CBS expected to pull allegedly-unflattering mini-series about the Reagans from programming.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Censorship coutesy of revisionism-addled fundamentalist conservatives?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

They wanted to see a rerun of Amerika instead, since that turned out to be a spectacularly accurate documentary.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

are they pulling it because it's not unflattering enough?

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

are they pulling it because it's not unflattering enough?

I believe the Reagan hallelujah choir (spearheaded by hateful whistleheads like Joe Scarborough, Anne Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Bill O'Riley, etc. etc. ad nauseum) are encouraging a boycott or something, as the series fails to portray the olde Jellybeanster as anything less than the messiah.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, just think of where the world would be today if the USA had never taken Grenada.

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

best letter ever

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

"two-part miniseries"

Shouldn't a "miniseries" have at least three episodes?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, that's why they'd rather name things after him than even pretend to examine his "legacy"

xpost

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

this just in: in revised, Ann Coulter-approved Reagan miniseries to air in 2004, Gipper to be played by
http://members.shaw.ca/celebritywash/Photos/carrottoppic1.jpg

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I heard that it's going to appear on Showtime instead.

Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

League of Extrordinary Gentlemen Part Deux: Doctor Jekyll & Nancy Reagan

Skottie, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

CBS cancels Reagan miniseries after criticism from conservatives
By David Bauder
NEW YORK (AP) — Barraged by accusations from conservatives that it was distorting the legacy of a president, CBS announced Tuesday it was pulling The Reagans miniseries off the air.
The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay cable network that, like CBS, is owned by Viacom.
CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.
“Although the miniseries 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,” the network said in a statement.
As a broadcast network, CBS has different standards than a pay cable network, CBS said.
Supporters of the former president, who has Alzheimer’s disease, are concerned the miniseries contained numerous inaccuracies. The conservative Media Research Center had asked major advertisers to review the script and consider not buying commercial time on the show.
The chairman of the Republican National Committee also told CBS president Leslie Moonves that historians should review the miniseries for historical accuracy, or that a disclaimer should be run declaring the program fiction.
There was been a concern, after part of the script was published in The New York Times last month, that Reagan was portrayed as being uncaring and judgmental toward people suffering with AIDS.
The former president’s son, Michael Reagan, told ABC’s Good Morning America on Tuesday that he wanted CBS to “show Ronald Reagan for what he is.”
“What they’ve done is try and strip the heart of Reagan away,” he said. “The great thing about my father is his big heart.”
The Reagans had been considered a major cog in CBS’ November sweeps programming. It had been scheduled to air on Nov. 16, a Sunday — television’s most-watched night of the week.

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Didn't one of the networks show a miniseries about what a lil' scamp JFK was? How come no one got their panties in a was about that?

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Because JFK was a democrat.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Didn't one of the networks show a miniseries about what a lil' scamp JFK was? How come no one got their panties in a was about that?

Because Democrats often get a free ride when it comes to how they're portrayed in most of the mainstream media, and Republicans are almost always painted in villainous lights, and we are frankly getting sick and tired of this obvious media bias. The recent JFK miniseries was an anomaly; this miniseries is just how the media has been working for decades, and I am thrilled CBS was forced to pull this miniseries off their schedule.

Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

What was in the miniseries that was so wrong? Were there factual inaccuracies?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

“Although the miniseries 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,” the network said in a statement.
...
The conservative Media Research Center had asked major advertisers to review the script and consider not
buying commercial time on the show.

It's advertising not accuracy that they're worried about, dumbass.

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The conservatives are worried about advertising?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:24 (twenty-one years ago)

The NETWORK!

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Was it really that ambiguous that I wanted to know what it was the conservatives were objecting to or is just "let's assume that Dan is a dumbass" time again?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's because the WB sued CBS because of their parellel Wayan Brothers make of the same mini-series.

donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Watching Bush fluster and mumble his way through a press conference on the torched grounds of the California wildfires right now and wheel out the same ol' stupid rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach.

Republicans are almost always painted in villainous lights

If the shoe fits....

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't realize you were so sensitive to being called a dumbass. I was only kidding around about that.
The whole accuracy business is a red herring though.

Because Democrats often get a free ride when it comes to how they're portrayed in most of the mainstream media
Well, Republicans get free rides from the Justice System, so let's call it even, Ollie North, Clarence Thomas, Henry Kissinger and Bush Family.

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan, from what I heard the Reagans were going to be portrayed in a rather negative light. And from what I've read in the article mentioned in this thread, they seemed to have focused in on this one bump in the Reagan administration, vs. going over the whole of the administration's actions and just treating this one issue as one of many President Reagan dealt with during his eight-year tenure in office.

The network would be worried about advertising, of course. As Horace said. But you were asking about what the vocal Republicans were worried about (and I realize I'm probably more liberal than most Republicans, though maybe not so in a self-centric sense) and I'm thinking that's what they were going on about.

Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the main problem is described in this article at cbsnews.com:

"Of particular concern to conservatives was a scene in which Reagan says of gays with AIDS: "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

Apparently this is either completely speculative or of dubious attribution. It's a pretty nasty thing to attribute, even if his AIDS record might suggest this was his true feeling.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember Reagan saying something very similar to that. Or was it Bush Sr?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)

*pouts*

I didn't get one of those "Get Out of Jail Free" cards in the mail.

*dresses up as Elena Ceaucescu [sp?] for Alex's sake*

*smiles*

Also, many thanks to Spencer for that post. The whole AIDS issue was the one big thing I disagreed with the Reagan Administration with, sure, but to make it THE focal point instead of just one of many was just silly. It was supposed to be about the Reagans, not about AIDS. And The Band Played On did a memorable and lovely job covering that.

Many Coloured Halo (Dee the Lurker), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Once again boys and girls, the conservatives try to dumb down the audience, forgetting that most of us remember the "joys" of the Reagan eras, like the mess that was the Iran-Contra hearings.

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

"we are frankly getting sick and tired of this obvious media bias"

Disney
Time Warner
News Corp.
General Electric
Viacom

Oh yeah...those dirty commie bastards, what are they thinking?


earlnash, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

this just in (from Jan/03):

President Bush has selected Jerry Thacker, a Pennsylvania marketing consultant who has characterized
AIDS as the "gay plague" and called homosexuality a "deathstyle," to serve on the Presidential Advisory
Commission on HIV and AIDS.

The appointment stunned some AIDS researchers and activists, who said Thacker has a shaky grasp of
science and outdated views on the issue despite being HIV-positive.

They noted that Thacker had argued that religious faith could cure homosexuals, that condoms do not stop
the spread of HIV and that people choose to be gay.

"When you appoint someone with this social view, it is dangerous," said James Loyce, deputy director of
health for AIDS programs with the San Francisco Health Department. "It sends the wrong message to the
gay community and the wrong message to the broader community."

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember Reagan saying something very similar to that. Or was it Bush Sr?

Could have been either of them, Dan. Makes me wonder if such idiotic statements are caused by generational thinking?

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Dee, I don't think that AIDS is the main thrust of the miniseries, that was just the quote most often used by conservative critics.

My take is that it looks like a pretty irresponsible and cheap smear show - the kind of thing that conservatives commentators practice constantly. It sounds like this miniseries would just make everyone involved look bad (two wrongs etc).

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Canada, anytime you want to take over Washington state, please come in and help yourselves.

donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

okay, could you lend us some guns?

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

so... it's okay if we burn the whitehouse down again, then¿

dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

http://pages.ripco.net/~dymaxia/reaganbrolin.jpg
And I don't understand Judy Davis as Nancy. Nancy is more the icepick than the ice.

Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see why liberals or democrats (btw I am a registered Democrat, and I voted today) are upset about what was more than likely a really, really bad miniseries idea getting cancelled due to conservative pressure. CBS quite honestly should've known better than to sign off on this production, because there's no way that they could satisfy everyone, considering that Reagan is 1) still alive and 2) his presidency wasn't all that long ago. Also, hiring the husband of Republican-bashing Babs Streisand (who honestly makes me somewhat embarassed to be a Democrat sometimes) to play Reagan seems like a disturbingly stupid idea. Did nobody up top at Viacom vet this?

hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see why liberals or democrats (btw I am a registered Democrat, and I voted today) are upset about...

Well, for me, it's not about the miniseries (I mean, it ain't like I was makin' plans to watch it). It's about the rigid Right's frothing outrage at the notion of someone daring to paint anything less than an entirely flattering (and, thus, entirely revisionist) portrait of the Gipper. It's like standing outside of Graceland and telling Elvis zealots "he was a big fat druggie, don't ya know!" It's the truth, but they won't hear it.

Goddamn Ronald Reagan, by the way.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

hstencil - of course you're right, but duh, left-right lightning rod

they seemed to have focused in on this one bump in the Reagan administration, vs. going over the whole of the administration's actions

hmm, what was the "bump" and which were the "actions"?

"Of particular concern to conservatives was a scene in which Reagan says of gays with AIDS: "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

Apparently this is either completely speculative or of dubious attribution. It's a pretty nasty thing to attribute, even if his AIDS record might suggest this was his true feeling.

my understanding is that it's taken from Edmund Morris' official biography.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Pass that Dutch!

nate detritus (natedetritus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm only upset because it would have been hilarious - like all bio-pic miniseries are! The dialogue in those things is great. Sample lines from the Carpenters movie: "Why Karen, you're not eating." "Try these, Richard - they're called 'quaaludes'."

Just look at that picture! If only it could live up to my Grand Guignol trash tv fantasy and starred Florence-Henderson-minus-fifty-pounds or somebody like that.

It's no big deal that CBS is not airing it, because it's going on Showtime - probably to make up for that horrible Bush / 9-11 docudrama.

Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Edmund Morris' official biography also was controversial for attributing actions and words to Reagan that were not known to exist. And for having a really ill-conceived "narrator."

hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

my understanding is conservatives weren't outraged as much about the aids quote as they are about the "I am the antichrist" quote

cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Because Democrats often get a free ride when it comes to how they're portrayed in most of the mainstream media, and Republicans are almost always painted in villainous lights, and we are frankly getting sick and tired of this obvious media bias

Yeah, the mainstream media completely ignored Clinton's personal life. I never heard a word about it. Nada.

(The "liberal media bias" stuff is an insult to anyone with three brain cells. Even conservatives admit it's BS.)

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:25 (twenty-one years ago)

my understanding is conservatives weren't outraged as much about the aids quote as they are about the "I am the antichrist" quote

But they can't hide the past

http://hipsterdetritus.blogspot.com/creemreagan.JPG

nate detritus (natedetritus), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 03:36 (twenty-one years ago)

the gay quote is entirely made-up, the screenwriter has admitted that it is her interpretation of how she believed reagan felt. his actual stance was more laissez-fare. this has led to questioning about how much of the rest would be fictional. it was a legitimate criticism of the film, they actually did cbs a favor, the show likely would have been a bomb but now some will watch to see what the fuss was about. i am not sure how cbs could have expected anything impartial since mr. streisand is playing ron. reagan has become messianic to conservatives, it's odd but i suppose it is a semi-worthy effort to prevent the re-writing of what actually happened in the 80s.

keith (keithmcl), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 03:46 (twenty-one years ago)

let's not forget mr. r's compassion for air-traffic controllers and the mentally ill ...

brian nemtusak (sanlazaro), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 04:00 (twenty-one years ago)

... both of which translated to a clearly improved Quality of Life, in the air and on the street ...

brian nemtusak (sanlazaro), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 04:01 (twenty-one years ago)

May 1987 - According to his authorized biography (published in 2000),
President Ronald Reagan wonders aloud about the AIDS pandemic: "Maybe
the Lord brought down this plague... [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." [Dutch, p. 458]

Go here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375756450/ref=sib_vae_pg_458/002-3513914-6652829

and search on "plague," and you can view page 458, which goes on to
say, "[T]o be fair to him, he made no moral distinction between
homosexuality, heterosexuality out of wedlock, or abortion on demand. All three were abhorred by God, in his opinion."

So much for "entirely made up".

Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 11:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Go Colin! It's yer Birthday!

Yeah!

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

It's funny, that photoshopping of Reagan's face onto Johhny Rotten's body/hair ends up looking a bit like lauded British character actor, Ian Holm.

"Mirror, Razor, Family, John!"

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

http://holmography.tripod.com/images/g_accused2.jpg

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

This story continues to develop. The Republican National Committee is now putting pressure on Showtime to not show it.

This has all the markings of the same furor that this film kicked up in 1976.

http://fp.blockbuster.com/is/amg/dvd/cov150/drt000/t013/t01311ugjly.jpg?cell=200,200&cvt=jpeg

...except no one's gotten their hands cut off........yet.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

the one thing I'll say about Reagan is that he turned up in DC Comics a lot more than any other president. Except President Luthor, of course.

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

And maybe Roosevelt and Truman, but they probably didn't appear that much when they were actually in office, only in post-war War stories.

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

kennedy's in quite a few

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Jimmy Carter seemed to turn up an awful lot.

Anyone remember.....http://www.rzero.com/books/Prez1-logo.gif ?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.rzero.com/books/Prez1-b.gif

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

is the guy's name "eagle free"?

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, someone does

(note: the swastikas in the background are an in-joke related to that site's first article)

nate detritus (natedetritus), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.thekryptonian.com/images/bios/comics/lex.gif

Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd vote for him!

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

better than that bleeding heart bizzarro luthor!

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Never Mind Prez, vote JAZ!

http://killing-joke.com/band88unclesam2.JPG

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

is that Panama Jack behind him?

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Jaz Cooper or Alice Coleman?

donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

now, now, Bleeding Heart Bizarro Luthor had a lot of good ideas & policies, but wasn't the strongest campaigner ever.

Almost buggering Perry White in an overenergetic sit-down interview didn't help his cause, either, nor did he "A Kitten in Each Lap" plan, which would have forcibly installed kittens in the laps of all natural-born & naturalized citizens.

Kingfish (Kingfish), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

It gets harder to tell the difference all the time....

http://members.aol.com/motelhell/KJ-Webster-Hall-2003/images/Jaz1.jpg

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

haha why does jaz never wash his face propply b4 he goes on stage! wot a mucky pup!

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

why is he wearing spiderman's parka?

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.quartzcity.net/~chris/ilx/cthulhu-pres.jpg

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Because he doesn't indulge in negavtive, mudslinging ads...
well actually, he does sling something icky...but it sure as hell isn't mud.

CTHULHU in 2004

100% of Brainwashed Minions Agree:
This Loathsome Horrid Mass of Filth Incrusted Madness is the right... thing... for the Job.

Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Brilliance!

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd just like to chime in here and remind everyone that I HATE PEGGY NOONAN EVEN MORE THAN I HATE GOOD CHARLOTTE!

Hers is a mouth that spouts nothing but evil lies. Shun her.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 8 November 2003 03:24 (twenty-one years ago)

ha, I like the phrasing of that last line! nicely done!

s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 8 November 2003 03:36 (twenty-one years ago)

from what alternative universe must right-wingers be, to honestly believe that "democrats get a free pass in most [of the american] media"? did someone lock these people in a closet in november 1992 and let them out on december 2000?

i'm sorry if what i say sounds snide, but how the fuck can i even communicate with people whose perceptions of "reality" are so out-of-it? what do these people want the american media to become, fucking pre-gorbachev pravda? -- if so, they're almost there.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 8 November 2003 04:03 (twenty-one years ago)

or maybe its the DTs from rush limbaugh withdrawal that's fucking with their brains ... that shit's worse than (hillbilly) heroin!

Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 8 November 2003 04:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I think this series got pulled by conservatives concerned that Reagan was portrayed as too much the softie when it came to gays and AIDS.

Just as well, I guess, that it goes to Showtime and saddles up next to Queer as Folk. Who says the anti-metrosexual backlash isn't ready and rearin' to go?

And oh God Alex in NYC I want someone to storm an embassy building and hold people hostage because of this Reagan film like they did in '76!

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 8 November 2003 08:21 (twenty-one years ago)

By that first line, I mean that I think the vast majority of them were upset that there wasn't a scene of Reagan whipping out an AK-47 in an AIDS hospice and saying "Fuck this disease is taking too goddamned LONG!"

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 8 November 2003 08:22 (twenty-one years ago)

he's a really interesting character reagan

evil tho

amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 8 November 2003 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

What do people make of certain "apologists" (to put it lightly) who claim that neither Ronnie nor either of the Presidents Bush are anything but really easy-going guys who simply have Angela Lansburys on their backs in Nancy and Barbara?

Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 8 November 2003 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

three weeks pass...
So, Showtime's going to air this at last. Does anyone care? I don't have Showtime, and doubt I'd watch it if I did, but I like the fact that they're airing it. Maybe I'll subscribe for that one night just to show my support.

PEGGY NOONAN MUST BE BEHEADED!

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 29 November 2003 03:24 (twenty-one years ago)

So....did anyone watch it??

I did.

Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 1 December 2003 22:08 (twenty-one years ago)

how was it?

hstencil, Monday, 1 December 2003 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

It was very ... camp, and was mostly about "Nancy Pants" fighting with everyone else, with Uncle Ronnie asleep or watching old westerns half the time. It wasn't some serious liberal exposé. It didn't make RR look sinister, just daft and pitiable (which is probably worse for his admirers). I think the conservatives didn't like it because it portrayed tension between different factions in the administration.

Oh, and there was no George H.W. Bush in sight!

Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.