blogspot
visitor
Bobby | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

bobby.jpg


Bye, Bye, American Pie

Bobby / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | November 27, 2006 | Comments (109)


Bobby is an almost impossibly sad film, and it’s not only because Robert F. Kennedy is fatally shot in the end. It’s not even because the film itself amounts to snippets of over-earnest hackery assembled by a writer/director (Emilio Estevez) who is in way over his head, or because people like Lindsay Lohan, Sharon Stone, and Demi Moore do not deserve to belong in a film with Bobby Kennedy’s Christian name for its title.

It’s sad because Bobby recalls a man, an era, and a sense of hopefulness in this country that hasn’t existed since Bobby Kennedy’s death and may never exist again — at least not the way things are going now. For people of my generation and after, “Bobby” is rarely referred to by his first name — mostly he’s Robert F. Kennedy, a celebrated figure in our history texts, someone with a populist message, a storied lineage, and an incontrovertible belief that all races should be treated equally. But it wasn’t until seeing the stock footage of RFK, interspersed within an otherwise unremarkable film, that I came to recognize the full measure of the man. And to then watch him die was heartbreaking on more levels than you can imagine.

I’m a Clinton man, myself. I grew up admiring him, both as governor of my state and later as President. The guy could, and still can, stir my patriotic fervor like nobody else — along with David Letterman, Bill Clinton is the only contemporary iconic figure that can arouse intensely personal feelings in me (and probably the only guy with enough charisma to compensate for his own failures, both as a person and a politician). Clinton may not have been able to bridge the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans, but he did successfully bring Black America and Liberal White America together in a way that mattered outside of voting booths. But it didn’t take more than 10 minutes of images and a few scraps of speeches from Bobby Kennedy for me to realize that even Bill Clinton has nothing on RFK. That man was the complete motherfucking package, something you realize the instant you see an old Midwestern farmer (a Midwestern farmer, people) get choked up because he got the honor of standing next to a Democrat, a vision that’s almost shocking in view of the current political landscape. I suspect there were a great number of people who didn’t care for Bobby Kennedy in 1968 (Sirhan Sirhan, southern racists, and fervent (Eugene) McCarthyites, not least among them), but it’s hard to believe that he couldn’t have somehow won over even his most ardent haters, given a few years in office.

And that’s what so impossibly sad about Bobby — the idea that, had he not been killed and if Nixon had not won the election of 1968, our country might’ve gone in a completely different direction. Politicians might still command a modicum of respect, intelligence and thoughtfulness would still be held in high regard, and that hope and compassion might actually have a place in today’s political world. Instead, elections now are nothing but glorified competitions for power with little or no veneer of concern for the actual constituents. Indeed, what’s apparent from the film is that Bobby never beat people over the head with rhetoric, never resorted to talking points, and never even raised his voice during his most impassioned speeches. But his tenor, his manner, and his soft-spoken words not only inspired people to believe that they mattered, even on an individual level, but that he actually gave a damn about them. And that’s something that can’t be said for many politicians — Democratic or Republican — in the last 30 years.

Nevertheless, there are not a lot of objectively positive things to say about Emilio Estevez’s feature project, outside of the 10 or 15 minutes that feature Bobby himself. It’s an almost incoherent string of thin, unimaginative plot lines, held together by enough unnecessary star wattage to light the SuperBowl. The plot, such as it is, concerns the many, many people who worked at, or were staying in, the Ambassador Hotel on the day that RFK was shot after winning the California primary. And unfortunately, up until the final minutes of the film, most of these people only had a very tenuous connection to the climactic finale — and even that connection is unimaginably strained.

But, let’s start at the top: Paul (William H. Macy) is the general manager of the hotel, married to Miriam (Sharon Stone), the hotel’s manicurist, and sleeping with one of the hotel’s switchboard operators, Angela (Heather Graham). One of Paul’s employees, Timmons (Christian Slater), is a racist who runs the kitchen, which staffed by mostly Hispanics, here represented by José (Freddy Rodriquez) — who is bitter because his racist boss has given him a double-shift, preventing him from catching a historic Dodgers game — and Miguel (Jacob Vargas), who feels that Hispanics are third-class citizens, oppressed not only by the whites but also by the second-class blacks. Fortuitously, the wise black man who makes an impeccable blueberry cobbler (Laurence Fishburne), puts Miguel in his place, so to speak, via the use of some not-so-subtle MLK vs. Malcolm X ideological interplay. Anthony Hopkins and Harry Belafonte play retired doormen who stick around the hotel because they have nothing better to do than play chess, reminisce about their lives, and kvetch about the maladies of old age.

Among the hotel’s occupants are a married couple, Samantha (Helen Hunt) and Jack (Martin Sheen), who are having minor marital difficulties stemming from Jack’s depression. Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore) is a washed-up, alcoholic singer (based loosely, I believe, on Rosemary Clooney) who is set to sing before Bobby takes the stage, and her put-upon husband (Emilio Estevez, who, in his 40s, bears a striking resemblance to his father) stands around to give Demi someone to over-act against (and you thought she was bad in G.I. Jane.) (Bobby also marks the reunion of Estevez and Moore, 21 years after St. Elmo’s Fire, which makes some of us feel really old). Diane (Lindsay Lohan) is staying at the hotel on the night she is set to marry William (Elijah Wood) in an effort to keep him out of Vietnam. And Fisher (Ashton Kutcher) is the hippie druggie who trips with two low-level campaign workers (Brian Geraghty and Shia Labeouf). The Kennedy campaign is run by Wade (Joshua Jackson) and Dwayne (Nick Cannon), who are charged with the get-out-the-vote operation and organizing the event. And for good measure, there’s a Czech reporter (Svetlana Metkina) who really wants an interview with Bobby Kennedy.

Believe it or not, Estevez does manage to tie all these loose plot strands into the Kennedy shooting, in a climax that is surprisingly affecting, given the modicum of interest or sympathy he manages to build for the characters in what little screen time they each have (most of the actors, save for Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and Sharon Stone, also turn in successful performances, especially Slater and Rodriquez). But then again, it’s hard not to feel a tad overwhelmed by the events onscreen when they concern the death of Bobby Kennedy, and while one of his more famous speeches (“On the Death of Martin Luther King”) is playing over the film’s concluding scenes.

In fact, it would take a ridiculously thoughtless and/or heartless person not to be moved by the final minutes of the film, and for all of Bobby’s faults, it’s hard not to appreciate Estevez’s efforts. Personally, I think that Estevez ought to be kept at least 100 yards away from any film that doesn’t concern Mighty Ducks, but the guy’s heart is definitely in the right place here. I just wish he hadn’t seen fit to pollute the film with the latest paparazzi fodder, which detracts from his already weak story — and it wouldn’t have killed him to cut two or five of the intersecting plotlines, which would’ve allowed him to focus more attention on the stronger ones, making the final minutes that much more potent.

Despite its numerable flaws, however, Bobby deserves to be seen, not necessarily as a quality piece of cinema, but as a reminder of RFK for older generations and a primer for the younger. I’d be hard-pressed to call it a fitting tribute to Bobby Kennedy, but it is remarkable in its ability to recall the magic and the emotion behind the man, and it will leave you walking out of the theater with an ache that may stick with you for days.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He is currently halfway through a three-year ‘sentence’ in upstate, NY, where he lives with his wife. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Deck the Halls | Adolescent Cartoons for a Post-Adolescent World





Comments

You mush. I'm surprised that a movie which should have otherwise received a really bad review fell under the protective umbrella of your obvious deference for the subject matter. Chink in the armor, eh Dustin?

Posted by: courtney at November 28, 2006 11:17 AM

I was nine years old when JFK was assassinated and that event broke my heart. I was fourteen when Bobby was killed and his death broke my spirit in ways that still affect me.


Bobby was going to be "our" Kennedy, the president who would go on to make Camelot a reality and lead us all into a bright and shining future. The death of Dr. King was a bitter, bitter blow but things were still going to be okay because we still had Bobby Kennedy. Following his murder and the nightmare years under the Nixon regime, I never again trusted government or believed as strongly in any other politician.

I hope that many, many people see this film and learn as much as they can about the man. I really hope that some of those who aspire to become president will watch it and understand what greatness is.

Posted by: Spender at November 28, 2006 11:20 AM

I'm fairly certain I'm in the minority here, but I will never be a fan of the Kennedys. As for the movie, it always looked too full of overblown celebrities rather than good thespians.

Posted by: The Stew at November 28, 2006 11:58 AM

Oh, thank God. Everytime I heard about Emilio Estevez's Bobby, I thought to myself: "How the hell has Estevez spontaneously leapt out of the washed-up 80s star pantheon to helm a film fit to bursting with current stars (some good, some laughable)? What's next -- Kerri Green and Corey Haim coming together to make a provocative (and inextricably well-financed) documentary about Brangelina's brood and all of its Bennetton-esque intimations?"

I have, after all, seen "Men and Work."

It does my Schadenfreude-y heart (in the midst of my post-film school malaise) good to know that, at least, he was "in way over his head."

Posted by: Stacy at November 28, 2006 12:21 PM

Mr. Rowles was not at all kind to Estevez or the movie itself. He said merely that the film - the actual Kennedy footage - evokes a time when we could still have hope for politicians and politics. I will likely not see the film unless it turns up on HBO but I can and do hope that younger generations will see it and be inspired by the man himself, not the well-meaning but poorly conceived movie.

Posted by: Spender at November 28, 2006 12:29 PM

Instead of this film, check out PBS' American Experience on RFK that ran last night. Brought me to tears several times and provided a much deeper understanding of the man.

Posted by: Ericca at November 28, 2006 12:35 PM

I was a mere kid when Robert Kennedy was killed; but although I didn't know the extent of it, I realized something Really Bad had happened.

My mom and dad took me out to watch as the rail car carrying his body went past (we were living in Maryland, outside of Baltimore.) The tracks were lined - sometimes 5 or 6 deep - for as far as I could see; and this was out in the middle of nowhere. Can you imagine that happening for anyone in politics today? I will see this movie, if only to remember.

Posted by: wildman at November 28, 2006 12:46 PM

Seems like too many distracting faces in a movie that doesn't have the sense to distinguish what matters (Kennedy was shot) from what doesn't (what the bellhop thought). I was not yet born when either John or Bobby Kennedy was assasinated, but am I cynical for thinking that their early deaths added immeasurably to their stature? While there was a certain undeniable charisma to each of them, early death has allowed each to become an empty vessel into which can be poured the hopes and dreams of generations of youthful (and no longer so youthful) idealists. Gone are all the messy compromises of actual governance, and human fallibility. Instead, we are left fantasizing an alternate history where peace, harmony, and brotherhood replace Vietnam, Watergate, and malaise. We are also that much more disgruntled when actual politics can't live up to our dream of what might have been. And real politics suffers.

Posted by: Curious George at November 28, 2006 12:59 PM

The Stew - You couldn't have said it any better. I'm with 100% on both counts.

Posted by: G40 at November 28, 2006 1:05 PM

At the time I was a senior in high school, my best friend and I had been stumping for Bobby Kennedy in Michigan, and we stayed up late to hear the news of the California primary. I went to sleep happy knowing Bobby had won only to awake in the morning and discover he had been assassinated. I felt crushed and dispirited, then came Nixon, and soon thereafter the Kent State shootings and I stayed away from politics for 25 years. Hope died that night.

Posted by: Sam at November 28, 2006 1:12 PM

"but am I cynical for thinking that their early deaths added immeasurably to their stature?"

Of course not. It's the martyr effect.

Posted by: Squarah at November 28, 2006 1:14 PM

"Clinton may not have been able to bridge the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans, but he did successfully bring Black America and Liberal White America together."

um... how hard was that to accomplish? Isn't that like bringing Pat Buchanan and racist white guys together? Or Paris Hilton and crabs together?

Posted by: James Blonde at November 28, 2006 1:27 PM

I'm not going to pick on you too much for being moved by an important figure in liberal democratic history, but why would it be surprising that a midwestern farmer would be moved to stand next to him? The whole "red state" thing is a relatively new occurrence. Look up the lists of state governors on Wikipedia and you will find that states like Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, all were solid democratic in that era, and other traditional midwestern states alternated regularly. I dunno, I'm just not sure it's a good example of him transcending political boundaries.

My other main gripe is with the notion (and it is a popular one, I grant) that the assassinations of the Kennedys and MLK were the end of the innocence for American politics. I think it seems that way because a significant portion of the population (and perhaps more importantly, the parents and teachers of the rising generation) came of age during that time. History gets a little candy-coated for kids when they're very young, but the evening news is the evening news, thus the understandable perception is that all was goodness and light before these sobering things happened and now there's no going back. This is of course malarkey. Political corruption is about five minutes younger than politics itself. Presidents were assassinated before Kennedy, elections were rigged, administrations were fraught with corruption. The Kennedys talked a good game; they must have, otherwise how would JFK get no blame when talk of Vietnam comes up? In fact generally parallels to Vietnam only crawl out of the woodwork when the Commander in Chief is Republican. I don't remember comparisons of Clinton to Hitler when he bombed Bosnia without UN approval.

My point in this is that it's all about perception. There are politicians who are better and worse at getting their visions across. There is an unavoidable slant to the media (it's impossible to completely remove your personal views from your coverage and more to the point which stories get airtime and how much; even if you're aiming for "the center," who picks it?). There are biases and opinions passed on or rebelled against between generations. As a result we're bound to give some politicians free passes and demonize others, and legitimately some are going to be more and less corrupt than others, but the idea that corruption was irreversably introduced into a virgin nation and hope crushed with the death of the Kennedys is a bit naive.

Posted by: Eep at November 28, 2006 1:31 PM

I saw this at a $4 matinee on Sunday thinking, stupidly, it would be another 'JFK'. It wasn't. Not even close.

I should have known that anything sporting Lindsay Lohan in the cast couldn't provide the kind of cinematic tribute/thought provoking movie I was looking for. Dustin is right, though, that the last few minutes are extremely effective and emotional. I just wish the whole movie could have been that powerful.

Posted by: Sue Well at November 28, 2006 1:38 PM

Why didn't they just take care of Ted too? Fuck.

I will say this about Bobby "tax-your-ass-into-oblivion" Kennedy: the guy had moxy.

Posted by: brutus at November 28, 2006 1:53 PM

Curious George, I think you are spot on correct. Certain people and times get romanticized in our collective memory.

Posted by: Elle at November 28, 2006 2:13 PM

"but why would it be surprising that a midwestern farmer would be moved to stand next to him? The whole "red state" thing is a relatively new occurrence."

Yeah, that's what I was going to point out. Until the neocons successfully convinced everyone that Republicans are the Party of God and Purity while Democrats are the Party of Sin and Hellfire, it wasn't unusual for farmers to vote democrat. It was sort of the norm.

A farmer supporting Bobby Kennedy is certainly shocking to us now, but history didn't start in the year 2000.

Posted by: that girl at November 28, 2006 2:25 PM

And I thought the religious right made bad propaganda films. Geez. Curious George, your evalutation is a bull's eye.

Posted by: Jenn at November 28, 2006 2:33 PM

While I appreciate the review and like your writing style, the political parts are fraught with inaccuracies.

Clinton didn't bring blacks and liberal whites together. Blacks were voting overwhelmingly Democrat since around the 1930s.

As Eep and That Girl have eloquently pointed out, Midwestern farmers were Democrats back in RFK's day.

The notion that innocence died with RFK and JFK is sweet and makes a good story, but it ignores the corruption and death that ran through US history. Was RFK's assassination really more stirring than the Trail of Tears? What about the Battle of Gettysberg, in which 51,000 Americans were killed by other Americans?

And RFK wasn't opposed by fervent McCarthyites. He was a fervent McCarthyite. His first government job was with the Department of Justice rooting out Soviet agents. His first Congressional appointment was when Senator Joe McCarthy appointed him as assistant counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He and McCarthy were friends, and they remained so throughout their careers.

I realize McCarthy is a bad word now, and now we think of the Soviet Union as a doddering empire filled with poverty. But people forget that the USSR was strong enough to take over half of Europe, and the Communist Party in America sought to violent overthrow of our democratic government. Innocent people were swept up in that conflict -- which is a tragedy -- but folks like JFK and RFK were right to oppose Communism because it posed a very real threat to our democracy.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at November 28, 2006 2:45 PM

And that's what so impossibly sad about Bobby -- the idea that, had he not been killed and if Nixon had not won the election of 1968, our country might've gone in a completely different direction.

Kennedy was a long way from winning his own party's nomination, let alone winning the Presidency. Nixon won largely on the fact that the country blamed the Democrats for Vietnam (JFK got us in, LBJ increased our involvement) and the social unrest in America. RFK had supported both his brother and LBJ's policies on Vietnam, although he'd recently changed his mind on those issues. So even if RFK won the Democratic nomination, he would have faced long odds in the Presidential election.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at November 28, 2006 3:12 PM

Wow... congrats to the folks here in taking sugarcoating liberals to task. There are some actual, well-spoken, bright young independent thinkers and others unafraid of speaking unpopular opinions, especially when it comes to the lionized Kennedy family who apparently can do no wrong ever. Bravo.

Posted by: I Am Never Wrong at November 28, 2006 3:21 PM

I'm suddenly embarassed that I didn't know more about the man. I'm 22 and have always known him- not through any initiatives of my own, but more in terms of cultural seepage- as the lesser Kennedy. Apparently, I was wrong. I think I'll check out the PBS documentary mentioned above before I see the film. As a young woman who voluntarily allows herself to be oversaturated with the goings-on in pop culture on a daily basis, I am also determined not to let my growing intolerance of all things Lohan stand in the way of what sounds like a relevant experience. Thanks for the review, and thanks for the tip on the PBS documentary.

Posted by: Becca at November 28, 2006 3:22 PM

The Comish, RFK was opposed by fervent Eugene McCarthyites, not Joe McCarthyites. Dustin pointed that out in his review.

I would also recommend the PBS 'American Experience' documentary.

Posted by: starburst at November 28, 2006 4:04 PM

When one grows up Irish (in Ireland) and Catholic, the Kennedys have more than mythic status, especially when one goes to the Smithsonian and sees the vitriol that was leveled against JFK when he was running. The WASPs really tried to terrify America into thinking that Catholics in power would mean the disintegration of America (for a more recent example, check out Bob Jones University)! Whatever the pluses and minuses of the Kennedy clan (and I think there are many on both sides of that column), they did represent the first breakthrough of a candidate from an ethnic group past the solild wall of WASPism that ran this country. It makes me weep to think that Irish-American Catholics are now voting Republican.

Posted by: Siobhan at November 28, 2006 4:30 PM

"It makes me weep to think that Irish-American Catholics are now voting Republican."

Siobhan, you're my girl - all excellent points. This is a subject of endless, endless speculation and misery for me and my in-laws (all Irish-American). I truly don't understand how Irish-Catholics allowed themselves to get frigging co-opted by the Christian Right.

Don't even get me started on the election year my Irish-Catholic, Massachusetts born-and-bred, 25-year-union-member father voted Republican. He's since been shamed out of it by my entire immediate family (he voted Democrat across-the-board in 2004).

My question is when people stopped voting against their own interests without even realizing it.

...but I digress ;).

Posted by: Samantha T at November 28, 2006 5:22 PM

Are you saying people of certain ethnicities should only vote for certain parties? You Americans are ridiculous. Parties change. Parties evolve. They can go backwards, forwards, up, down, and all around in what they purportedly stand for, the policies they bring in, and on how they sell themselves. Seriously, people, start voting for people based on what they are saying NOW--not based on what party you think you should be voting for, according to a party's historical affiliations/actions or who your grandma voted for, or what party your great-uncle Jim ran.

Posted by: ? at November 28, 2006 5:31 PM

"Wow... congrats to the folks here in taking sugarcoating liberals to task."

Honestly, "I Am Never Wrong", do you think that we all turn a blind eye to the faults, foibles and failures of our own party or philosophies? I used to listen to my parents and grandparents (Yellow Dog Democrats all) discussing how JFK stole the election with help from Chicago mayor Richard Daley and how Kennedy's "machismo" led to the near-disastrous Cuban Missile Crisis. They also spoke openly and critically of the Kennedy family's alleged ties to mob-bosses among many other things which they found somewhat unsavory. We knew all of this and more when RFK was running and still he had my family's support because he was NOT... DICK... NIXON.

All I need do is relive in memory the entire length of the Nixon regime, remember the nastiness of it and wonder how things could have been different if Kennedy has been elected.

As four "pouring our hopes and dreams into an empty vessel"... well, we were forced to pour those hopes and dreams into Nixon and all we got in return was a bucket of shit.

Posted by: Spender at November 28, 2006 5:38 PM

I agree with your review (flawed movie but worth seeing), except for one thing. I thought Sharon Stone was surprisingly excellent.

Posted by: eileen at November 28, 2006 5:42 PM

I'm going to have to agree with The Comish. How could a supposedly shoo-in democrat really have had that much sway if the country could have immediately gone in the other direction and voted for Nixon upon RFK's death?

I wish I would have known about that PBS program before now. Maybe it's on again sometime this week.

Posted by: Katy at November 28, 2006 6:48 PM

Regarding ?'s comment above... is it just me or does the phrase "you Americans" nullify almost any point made around it?

Posted by: megbon at November 28, 2006 7:20 PM

It's just you. He has a good point.

Posted by: ! at November 28, 2006 8:23 PM

Yeah, the world and the US would certainly be better off without that Nixon guy. I mean, opening trade relations with China and creating the Environmental protection agency are both pretty uneventful things when compared to lying about a scandal that wasn't all that serious to begin with...

Posted by: some guy at November 28, 2006 8:34 PM

So Samantha T, you're saying that it's better for your father to vote with your family than to vote how he believes? Just because you disagree with something, doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. Sounds to me like you stole your father's vote.

And since when does voting Republican mean voting against one's own interests? Are you saying that people who vote Republican are consciencely voting against what they believe in? Why would anyone do such a thing? It sounds to me like you have a beef with anyone who chooses to vote differently than you. And it also sounds like you 'shamed' you father into voting against his own interests. Congratulations, you must be proud.

Sorry about that everyone, but it really bugs me when people get self-righteous about their political party, as if their's is completely infallible and everyone who doesn't agree is obviously stupid. Anyways, thanks for the refreshingly thought provoking thread everyone. I read everybody's posts and (almost) all of them make extremely valid points.

Posted by: Carpe Pancakes! at November 28, 2006 10:14 PM

"We were forced to pour those hopes and dreams into Nixon and all we got in return was a bucket of shit."

Yes, Nixon was a terrible, terrible president. But c'mon, Spender, you know what I mean. It's too easy to say that had JFK or RFK only lived longer, or—dare we dream!—had a combined 16-year reign in the Oval Office, they would have enacted all the policies we personally favor. Politics doesn't work that way (hence, coalitions and parties, not to mention separation of powers) . Even presidents consistently ranked as great, say, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, said and did lots of things that disappointed their own supporters. Maybe it's because I wasn't there (the whole point of Dustin's review), but the romance of Camelot leaves me cold.

Siobhan and Samantha T., I think ? is on to something. My grandmother voted Democrat to her dying day because the Dems beat the Nazis (she was German), but the party has changed a fair amount from the Roosevelt and Kennedy Democrats into today's Democratic Party. I'm not breaking any new ground here, but isn't it the so-called moral issues, and primarily abortion, same-sex unions, and such, that are driving Catholics into the Republican Party? Catholics and other good people can differ on the best means for aiding the poor or securing peace, etc., but the Catholic Church takes a clear stand on certain moral issues, a stand that seems more consistent with the Republican platform than the Democratic.

Posted by: Curious George at November 28, 2006 10:49 PM

I was totally up for seeing this until I saw the name Lindsay Lohan. He may as well have cast Paris Hilton too... drive that last nail in the coffin.

Posted by: Wessa at November 29, 2006 12:04 AM

?: Unfortunately it isn't that simple. For one thing, the things the politicians saw NOW have to be taken with a grain of salt. As you said, parties change, and the person you voted in may not be the same person who takes the oath of office. THey can and will say anything to get the vote, and really it is the parties themselves who enforce this idea of 'one or the other' partisanship. There is little middle ground, little compromise anymore.

One cannot vote on just what they think or hope will happen. We have to take in account the past as well, at least as an indication of what NOT to vote for. I may be mistaken, but you make it sound like the past affiliations and practices of these politicians should not count; nowadays, that past is the only thing relatively stable. Notice I said relatively, for I am aware that history is written by whoever has the best PR, not necessarily the winners.

I say that the Robert Kennedy murder did not end an era of hope, but helped to solidify the now tradition of political cynicism. I dont think 30 years from now we are going to wax rhapsodic (is that right?) about the politicos in power now. That is because we 'learned our lesson' in a way.

It is funny though, how so many times people like to deify famous persons like the Kennedys, forgetting they are mere humans. They can make mistakes. They can be wrong.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 29, 2006 12:21 AM

I have to disagree with the reviewer: I thought Sharon Stone was great. But I thought Lindsay Lohan was awful! Really awful! I'm really not sure on what basis everyone says she a "great actress" because in the roles I've seen her, raspy sighs and furrowed brows are her only indicators of emotion.

Sorry to stray from the policital debate, which I love, but honestly, I thought Lohan sucked.

Well, I couldn't leave without adding something. I thought the RFK speeches sampled in the movie were beautiful. But I couldn't help thinking that you could string together any politician's speeches and come up with something poignant. I am not saying he didn't truly believe in what he was saying, or that he didn't push for serious change when he was in JFK's cabinet, but...it's really easy to stump one thing in speeches and change your trajectory when confronted with political reality after election...a reality that RFK, for obvious and tragic reasons, never had to face.

Posted by: emmy at November 29, 2006 12:57 AM

Emilio freaking Estevez- that's all I can say

Posted by: Tina at November 29, 2006 2:40 AM

Well, Some Guy, I didn't really provide a back story. My father was a lifelong Democrat (occasionally third party voter) who started listening to those nutty, talk radio jackasses (see Limbaugh, Rush) and started to believe that the right wing actually had his interests at heart. You know the rhetoric that I'm talking about - that the Democratic Party is full of liberal elites who are out of touch with the working man. Roman Catholic morals had nothing to do with it (I know Catholics will vote Republican because of abortion - this is also a recent development, but I digress). I find that to be a bunch of manipulative crap and we all pointed the hypocrisy out to my father and asked him to consider sources beyond a bunch of hateful conspiracy theorists. You might see that as bullying, I see it as having inter-familial dialogue. In this country, one is alone in the voting booth, ultimately.

As for Republicans voting in their own interest - oh, I think it's entirely possible to vote Republican and vote in one's own interest. Many of my rich, self-protective friends who don't want their precious income taxed do it every four years. What I don't understand is everyday working people actually thinking that Bush, a 100% beneficiary of our ruling class, prep-school and Yale-by-the-skin-of-his-teeth attending, draft-dodging, coke-snorting, corporation-protecting jackass is somehow a man of the people. This is the guy who carelessly sends young men and women from our working and lower class (many from Red States) to Iraq and says to "bring it on" having not served a day of military service in his life (Remember the outcry about Clinton protesting Vietnam while he was a Rhodes Scholar?). This is the guy who wants to privatize Social Security. This allegiance does, in fact, puzzle me, I must admit.

Lively, lively discussion! Oh, for the record - my Irish Catholic grandfather voted Democrat until their dying day and weren't enormous Kennedy fans. The deification wasn't 100%!

Posted by: Samantha T at November 29, 2006 7:42 AM

Many of my rich, self-protective friends who don't want their precious income taxed do it every four years.

This smacks of jealousy. Is it so bad to want to pay less taxes? I mean fuck... they pay all of the taxes anyway...

...and if Bush is such worthless piece of shit, why couldn't the Dems find ONE candidate to beat him? You would think that beating someone so inept would be a piece of cake.

"This Bush fellow is a real dipshit. We're going have to really nominate someone special so that we can get back into power. Any ideas?"

"Hey Howard! You want to take a shot at it?"

"Who me??! Really?! YEEEEAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHH!!!"

"...."

"How about John Kerry? He wants to run."

"Sounds good to me! Who wants pizza?"

I'm not saying the Bush is perfect...but who were people going to choose? If you want me to vote for a Dem, then fucking give me a viable option. I mean - is anyone in '08 going to be able to get close to someone like RFK?

Posted by: brutus at November 29, 2006 9:54 AM

"As for Republicans voting in their own interest - oh, I think it's entirely possible to vote Republican and vote in one's own interest. Many of my rich, self-protective friends who don't want their precious income taxed do it every four years. What I don't understand is everyday working people actually thinking that Bush, a 100% beneficiary of our ruling class, prep-school and Yale-by-the-skin-of-his-teeth attending, draft-dodging, coke-snorting, corporation-protecting jackass is somehow a man of the people. This is the guy who carelessly sends young men and women from our working and lower class (many from Red States) to Iraq and says to "bring it on" having not served a day of military service in his life (Remember the outcry about Clinton protesting Vietnam while he was a Rhodes Scholar?). This is the guy who wants to privatize Social Security. This allegiance does, in fact, puzzle me, I must admit. "

Thank you Samatha--so many awesome points. I have to say, the "everyday working people" I know who voted for Bush did so based on their religion and the whole "morals" thing. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about doing something like that, but...it just reminds me too much of that episode of the Simpsons, where Marge was trying to "save" Homer and Bart from Catholicism, and at the end of the episode, Ned Flanders says, "Hey, let's fight our real common enemies--monogomous gays and stem cells!"

Posted by: em at November 29, 2006 10:44 AM

Just out of curiosity, Samantha T, what was your opinion on Clinton? Plenty can be said about that corrupt, pot-smoking, whoring for the Chinese, shady business deal making, Foster-killing, blindly ambitious, bribe taking numbnut.

Posted by: I Am Never Wrong at November 29, 2006 11:42 AM

Lemme see, hmmmm Lohan is in this and, Sharon Stone you say?


I can't see how this can be any good. In fact I can assure that I will NEVER see this EVER.

Posted by: BarbaboSlim at November 29, 2006 12:33 PM

"And since when does voting Republican mean voting against one's own interests? Are you saying that people who vote Republican are consciencely voting against what they believe in? Why would anyone do such a thing?"

Because in this day and age, we Catholics, are only the right type of Christian on one issue. The third rail called abortion. Republicans prey upon this issue and we Catholics fall over the cliff like lemmings, ignoring the fact that Republicans will never ban abortion. It gets their base out to vote.

If abortion didn't exist, never had, never will, "good Catholics"* would vote Democratic. The Church endorses unions, living wages, no death penalty, social safety nets, good education, quality health care and good enviornmental stewardship. All of which the NeoCons (not just regular republicans) loathe with the fire of a thousand burning nuns.

*Good Catholics in this context means those who claim to vote for Republicans cause the Vaticans say they should vote for non baby killers ^eyeroll^

Posted by: Lizzie at November 29, 2006 1:27 PM

Lizzie, even if one assumes the GOP's pro-life stance is a political ploy (that's whole other debate), it's still not unreasonable for many Catholics to support Republicans for being more likely than Democrats to limit abortion than to expand it. You're right that in many ways the Democratic Party might seem like a natural home for Catholics, but (as I was saying above) the Church doesn't hold a fixed political stance on the other issues you mention as a matter of doctrine, as it does with abortion. For example, Catholics can all work for good education or quality health care, and still disagree about which means will better achieve those ends, some persuaded by Democratic arguments and others by Republican. Even the death penalty is something the Church has never universally condemned.

Posted by: Curious George at November 29, 2006 2:37 PM

Actually in recent years the Church has condemned the death penalty pretty much wholesale...

" may only be employed when "this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor."[6] Both must always be a last resort. In addition, each human, being made in the image and likeness of God,[7] has an inherent dignity that must always be respected. Every human person "is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God"

It's written about in encyclicals right along side the importance of families, the ending of racism, euthanasia, dignity of all human beings. With that dignity is the right to a living wage, to be treated with respect, be treated with respect, and allowed to work in dignity and fairness.


Hell here's a quote on the enviornment from something written by a Pope
Stewardship of creation: The world's goods are available for humanity to use only under a "social mortgage" which carries with it the responsibility to protect the environment. The "goods of the earth are gifts from God, and they are intended by God for the benefit of everyone."[26] Man was given dominion over all creation,[27] but in return must be a good steward of the gifts God has given him.[28] We cannot use and abuse the natural resources God has given us with a destructive consumer mentality.

Wouldn't that send people who hate us hippy liberals with our recycling, and compost heaping.

Instead Neoconservatives, who have taken over the Republican party have opted to paint themselves as martyrs to the unborn, while making it seem like us democrats like to run up behind pregnant women, slice open their bellies and noisily devour they preterm infants while dancing and smoking cheap weed.

Posted by: Lizzie at November 29, 2006 2:55 PM

My above post is filled with typos.... I hate myself just a little bit right now.... my brain moves faster than my fingers. Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa

Posted by: Lizzie at November 29, 2006 2:58 PM

Lizzie, you're right that the revised Catechism has put ever greater restrictions on when the death penalty can be deemed morally justifiable. But that's just it. Figuring out exactly when state execution may be the "the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor" is a prudential and, hence, political question. The Church has said that modern advances in the criminal justice system have limited these times, but it nevertheless acknowledges that such situations may (at least in theory) still arise. This is a far cry from abortion, which the Church teaches is inherently—and thus, everywhere and always—morally wrong.

Also, don't put too much stock in the bogeyman du jour, the Neocons. Their nefarious hold on American politics and the Republican Party is exaggerated to the point that it has become a cheap rhetorical name for "evil political thinkers I hate." As far as I know, conservatives of all stripes have consistently opposed abortion.

My apologies to Dustin if we've inappropriately hijacked your review space for a discussion of Catholicism and American politics. I've been reading your site for a while and finally decided to join the party.

Author's Note: No apologies necessary, Curious George. I'm always thrilled with where these comment threads end up, and it usually has little to do with the movie. We're just pleased to offer a starting point for (mostly) intelligent debate. I'm going to politely exclude 'I Am Never Wrong's' latest conspiracy-based missive from that qualification, however.

Posted by: Curious George at November 29, 2006 3:22 PM

megbon,
I'm not an American. Just an outsider looking in whenever you people are having a vote. My comment was based on my observations of voter behaviour (based on outcomes and media coverage. Of course, that portion of the population seems to be the minority. Am I wrong in saying that the majority of your citizens don't vote?

Posted by: ? at November 29, 2006 3:55 PM

Oh, and to bring the discussion back to the film in question, I've no intention of seeing it. I saw various scenes on Oprah (I swear, I came upon it by accident :)) and thought the acting was bad.

Posted by: ? at November 29, 2006 3:57 PM

Just wanted to thank Dustin and starburst for the clarification on Eugene McCarthy. Is it possible that the "(Eugene)" was added in afterwards, or was it there all along and I just missed it?

If it was there all along, I apologize.

If it was added in, thanks for the clarification, and I still apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Author's Note: It was added after your most previous comment, Commish, for clarification. I probably would've thought Joe myself -- I should have been more clear at the outset; nobody remembers Eugene was his '68 opponent in the primary. I will note, however, that though Joe was good friends with both JFK and RFK, Bobby did take part in the censure hearings against him.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at November 29, 2006 4:01 PM

I love that the first Clinton insult is "pot-smoking". I have no idea why that makes me giggle. He's still the hotness for me. Meh, what can I say, I'm a sucker for an intelligent, articulate guy with a Southern accent.

As for the whole Catholicism/politics thing...all I know is that my church (I attend pretty regularly) was not-so-subtly pushing for Bush in the church bulletins--bulletins!--that are handed out every week, based on his no baby killing stance (or what have you). I like to do to the whole 'separation of church and state' thing, myself, but eh, that's just me.

Posted by: em at November 29, 2006 4:03 PM

Dustin, absolutely true re. RFK taking part in the censure hearings.

And my embarrassing gaffe is made worse because of the fact that I knew RFK was running against Eugene, and it still didn't occur to me that might have been the McCarthy you were referring to. So I'm doubly embarrassed that I screwed up the McCarthy reference, and that I know things like who RFK was running against in his primaries.

The other Dem in the running was Hubert Humphrey. And the actual election had 3rd party candidate George Wallace.... Seriously, I'll probably never get another date again as long as I live.

Posted by: The Comish (sic) at November 29, 2006 4:27 PM

Well, I can see that Bobby Kennedy and democrats in general have taught the liberal public at least one thing - to whine. Shit, do you guys DO anything else??

Posted by: A Republican at November 29, 2006 7:56 PM

"Many of my rich, self-protective friends who don't want their precious income taxed do it every four years.

This smacks of jealousy. Is it so bad to want to pay less taxes? I mean fuck... they pay all of the taxes anyway..."

At the risk of sounding like a complete and total asshat, my "rich" friends make about as much money as I do (I say "rich" because I like to keep my income in perspective rather than feel poor because of New York Magazine...but I digress, once again). I, however, don't begrudge the taxes I pay (about a third of my income) because I see myself as part of a citizenry and realize that saving some money is, perhaps, in my personal interest, but not everybody else's. I also see myself as a beneficiary of state and federal programs in that I went to public schools, get my trash picked up, can head to D.C. and go to museums for free, could attend undergrad/law school because of financial aid, etc. I'm not trying to be sanctimonious, but taxes seems to be a huge rallying cry for Republicans ("Taxachusetts" native that I am).

I don't, however, have the inheritances (oh, no, they might be subjected to the DEATH TAX) or family money that some of my friends have and, you're correct, I am jealous as shit about that. No shame in it, either.

Can I just say that I'm happy to see such a spirited, intelligent discussion about Catholicism? I'm a youngish practicing Catholic and can't tell you how many times I've a. been lumped in with the Christian Right - HELL, NO! and b. been presumed to hold wacky superstitious beliefs and think it's perfectly okay for priests to molest children.

Posted by: Samantha T at November 29, 2006 7:57 PM

I've a. been lumped in with the Christian Right - HELL, NO! and b. been presumed to hold wacky superstitious beliefs and think it's perfectly okay for priests to molest children.

Word (from a fellow Masshole)... and that goes back to Catholics are only the right kind of Christian on the abortion question. They court our vote, and make a lot of noise about baby killing, but meanwhile the Christian Right goes around saying that we're idol worshippers and a cult.... Branch Davidians were a cult. The Manson family was a cult, those wierd castrated nike wearing people who thought they were hitchin a ride on a comet were a cult. When you count 1 billion in numbers, I'd say we're a bit more than a cult.

Curious George, I have to say I applaud you on your restraint towards me,I know I'm a bedwetting liberal on the surface, but I daresay that Real Republicans and Real Democrats are far more centrists than white the loony Neocons, or Scary Liberals say we are (I bet that if you and I went out and had an overpriced beer you would be tickled pink on my love of micro economics, my mostly pro gun stance and that I too hate paying taxes, You would most likely be bored to death by a dissertation I could give on shoes, and the best places to run with my dog in the Boston Metro area)

As for the Catholic Church and abortion issue, it's frustrating for me, because there is this idea that voting for anyone who is pro choice, even if that's not why your voting for him is a grave sin. Frankly I call bull on this. Jesus taught compassion and the whole don't cast stones, and that's the basic code I live by. Unless you are Rush Limbaugh or a member of the New York Yankees, then I'd have a boulder I'd like you to meet.

As for the democrat/ republican abortion debate, I guess as a Dem I feel like abstince only education doesn't work. Proof is in the pudding. I was brought up Catholic, I still go to Church.... but not so much with the celibacy. Personally I feel as though ending abortion RIGHT NOW would be disastrous. It needs to be educated/phased out. I also think you would be hard pressed to find any democrat who believes that abortion is the best possible solution ALL of the time. The best possible solution I would think was that these girls were smart enough to say no unless it was safe sex.

Anyway...Bobby Kennedy was totally the hot brother!

Posted by: Lizzie at November 29, 2006 9:27 PM

Lizzie, you invite me out for a beer and tell me you're not into celibacy—I'm intrigued to say the least.

But seriously, I think what you're calling restraint is just good manners (or Christian charity?). I'd rather engage in a discussion in the spirit of friendship where we both might learn something than name-call. Anyone who's quoting the Catechism and papal encyclicals deserves no less.

Oh, and for the record, I loved the years I spent in Boston and have never owned any firearms. I am, however, a native New Yorker and a Yankees fan. I do not know if your ecumenicalism can extend that far.

Posted by: Curious George at November 30, 2006 12:37 PM

I wasn't born until after Robert F. Kennedy's unfortunate assasination; however, as a student of political philosophy it is clear that he was always a head above the disturbingly scamhounded gentlemen and women that look over our country and its citizens in two thousand and six. He was a an amazing bridge builder that shortened the now even more distant borders between civil rights and race issues. With that being said, when will directors stop putting Ashton Kutcher in movies? I mean...he's atrocious. Always. Nice review, Rowles.

One more thing: I sat next to Emilio Estevez at the restaurant El Farol in Santa Fe, NM last winter. He was with a stunning and classy blond woman. He is "double-take" short and remarkably bloated. He was very polite and even struck up a short conversation with my date. He was very nice.

Posted by: Dmo at November 30, 2006 1:45 PM

"if Bush is such worthless piece of shit"

If? Is this really up for debate at this point? My dyed-in-the-wool Republican rich father agrees he's a complete failure. He'll vote Republican nevertheless, but most conservatives I know are pretty disgusted with Bush.

Anyway, thanks Dustin for your heartfelt review. It is incredibly refreshing to read something about the Kennedys that isn't cynical. For all their faults, and damn do they have faults, they represent something admirable that is largely gone , if it ever truly existed.

Damn do I miss Clinton. And I don't care who knows it.

Oh dear, I see someone has invoked the "Clinton killed Vince Foster" chestnut. Hasn't that been outlawed or something?

Posted by: smmo at November 30, 2006 6:25 PM

Boy, I can't wait for all the baby boomers to fade away so we can get away from this liberal, feel good crap.

Posted by: KLH at December 1, 2006 1:07 AM

It was so nice having a conversation that was pleasant .... until KLH showed up.

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 7:57 AM

@smmo:

If? Is this really up for debate at this point? My dyed-in-the-wool Republican rich father agrees he's a complete failure. He'll vote Republican nevertheless, but most conservatives I know are pretty disgusted with Bush.

Schmaltzy, but I get your point. What I'm missing is why the Dems can't find someone better.

They could have gone with anyone, and John Kerry is the best they could muster? Seriously?

Somewhat rhetorical question: is there a Dem candidate that can conceivably win in 2008? I'm not trying to be shitty...someone enlighten me.

Posted by: brutus at December 1, 2006 9:22 AM

I think the biggest problem is that Democrats consistently nominate someone who would be wonderful at governing, but sucks shit at campaigning. Whereas, the Republicans often find a person who is superb at campaigning, but who's governing makes Pol Pot look like a fantabulous sweetheart.

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 9:45 AM

I think there are several viable contenders for a Democrat in 08. As much as I love Hillary and Barack, there are too many horses asses in the swingstates who won't vote for the wimmin folk, or the blacks for purely ridiculous reasons (If I have to hear that once a month a woman would have to be talked down from pressing the button I will punch a baby..I mean HELLO MARGARET THATCHER?)

I will be voting for Seasons 1-5 of Jed Bartlet

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 9:52 AM

"What I'm missing is why the Dems can't find someone better...is there a Dem candidate that can conceivably win in 2008?"

I agree about your John Kerry statements. I voted for Bush Segundo...twice. Once because I was young, stupid, and in Texas. The second time around I was still in Texas but was much more interrested and involved, but I felt like the Dems gave us NOTHING other than "we're not Bush." Well thats nice and everything, but where do you stand on...anything, Sen. Kerry? "I don't know, but I know I'm better than Bush!" How? "Cuz I'm not Bush"

I need more than "I'm better than the other guy" rhetoric, I need to know how you're going to CHANGE things. Overall I think politics has become the work up to a giant pissing contest, without the culminating event of someone actually whipping it out to do something for fear that the wind will shift.

That being said...I think the Dems have a couple of good names out there who could do well. Hillary and Obama are always the go-to names when people talk about potential Dem. candidates. I personally am more interrested in Vilsack. I heard him announce the other day and though he was pretty boring and has ZERO name recognition, a Dem. Governor from Iowa could pull well in the agricultural south. Democrats in Texas aren't dead folks, they just live on Farms...or in Austin. And as for name recognition, who had ever heard of Clinton before he went out there? I think (hope) 2008 will be an exciting/intellectual race.

And Lizzie--"I will be voting for Seasons 1-5 of Jed Bartlet" To you I say AMEN Sister!

Posted by: theben at December 1, 2006 10:22 AM

I'm glad to read you're dismissing Hillary and Obama. You're exactly right about why they can't win.

As far as campaigning is concerned - I thought the Dems were the intellectuals...why can't they get it figured out? If there are several viable contenders, who are they? Is it telling that the person you'd like is a fictional character?

Forgive me if I sound pejorative...I'm just trying to gain some insight into the sentimental Democratic mind.

Also - funny you should mention Pol Pot. That guy was all about leftist ideals. If you're going to make dramatic Republican comparisons, stick to fascism ;-)

Posted by: brutus at December 1, 2006 10:41 AM

That's our one of our biggest problems as Democrats. That we're intellectuals. We can't put it aside to give the good ole boy aw shucks attitude. In the current climate the Republicans have made the majority of the American public believe that being able to sit down and have a beer with the President is more important than the President actually knowing something. God forbid the President be smart, well informed and articulate. God forbid he doesn't crucify the English language. God forbid he looks for answers other than strike them before they hit you diplomatic policies. God forbid they don't have to dumb themselves down so as to elevate the country and talk to Americans as though they have brains. I mean I understand that this country, like any others is filled with denser than whale shit half wits, but why address them? Talk to us like we're smart, and we can be smart. There are plenty of Rep. that I do like, that I think are smart, and capable. Just not the current buffoon.

I mean they vilified Clinton, who was not a liberal lefty democrat. Hell the established party wasn't even particularly thrilled with him. He was to right wing on his fiscal policies, he wanted to reform Welfare (as I clutch my pearls).

It's not telling that I'm voting for Jeb. I mean the Republicans are totally voting for Voldemort. :)

I was just referencing that Pol Pot was kind of a dick, not really commenting on his ism. I always get all of those confused anyway. :)

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 11:04 AM

"That's our one of our biggest problems as Democrats. That we're intellectuals. We can't put it aside to give the good ole boy aw shucks attitude...God forbid the President be smart, well informed and articulate... God forbid they don't have to dumb themselves down so as to elevate the country and talk to Americans as though they have brains. I mean I understand that this country, like any others is filled with denser than whale shit half wits, but why address them?" - LIZZIE

I think that one of the biggest problems that the Democratic party has is demonstrated pretty clearly in that post. Many people feel that certain segments of the Democratic Party are smug, self-satisfied, overly impressed with themselves and have an inflated sense of their intelligence. It turns people off.

Posted by: Elle at December 1, 2006 12:12 PM

"Many people feel that certain segments of the Democratic Party are smug, self-satisfied, overly impressed with themselves and have an inflated sense of their intelligence. It turns people off."

I really don't understand this. Fine, Kerry was a little stiff. Who frigging cares? How can one think that Kerry (mind you, a DECORATED WAR HERO) was smug/self-impressed and not think the same thing tenfold with respect to President Smirky? What was smug about Al Gore and Jon Edwards? Their intellectual achievements? The fact that they were successful pretty much by their own doing? If people feel that the Dems are self-satisfied and smug, they are turning a blind eye to far, far worse Republican behavior. Bush's steadfast refusal to re-visit or re-think even one of his decisions is far more convincing testament to an "inflated sense of intelligence" than anything the Dems have ever done.

Also, if you're not voting for somebody solely because he or she "turns you off", that's a serious, serious problem.

Posted by: Samantha T at December 1, 2006 12:24 PM

Why should the President bother to court or address people who DON'T CARE? I CARE! Talk to me, I understand complex sentences and ideas (except math theorems)


I'm sorry we turn you off Elle, I mean I truly believe that speaking down to the lowest common denominator of a society drags everyone down to that level. Why do we have such shit tv shows? Because crap like who wants to marry a millionaire and temptation island appealled ( and not in a morbidly curious way) masses of people. While me and 10 other people are watching PBS.

I'm glad I'm not trying to turn you on Elle, otherwise I'd have to be lesbian mud wrestling during a nascar race.

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 12:30 PM

I was merely pointing out that some of the self-congratulatory commentary posted here is indicitive of an aspect of the Democratic party that many people find obnoxious. There are plenty of obnxoious aspects of the republican party as well, I am just not seeing it on this particular site to the same extent.

Your attempt to peg yourself as a PBS watcher and me as a NASCAR watcher only serves to prove my point. You, once again, are announcing your own intellectual and social superiority. I have no doubt you feel this way and that is fine, but you cannot expect people not to resent your conceit.

"Also, if you're not voting for somebody solely because he or she "turns you off", that's a serious, serious problem. "

Thank you for the diagnosis. I am an independant voter and like most people, I vote for a myriad of different reasons so you need not worry.

Posted by: Elle at December 1, 2006 12:58 PM

Well if you really bothered to read the whole comment section you would see that I actually hadn't pegged Republicans as being stupid on the whole. You would see I wrote that I really felt that Republicans and Democrats see much more eye to eye on a vast array of subjects than what the far left and right would have us believe.

You were the one who declared us smug and self congratulatory. You were the one who pointed out that by democrats not speaking solely to the lowest common denominator of society, that we are pseudo intellectual assholes.

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 1:17 PM

If you're worried about which Democrat may get the nomination for '08, take heart, the Republican bench is very, very shallow right now. The base won't go for Giuliani (there's the abortion & gay rights issues again), or McCain (they think he's a maverick a-hole), or Newt (thin-skinned, thrice-divorced). There's a lot of talk about Mass. Gov. Romney, but his conservative credentials are suspect and GOP candidates could get pretty nasty about Mormonism during the primaries (remember, the Bush team hit several low blows against McCain in the lead-up to 2000).

For the Dems, there's Hillary of course. Don't know whether she gets the nomination but I'd be very surprised if she could make it to the White House. I assume John Edwards will be back in the race, but he's a little too pretty, a little too...assembled from a politician kit or something. I assume Kerry will come back. No one will remember the brouhaha over his (grossly) misinterpreted comments just before the midterm elections. Will Barak Obama go for the nomination? Maybe. But he appears too young and untested. Still, a good way to get some more national exposure to try again down the road. Has Howard Dean's primal scream been forgotten?

Posted by: Curious George at December 1, 2006 1:23 PM

Kerry can't keep his own family in check, much less the country. He lost because it was too easy to paint him as someone who didn't stand for anything. Bush was/is a known commodity...like him or not.

I still don't have a Dem candidate for 2008 that could actually win.

Posted by: brutus at December 1, 2006 1:35 PM

Democrats and Republicans make populist appeals when it suits their purposes. There are the intellectuals on both sides, toiling away at universities, magazines, think tanks, etc., who supply the ideas and the arguments. There are the politicians and political operatives who are ambitious and often want to win at all costs. And then there's the electorate. Some are smart and highly informed. Others...well, not so much. I assure you this goes for both sides.

Posted by: Curious George at December 1, 2006 1:36 PM

John Edwards seems to have the best shot at it, if he can overcome his ambulance-chasing past. He'll need to work on his debating skills, too...Cheney destroyed him.

Who could forget Howard's scream? Damn, that was embarrassing.

Posted by: brutus at December 1, 2006 1:43 PM

"You were the one who pointed out that by democrats not speaking solely to the lowest common denominator of society, that we are pseudo intellectual assholes" - Lizzie

Actually, "democrats not speaking solely to the lowest common denominator" (whatever that means)is not the reason why I think you are a "pseudo intellectual asshole" (your words). Posting comments lauding your own comparative intelligence is what brought me to that conclusion. And to be honest, I don't feel that way about you at all. You are just passionate about your beliefs and I tend to agree with you that the majority of Americans are fairly dense. I just think some liberals need to be more cognizant of how they sound to others.

Posted by: Elle at December 1, 2006 1:55 PM

Speaking of intellectuals and governance--things are getting interesting on that front in Canada. Tomorrow one of our major political parties is nominating its leader, and the frontrunner spent two decades as a Harvard prof (but he's Canadian and he's back, baby). If Michael Ignatieff becomes PM (and if he wins the Liberal nom, he has as good a chance as anyone), I'll be even more curious about these types of discussions then.

It's not often a "real" intellectual (not just someone with a spiffy degree--and W has shown what that can be worth, in apposition to Rhodes Scholar Clinton) steps into power like this--at least in recent memory/in N.America. It's like two worlds colliding, I tell you.

Posted by: ranylt at December 1, 2006 2:00 PM

(Um, that is--fact-checking is good--Ignatieff spent two decades at Oxbridge and five years at Harvard. My point rests.)

Posted by: ranylt at December 1, 2006 2:02 PM

Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University and president of the American Political Science Association, and an abysmal president. Book smarts ain't everything.

Posted by: Curious George at December 1, 2006 2:13 PM

Curious-

A- Re "books smarts," I never said they were...but they sure don't hurt.

B - This particular individual could be the real litmus test for this kind of discussion because he's actually written books on nation-building and international relations. That is, he's spent years looking at raw data, reports, writings, science, etc etc and thinking about _exactly_ what he needs to know about _running a nation_. (As opposed to any old PhD, or leaders who rely on advisors and media reports and the summaries of aides and myriad other superficial heresay.) As someone who knows what real academic research entails (when it's properly done), I can't sneeze at that.

C - In case this needs to be pointed out, I actually have no idea what I think of the guy. Have only begun looking into it. So far he and I don't agree on much, and his party isn't exactly all strawberries and rainbows these days, either. But part of me kind of wants to see where it can go, and I sign this one off as

Curious Ranylt

Posted by: ranylt at December 1, 2006 2:27 PM

Love the political discussion, and as usual religion always finds its way in. This should come as no surprise, because the two are inseparable. People vote what they believe in and what people believe in is their religion. That's why I'm always amused at these evolutionists who claim it's not a religion, although there are as many holes in those theories needing as much of a leap of faith to swallow them as any other religion. I know this is probably too black and white for all the grey area people, but it's true.

Coming back to an older post concerning cults and Catholicism, it all comes down to how you difine a cult. The original word merely was a reference to worship. Some define it to mean a group of people who give deity status to another human being. Under that definition, I think the pope qualifies. Just because you're part of the oldest game in town, doesn't mean it's still not a game.

Posted by: New Millenium Craka at December 1, 2006 2:28 PM

Fair enough, Ranylt. I'm curious to see how things go, too. I'm just saying: Woodrow Wilson can't touch Abraham Lincoln. And Reagan still commonly gets ranked higher than Clinton.


New Millenium Craka, (1) the name made me laugh, and (2) no Catholic deifies the pope! What a bizarre assertion. Also, yes, cult originally had a benign meaning, but usage can change over time (see: e.g., gay, or liberal). We're talking about cult in the pejorative sense, commonly used to mean a form of illegitimate religion.

Posted by: Curious George at December 1, 2006 2:39 PM

I think some are just born leaders--Lincoln unquestionably was, "schooled" or no (I doubt schooling would have made him any less of one). We should be so lucky to have another some day soon in either Canada or the US (seems like ages since there has been one--at least according to the above movie review). But I'm no expert on US history and only know to repeat the idealistic nostalgia of others when it comes to AB. As for Reagan, my impression is that history is already revising its position about him, so my personal jury is out on that one.

Leadership qualities--real leadership qualities like President Roslin on BSG (pre-vote rigging) is what I'm talking about! Throw in that kind of concern for her public, that kind of leadership quality and REAL intelligence--by God that would be unstoppable. I froth for it so hard because I'm so freaking starved. Dammit it's bad when I have to start getting my political orgasms off fictional goddamned statesmen.

And CG took the words right out of my mouth re. New Mill Craka's handle--now _that's_ a funny context for the word.

Posted by: ranylt at December 1, 2006 2:54 PM

Curious George beat me to it. Catholics including the Pope, don't believe El Papa is God in any way.

The Christian Right oftentimes enjoys painting Catholicism as a cult because we "worship idols" ie saints. And we don't do that either. We ask saints to pray for us to help get God's ear on a certain request.

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 3:15 PM

"As for Republicans voting in their own interest - oh, I think it's entirely possible to vote Republican and vote in one's own interest. Many of my rich, self-protective friends who don't want their precious income taxed do it every four years."

Samantha T., I see your point and it is a good one, but it angers me, nonetheless. My father is a practicing MD, in family medicine. Ergo, everyone asks us about our wealth. Hell, I'd like to see it too! Both my parents drive used cars, we rent a three-bedroom house, and both my sister and I are in college, working through school and taking out loans so that my younger brother and sister can go to church school. And, since my dad does additional work, the government also counts that as part of his gross salary, which means that he has the honor of being taxed at 50% of his gross income before he even opens his paycheck. I don't begrudge paying taxes, but it DOES gall me to be lumped in with the jet-setting, trust-fund crowd who whine about taxation. And for the record, the plumber who came to our house to fix the toilet makes more per hour than my father.

Posted by: bonnie at December 1, 2006 4:03 PM

Oops. I got carried away and forgot my point. Yes, my parents do vote Republican, and yes, you can call it self-interest. But somehow, I have a hard time blaming them for that.

Posted by: bonnie at December 1, 2006 4:05 PM

Amen, Bonnie. There is something galling about opening your paycheck to find that 30% of it has disappeared and then hustling off to your second job, having spent several years in professional school. I bitch about my taxes because it's the American thing to do. A professor of mine once said, "People vote republican not because they need to protect their wealth today, but because they hope to protect the wealth they are working hard to earn for tomorrow." That doesn't make them simple-minded lemmings.

Posted by: Kitty X at December 1, 2006 4:22 PM

I actually had a conversation with my PCP about this very topic. She said it's unfortunate that in this society we don't value jobs that are dominated by women. General Practice is becoming heavily populated by females. I'm a social worker, Lord knows there is not a hell of a lot of money there. I worked previously with individuals with developmental disablities. Currently I work with low income seniors. Mitt Romney has decided to cut the line in the budget for 3 years running that would have given me a raise so I didn't have to pick up the part time dog walking gig, and the part time waitressing gig to pay my rent. Seems to me that the Democratic Senate made sure to put that line in the budget though.

Posted by: Lizzie at December 1, 2006 4:49 PM

Currently there are two Republicans I wouldn't hesitate to vote for for President of the United States: George Allen and Rick Santorum. They'll be back.

Posted by: A Republican at December 1, 2006 7:42 PM

'Clinton didn't bring blacks and liberal whites together. Blacks were voting overwhelmingly Democrat since around the 1930s.' --I wish.

Are there Democrats in some country that isn't the States? Because it was FUCKING sure not in America. 1965, anyone?

Anyone?

Posted by: M at December 1, 2006 9:34 PM

for fucking sure. whatev's

Posted by: M at December 1, 2006 9:37 PM

"The instant you see an old Midwestern farmer (a Midwestern farmer, people) get choked up because he got the honor of standing next to a Democrat, a vision that's almost shocking in view of the current political landscape."

He said it's shocking considering our current politics, get it right.

Posted by: Queen Lena at December 2, 2006 2:46 AM

I don't see the difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore. Democrats tax and spend and Republicans borrow and spend. Both are corrupt.

If anyone is interested in eliminating the income tax and creating an equal taxing scheme in the US I beg beg beg you to check out the FairTax and the Libertarian Party.

Posted by: The Stew at December 2, 2006 4:11 AM

This is really barely relevant but...

Update: The south wasn't and isn't the only place with racists!

And your review didn't do much for me except to greater expose just how many ubercelebs are in it. Great.

Posted by: annoyed at December 2, 2006 2:33 PM

"Overall I think politics has become the work up to a giant pissing contest, without the culminating event of someone actually whipping it out to do something for fear that the wind will shift"

Love it! Great comments, I'm so glad this devolved into sandy vaginas. And Viva La Libertarians!

Posted by: Jenn at December 2, 2006 2:45 PM

Whoops, I meant DID NOT devolve. Sorry.

Posted by: Jenn at December 2, 2006 2:57 PM

Gore 2008

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at December 3, 2006 5:44 PM

"Many of my rich, self-protective friends who don't want their precious income taxed do it every four years.

This smacks of jealousy."

Erm, no. Not everyone covets the green stuff, you know. It's pretty patronizing to assume that someone who criticizes a rich Republican is nothing but an insecure, envious whiner. I could give a shit how much money I have. What's important to me is being able to be proud of my country again.

Face it--rich or poor, you Republicans voted twice for a man who is in favor of torture, domestic surveilance, and overall bad taste and shitty form. If that's in your "self interest", I feel sorry for you, not envious.

Posted by: Vi at December 3, 2006 8:50 PM

"Can I just say that I'm happy to see such a spirited, intelligent discussion about Catholicism? I'm a youngish practicing Catholic and can't tell you how many times I've a. been lumped in with the Christian Right - HELL, NO! and b. been presumed to hold wacky superstitious beliefs and think it's perfectly okay for priests to molest children."

Samantha T., you're not alone!

Posted by: pj at December 4, 2006 3:23 AM

Vi -

I'll take the torture and domestic surveillance over doing absolutely nothing for fear of offending someone. We can debate methodology, but it's the tangible effort that got my vote.

Granted, things have been poorly managed as far as the war is concerned, but at least we avoided the pusillanimous lollygagging horseshit intrinsic to Democrats.

For me - he was the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: brutus at December 4, 2006 1:22 PM

If someone (cough Bush cough) doesn't know what "pusillanimous lollygagging" is, then I don't want him sending my friends to Iraq.

I like tangible effort too--I am, after all, an American who likes microwaves, the idea of "Seven Minute Abs" and the whole "instant gratification" thing--but driving into a wall and then refusing to turn around even as the bricks are falling on your car and the shards of glass are making your eyes bleed and your companion in the car has been decapitated...well, I just can't go for that.

Posted by: em at December 4, 2006 2:49 PM

If the Democrats would get their shit together on the abortion issue and quit trying to keep poor people poor a lot more people would vote for them, including me. People who would rather kill babies than terrorists and who would rather keep people on welfare than help them find jobs will never get my vote. And don't give me any crap about unions either. Democrats don't give a shit any more than Republicans do. And all they want to do to solve anything is suck more money from the middle class (they don't care about us because we don't have enough money to grease their palms but we have too much to need the welfare they dangle in front of poor people to buy their votes) and throw money at it. Please. The state of American politics is in the shape of a cesspool and only a drastic change will help.

Posted by: fansan at December 4, 2006 11:11 PM

I think it's a bit unfair to say that Democrats would "rather" kill babies than terrorists. I don't really know what else Democrats have to do to "get their shit together" on the abortion issue, either. Bottom line is that a lot of people in government who decide policies on abortion will never, ever have to worry about getting pregnant. It's a lot easier to argue for "life" when you'll never have to worry about conceiving a baby.

Posted by: em at December 5, 2006 9:52 AM

I don't see the point of arguing about abortion, as neither side wants it to happen. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it from happening, it'll just make it more dangerous to get one. Education is the key, you see. (And hurrying the fuck up with male birth control)

and em, I agree with you about men making that decision, me being one. Or at least a dude, hah.

Posted by: The Stew at December 5, 2006 12:15 PM

American politics is not about serving the people anymore, it's about serving politicians and their power-hungry agendas. If I can't even see where my tax dollars are being spent because half of it is pork tacked-on to who knows what bill in exchange for favors x,y and z, how can I tell if I'm voting for the right person? Politicians and their votes don't mean shit when they're traded like baseball cards behind the public eye.

America needs to give the power back to the people, or rather we the public need to take the damn power back. Stop the politicians running around in their own little world, which they fucked-up to the point that none save political inbreeds can understand, nor would want to. Yea, yea, we understand what we're told or what we think we know, but in truth we have no idea of the political machine's inner workings and that's how they designed it.

I'm sure I sound like a conspiracy theorist or a dried-up cynical hag to some of you, my bad. I assure you I'm not in that camp, I just think our government has not been "our" government for a while. It's their hot body, they do what they want. Campaign advisors can figure out what doublespeak to use when it comes time for the next election.

Abortion is an issue that does not belong in the political realm, it should not be a concern of the government.

As for the movie, haha, I'll pass and check out the PBS documentary if I can find it.

Posted by: Steph at December 5, 2006 12:55 PM

"I don't see the point of arguing about abortion, as neither side wants it to happen. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it from happening, it'll just make it more dangerous to get one. Education is the key, you see. (And hurrying the fuck up with male birth control)"

Amen. Thank you!!

Posted by: em at December 5, 2006 2:32 PM

Jesus, you people need to shut the hell up. No one cares about your views on abortion. Fuck.

Posted by: markus at December 5, 2006 9:55 PM

I just saw the movie "Bobby" today. I was there in 1968 campaigning for him. I was 18. We were all naive compared to now. Democrats were deeply involved in the civil rights movement and that was a very important part of Bobby's political appeal. The anti war movement was still new. I didn't hear all of the speechs in the movie at the time, but I knew that he was a compassionate person. Everyone knew this because of his brother's death and the way he walked and the way he comforted Jackie. You just knew it. He had a witty side where he made fun of himself sometimes. And.. of course he was handsome, and we teenagers all had crushes on him.
When we were in Indiana campaigning we slept in the basement of the hotel in our sleeping bags. One nite around midnite after he had been pulled off a car and had broken his tooth I said "take it easy, Senator" and he glanced at my Kennedy button and said "get back to work" with that charming smile on his face. Whoever he really was, he had our hearts. If you had heard the standing ovation at the 1964 Democratic convention when he spoke about his brother you would know that he would have been the nominee of the Democratic party had he lived, and probably elected President. Of course he has been martyed by history like everyone who dies an early death. There is no way of knowing about what could have been, but he did present one of the most interesting possibilities of my lifetime. If you listen to today's rhetoric you would think that being articulate and compassionate is unimportant. No one can truly lead without these qualities. Thank you, Emilio Estevez, for trying to make this point!

Posted by: artsy at December 11, 2006 2:42 AM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.