Republicans Asking to Censor Shows

andrewgd · Post by **andrewgd** » Oct 31st 2003, 11:21 pm

This is some scary sh#t:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/reagans/

The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs. . . .

Gillespie said that if CBS denies the request, he will ask the network to run a note across the bottom of the screen every 10 minutes during the program's presentation informing viewers that the miniseries is not accurate.

First of all, I think its pretty silly of CBS to air something so stupid. From what I hear, it's pretty obvious that its as accurate as the Jessica Lynch thing. Just another Oliver Stone type job. And maybe the people who aren't smart enough to realize it's fiction will find out when they turn on their nightly TV of O'Rielly and Hannity. It may not be accurate, but that doesn't take away their right to show it (FOX proved that in court, actually). But when politicians start asking networks for review and editing rights...it gets really scary. Whats next? Whats next?

http://atrios.blogspot.com/ wrote:If two years ago I'd suggested that the political party which effectively ran all 3 branches of government would start demanding the right to review the content of television programs before they aired you all woulda called me crazy.

fnordboy · Post by **fnordboy** » Nov 1st 2003, 2:19 am

I thought I heard the other day (on Hannity's radio show no less) that CBS has already agreed to edit parts of the mini series. I think it is disgusting that they may be even debating to edit the broadcast just to appease the administration.

GaryEA · Post by **GaryEA** » Nov 1st 2003, 2:57 am

LOL... What else is the scroll going to say? "This film is not an accurate portrayal of the events depicted...Vote Bush in 2004...Major combat in Iraq HAS ended...Vote Bush in 2004..."

Or how about another movie about the day when Republicans who just love, love, love the Bush administation (which can do no wrong), wake up and realize that we can make up own minds about what's fiction or not.

Wait. Would that need a scroll too?

andrewgd · Post by **andrewgd** » Nov 1st 2003, 4:42 am

Well, I think most of these tv movies are pretty silly. Did anyone see the Bush 9/11 one? I didn't, but saw enough of the commercials... I don't think the DNC demanded they have a scroll on that.

[rant]I don't know why I do this to myself. I turn on Scarborough, just to see what crazy ideas are flying around the right wingers, and maybe to get a different perspective. (I've gotten so I can't even stand Hannity or O'Rielly...I assume its cause the network lets them spew unchecked) It seems to me to turn into such a circus. If it weren't so horrible, I'd be rolling on the floor in laughter at the hypocracy. Tonight he had Anne Coultier and some other rightwing radio host giving Rush sympathy. Anne put out a comment "The people who listen to talk show hosts and start getting interested in politics, they turn conservative." At least Joe admits it was a right wing "love fest".

And then he goes on to bash how left wing the media is.

Hurts my head after a while. Its definitely the same need to stare at a car wreck. [/rant]

ducksqueak · Post by **ducksqueak** » Nov 2nd 2003, 5:07 am

That Bush 9/11 movie was as accurate and realistic as the USA movie RUDY starring James Woods. In that movie Rudy Guiliani actually utters the words "What did those bastards do to my city," while standing on a pile of WTC rubble.

On another note....the guy who played Prsident Bush was quite good and some of the actors actually resembled their real life counterparts (except for the guy who played Colin Powell). Check out more info @ http://www.imdb.com

andrewgd · Post by **andrewgd** » Nov 2nd 2003, 2:12 pm

What I love is the guy who played Bush in DC 9/11: Time of Crisis is the same one who played him in Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Thats My Bush!

lance · Post by **lance** » Nov 2nd 2003, 2:49 pm

andrewgd wrote:Well, I think most of these tv movies are pretty silly. Did anyone see the Bush 9/11 one? I didn't, but saw enough of the commercials... I don't think the DNC demanded they have a scroll on that.

[rant]I don't know why I do this to myself. I turn on Scarborough, just to see what crazy ideas are flying around the right wingers, and maybe to get a different perspective. (I've gotten so I can't even stand Hannity or O'Rielly...I assume its cause the network lets them spew unchecked) It seems to me to turn into such a circus. If it weren't so horrible, I'd be rolling on the floor in laughter at the hypocracy. Tonight he had Anne Coultier and some other rightwing radio host giving Rush sympathy. Anne put out a comment "The people who listen to talk show hosts and start getting interested in politics, they turn conservative." At least Joe admits it was a right wing "love fest".

And then he goes on to bash how left wing the media is.

Hurts my head after a while. Its definitely the same need to stare at a car wreck. [/rant]

I fortunately missed that movie.

Did it show him fleeing for a undisclosed location in Nebraska?

LanceMan

TomSpeed · Post by **TomSpeed** » Nov 2nd 2003, 7:34 pm

The word "fleeing" is mistaken. The Secret Service and other agencies are supposed to protect the president and make sure the government continues. It only made sense for the president to stay out of Washington on 09/11 as long as he did. Who knew how many plane-missiles were out there? I'm pretty sure Bush wanted to go back immediately when he got on the plane. I don't agree with everything Bush has done as president, but I wouldn't call him a coward as the word "fleeing" suggests. Any president who's out of Washington when stuff like what happened on 09/11 would have been kept from harm's way.

andrewgd · Post by **andrewgd** » Nov 2nd 2003, 9:47 pm

TomSpeed wrote:I'm pretty sure Bush wanted to go back immediately when he got on the plane.

I don't question his need to stay out of Washington, but did you know that Bush did do while we were under attack?

At 9:03 AM on 11 September 2001, the second airplane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center. President Bush was in Florida, at the Emma T. Booker Elementary School, listening to children read. Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."

What did the Commander in Chief do? Nothing. He sat there. He sat for well over 5 minutes, doing nothing while 3,000 people were dying and the attacks were still in progress.

The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon's book as an "inside account of the Bush administration's reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision of his inner circle." [Publisher's Weekly, 10/15/02] Sammon's conservative perspective makes his account of Bush's behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children "as if he didn't have a care in the world" and "in the most relaxed manner imaginable." White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press conferences, and said, "Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came in, please." A reporter then asked, "Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything...", But Bush interrupted, and no doubt recalling his order, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET," Bush responded, "I'll talk about it later." But still the president did not leave. "He stepped forward and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. ... Bush lingered until the press was gone." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]

Sorry, I know it doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but its an interesting fact, and makes one wonder really what was going on with the Secret Service, and Bush's grasp of what his responsibilities are.

ducksqueak · Post by **ducksqueak** » Nov 2nd 2003, 11:12 pm

I am not a fan of the President, but I think his actions were appropriate for the situation. He was at an elementary school. If he had freaked out or started to talk about the WTC, it would have scared the children. He was doing what was best for them. It was the school's responsibility to share the news with the children in an age appropriate manner. Bush knew he could not do this. This is probably the only decision he has made that I have respected. Maybe I am influenced by the fact that I am studying educational psychology at school.

andrewgd · Post by **andrewgd** » Nov 3rd 2003, 12:26 am

ducksqueak wrote:Maybe I am influenced by the fact that I am studying educational psychology at school.

"Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It's part of being President, y'understand. I'll be back as soon as I can."

From what I read, there was enough opportunity for that...Of course it would have been wrong to tell them anything about it. But it didn't even stop with spending time with the kids, as the quote points out.

GaryEA · Post by **GaryEA** » Nov 4th 2003, 4:36 pm

CBS pulled the Reagan film, opting to air it on Showtime (they're part of the same company).

CNN.com article

-g

lance · Post by **lance** » Nov 5th 2003, 11:58 am

TomSpeed wrote:The word "fleeing" is mistaken. The Secret Service and other agencies are supposed to protect the president and make sure the government continues. It only made sense for the president to stay out of Washington on 09/11 as long as he did. Who knew how many plane-missiles were out there? I'm pretty sure Bush wanted to go back immediately when he got on the plane. I don't agree with everything Bush has done as president, but I wouldn't call him a coward as the word "fleeing" suggests. Any president who's out of Washington when stuff like what happened on 09/11 would have been kept from harm's way.

This may be true, but it looks absolutely horrible. Made even worse by the fact the President's whole basis for his re-election (or just plain election) is his leadership during 9-11.

Congress, the Supreme Court all stayed in Washington to weather the storm. Did our glorious leader stay? Nope.

Speaking of looking bad, there have been numerous articles about the fact the outgoing Clinton Administration warned the Bush administration about Al-Queda. Advice they ignored because anything Clinton says or does has to be wrong.

The recent report done by 9-11 commission leaves a lot of info censored. This despite the fact that the Saudi government asked for it to be released.

Again, nothing may be amiss here. Everything could be totally on the up and up, really. It just looks very, very bad. As one knows, in politics perception is reality.

LanceMan

TomSpeed · Post by **TomSpeed** » Nov 5th 2003, 1:48 pm

lance wrote:
TomSpeed wrote:The word "fleeing" is mistaken. The Secret Service and other agencies are supposed to protect the president and make sure the government continues. It only made sense for the president to stay out of Washington on 09/11 as long as he did. Who knew how many plane-missiles were out there? I'm pretty sure Bush wanted to go back immediately when he got on the plane. I don't agree with everything Bush has done as president, but I wouldn't call him a coward as the word "fleeing" suggests. Any president who's out of Washington when stuff like what happened on 09/11 would have been kept from harm's way.
This may be true, but it looks absolutely horrible. Made even worse by the fact the President's whole basis for his re-election (or just plain election) is his leadership during 9-11.

Congress, the Supreme Court all stayed in Washington to weather the storm. Did our glorious leader stay? Nope.

Speaking of looking bad, there have been numerous articles about the fact the outgoing Clinton Administration warned the Bush administration about Al-Queda. Advice they ignored because anything Clinton says or does has to be wrong.

The recent report done by 9-11 commission leaves a lot of info censored. This despite the fact that the Saudi government asked for it to be released.

Again, nothing may be amiss here. Everything could be totally on the up and up, really. It just looks very, very bad. As one knows, in politics perception is reality.

LanceMan

But he wasn't in Washington at the time. That's a big difference. Would we be better off with this story: "President rushes back to Washington and is killed in a direct hit on the White House. Secret Service couldn't protect him." You are twisting facts to put a spin on what happened because you don't like him. Weren't members of Congress sent to undisclosed locations? They didn't stay on Capitol Hill. Did you know that the US wasn't being attacked by a national government and that more attacks weren't coming on 09/11? I didn't. The people who are damning Bush for doing what he was supposed to do (the president can run the country from Air Force One in times of crisis) are looking at things based on what has happened since or don't have an understanding of what the killing of the president could do to this country.

andrewgd · Post by **andrewgd** » Nov 5th 2003, 2:04 pm

Well, I for one, don't fault him for skipping around the country during the day. Its the 5+ minutes he spent so he could finish up his photo op that bothers me.

Forum

Republicans Asking to Censor Shows

Republicans Asking to Censor Shows

Who is online