Shot In The Dark: Noonan on Clooney

March 09, 2006

Noonan on Clooney

George Clooney is Hollywood now. He is charming and beautiful and cool, but he is not Orson Welles. I know that's like saying of an artist that he's no Rembrandt, but bear with me because I have a point that I think is worth making.

Orson Welles was an artist. George Clooney is a fellow who read an article and now wants to tell us the truth, if we can handle it.

Clooney, of course, verges on metaphor; Babs Streisand and Janeane Garawful and Alec Baldwin and Eddie Vedder and for that matter Bruce Springsteen are all people of average intellect (if not accomplishment) who "read an article" and want to pass it on - if we're up to it.

There is, of course, a difference:

More important, Orson Welles had a canny respect for the audience while maintaining a difficult relationship with studio executives, whom he approached as if they were his intellectual and artistic inferiors. George Clooney has a canny respect for the Hollywood establishment, for its executives and agents, and treats his audience as if it were composed of his intellectual and artistic inferiors. (He is not alone in this. He is only this year's example.)

And because they are his inferiors, he must teach them. He must teach them about racial tolerance and speaking truth to power, etc. He must teach them to be brave. And so in his acceptance speech for best supporting actor the other night he instructed the audience about Hollywood's courage in making movies about AIDS, and recognizing the work of Hattie McDaniel with an Oscar.

Of course, Clooney spoke of Hollywood's "courage" in reinforcing an orthodoxy they always supported, for better or worse (and in some cases it is better, to the extent that Hollywood led the nation in mentioning AIDS and, it's worth mentioning, Communist infiltration (under Ronald Reagan's leadership of the SAG).

Other issues - islamofascism, the excessive power of government, and other less-fashionable issues? Not so much.

Posted by Mitch at March 9, 2006 07:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments

George Clooney is Julia Roberts with a penis.

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 09:10 AM

I'm curious what you thought of her last two paragraphs, Mitch, because they were my "hell yes" moment of the morning. Maybe I'll have to post that myself.

Posted by: kb at March 9, 2006 09:45 AM

Doh! Missed that in my early-morning dash!

Do it!

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 10:26 AM

Average accomplishment? Average? Bruce Springsteen and Barbara Streisand are average? Whoa, that's a pretty high bar.
So if you are pro war and anti environment, then you must be more intelligent. Damn, I expected more from you . . .

Posted by: jack at March 9, 2006 11:54 AM

Such a sad state of affairs for the Good Ol' US of A.

We need George Clooney and the Beastie Boys to do the job of the media and tell us that our leaders are lying to us and don't care about the average American.
We need overweight documentary film makers to remind America that we used to have the moral high ground, but we sold that down the river to FEEL safe (not be safe, mind you).

This is what happens when we turn our media over to the highest corporate bidder. They have no incentive to do something that is not in THEIR best interest.

Ridicule Clooney all you want. But somebody needs to speak the truth.

BTW, his acceptance speech at the Oscars was a great kick in the teeth to all these "Hollywood is out of touch" fakers.

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2006 12:08 PM

"Average accomplishment? Average? Bruce Springsteen and Barbara Streisand are average?"

Behold, the liberal mind in action.

I said "People of average intelligence, if not accomplishment". Since I specified nothing, there are two possibilities here: I'm saying that both have accomplished less than average, or more than average. Since a cursory read through this blog shows I'm a huge Springsteen fan, and any rational person knows that the whole list of people I named have accomplished much, what prodded you to think I was, in fact, saying exactly the opposite? \

"Ridicule Clooney all you want."

By your leave.

" But somebody needs to speak the truth."

Reporting for duty.

"BTW, his acceptance speech at the Oscars was a great kick in the teeth to all these "Hollywood is out of touch" fakers."

Kick in the teeth? I want a bottle of whatever you're drinking, lilfella.

It shows how RIGHT we are is saying they're out of touch. Question: After Hattie McDaniel, how long did it take for *another* black woman to be nominated?

Another Question: How, in any rational universe, can Israel become the villain in "Munich?"

Here's "speaking truth to power" - Clooney is a vacuous, Smug, self-satistfied buffoon. And anyone who bought that tripe at face value deserves what he gets from Hollywood.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 12:21 PM

Kermit gave us all a little too much information about his sexual fantasies: "Julia Roberts with a penis."

Posted by: angryclown at March 9, 2006 12:28 PM

It is an assumption. I have no actual proof.

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 12:39 PM

"Babs Streisand and Janeane Garawful and Alec Baldwin and Eddie Vedder and for that matter Bruce Springsteen are all people of average intellect"

That's a cute way to attempt to discredit people who stand against your agenda. Worse, people whose economic status would "normally" put them squarely in line with your agenda.
However, it is decidely untrue, and were they espousing opinions in line with your worldview, you'd embrace them with open arms.

I'm interested to know; if they are of "average intelligence and accomplishment", who are the intellectual giants in the "red states" that put the worst President ever into office...TWICE?

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 12:39 PM

"It is an assumption. I have no actual proof."

Above statment does nothing to refute the notion that it is Kermit's fantasy. Perhaps that's how "he" wants it.

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 12:42 PM

I think Clooney was agreeing with you. Hollywood is out of touch w/ America.

While Reagan (a very popular President w/ Americans. Many Americans wrongly still think he was a good President) was ignoring the AIDs epidemic, Hollywood led the fight to fund fighting this tragic disease.
While Americans still supported the states right to segregate black America, Hollywood led the fight to provide Civil Rights to black America.

I think where you and Clooney differ, is that he (rightly) thinks these things that Hollywood supported were for the good of this country.

"Out of touch" is akin to "liberal" in that those that shout "out of touch" and "liberal" think these are insults. They are actually a badge of honor.

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2006 12:42 PM

Might I add Hollywood was against this ridiculously disatrous Iraq war when most americans were still waving the flag and speaking from the revenge (against the wrong people) standpoint.

Now most Americans are against the Iraq War.

Hollywood leads again!!

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2006 12:47 PM

I love right-wingers who say that anyone from movies or music who speaks up against Bush should just keep their mouth shut becasue they don't know what they hell they are talking about. I mean, how could they? They're just actors and musicians.
Of course, if it's a right wing actor, it's not enough that they speak their mind, hell, they should be elected to office!
While I'm on the topic, how is that actors are told to keep their mouths shut yet anyone with a blog is apparently all-knowing. Well, right-wing bloggers at least.
Well, I'm not so sure of the level of intelligence of someone who goes around quoting blowhard Peggy Noonan's columns as though they were scripture. Of course, I'm just an idiot lefty from California so where do I get off speaking my mind.

Posted by: Bern at March 9, 2006 12:52 PM

KC blathered "I'm interested to know; if they are of "average intelligence and accomplishment", who are the intellectual giants in the "red states" that put the worst President ever into office...TWICE?"

You're wrong. Jimmy Carter didn't get reelected.
And I wasn't trying to refute anything. The Clown was just expressing his unusual affection for me.
From your post it seems that you and George share the same deficiency.

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 01:01 PM

"That's a cute way to attempt to discredit people who stand against your agenda."

No, it's a statement that none of them are geniuses (at least, not outside their vocational fields).

" Worse, people whose economic status would "normally" put them squarely in line with your agenda."

Um - huh?

You mean, rich Republicans like George Soros and Al Franken?

Wealth and conservatism are by no means synonymous. The reddest states - the rural west - are among the lowest-income.

Interesting statistic: In the Wellstone v. Coleman campaign, the average DFL donation was many, many times larger than the average GOP donation.

All your stereotypes belong me!

"were they espousing opinions in line with your worldview, you'd embrace them with open arms."

Gosh, and you expect me to violate human nature exactly why?

"I'm interested to know; if they are of "average intelligence and accomplishment",

Bzzzt - see above.

" who are the intellectual giants in the "red states" that put the worst President ever into office...TWICE?"

He's not the worst president ever; he's the second-best in the past thirty years.

"I think Clooney was agreeing with you. Hollywood is out of touch w/ America."

Yabbut Clooney thinks that's a good thing.

"While Reagan (a very popular President w/ Americans. Many Americans wrongly still think he was a good President)"

Two minute penalty: Grossly presumptive ofay assumption passed off as an aside.

Reagan's opponents snif and phumpher because he didn't play their game, but beat the crap out of them anyway.

Reagan, by any *rational* measure, was one of the best presidents ever - the most important, certainly, of the last 50 years. He had his flaws, and his administration wasn't perfect. But he was one of the two best presidents of the past century (along with FDR) and far outshone any contender since Roosevelt.

"was ignoring the AIDs epidemic, Hollywood led the fight to fund fighting this tragic disease."

Well, to be fair (I'll presume you have an interest in that, although I'm usually disappointed in that presumption) he had a few bigger fish to fry. AIDS was important, but not the biggest crisis to face this nation, certainly not at the height of the Cold War.

Reagan's own biographers admit that while Reagan was slow off "the mark" whatever that was) with AIDS, he realized his mistake and worked hard on rectifying it before the end of his administration.

"While Americans still supported the states right to segregate black America"

Including the mainstream of the Democrat party.

"Hollywood led the fight to provide Civil Rights to black America."

No, let's be realistic; "Hollywood" made movies. Certain directors and producers "led the fight".

"I think where you and Clooney differ, is that he (rightly) thinks these things that Hollywood supported were for the good of this country."

Oooh! Another ofay assumption! We'll return to that.

Where Clooney and I differ is that I (rightly) think that for everything that Hollywood occasionally gets right (AIDS, civil rights) they get much more wrong. It is a supremely cynical and self-referential place, and any good that comes out of "Hollywood" the institution is inseparaable from the good that comes from any art, anywhere, done by anyone with a human conscience.

As to your ofay assumption: I will wager I have spent more time, and risked more of my personal safety for that matter, on equality (for example)than you ever will, for all your snide, condescending little japes.

"Out of touch" is akin to "liberal" in that those that shout "out of touch" and "liberal" think these are insults. They are actually a badge of honor."

Which, like Clooney's speech, is a nice, smug bit of self-adulatory rationalization - which doesn't stand up well to real-world criticism.

Shall we talk about things where Hollywood's "out of touch"-ness was not honorable for a moment? Their silence on the post-1975 holocaust in Cambodia and Vietnam ("Killing Fields" was not a Hollywood production; sanctimony is not justified); Their absolute silence in general on Communist crimes against humanity, which killed tens of millions (the only movies about Stalin's Gulag came out of - Eastern Europe!); Hollywood's role in glamorizing dissipation (sex! Drugs! No consequences!) which is has been destroying our inner cities and causing vast public health consequences for decades; the failure of the compulsory public education system to educate urban blacks (Hollywood cranks out endless propaganda for a system that can NEVER succeed; their casual bigotry toward mainstream people of faith (of all colors)...

...that was about 45 seconds of typing. If I were to sit down and write the piece out, I could go on MUCH longer. Perhaps I will.

Suffice to say, the "badge of honor" in many ways is a badge of shame.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 01:06 PM

Hollywood leads again!!
---------
I suppose if your worldview is based on what you learn waiting at the grocery check-out, that's a reasonable conclusion.

In reality, talent is no substitute for intelligence, and George Clooney has neither. If that fact were otherwise, he wouldn't be grandstanding at the Oscars in one of the most dismal years Hollywood has ever produced and blaming the audience.

Into the valley of death rode the 600. And there's Georgie, leading the charge.

Posted by: Eracus at March 9, 2006 01:07 PM

Carter??

Ha Ha!

Reagan and Clinton were WAY worse Presidents than Carter. Of course that idiot, Carter, did think we need to move off oil--so what does he know?

I think KC wwas talking about GWB. In the race for worst President in the history of this country, GWB motored past his predecessors like they were going in reverse. Actually, like they were using the reverse thrusters of a 777.

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2006 01:08 PM

What, did I get a link from some moonbat site?

"I love right-wingers who say that anyone from movies or music who speaks up against Bush should just keep their mouth shut becasue they don't know what they hell they are talking about."

And I love liberals who trot out strawmen without thinking.

I never said ANYONE shouldn't speak. EVER. It'd be counterproductive; there's a lot of good material out there.

" I mean, how could they? They're just actors and musicians.
Of course, if it's a right wing actor, it's not enough that they speak their mind, hell, they should be elected to office!"

Um, OK...

"While I'm on the topic, how is that actors are told to keep their mouths shut yet anyone with a blog is apparently all-knowing. Well, right-wing bloggers at least."

I have no idea what you're talking about. Neither, I suppose, do you. I've never "told" actors anything. They are subject to the same First Amendment rights I have (although many of them begrudge me mine!).

As to all-knowing - against a "challenge" like this, it's hard not to seem that way, I guess...

"Well, I'm not so sure of the level of intelligence bla bla bla... Of course, I'm just an idiot lefty from California so where do I get off speaking my mind."

Well, what you ARE, it would seem, is a jagoff who dings at other peoples' intelligence, while tossing off facile slogans and strawment and showing relatively little actual acuity or insight of your own.

Does that help?

Posted by: mi9tch at March 9, 2006 01:14 PM

"George Clooney has neither"

Untrue. Clooney is a very talented actor. I have enjoyed much of his work; "Out of Sight" was one of my favorite movies of that particular year, and deserved a lot more box office than it got.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 01:16 PM

snif and phumpher? What are you, a walking thesaurus?

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 01:17 PM

"Reagan and Clinton were WAY worse Presidents than Carter."

Comments like that are so dumb they NEED no refutation.

"Actually, like they were using the reverse thrusters of a 777."

That'd be a great metaphor for the hot air that some of you moonbats are inflicting on this comment section today.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 01:18 PM

Peggy,

What have you become? Remember "What I saw at the Revolution?" There was passion and electricity in the woman who wrote that. Where'd she go? NOw it's just step lock ridicule and low blows (Garawful? That's phoning it in), it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, the book deals will keep coming, the pundit shows, the positioning. It's such shallow work for the big money. What do you think about seeling the house, the vacation home, the lexus, and getting back to work. I detest most republican thought - but there was a time where I wanted to know what Peggy wrote.

Posted by: Larry at March 9, 2006 01:18 PM

"(Garawful? That's phoning it in)"

Who's this? JB? Learned Foot? Sisyphus?

Hahahaha! You almost fooled me with your deft parody of deranged moonbat "writing".

Thinking "Garawful" was Noonan's writing - Hahahahaha!

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 01:21 PM

Robert, how old are you? You know nothing about Carter. We created this thing called The Misery Index during his ONE TERM. Yeah he was a real good president what with soaring inflation, high unemployment, impossible interest rates and his dutifully bending over for the Iranians to practice their favorite pastime.
He was a real Georgia peach.

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 01:22 PM

“In reality, talent is no substitute for intelligence, and George Clooney has neither. If that fact were otherwise, he wouldn't be grandstanding at the Oscars in one of the most dismal years Hollywood has ever produced and blaming the audience.”

I have to disagree somewhat – Serenity and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe were both excellent movies.

As far as good George Clooney movies – he was pretty good in The Peacemakers (one of the better techno-thrillers that didn’t have Tom Clancy involved) and From Dusk Till Dawn.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at March 9, 2006 01:42 PM

"From your post it seems that you and George share the same deficiency."

If by that you mean the lack of the ability or will to picture his penis on Julia Roberts, you're correct. I leave that to you.

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 01:53 PM

It's quite simple, Mitch. Your (and Peggy's) rant is just the latest about how actors are simpletons and know nothing about the "complex" topics of which they speak. Did you specifically call for them to be silenced? Not that I can tell but the "where do they get off - they're just actors/musicians??" talking point is one of your side's golden oldies. Yet every time the right has a chance to put a like-minded actor/celebrity in office, they'll jump at the chance.
Go ahead and reply with a "I never said that" when you know exactly the point I'm making -- you and Peggy (and all the others) are complete hypocrites on this issue.

Posted by: Bern at March 9, 2006 01:53 PM

"You mean, rich Republicans like George Soros and Al Franken?

Wealth and conservatism are by no means synonymous. The reddest states - the rural west - are among the lowest-income.

Interesting statistic: In the Wellstone v. Coleman campaign, the average DFL donation was many, many times larger than the average GOP donation."

You seem to have an excellent grasp on Minnesota politics, so I won't even address the last statement. But your disingenuous attempt to redirect my (implicit, albeit) statement on Bush's tax cuts, and the very wealthy to extremely wealthy (including actors in Hollywood) who gain disproportionately from said cuts, is simply a diversionary tactic. If the people in the "red states" really knew anything about the economic policies this President is pursuing, instead of focusing on wedge issues (conveniently trotted out right before every major election), Hollywood and "mainstream America" would be on the same page.

Why don't you clear the air here, Mitch and tell us all exactly what you DO think about Clooney and Hollywood, and how you think it is bad that they are supposedly "out of touch" with "mainstream" America.

Until then, your blog isn't worthy of another visit.

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 02:08 PM

Kermit,

Old enough not to fall for that "Reagan was a good President" BS.
President Cut and Run acted like a tough guy, but the proof is in the details.
Am I supposed to fall over myself because he unleashed the Marines on Granada?

Clinton, A.K.A. President Republican-lite, was responsible for that abomination known as the Immigration Act of 1996.

Carter believed in the best characteristics of what it is to be an American.

Are you blaming him for the Irani crisis? After Reagan cut a deal w/ the Irani terrorists, there was no way Carter was going to find a way to get them back.

True, Carter seems like he may have been a bit over his head as President.
Of course, I've seen people defending GWB for the same thing (and they gave him a 2nd term).

Point is, when we look back across this nation's history, Carter isn't in the same ballpark as GWB when it comes to being the worst President we've ever had.

The President should have some other positive trait beyond "he likes baseball".

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2006 02:12 PM

"It's quite simple, Mitch. Your (and Peggy's) rant is just the latest about how actors are simpletons and know nothing about the "complex" topics of which they speak."

No it's not.

It's pointing out where Clooney is wrong.

"Did you specifically call for them to be silenced? Not that I can tell but the "where do they get off - they're just actors/musicians??" talking point is one of your side's golden oldies."

So? And that is relevant to this post precisely how?

"Go ahead and reply with a "I never said that" when you know exactly the point I'm making -- you and Peggy (and all the others) are complete hypocrites on this issue."

Ah, the old "you know I'm right" gambit. Hard to beat that one.

"your disingenuous attempt to redirect my (implicit, albeit) statement on Bush's tax cuts, and the very wealthy to extremely wealthy (including actors in Hollywood) who gain disproportionately from said cuts, is simply a diversionary tactic."

No, the fact that you brought it up at all is a "diversionary tactic", and wrong to boot. The very wealthy are every bit as likely to be (and benfit from being) left of center as to the right.

" If the people in the "red states" really knew anything about the economic policies...Hollywood and "mainstream America" would be on the same page."

Ah. The old "Red Staters Is Dum" gambit. Hard to argue with that one, too. Sorta like the "N***ers is lazy" argument, really.

"Why don't you clear the air here, Mitch and tell us all exactly what you DO think about Clooney and Hollywood, and how you think it is bad that they are supposedly "out of touch" with "mainstream" America."

Er, there's about four years of material on the subject. Check under "Entertainment" and "Culture War" in my topic list.

Clooney is a fine actor who's done some excellent movies. I disagree with his politics, and can (and welcome the chance to) debate him point by point on the NARN show. Have his people call my people.

"Until then, your blog isn't worthy of another visit."

BUH-bye. Buh-bye. Buh-BYE.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 02:18 PM

Despite the fact that he couldn't manage to contain his lust to his heart, Bill Clinton was a far better President than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: the elder at March 9, 2006 02:24 PM

"No, the fact that you brought it up at all is a "diversionary tactic", and wrong to boot. The very wealthy are every bit as likely to be (and benfit from being) left of center as to the right."

Left or right of center here is irrelevant. My whole point is that the rich, very rich, and uber rich stand to gain disproportionately from Bush's tax cuts. In that regard, it would be in many celebrities' best interest to vote Republican (especially Bush), but they don't. I wonder why.

So in that vein, please provide some links to sources which prove how "being left of center" at this time, and opposing Bush's tax policies stands to benefit any wealthy people. For clarity's sake: show me how repealing Bush's tax cuts will directly help very wealthy individuals.

"Ah. The old "Red Staters Is Dum" gambit." You're great at putting words in others' mouths. Too bad all I was trying to say is that it would be in the best economic interest of most "red staters" to oppose Bush on his economic policy, but that during each and every election, wedge issues such as gay marraiage constitutional amendments, abortion, etc. are trotted out in those areas - Oh, and I live in one, thank you - so as to divert attention from any real policy debate. Again, very disingenuous.
As for debating Clooney on the "NARN" show, do you mean:
Northwest Animal Rights Network, Northern Alliance Radio Network, or those Narn dudes from Babylon 5?

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 02:30 PM

KC, I thought you weren't returning?

"In that regard, it would be in many celebrities' best interest to vote Republican (especially Bush), but they don't. I wonder why."

a) because when you're THAT rich, it really doesn't matter much
b) actors, stereotypically, don't become famous actors based on their fiscal skills or command of political philosophy.l

"So in that vein, please provide some links to sources which prove how "being left of center" at this time, and opposing Bush's tax policies stands to benefit any wealthy people."

For starters, most *really* wealthy people don't pay income tax at all; it's mostly dividend and capital gains.

" For clarity's sake: show me how repealing Bush's tax cuts will directly help very wealthy individuals."

You're arguing a strawman. I never said any such thing.

"You're great at putting words in others' mouths."

It's easy, when they came out in the first place!

"Too bad all I was trying to say is that it would be in the best economic interest of most "red staters" to oppose Bush on his economic policy, but that during each and every election, wedge issues such as gay marraiage constitutional amendments, abortion, etc. are trotted out in those areas - Oh, and I live in one, thank you - so as to divert attention from any real policy debate. Again, very disingenuous."

I live in a Blue state - but grew up in the reddest of the red (and am myself a very red person); prior to the 2000 convention, I wasn't especially a Bush supporter (I was for Forbes), and remain ambivalent about his spending...

...which isn't what concerns the blue staters, anyway.

"As for debating Clooney on the "NARN" show, do you mean:
Northwest Animal Rights Network, Northern Alliance Radio Network, or those Narn dudes from Babylon 5?"

I'll take on Clooney - or any Hollywood personality - in any of those fora. Although I have a little more clout with the radio network.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 02:42 PM

"For starters, most *really* wealthy people don't pay income tax at all; it's mostly dividend and capital gains." Right, and you think that somehow celebrities don't make the types of investments subject to dividend and capital gains taxes? Furthermore, weren't cuts on both of those taxes part of Bush's tax plan? I fail to see the distinction.
"because when you're THAT rich, it really doesn't matter much" I'd definitely agree with that, except that the people cheering the loudest for Bush's tax cuts are the greediest, richest SOB's out there, or those who are just plain uneducated on the fiscal consequences of said plan.
Ok, for entertainment purposes then please humor me:
"You're arguing a strawman. I never said any such thing."
Please show me a link to some legitimate source that shows standing "left of center" is economically beneficial.
"...and remain ambivalent about his spending...

...which isn't what concerns the blue staters, anyway."

Well, not exactly - it's his DEFECIT spending. Wouldn't you say that concerns Blue staters?
Iraq is the easy example here.

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 03:00 PM

We've apparently located the last Carter apologist in a thread about Hollywood. Savor the irony.

And excuse me? George Clooney is a talented actor? As compared to whom? Brad Pitt? Tom Cruise? George Clooney just plays George Clooney. If it weren't for his co-stars he'd still be on TV. He's just another pretty boy connected lip to leather with the Hollywood establishment. Paul Newman is a talented actor. Anthony Hopkins is a talented actor. Hell, even Sean Penn is a talented actor. When George Clooney can carry a role that suspends the disbelief you're just watching George Clooney in a hat or a cape or staying on message, he might show some real talent. But until then, he's just another pretty face who can read the cue cards.

George C. Scott was Patton. Al Pacino was Serpico. Gregory Peck was Atticus Finch. Clark Gable was Rhett Butler. And while Clooney is no dolt (he was great in O Brother Where Art Thou, The Perfect Storm, and One Fine Day) his talent is nowhere near the same caliber. Talented? Yes. But so are alot of people. If it weren't for his sex appeal and his moonbat credentials, he'd be just another actor who dropped out of college.

Posted by: Eracus at March 9, 2006 03:03 PM

Mitch,

I apologize about my POORLY formatted last post. Very hard to read; don't know what happened....

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 03:06 PM

huh?

"and am myself a very red person... and remain ambivalent about his spending..."

How can you, as a self described Republican, be only ambivalent about the level of spending at the Federal level?

I thought fiscal responsiblity was a main pillar of the Republican Party, but apparently neither party is too interested in that anymore...

Posted by: Fulcrum at March 9, 2006 03:12 PM

KC incorrectly suggested: "If by that you mean the lack of the ability or will to picture his penis on Julia Roberts, you're correct. I leave that to you."

What Kermit really meant was: "You are a dick with no balls."
Happy to clear that up for you.

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 03:40 PM

"What Kermit really meant was: "You are a dick with no balls."
Happy to clear that up for you."

What Kermit *really* meant:
So besides sharing a name with a little green dude who likes to sleep with pigs, Kermie also has a fascination with male genetalia, and permutations involving no gonads, and being located on a female.

Seek help.

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 03:49 PM

Robert,
"Old enough not to fall for that "Reagan was a good President" BS."

Right. twenty-something (pup)

"President Cut and Run acted like a tough guy, but the proof is in the details."

Like the continued existence of the USSR.

"Am I supposed to fall over myself because he unleashed the Marines on Granada?"

No, you should be thankful another island in the Caribean doesn't house nuclear weapons.

"Clinton, A.K.A. President Republican-lite, was responsible for that abomination known as the Immigration Act of 1996."

And the single largest tax increase in US history. He's all yours.

"Carter believed in the best characteristics of what it is to be an American."

Carter told us Americans that inflation, unemployment and malaise were our fault. We should get used to being a third world nation. Moron.

"Are you blaming him for the Irani crisis? After Reagan cut a deal w/ the Irani terrorists, there was no way Carter was going to find a way to get them back."

Yes. And who the hell are the Irani?

"True, Carter seems like he may have been a bit over his head as President.
Of course, I've seen people defending GWB for the same thing (and they gave him a 2nd term)."

Carter wasn't qualified to be mayor of Podunk. And GWB DID get a second term. Hurts, don't it?

"Point is, when we look back across this nation's history, Carter isn't in the same ballpark as GWB when it comes to being the worst President we've ever had."

For once we agree. Carter's pathetic ineptitude puts him so far back in the minors he isn't fit to shine GWB's shoes.

"The President should have some other positive trait beyond "he likes baseball".

Figures a DKos, DU, brain-dead lib like you wouldn't like baseball.
Did I call you a moron? I did. Good.

Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 03:53 PM

"Right. twenty-something (pup)" - probably more like 30 something, but details are lost on you. see below:
"Like the continued existence of the USSR." - Another right wing myth.

"Yes. And who the hell are the Irani?" - No response merited.
"No, you should be thankful another island in the Caribean doesn't house nuclear weapons." - Are you referring to the Cuban Missile Crisis? WTF?
"Figures a DKos, DU, brain-dead lib like you wouldn't like baseball." - ah, the capper. do you recall Robert ever saying HE doesn't like baseball? All's he said was that Bush's only mitigating characteristic is that he likes baseball. If I have to explain that, it's probably not worth it.

Posted by: KC at March 9, 2006 04:01 PM

Eddie Vedder average accomplishment? Please. Vedder has been telling the world what lying aristocratic scum the Bush family is since Bush Sr. While making music which I, amongst millions more, like. Other than finding your blahg on Salon.com, I don't know who the hell you are "Mitch." Your one accomplishment in life has been to bash people who dislike Bush.

It's sick. We have Bush Jr. and his cult following which refuse to believe that Bush can do any harm. Nope. He's entirely *perfect*. And if he has ethical problems, well so did Clinton. And because Clinton did it makes it all okay!

Let me just add that there is a massive fucking difference between a blowjob and the lying and gross negligence of the Iraq war.

It's time some of you reevaluate your core values and step away from the cult following for just a minute. Maybe read a book or two. Start with "Animal Farm" and proceed with "Escape from Freedom."

It seems the only requirement to being a "liberal" today is to be against Bush Jr. That's called "fascism" folks. Learn about it. Words have meaning beyond their emotional kneejerk value.

Posted by: tcx at March 9, 2006 04:41 PM

Kermit,

I love baseball.
The point was its the ONLY thing GWB has going for him on the positive side.

Unless of course you like his environmental, domestic, foreign, and economic policies.
All which have been disasters.
We'll be cleaning up after that deadbeat for years.

I see you don't want Americans living in a 3rd world country.
I'm glad you don't want to give King George the President for Life job.
President Anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.

I'd take Clinton as my President over GWB anyday. Warts and all.

In fact, I'd take a wart as President over GWB.

Tell me again why you think he's a good President, other than the "R" after his name.

BTW, the fact that you're one of those clowns who give Reagan credit for bringing down the USSR tells me everything I need to know about you.

Now run-off and recite more lies Rush told you.
BTW, do you know that Rush doesn't even believe the things he says?
It's called schtick.

Posted by: Robert at March 9, 2006 05:10 PM

Where's the snarky name calling for Eddie Vedder or Alec Baldwin.

Is your imagination THAT thin?

bok bok Chicken Hawks

Posted by: Lars Gruber at March 9, 2006 05:23 PM

I see the administration's supporters has gone from "Bush: Best. President. Ever." to "Bush: Somewhat Better than Carter."

Posted by: Tim at March 9, 2006 05:40 PM

I don't recall too many people ever saying that Bush was the best President ever. Reagan was better than Bush. Bush (either) better than Clinton. Clinton better than Carter.

Carter better than?

Geena Davis.

Posted by: the elder at March 9, 2006 06:24 PM

Geena Davis better than?

Peter Sellers.

Posted by: Tim at March 9, 2006 07:19 PM

"Hollywood led the fight to provide Civil Rights to black America."

Yes. That was Charlton Heston who marched with Dr. King and as President of the Screen Actors Guild introduced Dr. King to the leaders of Hollywood's technical unions which led to opening their ranks.

Those Hollywood days are long gone.

Posted by: Max at March 9, 2006 07:32 PM

"I don't recall too many people ever saying that Bush was the best President ever."

You certainly won't these days but there was a period (2002-November 2004) when a sizable chunk of the base, talk radio and right-wing blogs simply would not stand for any criticism of him what-so-ever. And then there's this:

"It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile." Powerline, July, 2005.

Posted by: Tim at March 9, 2006 07:33 PM

Peter Sellers.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room."

Great.

Posted by: Max at March 9, 2006 07:34 PM

Peggy Noonan is full of it. Yeah she wrote some nice speeches for the Gipper. Look at R.R.'s filmography not exactly overflowing with "intellectual" masterpieces. Although The Killers is a good one. Lee Marvin, Cassavetes, Angie Dickenson, what a cast!

What didn't you like about Syriana and Good Night?

I personally thought neither were ' "classics" but I think they were both very well made and interesting to watch. Both films gave viewers alot to chew over. Both films were better than 99% of the other crap so I think Clooney deserves some praise.

I actually felt Syrianna could be taken as a justification for Bush's policy.

Orsen Wells I think would have loved both films. Syriana has alot of parallels to Touch of Evil. and as a victim of the anti-Communist paranoia I'm sure he would have cheered Good Night.

Posted by: Eric at March 9, 2006 08:02 PM

Good Lord. Did someone post a link in the Special Ed room?

OK: For all of you with no reading comprehension - I said that Streisand, Baldwin, et al are people of average intelligence "...if not accomplishments" - meaning they've done a lot. I didn't think it was that opaque - but then, I don't suspect a lot of you read that carefully before commenting.

Oh, yeah - and Reagan WAS the best president of my lifetime, and I don't need anyone to tell me.

So kindly toddle off to your little fever swamp now.

Posted by: mitch at March 9, 2006 10:10 PM

"You certainly won't these days but there was a period (2002-November 2004) when a sizable chunk of the base, talk radio and right-wing blogs simply would not stand for any criticism of him what-so-ever."

Really? Cite please.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at March 9, 2006 10:32 PM

For those interested in counter-point to the current Hollywood "Commies are OK" meme, the testimony of Ronald Reagan before HUAC in 1947:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/documents/huac/reagan.html

Unlike Clooney, Reagan knew evil when he saw it.

Posted by: Terry at March 9, 2006 11:27 PM

Mitch, better call FEMA. Some unforecast hurricane has caused a liberal fever swamp to overtop your levees. I suspect they may soon breach, and it will ALL BE BUSH'S FAULT!

Defend Carter's presidency? I'm shocked the Dems want anything to do with the man. He singlehandedly jumpstarted the conservative movement and reenergized the GOP with his ineptness. If not for Carter the Democrats would still be running the country. Do you remember the shock of the mainstream media that there were actually "Reagan Democrats" and at how many there were? Reagan was a catalyst in the true sense in that he started a reaction in the body politic that is still ongoing, and if it weren't for Carter preparing the body politic so well Reagan's revolution may well have never happened.

Posted by: nerdbert at March 10, 2006 12:00 AM

I'd love to see the thread at the liberal fever swamp where all these moonbats came from.
"Hey, there's Bush-lovin wingnuts over at Shot In The Dark! Let's go do battle!"
Give me an Angryclown snark any day. At least he has a brain.

Posted by: Kermit at March 10, 2006 08:01 AM

Perhaps Peggy Noonan is Projecting

"And because they are his inferiors, he must teach them."

Ms. Noonan makes this interpretation up out of her imagination. Is Noonan's intellect any greater than Clooney's - I dont know, do you, does it matter?

What drives her need to pontificate in the WSJ - perhaps she feels the need to teach her inferiors? Perhaps Noonan's musing more accurately reflect her own approach.

Posted by: Catch 22 at March 10, 2006 08:28 AM

Peggy Noonan writes that George Clooney is a man of average intelligence that simply "read a book" before speaking about complicated political issues. I assume that Peggy would agree that this makes Clooney as qualified as President Bush to offer perspectives on such issues.

Posted by: Arthur at March 10, 2006 09:23 AM

It's hilarious to watch liberals and conservatives frothing with so much hatred of each other. I can't wait until they start killing each other, I can only hope. All the partisan hacks do nothing but point the finger at the other side. Moonbats and wingnuts. It's hard to get into any conversation without some assface shitting out a reality-ignoring talking point. Both sides do it, and it's pure entertainment.
I will say that I have no problem with artists who express their politics through art. But I never listen to them during campaign time. Nor do I listen to any msm, or political commercials, or keep political junk mail. It's all propoganda. Why would you believe any of it?
All politicians and presidents are corrupt. Do any of you think any of these people are actually working for you? They could give a shit about you. You are a pocket they can steal from. Putting your faith in Republicans and Democrats is fucking delusional. You deserve the inept and incompetence that pervail washington. This republic is in tatters, and a civil war in this country is becoming more of a possibityly, with the hatred americans have for each other. I hope by that time (maybe in fifty years or less), we have bombed the FCC so we can watch the civil war on TV. Pure fun. Nothing would please me more than to watch you bloggers, pundits, newspeople, politicians and other know-it-alls to go at it and massacre each other. The world would be better off without you.

Posted by: indo at March 10, 2006 09:26 AM

"What drives her need to pontificate in the WSJ"

It's her job?

" perhaps she feels the need to teach her inferiors?"

She is a commentator with vast exprience at politics, who has been near the center of current events for quite some time.

George Clooney is a celebrity.

" Perhaps Noonan's musing more accurately reflect her own approach."

That would seem to be a tad teleological.

Posted by: mitch at March 10, 2006 09:36 AM

pb is looking more and more intelligent as this thread drags on.

Posted by: Kermit at March 10, 2006 09:37 AM

Bush's Approval rating is at 37% (Ap/Ipsos), 7 in 10 think the country is on the wrong track, approval among Republicans falls from 82 to 74%, and you focus on George Clooney.

I think you may need to pick a different last name to worry about, and perhaps spend some time actually considering that Clooney may well have spoken for the majority of Americans.

But then again, considering you hate America as it is, it's not a surprise that you'd react with a knee-jerk indictment of a person widely respected as classy and defferential.

Whether what George Clooney said was wholly accurate is far less important than whether what George Bush says is wholly accurate. You all write him excuse check after excuse check when he bends the truth, distorts, misrepresents, or even outright lies (like when you try to say that saying the levees would be topped is so substantially different than breached that Bush's faux paus really wasn't a problem - don't worry about logic telling you that topping will likely lead to breaching (as it did in the lake front levee - or use general common sense to recognize that damns and levees typically suffer two forms of failure that are interelated - breaching/sublimation and destruction due to overflow) but NOW you want to assail Clooney for being passionate?

To say your position is a joke is insulting to clowns.

Posted by: pb at March 10, 2006 09:45 AM

what does average intellegence have to do with it? most people in congress have average (and sometimes less than average) intelligence.

anyway, everyone should have a say. democracy is supposed to involve everyone, from the poor to the rich, to cool and uncool, hollywood elite to the political elite, stupid and smart, republican, democrat, libertarian, christian, jew athiest, 18 year olds to 90 year olds. when are you people going to get that and stop excluding those who disagree with you?

george clooney has an opinion, just as you do. ronald reagan was an actor before he got into politics. don't forget that.

Posted by: yuh-uhuh! at March 10, 2006 09:56 AM

Three cheers for BELOW-average intelligence. You know, the kind of giftedness that leads to doing precisely what bin Laden hoped we'd do in response to 9-11 (invade Iraq and thereby make it the new al Qaeda haven).

You totalitarian morons still behind this catastrophe of a presidential administration are the Islamo-fascists' dream come true.

Posted by: Kevin Allison at March 10, 2006 11:52 AM

So, let me get this straight...Peggy Noonan wants to criticize George Clooney for having apparently "read an article," while simultaneously not being Orson Wells?

The only thing I can guess is that Noonan's deadline was coming up fast.

Yes, Clooney is no Orson Wells. Orson came from a different place and time, but I dare say he would have agreed with most of what Mr. Clooney had to say at the Oscars.

As for articles (and intelligence briefings), there's no shame in reading them, and I expect my President to that even though I did not vote for him.

Posted by: Chris at March 10, 2006 12:05 PM

BDS is a terrible thing.

Posted by: Kermit at March 10, 2006 12:15 PM

And George Bush is a freaking genius, right? Peggy Noonan, your intellect is so questionable, it's pathetic. Bruce Springsteen is a patriot and a poet. You, my dear, are, well, sadly misguided. Invoking Orson Wells is just silly. He would think you were a complete and utter moron.

Posted by: MSG at March 10, 2006 01:50 PM

"Babs Streisand and Janeane Garawful and Alec Baldwin and Eddie Vedder and for that matter Bruce Springsteen are all people of average intellect (if not accomplishment) who 'read an article' and want to pass it on - if we're up to it."

Just curious--how is that different from what you do?

Posted by: bemused at March 10, 2006 06:24 PM

A Bu sh suppo rter is by defini tion intelle ctually defic ient. Logic and rea lity cont inue to evade them. In a deb ate Cloo ney vs you, and a much louder but no more luc id degree, i'mh igh limb augh, chan gethesubject han nity, and sillyru dedude cou lter, Cloo ney is fav ored at 10-1 odds. funny how co wardly the fi l ter is on this board.

Posted by: pinky at March 10, 2006 10:01 PM

Indo,
I don't know if you're a man or a woman, and I don't care, but will you marry me? "Putting your faith in Republicans and Democrats is fucking delusional." God, that is so sexy! There is only one party in the United States and that's The Money Party, it just has two wings, left and right.

"Nothing would please me more than to watch you bloggers, pundits, newspeople, politicians and other know-it-alls to go at it and massacre each other. The world would be better off without you."

That is so incredibly hot! We could make mad, passionate love while the earth is cleansed of these scum. Diedrot, my hero..."Man will be free only when the last king (politician) is strangled on the entrails of the last priest (preacher, pundit, journalist).

Posted by: Balls at March 11, 2006 03:26 AM

There's no small bit of irony that Noonan trivializes the notion of "reading an article" when she writes all the time with the pomposity of expectation that each article she writes should close the book on whatever subject she flits to at the moment.

More ironic still that the right-wing blogosphere, that Great Giant Echo Chamber scatters Noonan's droppings to the far-flung corners of the internet with the message "just repeating what you've read doesn't make it any more true!".

You guys are gonna hurt yourselves.

Posted by: God of Biscuits at March 13, 2006 12:15 AM

It's always rough when Ronald Reagan's dreamy speech writer questions your seriousness. I guarantee you that if George Clooney were Julia Roberts, then Peggy Noonan would be a large wet spot.

Posted by: Blair Zarubick at March 13, 2006 09:40 AM

Dear Ms. Noonan,

Get those stars out of your eyes. Reagan is dead. Gone. History. You must move on. George Jr. is a nincompoop and a criminal. In the real world of the great unwashed, the consensus is that he needs to be stopped. Now. Are you able to grasp that? You do the American public a great disservice by espousing the Rovian agenda and regurgitating it. Please come into the light.

Posted by: nobrakes at March 13, 2006 10:16 AM

Nonsense. Republicans love to preach against Hollywood yet they went Hollywood in the 60's to get Ronnie to push their conservative agenda. What major political problem (war,the deficit, Dubai ports deal, etc.) can we blame on Hollywood?
Bush is in trouble because of Bush not Clooney or Babs.

Posted by: Tom at March 13, 2006 12:04 PM

"Nonsense. Republicans love to preach against Hollywood yet they went Hollywood in the 60's to get Ronnie to push their conservative agenda."

Um, Reagan came to us.

" What major political problem (war,the deficit, Dubai ports deal, etc.) can we blame on Hollywood?
Bush is in trouble because of Bush not Clooney or Babs."

Strawman. Nobody's blaming Bush's "problems" on Hollywood; merely criticizing Hollywood's self-adulatory hubris.

You know the difference, right?

Posted by: mitch at March 13, 2006 01:19 PM

Isn't there enough right wing hate-speech and propaganda being pumped out by clear and fox ? Does the person who started this topic feel that the views of unenlightened hate-mongers are not being properly represented by the corporate media and the corporate government ?

George Clooney stated that he is proud to work in an industry that often plays a significant, leading role in advancing societal justice.

Well, there's a reason for a right winger to knock a man down.

Character is a redeeming quality that right wingers lack and hate in the same vein that right wingers hate everything about America. When Reagan, Bush take over they immediately declare war on the Constitution, the environment, unions, the middle class and those in need of a helping hand up. Hateful, pitiful, sad, little people right wingers are.

Posted by: Lance at April 5, 2006 05:16 PM

Posted by: Clark Boggart at May 3, 2006 05:27 PM