CBS cancels The Reagans

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.

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."

Doug, you seem to be really interested in made-for-TV movies, so I thought I'd tell you about an upcoming production on Lifetime (Television for Women) that you might appreciate:

COMFORT AND JOY

December 1 at 8 pm et

http://a40.g.akamai.net/7/40/2718/655fb062c2147d/www.lifetimetv.com/images/movies/info/movies_3500_main.jpg

"Nancy McKeon ("The Facts of Life") and Dixie Carter ("Designing Women") star in this delightful holiday feel-good film.

High-powered singleton Jane Berry is focused on the important things in life, such as advancing her career and spending a bundle on fashionable shoes. But then a car accident on Christmas Eve changes her forever: Jane wakes up after the crash to discover that she is a married stay-at-home mom with two kids and a passion for charity work. Is she dreaming? Crazy? Is this a strange twist of fate?"

Doug, I'd love to hear your thoughts about this exciting new film. Or do you want to wait to see if the Drudge Report tells you what you think about it first?

>Doug, you seem to be really interested in made-for-TV movies,

>so I thought I'd tell you about an upcoming production on

>Lifetime (Television for Women) that you might appreciate:

Thanks - Jo was by far my favorite character on The Facts of Life - clearly a dyke, very assertive, with a street smartness that, in my view, had no parallel in sitcom television history - before OR since. I'll be sure to watch this, now that the butcher job on The Reagans won't be showing.

>Doug, I'd love to hear your thoughts about this exciting new

>film. Or do you want to wait to see if the Drudge Report

>tells you what you think about it first?

Hey bitch - I read in your reviews that you live in New York City, so I'm going to share a little secret with you. There's this newspaper which is published in that city and distributed to many of its residents. It's called the "Times." You should read it.

It had a story about 2 weeks ago which started this whole controversy where it quoted from various parts of the script from "The Reagans," including the parts which spawned this controversy. The article - although appearing in a newspaper that didn't exactly love Ronald Reagan - expressed serious concern about the historically inaccurate facts depicted in that movie.

It was THAT article which I read that focused my attention on this matter, and which catalyzed this controversy, and not the summaries on the Drudge Report long thereafter. I trust that clarifies things for you.

One other thing - I read the "Truth Alert" on your favorite diva-whore's website, where she said: (a) I had nothing to do with the movie; (b) I never read the script; © I was only on the set for 4 hours on one day; but (d) the movie is a totally accurate and fair portrayal of the Reagans, and the suggestion that the movie is fictitious is false and unfair.

If she wasn't on the set, hasn't read the script, and knows nothing about its content, how can she defend it as being an accurate and fair portrayal of the Reagans?

>I read the "Truth Alert" on your favorite

>diva-whore's website,

She's actually not my favorite "diva-whore;" that title would go to Britney or Madonna. But it's nice to see you're faithfully reading Barbra's site. What did you think about the fact that she is auctioning off her personal effects and wardrobe and giving all of the proceeds to charity? More importantly, are you going to bid on her Scaasi pantsuit from the 1968 Oscars? :+

>where she said: (d) the movie is a totally

>accurate and fair portrayal of the Reagans, and the suggestion

>that the movie is fictitious is false and unfair.

Can you show me where she says that? I just checked and cannot find the quote. What I found is: "In fact, the film, we're told, presents a balanced portrait of a complicated man who said, when confronted with the AIDS crisis, "Maybe the lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the ten commandments." This has been changed in the film to, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin," but clearly the sentiment behind that statement is the same...Public records and multiple sources show that everything in the film, including his controversial statement about AIDS, is based on irrefutable facts."

Sounds to me like she did a little research...something intelligent people are known to do. ;-)

>What did you think about

>the fact that she is auctioning off her personal effects and

>wardrobe and giving all of the proceeds to charity?

I think she obviously needed tax write-offs from charitable contributions.

Hey bitch - if someone has $250 million, and they give away $25 million to "charity," does that demonstrate to you a genuine contempt for "inequality"?

>Public records and multiple sources show that

>everything in the film, including his controversial statement

>about AIDS, is based on irrefutable facts."

If she hasn't read the script, and doesn't know what's in it, how can she possibly say that "everything in the film . . . is based on irrefutable facts?" How does she know "everything that's in the film"?

I agree with Doug about the Reagans.

Yup, that's right. Pick your jaw up of the floor.

Certainly, Reagan's Administration was not without its low points. Trickle down economics ended up being a disaster which Bush 41 paid the price for. There was the whole Iran Contra scandal in which senior officials, such as Bush 41, and others like Oliver North lied before Congress under oath, but there are certain truths that are undeniable about Ronald Reagan.

After the Iran hostage debacle, Reagan rode in like John Wayne and saved the day. He brought our people home. He restored our faith.

With Reagan in the White House, there was no doubt who was in charge. He was the Commander in Chief. We were all willing to take one for the Gipper.

Reagan didn't bring about the fall of Communism, but who can forget him challenging Mr. Gorbachev to 'Take down that Wall'. Reagan certainly did his part though to relegate the Soviet union to the dustbin of history.

Ronald Reagan made you proud to be an American. He was truly one of the greatest American president, right up there with Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Clinton.

Streisand can lie all she wants, but The Reagans was nothing but a hatchet job with one purpose; to sully the memory of one of America's finest sons. Shame on her.

>I agree with Doug about the Reagans.

>Yup, that's right. Pick your jaw up of the floor.

Holy shit - I need to re-evaluate not just my view on this issue - but the entire universe - immedaitely.

>After the Iran hostage debacle, Reagan rode in like John Wayne

>and saved the day. He brought our people home. He restored

>our faith.

>

>With Reagan in the White House, there was no doubt who was in

>charge. He was the Commander in Chief. We were all willing

>to take one for the Gipper.

>

>Reagan didn't bring about the fall of Communism, but who can

>forget him challenging Mr. Gorbachev to 'Take down that Wall'.

> Reagan certainly did his part though to relegate the Soviet

>union to the dustbin of history.

>

>Ronald Reagan made you proud to be an American. He was truly

>one of the greatest American president, right up there with

>Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Clinton.

WOW - I wouldn't even go so far in praising Reagan, but I do love to see people being able to be intellectually honest and praise political leaders even when they disagree with their ideology.

>Streisand can lie all she wants, but The Reagans was nothing

>but a hatchet job with one purpose; to sully the memory of one

>of America's finest sons. Shame on her.

Yes, indeed. Truth is too important, particularly at this time, when presdiential politics has very high stakes again, and when it comes to these sorts of issues, to distort and play games with. That's exactly why I hated that Bush Showtime Rove-TV-Lie-Movie so much - it, too, was based upon a total distortion of reality.

Serious congratulations to BoN for his intellectual honesty and fairness. I'm sure I'll hate his next post, but this one provokes some respect. And it was another liberal, Les Moonves, the President of CBS, who reached the same conclusion as BoN did - that this film was just grossly unfair to the Reagans - and so made the decision to pull it. Congratulations to him, too:

________________________

Drudge Report

**Exclusive** (with apologies to Ricky)

CBS head Les Moonves made the ultimate decision to pull THE REAGANS off the November schedule after concluding the film was "biased" against the former president, top sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"It just doesn't work," Moonves told staffers in a bold move of conscience. "Listen, we are not afraid of controversy, we'd go out there if it came in at 50-50, pro and con, but it simply isn't working. It's biased."

Moonves, a self-described liberal democrat, on Tuesday took full responsibility for canceling the movie, sources tell DRUDGE. "He made up his own mind after seeing it," a top source said. "He's made a brave, decisive move."

Meanwhile, REAGANS producers are feeling great disillusionment with CBS and the entire series of events, it has been learned.

"We got a call from a midlevel flunky at CBS telling us to get it ready for SHOWTIME," reveals a source close to the production team of Craig Zadan and Neil Meron.

>I agree with Doug about the Reagans.

>The Reagans was nothing

>but a hatchet job with one purpose; to sully the memory of one

>of America's finest sons.

When did the two of you have the opportunity to view the film? I like how you can boldly critique something based on hearsay. :7

>Serious congratulations to BoN for his intellectual honesty

>and fairness.

>And it was another liberal, Les

>Moonves,

>Congratulations to him, too

http://www.cheerleader.com/dallas/98/98dallas.jpg

>Holy shit - I need to re-evaluate not just my view on this

>issue - but the entire universe - immedaitely.

We are the world.

We are the children.

Oh wait...flashbacks.

>WOW - I wouldn't even go so far in praising Reagan, but I do

>love to see people being able to be intellectually honest and

>praise political leaders even when they disagree with their

>ideology.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your gut. I remember the day Reagan got shot. I was thinking, damn, there goes the 20 year curse..AGAIN! Fortunately, Reagan survived. I have always been a moderate to liberal Democrat, but had I been old enough to vote for Reagan either time, I would have. There was just something about the man that transcended party and politics. He truly was presidential. Oh, I know he turned a blind eye towards AIDS, and that sometimes he did the wrong thing, but at the end of the day, there was a comfort knowing the Gipper was in charge. I think that's part of the reason that poppa Bush lost to Clinton in '92, because Bush wasn't Reagan. He had none of the charisma and couldn't inspire people the way Reagan could. Bill Clinton however was much more the spiritual heir of Ronald Reagan than Bush 41 ever could have dreamed of being.

I think part of the misguided attempt at smearing Reagan has to do with the hatred of Shrub. A lot of cosnervatives have called him the heir to the Reagan legacy, but he's really just a repeat of his father; the child that would have been if Bush 41 and Quayle had had a child: Bush's looks and Qualye's intellect. So, my speculation is, Streisand's thought was if I can smear Reagan, and people associate Reagan and Shrub, it will in effect smear Shrub. That's not fair to Reagan.

>Yes, indeed. Truth is too important, particularly at this

>time, when presdiential politics has very high stakes again,

>and when it comes to these sorts of issues, to distort and

>play games with. That's exactly why I hated that Bush

>Showtime Rove-TV-Lie-Movie so much - it, too, was based upon a

>total distortion of reality.

Indeed. I was listening to Michael Reagan today on the Sean Hannity show and you could tell just how much this raping of his father hurt Michael. Hannity was his usual blowhard self, but Michael Reagan's devotion to and love of his father came through. Let's honor Ronald Reagan as the great president he was and not sully his memory, and more importantly ourselves to serve anyone's political agenda.

>Serious congratulations to BoN for his intellectual honesty

>and fairness. I'm sure I'll hate his next post, but this one

>provokes some respect.

Let me find a frame

>He truly was presidential. Oh, I know he turned a

>blind eye towards AIDS, and that sometimes he did the wrong

>thing, but at the end of the day, there was a comfort knowing

>the Gipper was in charge.

Part of the problem with politics in this country is when people vote according to image and feelings instead of issues and facts.

>So, my speculation is, Streisand's thought was if

>I can smear Reagan, and people associate Reagan and Shrub, it

>will in effect smear Shrub.

And yet, she had nothing to do with the production.

That may very well be true, Rick. i don't know, but she seems to have been gloating far too much and claimed to both know all about it and nothing about it at the same time.

As for voting with your feelings, i was still a kid at the time

>i don't know, but she

>seems to have been gloating far too much

She made one statement on her website to set the record straight after Matt Drudge accused her of having something to do with the making of the film. When have you seen her gloating?

>When did the two of you have the opportunity to view the film?

> I like how you can boldly critique something based on

>hearsay. :7

There are plenty of quotations from the script in multiple media sources. And, on top of that, even the liberal Democrat President of CBS concluded that the film was unfairly biased against Reagan - so much so that CBS felt it could not air it consistent with its standards.

That's some pretty compelling evidence of how rancid and corrupt this film was - the one that Barbra said he "was told" was based on uncontroverted evidence.

>how rancid and

>corrupt this film was

Doug -- when you use the words rancid, vile and sick in almost every single post, they tend to lose their potency. Pull back a little. :*

>Part of the problem with politics in this country is when

>people vote according to image and feelings instead of issues

>and facts.

Actually, I disagree completely with this, and I'm surprised to hear (or read) you say this.

The reason that Dean's campaign has been so electrifying - the reason that it has brought so many new people into the political realm - isn't purely, or even primiarily, because of his stance on the "issues and facts." There's nothing particularly new or unique about those views - if anything, they are often moderate, centrist and even conservative - they are not what has excited so many people about him.

Rather, it's his PASSION - the fact that he stirs in people the feeling and belief that they can change things. While his camapign has been substantive and issues-oriented, he's connected with people primarily on the level of feelings and passion. That's what the truly great leaders do - not merely spew out some policy points, but stir people's passions and feelings. That's as valid a basis on which to vote as any other, if not more valid.

>Doug -- when you use the words rancid, vile and sick in almost

>every single post, they tend to lose their potency. Pull back

>a little.

Thanks for the critique, bitch. Just what I wanted - lessons in political dialogue from someone who sticks a naked picture of his asshole in everything he writes and considers Barbra Streisand to be a political guru.

>considers Barbra

>Streisand to be a political guru.

I posted one statement from her site, a site you yourself frequent.

From Michael Musto writing in the Village Voice:

I agree with the protesters that this movie is absurdly shoddy and irresponsible and doesn't give Reagan his due! What he actually said was, "So, a bunch of fags and drug addicts have gotten themselves some sick, twisted, terminal disease? Well, let 'em drop! I'm not even gonna go near that subject or even mention the friggin' thing for years!"

Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking back...

>After the Iran hostage debacle, Reagan rode in like John Wayne

>and saved the day. He brought our people home. He restored

>our faith.

After having negotiated with the hostage takers to make sure the hostages were not released a day before the end of his opponent's term (this is worse then unpatriotic or inhumane, in fact it would be a good place for that Coulter bitch to find a definition of the word before she says treason again), he bought their freedom with weapons. I guess I missed the movie where the Duke did that.

>With Reagan in the White House, there was no doubt who was in

>charge.

Do you mean Nancy or her astrologer? How about his Chief of Staff who declared himself in charge (whatever that rag The Constitution of the United States of America said) when Reagan was shot?

>Ronald Reagan made you proud to be an American. He was truly

>one of the greatest American president, right up there with

>Washington, Lincoln, FDR and Clinton.

Reagan, unlike 43, could speak and make us proud to be Americans when he did so. Most of us were very impressionable during that time so we have fond memories of him. He kept our fears of nuclear annihilation from happening, yes (though many say he took very large risks which may not have been necessary), but he also made some mistakes and was downright on the wrong side many times as well. He's not the sweet grandfatherly figure we remember him as, at least not until his capacities started to decline towards the end...

Fuck the TV movie, anybody that expects one made by a top commercial network to be a fount of knowledge on any subject is delusional. If it had been made from the start by HBO or maybe Showtime there'd be a chance, just moving it there because it makes CBS executives uneasy... feh.

i really didn't think you had it in you.

good job. you get some points & the next time i hate something you post, i'll bite my tongue--once.

you impressed me a bit here.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

james, you're not very bright.

>it would be a good place for that Coulter bitch to

>find a definition of the word before she says

>treason again)

no, dear, the constitution--not you & not ann--defines the word.

>I guess I missed the movie where the Duke did that.

while BoN can speak for himself, it was the riding in & saving the day i'm pretty sure he was comparing to wayne's movie actions.

>How about his Chief

>of Staff who declared himself in charge (whatever that rag

>The Constitution of the United States of America said)

>when Reagan was shot?

gen. haig was actually reagan's sec'y of state, not COS. he was COS under nixon. (trivia: he's generally suspected to be "deep throat" as well.)

>He's not the sweet

>grandfatherly figure we remember him as

how do you know? you've met him? spent much time with him?

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking back...

James:

The Ronald Reagan you describe is the one I remember.....and I clearly remember the delay of the hostage release so he could take credit for it......

I also remember his penchant for lying about lots of things, like saying he had visited a concentration camp in Germany after WWII, which never happened. Maybe he had Alzheimers while he was president......he had a hard time distinguishing reality from the movies he was in. Because he was in the movie "Hellcats of the Navy" he actually believed he had served in the military. He actually believed that trees caused air pollution, and that if we mistakenly launched nuclear warhead tipped missiles by mistake, we could "call them back". Somehow those little pecadilloes didn't do much to make me feel safe and secure with him at the helm. He had a few accomplishments as president, but somehow I can't remember what they were. I don't think he was evil, just very confused and misguided. Dubya and Cheney, on the other hand, are evil, pure and simple.

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking ba...

>james, you're not very bright.

Thank you, but I wasn't under the impression that I emitted light, bitch.

>no, dear, the constitution--not you & not ann--defines the

>word.

So it does...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Aid and Comfort seems pretty open to interpretation, but offering weapons and favors in exchange for them holding American citizens hostage a little longer seems to fit, especially before you are in any way attached to the federal government.

>while BoN can speak for himself, it was the riding in & saving

>the day i'm pretty sure he was comparing to wayne's movie

>actions.

Did he "ride in and save the day" or just pick them up when they were turned over in exchange for arms, knowledge of which was kept from the American people?

>gen. haig was actually reagan's sec'y of state, not COS. he

>was COS under nixon. (trivia: he's generally suspected to be

>"deep throat" as well.)

At least he was in the line of succession then... He still wasn't legally in charge.

>how do you know? you've met him? spent much time with him?

...

RE: Reagan's legacy through an adult's eyes, looking back...

James, Bucky,

I fully understand that Reagan was not perfect. I am well aware of the accusations that the Reagan team offered iran arms in exchange for delaying the release of the hostages. If there's proof, present it. Let's not forget that Jimmy Carter, great man and humanitarian that he is, was unable to bring those people home.

I don't have a lot of love for Al Haig, and he was definitely an arrogant son of a bitch, but he wasn't trying to usurp anyone's power. He was trying to let people know that SOMEONE was in charge in Washington after a national emergency (ie Reagan being almost assassinated). Bush 41 was not in Washington at the time.

If The Reagans had been critical of Ronnie and Nancy, AND it was based on legitimate points and facts, I'd have no problem with it. However, it was a smear job pure and simple. That's not fair whether you liked Reagan or not. I'll say it again, despite his faults, Ronald Reagan made people be proud to be Americans, and he restored a sense of honor and pride that had been missing since that cold day in Novemeber, 1963 when it was stolen from us.