ZOT!!
Posted on 11/07/2003 6:23:36 AM PST by CC Bonnocco
Thunderous protest has persuaded CBS to cancel The Reagans, its miniseries about America's 40th president and his second wife. (The series will air instead on Showtime, which shares a corporate parent with CBS.) It isn't especially troubling that CBS would bow to angry protesters in canceling The Reagans, given that the miniseries itself, if at all typical of the genre, is likely a piece of hackwork. (Those who live by popular tastes, die by popular tastes.) But it is troubling that the public, or at least a highly influential segment of it, has apparently ruled any criticism of President Reagan out of bounds. When did the Gipper become St. Ronald?
Among the miniseries's themes that drew particular complaint, Jim Rutenberg reported in the Oct. 20 New York Times, was that Reagan "suffered moments of forgetfulness" and took a "laissez-faire" stance in handling the White House staff. Ed Morrow, who organized a boycott to pressure CBS into dropping the miniseries, complained in National Review Online:
[I]t is a portrait of Reagan that is unrecognizable outside of an old, lame Saturday Night Live skit. It is a caricature. Indeed, Brolin's heavily rouged, orange-haired Reagan is a caricature of the standard liberal caricature of Reagan. He is a doddering fool, stumbling around using his acting talents to pass for a statesman.
Reagan was no doddering fool, but his rather extreme mental and emotional detachment were at the time noted not only by his critics but by many of his political allies. Liberals like Chatterbox who struggled to persuade themselves that Reagan had more on the ball than he seemed saw their worst suspicions confirmed in the memoirs of former Reagan aides. Here's former chief of staff Donald Regan in For the Record:
In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics.
Here's speechwriter Peggy Noonan, describing her first encounter with President Reagan in the White House in What I Saw at the Revolution:
I was surprised how big his hearing aid is, or rather how aware of it you are when you're with him. There was a quizzical look on his face as he listened to what was going on around him, and I thought, He doesn't really hear very much, and his appearance of constant good humor is connected to his deafness. He misses much of what is not said directly to him, but he assumes it is good.
Here's communications director David Gergen, in Eyewitness to Power:
Reagan could be remarkably unaware of (and indifferent to) developments around him. If I were still working for him, I would probably pass it off as being "intellectually selective." But it's hard for anyone to argue that he knew as much as a president should about the state of the world.
His inattention to details and hands-off stance could be dangerous for his leadership. His Republican allies in the Senate believed that because he did not pay close enough heed, he turned down a budget deal in 1985 that they had carefully crafted to cut the deficits. By their account, he didn't seem to understand the terms of the deal. … Majority Leader Bob Dole was furious at the time.
All these former aides went on to say, in one way or another, that in the end things somehow managed to work out for the best. That's a topic for legitimate debate. But none seemed to disagree with the proposition that President Reagan was not all there.
Today, however, etiquette demands that we pretend never to have noticed. Why? Reagan's Alzheimer's, which reportedly has reduced him to a near-vegetative state, is one reason. It's thought in poor taste to speak ill of the very faculty that his disease has wiped out. Another factor is Reagan's symbolic role as the ideological wellspring of today's conservative movement. In the 1980s, he was merely president, but by now Reagan has been so identified with conservatism that any criticism of the man is taken to be an attack on the ideology. And of course, the passage of time usually renders any public figure more admired than he was during his own era.
Ironically, conservatives like Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who called on CBS to cancel The Reagans, were probably acting against their own interest. Airing a miniseries about Ronald Reagan on network TV would likely have enhanced the aura of glamour that already surrounds him. According to Rutenberg in the Times, the miniseries "does give Mr. Reagan most of the credit for ending the cold war and paints him as an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers' urgings." So what if it fails to credit President Reagan with creating a lengthy economic expansion (though not as lengthy as the one overseen by Bill Clinton) or with "delivering the nation from the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years" (achieved mainly by a drop in oil prices)? Even its clearly false notes could easily burnish rather than harm Reagan's image. For instance, its apparent picture of Reagan as a homophobe ("They that live in sin shall die in sin," he says by way of justifying inaction on AIDS) is much more flattering than the truth, which is that Reagan was (in Hendrik Hertzberg's exquisite formulation) a "closet tolerant" who back-burnered the AIDS issue out of political expediency. Biographies and TV dramas about the Kennedys have grown steadily more critical and salacious over the years, but they don't seem to have diminished the nation's Camelot obsession. By rendering criticism of Ronald Reagan taboo, conservatives act against their long-term interest in maintaining his status as a culture hero. It's very difficult to sustain passion, over time, for a plaster saint.
DUH! Does the concept of TAX CUTS ring a bell DONALD REGAN? Talk about "disengaged"...here is a putz who somehow didn't notice the largest tax cut in American history while Secretary of the freakin' Treasury!!!
ZOT!!
He must have been flying by the seat of his pants if, even after heading the agency, he did not realize that "economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy" have nothing to do whith the Treasury Department.
Wrong, asshat. Volcker set the stage for the end of Carter's stagflation with his tight monetary policy, but it was Reagan's tax relief package which laid the groundwork for non-inflationary expansion.
Like it or not, Reagan's tax package put hundreds of billions of dollars in the capable hands of American consumers. Reagan's tax relief package doubled the amount of money coming into the exchequer. The proof that it works? Let's look at the Clinton economy of ten years later. After the 1991 recession, the economy accelerated and tax receipts began to pour into the Treasury. Clinton raised taxes at the margin, but did NOT repeal the Reagan cuts. Indeed, the Clinton tax increases were more than offset by the agreement between the Sink Emperor and the Republicans to slash capital gains to 28% in 1994. That measure, and the election of a Republican Congress, helped to usher in the 1995-1999 boom in stock prices and general wealth.
Supply side economics works. Democrats just don't like to admit that it works, even when their own guy succeeds with it.
Government doesn't create wealth. People do. That's the difference between you and us.
But then again, as a liberal, you would tend to believe that the State is the master, not the servant, of the governed.
As to Noah, his contention has been more than put paid to by Reagan's own letters, and the success of his economic and foreign policies. Timmy's just leaving a steaming pile in middle of the parade, that's all.
By the way, nice bit of trolling.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
When the wall came down. Next question.
Member since...............well, today!
You extreme, whacked out libs make it to easy for us to spot you. You join and 2 minutes later post something mean spirited and slanderous, something that most Concservatives know to be untrue.
You are a typical DU low life. Posting crap like this, Democratic crap, hitting a dying man.
What do you Dims think this gets you? Maybe you and your cohorts at DU are sitting in your cave and come up with this great idea. Let's join FR, post this article and the dimwit conservatives will believe it and some will change their minds about Reagan. Pretty much tells us about your IQ.
Unlike libs, Conservatives will protect those that cannot protect themselves. Attack Reagan with lies? Prepare for the FR onslaught. Attack a great, dying man and his family? Prepare to be nuked, FR style.
Yeah, your a real hero. Bet your two mommies are proud of you. / Sarcasm>
"Behold the disruptor's name."
Better check your own trousers, pal.
In a nutshell, Volker was appointed in 79, but the Fed didn't drop the prime rate below double digits until mid 85.
On the other hand, Reaganomics kicked in mid to late 81. Inflation dropped into single digits in mid 82 and continued dropping into 83.
Given this it wouldn't it be at least a little prudent to admit Reaganomics might have had something to do with defeating inflation?
Now the time has come to make the most of our gains - to translate the renewal of our national strength into the achievement of our national purpose.
America has enjoyed 22 months of uninterrupted economic recovery. But recovery is not enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of growth and full employment.
For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more each year in production, profits, wages, and public revenues. It would mean an end to the persistent slack which has kept our unemployment at or above 5 percent for 61 out of the past 62 months - and an end to the growing pressures for such restrictive measures as the 35-hour week, which alone could increase hourly labor costs by as much as 14 percent, start a new wage-price spiral of inflation, and undercut our efforts to compete with other nations.
To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential - the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.
For it is increasingly clear - to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's success - that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.
...
I do not say that a measure for tax reduction and reform is the only way to achieve these goals.
No doubt a massive increase in Federal spending could also create jobs and growth - but, in today's setting, private consumers, employers, and investors should be given a full opportunity first.
No doubt a temporary tax cut could provide a spur to our economy - but a long-run problem compels a long-run solution.
No doubt a reduction in either individual or corporation taxes alone would be of great help - but corporations need customers and job seekers need jobs.
No doubt tax reduction without reform would sound simpler and more attractive to many - but our growth is also hampered by a host of tax inequities and special preferences which have distorted the flow of investment.
And, finally, there are no doubt some who would prefer to put off a tax cut in the hope that ultimately an end to the cold war would make possible an equivalent cut in expenditures - but that end is not in view and to wait for it would be costly and self-defeating.
Get a clue...
Oh...I don't know....86 or 87.
1. Surround yourself with good men, good people to whom to delegate.
2. Delgate the small stuff.
3. Set the tone; the direction; the goals and philosophy. To claim he was incapable of this is ludicrous.
--Boris
The article seems to be centered around this sentence:
But it is troubling that the public, or at least a highly influential segment of it, has apparently ruled any criticism of President Reagan out of bounds.
Let's rip this baby apart, shall we?
"...highly influential segment.." the author refers to the common viewer who makes common purchases from the sponsors of the programming. The common viewer decided that they we're going not going to buy the products of those who were to provide financial support for this slander. Remember the Dr. Laura show? Homosexuals simply didn't want her to express her opinion, so they attacked her sponsors.
"...ruled criticism [out]..." Ruled? Ruled? Who ruled anything? Viewers expressed their opinion. Criticism??? The movie is a fairy tale. It is not based upon any documentation at all. The movie isn't criticism, it is a big LIE. There is no reason why anyone should let a LIE go unchallenged. You can criticize his policies all you want, its been done by the media for years and years now (this is nothing new) and there is no significant boycott of Peter Jennings. But to speculate how Ronald and Nancy interacted in the privacy of their own home is a biased portayal, not a criticism
"...out of bounds." The poor man is DYING. He could very well die on the date that this movie was due to air!! Wouldn't that be great timing! Out of bounds is exactly what this mini-smearies was - in bad taste, with bad timing, without any basis in fact and performed by actors who openly dispise Reagan. You don't even have to like Reagan to recognize that this schlock was "out of bounds".
They say that about anybody that disagrees with their socialist world-view. When you have no case, attack the person. That's their motto.
Or should I say was that you??? :)
Snidely
On the other hand, Reaganomics kicked in mid to late 81. Inflation dropped into single digits in mid 82 and continued dropping into 83.
Given this it wouldn't it be at least a little prudent to admit Reaganomics might have had something to do with defeating inflation?
Bananna Head is practicing the art of taking two unrelated factoids and trying to tie them together as cause-and-effect. Volcher's presence was irrelevent here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.