The Reagans
 

The miniseries will air on Sunday night on Showtime. I have no clue if it has been edited, but at least it made it onto the air.

It's cancellation was complete ridiculousness and Les Moonves knew exactly what the movie contained. People in the cast and crew even said that he watched the dailies every day and loved it.

I never liked Reagan one bit and I'm sure one movie can't express what an idiot that man was and how bad a president he was (admit it or not, he sucked and the fact that he gets all the credit for ending the Cold War is just right-wing trash). After all, he was the man that said trees produce more pollution than cars and that facts are "stupid" things.

But, just thought I'd let everyone know it's on Sunday night! :D

You know I'll be watching this.;) The directors have said that they cut the bejesus out of it, so we'll see what's left.

I do not believe for a moment that whatever biopic on the Clintons the future holds will be forced off a network and onto cable. Something tells me THAT one will air unedited. Freedom of speech will be the cry.:rolleyes:
I'm still without cable, so post about the Reagan thing after you see it.

- Jake

Uh, I can think of at least ONE episode that WOULD be edited out of his biopic, unless of course they show it on the Spice Channel. :laugh:


Joe :wavey:

Well, it wasn't too bad for a made for tv movie. It was about 3 hours long and the only thing they really nailed him on was Iran-Contra. He supposedly didn't remember it because of the onset of his Alzheimer's. Nancy comes off in a pretty bad light.

Well, she does that on her own without any help from Hollywood.

I thought it was pretty good. I was disappointed that they cut many of the scenes, but it was still great. Judy Davis *rocks* in every movie she makes.

I'm not a Nancy fan either. It was great when that guy screams at her "That dress you're wearing could feed me for a year!" Don't you think they made Ronnie out to be a tad bit naive? I wish it was longer because a lot of things were glossed over. The whole Just Say No thing from the balcony was interesting. They could have done a whole mini-series on Iran Contra, especially with the way it's played into the mess we're in now. I also thought it was interesting how she cancelled his meeting with VP Bush while Ronnie was in the hospital but then said he'd see Tip O'Neill.

Oh, they portrayed him as a naive little boy who didn't know a thing. But, in all actuality, they weren't off base too much. People close to Reagan have been saying for years how he was naive and too dumb to be president. The only reason Republicans and conservatives hold him in such high regard is because he's the only Republican president who didn't have the foolish things he did publicized. Make no mistake, the Gipper was a flake. And Nancy was the first white trash first lady. :laugh:

I wish it was longer, too; I would've loved to have seen the backstage drama Nancy caused on the set of Diff'rent Strokes,

I am a moderate conservative (a realist, if you will) and I have to agree that the miniseries is definitly slanted. If you step back and take an unbiased look at the Reagan presidency, you will see some flaws but also some great moments. I agree with with this editorial from the Washington Times...



Smearing Reagan's legacy

Ronald Reagan's legacy is under attack. For years, liberal academics have tried to explain how the Soviet Union collapsed without giving credit to the U.S. president who challenged communism head on and won. Now Hollywood is opening up another front. Next month, Mr. Reagan will be tarred and feathered in a made-for-TV docudrama by CBS. It is a transparent attempt to obscure historical fact with Tinsel Town glitz.
The anti-Reagan bias of the mini-series isn't hidden. In a Tuesday article focusing on the controversy surrounding the movie, the New York Times noted "growing concern that this deconstruction of his presidency is shot through a liberal lens, exaggerating his foibles and giving short thrift to his accomplishments." In the evidence department, Exhibit No. 1 is that the 40th president is played by Mr. Barbra Streisand, James Brolin. The actor and his wife are longtime activists for far-left causes. In the last month alone, as reported by Matt Drudge, Miss Streisand has labeled the California recall a right-wing "attempted hijacking of the democratic process," attacked "the myth of Big Government" and demanded an independent probe into White House leaks.
On "Hardball with Chris Matthews" two days ago, the host asked Mr. Reagan's campaign manager and two of the president's biographers if they were contacted by CBS to verify the historical authenticity of the film. Strategist Ed Rollins and biographers Lou Cannon and Martin Anderson all stated that they had not been consulted. On the program, these authorities of the Reagan presidency debunked the movie's depiction of Ronald Reagan as callous to AIDS, oversimplistic in labeling people "commies" and accommodating to his wife's alleged consultations with an astrologer. These experts and other articles point out that the movie does not give him due credit for reversing the ascendancy of the Soviet Union, stimulating an economic recovery and making Americans proud again after the defeat in Vietnam and the discombobulation of the Carter administration.
As Mr. Reagan struggles with the last stages of Alzheimer's disease, "The Reagans" mini-series is certainly in bad taste. But its dishonesty is worse. Of course, distorting history is nothing new in Hollywood. On his Tuesday show, Chris Matthews, a forthright liberal, criticized the Oliver Stone productions "Nixon" and "JFK" for playing fast and loose with the truth. "People with the baseball hats on, regular kids in their 20s, they sit there [in the theater] and they suck this stuff up, and they come out of there thinking, 'You know, Nixon had something to do with killing Kennedy.' " Mr. Matthews shows that the Reagan smear does not have to be a partisan issue. All those who respect truth should come out against this latest example of Hollywood revisionism.

WELCOME TO THE ROOM!!...and I agree with your post COMPLETELY!! :nod:


Joe

The whole Reagan bashing issue aside, it was just an awful production. I couldn't watch it for that reason.

Hey! lol

Seriously though, whatever programmer thought it would be a great idea to air a miniseries mocking a dying man should be fired. I think most conservatives and liberals can agree that it was poorly timed, to say the least.

Nancy (sodascouts) and I talked about this before, and we both felt that the timing was off, and very insensitive towards his family.

But beyond any made-for-TV movie, all I know is that during the years Ronald Reagan was in the White House, my father lost his job because of a crippled economy, was forced to work any job he could find in order to just scrape by, and we had to go on food stamps.
Meanwhile, the rich got richer (and richer and richer).

So credit him all you want for the fall of the Soviet Union and for helping Upper-Class folks... but for me, the struggle of my family and thousands of familes in our area alone, always will be Reagan's true legacy as a President, and I will never forget the hell my dad went thru in order to keep a roof over our heads during that time.

End of story. Fade to black.

That's due in part to the fact that they chopped it up worse than Leatherface would to non-virginal teenagers.

Of course it is slanted. I think everyone would be preaching to the choir if they tried to say it wasn't. However, it is no more slanted than Fox News, it is no more slanted than the recent Jessica Lynch movie, and it would be no more slanted than a miniseries about Bill Clinton. The same thing that you said about the Reagan presidency having flaws but also great moments would certainly apply to Bill Clinton, but no conservative would ever admit it. If Fox television ever produces a Clinton movie, I'd bet my life that the costumes would mainly consist Devil costumes and they would try to recruit Osama for the lead role.

Let's face it: Reagan some okay things, but he certainly did NOT perform s well as Republicans would have you believe. He wasn't the brightest crayon in the Crayola box and I think it's painfully obvious. He made many remarks that made no sense and many that completely disregarded facts. He took actions that were, in my mind, absolutely ridiculous, yet he is considered one of the greatest presidents. I don't agree, but that's just part of my "liberal agenda."

Sorry, but both of those facts are true. I refuse to believe that Reagan was just "slow" in reacting to the AIDs epidemic, I feel no need to whitewash his actions (or lack thereof) in Republican baloney. As for labeling people as commies, that's common liberal knowledge that the Republicans won't acknowledge.

:rolleyes:

And if Bill Clinton was in the last stages of cancer or even Altzheimer's, the conservative-ruled media would hold restraint in a biopic?

:laugh:

Sorry, all of this just proves that the Republicans and conservatives of our country are hypocrites with no grasp on reality. I'm actually surprised that they stopped taking away health benefits from struggling, single parents to fit this Reagan uprising into their schedule. Excuse me while I go chastise homeless people for not paying taxes and propose new laws that would take away Medicare benefits from the poor and elderly who suffer from Altzheimer's. Ah, but first I must propose my vigorous beliefs on why Reagan should replace that crippled devil Roosevelt on dimes.

Amen, Johnny.

:wavey:

I know what you mean Jonny Stew. The Reagan years were hard for many people. But, in all fairness, Reagan was handed an already weak if not failing economy with 21 or higher percent interest rates, etc. Moreover, during any two term Presidency there have been severe ups and downs in the economy. For example, Bill Clinton's Presidency ended with an economy fast approaching a recession.

So, I think I have come to the conclusion that the economies have historically been cyclical and will always be that way no matter what any political body does. I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates. But, I think even with these tools, it still boils down to the inventiveness of man (the internet boom in Pres. Clinton's economy, etc.) to promote any real stimulation.

Just food for thought and not meaning to be antagonistic or promoting of one political party over another :cool:

I know - that they are proposing to place the Gipper on the dime is just an outrage. But, people just have no taste when promoting an agenda.

Interesrtingly, a similar thing recently happened here in Atlanta. Our airport (the second largest in the country) was named "Hartsfield" after a local prominent white aviation figure. Then, Maynard Jackson, a very well liked and prominent African Amercian mayor of Atlanta, died. Just about the entire group of African American political movers and shakers determined the airport should be renamed the Maynard Jackson airport and the hell with ole Hartsfield. The fight got so ugly here that you were branded a racist if you dared question why Mr. Hartsfield's name should be removed. The promoters of the name change even had candlelight vigils against the obvious racism that they felt was going on. In the end, it became the "Hartsfield-Jackson" airport - a suitable compromise in my book. Yet, there are still cries of racist when in my book the African American politicos wrongly used the false threat of racism to achieve their goals - which I find disgusting.

So, I think the conservative right wing will similarly scream liberal bias when the sides go to war on the dime. Sad - but very true

:laugh:

How ridiculous. However, race (that is, if it exists...) will continue to factor into everything n our lives.

I read an article the other day where a woman argued that if a white woman gives birth to a baby from an African-American father, the mother should then be considered black.

:rolleyes:

Fair enough... though the lean years continued thru Bush Sr.'s four years in office. If Reagan had done such a great job, I think his eight years should have been long enough to get things turned around for those of us not lucky enough to already be rich.

And our current Republican President has also pushed tax-cuts, etc., that benefit the upper-class (which include his family and associates), while "blue-collar" workers continue to struggle.

Currently these tax-cuts are going to cost the public library where I work, to lose HALF of their budget... which will mean less hours, less books, less computers, less research materials, and possibly less employees (and we only have five).

Then there are the many ways in which the Republican party has worked to block and deny various rights to homosexuals. They're against civil unions, they're against allowing a same-sex partner to be covered under your medical insurance, they're against laws that would protect homosexual victims of hate crimes, etc., etc.
Hell, many in the Republican party are even against striking down sodomy and oral sex laws involving same-sex partners!

Don't get me wrong, Jason... I don't at all think that the Democratic party is perfect. They're far from it. But I do feel they're most definitely more favorable in regards to a good number of very important issues.

But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, and I'm glad we can have these types of debates here on the Ledge. :)

Ha!

So much for Coultergeist touting that ultra-conservatives in the bible belt have better sex than liberals.

It's about as well timed as some Republicans effort to get him on the dime instead of FDR. Now that's tactless.

Yeah. Matt Drudge has no ax to grind.


[QUOTE]Miss Streisand has labeled the California recall a right-wing "attempted hijacking of the democratic process," attacked "the myth of Big Government" and demanded an independent probe into White House leaks.[QUOTE]

And it's not?

The stock market only went to sh*t about three days after the supreme court ruling.;)

[/QUOTE] I mean economic theory dictates that tax cuts (at whatever level(s)) must and will stimulate the economy to some degree as will lowering interst rates. [/QUOTE]

Yes but these tax cuts aren't real. Bush's tax cuts have mainly shifted the burdens onto state and local governments. Ask anyone you know how much their property taxes have gone up in the last couple of years.

Independents Rule?!
 

Lets not forget that there are three branches of government. To give TOTAL credit or discredit to a presidency or president would be a little short sighted imo. And quite frankly I'm sick of the partisan politics going on. It's one of the most divisive things in this country. To categorize Republicans or Democrats as this or that is just bs. There are varying degrees in each party.

A special thank you to strandinthewind(Jason) for your unbiased and open minded comments, and not just in this thread!


Joe

Well, I would certainly hope they would show restraint. But if they didn't, I wouldn't be laughing about it, telling everyone "Remember that Reagan TV-movie..."

I think we have to be careful about justifying current behavior that might be deemed questionable by saying "Well, in the future, the other side would probably do something just as bad."

Yes but these tax cuts aren't real. Bush's tax cuts have mainly shifted the burdens onto state and local governments. Ask anyone you know how much their property taxes have gone up in the last couple of years. [/B][/QUOTE]

I know. The Bush Administration economic policies certainly leave a lot to be desired if you are in a lower income tax bracket or a state trying to pay for the Bush policies (which for the most part have been widely supported by the Demo.'s when it came time to vote). Although every tax bracket got a reduction, IMO, the bracket whose spending will best effect the manufacturing product (and therefore the entire economy) is the $40,000 a year and below people and that percentage was not cut enough. Personally, I think there ought to be a flat income tax of 20 percent; that way the "class warfare" arguments used in tax cut arguments is greatly lessoned. But, that will never happen so we have to deal with what we have, which unfortunately is special interest driven.

On the bright side, the economic indicators indicate that while it has a long way to go, the economy is picking up on almost all fronts. Hopefully, this will mean the big companies will begin hiring again to increase output. Interestingly, I truly believe the low interest rates along with the refinancing boom has been sort of a jump start to the economy. I mean I know people who have refinanced several times and too cash out to pay for things their lower paying jobs would not allow them to buy without the payment for it over 30 years at 5%.

Finally, Johnny, I, too, love this type of debate and love even more that, for the most part, we Ledgies respect other people opinions and present ideas without vitrol - now if we all could only be that way in a Stevie v. L.B. debate :laugh:.

Re: Independents Rule?!
 

I am blushing - thank you for the compliment.

I, too, just hate the hate everyone seems to have more of these days regarding partisan politics. I wish Bush could have or would have been the uniter he claimed. But, I think the way the election in 2000 turned out and his choice of Ashcroft as payback to the far right (which I do not think Bush is - I think Bush is a moderate) made that impossible. To his credit, he has been able to get huge support from all sides for most of his policies notwithstanding the 9/11 "there's terrorists out there and to speak against Bush is to be a traitor" that some in Republican party promote or at least tolerate.

Why can't we all just get along :( :confused:

I'm not sure I get the analogy. I was saying that they could have at least waited until after Reagan was dead to do this. Roosevelt IS dead.

That being said, they should leave the dime alone! Roosevelt was a great man and deserves it. Let them do some kind of special commerative quarter or something like they did for Kennedy.

You're very welcome!

I agree, and if I could, I'd buy you a drink!! :nod:

CHEERS!

Joe:wavey:

Re: Independents Rule?!
 

Unfortunately, any time one "side" feels they're completely right and the other is completely wrong, you're going to come to an impasse, and unfortunately that's the way it's been in politics for a good long time. I wish it weren't so, but I see no change in sight.I agree... which is why I always try to say "some Republicans" or "most Democrats," etc.

I prefer to see people as individuals, not as some label.
Even after these types of discussions, I couldn't sit down and tell you necessarily which Ledgies are conservatives and which are liberals.

As I said, I don't think the Democratic party is the be-all and end-all... but I'm much more confident giving them my support, than I would be the Republican party. For all the reasons I mentioned earlier.

But I definitely don't think anyone who disagrees with me is the enemy. :)

Re: Re: Independents Rule?!
 

Could you tell what I am? :laugh:

We can hope all we want, but they sure as hell woudn't show any restraint; they'd be out for blood. Then, in turn, us far-left liberals would cry foul and the right would say we're censoring them.

I don't know who watches shows like O'Reilly, Scarborough, Hannity or listens to any other public conservative, but they look at Clinton as the anti-christ. So, I don't have to speculate on how they would make a movie concerning Clinton; we all know how they would go about it.

As for the Reagan dime, they are taking advantage of the supposed "public outcry" over the miniseries. In essence, it wasn't a public outcry, it was an outcry from dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who fought like soldiers to get the mini pulled. The sudden boom in everything Reagan is giving them the ammo to get a famous liberal Democrat pushed towards the backburner and a famous Republican towards the forefront again.

The movie has been in the can for almost three years; it's a tad late for everyone to be crying about the timing.

Because our country has fostered an intolerant society for three years.

We can't get along because ignorant folks believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, because patriotism is just the latest fad, because holding office is all about what can be done for the individual, because the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, because benefits are being taken away from those who need them most, because people are dying every day for bull**** reasons, because the President is more concerned with photo-ops than human beings, and because he had the BALLS to go to Iraq on Thanksgiving and pose for photos holding a plastic turkey. And his approval rating spiked, furthing showing how ignorant and stupid the people of this country have become.

We don't get along because our country is the butt of every joke made in foreign countries. We don't get along because we invade foreign countries and steamroll over the cars of people who steal wood to burn for their freezing families for punishment. Because we are the leading imperialists in this world.

...except that yesterday a weaker than expected jobs report shows that the trickle down economic theory isn't working all that well. While unemployemnt is low, no new jobs are being created. How is this possible? One theory is that more people are becoming self employed. President Bush and his administration have not created one new job in their tenure. in fact they've lost about 2.5 million. The second largest one day drop in the stock market occured during Shrub's presidency. I would have voted for John McCain but they(Bush's special interests) bought the nomination out from under him. So jwd, if you're sick of the partisan politics what's your plan? Because we're stuck with it. It's the lesser of two evils type thing. I think there are some good people running for president, however they'll never get elected because they can't raise 200 million dollars for their campaign war chest and two, most people are too easily led or they just don't give a damn.
I think it would be nice if we could "all get along" with the people of Iraq. How do you like them apples?:laugh: :wavey:

That was my point. FDR doesn't deserve to be kicked off the dime either.;)

EEK - I cannot believe you really think it is that bad. If you do and you are right, we are all doomed :laugh:

Interestingly, I went overseas to Europe several times last year and found the opinions of the people I spoke with (at all levels of life) to be split fairly evenly about the same as it is here. Also, many people had misconceptions based on no facts I know or knew. For example, someone in London supported the Iraqi conflict but then told me CNN was Bush's lapdog and was a conservative network. I was like CNN is many things but conservative probably would not be one of them :laugh:

Moreover, although it is easy to say and sounds great to make a point, most of the economic indicators do not indicate the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer despite everyones use of that term. In fact, over the last decade (you have to use a significant period of time to measure this as it is an argument that presumes a long term trend not a particular few months), more wealth was created in this country and it was spilt more evenly than ever. I mean how many stories did we all hear about people starting some company and making millions and paying their staffs very well. I heard a bunch. In fact, I know a bunch. My favorite was the Microsoft millionaire secretaries club (why the hell wasn't I one :laugh: ). Although the internet created wealth bubble burst and a lot of that wealth evaporated essentially overnight (this would be the rich getting poorer :cool: ), this sustained period of wealth (about three years) had a positive impact on the economy that created wealth in many different levels of people - just think of all of the jobs created from the buildings built in that time period. So, while yes, right now the economy is picking up and we are still feeling the effects of the recession (which again all economic indicators suggest is over (not that it can't come back)), the trend over the last ten or so years has been the creation of wealth within all socioeconomic backgrounds. Also, I had a friend complain and complain because her stock portfolio (401K) lost about 45 % in 2000 to 2001. I was like well, you have no one to blame but yourself because you could have sold half and pocketed a bunch of cash like I and your investment person told you, but you did not. Moreover, your loss of 45 % is still a 100 + % gain from your initial investment and now two years later that 45 % loss has been cut in half because almost all markets are up significantly. In other words, she is still way ahead of where she would have been if she had invested in Treasuries at about 2%

Seriously, I cannot ever believe anything is that bad. But then again to me the glass is always half full and everyoine has their own outlook of things - this is mine. :cool:

I thought the show was lame, but for a network miniseries, it was okay. Ultimately, I didn't find it all that disrespectful. The Iran Contra thing was actually softballed. Considering the gravity of that situation, it was a tempest in a teapot compared to the world media event that was Lewinsky. But, there was no sex involved in Iran Contra.
The vile legacy of Reagan, IMO, was his absolute disinterest in the AIDS crisis. He said nothing, he did nothing. For years. It took Elizabeth Taylor to get anyone to care about it, and in the interim, scores of people died, and scores got infected. His indifference set the tone, and gave people the go ahead to punish the people with the disease and allowed ignorance and intolerance against gay people to flower, thrive and metastasize throughout the country. He could have been a leader on the issue and could have been a decent human being. But, he couldn't risk alienating the religious extremists who put him in office. I don't particularly care what party he was in. His inactions on this issue were heinous and destructive on an EPIC level. For this, and this alone, I will dance on his grave.

Poor taste to be airing it as his family suffers through his illness. They had nothing to do with the damage he caused to so many.
Nonetheless, I will be dancing, dancing, dancing. Hope he's buried next to Jesse Helms so I have twice the size dance floor.

I have to say I agree with you, it has always been the conservative v. liberal thing at least in my lifetime. I mean, I can remember politicians in the late 60's calling people "liberal" for wanting to get rid of the laws that allowed blacks and whites to EEEEKKKKK marry. The Christian far right said it was against God's laws and would foster heathens and a Godless and lawless society - none of this happened, but the far Christian right sure made a lot of money off of it and the so called liberal politicians taksed a good game but voted with the conseratives. Note: these are the same arguments the far Christian right is using against allowing homosexuals any rights at all to express what they feel and do on a consenual basis and the so called liberals are still talking a good game but still are voting with the conservatives (see the Defense of Marriage Act). So, apparently the beat goes on. That is sad to me. My way of trying to change it is ti judge everyone on their past acts and not their rhetoric or their political party. I think Bush thought he could change things, but it has not turned out that way for the most part, alhough and again, he certainly seems to be able to get a significant majority to pass his legislation.

As for getting along with Iraq, by all reports we are trying to do just that. IMO - we could have done it a whole lot better had we had a plan that worked instead of the one in place now, which despite the advances made in Iraq, clearly is not working as fast as people would like and is making the US and her allies look silly and incompetent.

I can't agree that opinions about this presidency from the American people is 50/50. There's no way it is. Half of the people in this country don't know a thing about politics or current events and a lot of people don't even care to vote. They take what they see on TV as gospel and base everything on that. That's ignorance in my book and it's inexcusable.

As for Europe, the people you may have talken to may have had evenly spilt opinions, but they don't necessarily represent the population of Europe. Read their papers and see what they think of us; I would recommend the Economist.

Also, when you look at what is being done and when you look at the rich and the poor, look at it sociologically. Don't always look at the facts because they're sometimes misleading.

You don't have to believe that things are that bad, but they certainly are. When you take every little thing and add them all up, it will make your jaw drop. Our current government has made such a mess of things that it is going to take decades upon decades to fix (if it can be fixed).

I will just ask a question and hopefully someone will respond, because I don't have an answer:

What has Bush done to make things better for us?

We didn't even have a plan to begin with, nevermind one that worked! :laugh:

If Bush stuck by what he said would happen (giving complete control of government over to the Iraqi's), we wouldn't be there right now and an Islamic government run by the Shiite's would be in place.

Well Jason I have to agree with you. I don't think Bush ever wanted unity though. You could be right about that though. The guy is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he could have been operating under some kind of delusion. His original intent in life was to be baseball commissioner. I always thought he was the puppet while Rumsfeld and Cheney pulled the strings.
Also, I seriously doubt the Iraqi people feel we're there to make friends with them. I could be wrong about that too. "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy."
;)

Hey-

That reminds me of the joke Kerry made about the "Almighty."

:laugh: