Thoughts On Libertarian Blogger's Butt-Hurt Re Film Script 4 "Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy"

This commentary was prompted a post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he speculated that a potential upcoming movie would prompt LOLs from yours truly. A post in which he expresses his hate for a progressive president while defending a Conservative one (hating on Progressives/defending Conservatives while laughably claiming to be "Moderate" being something he is a maestro at).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hollywood Is Apparently Kicking Around the "Idea" of a Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy... Yeah, and if you get enough of these brain-dead progressive bloggers (Tao, Octopus, wd, etc.) to screen the thing, you won't even need a laugh-track. P.S. Of course the truly offensive part in my book is the fact that they would never do such a thing like to a liberal Democrat (even the loathsome ones like FDR) 'cause they're so in the tank for them. You gotta be even-handed. You gotta be. (5/10/2016 AT 5:28pm).

I have heard of this movie. It was supposed to star Will Ferrell, but he pulled out. Likely because the premise might be considered offensive by some. Not that Reagan wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's while president, because he likely was. Three years into his 1st term, according to his son Ron Reagan's book.

But there are people who think Reagan was a good president (for reasons that baffle me, given the fact that I consider him one of the absolute worst presidents. Unlike FDR, who was one the best). They likely would be upset and whine about such a project. Or even issue threats (Producer Adam McKay: "There were scary messages left at our office. Stuff like, How dare you say anything bad about Ronald Reagan, you better watch your back").

Also people who think that making a "comedy" based on someone suffering from a horrible disease would be in extremely bad taste. Me, I'm inclined to agree about such a film being in bad taste. But, heck, I'd be willing to give it a shot (not by watching, but by monitoring reviews before deciding if it might be something I'd like to see). Because, like I said, I think Reagan was a terrible president, and no, I do not think "you gotta be even-handed".

So, who knows if I would have LOLed as much as Willis speculates that I would. I'm thinking probably not, however, as I usually don't care for lowbrow comedies (which many of Will Ferrell's films are). In any case, I think Willis is totally full of shit with the implication that he is even-handed (despite him saying "you gotta be").

First, everyone has their biases. Second, the Hart's biases are more intense than the average persons. Take, for example, his hatred of the "loathsome" FDR. A president who was (and still is) quite popular.

FDR was the best-loved and most hated U.S. President of the 20th century. He was loved because, though patrician by birth, upbringing and style, he believed in and fought for plain people - for the "forgotten man" (and woman), for the "third of the nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished". He was loved because he radiated personal charm, joy in his work, optimism for the future. But he was hated too - hated because he called for change, and the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order. (The 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time by Time Staff. 7/24/2012).

I acknowledge that FDR was responsible for some loathsome things. Things WTNPH discusses ad nausea on his blog (internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden); while NEVER discussing the "warts" of Republican presidents (or discussing them infrequently at least). And, even if he does, it's usually in the context of downplaying them (gwb's Iraq war was "ham-handed and ultimately tragic").

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that Willis hates FDR so much because "the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order". This has got to be the most loathsome thing that FDR did. At least in the mind of a wealth-worshiping Libertarian like Hart. Remember that FDR said "they are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred". Clearly that hatred persists to this day.

The oligarchs and wealth-worshipers (people like WTNPH) wish to ramp up the dismantling of FDR's New Deal because it's policies built the (now disappearing) Middle Class.

The creation of the world's largest middle class is the legacy of FDR, and explains his popularity (during his presidency and to this day).

It's not uncommon for presidents to leave office less popular than when they entered. In fact, very few achieve the opposite. Presidential approval rating polls go back to FDR's second term, and only two of the 13 presidents since then have left office with higher ratings than when they came in: FDR and WJC. ... [The most popular president, FDR, had an] approval rating when he left office [of] 70%. [His] average approval rating [was] 64%. (Presidential Approval Ratings Ranked From First To Worst Benzinga article, 11/22/2014).

Ronald Reagan comes in 5th place with an average approval rating of 52%, while Richard Nixon (whom WTNPH calls brilliant in a recent commentary) earns last place with a 25% approval rating (average 49%).

Note that Nixon's brilliance (as per WTNPH) concerned something Tricky Dick wrote in a book AFTER leaving the presidency regarding US democracy spreading. He said he was against it post-presidency, even though he acted contrary to that credo BIG TIME while president. Only "brilliant" if you think hypocrisy is a quality to be praised.

Or, if you don't want to term it "hypocrisy" but "evolving"? Surely Nixon evolved when it no longer mattered (whereas it would have mattered GREATLY) if he had reached the same conclusion before sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. Or even while president, when he could have broken precedence by rejecting the idea that the US should spread democracy. Perhaps this precedence breaking would have made it harder for gwb to go to war in Iraq? (Who knows). But he didn't.

Anyway, the Reagan Alzheimer's movie will likely NOT be made now, so there will be no test screening during which my LOLing for a laugh track could be recorded. Nor the laughs of Tao and Octopus. As for the truly offensive part in the brain-diseased Hartster's book being the "fact" that they would never do such a thing to a liberal Democrat... I seriously do not give a crap that this movie was (or might still be) kicking around Hollywood causes Willis great "butt-hurt" (to use a Willisism).

Actually, that is the truly hilarious part, IMO. That this script "kicking around Hollywood" re a very bad Republican president causes Willis such enormous butt-hurt. As well as eliciting some totally unbelievable "gotta be even-handed" bullplop. Although, like I said, he's a maestro at it. Deluding himself into believing he's "Moderate", that is.

OST #143

Willis Hart Unplugged From Reality Re Richard Nixon "Brilliant" Comments On US Democracy Spreading

Bullshit from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he gives undeserved kudos to Richard Nixon. Because Nixon wrote (in 1990) that the US shouldn't be waging war to "spread democracy", ignoring the fact that RMN was preznit while the US was involved in just such a war.

Willis Hart: Richard Nixon, Unplugged... "We should not make the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". That is brilliant, as much as I hate to say it and, yes, the final score; Nixon 1 George W. Bush and Barack Obama 0. (5/5/2016 AT 4:25pm).

Richard Nixon (1/9/1913–4/22/1994) did write this, but it was AFTER he left the presidency (1969-1974) - in the 1990 book From the Arena (according to this source). However, during his campaign for the White House Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for political gain. Then, after being elected, he escalated the war.

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings. Anna Chennault, one of Nixon's aides... was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. Eventually, Nixon won by just 1% of the popular vote. "Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968", says the BBC. (Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest).

Wikipedia notes that, "The U.S. government viewed its involvement in the war as a way to prevent... the spread of communism [whereas] The North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong were fighting to reunify Vietnam [and] viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against forces from France and then America, and later against South Vietnam".

So, I think Vietnam could be classified as a war were we made "the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". Granted, the war began under Lyndon Johnson, but Nixon prolonged it and escalated it! And, after sabotaging peace talks as a Republican potus hopeful, he then (as president) instituted a policy to end the war "through a program termed Vietnamization to expand, equip, and train South Vietnam's forces" (which failed).

Although this was after "the Cambodian Campaign [which] was a series of military operations conducted in eastern Cambodia during 1970 by the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) during the Vietnam War". Also note that "these invasions were a result of the policy of President Richard Nixon".

So what Nixon wrote later (the Nixon via WTNPH quote) didn't comport with his actual actions. Still "brilliant", Willis? But me asking that question assumes that Willis is unaware of the Nixon administration policies during the Vietnam War. But I'm sure he IS aware. So... what explains the Hartster's "Nixon brilliant" bullshit?

Damned if I know. I'm going to just guess it has something to do with the fact that the dude is becoming more and more unplugged from reality (OST #141). Also the fact that he often acts as an apologist for Republicans. Here Nixon, but he's done the same regarding gwb (DSD #18).

Video: Newly-released recordings from the Oval Office show President Lyndon Johnson knew Richard Nixon tried derailing peace talks with Vietnam, an act for which he could have been charged with treason. Although (according to Willis Hart) Nixon's later hypocrisy was "brilliant" (1:45).

OST #142