We were catching up with that CBS 75th anniversary special, and I was fascinated by when they discussed the Orson Welles “War of the Worlds.” At the time, law suits were filed that costs CBS milions of dollar.s I can’t help but think, though, that if it occurred in the modern era, then–inflation notwithstanding) the judgment might be well into the billions. It might even have drven CBS out of business altogether, because absolutely everybody and his brother who was distraught or willing to say they were would have been after CBS brass.
PAD
• 
Well CBS would only air it with GOP approval, since they’re apparently allowing the Republicans to make programming decisions now…..
No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.
If they were to do something like that today, rather than simply broadcast to anyone who cared to listen to it, they’d probably turn it into a reality show. They’d trick the contestants into thinking it was a Big Brother-type show where none of them could leave the house until they were kicked off, then somewhere in the first few weeks they’d start showing them fake broadcasts of aliens attacking the Earth to see how they react.
Oh man, I should shut up. I don’t want to give anyone anymore ideas for reality shows.
Actually, I’m surprised that reality shows haven’t really spawned many law suits yet or had some stunt that went bad. Especially something like the morally twisted (even for reality TV) “Scare Tactics” on Sci-Fi.
(I know there’s been some kind of lawsuit against an MTV show that planted a fake corpse in a honeymoon suite, IIRC.)
The worst part is that when it inevitably does everyone will hop up on high horses and pretend they were against this type of show all along.
As for the Orson Welles thing, I think it’s impossible to say what the reaction would be today. The world is obviously not as simple a place today where there’s really one source of news about the outside world. Even if you’re a hardcore news junkie you’re likely to flip between CNN and the networks to see what’s going on at the other stations.
Pack, there are actually some lawsuits over reality TV shows that go too far, such as this one: http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=OddNews&storyId=795602
It’s just so wrong, I don’t think anything else needs to be said.
Chris
Out of curiousity, just how long did the special run?
I know they did not run late because of football that night, having watched the game at my folks house.
But I set the VCR ahead of time for 6:59 to 10:01, and when I got home around 10:30, the tape cut off in the middle of the final parting between Hawkeye and BJ on MASH.
What did I miss afterwards?
After CBSs cowardly and politically motivated decision to not air ‘The Reagans (another example of the so-called ‘Liberal media’ in action) I could care less about CBS.
Could be wrong on which network it was, but I recall that back in the mid-90s CBS did a two hour tv movie with a similar structure to War of the Worlds; fake newscasts, making it appear to be “real”, etc. But with warnings at the beginning, end, and before and after every commercial that this was a fictional movie. This was also about an alien invasion (not from Mars); as I recall, there were major plot holes and science blunders. Don’t recall the title though, so haven’t been able to track it down on Google or IMDB.
Don’t recall the title though, so haven’t been able to track it down on Google or IMDB.
I remember it–it was called Without Warning, and one of the stars was John de Lancie. I loved it, and wish I could see it again.
Corey
Hey, wouldn’t ya know, Without Warning was just released on DVD this year:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009V7S9/
One of the Amazon reviews says people were calling their CBS affiliates thinking it was real, even in 1994.
Corey
“No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.”
Oddly enough, I am unaware of any Republicans complaining when Showtime aired their heavily-partisan 9/11 special last month, which included lies like depicting George W. Bush decisively hunting for terrorists hours after the attacks.
Let’s not mince words, CBS caved in to thin-skinned whining from the conservative wing. In a free and democratic society, all ideas should be available for public view, no matter how disagreeable they might be. CBS should have aired “The Reagans” and allowed the viewers to draw their own conclusions — and subject themselves to libel lawsuits if there are any problems with it.
Instead, CBS surrendered to this heavy-handed Republican censorship tactic, which will only encourage them to try it again the next time someone else dares to say anything which doesn’t toe the party line…
Corey:Hey, wouldn’t ya know, Without Warning was just released on DVD this year:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009V7S9/
One of the Amazon reviews says people were calling their CBS affiliates thinking it was real, even in 1994.
And let’s not forget about how many people thought the Blair Witch Project was real, despite the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, and all the reviews that said it was fake.
“No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.”
If this were true, they would shelve it all together instead of showing it on Showtime. The coservatives are enraged because CBS didn’t decide to depict Reagan with a halo and wings
It doesn’t really matter to me. CBS sucks anyway, they don’t have ANY show worth watching and I dont waste my time watching it at all anyway.
But if I did, I would stop.
I seem to recall a movie some years back that was done in “real time”; can’t remember much about it apart from there being a hijacked ship in harbour with some people claiming there was a nuclear device on board… and they allowed a newsteam on the ship to film them.
Again, the movie was supposed to be a ‘real’ event with the entire thing being broadcast from a newsroom, with cuts away to other newsrooms showing how the nation was dealing with this threat.
No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.
I’m curious (sincerely curious, not “bait the conservative” curious) as to what those lies are. I ask because everyone I’ve seen protesting this hasn’t actually seen the source material. Oh sure, some’ve seen some promotional material, or they’ve heard what “unnamed insiders” say, but I’ve been unable to find any non-hearsay reports of the “lies” in this movie.
CBS sucks anyway, they don’t have ANY show worth watching and I dont waste my time watching it at all anyway.
Actually, I’d list Joan of Arcadia as a show worth watching. You’ve got the basic premise of God appearing as random people to a teenage girl instructing her to do seemingly inconsequential tasks (such as having a yard sale or trying out for cheerleaders) that turn out to make a difference in the lives of those around her. It’s a well-done, feel good show, and I really enjoy it!
Of course, YMMV.
I seem to recall a movie some years back that was done in “real time”; can’t remember much about it apart from there being a hijacked ship in harbour with some people claiming there was a nuclear device on board
That one was called “Special Bulletin,” and it aired on NBC in 1983. It was shot on video, and starred Ed Flanders of “St. Elsewhere.” It was also shown with disclaimers after each commercial break, but, from what I recall, people still called NBC thinking it was real.
You know, I’m a liberal/moderate, and even I think CBS did the right thing in moving “The Reagans” off the schedule.
How could anyone think hiring the husband of Barbara Streisand to play Reagan would work? Even if the piece was a Reagan wash, with him personally healing AIDS sufferers with his godlike Jellybean powers, the film was going to be heavily criticized.
I mean, if “The Clintons” was cast with Rush Limbaugh’s wife as Hillary, wouldn’t Democrats raise an uproar?
This isn’t just hiring a liberal or moderate for the job- it’s hiring the wife/husband of a known political activist for the other party. It was a bad mistake by CBS, and they’re paying the price.
Of course, I can’t believe anybody would have watched it. Yech.
I’m curious (sincerely curious, not “bait the conservative” curious) as to what those lies are. I ask because everyone I’ve seen protesting this hasn’t actually seen the source material. Oh sure, some’ve seen some promotional material, or they’ve heard what “unnamed insiders” say, but I’ve been unable to find any non-hearsay reports of the “lies” in this movie.
From published reports by people that have seen the script and screening copies of the film, the Reagans are talking about AIDS and Nancy is inquiring about increasing funding for AIDS research. Ronald replies “They that live in sin shall die in sin”. There is no proof that Reagan ever said such a thing.
If CBS or the producers wanted to make a fictional president and document that, then go for it (or just watch NBC for “The West Wing”). But if they want to do something historical, they should at least TRY to be accurate. I’m sure there is enough stuff about Reagan they don’t like…they didn’t need to make stuff up.
How could anyone think hiring the husband of Barbara Streisand to play Reagan would work?
Yes. It’s entirely ridiculous. For one person to pretend to be another person who holds completely different views…why, he’d have to be some kind of actor to pull that off.
How could anyone think hiring the husband of Barbara Streisand to play Reagan would work?
Yes. It’s entirely ridiculous. For one person to pretend to be another person who holds completely different views…why, he’d have to be some kind of actor to pull that off.
James Brolin’s acting ability, which I have always believed to be quite good, was not the issue. It was his marriage to the poster girl for the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party that set everyone’s suspicions on edge, and from the reports of quotes and events in the movie that not a single reporter can say was true, and most are saying was the exact opposite of truth, those fears were realized.
“No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.”
There’s no such thing as a verifiable lie. If they could verify it, it wouldn’t be a lie; it would be a fact.
I find the whole CBS thing silly, but here are some links to possible problems with the movies for those who think the conservatives are making it all up:
http://www.drudgereport.com/rr4.htm
http://www.drudgereport.com/rr5.htm
http://www.drudgereport.com/rr6.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,536971,00.html
For what it’s worth. This debate may be somewhat silly (cut it out with the nasty name calling on both sides people!), but at least it should go forth informed!!!
From published reports by people that have seen the script and screening copies of the film, the Reagans are talking about AIDS and Nancy is inquiring about increasing funding for AIDS research. Ronald replies “They that live in sin shall die in sin”. There is no proof that Reagan ever said such a thing.
Okay, but even if he never said that, isn’t that basically what the government’s position on AIDS was at the time?
The odd thing is, that “live with sin” line – which is by far the most commonly referenced “problem” – isa paraphrase from the official biography.
Okay, but even if he never said that, isn’t that basically what the government’s position on AIDS was at the time?
Suuuuuure it was. That’s why the CDC was out there on the front lines trying to get people to change their actions to prevent the spread of the disease. That’s why the government spent millions of dollars (and are still spending) in research for a vaccine or cure.
The odd thing is, that “live with sin” line – which is by far the most commonly referenced “problem” – isa paraphrase from the official biography.
I haven’t read the biography, but am curious to know the form and context the phrase was used.
I have your answer here (via Atrios):
In “Dutch,” Reagan’s authorized biography, the author, Edmund Morris, writes that Reagan once said of AIDS, “Maybe the Lord brought down this plague,” because “illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.”
Incidentally, if that seems like it was taken out of context, check out page 458 of Dutch. Thanks to Amazon’s search feature, it should be easy enough to find. The context makes it sound worse actually, than the miniseries line, something along the lines of (though somewhat less extreme) Fallwell’s post-911 comments.
If I remember correctly, CBS’ radio division did a ‘War of the Worlds’ reenactment a la Orson Welles on the 50th anniversary of the broadcast in 1988. Again, IIRC, it scared the hëll out of most of Portugal. I used to have the broadcast on audio tape, but I played it one too many times and shredded the tape.
It think it’s revealing to see the reactions of people to docu-drama. When the Welles broadcast happened, it was during the onset of WWII. I suppose people were really jumpy. I wonder how people’d take similar fare these days?
The OTHER John Byrne
Hey, remember the brouhaha from these same sources over historical accuracy for Stone’s JFK? And for the the Bush/9-11 movie? And the outcry for ‘accuracy’ prior to the movie based on the Jessica Lynch propganda movie?
Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.
Puh-leeze. The Reagan mini-series is a dramatization based on a public figure, not a documentary. It has as much to do with accuracy as Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar – and, with apologies to those behind the mini-series, is likely not as well written.
My only quibble is that it would have been more courteous to not initially scehdule it at all until the man had left this mortal coil.
That said, the biographer of Reagan has read the script, at lkeast, if not seen parts of the show (can’t find the reference just now) and stated that it catches the Reagan he knew and worked with to as ‘T.’
As for arguing against the casting, if we’re going to censure or deny people up for a role employment by using who their spouse is as a condition, then we’re already too far gone to recover any balance or sound judgment. It’s called a-c-t-i-n-g. Either he does a credible (and creditable) job, or he doesn’t, on his own merits.
After CBSs cowardly and politically motivated decision to not air ‘The Reagans (another example of the so-called ‘Liberal media’ in action) I could care less about CBS.
Oh, talk about spreading the lies and desperately trying to keep them alive… Many claim is that the media is slanted towards the left not that it’s 100% in the liberal’s pocket. There’s a difference.
CBS did the right thing to can this cowardly attack on Reagan because it was filled with bias, make believe and lies. No one is asking CBS to produce a “blind” pro Reagan movie and ignore the negative about the man, but to turn out something filled with such bias is not a good thing. Do you honestly think a fair movie was going to be made by a bunch of lefties? Hardly. As mentioned on the Factor tonight (what’s that hissing I hear?), that’s like asking Rush Limbugh, Dennis Miller, and Anne Coulter to produce a fair movie about Bill Clinton.
From published reports by people that have seen the script and screening copies of the film, the Reagans are talking about AIDS and Nancy is inquiring about increasing funding for AIDS research. Ronald replies “They that live in sin shall die in sin”. There is no proof that Reagan ever said such a thing.
Reagan hasn’t denied saying it, so it must be true.
Reagan hasn’t denied saying it, so it must be true.
He can’t recall.
If I remember correctly, CBS’ radio division did a ‘War of the Worlds’ reenactment a la Orson Welles on the 50th anniversary of the broadcast in 1988. Again, IIRC, it scared the hëll out of most of Portugal. I used to have the broadcast on audio tape, but I played it one too many times and shredded the tape.
If you want to get another copy, it’s at Lodestone Media. Well worth listening to. Also, I believe this was done for NPR.
That’s not “God” appearing to Joan of Arcadia.
The First was sufficiently weakened by his loss to Buffy and the Scoobies at the Hellmouth that he’s had to start over again on a really small scale…
I have to wonder why, in the photograph of Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan on that page of the Drudge Report, Judy is scowling. It almost seems to telegraph what her portrayal of Nancy Reagan will be like. (Oddly enough, I remember that Nancy Reagan was supposedly criticized for the way she would gaze at her husband in public, like at his inauguration, for example.)
However, I also agree with Robert Jung’s point about that piece of šhìŧ Showtime movie about George W. Bush, which was created by an self-proclaimed W. worshiper. The idea that what George W. Bush did in the few days after 9/11 was somehow significant in our country’s response to it, and the scene in which former C-student W. is supposedly lecturing National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice (that’s Dr Rice, mind you) on why the American ideals of freedom and pluralism are good was indescribably condescending and cloying. Sure. Dr. Rice needs to be told that. Right.
Rob Thornton: CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.
Alan M.: I’m curious (sincerely curious, not “bait the conservative” curious) as to what those lies are. I ask because everyone I’ve seen protesting this hasn’t actually seen the source material. Oh sure, some’ve seen some promotional material, or they’ve heard what “unnamed insiders” say, but I’ve been unable to find any non-hearsay reports of the “lies” in this movie.
Luigi Novi: According to a piece on the story on 1010WINS’ website at http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TV_CBS_REAGANS?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT, (I’m going to post it because links to that site are usually only up for a day or two):
In a portion of the script published in The New York Times last month, Reagan was depicted as uncaring and judgmental toward people with AIDS. “They that live in sin shall die in sin,” Reagan’s character tells his wife as she begs him to help AIDS victims.
Supporters of the former president, who suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease, said there’s no evidence he said that.
There was also a concern about its depiction of Nancy Reagan. The former president’s son, radio talk show host Michael Reagan, said he had seen eight minutes of movie highlights and Nancy Reagan was depicted as basically running the White House.
“I said to Nancy, they don’t like dad, but they hate you,” Reagan said Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
Also in the piece:
Ironically, CBS’ decision came two days after the network’s 75th anniversary special, which included a skit by the Smothers Brothers poking fun at CBS for firing them more than 30 years ago because of their political content.
Another precedent came in 1979, when CBS pulled a comedy series about a black congressman after complaints by some actual black politicians who had seen a screening, said TV historian Tim Brooks.
CBS faced pre-broadcast pressure earlier this year from Jewish groups concerned about its miniseries about Adolf Hitler. After some changes were made to the screenplay, the Hitler miniseries aired in May to middling ratings.
Ray Cornwall: How could anyone think hiring the husband of Barbara Streisand to play Reagan would work?
Luigi Novi: I don’t see what one has to do with the other. James Brolin is an ACTOR. It’s his job to portray characters. It is not the obligation of the casting directors to cast actors in parts whose political leanings match those of the characters they portray. If it were, how would you cast for films about Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, and so forth? Brolin should not be penalized for the political leanings of his WIFE. The movie should be a depiction of historical events. Not a political propaganda piece starring only Reagan boosters.
Ray Cornwall: I mean, if “The Clintons” was cast with Rush Limbaugh’s wife as Hillary, wouldn’t Democrats raise an uproar?
Luigi Novi: If Limbaugh’s wife were an actor, I don’t see why they should.
Rob Thornton: “No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.”
Michael Pullmann: There’s no such thing as a verifiable lie. If they could verify it, it wouldn’t be a lie; it would be a fact.
Luigi Novi: Nope. What Rob is saying is that the falsehood of the statements or notions in question can be verified.
Jeff: From published reports by people that have seen the script and screening copies of the film, the Reagans are talking about AIDS and Nancy is inquiring about increasing funding for AIDS research. Ronald replies “They that live in sin shall die in sin”. There is no proof that Reagan ever said such a thing.
Mark: Okay, but even if he never said that, isn’t that basically what the government’s position on AIDS was at the time?
Luigi Novi: Was it? That may have certainly have been the perception, but I don’t think Reagan should be portrayed as having said that. Someone’s stated position and the perception thereof are two different things.
Jeff: Suuuuuure it was. That’s why the CDC was out there on the front lines trying to get people to change their actions to prevent the spread of the disease.
Luigi Novi: The fact that the CDC’s purpose is to do this does not mean that Reagan had pro-active or progressive attitude towards the epidemic.
Jeff: That’s why the government spent millions of dollars (and are still spending) in research for a vaccine or cure.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, it is significant to note not
I have to wonder why, in the photograph of Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan on that page of the Drudge Report, Judy is scowling. It almost seems to telegraph what her portrayal of Nancy Reagan will be like. (Oddly enough, I remember that Nancy Reagan was supposedly criticized for the way she would gaze at her husband in public, like at his inauguration, for example.)
However, I also agree with Robert Jung’s point about that piece of šhìŧ Showtime movie about George W. Bush, which was created by an self-proclaimed W. worshiper. The idea that what George W. Bush did in the few days after 9/11 was somehow significant in our country’s response to it, and the scene in which former C-student W. is supposedly lecturing National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice (that’s Dr Rice, mind you) on why the American ideals of freedom and pluralism are good was indescribably condescending and cloying. Sure. Dr. Rice needs to be told that. Right.
Rob Thornton: CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.
Alan M.: I’m curious (sincerely curious, not “bait the conservative” curious) as to what those lies are. I ask because everyone I’ve seen protesting this hasn’t actually seen the source material. Oh sure, some’ve seen some promotional material, or they’ve heard what “unnamed insiders” say, but I’ve been unable to find any non-hearsay reports of the “lies” in this movie.
Luigi Novi: According to a piece on the story on 1010WINS’ website at http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TV_CBS_REAGANS?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT, (I’m going to post it because links to that site are usually only up for a day or two):
In a portion of the script published in The New York Times last month, Reagan was depicted as uncaring and judgmental toward people with AIDS. “They that live in sin shall die in sin,” Reagan’s character tells his wife as she begs him to help AIDS victims.
Supporters of the former president, who suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease, said there’s no evidence he said that.
There was also a concern about its depiction of Nancy Reagan. The former president’s son, radio talk show host Michael Reagan, said he had seen eight minutes of movie highlights and Nancy Reagan was depicted as basically running the White House.
“I said to Nancy, they don’t like dad, but they hate you,” Reagan said Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
Also in the piece:
Ironically, CBS’ decision came two days after the network’s 75th anniversary special, which included a skit by the Smothers Brothers poking fun at CBS for firing them more than 30 years ago because of their political content.
Another precedent came in 1979, when CBS pulled a comedy series about a black congressman after complaints by some actual black politicians who had seen a screening, said TV historian Tim Brooks.
CBS faced pre-broadcast pressure earlier this year from Jewish groups concerned about its miniseries about Adolf Hitler. After some changes were made to the screenplay, the Hitler miniseries aired in May to middling ratings.
Ray Cornwall: How could anyone think hiring the husband of Barbara Streisand to play Reagan would work?
Luigi Novi: I don’t see what one has to do with the other. James Brolin is an ACTOR. It’s his job to portray characters. It is not the obligation of the casting directors to cast actors in parts whose political leanings match those of the characters they portray. If it were, how would you cast for films about Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, and so forth? Brolin should not be penalized for the political leanings of his WIFE. The movie should be a depiction of historical events. Not a political propaganda piece starring only Reagan boosters.
Ray Cornwall: I mean, if “The Clintons” was cast with Rush Limbaugh’s wife as Hillary, wouldn’t Democrats raise an uproar?
Luigi Novi: If Limbaugh’s wife were an actor, I don’t see why they should.
Rob Thornton: “No, CBS is simply bending to justifiable outrage over verifiable lies.”
Michael Pullmann: There’s no such thing as a verifiable lie. If they could verify it, it wouldn’t be a lie; it would be a fact.
Luigi Novi: Nope. What Rob is saying is that the falsehood of the statements or notions in question can be verified.
Jeff: Suuuuuure it was. That’s why the CDC was out there on the front lines trying to get people to change their actions to prevent the spread of the disease.
Luigi Novi: The fact that the CDC’s purpose is to do this does not mean that Reagan had pro-active or progressive attitude towards the epidemic. The medical community struggled to deal with the disease despite the Reagan administration’s attitude toward the disease and its sufferers, not because of it.
Jeff: That’s why the government spent millions of dollars (and are still spending) in research for a vaccine or cure.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, it is significant to note not only how much he allotted to fighting the disease, but WHEN he did this (that is, how long into the epidemic he reacted to it). By the time Reagan gave his first speech on the AIDS crisis, more than 25,000 Americans had died of the disease. Reagan intervened only when it became clear that this was not a homosexual disease, and that babies, virgins and grandmothers could be affected by it.
In the second place, whether the government is “still” spending money on research has nothing to do with Reagan.
skring: Hey, remember the brouhaha from these same sources over historical accuracy for Stone’s JFK? And for the the Bush/9-11 movie? And the outcry for ‘accuracy’ prior to the movie based on the Jessica Lynch propganda movie?
Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.
Luigi Novi: Bûllšhìŧ. JFK has LONG been criticized for its lies and propaganda. And I seem to recall people posting links here to newstories about what really happened during Jessica Lynch’s captivity and rescue.
from http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004260
Leaked copies of the script and distribution of an eight-minute trailer make clear how much poetic license gave way to dramatic distortion. The film portrays Mr. Reagan as callous towards AIDS victims (“They that live in sin shall die in sin”), has him call himself “the anti-Christ,” implies he suffered from Alzheimer’s during his second term (he doesn’t recognize his own national security adviser) and shows him being controlled by a scheming Nancy. On “Hardball” last week, Lou Cannon, Mr. Reagan’s most prolific biographer, said the film’s allegation that Mr. Reagan supplied names to the Hollywood blacklist is “really wrong.” The House Committee on Un-American Activities “was very unhappy with Reagan because he didn’t name names,” he said.
The film’s cartoon plot can be summarized as “Mommie Dearest Manipulates President Fuddy Duddy,” and it mirrors the worldview of the people involved in bringing it to television. Mrs. Reagan is played by Australian actress Judy Davis, who told the New York Times last month that she deplores the “ugly specter of patriotism” she has seen in America since 9/11. President Reagan is played by James Brolin, the husband of liberal activist Barbra Streisand. He has told reporters he believes Nancy Reagan “took over” the White House as her husband’s health allegedly failed. Producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, longtime collaborators of Ms. Streisand’s, are liberal activists . . .”
He can’t recall.
Gee, that’s classy.
I just think kicking a guy in the crotch while he is dying of alzheimer’s is classless. Whether a person is republican or democrat, we should know better.
I don’t think the fact that he’s dying of Alzheimer’s has anything to do with anything. If there are legitimate criticisms of
Reagan’s policies as President, they deserve to be aired, now more than ever with they way dissent of anything Republican is being stifled in this country, and with the way Reagan is being deified. Certainy the fact that he is dying of Alzheimers isn’t stopping some of suggesting that his face be added to Mount Rushmore, so there’s no reason why the other side of the story should be told. I just wish it were an accurate side.
Besides, more than 25,000 people died of AIDS before Reagan decided to give a speech on it. So who was more callous?
I just think kicking a guy in the crotch while he is dying of alzheimer’s is classless. Whether a person is republican or democrat, we should know better.
How about taking a memorial tribute for Paul Wellstone and misrepresenting it as a partisan pro-Democrat rally? ’cause that’s what the GOP did last October. Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them has an entire chapter on the topic, where right-wing propaganda is contradicted by firsthand accounts from attendees of the memorial — including Franken himself.
(But that’s probably a second hijack of this topic, which is based on the original hijack of this topic…)
implies he suffered from Alzheimer’s during his second term (he doesn’t recognize his own national security adviser) and shows him being controlled by a scheming Nancy.
Those of us who actually remember the 80’s may recall that both Reagan’s occasional memory lapses and the degree of Nancy’s influence over the president were issues of frequent political debate and discussion during his administration. Reagan’s age and his memory was even raised during the ’84 debates with Mondale, which he managed to dispell with a quip about not making his opponent’s “youth and inexperience” an issue. And remember all the talk about Nancy and astrologers? I guess that’s not as bad as channelling Eleanor Rosevelt.
To not mention either issue would be dishonest about Reagan’s whole record.
Oh, and Alzheimer’s is not a terminal disease, so while he is suffering greatly from mental deteriation, Reagan isn’t “dying” from it.
He can’t recall.
Gee, that’s classy.
Posted by Chris Galdieri @ 11/05/2003 09:24 AM ET
I just think kicking a guy in the crotch while he is dying of alzheimer’s is classless. Whether a person is republican or democrat, we should know better.
Posted by Matt @ 11/05/2003 11:01 AM ET
I believe you guys are misinterpreting Robb P.’s comment.
Reagan was infamous for “not recalling” politically inconvenient facts when questioned by reporters. Iran-Contra only excaberated (sp? I’m sure I’m misspelling this) his condition. “I don’t recall,” was almost a catchphrase with him.
Re: the Wellstone rally comment.
Here’s a contemporary report from CNN.com (which is, I believe, a relatively reliable source) containing comments such as “At times the memorial sounded like a campaign rally…”
But here. Read it yourself:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/29/elec02.mn.s.memorial/index.html
The thing to remember in all this is that something that seems entirely reasonable to a person of one political stripe will seem entirely unreasonable to someone of the opposite political persuasion — and vice versa.
It was all about cash. Not censorship.
The petitions came in from real people voicing real concerns, so they backed down before the advertisers got hit.
From the scripts I have seen on the net this is an obvious partison political hit job.
For what it’s worth, Les Moonves (a SUBSTANTIAL contributer and supporter of the Democratic party) himself admitted the film was biased and not the film that was supposed to be delivered as pitched. So, regardless if you think the film’s being demoted to the minors is a censorship issue or not, you can’t argue that it wasn’t a hatchet job.
And as for using the book Dutch as any type of proof that Reagan said something…come on. Even the author said that good chunks of it were fictionalized. I mean, he made himself a fictional character in the story through whose point of view the story is told!!!
And Luigi is 100% right on JFK being villified for inaccuracies. Besides, it wasn’t even ABOUT JFK. Anyway, Stone was so shaken by it, when he did Nixon, he released a heavily annotated and footnoted copy of the script to head off any claims of bias. And you know what, there weren’t many of those claims because he went out of his way to be unbiased and factual, as opopsed to the screenwriter of The Reagans, who happily admits she made up the sin and antichrist lines.
Oh, and Alzheimer’s is not a terminal disease, so while he is suffering greatly from mental deteriation, Reagan isn’t “dying” from it.
No. You are absolutely incorrect. Going by your logic, than no one dies from AIDS, but from a superimposing infection. So why are so many people complaining that Regan ignored deaths from AIDS? The deaths were all from various infections from different bugs(Note sarcasm). The truth is it was HIV that made them susceptible to such infections, so the CDC rightly records the deaths as due to AIDS/HIV. In the same way people affected by Alzheimer’s die from complications due to the dementia( number 8 leading cause of death). Here some links to the CDC for verification:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alzheimr.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/aids-hiv.htm
The thing to remember in all this is that something that seems entirely reasonable to a person of one political stripe will seem entirely unreasonable to someone of the opposite political persuasion — and vice versa.
For what it’s worth, my wife attended the memorial and thought it crossed a line, and I heard a similar sentiment from other Democrats who were in atendance. One of them compared Rick Kahn;s speech to Rudy Boschwitz’s infamous “Jewish Letter” from the 1990 campaign. (Just to put everything on the table, I did some volunteering on both the Wellstone and Mondale campaigns last year.)
Going by your logic, than no one dies from AIDS, but from a superimposing infection.
No, that is correct. HIV isn’t what ultimately kills people, it’s an “opportunistic infection” that kills the patient because they are more vulnerable to these diseases due to AIDS.