"The Reagans"

[Guest MikeSC]

James Brolin is playing the lead in CBS' "The Reagans"?

 

Dear God, they really can't be that idiotic. Having the husband of the biggest, most vapid lib out there to play the role of Pres. Reagan? Geez, and they wonder why people assume that it is going to be a hit piece on the former President.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I read yesterday that a lot of the scenes are getting cut to try and make it less biased. But the whole AIDS thing is silly. How many people in the 80s were calling for tons of money to be thrown into AIDS research? Everyone thought it was just a disease that effected gay men and IV drug users. It wasn't until the early 90s when it was shown that it was more wide spread that people wanted more funding.

 

And if CBS has had to check with their lawyers almost constantly about what kind of legal troubles they'd have, I doubt the movie is very accurate to begin with.

 

And I think it's in bad taste to pick on a man who can no longer defend himself. I mean I doubt he's going to live much longer, couldn't they have waited till he had been dead for 5 or 6 yrs. before doing this? But I guess Babs is all about picking fights with people who can't fight back.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A political drama on TV... FOCUSING ON CONTROVERSIAL BITS AND YELLOW JOURNALISM?

 

 

NO WAY! I can't believe it!

 

 

 

 

 

And honestly, picking on the politics of the guy playing him is just low. If everyone in a political movie had to share the values and ideas of the guy being dramatized, there would never be any political movies.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Normally I wouldn't bring the politics of the people involved. They're an exception to the rule.

[Guest MikeSC]

And honestly, picking on the politics of the guy playing him is just low. If everyone in a political movie had to share the values and ideas of the guy being dramatized, there would never be any political movies.

It's not like Brolin LOOKS like Ronnie. He doesn't. Hiring Mr. Streisand is an asinine move and something that they DESERVE to get blasted for.

 

They could find somebody who is NOT married to somebody virulently anti-Reagan, I'd imagine. There are plenty of actors who, while liberal, don't really make a big deal out of it, nor are they married to hit people for the left.

 

Add into that the early stories of just how much of a total hit piece this was going to be and you have a huge P.R bomb on their hands.

 

Attacking a man unable to defend himself is shameful.

 

Imagine if, say, FOX hired somebody to play FDR who was a far-right conservative and who had early reports that just UNLOADED on FDR.

 

I doubt you'd be flippant.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I read yesterday that a lot of the scenes are getting cut to try and make it less biased. But the whole AIDS thing is silly. How many people in the 80s were calling for tons of money to be thrown into AIDS research? Everyone thought it was just a disease that effected gay men and IV drug users. It wasn't until the early 90s when it was shown that it was more wide spread that people wanted more funding.

Which is of course, the center of this whole controversey. There's a lot of people who think if we made an effort to control AIDS at the time when it was "that fag disease," that we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

 

Reagan virtually ignored AIDS for over five years.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I read yesterday that a lot of the scenes are getting cut to try and make it less biased.  But the whole AIDS thing is silly.  How many people in the 80s were calling for tons of money to be thrown into AIDS research?  Everyone thought it was just a disease that effected gay men and IV drug users.  It wasn't until the early 90s when it was shown that it was more wide spread that people wanted more funding.

Which is of course, the center of this whole controversey. There's a lot of people who think if we made an effort to control AIDS at the time when it was "that fag disease," that we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

 

Reagan virtually ignored AIDS for over five years.

I would imagine any liberal in office would've done the same thing. The people weren't demanding it so why pay attention to it is the attitude of most politicians.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's not like Brolin LOOKS like Ronnie. He doesn't. Hiring Mr. Streisand is an asinine move and something that they DESERVE to get blasted for.

Sure, sure.

 

They could find somebody who is NOT married to somebody virulently anti-Reagan, I'd imagine. There are plenty of actors who, while liberal, don't really make a big deal out of it, nor are they married to hit people for the left.

We just elected a Guv who's married into one of the most famous liberal families in history. You Republican types thought it was a good idea.

 

"Hit people for the left." LOL.

 

Imagine if, say, FOX hired somebody to play FDR who was a far-right conservative and who had early reports that just UNLOADED on FDR.

 

I doubt you'd be flippant.

 

Don't know much about history, I'm not that familiar with FDR and I certainly don't idolize him the way many Conservatives do Reagan.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I would imagine any liberal in office would've done the same thing. The people weren't demanding it so why pay attention to it is the attitude of most politicians.

Because medical research into a disease spreading around the country is never a bad thing?

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

All I know is that, O'Reilly is going to kick someone's ass!

[Guest MikeSC]

Which is of course, the center of this whole controversey. There's a lot of people who think if we made an effort to control AIDS at the time when it was "that fag disease," that we wouldn't be in the situation we are today.

 

Reagan virtually ignored AIDS for over five years.

 

Hmm, Reagan was the one who stated that AIDS patients should be given civil rights protection given to disabled persons, preventing them from being booted out of schools and the like (gutsy, considering that it took a LONG time to figure out how the disease was actually spread).

 

Reagan's Surgeon General was the one who did the most to educate Americans on the disease.

 

Yeah, Reagan "ignored" AIDS.

 

Last time I checked, it wasn't Reagan who fought such common sense measures as closing the gay bath houses. The homosexual community did more to prevent the stopping of the spread of AIDS than any group at the time.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I would imagine any liberal in office would've done the same thing.  The people weren't demanding it so why pay attention to it is the attitude of most politicians.

Because medical research into a disease spreading around the country is never a bad thing?

And how much do you propose they spend? They spent some, but there are OTHER diseases that affect FAR more people. AIDS wasn't a "big problem" until well into Reagan's second term.

 

And, in terms of great plagues in history, AIDS is the easiest one to avoid.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hmm, Reagan was the one who stated that AIDS patients should be given civil rights protection given to disabled persons, preventing them from being booted out of schools and the like (gutsy, considering that it took a LONG time to figure out how the disease was actually spread).

Reagan also did some decent things for gays as California Gov.

 

He also said that he thought homosexuality was an abomination due to his religious stance. Thus it doesn't seem to me to be totally inconceivable that he said something like what is said in the movie.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm, Reagan was the one who stated that AIDS patients should be given civil rights protection given to disabled persons, preventing them from being booted out of schools and the like (gutsy, considering that it took a LONG time to figure out how the disease was actually spread).

Reagan also did some decent things for gays as California Gov.

 

He also said that he thought homosexuality was an abomination due to his religious stance. Thus it doesn't seem to me to be totally inconceivable that he said something like what is said in the movie.

Of course, nobody has ever quoted him as actually saying it. Heck, outside of this movie, I've never heard ANYBODY claim he said anything CLOSE to that. Reagan did not come across as a mean guy.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course, nobody has ever quoted him as actually saying it. Heck, outside of this movie, I've never heard ANYBODY claim he said anything CLOSE to that. Reagan did not come across as a mean guy.

              -=Mike

Oh PLEASE! In case you weren't there, he did receive criticism at the time for being publically mum about the spreading of HIV. He also said that homeless people enjoy being homeless, among other things.

 

I was pretty much a child most of that time, so that stuff doesn't really affect me too much, but he wasn't the king of kings either.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh PLEASE! In case you weren't there, he did receive criticism at the time for being publically mum about the spreading of HIV. He also said that homeless people enjoy being homeless, among other things.

 

I was pretty much a child most of that time, so that stuff doesn't really affect me too much, but he wasn't the king of kings either.

At the time, we DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW AIDS SPREAD. Jesus Christ, do you want the guy to give out FALSE information? The moment it was figured out, Koop went out and said what caused it and how to possibly prevent it.

 

He gave AIDS patients civil rights protection when it was not exactly universally supported. Heck, he did it in October 1988 when his V.P was running for President.

 

Reagan did all he COULD do with AIDS. You can't be "mum" on something that doctors don't fully grasp.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

We know Baps is a lib, but what about Brolin himself? Anyway, a movie on ANY President should just stick to hard facts.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

At the time, we DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW AIDS SPREAD.

It was called Gay Related Imuno... Something or other. I remember the acronym at the time was "GRID" and the first two letters were Gay Related. Thus, we can presume we knew it spread through gay sex, and presumably we'd find the needles stuff out later.

 

Reagan did all he COULD do with AIDS. You can't be "mum" on something that doctors don't fully grasp.

            -=Mike

 

http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

 

When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Most observers contend that AIDS research and public education were not funded adequately in the early years of the epidemic, at a time when research and public education could have saved lives.

 

In the early 1980s, senior officials from the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded for additional funding behind the scenes while they maintained publicly, for political reasons, that they had enough resources. The Reagan administration treated AIDS as a series of state and local problems rather than as a national problem. This helped to fragment the limited governmental response early in the AIDS epidemic.

 

AIDS could not have struck at a worse time politically. With the election of Reagan in 1980, the "New Right" in American politics ascended. Many of those who assumed power embraced political and personal beliefs hostile to gay men and lesbians. Health officials, failing to educate about transmission and risk behavior, undermined any chance of an accurate public understanding of AIDS. The new conservatism also engendered hostility toward those with AIDS. People with AIDS (PWAs) were scapegoated and stigmatized. It was widely reported, as well, that New Right groups, such as the Moral Majority, successfully prevented funding for AIDS education programs and counseling services for PWAs. At various points in the epidemic, conservatives called for the quarantining and tattooing of PWAs. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the Moral Majority, was quoted as stating: "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals."

 

This larger conservative climate enabled the Reagan administration's indifference toward AIDS. The administration undercut federal efforts to confront AIDS in a meaningful way by refusing to spend the money Congress allocated for AIDS research. In the critical years of 1984 and 1985, according to his White House physician, Reagan thought of AIDS as though "it was measles and it would go away." Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon claims that the president's response to AIDS was "halting and ineffective." It took Rock Hudson's death from AIDS in 1985 to prompt Reagan to change his personal views, although members of his administration were still openly hostile to more aggressive government funding of research and public education. Six years after the onset of the epidemic, Reagan finally mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly at the Third International AIDS Conference held in Washington, D.C. Reagan's only concrete proposal at this time was widespread routine testing.

 

Reagan and his close political advisers also successfully prevented his surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, from discussing AIDS publicly until Reagan's second term. Congress mandates that the surgeon general's chief responsibility is to promote the health of the American people and to inform the public about the prevention of disease. In the Reagan administration, however, the surgeon general's central role was to promote the administration's conservative social agenda, especially pro-life and family issues.

 

At a time when the surgeon general could have played an invaluable role in public health education, Koop was prevented from even addressing AIDS publicly. Then, in February 1986, Reagan asked Koop to write a report on the AIDS epidemic. Koop had come to the attention of conservatives in the Reagan administration because of his leading role in the anti-abortion movement. Reagan administration officials fully expected Koop to embrace conservative principles in his report on AIDS.

 

For the record, I'd rather have Ronnie over Bush Senior or Bush Junior, but his tact here was pretty flawed, and not just due to lack of knowledge.

[iamsherm 0]

He also said that homeless people enjoy being homeless

He did? Please explain.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, Reagan's biography was part fiction, why not the TV show?

 

This is just reason #456 why I don't watch network TV anymore, sans NYPD Blue.

 

kkk -- who can't wait for Bruce Willis to play Bill Clinton, a president that when he vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban said, "Well, they would probably have voted Republican when they got older anyway. It's best that we suck their brains out now before Newt does."

 

Hey, if Hollywood can make up stuff, why can't I?...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

kkk -- who can't wait for Bruce Willis to play Bill Clinton, a president that when he vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban said, "Well, they would probably have voted Republican when they got older anyway. It's best that we suck their brains out now before Newt does."

 

Hey, if Hollywood can make up stuff, why can't I?...

Then do I get to make a complaint thread?

 

After all, every Hollywood movie should be staffed by people who agree with the subject. It only makes it fair, after all.

 

 

Don't hire that set painter! He's a Republican! He might try and paint put a penis into the Oval Office set as a gag! I have no clue if it's true or not, but I'll pass judgment because of his political affiliations!

[Michrome 0]

No mention of economic expansion, he is being portrayed as a bumbling idiot. Despite this attempt, and there have been numerous, the American people will still love him. It must be galling that nobody falls for this shit.

[Guest JMA]

No mention of economic expansion, he is being portrayed as a bumbling idiot.  Despite this attempt, and there have been numerous, the American people will still love him.  It must be galling that nobody falls for this shit.

Didn't Reagan have problems with the economy? And most of these attempts were made BY the American people. Take that how you will.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

In all fairness to Reagan, he did inherit all the disasters caused by Carter.

[Guest MD2020]

I can't believe that they're going to portray him as an idiot. If anything, they should steal from SNL--that one skit where Reagan was 100% different from his public persona: laundering money, etc.

[Justice 0]

I'm gonna disagree with Mike and say that, looks-wise, James Brolin doesn't make a bad Reagan. Today, with the right makeup, you can literally make anyone look like anybody. So I'm not really against him playing Reagan, despite his political inclinations.

 

But from what I've heard, everyone in Reagan's family, his friends, and many others think this mini-series is a horrid representation of him. I think that is more a deciding factor for me rather than who the hell Reagan is being played by. If you really want a good mini-series, anyways, you look to HBO, not CBS.

[Guest JMA]

I'm gonna disagree with Mike and say that, looks-wise, James Brolin doesn't make a bad Reagan. Today, with the right makeup, you can literally make anyone look like anybody. So I'm not really against him playing Reagan, despite his political inclinations.

Has Brolin showed liberal tendencies in the past (despite who his wife is)? Seriously, I've never heard him voice his political views. I did see his son, though, in the short-lived TV series "Mr. Sterling."

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

James Brolin as Reagan:

 

[Guest JMA]

Wow.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

It was called Gay Related Imuno... Something or other. I remember the acronym at the time was "GRID" and the first two letters were Gay Related. Thus, we can presume we knew it spread through gay sex, and presumably we'd find the needles stuff out later.

 

Gay Related Immune Deficiency, actually. And, it was called that because, shockingly enough, GAYS WERE THE ONES WHO HAD IT. Heck, to THIS VERY DAY, gays are disproportionately afflicted with it.

 

And gays FOUGHT common sense measures. When there started being REAL evidence that the virus was sexually transmitted and that bath houses were areas where the virus was SPREADING in a frightening manner due to the anonymous sex, gays FOUGHT the closing of them. Fought it tooth and nail.

 

"Cure AIDS --- but don't ask US to change OUR behavior, even though the disease, like it or not, IS behavior-driven".

 

When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987.

 

AIDS first appeared in 1981. When was it actually NAMED AIDS? When did they have anything resembling a test? When did they have definitive proof of HOW it was transmitted?

 

It took a darned long time to get info basic enough to actually make a pronouncement.

 

Most observers contend that AIDS research and public education were not funded adequately in the early years of the epidemic, at a time when research and public education could have saved lives.

 

Most observers wanted more money for a disease that afflicted a TINY portion of the population? They wanted MORE education for a disease where "hard" info was in short supply? This is all nice in fantasyland, but it is not quite effective in the real world.

 

Sure, THAT is a great idea. How long did it take for it to become clear that it couldn't be passed by casual contact?

 

In the early 1980s, senior officials from the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded for additional funding behind the scenes while they maintained publicly, for political reasons, that they had enough resources. The Reagan administration treated AIDS as a series of state and local problems rather than as a national problem. This helped to fragment the limited governmental response early in the AIDS epidemic.

 

Because, early on, it was basically centered in New York and San Francisco, sorry to say. Early on, it WASN'T a national problem.

 

And can we STOP calling it an epidemic? Epidemic implies that it's hard to avoid catching the disease. It isn't terribly difficult to avoid AIDS.

 

The flu has had epidemics. The Bubonic Plague was an epidemic. AIDS is not.

 

AIDS could not have struck at a worse time politically. With the election of Reagan in 1980, the "New Right" in American politics ascended. Many of those who assumed power embraced political and personal beliefs hostile to gay men and lesbians. Health officials, failing to educate about transmission and risk behavior, undermined any chance of an accurate public understanding of AIDS.

 

The evil "New Right" didn't prevent anything. DOCTORS DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFO TO TEACH THE PUBLIC. If they got their way, things would have been REAL ugly for AIDS patients. I remember all of the rumors about AIDS early on.

 

The new conservatism also engendered hostility toward those with AIDS. People with AIDS (PWAs) were scapegoated and stigmatized.

 

Reagan just so happened to give them protections, so this hostility was not THAT strong.

 

It was widely reported, as well, that New Right groups, such as the Moral Majority, successfully prevented funding for AIDS education programs and counseling services for PWAs. At various points in the epidemic, conservatives called for the quarantining and tattooing of PWAs. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the Moral Majority, was quoted as stating: "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals."

 

Falwell is an epic tool. So what?

 

AIDS gets more money than it warrants now, quite honestly.

 

This larger conservative climate enabled the Reagan administration's indifference toward AIDS.

 

Which is a lie. The administration LACKED CLEAR INFORMATION.

 

The administration undercut federal efforts to confront AIDS in a meaningful way by refusing to spend the money Congress allocated for AIDS research.

 

You only have so much money you CAN spend --- and things like CANCER SHOULD get a considerably larger chunk of the pie than AIDS.

 

In the critical years of 1984 and 1985, according to his White House physician, Reagan thought of AIDS as though "it was measles and it would go away." Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon claims that the president's response to AIDS was "halting and ineffective.

 

And what would Cannon propose Reagan do? The truth about AIDS was not CLEAR in 1984. My mother TEACHES nurses --- has for years --- and SHE hardly had clear info on it back in 1984-5.

 

It took Rock Hudson's death from AIDS in 1985 to prompt Reagan to change his personal views, although members of his administration were still openly hostile to more aggressive government funding of research and public education

 

Shockingly enough, when somebody you know dies of something, it affects you more.

 

I know, STUNNING.

 

Six years after the onset of the epidemic, Reagan finally mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly at the Third International AIDS Conference held in Washington, D.C. Reagan's only concrete proposal at this time was widespread routine testing.

 

Again, I'll ask --- WHAT ELSE COULD HE HAVE DONE?

 

Reagan and his close political advisers also successfully prevented his surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, from discussing AIDS publicly until Reagan's second term.

 

Before '84, the info on the disease was laughingly bad. It's best that you DON'T make national policy when you have precious little info.

 

Congress mandates that the surgeon general's chief responsibility is to promote the health of the American people and to inform the public about the prevention of disease. In the Reagan administration, however, the surgeon general's central role was to promote the administration's conservative social agenda, especially pro-life and family issues.

 

That's a load.

 

At a time when the surgeon general could have played an invaluable role in public health education, Koop was prevented from even addressing AIDS publicly. Then, in February 1986, Reagan asked Koop to write a report on the AIDS epidemic. Koop had come to the attention of conservatives in the Reagan administration because of his leading role in the anti-abortion movement. Reagan administration officials fully expected Koop to embrace conservative principles in his report on AIDS.

 

They constantly ignore how weak the info was before 1986. If they DID educate the country based on what we "knew" at the time, the stigmatism that it would've led to would have been nigh impossible to remove.

 

For the record, I'd rather have Ronnie over Bush Senior or Bush Junior, but his tact here was pretty flawed, and not just due to lack of knowledge.

 

He gave them civil rights protections and advocated routine testing. At the time, there wasn't much else you could say.

-=Mike