Roger Ebert: Proof Positive Some People Should Never Quit Their Day Job

In his latest opinion piece, Roger Ebert proved that he is very skilled at one thing and one thing only - movie reviews. 

Ebert penned a piece in his Journal for the Chicago Sun-Times today; a scathing critique which detests the overt melodrama, the wretched dialogue, and the lack of a plot line.  What was he reviewing?  The Republican base.

Ebert hammers the party's base with such sensationalistic rhetoric that it is difficult to believe he withheld laughter while typing away on the keyboard.  And the work is wrought with such falsehoods, inaccuracies, and sweeping generalizations, that it is difficult to fathom that this work could have passed by the desk of anyone having the word ‘Editor' following their name.  Yet somehow, it did.

The list of vitriol and insults follows...

Ebert starts off with a disclaimer that he is ‘not referring to traditional conservatives or Republicans', but quickly follows that up with ‘they're part of the process'.  This is liberal code for ‘I am indeed referring to all conservatives and Republicans'.  How can one tell? The entire piece goes on to categorize Republicans in general, using such phrases as ‘mainstream Republican party', ‘Republicans are on the wrong side of another issue', and so on - thus revealing the code.

After clarifying that issue for his readers, Ebert forges on, insulting 90% of the people reading this, or as he states, the Republican base, by saying:

• They are "a base it should be ashamed of."
• They're an "increasingly older, blue collar, less affluent, more unemployed, less educated base."
• "The entire climate of paranoia and hate? Have these people always been there?"
• They "have... a bitter resentment against authority."
• "Some of them may have been the victims of child abuse."
• "They lack common sense."
• "They are told to oppose, even hate, those who might be trying to help them."

Stunning. 

Ebert tries to convey these thoughts as only referring to the lunatic fringe, but mentions the average Republican too many times to disguise the hatred he holds for anyone opposing the Obama agenda, particularly healthcare reform. 

As if to completely point the finger at a select group of conservatives, Ebert appears to be equating the lunatic fringe to listeners of Glenn Beck (emphasis mine). 

"Poor Fox is being left behind. It's not extreme enough. After my blog entry on Bill O'Reilly, I've continued to watch him, and while I still deplore his tendency to interrupt people and shout them down, I agree with something many of his defenders say: He isn't crazy, he can change his mind, and he inhabits the same world most of us do. It is permitted for him to be partisan. Rush Limbaugh is another matter, but even he has cut off callers he finds appalling. Glenn Beck remains beyond the pale. He isn't right-wing so much as rabid. His real subject is indiscriminate outrage about whatever comes into his mind."

Got that?  If you're conservative, you're less educated, unemployed, paranoid and may have been abused.  If you're a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, then you're all of these AND a rabid, right-wing lunatic.

Of course, what liberal rant about opposition to Obamacare would be complete without charges of racism?  Ebert does not disappoint:

• "How much of the anti-Obama outrage is racist? Some is. Many of these angry people (I believe, but cannot prove) are made deeply unhappy by the reality of an African-American in the White House. Let's not pretend otherwise."
• "Racism plays a role, but conspiracy theories themselves have an addictive quality."
• And a little tale of how, once upon a time, the GOP embraced Southern racists.

Where Ebert really loses all credibility in his arguments is the following statement: 

"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

Come again?

Apparently Mr. Ebert isn't aware of the term Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Examples of which are so glaring and numerous, that they need not be mentioned.  For background however, please click here.

Another example of Ebert trying to drive home his point are the many images sprinkled throughout the article.  Images of Obama dressed as Hitler, Bin Laden, or the Joker, etc.  But if ‘liberals played by the rules' during the Bush years, then why do we have these exact duplicates?

or

and of course

Not to mention the videos Ebert includes comparing Obama to Hitler.  The flipside to which can be found at Zomblog (Warning:  Language), with its many documented examples of Bush as Hitler.

Playing by the rules means that when liberals do this to George Bush, it's funny - When conservatives do it to Obama, not only is it unfair, it's racist.

For an uninspired, factually incorrect, and insulting piece of pseudo-intellectual drivel, I have to give Roger Ebert's editorial - two thumbs down.

Photo Credits:

Obama Pictures - Roger Ebert's Journal, Chicago Sun-Times

Bush as Hitler - Michael Pelligrini

Bush as Bin Laden - Democratic Underground

Bush as The Joker - Vanity Fair

Roger Ebert - Taylor Evans, via the Chicago Sun-Times