Movie about Ronald Reagan stirring controversy, boycott...

[wonderfly]

First there was discussion of that movie "The Passion" directed by Mel Gibson. Now we have this: there's talk of boycotting CBS for a Made for TV movie about the Reagans...


Is CBS in Big Trouble?
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly



"Next month, CBS is set to run a miniseries on Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as you may know. But reports say the movie contains propaganda and defamation. And now some Americans are calling for a boycott.

CBS President Les Moonves is quoted as saying there are things about the movie he likes and things he doesn't like. So we assume CBS is going to recut the film. Therefore, we're not jumping to any conclusions until the final version is ready.

That's the fair thing to do. Remember, some condemned the upcoming Mel Gibson movie about the death of Jesus without seeing it. We said that wasn't fair and we're holding to that.

But should the Reagan movie turn out to be unfair, well, CBS is going to be in a terrible position. Millions of Americans will be angry if the Reagans are portrayed as mean-spirited. And they will take their anger out on the network and the sponsors of the movie. There's no question about that.

CBS executives have to know this. And that's why I believe they'll modify the film. But you can legitimately question their judgment in the first place. They allowed two far left actors to portray Ronald and Nancy Reagan. They allowed a screenwriter to put in a scene where President Reagan says people with AIDS deserve it, although there's no evidence Mr. Reagan ever said that. And they are releasing this controversial film when President Reagan is dying of Alzheimer's. What kind of judgment is that?

Talking Points rarely endorses boycotts. The current boycott on French products is an exception because that country is actively working against the USA. But we know the boycotts are very, very serious. They hurt people -- sometimes innocent people. And they should never be entered into lightly.

So we are holding off on judging the Reagan movie until the final cut is available to be seen. We hope the movie is fair and balanced. But if it isn't, I wouldn't want to be in the boardroom at CBS or working the switchboard.

And that's The Memo."

[RogueMartian]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS :D :D :D :D :D

[EinBebop]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?Truthful? BWAHAHAHAhaha... even the writers have admitted they made some of that stuff up.

[Lucky Bob]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS :D :D :D :D :D


http://users.skynet.be/chadster/Laugh.jpg

-Lucky "Shouldn't this go in Entertainment?" Bob

[Karkull]

Hee hee...I want to see this too.

[Joe Wagner]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS :D :D :D :D :D

It will contain the same amount of truth as a former (impeached) President's grand jury testimony about certain immoral relations with an intern.

Hopefully this movie is cut - literally, into tiny little pieces that will never see the light of day. If the numerous quotes from the movie script are allowed to remain it will not only be a complete misrepresentation of the Reagans but would seek to damage the credibility of one of our finest Presidents.

-Joe!

[Avery]

I don't think of the Reagans as evil, so much as utterly imbecilic.

Personally, I think the movie sounds really interesting. Whether it's truthful or not.

[Lucky Bob]

It will contain the same amount of truth as a former (impeached) President's grand jury testimony about certain immoral relations with an intern.


-Joe!
If there's any sense of justice at CBS, they'll make a movie about that with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter as: "The Clintons".

-Lucky "But...what would Sean's wife think?" Bob

[zmanjz]

CBS should be careful.

It seems to me that If they make accusations of this type that are untrue about a still "living" person. it could be considered Slander.

If this was a Movie about a Fictionialized version of Ronald Regan like "Donald Regal" then there would be less of a problem when creating scenes that we have no evidence ever existed.

BUT as this is a biographical movie expressly telling the story of a certain person, with the knowledge that they have no evidence of certain statements, As a lawyer, I would be worried about the California Slander/Libel Statutes. (I don't have the time to look up the California laws myself today)

Of course, even if It was slander, it is unlikely that Suit could be brought due to the Plaintiff's inability to assert his rights. (and his wife probably wouldn't want to put him through that in his condition)



(Side note: My position on Ronald Regan's Presidency is Neutral.)

[Jade_GL]

If there's any sense of justice at CBS, they'll make a movie about that with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter as: "The Clintons".

-Lucky "But...what would Sean's wife think?" Bob

That would almost be funny, if they were really actors and had any talent besides mean spirited punditry.

But I have a question, who were these *far left* actors? Are they considered far left because they're actors (a nasty correlation if that's all they've got) or are they really very far left, as shown by some sort of political action.

Even then, how does one know if their political ideas had any effect on how the acted. They are actors, they are supposed to act in a way that makes sense, no matter if they are Charlton Heston or Martin Sheen.

That's my point.

[Lucky Bob]

That would almost be funny, if they were really actors and had any talent besides mean spirited punditry.

But I have a question, who were these *far left* actors? Are they considered far left because they're actors (a nasty correlation if that's all they've got) or are they really very far left, as shown by some sort of political action.

Even then, how does one know if their political ideas had any effect on how the acted. They are actors, they are supposed to act in a way that makes sense, no matter if they are Charlton Heston or Martin Sheen.

That's my point.Barbara Streisand's hubby is playing Ronnie, for one.

-Lucky "'Nuff said" Bob

(Side note. If someone who leans opposite politically or philosophically than the character they play, you can bet that they aren't going to portray them in a favorable light. If Hannity DID play Bill Clinton, you can bet he isn't going to have him save the world from Terminators.)

[Andy Mancini]

But I have a question, who were these *far left* actors? Are they considered far left because they're actors (a nasty correlation if that's all they've got) or are they really very far left, as shown by some sort of political action.
Well you asked for it...

- Several famous Hollywood stars, from Steven Speilberg to Harrison Ford, are on record of saying that Fidel Castro is a great leader and that Cuba has the right idea.

- "I think that Communism is the right way to go in America." - Chevy Chase

- Have we forgotten the "Sean Penn goes to Iraq" debacle already?

- Two words: Michael Moore.


If still you don't believe me, do some research on the political beliefs of these stars:

Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Billy Crystal, Brad Pitt, Michael Douglas, Julia Roberts, Robin Williams, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Whoopi Goldberg, Jennifer Aniston, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Robert DeNiro, Craig Kilborn, Norman Mahler, Al Franken, The Beastie Boys (all three of them), Raine Maida (of Our Lady Peace), Zak de la Rocha, Johnny Reznik (of The Goo Goo Dolls), Dave Matthews, Eddie Vedder, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O' Donnell, George Clooney... and so on, and so on, and so on.

[Jade_GL]

Well you asked for it...

- Several famous Hollywood stars, from Steven Speilberg to Harrison Ford, are on record of saying that Fidel Castro is a great leader and that Cuba has the right idea.

- "I think that Communism is the right way to go in America." - Chevy Chase

- Have we forgotten the "Sean Penn goes to Iraq" debacle already?

- Two words: Michael Moore.


If still you don't believe me, do some research on the political beliefs of these stars:

Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Billy Crystal, Brad Pitt, Michael Douglas, Julia Roberts, Robin Williams, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Whoopi Goldberg, Jennifer Aniston, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Robert DeNiro, Craig Kilborn, Norman Mahler, Al Franken, The Beastie Boys (all three of them), Raine Maida (of Our Lady Peace), Zak de la Rocha, Johnny Reznik (of The Goo Goo Dolls), Dave Matthews, Eddie Vedder, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O' Donnell, George Clooney... and so on, and so on, and so on.

OK, obviously you didn't understand my point, so let's go over this again.

I only meant the actors in this very situation. No duh that there's far left actors, a lot actually. To say that there isn't is, well, numb, and I am certainly not numb.

My point was are these two actors, in this one situation, as far left as was claimed by O'Reilly, and I thank Lucky Bob for answering who was playing Reagan. That's what I wanted to know. At least someone understood what I was asking.

Again, why would I mention Martin Sheen as an opposite of Charlton Heston if I was somehow under the impression that far left actors don't exist?

So please, don't pull out this laundry list of things when I wasn't even talking about anyone else but the two actors in this very situation. I thought that was pretty clear but I guess not.

[Joe Wagner]

Nancy Reagan has already started pulling some strings in Hollywood to try and get the movie pulled - considering it shows her as an abusive mother while showing Ronald Reagan as considering himself to the be the anti-Christ and as being without compassion for those that are troubled with AIDS. I do think that if this movie is allowed to go forward there could be serious defamation reprocutions for CBS and the movies' directors and writers.

As a public official Nancy and Ronald would have to prove actual malice on the part of the films staff. To sue for libel they would have to identify five elements:

1) Publication - is any communication to at least one person that another person (other than the person claiming harm) has seen. Since the script has been distributed to actors, CBS management staff and to various news organizations (where portions have been reproduced) the element of publication has already been met.

2) Identification - Clearly stated in the script the film is intended to focus upon the life of Nancy and Ronald Reagan - therefore this condition is met.

3) Defamation - Two parts - Falsity and Harm

3A) Falsity - the script writer has already stated that the quotation about AIDS that is made by Ronald Reagan is 100% false and has no evidence as ever being stated. Testimony to this fact by Nancy Reagan would make the defense show evidence of the quote occuring - which of course they have already stated does not exist. Other quotes throughout the movie ("I'm the anti-Christ", etc) also have no evidence of ever occuring. Therefore falsity has already been established within the published script.

3B) Harm - if the script is allowed to be seen and then turned into a movie (as is currently in development) the film will cause irreversable harm to the character of both Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Not only would it damage their credibility as distinguished members of our society, it has the potential to sway reasonable people into believing the Reagan's acted in a manner that was harmful to people with AIDS and could cause emotional distress to both Nancy and Ronald Reagan. Based upon these potentials for harm - the precondition has already been met.

4) Fault - here is where the Reagan team would have to prove actual malice (publication of false information with knowledge that it was false OR with reckless disregard of whether the information was false or not). Given the testimony of the script writer the publication of quotations that were not based on fact yet attributed to Ronald and or Nancy Reagan would meet the requirement of actual malice as the script writer decided to publish the information with knowledge that the quote never occurred.

Personally I think that the Reagan's would have a fairly easy to win case - based upon the lack of support from the films makers and because of the writers own admittance that they knew that the quotes never occurred. Notice, this only deals with a potential Libel case - a Slander case could easily be won as well by the Reagans.

-Joe!

[Jade_GL]

CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a dramatized portrait of the former president that has drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it airs.

The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of what supporters regard as his key achievements.

Adding insult to injury -- as far as Republicans are concerned -- the Gipper himself is played by James Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand, while Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are self-described liberals.

A spokeswoman for the Reagans, Joanne Drake, told Reuters the former first couple had no comment on the movie. But the ex-president's eldest son, Michael Reagan, said he was braced for the worst.

"I fully expect this mini-series will be largely unfavorable to my dad," the conservative radio talk show host said a column recently posted on the Web. "Hollywood has been hijacked by the liberal left."

Likewise, Mike Wintemute, spokesman for the California Republican Party, said he had not seen the script but gathered that it "gives short shrift to Mr. Reagan's accomplishments."

"People who were not around in that era, or who haven't taken the time to study it themselves, will be left with the impression that this is a bumbling, fumbling, dimwitted man who lucked into all of his accomplishments. And that certainly is not the case," Wintemute said.

According to the Times, the movie dwells on Reagan's shortcomings, such as his moments of forgetfulness, painting him as contemptuous of gays and AIDS victims and as a collaborator in Hollywood's anti-communist witch hunts during his acting days.

Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with considerable sway over White House policies, even setting her husband's schedule according to the advice of astrologers.

CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books written by his supporters.

"The miniseries is a compelling and historical account of Mr. and Mrs. Reagan's remarkable relationship set against the backdrop of the former president's political career," the Viacom-owned network said in a statement. "The film has been meticulously researched and offers a respectful and balanced portrayal of the Reagans."

According to the Times, the movie's depiction of the Reagans is not totally unfavorable. Besides giving Reagan much credit for ending the Cold War, the film shows him as a morally upright, politically gifted man of his convictions.

Still, supporters of the ailing former president have expressed suspicions that the movie is a hatchet job that reflects Hollywood's traditional left-leaning agenda.

Former Reagan White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater was quoted by the Times as asking rhetorically: "Does it show he had the longest and strongest recovery in post-war history? That the economy, stimulated by the tax cuts, was creating something like 200,000 jobs a month, for years?"

Among the lines sure to generate cries of foul from Reagan supporters is a bit of dialogue in which Nancy Reagan urges her husband to help victims of AIDS and he responds, "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's defense secretary, said such a statement simply does not ring true. "That does not sound like the President Reagan I know," he told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I can't imagine him saying anything like that. He was not given to pronouncements of that kind or that pomposity."

He added: "I suspect that kind of thing is the basis for the concern that's being expressed by Prescient Reagan's friends as to the sponsorship and participation of the particular people who are in this alleged drama."

As for casting, Michael Reagan said it didn't bother him that Streisand's husband was cast as his father. "I'm glad that Brolin has found a job. It gets him out of the house and gives him something to do," he wrote. "Once again, Ronald Reagan has found work for someone in Hollywood."

http://news.findlaw.com/entertainment/s/20031022/leisurereagandc.html

Just thought we could use a real news story to augment the discussion, not just an O'Reilly memo. I am looking around for more information. What would be great is a script or a piece that has lines from the script. Then we could look at it and see whether it's favorable or not. Having people tell me it is or isn't doesn't really work for me. I would like to either read the real stuff or see the movie with my own eyes.

So, I reserve judgment until I get to see the facts, not just people complaining. And maybe it will be cut to remove the parts which are mentioned in this piece. Still, I want to get my hands on a copy of the script or see the movie in it's original form to see what really is going on with this thing.

[EinBebop]

Also worth mentioning is the scene where Reagan starts to break down, fearing he is the Antichrist.

[Zach Logan]

A large corporation is going to do a truthful movie about the Reagans and how evil they are?

WHEN DOES IT COME OUT???!!! I WANNA SEE THIS :D :D :D :D :D
Yes, it expect it to be good, and uncover many of the major flaws and misconseptions of that administration.

[sl4]

Yes, it expect it to be good, and uncover many of the major flaws and misconseptions of that administration.

Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. I really doubt there will be as many "major flaws and misconceptions" as there will be blatant falsehoods.

<_< Clinton Wuvver.

:p

[Chris Wood]

[B]Is CBS in Big Trouble?
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly

Talking Points rarely endorses boycotts. The current boycott on French products is an exception because that country is actively working against the USA.

Put a sock in it O'Reilly. Clearly you're perfectly willing to support a boycott when it serves your purposes. "Boycott on French products"??? Don't make me laugh. I think I'll go pick up another bottle of Beaujolais.
Keep your xenophobia to yourself.

Anyway, an article from O'Reilly is hardly news. More like inflammatory gossip.

[Zach Logan]

Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. I really doubt there will be as many "major flaws and misconceptions" as there will be blatant falsehoods.

<_< Clinton Wuvver.

:p
Just because a president brought fiscal prosparity doesn't mean he was a good man. The american people look at presidents only through what they do with the economy, but you should look at how they helped this nation as a whole, how they improved security, education, health, and so on. Even FDR had major flaws and horrors in his administration, even though he helped the US economy, making every president after him help to IMPROVE the economy (sans GW Bush Jr. [Source: CNN])

[Stewie]

Just because a president brought fiscal prosparity doesn't mean he was a good man. The american people look at presidents only through what they do with the economy, but you should look at how they helped this nation as a whole, how they improved security, education, health, and so on. Even FDR had major flaws and horrors in his administration, even though he helped the US economy, making every president after him help to IMPROVE the economy (sans GW Bush Jr. [Source: CNN])Reagan also gave us some of the biggest budget deficits in history.
Otherwise I agree with what you say.
In general, the President shouldn't be given so much credit or blame for the economy (Though I am loathe to go easy on Dubya for anything).

Why does anyone care about this movie, even if you like or dislike Reagan? It's on CBS for cryin' out loud. Who watches that?


Reagan was the best president of the 20th century. I really doubt there will be as many "major flaws and misconceptions" as there will be blatant falsehoods.Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. I think there are arguments that he was a fine president (for a Republican) but the best in the 20th century? That's pushing it.

[Jade_GL]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. I think there are arguments that he was a fine president (for a Republican) but the best in the 20th century? That's pushing it.

yeah, everyone with half a brain knows that the best president of the 20th Centruy was Taft. :D

Just kidding, but that was a good point you brought up. I myself am quite fond of Teddy Roosevelt.

I try not to pass judgments on Reagan because I was born in 1982 and don't remember his precidency at all, though I do know that my parent sthink he was one of the worst.

Still, what made for TV movie about anyone hasn't had things that people disagree on? There have been numerous Kennedy movies based on books that have had plenty of nasty things in them and no one seems to get up in arms about that. I think if they had an actual source, it is perfectly reasonable. If someone pulled it out of their butt to make a more interesting feature, they should be in trouble.

But just because you think he was a nice guy doesn't mean he didn't say some bad things in his presidency. I would like to know where and how they did their research so we can see if the conclusions draw in some portions are reasonable or not.

[Stewie]

yeah, everyone with half a brain knows that the best president of the 20th Centruy was Taft. :D

Just kidding, but that was a good point you brought up. I myself am quite fond of Teddy Roosevelt.

But just because you think he was a nice guy doesn't mean he didn't say some bad things in his presidency. I would like to know where and how they did their research so we can see if the conclusions draw in some portions are reasonable or not.William Henry Harrison. The shortest term, and the best. Ah ha ha ha.
If the thing in the movie that he says about AIDS isn't true, it's unfortunate that they would say something so..insensitive. It should still be noted that he didn't have an enlightened view toward the subject.

[Jade_GL]

William Henry Harrison. The shortest term, and the best. Ah ha ha ha.
If the thing in the movie that he says about AIDS isn't true, it's unfortunate that they would say something so..insensitive. It should still be noted that he didn't have an enlightened view toward the subject.

True, that would be pretty darn low if nothing like that was ever uttered. When I commented, that was mainly what I was getting at. If someone actually said that he said that when they did interviews, research, or whatnot, I can understand putting it in, but if it was completely made up by the creators, that's certainly a line that shouldn't be crossed. And that should be what they get in trouble for.

Otherwise, if their research supports it, I don't see how they can be at fault unless they were told afterward that it was made up and they just decided to keep it anyway because it would make good TV.

Like I said, I want to see a script and know how they did their research for the film.

[RogueMartian]

Like I said, I want to see a script and know how they did their research for the film.
I'm guessing research for republican administrations is very difficult. They tend to be very tight lipped about their processes. Except for W. I sorta wish he'd talk less, he makes me ashamed every time he speaks.

Sorry, I digress...

I've seen many movies about politicians/presidents. both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. Now all of these movies have the presidents engaged in dialogue. Most of the dialogue used was NEVER spoken. By ANYBODY. Anybody that's ever seen the play 1776 and believes that John Adams EVER burst into song with Franklin and Jefferson should really start cracking the history books. They're not just table legs. HOWEVER, That doesn't mean that the dialogue isn't close to the opinions or beliefs that were held by those individuals. Do I believe that Reagan didn't care about people with AIDS? Definitely. But did he ever go out and SAY he didn't care? Not that I ever heard. Did Reagan ever fear he was the antichrist? It's possible. Did he ever break into tears over it? Are you kidding? This guy never even took his coat off.

Politicians don't speak like that, we should all know that by now. It's very rare that politicians ever state a bold position against a hot button issue. But some artistic license with dialogue is usually permitted. I think the only reason people are against the artistic license with this movie is because it doesn't show Reagan in such a positive light like so many movies about Kennedy or Roosevelt.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

[jrh31584]

Just because a president brought fiscal prosparity doesn't mean he was a good man. The american people look at presidents only through what they do with the economy, but you should look at how they helped this nation as a whole, how they improved security, education, health, and so on. Even FDR had major flaws and horrors in his administration, even though he helped the US economy, making every president after him help to IMPROVE the economy (sans GW Bush Jr. [Source: CNN])
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031031/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716
The economy is improving.

[Delthayre]

Ironically, that's accurate, to a point. Economic prosperity is typically measured after the fact, not as it is occuring. We can't really make any meaningful assesments until it is clear that growth is sustainable.

[Joe Wagner]

Since no one has done this yet, here are a couple of links that detail different areas of the script:

Line about being the anti-Christ (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/10/27/20031027_015405_rr5.htm)

Nancy Reagan Hits Daughter, Ronald Curses (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/10/24/20031024_134805_rr4.htm)

Article about the AIDS Line (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/10/21/20031021_010004_flash6.htm)

Here (http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/october/1027_reagan_movie.shtml) is an article that details some of the untruths about the script and a quote from the article:

But even portions of the miniseries have been found to be entirely false. In one scene, Reagan supposedly responds to a question about the plight of AIDS victims by quoting the Bible.

"They that live in sin shall die in sin," says Brolin in his role as Reagan in the movie.

Secretary of Defense under Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, said proclamations such as that are not typical of the man he served under.

"That does not sound like the President Reagan I know," Weinberger told Reuters. "I can't imagine him saying anything like that. He was not given to pronouncements of that kind or that pomposity."

In fact, the movie's playwright Elizabeth Egloff (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/21/105759.shtml) unashamedly concedes that she made that up for the movie.

Here (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10531) is also an artilce written by Cal Thomas that does an excellent job of detailing many of the revisions that are being made to history within this movie including:

Columnist Jim Pinkerton, who worked as an aide in the Reagan White House from 1981 to 1983, said on Fox News Watch (where I also appear) last weekend: "Reagan was the opposite of a gay-basher. (There was) a stink when Nancy Reagan invited her interior decorator and his boyfriend to stay overnight at the White House. Some of the social right was upset when he (allowed that). That's how opposite he was of the tyrannical, judgmental figure he is portrayed in this movie. He was a guy from Hollywood. He dealt with gays all his life. He was not a homophobe and a bigot."

Further evidence that Reagan had a more compassionate view of people with AIDS came in a 1988 letter to AIDS sufferer Elizabeth Glaser, whose daughter had just died from the disease, which her mother contracted from a blood transfusion. Reagan wrote, "Nancy and I want you to know you are very much in our thoughts and prayers. We know there are no words that can lessen your sorrow - how we wish there were - but please know you have our deepest sympathy. We can only trust in God's infinite wisdom and mercy knowing he has received your daughter in that other world where there is no pain or sorrow and where one day we shall all be joined with those we love forevermore."

For all of those that have already stated that Reagan didn't have an enlightened view about the topic the letters that he wrote and his very actions would seem to dictate otherwise.

I would implore everyone to do their research before believing any of the information that is contained within this movie - especially when everyone that served with President Reagan has denied any form of temper or rudeness on his part, Michael Reagan has publically stated that his father never swore or acted as angry as he is being portrayed and by the fact that his very actions have indicated an entirely different point of view on numerous topics then the ones he is being given in the movie script.

-Joe!

[Jade_GL]

I would really like an article from an impartial source. I hate to be partisan, but of course Cal Thomas and the GOP would be supportive of Reagan. I would love to see some transcripts. The people who made the movie claim that they did research about this, a lot. I would like to see that research, though I doubt we'll get anything in the end. I'm talking the people they must have interviewed, the things they must have read, and yes, a complete script or seeing the movie myself.

Anyway, those articles, besides the stuff from Drudge,since he's only posting the script lines, though they're only small snippets, are pretty slanted one way, and Cal Thomas is a columnist, not a journalist. He just reiterated what was in the article I posted previously.

Again, I don't think that it's true, it certainly sounds outlandish to me, just like I couldn't see that stuff coming out of any sane human beings mouth. However, until I get a more even keeled report, specifically dealing with the research that the people making the movie did, I can't say whether it was really a malicious act. Did they find someone who overheard something, but that person has since retracted, did they simply think it would sound good? When I hear these people saying *research* I wonder what they did. I mean, it's not hard to pick up a Reagan biography, but I would like to know what lengths they went to for accuracy, or if they didn't bother at all and it's a line. If they didn't bother at all, I would like them kicked in the butt. I wouldn't want it done like that for anyone, let alone a former President.

Besides, TV movies are stupid anyway. They always seem to distort the lives of people. The more I think about it, the more I think they probably did stretch some stuff and make some stuff up. Still, I want to know how far they went to try and *find the truth* because otherwise they're a bunch of vultures.

[Lucky Bob]

You want an unbiased source? Ask a guy who's in a coma.

-Lucky "Biased, and lovin' it!" Bob

[Delthayre]

Lovely epithet you obnoxious character, but it's really more of a fluffy dodge than anything identifiably substantial.

It is essentially an accepted caveat, but the truth has enough tolerance that bias can be trivialized. Linking sources with partisan reputations and advertisements for Ann Coulter and David Horrowitz books can hardly be said to provide even an illusion of objectivity. I tend to think the only people you should be more skeptical of than people who disagree with you are people who do agree with you.

Another problem behind this is the emotional investment in Reagan, and fairly many presidents of this century in general. They become monoliths and icons, which I really don't think they should be. It turns political divides into gaping ideological rifts. Just look at the number of democrats and liberals (does the swear filter block that?) who outright hate President Bush. Likewise with the Clinton-haters and a whole host of these types in history.

Every side seems to need its saints, whom essentially, in the eyes of whichever ideology anoints them, become things it is sacriligeous to deride in even most minor of ways. I imagine that if it was somehow proven that everything in this film is absolute fact (which I doubt), the outcry from conservatives for the attacks would scarcely be any softer. Or they'd just blame it on Clinton.

I generally don't think the the nigh-idolization of presidents was ever intended to be a part of American life and I really think the emotional tide should be reigned it.

[Zero Signal]

As long as they mention his illegal arms dealings and his fetish for jelly beans, I'm a happy camper :D

[Lucky Bob]

Lovely epithet you obnoxious character, but it's really more of a fluffy dodge than anything identifiably substantial.

Meh, I was sleepy. Sorry.

Anyhoo. The point was that there is no such thing as an unbiased source. If you're a human, and you're conscious, you're biased. No matter what is said about a subject, there is going to be bias. Bias is unavoidable.

But from what I've seen and heard (Drudge played some excerpts on Rush's show last week) it looks to be a total misrepresentation. I wouldn't mind if it was simply billed as a movie, but as a biographical mini-series? Who are they kidding? It's bias in action, yet again.

My only beef with bias is when people try to cover it up.

-Lucky "Fox News, BTW, doesn't claim to be unbiased, just balanced" Bob

[Joe Wagner]

Lovely epithet you obnoxious character, but it's really more of a fluffy dodge than anything identifiably substantial.

It is essentially an accepted caveat, but the truth has enough tolerance that bias can be trivialized. Linking sources with partisan reputations and advertisements for Ann Coulter and David Horrowitz books can hardly be said to provide even an illusion of objectivity. I tend to think the only people you should be more skeptical of than people who disagree with you are people who do agree with you.

Seeing as how I am the person that linked to the sources in question I believe that you should also look at the sources that were quoted that are not "conservative" in belief or in representation. The quote made by Elizabeth Egloff was from an article published by the New York Times - one of the most liberal newspapers in America. The idea to ignore all information because it conflicts with your point of view would be unwise - as humans it's hardly ever going to occur that we agree 100% with an author or website on every issue, that is why it is so important to analyze the very info that you are given. With my links I attempted to give an overall view of the project - although many were from "conservative" links the underlining truth is that comments made within the New York Times is providing proof of the misrepresentations currently available within the script. Ignoring such a statement because it is merely being talked about within the conservative media and not within the more liberal areas would be a mistake.

Like Neal Boortz has always said - don't believe anything until you have checked it out for yourself and done your own research. If you are of an opinion contrary to the information I linked to - please provide evidence of the contrary view, give an example of Reagan making a statement that was homophobic. However the very actions and letters of Reagan would tend to negate the claims made in the script that he ever feared of being the anti-Christ or made statements derogatory of those suffering with AIDS.

-Joe!

[EinBebop]

CBS STATEMENT REGARDING 'THE REAGANS'

"CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script. [Yeah, Right. - EB]

Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.

A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers' right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.

This was not an easy decision to make. CBS does tackle controversial subjects and provide tough assessments of prominent historical figures and events, as we did with films such as 'Jesus,' '9-11' and 'Hitler.' We will continue to do so in the future."

[Jade_GL]

My point about biased sources was that if you put up a link to sites advertising Ann Coulter books, or a conservative columnist, you should either look for something less partisan or middle-of-the-road, perhaps a CNN story, or news source like the AP, or you should include sources from the other side as well.

It's not that hard. I know most sides think they're right, but If I did the same, linking sites that advertise Al Franken books or links to the Democratic Party, some people in here would jump on me for doing it, screaming about liberal bias. I didn't scream or moan, just said that I want to see the facts and I wanted all sorts of stories and opinions on it.

And all I said was that I wanted to see how CBS did their research. What parties did they interview, how close could they be to the President at the time, what exactly was said. That's all, I don't think we'll know exactly how it went from research to script to filming without those basic facts.

I never ignored what was said, but if all the links, or 90% of the links, have GOP all over them, what is there to make me think that it's not written in a certain way to slant it in their favor? Same can be said for a site that has Democrats plastered all over it. I doubt some people here would trust anything like that. I didn't say I didn't trust it, I just want more information, and I don't want all of it coming from one side either.

I have no real opinions on this as of this moment. Like I said, if they maliciously made it up without having anything in their research to back it up, then I would be mad because I dislike ANY smear campaign, whether it's against Reagan or Clinton or whoever. If they have a quote from someone that they based it on, maybe it would be at least a tad more understandable.

I don't understand how wanting more facts is somehow bad. Just because I don't pander to either side in this doesn't mean I am disregarding anyone.

[Lucky Bob]

My point about biased sources was that if you put up a link to sites advertising Ann Coulter books, or a conservative columnist, you should either look for something less partisan or middle-of-the-road, perhaps a CNN story, or news source like the AP, or you should include sources from the other side as well.

It's not that hard. I know most sides think they're right, but If I did the same, linking sites that advertise Al Franken books or links to the Democratic Party, some people in here would jump on me for doing it, screaming about liberal bias. I didn't scream or moan, just said that I want to see the facts and I wanted all sorts of stories and opinions on it.

Hey, nobody would have jumped on you if you had quoted the New York Times! http://forums.toonzone.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Anyhoo, since Drudge really started the whole thing, here's his post-mortem:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9rr.htm

DRUDGE: IT'S THE BEGINNING OF A SECOND MEDIA CENTURY
MON NOV 03 2003 22:31:05 ET
MSNBC, SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Welcome back to the show. I'm Joe Scarborough. A news flash: Matt Drudge in the "Drudge Report" is reporting tonight that CBS is going to be pulling "The Reagans." They will yank it, not show it and are going to be giving it to Showtime to show. With us right now, the man who broke the story, just like all the other stories that he's broken over the past five, six, seven years. We've got Matt Drudge of the "Drudge Report" on the line.

Matt, you have done it again. What do you know about this story on "The Reagans"?

MATT DRUDGE, "DRUDGE REPORT": They've replaced it with a story on the Bushes. Author Kitty Kelly has sold it to CBS. No, just kidding. A tremendous night. It's the beginning of a second media century, Joe, where it's much more of a people-driven media. And I say that not lightly. It was the Internet, it was talk radio, it was cable that put pressure on CBS, and heretofore, there's never been this kind of pressure applied to one of the big titans, one of the big three. And the pressure went all the way to the top of a super company called Viacom, and the chairman earlier today is my information said, "Listen, let's just get it on cable. Let's do it on Showtime. Let's show it uncut. Everybody will watch." So the word is that CBS will pass on it. It will not air on free television, but the full glory of "The Reagans" will air on Showtime.

SCARBOROUGH: Matt Drudge, you have driven this story for weeks. You, of course, were the one that got the script, the "I am the antichrist" quote from the script, Streisand drawing a distance from "The Reagans." It's remarkable the inside information that you have had. Why have you been driving the story so much? Why do you think this is such an important story right now?

DRUDGE: It is because to me, it was a defining moment when a script became available. The "New York Times," in all fairness, was the first one to go out ahead of it. Now, over the summer, I warned my radio audience over the Premier Radio Networks, "Watch out. This is coming. It's nasty, it's vicious. They're filming it now." They wouldn't even film this in the United States. That's how hot this thing was. They had to go up to Canada. Or maybe it was the cost cutting for production value. But to me, it was such a clear misrepresentation of reality that you've got to be careful, especially with a man suffering from severe Alzheimer's who's not able to defend himself.

Joe, I challenged Moonves to say: "Why don't you put Nancy Reagan on the air? Why don't you let her say this is trash, and this is hurtful, and her husband can't defend himself? And they wouldn't do it. So to have them in retreat, again, is a great win for a new media of all stripes.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, it's interesting, you were talking about warning your radio audience, and I, you know, I listened to it that Sunday night and every Sunday night afterwards, and we were flooded with e-mails once you started breaking the news. Merv Griffin told us about it, said it was coming. But yet you touched on something, I think, that's even bigger than the story tonight. And that is that this is the new media striking back at Viacom, a multinational media conglomeration, and your reports, talk radio, alternative media, forcing Viacom to back down. That's in a sense even bigger than the impeachment story that you started breaking in 1998, isn't it?

DRUDGE: I don't know. I'll leave that to others to decide. But again, this goes straight to the heart of an issue that who owns the air waves and, if people have a right to criticize, to talk about things while they're in production is a whole new way of thinking. It used to be you would consume the product, and then you would get outraged, and you wouldn't have an outlet. And your previous guest, Bernie Goldberg, demonstrated that so well in his two new book -- in his new book and his previous book, that there was nowhere else to go. You had to deal with it. But we are living in a new media environment where people can send e-mails. There are a lot of different ways now to communicate. And again, this is a clear example where people rose up, because it was hurtful and vicious on a beloved American character. Now, Tom Shales of the "Washington Post" thought this was too soon and tacky. Liz Smith, the great liberal gossip columnist in the spirit of Winchell and Hedda said this is tacky and not good. So even the left was uncomfortable. It was only the ardent ones -- the Streisands -- who were digging in and saying this must air!

SCARBOROUGH: What's been your response from your Sunday night audience and Drudge radio? What's been the response to all those -- the millions who come to the "Drudge Report" every day, to your breaking stories on "The Reagans"? Have you been overwhelmed with the anti-CBS response you've gotten since you started driving this story?

DRUDGE: It is mixed. We are -- there are many people in this country, rightfully so, who are not pro boycott and who are uncomfortable with censorship. And to their solace, it is going to air uncut in Showtime, and they wouldn't have seen it uncut on CBS, as "Newsweek" reported. They'd already taken a machete to it. The AIDS line had been cut. Moonves was ordering more cuts as late as this weekend, the CBS chairman. So they will see it in its full glory, so to say that it will never air is wrong and false. But for it to air on a beloved CBS, which just celebrated its 75th anniversary last night in the spirit of "Lucy" and Jackie Gleason, and all the great quality of CBS, this just didn't fit. And this is not what they ordered. They ordered a love story, and it ended up just being a political hit job. Again, quoting Reagan in one bizarre scene, "I am the anti-Christ." I mean, David Geffen could not have scripted this one better.

SCARBOROUGH: I tell you, when you posted that last week, "I am the anti-Christ," I think that may have been the turning point in this entire debate. And I saw the CBS 75th anniversary last night, a remarkable show about a remarkable network with a very proud history. And you're right, it doesn't fit. Got to ask you one final question, Matt. How do you do it? How do you have the sources that you have at "Newsweek," at CBS, at the "New York Times"? How do you break these stories week in and week out?

DRUDGE: It's an army of concerned citizens who are frustrated that main press will not print and go with things. Back in the Lewinsky era last century, or the Kathleen Willeys, or the Brodericks, and it's just an endless series of spiked, suppressed stories. And this was a script that was too hot. And, you know, CBS kept its fingers crossed that no one would expose the details, and it would air and divide a country, which, you know, it didn't get to that point. And I'll just say this, Joe, the notion that Streisand was so intimately involved in this, I think, will be a future story and a defeat on leftest politics disguised as art, because when you start talking about a beloved American president -- and if they went and did a Clinton story, there would be just as much outrage, but I think we're safe to say Les Moonves is not ordering the Clinton saga in any version at this hour.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much, Matt Drudge. We are going to have a lot more on this tomorrow night. We certainly hope you'll come back and tell us more. It is a remarkable story, a remarkable media story about what the alternative media can do. Thank you so much, Matt Drudge.

SCARBOROUGH: The "Drudge Report" is reporting tonight that "The Reagans," the mini-series, has been pulled. And as I asked Matt Drudge before, I personally think this is going to be a bigger media story than even Matt Drudge breaking impeachment back in 1998.

[Joe Wagner]

I never ignored what was said, but if all the links, or 90% of the links, have GOP all over them, what is there to make me think that it's not written in a certain way to slant it in their favor? Same can be said for a site that has Democrats plastered all over it. I doubt some people here would trust anything like that. I didn't say I didn't trust it, I just want more information, and I don't want all of it coming from one side either.

Like I've already said - question the sources and do your own research. I have questioned many sources posted by many of our posters and have pointed out flaws in the articles that they posted - not ignoring the information based upon the advertisements that surround the article but upon the information found within the article itself. Once again, while most of the articles were from "conservative" links the story started with quotations from the New York Times and the very information in these articles was supported by liberal newspapers and interviews with the directors and screen writers.

Like you said, there are some people that would not trust information posted from FrontPageMag.com, Newsmax.com, WorldNetDaily.com or the Drudge Report but by doing so they are doing themselves a major disservice by failing to do their own research on the given topic while ignoring sources that have been found to be credible in the past.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Heard a nice quote on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday. The Guest host was talking about that comment in the script where Reagan says that AIDS sufferers deserve it, and he doesn't care. A liberal caller called him up saying these Reagan supporters must think that Hollywood can't take any liberties, in creating a script, and that they must want a total documentary saying only quotes Reagan had said, which would of course be boring.

The guest host said, in response, "Of course they can take liberties and come up with lines no one has documented Reagon has said. But at least base the lines on real life positions Reagan said he held. Think of it this way: What if they were making a movie about Clinton's presidency, and Clinton said something like 'I don't care about those black people dying in Rwanda, those third world people are killing each other all the time'. The point is there's no historical evidence Clinton ever said anything like that, just like there's no evidence Reagan said anything like that. So why is it in the script?"

[RogueMartian]

The guest host said, in response, "Of course they can take liberties and come up with lines no one has documented Reagon has said. But at least base the lines on real life positions Reagan said he held. Think of it this way: What if they were making a movie about Clinton's presidency, and Clinton said something like 'I don't care about those black people dying in Rwanda, those third world people are killing each other all the time'. The point is there's no historical evidence Clinton ever said anything like that, just like there's no evidence Reagan said anything like that. So why is it in the script?"

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are. And how often they are in the public eye.

As for Clinton, they want to do a negative movie about him? I'm all for it, his presidency was marked by it's total inability to do ANYTHING. I got NOTHING from Clinton except national embarrassment and a porno novel. And I'm a LIBERAL for crying out loud. I say after they do a movie showing reagan to be the antichrist he is, then they do a movie showing clinton getting stoned around the oval office and amazed at how great the stock market is doing. After that, there needs to be a movie showing how absolutely STUPID Dubya is. And they can use his ACTUAL words.

Hmm...Now that I think about it, does anybody else notice that the past four presidents are like villains out of the Austin Powers movie? Seriously, think about it....

Reagan is Dr. Evil
Bush Sr. is Mini-me
Clinton is goldmember
Bush Jr. is Scott Evil

Weird. Well whatever, the GOP won. The Reagan movie will be shown, probably edited, on showtime. Way to go republicans. Does anybody know a country I can move to that's like Canada only warmer?

[Lucky Bob]

Weird. Well whatever, the GOP won. The Reagan movie will be shown, probably edited, on showtime. Way to go republicans. Does anybody know a country I can move to that's like Canada only warmer?
Zimbabwe. And I'll pay your ticket. http://forums.toonzone.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[RogueMartian]

You know, Bob, I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't like me :p

[Lucky Bob]

You know, Bob, I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't like me :p
What? Zimbabwe is pretty! And it's part of the Commonwealth. And it's warm.

[candy17]

(Side note: My position on Ronald Regan's Presidency is Neutral.)
Same here since I was a kid when Bush was president (not the Dubya, the one that said, "Read my lips, no new taxes"). I don't care much for sequels to movies and I definitely don't care much for sequels to presidencies.


Hmm...Now that I think about it, does anybody else notice that the past four presidents are like villains out of the Austin Powers movie? Seriously, think about it....

Reagan is Dr. Evil
Bush Sr. is Mini-me
Clinton is goldmember
Bush Jr. is Scott Evil

Weird. Well whatever, the GOP won. The Reagan movie will be shown, probably edited, on showtime. Way to go republicans. Does anybody know a country I can move to that's like Canada only warmer?

Well, there's Mexico...http://forums.toonzone.net/images/smilies/shrug.gif

[Chris Wood]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/cx/uc/20031106/tt/tt031106.gif

[Joe Wagner]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/cx/uc/20031106/tt/tt031106.gif

You're right Desslar - after CBS got ahold of it a Bush press conference would sound hostile, inaccurate and misleading. For example, President Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" not "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" as organizations like the New York Times, CBS, NBC/MSNBC, ABC and CNN would have us believe. This would be like you making the statement "Hitler believed the Jews were evil and needed to be annihilated" and it being reported as Desslar said "the Jews were evil and needed to be annihilated". It's amazing how taking a couple of words out of the context of a statement can completely change the actual meaning of the statement.

-Joe!

[Chris Wood]

You're right Desslar - after CBS got ahold of it a Bush press conference would sound hostile, inaccurate and misleading. For example, President Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" not "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" as organizations like the New York Times, CBS, NBC/MSNBC, ABC and CNN would have us believe. This would be like you making the statement "Hitler believed the Jews were evil and needed to be annihilated" and it being reported as Desslar said "the Jews were evil and needed to be annihilated". It's amazing how taking a couple of words out of the context of a statement can completely change the actual meaning of the statement.

-Joe!

Come now, this is getting off-topic, but Bush is the king of hostile statements. "Axis of evil" indeed. I'm not going to address the issue of misleading statements because that would open up that tiresome Iraq debate again, and you and I have already spent way too much time sussing out our mutual intransigence on that topic.

[Lucky Bob]

Come now, this is getting off-topic, but Bush is the king of hostile statements. "Axis of evil" indeed.
Desslar's right, Joe. We wouldn't want to hurt the self esteem of terrorist dictatorships. http://forums.toonzone.net/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Delthayre]

As a matter of clarifacation, I shall state: I did not approve of the film as it offered and exceedingly corrupted version of history.

And while I'm not sure I would precisely hold them as hostile statements, and Desslar's example may have been ill chosen (tactless and simpleminded as it was), but I think he may have a point. Please do look at the allegation, not the example.

[Chris Wood]

Desslar's right, Joe. We wouldn't want to hurt the self esteem of terrorist dictatorships. http://forums.toonzone.net/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

That isn't the point. The point is that "axis of evil" is a cheesy and juvenile turn of phrase that belongs in a comic book, not in the articulate and diplomatic speech of a world leader. He might as well have called them Poopoo-heads. In a situation where Iran and North Korea (if not Iraq) were wavering between some grudging cooperation and outright hostility he certainly urged them to pursue the latter course. It's a shame the great diplomatic skills of his father didn't rub off on him..

To bring us back on topic, Reagan also once made a silly remark about an "evil empire." Boy, either Ronnie or his speechwriter sure was a big George Lucas fan. Maybe the same guy is writing for Bush. Get ready for some speeches about how the Palestinians have succumbed to the "dark side."

[Lucky Bob]

That isn't the point. The point is that "axis of evil" is a cheesy and juvenile turn of phrase that belongs in a comic book, not in the articulate and diplomatic speech of a world leader. He might as well have called them Poopoo-heads. In a situation where Iran and North Korea (if not Iraq) were wavering between some grudging cooperation and outright hostility he certainly urged them to pursue the latter course. It's a shame the great diplomatic skills of his father didn't rub off on him..

To bring us back on topic, Reagan also once made a silly remark about an "evil empire." Boy, either Ronnie or his speechwriter sure was a big George Lucas fan. Maybe the same guy is writing for Bush. Get ready for some speeches about how the Palestinians have succumbed to the "dark side."That would rule! Bush would be Why-Not Winn, Sharon would be Owe-Me-One, and Arafat would be Bath Avoider. Fun stuff.

Dude, you seriously need to lighten up.

[RogueMartian]

Dude, you seriously need to lighten up.
He's right. "Axis of Evil" "Evil Doers" "They live in caves" "Bring 'em on" etc. etc. etc.

It is like something out of a 50s comic book. I totally want a dubya movie. And not a crappy one like that showtime one that showed him to be some sort of hero. I want something like "that's my bush" only using actual quotes, and this time it would be...you know, funny.

Since this thread is about REAGAN, and not bush. Or as I call him "Dr. Evil" (I'm sticking with my austin powers theme) We should leave all Bush stuff out of it as much as possible. And Reagan was just as bad. I may have only been a kid, but he was just as hostile. Do you know that shield thing that Bush is trying to get up? That will knock down all bombs before they hit us? Well Reagan did the same thing AND HE EVEN CALLED IT THE STAR WARS PROGRAM!!!! He also dubbed Russia the "Empire of Evil" How were they evil? Maybe different, maybe we didn't like them, maybe they weren't great for our economy, but they weren't evil. As for his policies on AIDS and homosexuals. He obviously had no care for them whatsoever. It wasn't until the disease started hitting the straight population that it became an issue. And remember that he had alzheimers. It's entirely possible that he considered the possibility that he was the antichrist in some senile moment.

As for changing history. I have no problem. They do it all the time and WE ALL KNOW IT!!! But hey, they could even use some of Reagan's real quotes too. Quite a few of his were rather priceless. They should also show some movie clips from some of his old movies from his acting days.

Oh well, I'll never see the reagan movie. but I will defend to the death a historically accurate bush movie. I don't want them to change a single solitary line of dialogue.

[Delthayre]

I think that the writers problem with the truth (everyone seems to have one these days) was only part of the problem with the film. Even if they had made a perfectly accurate portrayal, some people would be calling bloody murder with equal vigour. Some people have practically canonized Reagan, thus making it very difficult for any sensible public discourse about him and his presidency. And, as I'm sure someone was going to leap to point out, giving a sort of political sainthood to past and present presidents is becoming a feature of American politics. And I think it's dangerous. We cannot develop a particular love or pride for our leaders. We have to be perpetually skeptical of them, given the importance of their position, uncondidtional support and faith is irresponsible.

[Tienshin]

I think that the writers problem with the truth (everyone seems to have one these days) was only part of the problem with the film. Even if they had made a perfectly accurate portrayal, some people would be calling bloody murder with equal vigour. Some people have practically canonized Reagan, thus making it very difficult for any sensible public discourse about him and his presidency. And, as I'm sure someone was going to leap to point out, giving a sort of political sainthood to past and present presidents is becoming a feature of American politics. And I think it's dangerous. We cannot develop a particular love or pride for our leaders. We have to be perpetually skeptical of them, given the importance of their position, uncondidtional support and faith is irresponsible.

Those are excellent points that you make, Delthayre. No matter what was spit out about Reagan someone was bound to scream about it. In this case it was Republican/conservative backlash against the film. Of course the opposite could have have been the case if the movie basically presented his presidency has a golden age for America and its citizens. As things stand Reagan has come to be regarded as one of the greatest Republican presidents. Though personally, I beleive the accolades afforded to him grossly ignore many of his failed domestic poilicies and events that happened under his watch.

And as Delthayre also touched on, it is dangerous for American citizens to blindly love and adore our leaders, because Reagan is widely perceived to have had many flaws as a president and it certainly no favor to history to revel in ANY president's accomplishments while ignoring or downplaying their weaknesses.

[Joe Wagner]

That isn't the point. The point is that "axis of evil" is a cheesy and juvenile turn of phrase that belongs in a comic book, not in the articulate and diplomatic speech of a world leader. He might as well have called them Poopoo-heads. In a situation where Iran and North Korea (if not Iraq) were wavering between some grudging cooperation and outright hostility he certainly urged them to pursue the latter course. It's a shame the great diplomatic skills of his father didn't rub off on him..

To bring us back on topic, Reagan also once made a silly remark about an "evil empire." Boy, either Ronnie or his speechwriter sure was a big George Lucas fan. Maybe the same guy is writing for Bush. Get ready for some speeches about how the Palestinians have succumbed to the "dark side."

But it is the point - after you posted the "opinion piece" I stated how it was inaccurate, a point that you have failed to contend. The "Axis of Evil" was also a way of reminding everyone of an earlier "Axis of Evil" - after all, weren't Italy, Austria-Germany and Japan considered the Axis powers during World War II? Would we consider the speeches of FDR and Churchill those of a comic book and at the same time aren't you implying that comic books have a lesser grammatical value then say a paperback book? Not only is this demeaning to those that read comic books but you are also showing an ignorance to an entire culture of comic book readers.

You also attempt to create an illusion that North Korea and Iran were on the verge of helping the US - a situation that has never been the case. North Korea violated their agreement with the US that they would not build nuclear weapons and would recieve oil and food aid. When this was broken and the aid stopped coming North Korea was quick to start threatening nuclear action against South Korea, Japan and the US. In Iran the government had opted to build nuclear facilities that would allow them to later create nuclear weapons from the waste. Not only were they in complete disregard of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act but they continue to support the terrorist group Hezbollah as they act Israeli soldiers and civilians and have been linked to previous attacks against the US.

-Joe!

[Passepartout]

It shows Nancy being domineering and Ronald like an idiot and the way that Nancy treats him is like dirt!!