Posted on 12/02/2008 11:37:36 AM PST by Postman
Ron Howard and his ilk have seen nothing yet. They will be witnesses to probably the worse kind of abuse of power we have ever witnessed once the Obama team takes over.
And you! Ron Howard were one of the idiots that voted for him.
Okay but I think this might be Ron maybe first serious role as young son of Betty Bacall
I don’t know anything about the Boston Phoenix.
Defending one person’s illicit activities by presenting another person’s illicit activities is no defense at all. It is possible that, yes, Bush has made fact finding difficult and his administration may have participated in illegal activities, but it is also possible that Obama’s people participated in some shady dealings as well. Neither discounts the other. Misdeeds should be judged on their own demerits. Obviously politicians do not exist in a vacuum, but it’s ok to criticize the president; some would say it’s the responsibility of the citizens to do so.
What worries me, however, is that a dramatization of actual events will overshadow the events themselves.
I saw the play Frost/Nixon and loved it. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the movie which stars the two Broadway leads. But I’ve also made it a point to purchase the DVD of the Frost Nixon Watergate Interviews so that I can see where liberties were taken for dramatic effect in the adaptation.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GZ6Q1K?ie=UTF8&tag=liberatienter-20
I encourage you all to do the same, rather than turning the discussion into a “my guy right or wrong” shouting match.
Bush is still in office. After he leaves office -and after thorough investigation- history will judge his legacy. By examining the past we gain insight for the present and recent past. The future is always only speculation.
“Bush is still in office. After he leaves office -and after thorough investigation- history will judge his legacy. By examining the past we gain insight for the present and recent past.”
Nice thought, and it is how things worked in the past. However, in these times history appears to be written by the academics who have undergone the radical education of the left. Will our children even be given a truthful and thoughtful analysis of history? I fear objectivity may be a thing of the past.
Why would I want to watch an agitprop dramatization of the Frost/Nixon interview when the original tapes still exist?
Welcome to FR btw
It’s an alternative weekly. Liberal in politics, and there is a dedicated section for sex ads. Other cities have some version of these papers (e.g. New Times/Village Voice media).
The Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” ....
The compensation package was raised for the Secretary of State under the last congress, of which Hillary was a member. Ergo it is unlawful for her to move directly from Congress to that particular cabinet office during her elected term in office.
I bet they ignore it. If they can ignore Obama’s birth certificate, they can ignore this.
Opey’s brain capacity is receding faster than his hairline.
“And you! Ron Howard were one of the idiots that voted for him.”
Not only voted for him. Propagandized for him.
A caller got through to Michael Medved about this. He’d denied ever hearing the charge and mocked “is she supposed to have been born abroad too?” (paraphrased) and his rejected the notion that there could be anything unconstitutional about it.
But at least it’s breaking into the media.
Regardless, the Dems better have an answer for this for it will come-up in Hillary’s confirmation hearings...
Thanks for the info. I had forgotten about that. and Im sure you’re right... if they don’t care about O’s citizen ship eligibility for President, they won’t think twice about Hillery taking an office she voted a pay raise for. I wonder if any of the dullards in the media have been informed of her ineligibility.
I know I saw it. It was probably one of the worse ad’s I have ever seen.
Well... so much for watching the Andy Griffith Show re-runs on cable.
Howard is a dumb ass. If Bush had done something that the democrats could have gone after him for they would have. And that’s all that little bald headed dweeb needs to know.
I was defending nothing. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of their actions.
“The Lewinsky scandal showed the pattern of abuse throughout the Clinton administration.”
Exactly. Somehow libs miss the fact that Clinton was guilty of exactly the same thing as Nixon, obstruction of justice. Only Clinton was absolutely protecting himself from an underlying offense (a civil offense, against Paula Jones), whereas who knows what Nixon was protecting concerning the Watergate breakin, aside from his public image. The media still hasn’t convinced me that they know what the hell happened with the breakin. I’ve read convincing arguments that it could have been John Dean’s idea.
Anyway, my point is because of Nixon’s defense of a meaningless crime I have to sit through movie trailers with characters talking about democracy being at stake, whereas I’ll almost certainly never, ever have to sit through a Clinton movie that isn’t a thinly vieled love letter (like “The American President,” “The Contender,” or “Primary Colors”). Methinks Nixon’s problem was that he was smart enough to see the imperial nature of the president for what it was, whereas the rest of them (Bush included) hide behind false humility.
“Nixon’s abuses pale in comparison to the REAL pros like Clinton, Kennedy and Johnson...”
Don’t forget FDR and Wilson (shudder), not to mention dear, old Honest Abe.
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.