The casting of a liberal icon to play the wife of the most popular conservative president in U.S. history has gotten some people on the right in an uproar. In various spots on the Internet, conservatives have voiced their outrage. Below are some of the comments left on Michelle Malkin's Twitter curation site Twitchy:
"What a Slap in the face to Nancy Reagan, I for one will not pay to see this Hollywood Trashing of a Great Lady How Sick."
"A Liberal playing a Conservative. How F***ed is that."
"Liberal activist??? You mean liberal traitor! America's Tokyo Rose. She should be in jail with her comrade kerry."
You can read more by going to the Twitchy link I included earlier.
All I can say is ctfd! Should performers only portray people who share their political beliefs?! It's called acting for a reason.
For those who are still upset over Fonda's July 1972 trip to Hanoi, she's already apologized more than once. Since Fonda can't hop into a customized DeLorean and change what she did 40 years ago, I don't know what else she can do.
If the right-wing really wants to get revenge on those evil liberals who have the audacity to besmirch the reputation of Nancy Reagan by casting Jane Fonda to play her, they should make their own film and cast either Janine Turner or our favorite "Politichick" Victoria Jackson in the role of Hillary Clinton. I'll bet those two could use the acting gig. Here's an idea! Turner and Jackson can go head-to-head in a real-life "Celebrity Deathmatch" to determine who gets the role. However, Jackson isn't allowed to pluck her prized ukelele or sing with that golden throat of hers because doing so would give her an unfair advantage.
30 comments:
Reagan was probably flattered that an actor of Fonda's caliber was cast. Fonda is, after all, Henry's daughter.
Hanoi Jane playing a conservative Republican, yeah, that's one movie I will pass on.
And btw, Henry Fonda, for the longest time did not speak to his daughter after she sided with our enemies during the Vietnam War.
What a disgrace.
The author of this blog thinks it's a big joke.
Maybe because he also thought that Vietnam was a big joke also.
Being a little peeved I can see. Going off the deep end is another thing entirely.
I don't know anything that would be the equivalency for, say, a portrayal of Michelle Obama, because I don't know any conservative black actresses. (To be fair, I only know 1 liberal black actress, because she's so out there. I don't really concern myself about the political leanings of celebrities unless they're really out there.)
But say Whoopi was as far right as she is left and was going to portray Mrs. Obama.
I'm only guessing at it, but I think that'd be a pretty huge deal.
Nancy is the conservative Queen. I don't think I'm stretching in saying that she is definitely the equivalent of royalty to Reagan conservatives. Fonda, of course, is well past the opposite end of the spectrum.
So, yeah, I can see wanting folks to take it down a notch. But what Fonda did is essentially treason. I'm actually surprised more people aren't upset about it.
Personally, I don't care that Fonda is playing the part. I feel Fonda should get her comeuppance for her actions. But I'm not peeved that she's going to be in a movie I probably won't watch with or without her.
I'm a boob man. I didn't see Monster-in-Law either.
Obviously the people who criticize Jane Fonda for acting really don't know what acting is really about. They must think that acting is the art of aggrandizing the actor's own beliefs in order to further their own causes. I believe that acting, really good acting, is about the ability to portray a character in a realistic fashion according to the script. Real actors take their craft seriously, that's what Jane does usually and Henry did practically always.
Anyone who believes that good actors can't perform well or even adequately when playing characters that they may not support in real life should look no further than Meryl Streep's performance of The Iron Lady or Helen Mirren's performance in The Queen in which neither of the actresses have anything in common with the characters they played.....and I know that's true for Mirren because I've seen her in Caligula where you couldn't find a character less diametrically opposed to Elizabeth II.
An actress I don't care for playing a First Lady I never cared for, in some sort of hatchet-job political biopic I wont care to watch.
Judi: You could be right. I kinda doubt the former First Lady is getting worked up over Jane Fonda's upcoming portrayal of her.
Leticia: According to the Henry Fonda's bio section on imdb.com, he did approve of Jane's anti-war activism during Vietnam. It doesn't mention anything about them being estranged because of her anti-war stance. Also, your claim that she sided with our enemies during the war has been debunked on more than one occasion:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/blame-jane-falsehoods/
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
Knuckledraggin: First off, that's a very appropriate username. No, the war wasn't and isn't a joke. However, the right-wing's overreaction to Jane Fonda being cast as Nancy Reagan is a big joke!
Josh: If Whoopi was far right leaning and was cast as Michelle Obama, it would be a huge deal for a few reasons (in no particular order):
1. It's a movie being made about Michelle Obama
2. Whoopi is a household name and an Oscar-winning performer
3. Whoopi doesn't look a thing like the First Lady
4. The irony of someone on the far-right playing a liberal
As for the last reason, I doubt the level of outrage would match what I've seen from the right regarding Fonda's casting as Nancy Reagan.
When you say Fonda should get her "comeuppance", do you mean she should be tried for treason? If so, why do you think she hasn't been tried for it thus far?
Curious: You summed it up beautifully! Your examples of Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren were both on point.
dmarks: Since the movie is actually about Eugene Allen (the White House butler), I doubt it's going to be the type of political biopic you described. The bottom line is the only way to know what type of movie it is will be to watch it once it's released.
The left is every bit as protective and nasty and furious and hypocritical as the right in the mainstream. And the fact that there are far more leftists in the mainstream leads me to believe that if anyone with an opposite point of view was cast to play Mrs. Obama there would be outcry at least equal to this.
So I can't subscribe to just the 4. Add mine: 5. Pandemonium.
....
Comeuppance doesn't mean tried for treason. That's something I'da said outright if I felt that. I just feel as if her actions were blatantly anti-American, pro-Communism and were meant to inflame an entire nation at war at a time where soldiers were treated as baby-killing criminals and Communism was romanticized as something we'd all be for if we truly understood it, to paraphrase Fonda.
Her actions should have made her a pariah amongst more than simply those on the opposite end of the aisle. I know not all liberal people are Pinkos. But she's always been protected and absorbed and embraced by the whole of the left as far as I'm aware.
If someone thinks her actions are no big deal, that's certainly fine. But to people who don't care what she did or don't believe that it was wrong, I would ask them if they have shit for brains.
But I don't want to take it too far. It was a long time ago. Not that I buy her apology. She can't call US soldiers liars and hypocrites and war criminals and become Vietnam's radio star decrying America and simply live it down. In terms of still eating crap for it in her day-to-day, I would think that's too far. In terms of her getting as good as she gave, I just don't know that she ever has.
I'm no historian. Maybe she has already and I'm dead wrong here. I know some dude spit tobacco in her face according to an article I read. That's a bit much. Calling her a dumb-ass would suffice. Collectively. All 300 million of us on the mic at once. Then it's over! :D
I just feel as if her actions were blatantly anti-American, pro-Communism "
Really anti-Vietnamese more than anything. North Vietnam at that time was a terror state which was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people as it herded them into slave plantations and got rid of dissenters. When the regime expanded into South Vietnam, it treated the territory not as the liberated other half of Vietnam, but as a conquered enemy to be punished as much as possible. Hundreds of thousands died in death camps set up by the victorious invaders, and the boat people crisis resulted.
This was a time when the Soviets were instituting the killing fields in Southeast Asia. The regime they propped up in North Vietnam is one of the most brutal in history. She was very wrong to act as a cheerleader for it. She went beyond defending the indefensible.
If this were WW2, Fonda would be the one in Berlin sitting on a German tank smiling and promoting her German socialist heroes.
Malcolm: The very link you gave has Fonda "siding with our enemies".
In particular "She declined to apologize during the interview for speaking out against the war on Radio Hanoi"
The US anti-war side, the side she took, was not really anti-war. It simply did not want the US helping South Vietnam. So she went on the Hanoi regime's radio station to call for victory by North Vietnam. A truly represensible and evil thing to do. Helping the enemies of the US and South Vietnam in their plans to conquer South Vietnam and kill huge numbers of people.
"4. The irony of someone on the far-right playing a liberal"
Whoopi is not on the far right, so your analogy does not work.
dmarks: I provided multiple links in this post/the comments section. Which one are you talking about?
The use of Whoopi wasn't an analogy on my part. Josh had posed a hypothetical situation earlier in this thread in which he proposed what would happen if Whoopi was on the far right and was cast as Michelle Obama. I was responding to what he said.
Josh: I just don't think the left would make a huge deal out of a rightie being cast as Michelle Obama. For one thing, the left doesn't share the right's persecution complex when it comes to Hollywood/the media. Also, I'm going on recent history to form my opinion. When Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made her comments about then President Bush, the right reacted by sending hate mail, making death threats, and publicly destroying Dixie Chicks albums. Compare that to how the left reacted to Ted Nugent's 2009 comments in which he said President Obama is a Communist who should be put in jail. Although Ted received some criticism for his comments, the left didn't go off the deep end the way the right did over the Dixie Chicks.
Frankly, the controversy over Fonda being cast as Nancy Reagan has died down. It may become a story again once the movie comes out though.
dmarks: As I said in the post, I don't know what else people expect Jane to do. She's already apologized.
Dixie Chicks vs. Ted Nugent? Poor Uncle Ted.
How about Gary Numan vs. Nirvana? lmao
Reaction is only proportionate to popularity in the world of celebrities. I remember Scott Baio angering some with what he said about Michelle Obama. But it was limited to Baio's fame--or lack thereof--and only driven as far as it was by Mrs. Obama's celebrity.
So the standard for celebrity controversy for what those bozos choose to say is always a sliding scale. What I'm talking about are First Ladies who are pretty much royalty for their respective side. I'm just not sure if that can be gauged by drawing a comparison between the reaction over the most popular country music group in history vs. a guy who didn't even sing his own songs half the time and who's only known by anyone under 30 because Stranglehold made it to Superbad.
It's not as political, but Eminem is a guy who's been protested on par with the Dixie Chicks.
It's never happened to poor Cage, though. (Another white rapper to use "faggot" explicitly and often.)
Josh: I figured you'd use the popularity argument in regards to my comparison of The Dixie Chicks and Ted Nugent. However, your argument doesn't work because a celeb's stature in the world of entertainment has very little to do with how one side reacts to them politically. Although Ted isn't even close to being in the same league as the Dixie Chicks in terms of musical popularity, he is one of the most high-profile celebrity voices on the right.
We only have to go back to last year to recall how some on the right were in an uproar because Common was invited to The White House. Although Common is mainstream, he isn't in the same league as say Jay-Z or Eminem when it comes to popularity/name recognition. In fact, many on the right had no idea who Common was before the controversy started. That became very clear when they portrayed him as a dangerous thug who condones cop killing.
Compare that to how the left has reacted to criticisms of President Obama by celebs who are household names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fonda#Politics
How about Jon Voight's comments about President Obama?
The left didn't pick up their proverbial pitchforks and torches and go after these celebs. Actually, these criticisms made barely a ripple. As for Scott Baio, I think the reason his comments about the First Lady didn't make a huge splash is because most people saw it for what it was... not a big deal at all.
Also, Natalie Maines' comment about Bush were fairly innocuous. They certainly weren't anything that warranted the overreaction of the right. What happened to them went beyond simple protesting.
When it comes to celebs, most on the right subscribe to the "shut up and sing" policy (unless it's someone on their side). However, the left generally doesn't overreact over this stuff.
By the way, don't you EVER downplay the popularity of Scott Baio! The man who brought us Charles "Chachi" Arcola is one of our greatest thespians and he is still beloved by millions... I say MILLIONS of people!!
Sure, it’s a “popularity argument.” I don’t know how else to approach it if you’re not going to go on popularity when you’re talking about someone or something so incredibly popular.
Roseanne Barr is much more on Ted Nugent’s level in terms of equivalency. That's a 1:1 to use.
The Dixie Chicks were treated absolutely horrifically. And, yes, they were bashed primarily by those who would be considered right wing. But they were also country music’s equivalent of The Beatles. And there was also a huge turf war aspect of it with Toby Keith driving a lot of the criticism.
The Chicks are the exception with any argument. If they weren’t, every schmuck celebrity to say something stupid would face the Chicks’ fate. They obviously do not. Popularity plays an extremely large part.
But I don’t see how it has any traction. The right doesn’t do what happened to the Chicks on the reg either. They’re an exception across the board.
There have been numerous out in the open death threats levied at President Bush. Joe Apraio deals with death threats constantly. The FreedomWorks organization received so many death threats that they had to shut up shop and move. Palin and her family have obviously been treated horrifically with death threats and the nine (that’s closer to the Chicks than Nugent). The Koch Brothers’ death threats have been ignored for years.
Ever seen an anti-charter school protest or a pro-union protest? Nasty. Destructive. Chaotic.
So, okay, the Dixie Chicks drew a hell of a lot more criticism than Ted Nugent. Boy, you got me there! I guess that proves that the left isn’t exactly like the right in terms of its asshole segment.
I can agree with you on the persecution bit. Although I'd phrase it differently. But I don't buy for a second that there wouldn't be outcry if a righty were cast to play Michelle Obama. I just can't buy it. Although she isn't talked about nearly as much, Mrs. Obama is more beloved across the board than hubby. So she transcends anything that would be "Hollywood."
No one would meet the Dixie Chicks' fate. I haven't seen that since it happened. I hadn't seen that before it happened. But I guarantee equal outrage to Fonda as Reagan. And one day we might find out.
The left is every bit as nasty and intolerant as the right. Not so for every single comparison one could make down the list. But variables have to be included. One of the most glaring: It's the Dixie Chicks.
As far as Scott Baio goes, he's in the hearts of rerun lovers everywhere. And by everywhere I mean probably nowhere.
Josh: We'll just have to agree to disagree on the role popularity plays in how the public reacts to a celebrity-related political controversy. The left has its share of crazies, but I think the right takes it to a whole new dangerous level when it comes to celebs making controversial comments. The only thing that comes close to the Dixie Chicks controversy was the backlash the Beatles faced after John Lennon made his comments about Christianity in 1966. There were death threats, the public destruction of Beatle records/memorabilia, etc. And who was the driving force behind the Beatles backlash? Social conservatives/the religious right.
We are talking about the fallout celebs can suffer because of their politics. Bringing up the fact that Bush, Palin, and other conservative non-celebs have received death threats or the behavior at anti-charter school/pro-union protests muddies up the issue. I could go into details on the large increase in the number of death threats President Obama received vs. that of his predecessors or how the right-wing reacted during the health care debate, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Although I'm not condoning criminal or unruly behavior as a reaction to a politician's views or policy-related issues such as unions and healthcare, I can at least understand the passion which feeds it. These are things which can actually have an effect on people's lives. However, I don't understand why anyone would start foaming at the mouth and take to the streets over a harmless comment made by an entertainer no matter how popular they are.
I won't bother picking apart your assertion that the Dixie Chicks are the most popular country group in history since popularity can be a relative term. However, I will say that the band Alabama might have something to say about your claim. :-)
As for Nugent not being the primary lead singer on his tunes, I don't think that should be used against him. Other prominent band leaders have employed this same practice. The legacies of Nugent, Carlos Santana, Jeff Beck, Sergio Mendes et al. shouldn't be diminished just because they weren't the primary lead vocalist on their records.
By the way, please tell me you know my defense of Scott Baio was done in jest.
Well, to be fair, you are talking about specifically celebrities. I'm talking about political royalty -- women who transcend mere "celebrity"; i.e. Mrs. Reagan and Mrs. Obama. And, of course, Jane Fonda also isn't the typical celebrity. She's a political activist.
My only point was that there’d be equal outcry to the Fonda/Reagan situation, not the Dixie Chicks. Fonda has dealt with a few blowhards and some Tweets. Hardly a widespread movement.
I don't disagree with you that the right treats celebrities more viciously than the left does. With the constant attacks on charter schools and Fox News and free speech at universities, etc, vs. attacks on abortion and free healthcare, etc, the left and right, by and large, have much different priorities.
And I think it's a very valid point that the Dixie Chicks treatment is totally the exception and not the rule, all ideology and status aside. Very, very, very few are treated like that.
As for the right's propensity for bashing celebrities, you alluded to it yourself when claiming that my little buddy Uncle Ted is one of the most popular right-wing celebrities: The right hardly has any celebrities! LOL ... So beating up on Hollywood is something the right does more often than the left. The left doesn't need to. Practically everyone stays on the reservation.
My point with pointing out unruly behavior was that the right and left can be equally nasty in general in what they target. Maybe not equally nasty for all things down the line. Ideologies are different, so it's obvious that different things bear the brunt.
But the reason some on the right are upset about the Fonda/Reagan bit is because it's Nancy Reagan. I don't recall a peep out of them when Fonda was cast in Georgia Rule. No foaming at the mouth. No protests. No boycotts. This is much more about Nancy Reagan than Jane Fonda.
And my prediction is that it won't be about Hollywood or whatever else were the shoe to be on the other foot. It would be about Michelle Obama (or the left's equivalent of Nancy Reagan).
To Nugent: No, I certainly don't hold that against him. But his popularity isn't even close to the Dixie Chicks' popularity. (With me personally it is. I'm a classic rock guy before country pop all day.) I mean, you have to know someone has said something before you can react to it.
As with my Cage vs. Eminem example: Two guys saying the same shit, but only one has created controversy and been protested. Did the pro-gay contingent (or whatever one would call it) play favorites? Of course not. Popularity was 100% the deciding factor.
I'm also an Alabama fan and never could care less for the Dixie Chicks. So let me reframe it to say--to sidestep your immense love for quibbling--that they're the most popular country music group in MY history. Alabama was tapering off as I was growing up. And if you would like to quibble about Brooks & Dunn, maybe I'd have to say female group. And if you say The Judds we're gonna have a major misunderstanding!!!
As to your man-crush on Chachi -- you could do worse I reckon! (Yes, I realized you were just goofin'.)
Josh: "The right hardly has any celebrities!"
That's an old right-wing talking point. Other than playing into victimhood (Oh those dirty liberals outnumber us!), I don't know the purpose of this false meme.
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Celebritylist.htm
"This is much more about Nancy Reagan than Jane Fonda."
No argument there. If there was a Mt. Rushmore for First Ladies, I have no doubt that Nancy would be on it.
No one is arguing that the Dixie Chicks have a larger following than Ted Nugent's within the realm of music. However, don't sell Ted short when it comes to right-wing celebrity punditry. I think Ted's anti-Obama rhetoric is well-known across the political spectrum. I just believe it's a mindset that causes people on the right to go over the top (destruction, death threats, etc.) over things that aren't all that important in the greater scheme of things.
As for my so-called "quibbling", I wouldn't do it if you didn't have a habit of saying things that are questionable at best. It seemed as if you were overselling the Dixie Chicks and downplaying Ted Nugent (by comparing him to Gary Numan) to make your case.
Like I said, I wasn't going to make a big deal out of your claim that the Dixie Chicks are the most popular country group of all time. Hell, I even let slide something else you said earlier in this thread because it wasn't all that important.
If you still want to say it's a popularity argument, how would you explain the Common controversy last year? He's not an A-lister, but that didn't stop the right-wing from going after him.
Also, here's something else to think about. The term "Sister Souljah moment" is well known among those who follow politics. However, how many of these same people can name one Sister Souljah song without looking it up?
Wow. I honestly thought the right had way more than that! :( Honestly. That's far fewer than I had assumed.
And simply not being liberal, as the list warns, doesn't make one a right winger. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume every one clinches a Bible and totes a gun and hates the Dixie Chicks and is a TPer. And still that's a puny list. Why? Because that list assumes that everyone NOT on the list is lefty. And that means we're talking about 1000:1 left vs. right celebrities! LMFAO!
"If you still want to say it's a popularity argument, how would you explain the Common controversy last year? He's not an A-lister, but that didn't stop the right-wing from going after him."
But that's exactly my point, way before you brought up the Dixie Chicks. That was about Obama. Not Common. When Common started popping up in movies, nobody cared. So it's not about celebrities within a polarized political frame; it's about the politicians and politics!
(Good actor, BTW. Did you happen to see Hell on Wheels via AMC? Great show.)
So, hypothetically, if someone the left viewed in the same light as those on the right view Fonda shows up to play Mrs. Obama, there will be outcry because it will be about Mrs. Obama. Or choose another political royal from the left who is sacrosanct.
As to my overselling of the Dixie Chicks: I did amend my statement to say of my era and for a female group due to the quibble. Though at the time of the incident they were most certainly the most popular group! Their popularity was historic. Nobody was selling like they were. Nobody was gaining such popularity. That controversy happened at the height of their fame. The last I seen my Uncle Ted and music together was on VH1's Supergrounp where Sebastian Bach was F'n up Ted's guitar solo. But unimportant.
Ted’s a rock legend in my mind. But that’s me. That’s not little teeny boppers who go out and buy albums nor the morons who buy into celebrity hype who subsequently go out and crush them.
Whether he's a popular pundit for the right, I'll have to take your word. I don't know of many. Half the ones you bring up on this blog I've never heard of before.
Josh: I almost didn't include that link because I thought you'd take it to be all inclusive, which it is not. That's just one list. Over the years I've come across several of them and they aren't just repeating the same names over and over. The fact is that there are countless celebs whose political beliefs will never be known to the general public. Are they liberals or conservatives? Personally, I couldn't care less. You can LYMFAO all you want, but there are probably more conservative celebs than you think.
Earlier, you made the argument that it was about popularity. Now you say, "it's not about celebrities within a polarized political frame; it's about the politicians and politics!" That's OK. No need to explain. This back and forth about who is popular/who isn't has reached the point of boredom for me.
"I don't know of many. Half the ones you bring up on this blog I've never heard of before."
What really shocked me is that you had never heard of Michelle Malkin! She's one of the more popular right-wing pundits around. Perhaps a step below Ann Coulter on the fame ladder.
When it comes to right-wing celebrity punditry, it turns out that Fox "News" does serve a purpose. It provides a haven for people like Nugent, Stephen Baldwin, Victoria Jackson, et al. to spout their political views long after their entertainment careers have faded into the sunset.
And no, I haven't seen "Hell on Wheels".
No need to explain -- maybe. I feel I should since you're viewing two things as the same when I personally see them as different. I want to clarify why I feel the situations are different.
You introduced the Dixie Chicks vs. Ted Nugent and that then prompted my "popularity" response, as I felt that situation was a 180 to the Jane Fonda situation. Jane Fonda being on the hit list since my father was playing high school football.
The criticism Mr. Nugent faces is usually the same partisan bickering that any ordinary celebrity faces. Whether the right does more...I'll just say the right throws a hook whereas the left throws a jab if it'll get us to middle ground.
I asserted that the Dixie Chicks were undoubtedly a glaring exception and that they were treated so horrifically because of their immense popularity. Everyone knew who they were and everyone played it up. The left was pleased that they had an anti-Bush voice in a flyover camp. The right felt betrayed and slighted and ultimately incensed thanks to guys like Toby Keith pounding the drum.
That really went far past anything about Bush or politics and became a pop culture beating. How many of the CD-smashers do you think actually even knew what was said, where it was said or which one of the Chicks said it? It was a bandwagon deal; the same-thing-makes-you-laugh-makes-you-cry flow crashing into the ebb to reverse the polarity of the celebrity star.
And I contend that such a SNAFU would never happen unless you're dealing with extreme popularity.
Common's criticisms weren't protests and boycotts that I'm aware of. As far as I know, it was just the usual suspects via media (the Twitterverse and YouTube comments section, etc, notwithstanding) taking the opportunity to beat up on Obama.
Common ended up a casualty of dirty politics. The Dixie Chicks created a widespread controversy that went beyond politics. So I see them as being totally different.
And I've seen Ted Nugent on Fox one time. Or maybe it was CNN. The others you mention I haven't seen. But I don't watch much besides O'Reilly, John Stossel (he's on FBN) and Red Eye. Most of anything else I see via Fox is by way of YouTube clip. But I'll flip around occasionally to see one of Fox's super hot news chicks.
I know Ann Coulter! I actually found out about her via Bill Maher's show. I've since seen her arguing it out with Bill O.
(One thing I will say to end this: Fox's women are way hotter than the women on other channels! Do liberals have any dimes hiding in the camp? I can't catch 'em when I channel surf. That Robin what's-er-face on CNN is hot though.)
Josh (aka "Clarissa"): I knew you couldn't resist the urge to explain it all! :-)
For some lighthearted fun, would you like to write a guest post explaining how Fox's women are way hotter than the others on cable news?
I don't know what the point of talking to people is if when they misunderstand you, you just stop talking.
My guest post:
The "why": Maybe hot women want to be seen. Appearing on NBC/MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc, they might as well just be on radio. The same amount of people will see them.
The "how": Genetics, I assume.
I'm all for talking in order to straighten out misunderstandings. After days of going 'round and 'round though, it just gets to be pointless and silly.
As for your "guest post", I expected better.
Wow! I don't know much, but I think the universe thought we were paying too much attention to Ted.
He's been the lead on every single news channel I've turned it on. His story has been plastered all over the place. The Secret Server is up his ass.
It's not the Chicks, most definitely, but are you a little happier that folks finally got around to grilling Uncle Ted?
It's Friday now, so it has calmed down. But for the past two days it's been all Ted all the time.
Josh: "...but are you a little happier that folks finally got around to grilling Uncle Ted?"
If you're referring to the Secret Service then yes, I am glad they sat that clown down for questioning. As I alluded to in my 4/23 post, the reaction by the so-called liberal media and liberals is in marked contrast to how the other side reacted to the Dixie Chicks controversy.
I guess being a traitor to your country would come under the heading of being a really good actress, right? Nobody I know has ever criticized her acting ability......Only her ability to be a loyal US Citizen.....No acting skills involved.
If its "progressive" to celebrate Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan, then I'm glad to not be a "Progressive". You said she apologized? How does one apologize for taking little papers with their social security #'s from American POW's that were MIA's (meaning their families didn't know for years that they were still alive) and then your hero Jane Fonda took those papers that they had palmed her, and turned them into the POW enemy Camp Commander who beat the men to death. How do you apologize for that? How do YOU get off with saying that she apologized. Did she do something to help the families of the men she helped to have beaten and tortured to death? Did she support their fatherless children? Jane Fonda sucks. YOU suck for being so insensitive in your "Progressive-ism".
ChrisFromCincinnati
Chris: You need to keep up because Jane never did what you accused her of doing:
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/blame-jane-falsehoods/
By all means, feel free to stop by again. However, you gotta come stronger next time kid.
Post a Comment