Posted on 12/09/2008 10:12:12 AM PST by dbz77
Just because you can, does not mean you should. Look, as conservatives or Republicans, we truly do get the point that much of Hollywood despises us or the ideology they have convinced themselves we blindly follow.
For the last two decades or so, they have channeled much of that anger into films that have bashed Richard Nixon or George W. Bush. And now, purely because he can, director Ron Howard and his team are giving us "Frost/Nixon." A feel-good film for liberals that once again, in case you missed the plethora of earlier offerings, trumpets the evils of President Richard Nixon and his particular band of henchmen.
Recently, here in Washington, Mr. Howard offered up a screening of the film at the headquarters of the National Geographic Society before a mostly left-leaning audience. Unfortunately for the filmmaker and those in attendance who really can't stand Mr. Nixon or President George W. Bush, a fly in the ointment appeared in the guise of Chris Wallace from Fox News. Now, even though an independent study by Pew demonstrates that Fox News, by far, is the most balanced of the networks, all on the left loudly proclaim it to be nothing more than a tool of the Bush administration.
Understanding that hostile perception, Mr. Wallace, as he himself has described in interviews, could stand it no more and decided to challenge the liberal panel of Mr. Howard, screenwriter Peter Morgan, James Reston Jr., and "Historian" Robert Dallek. During the question and answer session after the screening, what most set off Mr. Wallace was a pronouncement by Mr. Reston (the son of the New York Times columnist and openly Nixon hating former researcher for Frost) that the film was "a metaphor for George W. Bush."
As he has stated, against the pleas of his wife to remain silent, Mr. Wallace asked for a microphone to refute what he believed to be a ridiculous and biased statement. "To compare George W. Bush to Richard Nixon is to trivialize Nixon's crimes and is a disservice to Bush," said Mr. Wallace. "Richard Nixon's crimes were committed solely for his own political gain, whereas George W. Bush was trying to protect the American people." Mr. Wallace then reminded the panel that Mr. Bush must have done something right after 9/11 as, over seven years later, "we are all sitting here tonight so comfortably."
Therein lies a very important point. For much of the left, it's imperative to their narrative that they never admit Mr. Bush has done anything right. While they have taken him to task time and again for "never admitting his mistakes," the irony is lost on them that they can't admit to his successes. Even those that protect them and their loved ones.
As if to underline the loathing of Mr. Bush and the denial of any of his success, "Historian" Mr. Dallek predictably suggested to Mr. Wallace that while, thanks to the Watergate tapes, Mr. Nixon's crimes were well documented, we would have to wait until such documentation on Mr. Bush emerged before his sins would become more apparent. Mr. Wallace again became frustrated that a "historian" would utter such an ignorant and biased statement and said, "You make suppositions on no facts whatsoever." To which Mr. Dallek incredulously replied, "Do you read The New York Times?"
As one who spent three years working in a joint command in the Pentagon with a top secret clearance, and with the full knowledge that the American people -- and that includes the powers that be in Hollywood -- are not privy to the vast amount of information or intelligence used to protect them, I'd like to pose a very probable scenario to Messrs. Howard, Morgan, Reston, and Dallek: What if, based on up-to-the-minute intelligence contained in the President's Daily Briefing (the PDB), President Barack Obama is confronted with horrific information that the candidate Obama never saw, and decides --purely in the national security interests of our nation -- to keep in place some of the policies of the hated Mr. Bush? What critical movie, biased historical supposition, or slanted screenplay will they offer up in criticism of Mr. Obama? For that matter, what critical movies of any presidents other than Messrs. Nixon and Bush, would the panel consider? Surely Mr. Dallek knows that unbiased history tells us that President Lyndon Johnson abused his office and power.
In the last several years, Hollywood has produced a number of money-losing failures aimed at Mr. Bush. It is the right of those investors, screenwriters, producers and directors to make films that the vast majority of Americans choose not to see. Just as it is Mr. Howard's right to make yet another film demonizing Mr. Nixon.
At what point however, does Hollywood let their irrational and often factually inaccurate hatred for these two presidents go and move on? Obviously, they are not there yet.
Thats alright. Hollywood can do without my money.
Dopey Opie
If I were Chris Wallace, my rejoinder would have been, "So you agree that you make suppositions on no facts whatsoever?"
It’s what they do best. It’s not like they have moral quandaries getting in the way of a good hate.
The reverse is true too—we hate H’weird & we’re tired of the sicko movies being released with high-paid intellectually-challenged leftist demoncRAT idiots starring in them too. H’weird doesn’t get my money.
Thou Shalt Not Speak Against The Goodness Of The Obama, The Messiah, The One (piss be upon him).
I am so disappointed in Opi,
and very pleased with Chris Wallace.
The mear facts can never heal the wound that was made by Nixon having a life long success against the communist monolith. Without Nixon and others like him in the 50s and 60s, the world communist society could have been pleasantly implemented with the help of their primary international institution, the United Nations. Nixon was a terrible spoil sport.
Nixon was a liberal.
This is lost on all liberals and they will never admit he did anything good. The best I can do is never watch the film, keeping my pockets closed to such crap. I hope all Freepers will do the same.
Thats alright. Hollywood can do without my money.
And that is a very good point at that, too. The only reason that they exist is that WE, myself not included - I wait and go Redbox 3 months later - go stand in a line to see their crap at 7 bucks a head.
I’d gladly take Nixon now over the Obamessiah.
This is going to be another total box office flop. Nobody cares about Nixon anymore except the dwindling band of stuck in amber lefties.
I like her singing and when she was younger she was kinda hot but that vidjoe creeps me out
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
I was about 6 when Nixon agreed to have this interview with Frost. Why are conservatives mad about this movie being made? Was Nixon FORCED to do this interview and say what he did? Sometimes we get mad at unusual things. Facts are facts...No?
Nixon's intentions were not for his political gain. Can you imagine McGovern as the President of the U.S.?
Nixon was a cold warrior, fighting both foreign and domestic enemies and we could use one now.
“Nixon was a liberal”
Hmmmmm... that could be argued.
But there was a time when “anticommunist liberal” was not an oxymoron. All that changed in 1972 with the McGovernite takeover of the Dems party.
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.