Protecting the Legend

What is it about Ronald Reagan that is so close to the Republican sore nerve? It is well enough to celebrate Dennis Miller insulting Nancy Pelosi while given airtime on an alleged news network, but to imply that Ronald Reagan was not a shining, honest, perfect man is somehow out-of-bounds?

The thing is that I really don't have any need to watch the upcoming CBS project on the Reagan years, but I also admit that a fantastic marketing boon now piques my curiosity. What's the big deal?

What prompts this outburst is a CNN report that the GOP has asked CBS for the right to screen the program in advance; barring this screening, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie plans to ask CBS to run a special note across the bottom of the screen every ten minutes disclaiming the information as historically inaccurate.

And frankly, that's just it. This kind of GOP shenanigan is stale, very crumbly and stale. It reminds me of Newt Gingrich, with a hundred-thousand problems facing the country, throwing a childish tantrum in the press about not being invited to sit up front on the airplane. Or perhaps the time when, seeking to capitalize on Clinton's bountiful lunch of foot-in-mouth, Bob Dole announced that, as President, he would undertake actions which happened to violate the Constitution. Always looking for the short-term profit, the GOP pursues its quarries with reckless abandon.

Gillespie also noted that print and TV ads were being prepared to rebut the CBS miniseries; all of this seems to play into CBS' hands.

How is it that the reputation of Ronald Reagan, one of the most scurrilous characters to tarnish American history, a career liar and bigot, who relied on an offbeat sense of degradation of his opponents that set the tone for two decades of crappy politics to follow, cannot withstand the slings and arrows of a bloody miniseries? If there is a television classification in history that fails to live up to its potential, it is the idea of the miniseries. We've had what, two, maybe three successful miniseries in history, and the majority (if three) on PBS? Ye gads, I remember when one of the networks countered NBC's successful "V" with a miniseries of "War and Remembrance". Seriously, there's V, The Thornbirds, North and South, and what?!

If the GOP just lets this slight of Reagan's reputation go by, it will allow the Reagan myth to maintain a certain, tenuous humanity.

Perhaps the GOP should stop wasting their money on advertisements and simply fund yet another sycophantic "Saint Reagan" project. They could call it, "Sanitized for Our Protection: The Reagan Years".

If I end up feeling compelled to watch this probable trash-heap, I'll blame the GOP.

Who could forget the trickle-down effect? Or Reaganomics?

Seriously though, if they expect people to watch this tripe then they must be mistaken. The only thing the GOP seems to be doing is making a big deal out of it. I point to that old saying: any publicity is good publicity. Hence it has piqued my interest. Thankfully I'll be at work while it's on.

V ruled.

Originally posted by tiassa

What is it about Ronald Reagan that is so close to the Republican sore nerve? It is well enough to celebrate Dennis Miller insulting Nancy Pelosi while given airtime on an alleged news network, but to imply that Ronald Reagan was not a shining, honest, perfect man is somehow out-of-bounds?

Its really pretty bizarre. Why do they insist on holding up reagan as their hero? Don't they realize what that says about them? Its an honor to be called a Reagan Republican, as I've heard, but what does that mean? What are the criteria taken into consideration? Do you actually have to sell weapons to terrorists to be a Reagan Republican or would it be enough to destroy the economy?
They'd be better off focusing on theit characterizations of themselves as the "party of Lincoln"

Originally posted by tiassa
Seriously, there's V, The Thornbirds, North and South, and what?!


I thought Sci-fi's "Taken" was pretty cool.

Its an honor to be called a Reagan Republican, as I've heard, but what does that mean? What are the criteria taken into considerationI think at first it meant a certain group of young Republicans elected in support of the Reagan economic sell. Over time, Reagan Republicans are identified with Ronald Reagan for both temporal and ideological reasons. Think of the "Clinton Democrats", who rushed toward the center and threw off any equation describing a potential advantage coming from Clinton's move to be the anti-Democrat. Watch the congressional Democrats campaigning for the presidency talk affectionately of their support for the Clinton health care effort, the Clinton tax plan, the Clinton this and that (and hear them humming "Don't Stand So Close To Me" on free trade° as they slide away). But think of the Clinton Democrats. It's a mix of common identity and principle. The Reagan Republicans are the same.

I, too, find it curious that it is an honor to walk in the footsteps of such a character. But I have different priorities than Republicans, quite obviously.I thought Sci-fi's "Taken" was pretty cool.Fair enough. I never liked The Thornbirds. I resented such a hunk of crap being on TV every damn year, seeing countless copies of the novels among the ... uh ... lower end of the family's gene pool, and know that there is still apparently merit in a romance or historical romance that gets a "Thornbird" comparison in the blurb.

And it pisses me off . . . .

Notes:

°_free trade - I needed some excuse to raise to people's attention David Brooks' article in the Nov. 1, 2003, New York Times, titled, "Gephardt Beats Clinton". Aaah, the odd image now and then. Smacking Bill, "And that is for the cigar!" Whacking Hillary, "And that is for screwing my poll numbers, you b@tch!" But, no ... Dick won't whack Bill or smack it to Hillary, but I can hardly ignore a move away from Clinton while using the rush to Clinton as an example ... oh, you know. Something about Dick versus Bush goes here, but I can't figure it out. I'm already stretched thin, as you might have noticed. For some reason, the gag doesn't have my whole attention, and something goes here about . . . .

Originally posted by tiassa
I think at first it meant a certain group of young Republicans elected in support of the Reagan economic sell. Over time, Reagan Republicans are identified with Ronald Reagan for both temporal and ideological reasons. Think of the "Clinton Democrats", who rushed toward the center and threw off any equation describing a potential advantage coming from Clinton's move to be the anti-Democrat. Watch the congressional Democrats campaigning for the presidency talk affectionately of their support for the Clinton health care effort, the Clinton tax plan, the Clinton this and that (and hear them humming "Don't Stand So Close To Me" on free trade° as they slide away). But think of the Clinton Democrats. It's a mix of common identity and principle. The Reagan Republicans are the same.

I, too, find it curious that it is an honor to walk in the footsteps of such a character. But I have different priorities than Republicans, quite obviously.
I understand that Republicans have to continue to say that trickle-down works, as cutting taxes for the wealthy is what they're all about, and they have to justify it to the masses, but to hold up Reagan as a role model after the whole Iran-Contra thing is what I don't get. Its amazing that people either don't take that seriously or don't remember it. The man sold weapons to terrorists. His whole administration should be in jail. Every time I see Oliver North being interviewd about fighting terorrism I feel like there's something very wrong with the world.

Why is it that Nixon's scandal is so much worse than Reagan's? He was just digging up dirt on his opponents, whereas what Reagan did was essentially treason. Why isn't it an honor to be a "Nixon Republican"?
I guess it really all just has to do with popularity. People still like Reagan and Clinton, so we have Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats rather than something more honorable like Nixon Republicans and Carter Democrats.

Well, it looks as if the GOP has gotten it's way. (http://www.antimusic.com/news/03/nov/item10.shtml)

I wonder what they're going to replace it with. Ah, never mind. Looks like CBS is going to re-air some CSI episodes. (http://www.antimusic.com/news/03/nov/item19.shtml)