Oh THIS is going to be good (thanks Drudge)

[Ustwo]

CONTROVERSY SWIRLS AROUND CBS REAGAN FILM; SCRIPT REVEALED
Mon Oct 20 2003 20:30:29 ET

In the upcoming CBS telefilm on President Ronald Reagan producer fail to mention the economic recovery or the creation of wealth during his administration, nor does it show him delivering the nation from the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years.

The film depicts Nancy Reagan as a pill-popping control addict, who set the president's schedule based on her astrologer's advice and who had significant influence over White House personnel and policy decisions.

MORE

The NEW YORK TIMES has obtained a final script for THE REAGANS, according to newsroom sources.

TIMES reporter Jim Rutenberg does it again, and is planning a Tuesday splash.

"This was very important for me, to document everything and give a very fair point of view," says Leslie Moonves, the CBS chairman and a top Democrat supporter [he sat next to Hillary Clinton during her husband's re-nominating convention].


The film is set to air during next month's Sweeps. It stresses Reagan's moments of forgetfulness, his supposed opinions on AIDS and gays, his laissez-faire handling of his staff members. The scenes often carry a disapproving tone.

During a scene in which his wife pleads with him to help people battling AIDS, Reagan says resolutely, "They that live in sin shall die in sin" and refuses to discuss the issue further.

The film's producers, Zadan and Meron, acknowledge their liberal politics, as do the stars of the television movie, James Brolin and Judy Davis. But Meron tells the TIMES: "This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge. It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way. We all believe it's a story that should be told."

Personally I view Reagan as one of the greatest presidents since Teddy Roosevelt. While it makes me a bit ill that such crap is allowed to pass into the public mind, as most people may not know the motives of the producers, I wonder what these same people we would do if a movie on Clinton's life would be made using only right wing hearsay.

My question about such propaganda is with today’s decentralized media where you will have multiple views, instantly spread via the internet, is such heavy handed propaganda counterproductive.

One only has to look at the Wellstone memorial and the backlash it caused to see what going over the top can do to hurt a cause.

[The_Dude]

it's just a movie. a movie cannot re-write what somebody did in real life and they dont follow the events in real life very much.

[HarmlessRabbit]

While I'm no Reagan fan, the AIDS statement seems a bit out of character for him. Reagan was much less conservative than Bush Jr., and while he was widely criticized for not doing enough about AIDS, I don't recall, nor can I google, him making any statements anywhere near the "they that live in sin shall die in sin" statement.

I did find an interesting HBO movie from 10 years ago (that I don't remember) that got the same sort of heat:

http://www.fumento.com/heterodoxy.htm

But I completely agree with you. When people make vitriolic, one-sided, heavy handed, closed minded statements, they tend to stifle discussion and provoke a backlash.

It would be much better if people on all sides of the political debate could discuss things calmly and listen to each other's points.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by The_Dude
it's just a movie. a movie cannot re-write what somebody did in real life and they dont follow the events in real life very much.

Perception is reality. It always amazes me how many people know nothing of politics (yet still vote). You could argue that such a movie could convince someone like this on how 'evil' Reagan was. I've known 18 year olds to not know who the last president was (this was a year ago). I'm not making this up. One of the girls I knew to be pretty smart, and I asked her how she passed her constitution test. She told me they gave her the questions with the answers before the test (this is in Chicago).

So yes I worry about something like this movie inflecting people who lack any knowledge to base the validity of the film on, or have any reason to question the validity.

Still I wonder if negative reaction to such things would be even greater. Has the information age gotten to a point where pulling the wool over someone’s eyes only gets you caught?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Still I wonder if negative reaction to such things would be even greater. Has the information age gotten to a point where pulling the wool over someone’s eyes only gets you caught?

I'd have do say that a "negative reaction" isn't punished at all by the media or the public. Have you seen the sales numbers for Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore's books?

[Food Eater Lad]

They also didnt interview any of Reagen's family, friends or coworkers. So who did they talk to when they wrote the dialouge?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I'd have do say that a "negative reaction" isn't punished at all by the media or the public. Have you seen the sales numbers for Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore's books?

One thing about books is who reads them. I own Limbaugh and Coulter books, I might barrow Franken just for ammo, and Moore is so far off on everything I wouldn’t read it for money (at least I'd need a lot of money).

Visual media has much more of an impact and gets a lot more attention.

Lets say I wrote a book on how national socialism was what the US needed and got someone who published it. Very little impact outside of some circles.

Now lets say I make that into a movie, or a documentary. Suddenly its the talk of the news, people are picketing, the ALCU debates defending me, that sort of thing.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Lets say I wrote a book on how national socialism was what the US needed and got someone who published it. Very little impact outside of some circles.

Now lets say I make that into a movie, or a documentary. Suddenly its the talk of the news, people are picketing, the ALCU debates defending me, that sort of thing.

I don't know. You basically just described the plot of "Pay It Forward" and we all know how THAT did at the box office.

But seriously, Michael Moore's questionable journalism hasn't hurt his reputation at all, from what I can see. And Rush Limbaugh's purchases of illegal drugs won't lose him many faithful supporters. I really don't think the American public punishes people for muckraking. I'm beginning to wonder if we all secretly enjoy it.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
But seriously, Michael Moore's questionable journalism hasn't hurt his reputation at all, from what I can see. And Rush Limbaugh's purchases of illegal drugs won't lose him many faithful supporters. I really don't think the American public punishes people for muckraking. I'm beginning to wonder if we all secretly enjoy it.

I don't know about Moore not being hurt. When I first saw Moore many years ago, I thought he did some pretty funny satire, and wasn't over the top. Now I view him as nothing but a slug who will say anything to advance his political point of view no matter how blatant the lie. I doubt I'm alone in this, so yes Moore was hurt. Now there are people who WANT to believe Moore and they will continue to support him, but in so doing he sacrificed the ability to really change peoples minds as only a like mind would tolerate him.

I'm also not sure if Rush won't be hurt. I can tell you I'm pissed off at him even though I understand addiction to these pain killers far better then the average guy on the street due to my education. Rush will most likely keep his core, but I know a lot of people who only started to listen to Rush recently. (One is a life long democrat whose husband is part of the democrat machine in Chicago, after listening to Rush for several months she told her husband she couldn't vote for the democrats in the last election here. He told her that’s fine but be sure to show up to vote so he doesn't get in trouble with his bosses (they no longer rig the votes as much apparently but they DO make sure all their people vote, including wives)). These people may well be turned off which has limited his ability to influence the public discourse.

[danielboy]

I was born in 1978 and I only remember the end of Regan's presidency. My dad was a super democrat, so I naturally hated reagan. When I was in college, I became interested in politics and started reading presidential bios and I started to admire reagan. He really got a lot of important things through. And he made good movies.

Bedtime for Bonzo is one of my alltime favorites.

yah bonzo! That monkey is so funny.

[Superbelt]

Actually Reagan was that indifferent and ignorant about AIDS. His Surgeon General fully believed you could get aids from toilet seats.

And for those who are upset about this documentary- and it does seem like a hack job- *

I hope you were this outraged over DC 9/11 which portrayed Bush as a saint and completely glossed over his missteps and misrepresented many things that he did. It was a propaganda piece as well, pure and simple.

I doubt it though.

*(I do hate Reagan, and believe him to be one of the worst presidents we have ever had in this nation- and for many, many reasons. Some of which seem to be addressed in this movie so far. FYI.)

[Food Eater Lad]

Didnt see Dc 9 11 so I cant comment on it. But will you comment on Farenheight 911?

[Superbelt]

After I see it sure, I will join in deriding it, if it contains any lies and distortions.

[Food Eater Lad]

Fair enough.

So Belt what is this DC 911? I never heard of it.

[Superbelt]

It was a made for TV movie on Showtime. It is one mans take on the president and his reactions on 9/11. But it seriously washes over any imperfections and protrays Bush as some kind of saint.

Type in 'DC 9/11' and you are sure to get plenty of hits on it.

[j8ear]

Originally posted by Superbelt
*(I do hate Reagan, and believe him to be one of the worst presidents we have ever had in this nation- and for many, many reasons. Some of which seem to be addressed in this movie so far. FYI.)

Care to elaborate? I'm very interested.

I don't know much about Reagan except for the Marine Corps he built up, and served in under his Veep's watch. Quite an impressive force to be sure. Seems to me he did indeed create ALOT of wealth, albeit only for some, and at considerable tax payer expense. Military industrial complex and all. Yet he also pretty much single handedly had Mr Gorbachev "Tear down that Wall!"

What did he do while he was gov of Cali? Anyone know...or remember?

The only thing I watch on CBS btw is Dave Letterman.

-bear

[Food Eater Lad]

Originally posted by Superbelt
It was a made for TV movie on Showtime. It is one mans take on the president and his reactions on 9/11. But it seriously washes over any imperfections and protrays Bush as some kind of saint.

Type in 'DC 9/11' and you are sure to get plenty of hits on it.

That explains it. I dont get HBO or showtime.

[mml]

While not a huge fan of Reagan, I am guessing that the movie will be a bit heavy handed. Network T.V. movies are almost always overdone, poorly written and poorly acted and this one, most likely, will be no different. I think that it is difficult to write an unbiased biography of such an influential, loved and hated individual if you were alive while the person was in power. You are going to have biases. IMO it is much more accurate when biographies are written many, many years after the person is out of power or has passed away. Let's face it, this is going to be a "Biodrama", not a biography.

Can't wait for the Clinton movie of the week.

[Superbelt]

I am an environmentalist, so the cuts to the EPA and the relaxation of regulations on utilities are a serious sore point with me.

The corruption in his administration, especially the Iran Contral affair. The way Reagan was able to get our people back, when Carter couldn't is shady as all hell.

Star Wars, huge waste of money, it was and always will be useless pork.

And recently the realization that he was most likely in the grips of Alzheimers while president lowers my opinion of him as a leader.

His sponsoring of Iraq. He knew how bad the man was and still gave him all the WMD under the sun except for nukes.

That's my short list.

[Food Eater Lad]

I have heard that the star wars plan was the biggest factor in the downfall of the soviet union. So it was money well spent in my book.

[Superbelt]

Well I call that a load of crap. It helped, I know it helped a bit, but the star wars program hurt us much more than any benefit we derived from damaging them.

The real pain for Russia was costly wars, like Afghanistan and an arms race with China who the Soviet's shared the longest border in the world with. They were fiercely opposed to each other and that is where the majority of the Soviets arms race originated and where most of their hardware was.

The Soviets may have been our principal nemesis, but to them China was more important.

Add to that the horrible instability of Russias economy because of the bad way their leaders managed everything, and there you have the reason Russia fell; Mismanaged economy and arms race with China.

[Food Eater Lad]

That and they couldnt keep pace with our spending and military advances ( star wars) lets thank our capitalist nation for forcing a nation that killed over 40million people into faliure.

[Superbelt]

No, they couldn't continue the arms with China. Not us.

They barely paid attention to star wars. They didn't even up the production of rockets to counteract any shield because they knew we didn't have one at the time and were unlikely to create one in the near future.

The made a political stink about it but that is just about the end of the reaction.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Superbelt
No, they couldn't continue the arms with China. Not us.

They barely paid attention to star wars. They didn't even up the production of rockets to counteract any shield because they knew we didn't have one at the time and were unlikely to create one in the near future.

The made a political stink about it but that is just about the end of the reaction.

It's ridiculous to think that Russia ignored Star Wars. They have as professional a military as any in the world and they absolutely were spending to circumvent anything we did with Star Wars. They had a huge investment in missiles and the prospect that a large segment of their military preparedness could be eliminated (or at least diminished) by star wars could not possibly be ignored.

[Superbelt]

They didn't completely ignore it, they did make a political stink about it but they did not change military strategy or make any substantial budgetary expendatures based on such a system.

I don't know the exact number, but the Soviet Union already had between 10 and 25,000 nuclear warheads throughout the 1980's. Their height of warhead posession was 35,000 in the 1960's for reference- So that shows that the 10 - 25K itself was not a result of Star Wars.

Star Wars didn't matter, they did not accelerate their warhead production because they knew they had enough as it is to get past any missile shield if we could ever get something like that working.

How effective do you think a missile shield can be? Hypothetically, if possible (real Physicists say it isn't) a missile shield can only target so many incoming warheads at once, fire off 20 at different locations simultaneously and some get through. A missile shield would NOT diminish their military preparedness in the slightest.

Now, feel free to attack these statements. But this time, if you are going to continue down the line, reference exact actions taken by the Soviet Union, and dollar amounts to counteract our Star Wars program. And some statements by Soviets attesting to Star Wars accelerating the downfall of the Union by more than 2 or 3 days.

And a working Star Wars would be more of a hinderance and weakness for us anyway. It ensured OUR destruction in the event of a nuclear detonation in SR. The Sr wouldn't just launch one back in retaliation, they would fire off hundreds, maybe thousands to ensure enough got through to defeat us.
Star Wars would have made the USA, Coast to Coast, a wasteland.

[Ustwo]

Ummmm Superbelt, WHY was Afganistan so costly for the USSR?

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Superbelt
They didn't completely ignore it, they did make a political stink about it but they did not change military strategy or make any substantial budgetary expendatures based on such a system.

Star Wars didn't matter, they did not accelerate their warhead production because they knew they had enough as it is to get past any missile shield if we could ever get something like that working.

How effective do you think a missile shield can be? Hypothetically, if possible (real Physicists say it isn't) a missile shield can only target so many incoming warheads at once, fire off 20 at different locations simultaneously and some get through. A missile shield would NOT diminish their military preparedness in the slightest.

If I wanted to write a dissertation about it I would do the necessary footnoting but to respond to your post with minutia,as the only figures you added were missile counts, is overkill. Increased missile production is NOT what they would have done to combat Star Wars. They would have spent money on circumventing the system (check out the technology they developed to combat the GPS systems that US troops used in Iraq). They would have increased spending on missiles launched from subs and the subs required to launch them since the short flight times of missiles launched from the coast would likely have negated the missile shield's impact. There are many things they would have had to do (and I'm sure they did and are still doing them).

As far as effectiveness of a missile shield, no one knows until they actually try it. Not too long ago the "experts" said that something like FedEx could never be accomplished.

Reagan also completely changed the relationship with Russia and the US in the aftermath of the end of the cold war but I guess that was purely coincidence. He offered support to a country we competed against for decades and did it without bitterness. He did it in a believable way that helped Russia's leaders to maintain integrity with their people.

He played his hand very well and came out on top.

[Superbelt]

Well, I know where you are leading this.

I'd put it at 4 parts afghan will to 1 part US hardware. The reason we had an easier time is because the people themselves were sick of Taliban rule. But yes, that did strain the USSR a bit more. Still, anything we did, infitessimal compared to China and their own internal corruption. Reagan deserves little credit.

It's nice how you let me point out how Reagan created the habitat that spawned the Taliban and later al Qaeda.

There you go for another one of my points against Reagan in my book.

[Superbelt]

The subs, too were already in numerous existance before Star Wars plans were made public. There would have been no rational need to step up normal production.

And it is Physicists saying it is physically impossible, not economists debating the viability of a courier service. Different animals. It's men and women who devoted their lives to the science. And it is concensus.

Can you provide me links on how the Soviets planned to battle the Star Wars program? Cause the obvious cost effective solution is to just overwhelm it with a storm of rockets. I don't think they even tried to develop against it.

[Ustwo]

Yes we all know China won the cold war and scientists never say anyting is impossible unless it truly is impossible. It reminds me of that 'consensus' of scientists who said we wouldn't see powered flight for another 100 years, and I can't wait to see it in 3 more years!

Very few people, who don't like Reagan, like giving him credit for anything. I had a FDR democrat professor who I used to debate politics with. According to him, every republican president was stupid, any anything good that came during their time was pure luck or in spite of them. He is a very smart guy but politics has replaced religion for him, and much like talking about evolution with a creationist, he just turns his brain off and tries to rationalize anything good a republican does in some way that doesn't offend his left wing beliefs.

Saying Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR is the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands up to your ears and say 'lalalalala I can't hear you!'.

As a side note, I am a scientist, published, all that stuff, and let me tell you the important thing in science. Its not how many people say something can’t be done that matters, it’s the one person that figures out how it can be done that matters. Science isn’t advanced by committee, its normally one person, who despite often being derided by their more established peers, manages to do something in a way that’s never been done before.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes we all know China won the cold war and scientists never say anyting is impossible unless it truly is impossible. It reminds me of that 'consensus' of scientists who said we wouldn't see powered flight for another 100 years, and I can't wait to see it in 3 more years!

Very few people, who don't like Reagan, like giving him credit for anything. I had a FDR democrat professor who I used to debate politics with. According to him, every republican president was stupid, any anything good that came during their time was pure luck or in spite of them. He is a very smart guy but politics has replaced religion for him, and much like talking about evolution with a creationist, he just turns his brain off and tries to rationalize anything good a republican does in some way that doesn't offend his left wing beliefs.

Saying Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR is the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands up to your ears and say 'lalalalala I can't hear you!'.

As a side note, I am a scientist, published, all that stuff, and let me tell you the important thing in science. Its not how many people say something can?t be done that matters, it?s the one person that figures out how it can be done that matters. Science isn?t advanced by committee, its normally one person, who despite often being derided by their more established peers, manages to do something in a way that?s never been done before.

Well, since I've made similar claims regarding my expertise on a particular subject, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your academic accomplishments.

I urge you, however, to concede that claims to the effect that Reagan was the cause of the downfall of communism or the Soviet Union (e.g., "Yet he also pretty much single handedly had Mr Gorbachev 'Tear down that Wall!'") are at least equally problematic as those claiming his policies had nothing to do with their nation's economic instability.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Superbelt
The subs, too were already in numerous existance before Star Wars plans were made public. There would have been no rational need to step up normal production.

And it is Physicists saying it is physically impossible, not economists debating the viability of a courier service. Different animals. It's men and women who devoted their lives to the science. And it is concensus.

Can you provide me links on how the Soviets planned to battle the Star Wars program? Cause the obvious cost effective solution is to just overwhelm it with a storm of rockets. I don't think they even tried to develop against it.

Ustwo, "it’s the one person that figures out how it can be done that matters" . That's exactly the point I was trying to make with regard to Fedex.

Superbelt, I wasn't talking just about business people when it comes to Fedex. The big problem outlined by the experts (both technologists and business people) was the ability to track tens of thousands of packages at any given point during their trips(sounds remarkably like missile shields ehh?).

And as far as subs go, you are thinking statically and not for the long haul. Sub fleets need to be maintained both structurally and technologically. Improvements in undersea sonar and satellite tracking require changes to both the subs that have already been made and those that will be made. These refittings and redesigns are mega bucks.

But fine let's go from your assumption that Reagan had no (or very limited) influence on the fall of the Soviet Union. What about his political skill in forging a relationship with the post cold war Russia?

[Superbelt]

I'll give him credit for that. Too often we see our defeated foes ignored by our government and our inaction comes back to bite us in the ass when someone else takes over because we wouldn't support the country.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Superbelt
Too often we see our defeated foes ignored by our government and our inaction comes back to bite us in the ass when someone else takes over because we wouldn't support the country.

Agree wholeheartedly with that. You probably disagree but I still see Russia as a very real threat if certain conditions persist and other situations arise. Their switch to capitalism has obviously taken a very long time leaving many people disillusioned. Power has swapped from the government to criminal elements and most people have come out on the short end of the equation. I could certainly see a unifying element coming to power in the next decade based around Russian pride and strength. Former Soviet Republics and other nations that have valuable resources could find themselves in very bad spots.

[rgr22j]

Originally posted by onetime2
As far as effectiveness of a missile shield, no one knows until they actually try it. Not too long ago the "experts" said that something like FedEx could never be accomplished.

Somewhat off-topic, but you brought up one of my favorite anecdotes about "academic expertise." Years ago, a Yale management professor wrote, "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." This was in response to paper written by a student proposing reliable overnight delivery service. The student was Fred Smith, who eventually went on to found Federal Express.

-- Alvin

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by rgr22j
Somewhat off-topic, but you brought up one of my favorite anecdotes about "academic expertise." Years ago, a Yale management professor wrote, "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." This was in response to paper written by a student proposing reliable overnight delivery service. The student was Fred Smith, who eventually went on to found Federal Express.

-- Alvin

Also off-topic, but the story really isn't quite true. Read Fred Smith's true account on the second page, second column here (I'd paste, but it's a PDF and I can't select the text and don't feel like typing it all in.)

http://www.fedex.com/us/about/news/o...ith.pdf?link=4

I think I'll tell snopes.com

[Ustwo]

Michael Reagan: CBS Portrays President as Foul-mouthed Buffoon

The upcoming CBS miniseries on President Ronald Reagan portrays him as a foul-mouthed buffoon who repeatedly used profanity - behavior he never exhibited in real life, his son Michael said Thursday.

"It's horrendous, it's absolutely horrendous," Michael Reagan complained after viewing eight minutes' worth of excerpts of the film, which stars James Brolin, husband of Reagan-hater Barbra Streisand, as the 40th president.

"They paint my father as a buffoon," the former first son-turned radio host told fellow talker Sean Hannity. "They also have my dad taking God's name in vain in an angry, angry way. ... They have him calling another person in anger an S.O.B."

"I've never seen my Dad that angry and I've never heard him use the 'G-D' word in my life," Reagan complained.

"They dislike my father, and you can see that," he said. "They actually infer that Alzheimer's was setting in at the time the whole thing was going on with Ollie North and Iran-Contra - which is absurd."

The CBS film is even harder on former first lady Nancy Reagan, Michael Reagan revealed.

"All the bad things you've heard about Nancy - I mean, this show just hates her - absolutely hates her," he told Hannity.

Reagan called CBS's portrayal of Mrs. Reagan "obscene."

The former first son said he talked to Mrs. Reagan about the excerpts Wednesday night, saying, "Of course she's upset about it - we're all upset about it."

"The eight minutes' worth of clips that I saw [showed] Nancy as the head of the government and Dad was just the buffoon going along for the ride, with everybody laughing at him," Reagan said. "It is so sad."

Reagan said he sent a copy of the clips he viewed to the former first lady.

And he only saw a few clips...

[Ustwo]

Oh God, this one is even better...

REAGAN: It's Armageddon... that's what it is. Armageddon. The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down. That's me. I am the anti-Christ.

Buhahahaha, god liberals are amusing.

[Superbelt]

REAGANS'S BREAKFAST ROOM -- WHITE HOUSE -- MORNING

Reagan and Nancy sit in front of their breakfast. They can't eat. Can't drink. They're numb.

REAGAN: It's Armageddon... that's what it is. Armageddon. The Leader from the West will be revealed as the anti-Christ, and then God will strike him down. That's me. I am the anti-Christ.

NANCY: No, Ronnie...

REAGAN (overriding): And the Lord will strike down all of civilization, in order to make way for the new order... a new Heaven and a new Earth...

Nancy reaches out, grabs his hand, strongly.

NANCY: Hold on. You've got to hold on, Ronnie.

Reagan's eyes are filling with tears. He can't help it. He's crumbling.

REAGAN: I saved 77 lives in 7 years, Nancy... But I couldn't save those people in Lebanon.

Nancy gets up, puts her arms around him. She rocks him slowly, silently, back and forth.

That whole quote which you snipped out was him berrating himself for not being able to save the americans in Lebanon. It wasn't him saying everything he does makes him the anti-christ. he was just beating up on himself for one bad showing.

nice n-i-c though.

And I don't think most people would care what Michael Reagan thinks this of this movie... or any other topic.

[Ustwo]

I rather doubt HIGHLY that Reagan at ANY time thought of himself as the anti-christ.

Nor do I think he had a break down saved by Nacy over this.

Give me a break.