So let me get this straight:
I just want to be clear on the rules here…TRM
Did you read post #18?
Yes. Have you read Roger’s and Rush’s complaints? They are equivalent.
No they are not, as has been explained in post #18. If you are going to ignore that post, chances are you will deliberately ignore any other post that explains the clear difference, so I’m not going to bother.
It would help your argument if you’d back that up with a cite. I’m not ruling out that he did this, but I have no recollection that he did.
It might have something to do with the MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things that GWB did. Roger’s point here is that Obama has done nothing wrong with regards to Haiti. He isn’t stealing money, nor is he twisting the tragedy to make himself look good.
The equivalence you’re searching for does not exist.
And never will, to close-minded ideologues to whom GWB=Evil. Sorry I brought it up. Never mind!..TRM
I got a great response from him once. Wish I had kept it.
or anybody else who can recognize the difference between “legitimate criticism of actual actions” and “baseless slander”.
And you should be sorry.
No, tell us. I’m not a closed minded ideologue who thinks GWB = Evil. I want to know what Ebert said about Bush. I honestly have no idea.
Some googling reveals an Ebert critical of Bush, but I honestly can’t find anything quite so crass as the implication that Obama’s administration will steal money meant for the Red Cross. In this interview he claims the belief that Bush was not legitimately elected, and discusses the possibility of a breach of church and state.
In this review he complains about Bush’s stance on the death penalty in an arguably mean-spirited way.
A cursory examination of the results from searching “site:rogerebert.suntimes.com bush” doesn’t reveal much except some inflammatory adjectives, eg “dawdling”, “malingering”, “radical”. This is par for the course for heartfelt criticism; I’m not seeing much equivalence with Rush’s remarks.
No, I can’t see how those rise to the level of essentially accusing Obama of taking food out of the mouths of starving babies in Haiti. I mean, that’s what he’d be doing if he was “diverting” donations to something else.
Roger Ebert is a fantasic writer.
Ebert criticized Bush for actual actions that took place in the real world. Limbaugh criticized Obama for imaginary actions that took place only in his own mind.
I love Roger Ebert, not so much for his criticism of Limbaugh, but for who he is. First, I like that I have come to know him over the years as his life experience bleeds into the columns he writes. As a reviewer and writer on movies he is unparalelled. He isn’t always right, and sometimes his views on movies are baffling, but he is thoughtful and never uninteresting as a reviewer. Many times his reviews have clued me into interesting things I would otherwise not have noticed as I watch a movie.
There are very few celebrities I will mourn when they pass. The last was Jim Henson, but Roger Ebert will be as tough as they come when he dies.