Roger Ebert’s Elitist Rant Against Palin … Removed??? **UPDATE** Only ‘Slightly’ Memory-Holed
Posted by Dirty Harry on Thursday, September 11th, 2008
“Sarah, I’ve got some style tips for you…”
UPDATE: Some … just some of Ebert’s disappeared column has reappeared here. You’ll notice that the fashion guru Ebert has removed his attacks on Palin’s personal appearance. Used to be a journalist noted a correction or change.
Used to be.
End Update:
Little Palin-Deranged memory hole action going on here? For those of you who might have missed it, here’s what the fashion guru had to say about the Governor of Alaska yesterday:
Palin is a shallow, chirpy person with those vaguely alarming eyeglasses. Now her fans all want a pair. Remember back when women wore glasses that departed their ears in plastic swoops and swirls? My theory is, anyone who wears glasses that look weird is telling me something I don’t want to know.
Pathetic ad hominem. Now the mystery deepens? Why the removal? Glitch? Cowardice? It can’t be because he’s sorry. But if he is he should be man enough to say so.
Hat tip: Blog Wonks
Filed in General |
Carloson 11 Sep 2008 at 11:08 am 1Why the removal?
Because Liberalism is a stealth ideology. It relies on stealth to survive. Sometimes they slip, but generally you can’t know what they really think. Now Ebert’s rant is down the memory hole (or thrown under Obama’s infamous bus).
Stephanieon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:08 am 2He removed it because the Editors of the Suntimes don’t want the same crap to come down on their heads that happened at US Crapazine. Thats why. Ebert doesn’t feel remorse if he did he wouldn’t have posted that insane diatribe.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Palin Derangement Syndrome Hits Poor Roger Eberton 11 Sep 2008 at 11:10 am 3[…] UPDATED: Post deleted? […]
Carolynon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:17 am 4What a bunch of cowards!
I swear, I’ve never seen such a sniveling bunch of cowards in my life. They throw old grannies under the bus, they hide in hotel bathrooms after meeting their mistress - and now the wussie yanks stuff off his site. What a bunch of cowards!
Kensingtonon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:23 am 5Ebert probably isn’t sorry. This is entirely consistent with every other bit of boilerplate liberal swill he has occasionally excreted out, presumably to ease the shame he must feel at *only* being a movie critic.
Roger, being a movie critic is a fine occupation, and you’re pretty good at it. Why not just keep with that? We’ve already got Daily Kos, Nick Coleman and Maureen Dowd, and they’re better at being liberal fools than you are.
PerfectTommyon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:25 am 6Hey, this deleting idea is probably a good idea for Ebert. Next he could delete his three and a half star review of “Redacted”.
CTBon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:31 am 7It’s still up on the Sun-Times website, under Columnists- “Other Views”.
Iagreetotallyon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:31 am 8Mebbe mr ebert realized belatedly that the presidential campaign isn’t a movie to be reviewed. (now someone plz tell Mr Damon)
Audietooon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:37 am 9They woke the sleeping giant. Real people who have to get up and go to work in the morning and don’t have a villa in the South of France or on Lake Como. And those hicks they wole up are grabbbing them by the neck and squeezing. LOL
Crison 11 Sep 2008 at 11:39 am 10Ebert’s a pandering careerist who substituted food for booze a few decades back and still managed to lose his good health.
I feel sorry for him, bit it is obvious he has lost it.
He fits right in at the Chicago Sun-Times, with their redundent, silly little liberal women columnists at the ‘progressive, indepedent’ newspaper.
JimmyCon 11 Sep 2008 at 11:53 am 11I’ve been Ebert’s biggest fan for years, but he started getting ugly right after Bush was elected, when he wrote that article mocking Bush’s daughters as unsophisticated. Not exactly his classiest moment, and even he expressed regret for it later (although he never apologized).
Now, after eight years of his snarky BDS and his mean-spirited personal attack on Palin, I’ve had enough. I’m done reading his reviews or otherwise supporting him. I’m glad his health has improved recently, but he’s lost me as a fan and as a reader.
Addison DeWitton 11 Sep 2008 at 11:57 am 12I lost some respect for him when he gave a good review to THE PHANTOM MENACE, then gained it when he also gave a good review to THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and a reasoned defence of Gibson’s artistic vision. I knew he was a leftie but figured he was relatively sane. Not so I guess. Oh well.
Ratherreadon 11 Sep 2008 at 12:12 pm 13Ebert and James Bernadinelli were just about the only two reviewers who gave The Passion of the Christ a thoughtful review. For that, I will thank Ebert. But dear sir, your BDS is making you foolish.
JohnFNWayneon 11 Sep 2008 at 12:17 pm 14Maybe Ebert accidentally deleted the post after getting smacked around by another film critic.
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzBmNDhhYjJhOTI4NzdhMTYwY2JkNDcxNTQ2NjM0ZjQ=
Campaspeon 11 Sep 2008 at 1:25 pm 15Man enough to say what? That in the course of expressing his mind about a political candidate, as is his right, he made a mild, obviously self-referential joke about people who wear “weird glasses”? That’s the sort of thing that has conservatives demanding public apologies these days?
I particularly love how you supplemented your taunts (Nerd Boy, mama’s boy with chubby pale face, gets ass kicked on playground–now that’s raising the discourse) with an almost 40-year-old picture so you could sidestep the fact that he isn’t chubby any more. Cancer does that to a person. Given the race to the bottom that your tirade set off, I can’t say I blame Mr. Ebert if he chose to remove his Palin piece from his site. If that is the sort of thing some of your commenters are willing to say in public, I can only imagine what they may have been saying in emails.
As CTB points out, it’s still on the Sun-Times website.
Peteon 11 Sep 2008 at 1:36 pm 16You’ll find Ebert’s commentary here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1156080,091008ebertpalin.article
As a political pundit, Mr. Ebert makes a great film critic. He’s clearly out of his element here which but I’ve known that for a long time. He’s been kind enough to e-mail me a response or two when I’ve pointed out his errors so I’ll give him that but, otherwise, meh.
pandaxon 11 Sep 2008 at 1:55 pm 17Campaspe
Ebert has a right to say what he thinks that’s why America is great. But you and the left seem to think it only works one way. Some famous person opens their mouth and says something and is shocked when people exercise their freedom of speech and respond. The left loves to dish it out but screams persecution when someone dares respond and even more shockingly disagree with them. If he didn’t what people to respond then he should kept his mouth shut.
Ezraon 11 Sep 2008 at 1:58 pm 18“I’d rather see her criticized for the shape of her eyeglasses.”
I just saw that in your quote of the David Zucker-Patrick Goldstein interview.
Heh. We don’t even need to TRY and parody these people.
Palin: “They hate her because she is not a victim” | The Anchoresson 11 Sep 2008 at 1:59 pm 19[…] fact that at age 44, Palin has not yet been to Europe! Oddly enough, this massive brain lift was quickly taken down from the internet. Some of it may be found […]
Campaspeon 11 Sep 2008 at 2:05 pm 20Pandax:
Nothing I have said pertains to whether or not people should respond.
I am horrified by the tone, which was utterly out of sync with Ebert’s.
If you want an example of a thoughtful response, you could check out J.C. Loophole’s comments in the other thread.
pandaxon 11 Sep 2008 at 2:23 pm 21Campaspe
I like my response just fine. Please don’t flatter yourself for being “thoughtful”.
What you see here is people who are sick of actors, musicians and movie reviewers like Ebert (whose reviews I used to deem more reliable) using their position to launch one sided attacks against conservatives. Ebert knew what he was doing when he wrote that article, he was using his position as a movie reviewer to launch a partisan attack against someone whose politics he doesn’t like and therefore tries to convince people not to vote for her. So no I don’t feel sorry for him and if that’s not thoughtful enough for you too bad.
Rusty Jameson 11 Sep 2008 at 2:25 pm 22As someone else pointed out his article is still up on the suntimes site.
Here is my favorite quote from the comment section:
“Most of the people on this site are frustrated zealots from both sides. Their families, friends, and co-workers probably want listen to them anymore so they write stuff here. This is not a forum for thr intellectual exchange of ideas but, just a place for people to spew their rhetoric.”
Campaspeon 11 Sep 2008 at 2:32 pm 23Pandax:
If you re-read, you will find that it was JC Loophole I was calling thoughtful.
pandaxon 11 Sep 2008 at 2:35 pm 24Rusty James
I love it when somone posts something like what a bunch of losers you are here. But then someone always responds with well if we are then what are doing here? That person never seems to give an answer. So Rusty please don’t try and say your not one and that includes the person who wasted the time to write what a waste of time this is.
pandaxon 11 Sep 2008 at 2:38 pm 25Campaspe
I know but the purpose of that statement is too imply that mine was not. I really don’t care if it lived up to your standards it’s fine with me.
Campaspeon 11 Sep 2008 at 2:48 pm 26No, the purpose was to imply that Harry’s was not. I don’t recollect what you said in the prior thread.
In the past I have gotten some good out of Harry’s writings, including a lovely short piece he did on The Human Comedy (which I watched afterward, and agreed with everything he said) and another on The Bullfighter and the Lady, which was a revelation. That’s why I come here. I usually stay quiet.
The Ebert thread was so vile I had to speak up.
Rusty Jameson 11 Sep 2008 at 2:51 pm 27Pandax, I agree. I’m in here in the nuthouse too. On the wrong side of the locked door.
It wasn’t a heavy handed criticism; it was a lament.
it reminds me of some good advice: Don’t argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
pandaxon 11 Sep 2008 at 3:00 pm 28Campaspe
I used to like Ebert. On his website he used to have Ebert’s rule for movies. Which included things like his limited character theory, my favorite, which states that no character is ever introduced without having a purpose. So that person that seems to have no reason to be in the movie is probably going to be the serial killer. I disagree with Ebert’s misuse of his position to impose his political views on us. This is after seven years of the media using its platforms of the news and tv shows to make all kinds of nasty attacks on Bush, War on Terror and conservatives in general. So while I understand your view I can’t say I really feel sorry for Ebert after he and his ilk have forced us to listen to their views.
pandaxon 11 Sep 2008 at 3:06 pm 29Rusty James
Trust me Rusty we know who the idiots are here. But I disagree with your view. If you keep posting here it means you like doing it. No one is making you. So please don’t try and sell me that line. It’s like the person claiming that the food at a restaurant is awful but keeps going back there to eat. For me I enjoy coming here and jumping into the pitch, no excuses or apologies.
Carolynon 11 Sep 2008 at 3:13 pm 30People - I’m seeing a pattern here.
I just stumbled across this revealing article by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. The opening line is: “The media are getting mad.” In the article, Kurtz goes to ridiculous lengths to reveal the reason for that anger - i.e., conservatives are so gosh darned unfair to Obama. But, ironically, as he lists the ways we’re so nasty to the Messiah, he inadvertently reveals the REAL anger. It’s not Kurtz’s anger or the media’s anger - it’s someone else’s anger.
The same anger that scared Ebert into hastily removing his article about people who go to more than one college and don’t visit the Louvre. In other words, we’re talking about the anger of a public that has finally had enough of an elitist arrogant media that treats it as if it had two heads and no brain.
An anger that is now blowing back in the media’s face as the public demands the media stop covering up for the terrorist Ayers, corrupt Rezko, and plain stupidity of the Obamessiah. An anger that’s manifested itself in the nomination of a woman who’s the total opposite of the Obamessiah - an anger that erupts when Ebert makes fun of that woman.
So - the media’s ‘angry’? Oh, just you wait, little boys. If you want to see eral anger, you wait until the momma from Wasilla finishes loading all her cartridges into the chamber!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/
Rusty Jameson 11 Sep 2008 at 4:11 pm 31Pandax, which part of my comment was confusing for you?
You disagree with my view? But my view is that I agree with you. You’re blowin’ my mind.
Stephanieon 11 Sep 2008 at 4:27 pm 32Wusty dear Mommy is calling. You choc. chip cookies are waiting. She warmed milk for you to. Try not leaving skid marks in your underoos tonight.
As for Campasque….you apparently don’t get free speech. Another clever leftwing zero who understands this Free Speech for me but not for thee…as in Roger Ebert assjack elitist can say whatever the fick comes to his pointy head and we are not allowed to call him on it. Well Campy that might work in China (because Barack insane Obama) where no one has the right to say anything considered unpc or criticize the government however it don’t work here in the USA. Like good Ol’ Charlie Daniels said you can whatever you want your the one whats gotta own it. If Rog wants to trash a woman he has never met, then he needs to own it when he is wrong. And he hasn’t owned it.
Robert Lindseyon 11 Sep 2008 at 4:38 pm 33With Google cache and the internet archive, (www.archive.org) it’s frequently possible to find what was said before it was changed.
Jack Marinoon 11 Sep 2008 at 10:09 pm 34They are all running scared, they know if McCain wins, Palin will make sure the court is packed with 5 more THomas’ then the mad dogs are done forever.
pandaxon 12 Sep 2008 at 3:03 am 35Rusty James
No Rusty you seemed to be confused. So let me try and explain it to you, again. You did not agree with me. I don’t see this as a “nuthouse” I enjoy being here and for the most part I think we have people exchanging their views on pretty much everything. Again I like it and see nothing wrong with it. You on the other hand see us as a bunch of kooks, you also generously include yourself, with nothing better to do. You are not trapped here as you say because guess what you could simply stop posting. That fact that you continue to do so means you enjoy doing it on some level.
Jim Whyteon 12 Sep 2008 at 5:31 am 36When I tried the old page, it had a most fitting banner ad for the Coens’ “Burn After Reading”.
I was in Europe when I was a baby, but didn’t get back until I was 38, and passing through on biznis in Africa; I guess I’m a hopeless provincial too. These days there are quite a few HPs in more interesting destinations than Europe — the Near East and Central Asia, for example.
Not going to Harvard seems to be a problem with some people. (I took some delight in pointing out to Crimsoweenies of my acquaintance that in my discipline, Harvard had the third best department in Massachusetts, after UM Amherst and MIT.)