So, was ABC the "October Surprise" come a month early? Sheesh! I mean, was that the
best they could do?
I admit, yet again, I was against the letter writing campaign to ABC when news of the "no termination order" scene broke. I stand by that, because at the time
we had no evidence that the scene was not factually accurate. Sure, we had lots and lots of great things Clinton did and stupid things GOPers did about Osama and terrorism in general.
But ABC could justifiably claim the movie wasn't about any of those things. It was masterful; deflection at its best. The archetype of truthiness.
Now, however, we know ABC "Reaganized" the film with a scene that is a total lie. It's one thing, in The Temptations TV miniseries to accept a version of David Ruffin's death that was inaccurate in some aspects but conveyed in the biographical book that Otis Williams had written and upon which the TV work was based. That's called attribution. Anyone with a problem should take it up with Williams.
That's different than making up a politically charged scene that plays to one side of the political spectrum and not the other. It's just as wrong for the left to do this as the right, as in the case of placing words in Reagan's mouth about AIDS being God's retribution against gays. That's the same thing.
But, hey, Reagan was a dead dude. What we have here is, just before a crucial election, when presidential impeachment is at stake, something made up out of whole cloth--in fact, the key scene in the movie--in a way that attempts to absolve the worst president in U.S. history (pretty much a consensus No. 1 pick) of the worst failure in U.S. history (prior to Katrina, then the Iraqi Debacle). AND THE MOPES ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO DO IT IN THE FACE OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, INCLUDING ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR LIVING EX-PRESIDENTs IN MODERN U.S. HISTORY.
Can you say "Bring `em on"?
Here are the ten ways this is so damned amazingly stupid:
First, if Democrats, both candidates and in office, weren't unified before, they will be now, around the lightning rod of ABC.
Second, it shreds any credible argument of "left wing media bias". We can ABC these shit heads to death, man. It's our "Willie Horton" except we are RIGHTEOUS.
Third, we have some pretty profound proof of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and while I'm no Hilary fan, remember how she was derided for being the first one to cite the VRWC? It LIVES!!
Fourth, times have changed. Didn't we read that one-third of Americans now think there are at least some "inside components" of 9/11 (cite appreciated, please!)? And with Tom Kean supporting the product, this should call into question his work, and that of the 9/11 Commission that was intended to be a bipartisan resolution. It's the kind of dubious conduct that goes on the list of "conspiracy factors." Think questions about JFK have persisted for a long time? That's nothing compared to 9/11 now. ABC has guaranteed 9/11 conspiracy books, articles and films will be a growth industry for 20 years.
Fifth, this is a dreadful strategy because of who is behind it. As we know by know, Disney owns ABC, and Disney has been having kittens over the reaction. I've already emailed Disney saying never, ever, EVER will my family spend a minute at a Disney attraction. We visited all the parks a few years ago in Florida but if we return, it's Seaworld and Universal Studios for us. No Disney product will cross my house's threshold ever again. There is NO COMPANY ON EARTH that has as much invested in its name equity and good will as Disney. That's why they are such bastards when it comes to protecting their trademarks, to the point of lawsuits against daycare centers who paint Mickey and Goofy on their windows (Disney is legally within it's rights, but REALLY!).
Sixth, it's also Disney, not ABC, that stands to gain the most from continued Rethuglican rule but also stands to lose the most now, politically. A Democratic takeover (inevitable at some point) tees Disney up for heavy retribution. Disney's legislative and regulatory concerns go across-the-board:
Antitrust
FCC (radio and television)
Internet
Land use and environmental
Labor, including OSHA
SEC
Overseas workers
Intellectual property (trademark, patent, copyright)
Import/export
Seventh, Disney is actually ABC's weak underbelly, and its image is the chink in its armor. It's also a big, fat target sitting in two of the most beautiful climates in the U.S., Southern California and Florida. THEY CAN'T RUN, THEY CAN'T HIDE.
Eighth, there are plenty of local targets. I haven't called my ABC affiliate yet, but will do so tomorrow. I have, however, already emailed Scholastic Books and told them I'd be contacting my school district. And of course there are the sponsors, but we won't have a complete list until after airing. And don't forget ESPN and the NFL. In fact, we have so many targets it will take some discipline to stay focused (I recommend remaining with Disney if nothing else). In fact, don't be surprised if other networks start piling on ABC with their exposes of ABC's "expose"--they are, after all, ratings whores.
Ninth, I still don't see this program as having the desired effect. The Dead-Enders already blame Clinton and would never blame Bush for anything so there's some preaching to the choir for you. This is also just one more reminder that Osama is still at large and now waiting for his timeshare in Pakistan. Also, this election is not about 9/11, it's becoming more about Iraq every single day and it's a great reminder the IRAQ IS NOT ABOUT 9/11!
Tenth, and finally, as some commenters have noted, this has been in the works for a long time. Anything else that Karl Rove and his evil henchmen might come up with has been so diminished by this foolish mistake, and right-wing reportage so compromised, we might actually be regaining that once great American trait: SKEPTICISM
Panic is in the air. I can smell it.