Originally Posted by sgtdmski

This was an article about the passing of Micheal Deaver, yet for some strange reason, it was found necessary to include a little blurb about President Reagan and needing a script. Why was that comment necessary?????

Why did they include a blurb about Reagan, hmmm maybe because Deaver was one of Reagan's advisers?

IDK, maybe he thought that Reagan spoke more eloquently when reading from a script, or a speech if you will as opposed to off the cuff remarks or when dealing with the press (IDK, I wasn't even one when Bush Sr. took office.); or that while he left the style and the flash to his advisers, he was the one in control of the susbstance, the meat of the storyline, or the "script" of his presidency.

Watch an excerpt from his famous speech where he asked Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, he was obviously using a script and it turned out to be one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century, but maybe I'm being a little too literal about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<obje...mbed></object>Furthermore, if it is news, then at least perhaps we should except a little truth, unfortunately, that one comment alone is false. THe literature since President Reagan's death has gone to prove that, from his diaries to his writings before coming President, one glaring fact has been discovered by academics - Reagan had deeply held beliefs that he based his ideas upon, and over the course of his career they never changed. The ideas were his, the technical details he left to people better suited to developing.

Yea and that was what the whole article was about, remembering an adviser to President Reagan who helped create "the president's picturesque and symbolic public appearances".

I don't think that the guy who wrote the article meant to convey the idea that Reagan was somehow lacking of personal convictions and that he needed to use the ideas of others to set his agenda for the country.
So what was the point of CNN including in this article a blatant lie??????????

dmk