Posted on 07/23/2008 7:29:51 AM PDT by AJKauf
Who would have guessed that the latest Batman movie would have a conservative point of view?
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Saw it last night... awesome movie.
Going tonight
I thought it was a great movie.
It is about 2.5 hours long.
But it was so fast paced most of the time, I didn’t even realize it!
Well, that would explain the real reason behind the
liberal bed-wetting about it:
“Is “The Dark Knight” for kids?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2049053/posts
I haven’t seen it (and it may well be unsuited to kids).
___________
I stopped sending money to Hollywood years ago.
“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
The Joker appears to be a Muslim terrorist. Just strikes me that the same theme could be applied to a well made movie about the war.
The Joker is a psychotic mercenary. He doesn’t really have any agenda except chaos.
AKA: Muslim terrorist(s)
saw it monday and will see it again tomorrow....
...we rented Vantage Point, I am Legend, No Country for old Men, and There will be Blood
..this movie is 100 times better than any of the above by lite years and Ledger’s performance was the best I’ve seen in a decade
“I haven’t seen it (and it may well be unsuited to kids).”
It’s PG-13 so you’re right, it’s not for kids.
I did too, one of our party of 6 fell asleep and the rest of us left wondering what all the hype was about.
Well, I wasn’t going, but I guess I’ll have to go now. However, reading the guy’s review, the instances he cites don’t SEEM to be very conservative at all. Care to elaborate?
Any in your party Batman fans?
I have it on excellent authority that the Joker was allowed to play himself while on work release from Arkham.
;)
The hero must not conceivably be Republican.
He is either a minority, or a she, or a fighting for some liberal cause, etc. The extent to which Hollywood violates this rule predicts the box office.
Batman, Spiderman, and even Bourne Identity all have white male heroes who do nothing to prove they are liberals. All have made a ton of money.
We all thought we were.
What is that crap about Morgan Freeman being opposed to using the latest cell phone tracking technology? I think he said something like “If you use this then I’m gonna resign.”
That was so liberal subtle, no one even noticed.
Still sounds like Hamas to me. I don't think they spend a wit of time thinking about running a new Caliphate, they are just consumed by the thrill of killing.
This is a terrible review. Its attempt to explain why the movie is conservative has me scratching my head. And trashing Spider-Man 2 because it has the flavor and predictability of...well, a silver-age comic book, is just silly.
Dark Knight is quite literally the greatest Comic Book movie ever made — better than Spiderman II, Superman Returns, X-Men 2, Spiderman, Batman Begins (my remaining top tier). Probably one of my all-time Top 10 — on par with Die Hard, and Raiders of the Lost Ark for greatest action movie of all time.
Heath Ledger’s Joker is on par with Terence Stamp’s General Zod (Superman II) — surpasses Nicholson’s Joker (Batman), Spacey’s Lex Luthor (Superman Returns), and Molina’s Doc Ock (Spiderman II). One of the great villains in movie history.
A truly great movie. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
H
>> I haven’t seen it (and it may well be unsuited to kids).
It’s pretty dark, but not at all graphic in its violence. The quantity/quality of violence is really no different from any of the Spiderman movies. I wouldn’t take a young kid to it — but a 9 or 10 year old boy should be fine.
H
Looking forward to seeing it. LOVE your tagline! I live north in Wilco, and I used to have a bumper sticker on my truck that read “SHUT UP HIPPY”. I would be driving down mopac, and see a granola driving his/her volvo, and pull up next to them, throw ‘em a rev, and then pull in front of them so they could read the sticker. LOVE IT!!!! Austin is a cool town, but MAN are there some NUTS living there!
Was this better than the last one? I caught “Batman Begins” the other night. It got a lot of great reviews, but it left me cold. All I saw was a lot of justice/ninja mumbo jumbo. And Batman was expressionless throughout the movie. I liked “Spiderman” I&II much better.
That was a great line, I forgot what his answer was when batman asked him what he did..
Can you quote that part too?
Seems like it was ‘cut their heads off’ of something.
>> What is that crap about Morgan Freeman being opposed to using the latest cell phone tracking technology? I think he said something like “If you use this then I’m gonna resign.”
That was so liberal subtle, no one even noticed.
Actually, he participated in the surveillance required to capture the Joker, because he apparently understood that this was a special threat. He threatened to resign if Wayne kept the technology for use beyond the Joker threat.
Seems analogous to the WOT to me. If more liberals had this much sense, we’d be better off.
H
Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties.
Well, there you go. This is obviously written not by a conservative, but a GWB Republican. Big, big difference. In the new Hannity world of conservative we must sacrifice all our liberties to defend our liberties from those who would deprive us of our liberties. In the real world conservatism means we should live according to a model of government in the opposite direction, and guided by principles of small limited powers restrained by the Constitution. Our liberties are the very foundation of that philosophy. The 2nd Amendment protects a liberty, and we conservatives insist that such cannot be sacrificed for a government's vision of safety and security. The reviewer would call this a liberal "and." Such is the new "conservative" movement.
This movie may actually be great. Maybe Heath Ledger finally learned to act. Maybe Christian Bale did too. The last Batman movie was completely without value, but perhaps this one is different. But, if it is anything like this review or the reviewer's ideas of conservative and liberal, I think I will wait and go to Hellboy II.
A friend told me NPR panned it - after I saw it, I knew why. The “don’t give in to terrorists” line made them sad.
When has Bale not been a good actor? He has been very good to outstanding in everything I have seen him in.
Ledger had just gotten away from the teen stuff like 10 Things I Hate About You when he died. I have not seen it, but by all accounts his performance in Brokeback Mountain was outstanding. Subject matter notwithstanding. It is sad we don’t get to see any more performances by him.
The movies touches on many themes. Batman is extreme but doesn't outright kill the Joker, implying he still constrained by a moral code. Further, Batman does agree to end wire tapping -- one extreme measure for an extreme circumstance. Batman's faith in law to prosecute criminals is still present but Two-Face, the attorney, gives up on the law which puts him into the Joker's camp. The semblance of justice is needed by society -- and Batman concedes this by allowing himself become the hounded criminal. If Batman is a metaphor for Bush, then Bush would have been willing to concede to terrorist's (the Joker) demands -- of turning himself in -- and would be willing to lie for the good of society: promoting and protecting Two-Face as a pillar of the law. This is where the movie loses me. It starts to give weight to the Democrat's argument that Bush is a liar. It probably makes all the actors happy at this point and appeases Hollywood's neurotic condemnation of Bush. The Joker for all his nihilism (as understood by Alfred) is really after power... no surprise. But Bush and Batman have to become the criminals as the law and Hollywood turn a blind eye on true criminals. Dark Knight but maybe a bright morning lays head.
I am actually from Houston, but I was born in Austin, and worked there for several months last year. My brother and best friend live there.
Its a nice enough city, but, outside of Berkeley, you’ll not find a greater concentration of complete fruitcakes. I recall walking to my car from my office at Fulbright & Jaworski downtown ... in the space of three blocks, I passed two homeless men in dresses, and two people riding unicycles. That city is a circus.
But, the rest of Texas appreciates having somewhere to store the wayward hippies that got lost on their San Francisco pilgrimage ... keeps the smell from spreading across the state. I’ve thought about marketing “Keep Austin Quarantined” bumper stickers. My brother would buy one.
H
>> If Batman is a metaphor for Bush, then Bush would have been willing to concede to terrorist’s (the Joker) demands — of turning himself in — and would be willing to lie for the good of society: promoting and protecting Two-Face as a pillar of the law.
Or you could see it as Batman voluntarily sacrificing his own popularity for the good of society ... something which is CERTAINLY analogous to Bush.
H
“I’ve thought about marketing “Keep Austin Quarantined” bumper stickers. My brother would buy one.”
so would I! I lived in Houston for 10 years, and my heart is still there. Grew up in Conroe, but spent my time in H-town on the west side.
>> When has Bale not been a good actor? He has been very good to outstanding in everything I have seen him in.
Loved 3:10 to Yuma (Bale and Crowe). I’ve not seen The Prestige, but I’ve heard good things (Bale and Jackman). Wife liked American Psycho.
>> Ledger had just gotten away from the teen stuff like 10 Things I Hate About You when he died. I have not seen it, but by all accounts his performance in Brokeback Mountain was outstanding. Subject matter notwithstanding. It is sad we don’t get to see any more performances by him.
Ledger was good in The Patriot. Liked A Knights Tale. The Joker will stand as his signature role, though ... even had he not died, I’d support an Oscar for this performance.
H
>> In the new Hannity world of conservative we must sacrifice all our liberties to defend our liberties from those who would deprive us of our liberties.
Nonsense. You’ve fallen for MSM tripe. Which liberties, exactly, have we been required to sacrifice? None. Certainly not “all” of them. If Hannity-conservatism were as fascist as you and the DU drones seem to think ... DU wouldn’t exist, protesters would be in jail, and Amy Goodman would’ve been hanged. The fact is, those that disagree with the government operate as freely as they did before Bush took office.
H
When Wayne asked Alfred how they caught that guy, Alfred replied, “We burned the forest down.”
I personally know the ‘remnant’ is in Austin too.
I think that anyone who claims “Dark Knight” is a metaphor for conservativism is stretching things a great deal. While there are some moments where Bruce Wayne/Batman acts in a manner consistant with conservative priciples (justice, the law, the fight against lawlessness and protection of the innocent), the movie as a whole was not a statement for conservativism.
I read the comics as a kid. I liked the picture because of its utter departure from the wisecracking, millionaire-Romeo, GQ poster boy caricature of the Batman character of the 90s-era films. Bruce Wayne was always a man with powerful personal demons, and an equally powerful drive to exorcise those demons. He was a dark, serious, flawed character, and this movie portrayed him as such. Likewise, the Joker was always more of an utter psychopath than a gangster, and this movie put the character in that light.
Christian Bale can act just fine; his first movie, “Empire of the Sun”, is coincidentally one of my favorites. Heath Ledger has made some mistakes as far as script acceptance is concerned, but his performance in “Dark knight” was spot-on.
>> I think that anyone who claims “Dark Knight” is a metaphor for conservativism is stretching things a great deal.
I’m not so sure. I think it is a fundamentally conservative movie. It is not a treatise on conservatism, but the fundamental assumptions of the movie are conservative ... and the heroes operate from a mindset that is right-leaning.
>> Bruce Wayne was always a man with powerful personal demons, and an equally powerful drive to exorcise those demons. He was a dark, serious, flawed character, and this movie portrayed him as such.
Is it not conservative to believe that we are all “flawed” characters with “powerful personal demons”? To my mind, that is a central tenet of conservatism and Christianity.
The point isn’t that Bruce Wayne is flawed, but that, unlike the Joker, he acknowledges his imperfections and uses them in self-sacrificing acts of heroism. He overcomes his demons, rather than succumbing to them. To me, he is no different than Jack Bauer — he knows his role, he knows his flaws, and he uses them as a drive to do good, to fight crime, to extinguish threats.
>> Likewise, the Joker was always more of an utter psychopath than a gangster, and this movie put the character in that light.
As are Islamic terrorist. The analogy still fits.
H
I agree that Batman and Bush are voluntarily sacrificing their popularity, I'm not sure how public deception and giving in to terrorist demands are a part of it for Bush. You made some great points on the Morgan Freeman character.
While there are some moments where Bruce Wayne/Batman acts in a manner consistant with conservative priciples (justice, the law, the fight against lawlessness and protection of the innocent), the movie as a whole was not a statement for conservativism.
I think there is a common association of law and order with conservatism, but I have always felt that this was overemphasized. Of course conservatives are for justice and law and order, but so are even moderately sensible liberals. I have known many, many democrats and I promise they get very angry regarding injustice and lawlesness. The caricature of the liberal actually celebrating riots and such is also overplayed.
My experience as a conservative is that at the center of the concept is a very clear understanding of the Constitution, which is founded on principles of smaller government. It is a basic philosphy founded on individual capabilities and not societal supports. It is only peripherally that it has developed a tendency to be strong on things like death penalties, harsher sentences and so on. What I call Law and Order Republicanism is not a central tenet of conservatism, but only an outgrowth which happens to be the most common.
In the sense, therefore, that this movie appears to only approach conservative ideals in a manner of presenting law and order and justice I would agree that it cannot be a statement for conservatism.
>> I’m not sure how public deception and giving in to terrorist demands are a part of it for Bush.
There is always a temptation to give into terrorist demands, even from conservative. There is always the hope that the terrorist will just go away if we buy him off. There is also the reality that he will not. We must resist the temptation — as Wayne does. Acknowledging the temptation is simply noting the difficult decisions that must be made to defeat true evil.
As for public deception — it isn’t a perfect allegory. This was the sacrifice Wayne made so that Gotham could have its hero ... so Gotham would never know that, in a small way, the Joker prevailed with regard to Dent. Self-sacrifice is conservative. Doing good without regard to who gets the credit is conservative. Believing in something larger than your own self-interest is conservative.
H
Nonsense. You’ve fallen for MSM tripe. Which liberties, exactly, have we been required to sacrifice?
Oh come on. The only "MSM" tripe I watch is that which is broadcast on Fox News, and whether you like it or not it is just as twisted these days as the rest of the lot. Just in a different way. And I didn't claim that we had sacrificed our liberties under Bush, but only that the new conservatives, like Hannity, have decided that doing so should be the "conservative" clarion call. How long can we afford to support that viewpoint before they start getting what they talk about?
I watch Hannity and his bunch fairly regularly. I often agree with him, certainly more often than Colmes et al. However, when he is wrong he is spectacularly wrong, and on core ideals of conservatism. This is a guy who supported the candidacy of Arnold, a gun control, gay marriage and abortion supporting liberal, and then Giuliani, another gun control, gay marriage and abortion supporting liberal. He is big government to the core. He is just for big government run by people like him so that he can reap the benefits of that government. And from what I can tell he represents the largest percentage of people who continue to label themselves as conservative. Because conservatism is no longer established on firm conservative principles it has become a fractured and confused philosophy without a solid center to balance on. This has allowed the liberals, much clearer and established in their socialistic beliefs, to be more effective in winning people to their message.
Just think back a few years, and you will surely recall the fight of the Republicans to win and so dismantle all those unnecessary, unconstitutional departments in Washington. Those like the Department of Education, which Bush expanded massively with his lovely, oh-so conservative, states' rights supporting No Child Left Behind Act. Constitutional? Of course not. Conservative? Absolutely not. And what did the "conservatives" say in response? They loved it. They cheered. Hannity and his group couldn't have been happier, and now every Republican runs on the record of that liberal garbage and emulates it. That is the new conservatism which these people, the writer of this review included, are embracing. Funny, but to me it bears a marked resemblance to something LBJ would have supported, but maybe he was secretly a conservative.
Now look again at this review and what I quoted from it with its "liberal 'and.'" What hogwash, and it is not even close to a reflection of real conservatism. Instead it presents this new "conservatism" founded on big government and sacrificing anything at all if it is for supposed security. It doesn't matter that liberties have been lost yet, but rather that these "conservatives," this writer and Hannity included, are calling for it. It is exactly in the very quote I used, "Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties." You can't have one without the other, and so the liberties must go. Sorry, but that is not my idea of either security or conservatism.
>> And I didn’t claim that we had sacrificed our liberties under Bush, but only that the new conservatives, like Hannity, have decided that doing so should be the “conservative” clarion call.
Actually — you said ...
“This is obviously written not by a conservative, but a GWB Republican. [...] In the new Hannity world of conservative we must sacrifice all our liberties to defend our liberties from those who would deprive us of our liberties.”
>> How long can we afford to support that viewpoint before they start getting what they talk about?
That is exactly the point. We don’t support that viewpoint. THEY (Hannity and GWB) don’t support that viewpoint. You’re arguing with a leftist caricature of conservatives ... a straw man constructed by liberals for an easy debate partner.
>> I watch Hannity [...] who supported the candidacy of Arnold, a gun control, gay marriage and abortion supporting liberal, and then Giuliani, another gun control, gay marriage and abortion supporting liberal. He is big government to the core. He is just for big government run by people like him so that he can reap the benefits of that government.
You caricature Hannity. He is right about ALL of the issues you just stated — he’s pro-life, he’s pro-gun, he’s anti-gay marriage, etc. He’s a small government, low taxes conservative. It just happens that, to him, national security is the most important issue ... and I’m not sure I blame him. He puts aside other issues when a question of national security arises. He’s not wrong on any of those issues, he just prioritizes differently than you do.
>> And from what I can tell he represents the largest percentage of people who continue to label themselves as conservative.
I’m not sure where you gathered that. Hannity is a mouthpiece, nothing more. He’s certainly not the brightest mind we have on the right — Limbaugh, Bork, Bennett and Levin are much smarter. He spouts talking points for the most part. Let’s not act as if Hannity is Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley here ... he has supporters, but he’s not really the guiding light of conservatism.
>> Because conservatism is no longer established on firm conservative principles it has become a fractured and confused philosophy without a solid center to balance on. This has allowed the liberals, much clearer and established in their socialistic beliefs, to be more effective in winning people to their message.
Not sure how that is Sean Hannity’s fault, or how it demonstrates that a large portion of conservatives are OK with sacrificing their liberties.
>> Instead it presents this new “conservatism” founded on big government and sacrificing anything at all if it is for supposed security.
No such conservatism exists. You’re blurring your arguments here. I will grant that there are big government Republicans (though I am unconvinced that Hannity is among them). But that there are Republicans willing to trample the Bill of Rights in the War on Terror is simply ridiculous. Conservatives are not in favor of sacrificing civil liberties in the War on Terrorism. Not Hannity. Not Bush. Not me. As a demonstration of that, I will note again that, in the conduct of the WOT, not one civil liberty has been sacrificed.
You’ve fallen for a leftist caricature of conservatism. The War on Terror can be conducted, and is being conducted, while respecting the civil liberties of the American people.
>> It doesn’t matter that liberties have been lost yet, but rather that these “conservatives,” this writer and Hannity included, are calling for it. It is exactly in the very quote I used, “Liberals live in a world of “and.” Full security and full civil liberties.” You can’t have one without the other, and so the liberties must go. Sorry, but that is not my idea of either security or conservatism.
I’m not clear that Hannity is calling for the sacrifice of civil liberties. And, I’ve honestly never heard of this blogger, so I couldn’t tell you whether he’s a fascist or not. Even if he is, I fail to see why you would assume he represents a significant part of the conservative movement.
H
>> Relax, and enjoy the movie.
I did.
H
You’ve never been to “The Peoples Republik of Bloomington” Indiana I gather?
Actually — you said ... “This is obviously written not by a conservative, but a GWB Republican. [...] In the new Hannity world of conservative we must sacrifice all our liberties to defend our liberties from those who would deprive us of our liberties.”
Please read it carefully. I am not saying that they have necessarily gotten what they want, but only that these so-called conservative pundits do want this, and so that is what people have taken to calling conservative. And a very good example of this is this review in which the writer defines a movie as conservative because it represents a view in which we cannot have liberty and security.
That is exactly the point. We don’t support that viewpoint. THEY (Hannity and GWB) don’t support that viewpoint. You’re arguing with a leftist caricature of conservatives ... a straw man constructed by liberals for an easy debate partner.
I disagree. Hannity most certainly does believe in an America in which we should sacrifice our liberties for security. He has pounded that drum again and again, and I have heard and seen him do it. He has harangued the left again and again for criticizing the President for supporting things like what they call "warrantless wiretaps" not because they are not warrantless or some such, but specifically because they fail to realistically understand that in this post-911 world we must be willing to make sacrifices to our individual liberties to attain security.
You caricature Hannity. He is right about ALL of the issues you just stated — he’s pro-life, he’s pro-gun, he’s anti-gay marriage, etc. He’s a small government, low taxes conservative. It just happens that, to him, national security is the most important issue ... and I’m not sure I blame him. He puts aside other issues when a question of national security arises. He’s not wrong on any of those issues, he just prioritizes differently than you do.
Yes, he does. And just as you say, he puts national security ahead of liberties. Which means what? Just what I have said above, and what you call a caricature. It is not a caricature, it is what he is. For some that is fine. I don't even mind what he is. I just disagree is all. But, and this is important, you cannot simply redefine a position and call it conservative. You cannot, as GWB did, say that education is more important than the Constitution or conservative values, and that big federal government control of this absolutely in all ways states issue is so necessary that it not only will be done, but that we can actually call it conservative. You cannot be for federal control of states issues and call that conservative. You can call it Republican, as in the party, but not conservative.
Hannity is often right, as I have said. However, when he is wrong he is wrong on core conservative issues, belying his unconservative foundation. He agrees with much conservative thought because so often conservatives are law and order oriented. Hannity is very law and order. He is also morally to the right. However, he is not driven or defined by an overarching desire for smaller federal government or a very narrow and literal understanding of the Constitution. He will ape these positions when they suit him, but he will throw them aside as well. He will not throw aside law and order Republicanism, as this defines him. And while law and order Republicanism is a very pleasant bedfellow with conservatism it does not actually define conservatism. It is the opposite which is true.
Hannity is a mouthpiece, nothing more. He’s certainly not the brightest mind we have on the right — Limbaugh, Bork, Bennett and Levin are much smarter.
I agree here. And I am not saying, as you infer from my posts, that he is the cause of the drift in how so-called conservatives vote or feel, but he is a good proof. I say that because he is so popular, and he is very, very popular, he shows how strongly the right has aligned itself with this neo-conservative position. Traditional conservatism is finding a smaller and smaller portion of the right on its side. FR is a good example of this, and reading the posts here regularly show how prevalent the Hannity view has become among "conservatives."
Not sure how that is Sean Hannity’s fault, or how it demonstrates that a large portion of conservatives are OK with sacrificing their liberties.
Again, I don't know if it is Hannity's fault, though he certainly forwards his view and strengthens it. You do believe that the MSM has an impact don't you? Why? Because it has the air of legitimacy and a large audience, and so does Hannity. However, I am not even saying it is his fault, but only that his view is the commonly accepted view of Conservatism. Look at the review to see the caricature of conservatism there and you will see what I mean. That person clearly has such a view of what a conservative is.
No such conservatism exists. You’re blurring your arguments here. I will grant that there are big government Republicans (though I am unconvinced that Hannity is among them).
I am glad you recognize they exist. I think they are the largest bloc myself, but you may disagree. Hannity certainly gives every indication of being one since he defends and supports them. Arnold and Giuliani are good examples, and there are more. I will concede that he has been right on things, like his resistance to McCain, but he seems to be random on being right and wrong. I say this is because he is not defined or driven by conservative principles and so only lands right on occasion. I also say that his view is the most common I find among self-defined conservatives, and so I would suggest that this is a very common problem.
But that there are Republicans willing to trample the Bill of Rights in the War on Terror is simply ridiculous. Conservatives are not in favor of sacrificing civil liberties in the War on Terrorism. Not Hannity. Not Bush. Not me. As a demonstration of that, I will note again that, in the conduct of the WOT, not one civil liberty has been sacrificed.
I certainly won't conced that. Bush has used language which indicates a strong willingness to sacrifice liberties for security, and so has Hannity. Why wouldn't I believe them? I believe Obama when he says he will socialize healthcare.
And as for what has been sacrificed, that may or may not be depending on how some of these laws will be applied. I don't know if my phone has been tapped, my internet activity watched or my home searched without my knowledge. These things are possible by some assesments, though I may not believe everything I read about that. But, again, that is not my point. My point has been that when the writer of this article said that this movie was conservative he used a definition of conservative which is flawed. It itself is a caricature of conservative, not what I have said. And it has a following. I have met these people, spoken with them, and heard their ideas on the lips of many leaders and commentators from the right. This view is commonly called conservative, but it is not. True conservatism does not believe that liberties can be traded for security, which is the ridiculous wording used by this writer and which I disagreed with.
I’m not clear that Hannity is calling for the sacrifice of civil liberties. And, I’ve honestly never heard of this blogger, so I couldn’t tell you whether he’s a fascist or not. Even if he is, I fail to see why you would assume he represents a significant part of the conservative movement.
I don't know him either, but quoted his support for seeing this movie as conservative. He took a position which I have heard others take which accepts a view of conservatism as that which is willing to sacrifice liberty for security. It is in fact what he said, and cannot easily be denied. I believe this view is representative of a significant portion of the so called conservative movement because others use the same language. I see it often here on FR. It is common among people like O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage and so on.
Hey, maybe I am wrong. I hope I am. I hope this guy is just one guy, but if so why is there such a resistance on this conservative news site to my criticism of this comment? Why are so many here so willing to visit this well in attacking those on the left? Why do I not hear a loud voice in defense of the Constitution and liberty from the right anymore? If I am wrong, good. But, I see no evidence of it.
I loved the movie. Not the best this year, IMO (I think Wall-E was the best), because it seemed to be a bit long - not in a bad, I’m-so-bored-when-will-it-end sense, but about 2/3 of the way through you’re wondering how much more stuff can be crammed into 2 1/2 hours, and there were a couple ‘false endings’. But Ledger definitely deserves an Oscar for this one, as do a whole bunch of other people involved in the behind-the-scenes stuff. And, for the record, I loved him in 10 Things I Hate About you - it’s one of only a couple chick flicks that I have actually enjoyed.
Hannity certainly isn’t the best spokesman we could have for conservatism. He is like a jackhammer; he can pound away on certain talking points, but is not very creative in his arguments.
And yeah, Arnold is a terrible governor. Whatever his position on gay marriage is, any person even slightly right of center (or dead center) should oppose the hijacking of the issue by a few arrogant judges. Arnold has been worthless on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.