Protecting the Sacred Cow

lynn · November-1st-2003, 02:16 PM

The GOP better be worrying about more that this.

GOP Chairman Blasts Miniseries on Reagans
November 1, 2003 11:27 AM EST

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Republican National Committee has told CBS' president that historians should review the miniseries "The Reagans" for historical accuracy, or the network should run a disclaimer that the program is fiction.

"The Reagans," a two-part miniseries about former President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, airs Nov. 16 and 18. It is being condemned in advance by the former president's friends and supporters as unfair and inaccurate.

"We live in a culture today of reality TV," GOP chairman Ed Gillespie said in a conference call Friday. "Lines between fact and fiction get blurred. I am concerned that its portrayal of our 40th president and his wife is not historically accurate."

Gillespie sent a letter to CBS President Leslie Moonves asking for a historical review or a disclaimer.

The GOP chairman said the miniseries may have omissions, distortions and exaggerations that may cause Americans to "come away with a misunderstanding of the Reagans and the Reagan administration."

Gil Schwartz, a CBS spokesman, refused comment.

Some have questioned airing any dramatization of the 92-year-old Reagan's life while he struggles with Alzheimer's disease.

Gillespie said he hasn't seen the full miniseries but is uneasy because of news reports and brief clips that have been made public. He said he resents particularly how the miniseries depicts the Reagans' attitude on AIDS and how it depicts former first lady Nancy Reagan.

Critics have complained about the miniseries' treatment of the Reagans' attitudes on AIDS.

"They that live in sin shall die in sin," Reagan tells his wife in the script as she begs him to help AIDS victims. The author of the screenplay's final version, Elizabeth Egloff, told The New York Times there was no evidence such a conversation took place.

Gillespie said if CBS is not willing to allow the historical review, the network should run a crawler at the bottom that states the programs are fictional.

He said such reviews for historical accuracy should be routine when portraying a president's career or legacy. "I would make the same case about a portrayal of the Kennedy administration or the Carter administration," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 Associated Press.

================================

"I would make the same case about a portrayal of the Kennedy administration or the Carter administration," he said.

That is such a crock. There have been tons on miniseries on the Kennedy's and I never heard one stupid GOP person ever say anything about historical accuracy.

November-1st-2003, 02:33 PM

The GOP worrying about omission, distortions and exaggerations?

That's really funny!

frankiepop · November-1st-2003, 04:04 PM

yea, maybe the gop should focus on disclaimers for fox 'news' instead.

do u hear that in the background?
|
|
|
V

SHUT UP!

GoodSpeak · November-1st-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris A
The GOP worrying about omission, distortions and exaggerations?

That's really funny!

Yeah...funny as rubber crutches.

Why won't America WAKE UP?

November-2nd-2003, 01:56 AM

las.vegas.lynn · November-2nd-2003, 02:04 AM

I see one of them is blissfully sleeping (the "ignorance is bliss" kind of unconciousness) with no wake up call in sight.

November-2nd-2003, 02:24 AM

Awwwwwwwwww...........you're making me reconsider my proposal to you...............

cookie · November-2nd-2003, 02:26 AM

I am not a Republican and in general, I detest what the GOP stands for.

I loathed Reagan as a president, though I was very young at the time. Looking back, I still loathe that administration.

But I'm sorry, I *do* think it's inappropriate to run a dramatization of the Reagans while Mr. Reagan is still alive and is ill. I think it's incredibly disrespectful to the family as human beings. Mr. Reagan is neither dead nor can he defend himself. If he were dead, I'd probably feel differently. If he were mentally competent, I would feel differently. He is neither so a miniseries at this time is just crass, IMO.

November-2nd-2003, 02:35 AM

Well said Cookie.

It's all become this big partisan issue, as my future wife is apt to point out. But I also see it as more of a matter of respect.

How many of us have been in the position that Nancy Reagan is in right now? How many think they could even handle it? And now this? Distasteful.

And partisanship has nothing to do with it. If Clinton were laying on his deathbed, with his wife constantly by his side, I would feel the same way.

las.vegas.lynn · November-2nd-2003, 02:42 AM

He was a public figure. Nancy should have seen it coming, right?

I'm sorry for their current illnesses but their wealth offers them many comforts we will never have access to. And how do you know Nancy is sitting by Ron's bed, Scott? Have you been there or just reading The Inquirer again.

cookie · November-2nd-2003, 02:52 AM

Lynn: Ronald Reagan has alzheimer's and his wife has to deal with it. I don't care that they're rich and they can afford things I can't. This is about their equality as humans. I wouldn't like to see ANY family treated this way.

But gloat if you have to....

November-2nd-2003, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by las.vegas.lynn
He was a public figure. Nancy should have seen it coming, right?

I'm sorry for their current illnesses but their wealth offers them many comforts we will never have access to. And how do you know Nancy is sitting by Ron's bed, Scott? Have you been there or just reading The Inquirer again.

To make these comments about anyone shows how much of a snotty, and cold hearted bitch you really are.

cookie · November-2nd-2003, 03:03 AM

Scott: that was really un-necessary. There was no reason to use that language to Lynn. I don't agree with her, but there's no excuse for this bullshit name calling of yours. It's not cute, it doesn't advance your agenda, and it pollutes the conversation.

I think you should apologize.

November-2nd-2003, 09:12 AM

Amen to that, Cookie.

I think respect runs both ways--Reagan did not show much respect for a large segment of the American public when he played president. Ya reaps what ya sows! I do not like biographical films that twist the facts--although some liberties are inevitable and acceptable--but this is by no means the first time a living person has been the subject of such a film. Do we hear Scott and his Bush-adorers complain over the Rebecca Lynch farce?

They need to realize that Reagan lied and deceived, that he brought into prominence some of our country's biggest crooks, and that he never walked on water.

Brian Olewnick · November-2nd-2003, 09:26 AM

I don't care too much one way or the other what a TV movie says about someone, but the AIDS comment seems a bit beyond the pale. Unless Reagan ever said something (either publically or by the account of someone who was there) relatively close to this quote, that seems like a real cheap shot. His adversaries may want to think that he held this belief, but they need to have some little strand of evidence for it, imho.

jesus marion joseph · November-2nd-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris A
Amen to that, Cookie.

I think respect runs both ways--Reagan did not show much respect for a large segment of the American public when he played president. Ya reaps what ya sows! I do not like biographical films that twist the facts--although some liberties are inevitable and acceptable--but this is by no means the first time a living person has been the subject of such a film. Do we hear Scott and his Bush-adorers complain over the Rebecca Lynch farce?

They need to realize that Reagan lied and deceived, that he brought into prominence some of our country's biggest crooks, and that he never walked on water.

I agree with many of the points Chris makes here. The Kennedy family, for example, has been the subject of atrocious mini series ad nauseam (and JFK's Boston accent has been mauled to the point of absurdity). However, if we're gong to start doing reality-based exposes which expose all of the lying and deceit our presidents have engaged in, the airwaves would be clogged with mini series about of all of them, at least all of them for the last 40 years or so.

November-2nd-2003, 09:32 AM

True, JMJ.

Pete C · November-2nd-2003, 09:33 AM

I want to know why Franklin Pierce has been getting a free ride all these years.

frankiepop · November-2nd-2003, 09:53 AM

i dont see any moral or ethical dilemmas here. why should reagan get a free pass? they were willing public figures for years, who were willing steam roll over anybody who was in there way. the republicans had to pass a law specifically in response to ron's sleazy million dollar post presidency deal with japan.

where did this wait until theyre dead idea come from anyway? nobody around here comes to the defense of little guys who lives are depicted on television, books, movies or any other medium while they are still alive without permission or disclaimers. they seem to fair game for the fodder here and elsewhere . maybe no critical biographies of reagan until he dies. we dont want to hurt mrs reagan's feelings. 'EQUALITY' where do u come up with that? that's anti-equality.

special rules for these guys are absurd. the kennedy's and reagan's played in the big leagues and should know what to expect. if they cant take the heat...get outta the kitchen. let the artist work on reagan if they want, let free speech reign. who knows maybe they did a mop up job on the truth. and the gop chairman ought to keep his censor self out of it.

Pete C · November-2nd-2003, 09:57 AM

In spite of the apostrophes that seem to have migrated from the possessives to the plurals, I agree with the above.

Captain Hate · November-2nd-2003, 10:03 AM

While we're on this subject: What did posters think of the statue of FDR in a wheelchair a few years ago? I understand the good intentions of the people behind the portrayal, but since he took great pains to keep that from the public eye as part of the image that he wanted people to have, I found it very disrespectful. Not that he's around to be offended.

Pete C · November-2nd-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Hate
While we're on this subject: What did posters think of the statue of FDR in a wheelchair a few years ago? I understand the good intentions of the people behind the portrayal, but since he took great pains to keep that from the public eye as part of the image that he wanted people to have, I found it very disrespectful. Not that he's around to be offended.

I think it was a good idea. He took great pains to hide it largely because he felt it might have compromised confidence in his ability to lead, and those were very different times. I think it sends a positive message.

At any rate, public figures have pretty little control over their images, hard as they try.

cookie · November-2nd-2003, 11:52 AM

For the record, I am *not* saying that it's okay for all those other mini-series, books, articles etc. to do the same to *any* living person. There should be permission from the person, IMO.

I know how it "is" but I think that how it "is" is wrong---in *any* case, not just the Reagans.

But excuse me for having compassion for a rich man who's policies I fuckin' hated and still hate (because I believe they live on in this admin). I don't like Reagan. I don't think he should get a "pass," but this is NOT a documentary we're talking about. It's a dramatization.

BTW: people *were* up in arms over the Jessica Lynch thing, but the people up in arms were primarily Democrats. Jessica Lynch, is alive, but if she is willing to let people lie about her ordeal to make her look like a hero and make the US look like heroes, well, it's on HER head for allowing untruths to be portrayed. She *could* speak up.

That's probably all I have to say here. No amount of arguing will sway anyone here from their position or me from mine: to me, it isn't about politics. Yes, RR "disrespected" a large segment of the population politically. I don't think that's a good enough reason to be personally disrespectful to a sick man who cannot argue against his portrayal (even if he wanted to) or to his wife, who no matter what I think of her (and believe me, a few "misogynist words" come to mind) has had to watch this man deteriorate. I don't give a shit if she has private doctors, nurses or whoever helping. Alzheimers still sucks and I am not ashamed to admit I have pity for the Reagans as people going through this horrible experience.

las.vegas.lynn · November-2nd-2003, 12:04 PM

I might feel differently about this whole thing but I think the GOP position is stupid. Perhaps if we the public had access to the Reagan Presidential Papers, but, we don't. And we won't for a very long time thanks to the Republican admistrations who changed the access rules. (Someone correct me if I am wrong here but I think my memory is serving me correctly) This was of course to bury the details of Iran Contra etc.

If they want to stop it, let them go to court like everybody else has to. I'm sure that have plenty of friends there.

Cookie, I respect your feelings on this issue, I just see it a little differently. As far as Scott goes, well, what can you say.

Ronald Reagan could easily been suffering from this toward the end of his administration. It was no secret at that time that Nancy was very protective of Ronny, even to the point of calling upon astrologers etc. Like I said, which must have gone over the top - she should have known.

So who was protecting us from these wierdos.

November-2nd-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cookie
Scott: that was really un-necessary. There was no reason to use that language to Lynn. I don't agree with her, but there's no excuse for this bullshit name calling of yours. It's not cute, it doesn't advance your agenda, and it pollutes the conversation.

I think you should apologize.

Cookie, for you to even begin to defend Lynn's callous and heartless remarks is completely beyond comprehension.

They were public figures, so they deserve it?

They are wealthy and can afford "comforts" that we don't have? So no need to feel sympathetic. No need to even show an even basic respect?

This is not a political issue, it's a human issue!!!! My grandmother has alzheimers. I wouldn't wish anyone to have to deal with it in their family.

Lynn's inhuman remarks are far more insensitive and nasty than anything I said to her.

Shame on you Cookie, you should feel embarassed and ashamed for hitching your wagon with a cold hearted piece of shit like that.

I should apologize, but she's alright?

Sorry Cookie, I have just lost a great deal of respect for you.

And I apologize to her for nothing, she is worthless, cold, and shameless. And hopefully will not pollute this earth with her presence much longer.

Goodbye everyone.

November-2nd-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Goodbye everyone.

Based on the tone of his vitriol, I have to hope that Scott does not go back on the last two words of his post.

Don't let these Bush people deter you, Lynn--the get worse as they become more desperate, as they see their fantasies slip away and their idols revealed for the crooks they are.

Monte Smith · November-2nd-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris A
...as they see their fantasies slip away and their idols revealed for the crooks they are.

I know. It's getting so you almost have to question the integrity of made-for-TV movies as a nonfiction genre.

Yuk yuk yuk.

November-2nd-2003, 04:00 PM

Actually, I wasn't thinking of that crook. Reagan's ineptitude pales by comparison to the sleaze of the current, appointed bunch--the one's I had in mind.

cookie · November-2nd-2003, 08:07 PM

Scott, if you're still here, I feel absolutely no shame. I do not agree with Lynn's position. But I do not need to call her names to disagree with her. That's okay. We can respectfully disagree.

I don't care if you disagree with her. If you think her opinion is cold, fine. Say that. But there was no need to go for the "bitch" part (not to mention the things you called her in your second post). It was just aggressive, mean grandstanding. I'd say you enjoyed pushing the envelope with the language, too. "Ooh! Alex got clocked with the C-word and Graypencil got socked for the t-word---let's see what kind of a rise I can get with the b-word. "

I'd say that you are the cold one, buddy.

bluenoter · November-2nd-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott Dolan (November-2nd-2003 02:56 AM, addressed to las.vegas.lynn)
To make these comments about anyone shows how much of a snotty, and cold hearted bitch you really are.

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott Dolan (November-2nd-2003 02:42 PM)
Cookie, for you to even begin to defend Lynn's callous and heartless remarks is completely beyond comprehension.

They were public figures, so they deserve it?

They are wealthy and can afford "comforts" that we don't have? So no need to feel sympathetic. No need to even show an even basic respect?

This is not a political issue, it's a human issue!!!! My grandmother has alzheimers. I wouldn't wish anyone to have to deal with it in their family.

Lynn's inhuman remarks are far more insensitive and nasty than anything I said to her.

Shame on you Cookie, you should feel embarassed and ashamed for hitching your wagon with a cold hearted piece of shit like that.

I should apologize, but she's alright?

Sorry Cookie, I have just lost a great deal of respect for you.

And I apologize to her for nothing, she is worthless, cold, and shameless. And hopefully will not pollute this earth with her presence much longer.

Goodbye everyone.

I hope that the "goodbye" means that Scott is going to take a little voluntary break from not only this thread but the Alley. I'm saving his remarks above for the next time he denies that he makes those kinds of remarks. They also might be useful if it ever becomes necessary to demonstrate a pattern of verbally abusing other posters, particularly women, to Lois, so that she can act in whatever way she sees fit.