Michael is adopted.
They are from the union of Jane Wyman and RWR.
Maureen was not adopted.
She is the biological Daughter of Ronald W. Reagan and Jane Wyman.
Michael was adopted. He is Ronald Reagan's son.
Posted on 06/17/2004 6:21:16 PM PDT by Hildy
Jsut saw a promo..to paraphrase..."his remarks at his Father's funeral have set off a controversy...." Is there ANYONE the media will not exploit to further their cause and bash Bush?
I have been reading Martin Anderson's book "Revolution, The Reagan Legacy", in which this point is firmly made. Reagan took additional flack from the subsequent Press Secretaries, who filled in the role, but never got the full title, because it was held for Brady. All the rest were always labeled "deputy".
I watched it. He seemed a bit more 'human' that we might have been led to believe. He is still anti- Bush, but the public opinion in the past week must have gotten to him. He toned it down, and was much more tearful than during the sunset burial had been.
Typical of the networks however. Dateline chose to focus upon him because he is the most controversial. I would have liked to hear what Michael reflected upon during the past week rather than Ron, Jr.
To defend Pres. Reagan:
Patti and Ronnie P. were more likely the product of liberal private school/university education than they were of their father. Ronald Reagan was a public figure with a busy schedule and his kids unfortunately were allowed to be raised by the status quo in education which is liberalism. The educational establishment preaches rebellion against your parents and their beliefs. It was cool to be anti anything their father stood for. Now it's cool to use his coattails to espouse their socialist point of view, while decrying others who seek to protect his true legacy. Michael and Maureen on the otherhand got it. They saw the goodness of their father and his beliefs, they personally experienced it through his love and commitment to them. They knew it was real because he chose them through adoption yet never made them feel 'adopted'. Patti and Ronnie P. need to get a reality check.
Sorry about reference to Maureen being adopted. If I am in error it still does not change my feelings about Maureen and Michael's relationship with their father ....
It's just downright creepy that you think it's acceptable to skip over Michael Reagan because he was an adopted child of Ronald Reagan.
I'm glad that so many people have jumped all over you for it.
"I would have liked to hear what Michael reflected upon during the past week rather than Ron, Jr"
I believe Michael to be a proponent of stem cell research too. But Ron could say it so much better.
I tried to give Ron and Patti some room for personal time, but when they addressed the public, I thought they were fair game.
Patti 'Davis'... what an embarassment to herself she is. A number of kids go through youthful periods of insanity, but they grow out of it. Not this brick.
It didn't seem to me that either Patti or Ron were moved by the events of the week their father died and was laid to rest. I guess we each handle things differently. I seemed to feel more emotion at his passing than they did.
How could two adults be so blind to what their father was. It's disheartening.
Thanks for the information. That makes me feel a little better. I was hoping that they weren't trying to keep him away. You never know how families will react in times of grief.
Patty...did she pose for Playboy while her Dad was President? I heard something long time ago about that but don't remember for sure. She must have hated both parents at the time.
I agree with you - I felt and still feel like I just lost a very important piece of my life with his passing. We knew that we were losing him all these years but when it happened......
Can you imagine what a great statesman he would have made? Bush 41 would have never lost that 2nd election.
I'm not sure about the playboy thing. She may have. It does seem like I remember her doing something like that, but I don't want to say for sure.
Yes, we did know for a long time, and yes it still sucks losing him.
As for being a great statesman, in some ways I'm sure that would have been an excellent plus for conservatism. On the other hand, an older 85 to 90 year old person would have had to slog it out regarding Clinton and his sick ways.
Sadly, when you wallow with pigs, you come away dirty. I'm glad we were spared that reality.
I was just thinking how ironic that is.
Poor Ron is saddled not only with the Reagan name, but also the name of President George Bush's Grandfather!
That must bother him everyday...
Maureen was not adopted.
She is the biological Daughter of Ronald W. Reagan and Jane Wyman.
Michael was adopted. He is Ronald Reagan's son.
Or the oldest son can sell his birthright for a bowl of pottage.
I'm glad that so many people have jumped all over you for it.
This was an ongoing conversation, and you may have missed some of it. At this juncture, Trofeewife was talking about biological children.
IMO, she wasn't "skipping" over Michael at all. And certainly not because he was adopted.
I'm sorry you feel glad that people jumped all over her instead of seeing the context of what she was saying.
I think it is good to welcome new people (she has only been here about two months and seems to fit in fine) and try to understand them instead of just discouraging them.
I know some of you have been here a long time, I am a relative newcomer having signed up just a while ago on Nov 27, 1997.
I think you're completely wrong about that.
I think it is good to welcome new people (she has only been here about two months and seems to fit in fine) and try to understand them instead of just discouraging them.
I couldn't care less about registration dates, and I've never thrown mine in anyone's face.
If Trofeewife's discouraged and wants to throw in the towel over this, then so be it. We've all taken our lumps here. Anyone who sticks around for awhile does, and I certainly have.
Thus rendering the eldest born to the position of second-born as in the case of Jacob & Esau.
Well of course you do. Show me how you dispute the fact that she was talking about biological children. Which was part of my point, which you neglected to answer in your post to me.
Not only was I not wrong, but I certainly was not completely wrong...
If you want to back up your denial of what I said, then you will have a case.
And good for you for not using the reg date, I never have either. I think it is a moot point as you can see by the post of mine that you responded to.
That is a pretty broad brush, that we have all taken our lumps here.
I have never until now from you. Thanks for being the first person to give me a "lump".
If you want to discourage new people from participating here, and have to have them get "lumps" go for it.
I think this website has better goals than that IMO.
Oh, and sorry you have had to take lumps. I hope you learned from them. Of course that doesn't give you the privilege of giving them to others, or does it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.