Mike Nichols had Elaine May, Lily Tomlin has Jane Wagner ... 
oh yes, and God the Father has/had the Holy Ghost (depending on
your "God is Dead" policy).

I would not accuse any of these folks of being "weak enough to go
through" a man/woman/friend/spouse.

    re. weighing the books accusations against the media image of the
        Reagan presidency
    
    disclaimer:  I have not read this book and do not intend to do so;
    hence, my opinion/take on it's content is derived solely from NPR and
    other media sources.  [ironic that ...]
    
    If we leave aside the 'naughty bits' about matinees with other public
    figures ...
    
    The anecdotes recounted by Kitty Kelly really don't substantially
    contradict the media picture of Nancy Reagan as presented during the
    'Reagan White House Years.'  The media consistently made much of Ms.
    Reagan's seeming inability to return 'loaner' garments; her somewhat
    chilly relationship with all four of the Reagan children; her ruthless
    treatment of staff [executive and otherwise] who interfered with the
    pursuit of her political & social agenda; ... at the height of Ronald
    Reagan's popularity her 'unsympathetic' image was scarcely mitigated.
    
    If she _was_ 'the power behind the throne' to the extent that both Kelly
    and previous media speculation would hold, then Nancy Davis was, and
    is, a finer actress than anyone has ever credited.  Do I believe that
    she is more intelligent and capable than her husband?  Yes, I do. 
    However, her personal charisma would seem to have fallen far short of
    his.  Given that so much of the 'success' of the Reagan presidency
    seems to be firmly grounded in the personal charisma of Ronald Reagan,
    I find it hard to credit Nancy Reagan with it.  I do not believe that
    she was his 'main handler' as she does not appear to been particularly
    adept in this arena.
    
    Do I believe that she was a successful woman?  Yes, I do.  But I
    shudder to think of her as a role model for future generations.
    
      Annie

    re. upon further consideration of the 'Remington Steele Hypothesis'
    
    Beyond the differences between living persons and fictional characters,
    I see little difference.  [keeping in mind that many entertaining
    fictional scenarios are hell to live through in reality -- i.e. in
    'bodice-rippers' women have a disturbing tendency to fall in love with
    their assailants, but I don't know too many women who've been abducted
    and sexually assaulted who start picking out china patterns]
    
    I never watched the television program as I found the basic premise far
    from engaging [that, and I became tired of detective shows somewhere
    around age 12].  However, if Laura's [?] desire to ferret out
    wrong-doing was more burning than her need for respect and recognition,
    then she certainly made the right choice.
    
    By the same token, if Nancy Reagan's ambition was to run a presidency
    [accepting the premise] then _she_ certainly chose the most expedient
    method of doing so under current social conditions. 
    
    I don't see either choice inherently immoral or wrong.  I don't see
    either man being harmed by his role as a tool.  And both women achieved
    their goals.
    
    It's a judgement call as to whether the ends justifiy the means.  It is
    entirely open to speculation as to what Reagan's motives were in her
    quest for the power of the presidency, so I couldn't begin to judge
    them for myself.
    
      Annie