Roger Ebert the movie critic may not be a big fan of melodrama. Roger Ebert the liberal columnist is a different story.
Ebert went so far as to say voting against McCain-Palin would be a vote to "save the Republic":
I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.
Ebert did mercifully leave Palin's religion and her family out of the mix, but he scoffed at Palin as ill-educated and ill-traveled, all while mocking her for mocking elite liberal sensibilities:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.
Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe.
[...]
You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.
All this, mind you, from a guy who sits in a dark room and watches movies for a living.
What better qualifications are needed to play central casting for the role of Vice President of the United States?
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Comments Policy
Eminently Qualified?
September 11, 2008 - 14:07 ET by NotafraidAnd these Hollywood types are worth listening to because......???
Because he's been to Europe!
September 11, 2008 - 14:33 ET by BlondeAnd how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe?
What a wanker is right!
I've been to Europe, and I'm never going back. There are about a hundred places on my list, and none are in Europe. Including Alaska, Roger, you Euro-licking idjit!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hey Blonde, "Euro-licking
September 11, 2008 - 18:49 ET by msh1973Hey Blonde,
"Euro-licking idjit"? What is that....I am cracking up!
I am so over these folks in Hollywood who make fun and trash all that is good in America. Between Ebert's comments and Damon...forget about it!
msh
September 11, 2008 - 18:56 ET by BlondeI should have known YOU'd get my little joke, LOL.
It's a take off on the stupid dem media's critique of that adorable little Piper Palin grooming her baby bro. They called it "kitty-licking", the creeps.
So I just kind of riffed off of that....and "idjit"...well, you know, we live in Florida, after all!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
What's wrong with
September 11, 2008 - 21:22 ET by JasonCWhat's wrong with 'kitty-licking'? Aren't kittens cute? I don't see the problem.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
The Irish, and some British
September 11, 2008 - 23:45 ET by Scout FinchRefer to "idiots" as "eejits". Or whatever spelling you choose.
I thought "idjit" was the
September 12, 2008 - 15:22 ET by cocodrieI thought "idjit" was the proper spelling.
It is
September 12, 2008 - 15:29 ET by BlondeWhatever floats your boat!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
September 12, 2008 - 15:12 ET by jquamIt must be really dry between you and all that sand you just can't seem to get rid of.
Think Well as always :)
Ich heiße Superphantastisch! Ich trinke Schampus mit Lachsfisch!
It's called feeding the jackals
September 11, 2008 - 20:53 ET by Abe_JeffersonNotafraid - And your taking the time reading such topics , taking the time to respond, and any opinion of yours is worthwhile because......?
The NB team knows full well that there are a lot of hungry jackals among NB members who are constantly in need of feeding liberal meat. So they can regurgitate it as vile hateful spiteful comments trashing, bashing. attacking, often in the most childish ways, (OK I understand that's their intellectual and maturity level) Hollywood types are often a tastier meat than Democratic politicians or media "types" because the jackals hatred is intensified by envy and jealousy. Envy that the "Hollywood types" are very wealthy, have millions of fans/admirers, etc, and maybe even more outraged that they have forums that assure they'll be heard by millions rather than the few who read the comments of the jackals. "Hollywood types" have no more, no less right to their opinion as anyone. Of course no one should adopt George Clooney's, Chuck Norris's, or Roger Ebert' opinions just because their fans of theirs.
"As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you." - Tom Hanks
I am taking the time......
September 12, 2008 - 05:02 ET by old croOl Abe. Please note the time of my reply. You have just insulted me so I will give you a little reply.
I like my meat "well done" before I rip into it with my "jackal teeth". If you had 1/100th of the brain power of a normal human being, you would realize that this site not only hoists liberals/socialists/democrat scum like yourself up to the shining light with thier own stuttering nonsense, they also for future posterity, are making an electronic recording of all the hypocracy, lies, idotic statements, (I don't want to ramble) for reference to shove your opinion, and your bretheren in the media, up your a** at a later date. Suck on that awhile, will ya.
Its GOTTA be Tough
September 12, 2008 - 07:51 ET by AJBRoger, like all Libs, are running scared and cranking up the rhetoric because their unvetted media-god, Obamessiah, is melting in the light of scrutiny. He has no experience (143 days in Senate before announcing), no plan (other than to tax and spend), no foreign policy experience (thinking all we have to do is hold hands, throw the blue frisbee of peace and everyone will LOVE us and stop trying to kill us), an incomplete understanding of our country (58 states?) and no running mate (crusty old foot-in-mouth Biden).
Yeah, Roger, I'd be scared if I were you of a competent, well educated, tough female CONSERVATIVE who, despite your attempts to impugn her character, is rising taller under the spotlight. Run for cover, Rog! The dark movie theater is where you should stay... on the floor sticking to my shoes!
I always LOVED the movies Ebert Panned
September 11, 2008 - 14:16 ET by JayTeeThese MSM Obama Lovers are NOT changing minds . . They ARE providing confirmation that Palin IS the best choice by McCain.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
JayTee- That's after you read these Ebert comments?
September 11, 2008 - 21:32 ET by Abe_Jefferson"I always LOVED the movies Ebert panned" JayTee
OK I''ll take JayTee word for it. I love it when someone in their zeal to attack a perceived liberal is more than happy to admit to some form of their own idiocy. In this case a total lack of taste in movies. So JayTee admits he/she wouldn't know a good movie if it rode through his/her shower on a bicycle. I don't agree with Ebert on some of his reviews but he is the most well known, most liked, most respected film critic and film expert/historian.
Thank you Roger Ebert for making me come to my senses!
September 11, 2008 - 14:13 ET by SpikerAll I can say is, thank goodness we have film critics to pass their almighty wisdom down the rest of us. I was all for the McCain/Palin ticket here, but now that Roger Ebert has shown me the light I suppose I must vote for the Holy Annointed One.
I give Ebert's op-ed
September 11, 2008 - 14:16 ET by Adam_METwo thumbs down!
Beat me to it..
September 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET by AgentAmerican...just what I would give him instead it would be on middle finger.
Drill ANWAR
All this, mind you, from a
September 11, 2008 - 14:16 ET by JasonCAll this, mind you, from a guy who sits in a dark room and watches movies for a living.
That's a bit of a low-blow. He's generally considered something of a film expert and has written thousands of articles (literally) and several books on the topic. By these standards, a person shouldn't have an opinion about Palin's experience if they sit in a drab windowless cubicle doing data entry all day either.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
I have a window, thank you
September 11, 2008 - 14:36 ET by Ken ShepherdI have a window, thank you very much.
Ebert is the one with the low blows Jason
September 11, 2008 - 22:33 ET by Dee BunkIf he can have a public opinion on her, we can certainly have a public opinion on him.
He's a lazy person who makes his money watching movies - he's accomplished nothing in comparison to her - he's a joke to criticize her so viciously.
What kind of an idiot would rate Michael Moore's so called Documentaries so well when they are filled with obvious lies, distortions and deceptive editing and paranoia? These "elites" like Ebert who think they are smart show their stupidity all the time.
Dee
September 12, 2008 - 16:04 ET by JasonCIf he can have a public opinion on her, we can certainly have a public opinion on him.
Yeah, obviously you can, I just think it's silly to mock his profession.
He's a lazy person who makes his money watching movies
No Dee, he's made his living writing about movies and has been tremendously successful at it, to the point that his name is synonymous with film criticism. As a fellow film freak, I don't doubt for a second that you, like me, would kill to be in his line of work.
he's accomplished nothing in comparison to her
I completely disagree. I have far greater respect for Ebert and his accomplishments than for Palin, or any state governor, really.
he's a joke to criticize her so viciously.
So your premise is that we cannot criticize - and how you get 'viciously' from his piece, I do not know - anybody who is more accomplished than us? Shall I hereby expect to see complete cessation of Obama mockery from anyone who has not been a senator for a state with a similar or greater population than IL? That is exactly the ethics of political critique that you seem to be supporting here.
What kind of an idiot would rate Michael Moore's so called
Documentaries so well when they are filled with obvious lies,
distortions and deceptive editing and paranoia?
Ebert has rated thousands of films. He also panned Blue Velvet, which is one of my very favorites. A few disagreements do not foreclose him from having an opinion on Palin or any other political entity.
These "elites" like Ebert who think they are smart show their stupidity all the time.
If the elite thing is about his remarks on college, I'll agree that the whole "5 colleges in 6 years" (or whatever it was) thing was a bit of a low blow. But his premise overall was, emphatically, not to blast Palin for not attending an Ivy, but to point out the silliness, and obvious pandering to the blue-collar constituency, of acting as though an Ivy education is an automatic liability. Not that it's an automatic asset either.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
Wow Jason
September 12, 2008 - 16:19 ET by Dee BunkI'm shocked that you value celebrities more than people who manage people and change things for the better.
When the socialist utopia happens you betcha - I either want Ebert's Job or a Job in Hollywood. No menial corporate job for me. If I'm going to be paid the same, I want to have fun, travel the world and watch movies and have little pressure or stress. Since everything will be fair- I'm sure I'll get to pick one of those jobs.
My point in his ratings on Michael Moore have nothing to do with taste. Moore's documentaries are an embarrassment to the genre and have set a new very low standard that many have followed. Now Documentaries can't be trusted because they blend paranoid fantasy fiction into real life events and call it a documentary. It's a joke.
I stand by my point that if he is going to belittle her education and accomplishments, then I have every right to belittle his. The education thing makes me especially mad because it's pure snobbery. She had to mostly put herself through college so she wasn't able to attend continuously and switched around (probably partly based on what aid she could get). I have no tolerance for snobbery.
Well said, Besides, Ebert's
September 12, 2008 - 16:26 ET by cocodrieWell said, Besides, Ebert's taste in films is all in his mouth. His low brow taste in films is far below mine.
Huh? "They seem to
September 12, 2008 - 16:39 ET by JasonCHuh?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
cocodrie - one of the things I used to like about Ebert
September 12, 2008 - 17:23 ET by Dee Bunkis he wasn't a snob. I liked that he still liked low brow stuff but he's obviously gone over the deep end in his political beliefs. It seems he's not a snob when it comes to celebrities, just regular people.
I am a big fan of Foreign and unique American Indies but I also love some pretty low brow stuff. I used to consider Ebert to be very much like me (in taste) until he went wacko with his politics and endorsed Michael Moore. Of course I have always disagreed with many of his reviews, but I've agreed more with him than any other critic I know of.
Dee
September 12, 2008 - 17:43 ET by cocodrieI go to very few movies and the few that I decided to go to he didn't like. I should have used the term "moral" or something like that instead of low-brow. I am a big fan of the old "B" movies.
Oh I get you concodrie
September 12, 2008 - 17:51 ET by Dee BunkOne thing I was proud of him for was giving a good review of Passion of the Christ. That film was so powerful and well made and any critic who wasn't anti-religious should have been able to recognize that. Most gave it bad reviews simply because of hating Christianity.
Dee
September 12, 2008 - 20:11 ET by cocodrieThe Passion of The Christ was on a par with Cecil B. DeMille's films. Mel Gibson did not receive proper credit for his work, but that is not surprising. I am a pentecostal Christian and a little too touchy about the trash being produced in Hollywood these days.
I don't really think of
September 12, 2008 - 16:36 ET by JasonCI don't really think of Ebert as a celebrity; he's a writer and a pioneer in the field of accessible (but nonetheless erudite) film criticism. Have you ever read Walter Chaw's essays? You need a degree in film to understand half of what he say. Ebert's are intelligent and readable. But my point is, though he happens to be well-known, I'm very reluctant to lump him in with the category that is synonymous with excess and vapidity. And why shouldn't I have more respect for a writer I admire than for politicians. Very few politicians have done anything to earn respect, and it's certainly less likely to happen when the politician in question goes against my own ideology in basically every feasible way.
I agree, Moore has sort of desecrated the documentary form. And if you read Ebert's op/ed,
I agree with you that his one line about Palin's education is a cheap shot. But I also stand by my statement that you have to take his overall comments in the context of Palin's dismissiveness of an Ivy education.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
Jason - I missed wher she was dismissive of an Ivy education
September 12, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Dee BunkI've only heard her dismiss "elites" and that has nothing to do with education, it has to do with having lots of money and thinking you are better than others because of it. Sometimes it's because of education, sometimes it's because of celebrity but neither thing makes someone "elite".
I agree that Ebert was effective at bridging the gap between overly intellectual with still being intelligent, but this op ed from him really turns me off. I was aggravated enough with his support of all the trashy so called documentaries, but in my opinion this is over the top and he's lost a fan.
Ebert
September 11, 2008 - 14:19 ET by well99I wouldnt trust his opinion on a movie let alone who I will vote for. What is it with him Damon and the rest of those hollywierd types.Do they think folks respect their opinion or something?I drather ask a real person then one of these yutts.
Awright...
September 11, 2008 - 14:25 ET by heldmywWho rattled this miserable pudge-bucket's cage and told him he was entitled to an opinion on something besides movies.
Frankly, I don't trust anyone who presents himself as a 'critic' unless said critic has actually held the position he or she is offering to critique.
So shut up Ebert. Ya wanker.
This is a case of keeping
September 11, 2008 - 14:33 ET by ricklailThis is a case of keeping your mouth shut and letting people think you were stupid or opening it and remove all doubt.
If pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress? Congress!
Just plain dumb
September 11, 2008 - 14:56 ET by NBFWhat does traveling to Europe (or any country of the world) have to do with anything? It's no wonder that someone with such illogical thinking would be for hopechangeObam-uh-uh-uhBiden.
What's next Roger, does one have to view certain films to be Prez or VP? No, Roger is not a pointy-headed elitist. He's a dumb elitist.
First Actors, Now...
September 11, 2008 - 14:39 ET by cjbreischFirst actors, now movie critics against Palin.
What's next? Former sportscasters?
Oh yeah, got that one too.
Politics and Hollywood via Chicago
September 11, 2008 - 14:42 ET by timrfrench61I did not know that Roger Ebert was a political columnist...
However, being from the West Coast, I appreciate Palin's selection as representing a West Coast frame of mind, hopefully to bring new ideas and different perspectives to the beltway and big city politicians and to bring balance to politicians with 20-30 years doing things "The Washington Way".
Palin brings a new way of looking at things from the next generation of west coast conservatives: how to manage energy from a west coast perspective; how to manage the environment from a west coast perspective; how to address women's issues; how to handle corruption; how to care for the family; how to control government spending; how to improve the economy.
On the West Coast we focus on China, Japan, and the rest of the Pacific Rim (including Russia). Europe is the land of the US's roots , rich in history and culture. And Europeans come here to do business (Adidas, Nike, Intel) and enrich our neighborhoods. But we see the world just a little differently. It's a big country.
Is the Ivy League the only place to get an education? Rogers' Dad said Urbana would be good enough for him... and he has risen to be, possibly, the most recognized Journalist in his time (and still today) amongst people least likely to get beyond page 1 of the local paper (and people most likely to never read the New York Times). So doesn't he... PROVE you don't need the Ivy League?
Thanks, Rog, it's so clear now
September 11, 2008 - 14:44 ET by Mica the MagnificentIf only Governor Palin traveled to the Soviet Union to protest America's role in the war in Vietnam, like Billy Clinton did, then she would have traveled outside the U.S. and be qualified to be president according to Roger the movie critic.
SPEAK UP
September 11, 2008 - 14:49 ET by MillerTimeWarpCould be worse....Joe Biden could have been talking to Roger Ebert and asked him to "Speak Up, I cant hear you". Biden - always thinking with his.....ah....er....what does he use ?
That was cold!
September 11, 2008 - 15:12 ET by timrfrench61...(but funny)
roflmao
If only Dad had the money...
September 11, 2008 - 14:52 ET by SickofLibsSo we're supposed to believe this effete lardcan would have gotten into Harvard except Daddy was a poor electrician?
What a crock. And ps, not everyone is enthralled with traveling around Europe.
Eggbert's Worst
September 11, 2008 - 15:00 ET by CobraMan"You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad."
And you don't need to travel abroad to be considered "worldly." All you need is an understanding of world events. The actual travel itself is unnecessary, especially in the modern world where news and information travels around the world at the speed of light and we can discover the affairs and events of even remote locations and foreign governments from the comfort of our living rooms.
I have a question for all the "travel experts" amongst the left. Do you really believe that taking an overseas vacation or political junket qualifies you for office? Let’s be realistic here: The ONLY office that qualifies you for is the office of a Travel Agent.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
egghead
September 11, 2008 - 15:06 ET by ronthanks rog. i feel better now and you can go back to praising the trash made in hollyweird.
Who knew Ebert was such a
September 11, 2008 - 15:07 ET by stratmanWho knew Ebert was such a douche.
He laments not getting into Haavard because daddy was poor. Yet Bumbles O'Blabla zipped right into Haaavard and even carried school loans to do it!
My guess is Eggbert didn't have the academic record or the "specialness" of a Lightbeing that Haaaavard looks for in a candidate.
Maybe if Whineybert were a minority he would have matriculated instead of elaborated (heavy on the BORing part)his grudge all these years... at least about Haaaaavard.
RRAM Tough!
Projection
September 11, 2008 - 15:04 ET by KC MulvilleSarah Palin stands accused of not having the same attitudes and life experiences as a self-important movie critic. I can guess how she'd plead ...
I studied in Germany for a few months. After the course was finished, I got to travel. I spent a few weeks in Munich, then Innsbruck, and then Rome. (I was a Jesuit at the time.) It was a wonderful experience, and you do learn a lot. But is any of that "foreign policy" experience? Of course not. And let me be more clear.
Travel doesn't mean much, unless you live considerable time in a place, and have time to soak up the culture. But we already have a lot of people who do that. They're called diplomats. Why are we paying them if we're going to ignore their experience when we make decisions?
Really?
September 11, 2008 - 15:07 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHmmm, worked at the paper, attended college and went to Europe, all at the same time. Smells a little fishy to me. How about some proof.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Roger Ebert: Porn Film Producer
September 11, 2008 - 15:09 ET by deerjerkydaveDon't forget that Ebert produced porn films back in the 1970s. He has no moral sensibilities that me or my family look up to.
Makes Sense Now
September 11, 2008 - 15:12 ET by MillerTimeWarpIs that how he contracted his throat illness ?
You Mean Like This One?
September 11, 2008 - 15:18 ET by mbs6Warning: some of the phots of the cover are offensive, but here's a link:
http://www.imdb.com/...
But other than that, Roger Ebert is a great judge of what is and is not good for America.
TMI
September 11, 2008 - 15:23 ET by MillerTimeWarpHhmm.....do you suppose Ebert has a Cameo in any of them ? Would explain the rise in blindness and suicides during that period.
I think all I can give
September 11, 2008 - 15:44 ET by USA4freedomI think all I can give you is one finger up..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
All is lost
September 11, 2008 - 16:03 ET by otisOh well. All is lost now. The great one has spoken. You know I actually used to listen to this guy once in awhile. I found that I could save money not going to the movies he recommended. Apparently his political views are also opposed to mine.
And might I add that when I "arrived" at the age of 44, I had travelled to and lived in (courtesy of the US Army) many foreign countries. However, I do not believe myself to be a foreign policy expert.
Also, to the libs who repeat, ad nauseum, that we are so unpopular overseas because of Pres. Bush, I'll let you in on a little secret. They didn't like us much before Bush, either. Middle eastern countries supported those who constantly attacked us and they danced in celebration on 9/12/01. In Europe, we were just handy when they needed a little foreign aid or to fix their problems (Iraq (twice), Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, USSR, etc, etc.). Or when Clinton was the world's flunky flying around the world using America's checkbook to buy popularity. Guess what...in the backstreets they were snickering at our naivete.
I've seen beautiful and pitiful places; dealt with wonderful and ugly people. And you know what? I don't want to be like any of them. It doesn't concern me a lot if a leader understands and empathizes with
foreigners. I want a leader who understands, believes in and cherishes
our American way of life.
Nicely put,
September 11, 2008 - 18:15 ET by fitzfongNicely put, Otis.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Well said! Thank you for
September 11, 2008 - 18:35 ET by stratmanWell said!
Thank you for your service, helping to keep America secure and free.
I have a friend that escaped Khomeni/Iran, now living in Paris and traveling the world in his job. He is not an American citizen but he is proud of America for what she has done to help strangers around the world. He is an ardent supporter of McCain-Palin as the hope for the world. He also said that the French are in love with Obama, not to become their leader, but to become president of the US so that the US will become a little weaker and France can become a little stronger in the world.
Ebert ... typical liberal elitist
September 11, 2008 - 16:09 ET by LionKingWow! She hasn't traveled abroad much...wow!
Unlike you with your insta-family, she was busy being a parent to her children and a wife to her husband. Along the way, she got involved in politics.
She is not a professional politican, Governor Palin is one of the People. Sometimes us common folk, even if we can afford it, prefer not to travel abroad... unless you are a liberal politican that tries to pander to the world's wants, most Americans are not well-received.
Now Wait A Minute
September 11, 2008 - 16:25 ET by SquonkamaticWhoa whoah!! Roger Ebert is and should be entitled to his opinion and the CS-T should be entitled to print his opinion in their opinions section if they want to. That's what they did, this isn't being presented as "news" thought it may seem like news because of who it was that wrote it: Don't confuse the messenger with the message here. I admire Roger Ebert and respect his right to have his own opinion even if I don't agree with it. Ebert's reviews have almost always had a political awareness to them, and after reading this article I don't find much in it that is so over the line as to be unwholesome. Even more than respecting Ebert's opinion I respect his right to voice it if he so choses. Once again and to be clear I don't agree with his conclusions, but as long as his commentary is framed as such there shouldn't be any problem with it. Just as he has the freedom to write and have printed what he sees fit, anyone else has the freedom not to read it if they think it will do them discomfort to learn that this traditionally outspoken Democrat leaning writer might have an opinion that they won't necessarily agree with.
Yes it's newsworthy, but I don't think this is such a big deal, and am kind of disturbed by some of the contempt in the posts here about what he happens to do for a living: The man has written thousands of movie reviews that are for the most part pretty dead-on and earned his Pullitzer. It isn't easy either, I've tried. I don't think he's an "out of touch Hollywood elitist", I think he is a writer with an opinion and is expressing it. Representative democracy only works when there is more than one opinion and freedom of the press is freedom of the press. Someone put it better than I ever could by stating that freedom of speech isn't about protecting the speech you like, it's about protecting that speech you despise. Let Roger Ebert have his opinion and let the Sun-Times publish it. If you don't agree or are outraged, write their editors or even Mr. Ebert himself. He's a smart guy and can defend himself better than anybody else I could think of if I tried. But he and his paper have the right to publish it if it's framed correctly as an opinion piece. Looks so to me.
Squonkamatic
September 11, 2008 - 16:30 ET by LionKing“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
That is what NB is all about. Ebert is part of the media. He is liberally biased. He is fair game. He is a dolt!
OK, Fine
September 11, 2008 - 17:02 ET by SquonkamaticDoesn't matter what his ideology is. The article has been correctly framed as an opinion piece and is not being mis-represented as "news". I am not defending his conclusions, just his right to voice them and those of his paper to print them. I don't understand what the problem is, especially if you are familiar with Roger Ebert's political leanings. Par for the course, actually, but so what? I know a lot of people who are liberal democrats at heart, they are welcome to their opinions. I don't see some evil liberal menace lurking behind Roger's glasses. I see a writer who has an opinion and expressed it correctly on the opinions page.
Agreed, but
September 11, 2008 - 17:42 ET by Captain KirockAgreed, but just as Ebert is entitled to his liberal opinions, we are entitled to criticize him. That's all we're doing. No one said he can't speak out. I watched his show for years and enjoyed his takes on movies, although he is hopelessly liberal (see, e.g., his review of the atrociously dishonest "Fahrenheit 911").
As for Ebert's column, he is a typcial liberal elitist. Explain to me how traveling to Europe for a few weeks as a teen makes you better qualified to be Vice President? Also, if he really believes that their is not an Ivy League elitist mentality in some Washington power circles, than he is truly fooling himself.
Maybe if he vacationed in DC for a few weeks he might be able to figure it out?
Yes He's Wrong There
September 11, 2008 - 18:40 ET by SquonkamaticCool, and I totally agree that the argument about how well traveled Mrs. Palin might or might not be is 100% spurious. If people of Ebert's intellect are reduced to ninnypicking such details I see it as a good indicator of how worried they are that her presence on the ticket has upset their little apple cart. John McCain is going to win big time, I have no doubt about it at all, but not because of where anyone may have spent the summer. It's because Obama is simply a rotten candidate in a long line of rotten candidates foisted on the American voters by the democrats, who can't seem to do anything right.
If I were to share a thought with Mr. Ebert it would be to vent his frustration on the democrat hierarchy that keeps nominating such un-electable candidates. Hillary, John Edwards (gawrsh!), John Kerry, now Obama: Can't they pick anyone that people outside of their circle might actually want to vote for? They didn't even bother this time, just like in 2004 and 2000, and instead blame the republicans for nominating candidates who can actually win. And as for exposing Roger Ebert's liberal democrat leanings please by all means keep exposing it if need be, I though it was common knowledge at this point and had learned to live with it.
He's a dolt
September 11, 2008 - 21:51 ET by JasonCHe's a dolt becauuuuse....
He doesn't support Palin?
He deigns to write about it?
He reasonably believes that a potential POTUS or V-POTUS ought to maybe have some demosntrable interest in foreign affairs? (her 2-year-old passport coincides interestingly with her lack of a discernible position on Iraq)
You're more than welcome to critique Ebert. Anybody's published comments are "fair game". What's not fair game, however, is to say his opinion is worthless because he's a film critic; as if a person who has succeeded immeasurably in a difficult field, making money doing something he obviously loves, in a free market, makes irrelevant his opinions on all things non-cinematic.
What's also not fair game is to suggest he's liberally-biased. Most NBers, in the service of their hysterical persecution complexes concerning the MSM, have decided that any expressed left-of-center opinion contains insidious 'bias'. A theoretically objective news reporter who subtly manipulates the news to bolster one side is 'biased'. An op/ed piece does not fall into the same category.
Despite Palin's undeniable success at energizing the Republican base and quite a few independents whose reasons for finding her appealing I can't even begin to grasp, there are still quite a few Americans, and I count myself proudly among them, who are wholly unimpressed and will not apologize for it. I see no reason to support a provincial, zero-foreign-policy-experience candidate who won't articulate a coherent position on the war and doesn't understand the 'doctrine' of the man who will (most likely) be her predecessor. Who dangles her pregnant teenage daughter in front of a conservative base, convinces that base that she (the daughter) is a hero for deciding to carry the baby to term, frames the whole situation in terms of choice (as in "she made the right choice, she chose life, etc.), and then advocates denying that very element of choice to all other women. Who has somehow convinced her constituency that having a Down Syndrome child is a moral virtue, the subtext of which is that other parents, especially liberals, would be less likely to love and keep a mentally impaired child. Whose primary means of self-identification involves hockey sticks and firearms. Who, like most of the modern Republican party, decries elitism and still primarily serves the interests of the Very Wealthy. Who talks about individual choice and freedom and small government but bends over backward to ban gay marriage.
No thank you.
This is not slandering Palin. This is not even bias on my part, because I am not a member of the press or any other public body that claims objectivity. This is my critique of how she has presented herself and how she has been received.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
"zero-foreign-policy-experience"
September 11, 2008 - 22:21 ET by Captain Kirock"I see no reason to support a provincial, zero-foreign-policy-experience
candidate who won't articulate a coherent position on the war"
So I assume you are not supporting Obama either?
Captain (& Jason)
September 11, 2008 - 22:48 ET by MrShy"So I assume you are not supporting Obama either? "
Captain, Obama's only running for President. It's Palin who's vying for the top spot, Vice President.
No wait, it's Biden who will be our next President, according to, um, Obama.
Obama... a total fraud. Palin... a total hottie.
MrShy
September 11, 2008 - 23:19 ET by Captain KirockThe Dems act like McCain is already dead & Palin is going to be sworn in as President tomorrow.
Why are some Dems so obsessed with death? Is is because the last two good Dem Presidents (JFK & FDR) died in office?
Captain and Shy, I am not
September 12, 2008 - 07:25 ET by JasonCCaptain and Shy,
I am not supporting Obama. I've said it elsewhere. I live in an overwhelmingly blue state and Obama will win by a landslide here. My vote doesn't matter so I have the chance to exercise my conscience and vote Libertarian rather than participate in the vaunted 'lesser of two evils' vote.
For awhile I was kind of torn between whether I'd prefer to see Obama or McCain win. I had to admit that my reasons for thinking I'd prefer Obama were rather superficial...not as superficial as most people's reasons for liking Palin, but still. Palin, however has me swinging back toward Obama again. Foreign Policy experience is only a small piece of it. What I termed her 'stunning moral hypocrisy' a few days ago, which I've outlined here, is also of interest to me. Though I think the debate w/ Biden will really seal it for me. We'll see.
Finally, may I assume that aside from the rather well-worn foreign policy argument, my other points rang loud and true and you see no problem with them?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
No Jason.
September 12, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Captain KirockNo, I found all your attacks on Palin wrong and your personal attacks on her and her family are condescending, judgmental, hateful, and disgusting.
Since you have decided to vote for Bob Barr, am I to assume that you have applied that same holier-than-thou "moral hypocrisy test" to Bob Barr and his family as you have so viciously applied it to Sarah Palin and her family?
What was vicious about
September 12, 2008 - 15:35 ET by JasonCWhat was vicious about it? How is it condescending? How is it not legitimate critique of her positions and demeanor?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
This part Jason
September 12, 2008 - 17:58 ET by Captain KirockWhere you wrote: "Who dangles her pregnant teenage daughter in front of a conservative
base, convinces that base that she (the daughter) is a hero for
deciding to carry the baby to term, frames the whole situation in terms
of choice (as in "she made the right choice, she chose life, etc.), and then advocates denying
that very element of choice to all other women. Who has somehow
convinced her constituency that having a Down Syndrome child is a moral
virtue, the subtext of which is that other parents, especially
liberals, would be less likely to love and keep a mentally impaired
child."
Families should be off limits, especially minor children. The attack on Palin's minor children by the press is heartless and cruel and simply unprecedented in the history of American politics.
Answer my question: did you apply your moral litmus test to Bob Bar? What were your conclusions?
I know where the other thumb is...:)
September 11, 2008 - 16:44 ET by socal4patrickI know where his other thumb is. I thought he was dead.
"If you want to save the world you must be willing to make others sacrifice" ....Dogbert the green consultant
Send in the clowns
September 11, 2008 - 16:49 ET by acumenAll this, mind you, from a guy who sits in a dark room and watches movies for a living.
What better qualifications are needed to play central casting for the role of Vice President of the United States?
LOL. Great observation.
Now we have a left wing,
September 11, 2008 - 16:51 ET by celatorNow we have a left wing, arrrogant, bitter, former porn producer, mediocre at best MOVIE CRITIC telling people how to vote????????????????
The end times are here, no doubt.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Perhaps if Mr. Ebert
September 11, 2008 - 18:49 ET by Cape Conservativehad done a little checking, he'd find out that not too many families with 4 or 5 children can fit very much overseas travel into their schedules or budgets!
Furthermore, I wonder how Mr. E. would make out living in Alaska 12 months a year!!! Not exactly your average warm, dark movie viewing room! In my estimation, after a visit to Alaska, LIVING there fulltime puts one in a class very similar to a world traveler!!!
And if he wants to put his nose up in the air re: her college education vs his, she was attending schools where she could get scholarships. Her dad was a teacher, not an electrician, but certainly one who didn't have the extra bucks to send his children to Ivy League schools.
SNOB SNOB SNOB - what is it about Liberals????
Monsieur Ebert
September 11, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Jay in NHFair enough all, being a longtime movie critic does not imbue one with the bonafides for this type of pontificating, however: I hear that the New York Times television critic Alessandra Stanley (sp?) is going to come out with an anti-Sarah stance. This could be trouble!
Ebert in Alaska, livin' well.
September 11, 2008 - 22:20 ET by Abe_JeffersonEbert has survived years of battling throat cancer and its complications. Ebert's a millionaire. Ebert could live very well, very comfortably in Alaska reviewing and writing about movies, and politics if he wishes, thanks to modern technology.
"And if he wants to put his nose up in the air re: her college education vs his" Clearly Ebert in no way puts "his nose up in the air".
Ebert simply stated - "I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." and "Five different schools in six years. What was that about?"
Cape Conservative, I would ask you to THINK while reading and before writing, but that's not an option for you, is it?
Palin IS the candidate from central casting.......
September 11, 2008 - 21:49 ET by