This is going to piss a lot of people off. And the best part is the limosine libs at the networks have no idea why. Its like the old anecdote, I forget who said it but after Reagan won 49 states in 84 somebody in one of the network newsrooms said 'I dont understand how Reagan could have won, nobody I know voted for him!' Exactly.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Ronald Reagan launched an economic renaissance that helped spur the incredible growth of the 1990's in this country that, ironically, let Bill Clinton coast for 8 years.

Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for ending the rule by communist dictators over Eastern Europe and Russia. He was THE ONLY world leader with the vision and the courage (no thanks to the U.S. State Department) to tell Gorbachev of the old USSR to "tear down this wall" in Berlin.

Thanks largely to President Reagan, the USSR no longer exists.

Nancy Reagan was a dignified and graceful first lady. Her main public-policy theme, "Just say no to drugs," was, and is, timeless good advice.

Now, President Reagan is sadly in the final stages of Alzheimer's Disease - in the last years of his life.

CBS' and Leslie Moonves' decision to run this liberal hit-piece on Ronald Reagan is beyond disgraceful. The term "liberal media" (which liberals say doesn't exist!) is too weak to describe this despicable twisting of the truth. Leslie Moonves (a close friend of spin-masters Bill and Hillary Clinton, of course) is sparing no expense to smear one of the greatest American Presidents - and men - of all time: Ronald Reagan.

Les Moonves and CBS have the right under the First Amendment to push this garbage.

But we all have the right under the First Amendment (and an obligation to accurately record our nation's history) to roundly condemn this ugly attempt to smear the ailing President Reagan and his wife. We all have the right and the obligation to condemn CBS' and Moonves' lies about our nation's history.

Another thing, if they dont have a direct source for that aids quote, that is one of the most dirty, underhanded, horrible things I have ever seen done to a persons character. Now, if there is some source, even a dubious one who claims to have heard Reagan say that (in those words or the equivalent), its still nasty from a fairness point of view, but not insipid. But if, as I suspect, this is just the writers interpretation of something Reagan might have said, based on the writers view of his stance on aids, then I am appalled beyond words (almost anyway). That is the equivalent of making a network movie about Clinton where he talks about how much fun it is to rape campaign workers. Unreal.

I find it difficult to believe that we're supposed to take this seriously. I mean, this is like "Reagan" done by the people who brought us the Brady Bunch Movie. (figuratively, not literally)

How are we supposed to take the idea that this is unbiased seriously when the lead role is played by the husband of one the biggest liberal activists in Hollywood? And have you seen pictures of Brolin? You can see at least one on Drudge. He looks like Forrest Gump on speed.

But hey, why go for accuracy when you can smear people?

Whenever any liberal apologist on TV or elsewhere actually utters the words:

"There is no liiberal media,"

... the best response is probably two words:

"Leslie Moonves."

CBS is at least consistent, though. They don't just lie about Reagan. They also lie to Elizabeth Smart's family. Isn't that nice?

See:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

Well, there they go again.

See the update above.

CBS lied.

They made up the Reagan quote.

Why am I not surprised.

No, no! There's no liberal media!

Yeah right.

i'm sorry. i agree that this film looks like it will amount to nothing but deplorable unsubstantiated smears against reagan (and i get that from the new york times today) but reagan's policies did not end the cold war. the soviet union was brought down primarily by brave people within the "evil empire" who were willing to speak out and also by the effects of consumer culture envy within russian culture. there's a good deal of evidence for reaganomic's role in the economic growth of the 90's, but almost no real evidence for his destruction of the soviet union. taking a hardline against them does not amount to bringing them down in my mind. also, supplying the contras isn't the best way to defeat communism. but, as an open minded individual, i am of course willing to change my mind on these issues if anyone can provide credible evidence.

June, go look up some of the Kremlin transcripts released after the cold war. It turns out the Soviets were very much planning on an invasion of western europe (or at least taking a hard look at the possibility). Had they done so in 1980 they would have succeeded. Had they done so in 1987 they would have failed. They knew this. Reagan forced the Russians to keep pace militarilly and the resultant strain on their economy brought them to their knees. They no longer had the resources to keep the dissidents under their thumbs without risking civil war. They were too sapped by war in Afghanistan (which Reagan won by proxy) and troops in Eastern Europe to effectively maintain control at home. Dont underestimate what forcing a command economy to spend half its GDP on defense can do to a country.

Reagan was 'out of the loop' on Iran-Contra, so it isn't a great leap to pronounce him 'out of the loop' on the destruction of an evil empire. The question is, was he out of the loop on the breakfast pancakes/muffins quandary?

Sorry, must defer to Mark B's Kremlin access. Imagine the Soviets planning on a war in Western Europe. It took Reagan's accession for the West to even consider the notion of such a conflict, let alone plan and arm for it.

Anybody have a contact address for CBS? I tried to use the "feedback" link on cbs.com, but the thing is so fragged there's no way to get to the bottom to find the "send" link. Here's what I'd like to send:

"Could you please provide me with a list of intended sponsors for the upcoming Reagan "documentary?" I'd like to do what I can to get people to stop doing business with these companies if they actually do sponser this."

It's all history and itsnt going to change one damn thing that Reagan did to better the world. History will prove this right. I mean look at JFK, every other week there is another book on "camelot" that dishes out more trash, yet he still is remembered fondly.

samuelv:

Go to: http://www.cbs.com/

Scroll to the bottom and click on "Feedback"

In feedback, chose "Movies and Specials" from the drop down menu. Then provide your name and email address - and your complaint.

I did this, and sent CBS the following complaint:

* * *

I understand that, in your upcoming movie on President Reagan, you attribute a quote to him. You have him saying that people with AIDS should "...die by sin." I further understand that this quote was fabricated by writer Elizabeth Egloff. Please either delete this scene with the false quote, or do not run the movie. It is totally inappropriate to denigrate the ailing former President Reagan with false quotes. I also understand that your movie does not mention the economic renaissance which President Reagan helped create in the 1980's. Please, again, make your depiction of President Reagan accurate, or do not run it at all. Claims that the American media is "liberal" are started by just this kind of falsely negative portrayal of a Republican American President. Thank you.

* * *

I'm not sure about your question on sponsors yet. I'll work on it.

Thanks.

There are several that have been responsive to this kind of thing in the past when its been brought to them. Tide detergent rings a bell i think. Ill do some research.

june,

I agree that Reagan was fortunate that fate dealt him a Gorbachov instead of another Stalin.

Reagan's contribution was to envision the collapse of the Soviet Union, to welcome it and not fear it. If someone like Kissenger had been running the show, the foreign policy would possibly have been to shore up and support the Soviet Union rather than help it pass into history. Kissenger and his ilk were that reactionay that they were arguably less afraid of the Soviets than the uncertainty brought by their demise. I could be wrong but this seems plausible to me.

For an older military view supporting Mark Buehner's comments about military preparedness, see Third World War: August 1985 by General Sir John Hackett, published in '79. Hey they have copies starting at six cents over at Amazon, perfect for your student budget, june! 8)

Is this guy's name Moonves or Moonbat? I'm confused. What a maroon.

Check out this transcript of Hardball, Mathews absolutely skewers this project. Good to see the Reagan democrats are rising up against this. The lesson here, I think, is just what Bernard Goldberg wrote about in Bias. The networks are run by default liberals. They arent firebrands, its just what they know, and the fact that everyone around them feels the same. So to this crowd, they actually believe all these lies are either true, or might as well be true because they never have to engage in debate with the other side, because they dont know anyone from the other side.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/983574.asp

JC Penney: Chain of department stores. Pulled ads from all future episodes of "Ellen" deemed "controversial."
Wendys: Fast food restaurant chain owned by Dave Thomas. Pulled ads from all future episodes of "Ellen."
Chrysler: Automobile manufacturer. Also owns Thrifty and Dollar Rent-a-Car. Pulled ads from all future episodes of "Ellen" citing "controversy" as a reason.
General Motors: Automobile manufacturer. Pulled ads from all future episodes of "Ellen."
Johnson and Johnson: Maker of wide variety of health and hygiene related products. Pulled ads from all future episodes of "Ellen

http://www.turnleft.com/out/boycott.html

Ironically I got this info from a gay rights advocate website. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Mark, hmm... where's the list of advertisers who pulled out of MTV because of the Brittany/Madonna open mouth kiss on the VMA show? Do the advertisers object to public displays of lesbianism, or the fact that DeGeneris is not enough of a hottie to pull it off? 8)

MTV advertisers are a different breed from network TV advertiser.

Your question would only produce interesting results if those sponsors pulled ads from one network and not the other. Even then, it is still justifiable... being associated with lesbians during family tv time on a broadcast network is different than being associated with two heterosexuals on what most people consider to be the "edgiest" cable channel. Marketing plans are expected to be different for different demographics...

Anyways, you guys are being way too harsh... don't forget the liberal definition of "fair," which is very different from our definition of "fair." They want an opposing view to any issue, regardless if it is warranted, necessary, or true.

I'm still not sure where they got the definition for "honest," or what they think it means...

Boycott CBS and all companies that adveritse there--especially the ones that sponsor this garbage, and demand Les Moonves be fired. I can see why that guy's a democrat, Clinton had Monica, Les has Julie Chen. Les, you really showed us what the BS stands for in cBS.

Babs, Leslie and Bill can't tell the truth -- that would blow their cover. They are extremely comfortable with lying because they believe the end justifies the means. In other words, they want to rule this country -- they want the Clintons back in the White House, #1 -- they HATEED George W. Bush long before Iraq, #2 -- they believe we will have more civil rights if they are in the majority, #3
-- they don't care about the chaos & hate they are causing here and abroad -- THAT IS THEIR GOAL, #4 -- thier goal is PAY-BACK for Ken Starr and the Special Council appointed by Janet Reno with no regard to how it is splitting their own party, #5, they are the ones plagued with stupidy becasue they believe that any American who supports the President is stupid, #6. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE CAN NOT FOLD - WE CAN'T GET TIRED OF THE FIGHT. WE MUST SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AND HOMELAND SECURITY. WE MUST LOVE ONE ANOTHER AND PROMOTE GOOD WILL AND PEACE. LET THEM LIE, LET THEIR LIES BE EXPOSED - RIGHT ALWAYS WINS.

The problem with just letting Moonves and CBS lie is that not all people, especially younger people that weren't around to appreciate Ronnie, will not know fact from Les Moonves' fiction. Moonves doesn't care about facts, hell he decides his on air talent based on the best performance under his desk (way to go Julie Chen, great journalistic integrity earned on the early show casting couch). Moonves has sent seeBS to a new low. BoycottCBS and all sponsors, fire Moonves and everyone associated with this.

Big Trouble; What a backlash. This will make people that have been in the closet come out on Gay issues, and I don't mean Gay People. CBS will single handed set Gay movement back 30 years. I will no longer sit on the fence. I intend on letting my gay employees go as soon as this airs. I will find a reason. My children will form their own views and this will send them into an anti gay mode. America loved the 80's and Ronald Reagan. Sorry CBS. Alec, Barbara and James have a very small following and it will be even smaller after this.

NOT ONLY DID YOU SMEAR HOME-SCHOOLING-(BECAUSE ALL LIBERALS WANT CONTROL OF OUR CHILDREN AND CAN'T STAND THE FACT THAT MAYBE OUR KIDS ARE GROWING UP THINKING DIFFERENTLY THAN THEM)
I HOME-SCHOOLED MY 2 BOYS FOR 12 YEARS AND IT WAS THE BEST DECISION I EVER MADE.
THEY ACTUALLY THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND HAVE MORALES - SHOCK !!!!
NOW ITS THE REAGANS !!! YOU MAY WANT TO RETHINK THIS !!

BETH HART

Leslie Moonves is a close personal friend of Bill Clinton's. Combine that with his friendship with Streisand, who was reportedly constantly on the set, and you get nothing more than a political hatchet job. The Democrats are desperate to find an angle to get at the current president. Lying and distorting the history of the greatest Republican president in recent memory serves a purpose, especially since Bush has modeled himself after Reagan. Fortunately, there are enough people to remember the Reagan years that see this for what it is, and are willing to be vocal about it.

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: