The anger of the festering fringe

I think you mistake RINOs like George Bush and John McCain as mainstream Republicans, IMHO they are not. I am a conservative, and most of the people that are fighting against the socialist are conservatives that value freedom and the government the heck out of our wallets. We are tired of "reach across the isle" Republicans. We are tired of being told we need be more moderate to attract the illegal alien vote. We are tired of political correctness and being called "raaaaaacist".

You end your article with, "What is the benefit of this hate? What good can come of it? Where might it lead us?"

My answer to that is the complete and utter failure of Obama and the reemergance of American freedom and values...by any means necessary.

Ebert: By any means necessary?

I suppose all the anti-Bush hysteria (perpetrated not just by the left-wing fringe, but the Democratic Party) was reasonable, productive politcal dialogue?

It's simply detestable to compare President Obama to Hitler. It's equally despicable to refer to Islam or atheism in the same breath as Nazism.

Maureen Dowd had an excellent op-ed piece yesterday on William Safire. I think it's apt to provide a link.

"Bill Safire was anything but a nattering nabob of negativity. He had none of the vile and vitriol of today’s howling pack of conservative pundits: Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and Malkin."

"Most reasonable people, when they heard Obama wanted it kill their grandmother, simply smiled, because -- well, because they knew he didn't."

I wish that were the case that most reasonable people in the United States simply dismissed these lies. But let me tell you, here in Texas...oh, wait, are we still in the United States? Did we secede and nobody told me?

I'm not sure people from other parts of the country understand what it's like to be living deep in a red state right now. It's really through the looking glass. On election night, I watched images of people celebrating in the streets, singing and cheering, about the outcome. I was jealous. It was like I was watching scenes from some far away country.

Meanwhile, back in the Republic of Texas, Fox News isn't just a cable network, it's a lifestyle. The nonsense about Obama and health care that I've overheard from my educated coworkers would make Glenn Beck blush(and then take notes). It's been really depressing to see people, even in my own family, show these sides of themselves. Maybe in the end we will all come through it a better country, if we can ever just all come together to at least foster a civil, intelligent debate.

> Some of them may have been the victims of child abuse.

What?

Ebert: Resentment of authority.

It almost seems like nowadays liberal vs. conservative no longer means two conflicting ideologies, but rather, two opposite intelligence levels.

If I were a conservative, I would be mad as hell at who is representing me and my beliefs in the media.

The situation looks worse for us members of the loyal opposition. Issues that should be sincere national discussions are soiled by associations with lunacy, and thus dismissed. If I want to discuss whether the health care plans are fiscally responsible, why should I be lumped in with Birthers and McCarthyites? And yet, I am.

I truly fear that my reasonable, centrist opinions will be viewed as merely symptoms of an underlying disease by my liberal colleagues and friends, so I stay silent.

There are so many elements of our current civic culture that have eroded at a time when true leadership and a informed citizenry is critically important to solve large issues. Sometimes its hard to place the source. Our current 24 hr media culture has largely failed us. The volume of news Americans are subjected to has never been higher. But the quality is lost in that volume. No question good journalism still exists - but one has to work hard to find it.

A large reason for my continued support of our President, and my faith in his leadership, is his ability to see the line of American history and keep his eye fixed upon the horizon. This Union has continually faced crises: economic, social, civil, and of confidence. Yet in all our times of swells and storms we were well served by those that stood hard at the helm and grounded us upon our ideals. That we are an optimistic and hard working people (as JFK had said) - and that we can always be counted upon the side of justice (even if last as Churchill said).

The truth is our problems in this country lie not in political differences, but in the "bipartisan" failure of sustaining the status quo. That we have been failed by our leadership to think big and envision a future steered from our past follies. That freedom cannot come from a interventionist and unsustainable foreign policy. That our energy consumption and addiction to fossil fuels eats at us like a cancer. That failing to provide access to basic care is dissolving the basis of the social contract that has built the foundations of democracy since 1215.

These current elements are most frustrating for their weak belief in the sustaining spirit of freedom. The cry for it, and wallow in their belief that it is lost. They falsely see tyranny in political differences. Truly, at no other time in all of human history have a people been more free.

And it does not go unnoticed that these elements were so silent for 8 years of federal growth, unnecessary wars, and compromised civil liberties (warrant-less wiretaps). All of a sudden people "find Jesus" when a Democrat comes to the White House. Oh and he has a foreign name? Two-fer.

You cite the weakness of American education. That is undoubtedly a contributing factor, and possibly that situation is more dire in some parts of the US as opposed to others. How could anyone of normal, resonable intelligence believe in some of those blatant absurdities about Obama?

But I don't think intelligence, or lack of it, may even be a big part of the picture. An unyielding, blind adherence to ideology knows no boundaries of intelligence. An anecodotal case: my workplace. Presently I work in an industry that tends to attract individuals of strict conservative disposition (needless to say, I'm an exception.) Around the hall where my office is, there are many degreed individuals (even so far as a Master's or Ph.D. in some cases) who I can overhear having conversations spewing the same nonsensical bile as what you hear from the mouth of Glenn Beck. (No, I don't actively eavesdrop, but they speak so loud that I can't avoid hearing it unless I put on headphones.) I for one have a rule against discussing politics in the workplace, but if others want to do it among themselves, that's their thing. But it's frustrating to hear them repeat the same absurd talking points on national security and health care, when they are supposedly intelligent individuals. Of course, I repsect their right to have differing views, but that's not the point: they believe in things that are blatantly fase.

Admittedly, it's one of the flaws shared by a lot of human beings: believeing in something when evidence totally flies in the face of the belief, and rarely is it more egregious than when it is applied to religion and politics.

"The comments from readers are about the best you will see on a blog." -- Computerworld

Roger, you are brave to subject the above to this test.

As usual, Roger you have summed up quite nicely what is happening today. I find it despicable that the so-called main stream media (MSM) has completely shredded the social contract of bringing us the news of such lunatics. Oh, and when they do pay lip-service to coverage, they twist themselves into pretzels in being "fair and balanced" by giving credence to their fantasies instead of calling them out. it's not objectivity, it's cowardice.
The current Democratic leadership also share responsibility in this.
Where was the White House outrage at gun-nuts carrying armed weapons to town hall meetings were DEMOCRATICALLY elected officials including the President were speaking! There will always be Becks/Limbaughs/Coulters among us (paging Fr. Coughlin). They are fools. I expect some spine from the party in power.
Hey you, over there in Congress and the White House: we elected you. You won. Act like it and call these traitors out. Grow a pair, won't you.

Hi Roger,

I usually agree with your sentiments but I find fault in your statement that "liberals played by the rules" during the Bush Administration.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

Zombietime has compiled a ton of photos, videos, etc. proving that these shenanigans were aplenty from 2000-2008 and equally, if not more, vile. It is sad to see this level of stupidity but it certainly has not been one-sided. I hope that you re-think your position in light of the evidence.

Roger, I'm glad to see you finally writing about this subject. I am deeply dismayed by the hate that is evident in rantings of the far right fringe - a fringe that is alarmingly large in my opinion. How many listeners does Glen Beck have - millions? That in itself is frightening. Pictures of Obama that portray him as Hitler or a demonic Joker go beyond political free speech - they make no sense and contribute nothing to dialogue - they are hate speech plain and simple.
One cannot even reason with these people - they are so locked into their fallacious circular reasoning, based as you say on made-up "facts", that no dialogue is possible. Their closed mindedness and absolute assurance in their correctness is what I find most frightening.
Sadly, the answer to your question, "Who doesn't believe religion, any religion, does not belong in the schools?" is, many on the far right. That is the base - the religious right, who believe the Christian God is the Only God, and that they, as true believers, are the only possessors of the Right Answers. Not only do they think THEIR religion belongs in schools, they practically demand it - to the extent that they have segregated themselves from the rest of society, in private Christian schools, or home schooling. Hasn't it always been true that the religious zealot is the most dangerous of all, because of his absolute belief that God is on his side? It is from the self-segregated group that the most rabid haters are coming. At this point I fear all we can do is hope that saner heads will prevail on the right, and put the haters where the belong - so marginalized, so far outside that political process, that they no longer have an impact.

Roger: “Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules.”

Really?

I have lost count of the Liberal Pundits who described Bush and Cheney as Murdering (Iraq), Racist (Katrina), Thieves (2000 & 2004 Elections).

As recently as this week, Democratic Rep. Grayson stated Republicans want Americans to “Die Quickly” and used The Holocaust to make his point on the state of Health Care in this country.

What are these “Rules”, Roger?

Neither side has clean hands.

Fyi...I never voted for nor supported Bush. And it was alarming that, for a few years after that day in September, it seemed that anyone who opposed Bush and his policies was instantly tagged as “Un-American”.

What alarms me now is that it seems that anyone who opposes Obama’s proposed policies is instantly tagged a racist.

Ebert: Thieves for sure.

I worked for a small magazine once that didn't get any reader mail. They tried something new one month, got one letter criticizing it, and so canceled it. One letter. In the absence of discussion, I think whatever statement is being made is going to get heard. Cable news has got 24 hours to fill, so they fill some of it interviewing people that would never make it into a newspaper with shrinking pages and budgets. Then that interview goes onto youtube by someone who... I don't know. Thought is was funny? Then we all see it, because it's nuts. So I see an interview I would never have seen with someone that would never have gotten interviewed, just because of changes in how the news works over the last decade.

I had to stop watching The Daily Show, because, in the interest of finding jokes, they were showing me clips of things I would otherwise never hear about, and those things were upsetting me.

So someone somewhere puts up anti-Obama posters, and a couple hundred people see them, as happened with Reagan, except then now the image is digitized and sent directly to my email box, so I see it too.

I don't think these people are new, or that they are a new threat. I think it was a slow news day, and there's an established story "some people are angry!" that a lazy reporter can tag onto with whatever person wants to say something crazy to get onto TV today. But then later, when it's not a slow news day, and that's not on the news, it's still on YouTube to freak me out. Maybe it's just the changing delivery system that makes it seem so prevalent.

Has anyone done polls to see how many people actually believe any of these things? I'd love to see them.

I'm not going to claim that ALL Bush-hating liberals stayed "within the rules" (spend as much time on the internet as I do, and you'll find people who'll say anything about anybody), but I do find it disquieting that Obama haters have been getting more press, and even more POSITIVE press than the Bush haters were.

It reminds me of when I was watching an ABC News story about the Obama Health Care plan a month or so ago, and the hataful protesters were given about five times as much screen time as Obama (who was, at the time, visiting Minneapolis as a part of his tour to explain the plan). I guess I shouldn't have been suprised, because half of the commercials for the broadcast were from various medicines and pharmaceutical companies.

I would like to see both sides of the political aisle declare a "Hitler truce", whereby both parties agree not to refer to opposition leadership as Hitler or use any other Nazi-esque nomenclature.

I am a Republican who supported George W. Bush in two elections, and I felt strong anger whenever I heard him referred to as Hitler. When Barack Obama (who did not receive my vote in 2008 and will not receive it in 2012) was elected, I silently crossed my fingers, held my breath, and hoped against hope that my Republican brethren would not draw the Hitler Card. "Attack his ideas," I thought. "Let's take the high road and leave the name calling to the opposition." As we all know, these pleas were ignored, and the Hitler Card was used within moments of Obama taking office.

I am 30 years old, and I can already see a society that is crumbling due to its historical ignorance. People my age and younger have little clue as to who Hitler was and the evil that he and the Nazis inflicted upon the world. I believe that, in my lifetime, there is an excellent chance that Hitler's crimes will be forgotten and the name Hitler will simply come to mean "The guy that I didn't vote for."

And, please forgive me, but those doctored photos of Obama are absolutely hilarious. Are those humorous mockups or are they actually taken from right-wing sites?

Ebert: The latter, I fear.

There was an insane amount of resentment towards George Bush, if you remember. The only deference is that it manifested itself in "bushisms" and generally making the man into a buffoon. I didn't particularly like him, but I found the constant disparagment and attacks disquieting.

In Political Psycology we have been talking about how over the past few decades, the office of president has been more and more under attack. Statistics show that people trust politicians less and less over the years. We have gotten to the point where we trust the president very little and therefore don't take them seriously at all. We expect them to be able to handle all of our problems, and when they fail that impossible task, we mock them and call them failures. We are so cynical we are scared to trust anything for fear of being hurt. Watergate, the Vietnam War...all off that simply garuanteed our unhappiness.

Funny how America was supportive enough to vote for Obama when he was merely a canidate, and yet when he becomes the president, he becomes victim to the same attacks that plagued past presidents of recent years.

I will say Obama probably has it worst than the other president's have. I don't think this is bigotry (sometimes it's very hard to decide what is influenced by bigotry and what is not). Obama was black before we ever voted him in. No, I think this is a continuation of a trend. With each presidency, the trend of attacking the president has gotten worse and worse.

If you really think these videos are bad, you need to watch (maybe even review?) The Obama Deception, which can be viewed in it's entirely for free on Youtube. It has over 3 million views already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

The rules that allowed liberals to make frivolous and frequent comparisons to Hitler, year after year after year? That allowed liberals to talk constantly about impeachment and murder prosecutions? The rules that made it perfectly acceptable for even mainstream liberals to say things like "Heil to the Thief," "Idiot-in-Thief," "Commander-in-Thief," and so on? The rules that condoned accusing this man of lying to get this country into a war for oil--accusing him of sending thousands of our best citizens to their deaths, and far more thousands of citizens of another country to their deaths, all while allegedly knowing full well that no one was going to find any WMDs? The rules that allowed Maureen Dowd to put in Bush's mouth a statement he never made to the effect that terrorism wasn't a problem anymore? The rules that allowed liberals all across the fruited plain to call Bush a murderer and a tyrant who shredded the Constitution and had no respect for freedom? All that was playing by the rules?

Either your memory left you long ago, or you're applying a double standard. I think the latter is more likely. The Bush hatred that swept the left for eight years was just as vile and vicious as what you're seeing directed at Obama.

"Who can seriously compare American president to Hitler?"

Did you ever ask that while Bush was president and innumerable people on your side of the political spectrum were comparing Bush to Hitler? If you didn't (and I'm quite sure you didn't), why didn't you? You can't pretend that you never knew about this. Everyone heard it, countless times, and everyone has seen lots and lots of posters depicting Bush as Hitler, going back even to before Bush was inaugurated in 2001. Your question should've been asked a lot in left-wing circles in the eight years Bush was president. It wasn't. Yet now you start to complain that Obama is being compared to Hitler. Hypocrisy like yours is very hard to come by.

I'm amazed that you can write at length with such condescension to people you don't know, psychoanalyzing this large number of people with some supposed mental pathology, while you ignore that huge plank in your own eye. You spent eight years tolerating and ignoring an equivalent amount of venom being sprayed at Bush by the left. But only now, only in the year 2009, are you frightened by the level of rancor and hatred at the president. Think about what that says about you. Think about what it says about you that you think that Bush's critics played by the rules but Obama's critics aren't. None of the accusations or insults hurled at Obama is worse than what we all heard and saw when Bush was president. Shame on you for pretending otherwise.

Ebert: Was the 2000 election stolen? Did Bush lie to get us into war? Did Bush violate the Constitution?

Yes.

Great piece, Roger. Common sense, written clear and gently. I think this will be beneficial for many people caught in the middle, who are not sure what to believe.

Roger, have you heard of John L. Perry's recent column posted on newsmax, that literally and seriously speculated on the merits of a military coup against President Obama? He wistfully describes without a trace of irony, a scenario straight out of Seven Days in May, or more pointedly the alleged plot against FDR that was exposed by General Smedley Butler, in which high ranking military officers would lead themselves into the White House and reduce Obama to a puppet of their interim government. Newsmax took it down, apparently realizing that his column fits the definition of treason. I'm not sure where the full text can still be found, but the key line is where he says that it was irresponsible to have left the 2008 election to chance, and Americans shouldn't allow it to happen again.

I think the general population is more informed and reasonable today than ever before. But with the internet, the lunatic fringe have been given a means to communicate, organize, and have their voices heard.

Much like how without the internet, Obama could never have organized his rag-tag mosaic of supporters when commencing his campaign, these lunatics who had never had a prior outlet for their conspiracy theories, and hate speech have finally been given a chance to share their thoughts.

Unfortunately, like everything you have to take the good with the bad.

This layman's opinion is times are tough and a scapegoat is needed, and like navigating a boat, the tendency is to react to what you should have reacted to a few seconds ago (so W isn't the best scapegoat candidate, though under his watch and at his behest the tough times were created); plus, people really and truly DO believe what they WISH were true. Truth with a capital T so often takes a back seat to Wishful Thinking.

Really? So few have commented on this article? No rabid anti-Obamanites have threatened slow death? Most excellent article sir. I've been a fan of your reviews for years, trusted your opinion forever, and so when you stray away from just talking about film you still deserve my ear. I share your thoughts and marvel at coworkers, friends and family that talk of wishful assassination plots on a daily basis. Even if it is so much BS, how in the hell did we get to this point of separation of core values, a separation of common sense reality from paranoia? Go ahead folks, do something rash and stupid. Do you want to talk about real martydom? Do you wish to see race wars? I knew change would be painful and reform of the last 8 years would take time. Obama may truly be guilty of only one thing: naivety at expecting real results from his refreshing rhetoric. Can Americans even remember how painful it was to watch W stumble across his own tongue on the world stage? Obama sorely needs a few victories and it seems no one is willing to even let him off the starting blocks. The Onion headline said it best back in January: "Black Man Handed the Worst Job In America".

Your absurd comment that "Liberals played by the rules" when criticizing Bush makes supsect everything else you write suspect.

Hello Mr. Ebert,

Mr. Ebert, the fringe lunatics have always been there; they will always be there. In peaceful times such people are not a threat, but now because of the recession large sections of America are in a state of desparation and fear. This is when things get scary.

When people are desparate and scared, they listen to people and proposals that they never would have listened to before. Reason deteriorates, and demagouges mine the dark places of the American mind.

Demagouges and terrorists alike all love fear and despair; this is what allows them to assume power. Remember, Hitler wouldn't stand a chance of being elected without The Great Depression.

It is now, under this shadow, that we must promote and defend reason more than ever, or this shadow will take a long time to pass.

Thank you, Mr. Ebert. This commentary was like cool water on a hot summer day. I'm constantly amazed by the lack of critical thought from people when it comes to these topics. These folks have no problem dissecting half-truths from a used car salesman, but will accept as gospel virtually anything they hear from the media they consume. I don't understand it, so I cling to my fading hope that the lunatic fringe is vastly outnumbered by reasonable people and that they just seem large because they show up more often in the 24 hour news circus. Rational commentary from people like you, Jon Stewart, Tom Freidman, helps keep people like me from outright panic.

Rich (NH)

"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

And a movie was made depicting the assassination of then-president Bush as he sat in office. There is no worse example of "festering fringe" than to fictionalize the assassination of a sitting president.

Your editor at RogerEbert.com calls Death of a President "an electrifying drama, and compellingly realistic...responsible and observant."

Would you dare welcome a "compelling and realistic" film depicting Obama's assassination or are you too busy worrying about the supposed anger brewing on the Right?

Are you not at all ashamed that as of this posting RogerEbert.com hosts an article that calls a film depicting the assassination of President Bush "responsible?"

As long as liberals played by the rules, I guess. And as long as the anger displayed against Bush isn't motivated by race.

Ebert: Have you seen it? I haven't, but I don't believe it calls for assassination. One critic says it contains nothing for a Bush supporter to object to.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/deathofapresident?q=Death%20of%20a%20President

The view from the inside perhaps shows some kinds of extremes better, but perhaps what you also need to be aware of is that very little of it seeps out of the USA and into other countries.

Of course this man is not like Adolf Hitler, but different countries have different experiences. Pretty much every single one of the kind of experiences we seem to be having with Obama, with a possible exception of Josip Broz Tito, the Yugoslav leader from approximately 1945-1980, turned out to be rather disturbing. I am talking about the kind of practically overwhelming amount of trust, expectation and adoration in one man as a leader that Obama seems to have; one single man representing millions of people in such a loud way. Yes, do think Hitler; also think Saddam Hussein, Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic.

Generally, bestowing such amount of trust and identification of a whole nation, value system, whatever, on one single man almost always turns out very, very wrong.

Inside America, and following the media closely, you may get biased by the kind of extreme reactions Obama sometimes gets from some people, but from the outside, what one sees is pretty much a cult od OPbama. A New Leader. The Savior of the Nation, perhaps even the Whole World. Now these man usually do turn out to be very, very dangerous, and seeing this can be disturbing.

Just like the almost unanimous hatred of your previous president - especially during his second term, where accusations very much like these ones you write about today were not only incidents, but practically mainstream, was disquieting.

Please try to have a larger picture in mind, and please be careful.

Good work here, Roger. You have summarized many thoughts I've had recently and tried to articulate, although not as eloquently as you. It's very disturbing to me how people have pretty much disconnected their brains and consciously decided to not think for themselves, no matter which side of an issue they may be on. People seem to want everything oversimplified to a point where it no longer makes sense and the issue at hand is no longer recognizable (like the health care debate). We as a society are devolving before our eyes, and I'm afraid Idiocracy is actually going to turn out to be a documentary.

I was actually listening to conservative talk radio yesterday. Though the hosts did not deny that the article from Newsmax was unfortunate (though they did say the author had some good points) they did point out that President Bush received similar extremist vitriol. They pointed out that there were many people in the streets protesting, holding up signs of President Bush making him look like Hitler. There was even a movie that came out depicting the aftermath of President Bush being assassinated. Though I agree there were extremists during the Bush years, these people were seen as the "lunatic fringe" of the left (though many of the 9/11 truthers and acolytes of Alex Jones, who are no fans of Bush or Obama, seem to be more a part of the paleoconservative movement). From what I recall they were given nothing but condemnation. The “lunatic fringe” of the right seems to actually have public leaders that you can find on your television or your radio. They are getting the type of media attention that wasn't even given to the enormous protests all across the U.S. near the start of the Iraq war. Now, I doubt you will find Beck or Hannity actually using Hitler as a pejorative to describe Obama. However, they have either implied, or outright said, that he is a Marxist, a racist, and a fascist. Representative Michelle Bachman pushed the conspiracy theory that Obama is setting up youth camps to indoctrinate young men and women and to turn them into his own army. Sarah Palin was the first, I believe, to use the term death panels in the national health care debate. These types of extremist views are not seen as coming from lunatics. These views actually seem to be considered main stream. That is what I find most troubling of all.

Oh, thank you Ebert for articulating things that I believe many people would love to converse about, but lack an audience. I have been pondering about such things for a while now, and I feel that perhaps scary times are ahead if the fires keep being fueled.

I like to cite that the major news corporations are partly to blame, because they have a financial incentive to report (or create stories about) such reckless hate. If there is an audience, for those who truly believe all the way to those to just gasp at the footage shown, the material will only proliferate itself to larger and larger audiences. Problem is, how do you ignore something that is constantly pushed upon the American people on television?

For the GOP, I find they also have an incentive. Not for something truly awful to happen to anyone, but to rabble-rouse the dormant blue-collar voters into shifting elections. If they can convince them there is a threat, they can turn out in record votes.

My problem with the GOP is that they have masked their policies in patriotism and anti-big government in order to convince the poorer people to vote against their own class. The poor will benefit a lot from universal health care, yet lies continue to sweep through an under-educated class to be against it. It baffles me. It truly does. People claim this will limit choices for health care. I say that America's choices are already extremely limited. The poor have an even smaller amount of choices. We choose between a limited amount of businesses for health care. Problem is, businesses look out for their bottom line before people. At least the government claims to be of and for the people. Should not that claim be worth something?

Incilin: ... Do you not realize that, if you're espousing the views of ALEX JONES of all people, you're IN the group being talked about here of hyper-paranoid radicals?

I have never seen so much bitter hatred and so many sore losers come out of the shadows because of the result of the election. For example, one such group is The Birthers who claim that Obama is an illegal immigrant from Kenya, who literally conned the U.S. Government and "stole" the highest elected office in the land. In essence they are basically saying that Obama has so much power and clout that he is able to pull a scheme that not even Lex Luthor, Joker, and Hannibal Lecter combined would ever be able to pull off. The sad part is that there are those that believe this to be true. Then you have The Teabaggers, who, quite frankly, are a mish mash of disheveled old folks, jingling their teabags and saying no more taxes. And you need to hold mass protests for this?

Some will say that the Obama-Hitler comparison is okay becuase those on the left made the same comparison with Bush. The problem is that Bush started illegal wars, held secret prisons, advocated torture (aka "enhanced interrogation techniques"), felt his way was the high way and only hired and fired judges based on whether or not their political ideology was similar to his or not, and the list goes on and on. In short, Bush did a lot of mind numbingly stupid stuff, hence the Hitler comparison. Now, I know that the Hitler comparison is extreme, even for Bush, but you can at least try to understand why that comparison was even made to begin with. With Obama, there is nothing to give base to that Hitler arguement. What has he done other than try to extend the olive branch to the other side (much to the ire of his liberal base)? The Bush-Hitler comparison had some reasoning behind it, the Obama-Hitler comparison is just out of pure hatred.

And with commentators like Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Glenn Beck spreading the hate, they do nothing more than spread social irresponsiblity. How are they socially irresponsible? Well, for the simple fact that they lie through their teeth, spread lies, and push their lies. Obama is Hitler? Obama and Bill Ayers are conspiring together against America? Obama is an illegal immigrant from Kenya? Obama hates America and wants to bring it down? Obama hates white folks, even though he is half-white and was raised by his white family? These people, who are nothing more than opinionated folks picked up off the street and given a platform for their voice to be heard, are nothing more than just that. Gone are the days of insightful political conservative commentary like Bob Novak. Now, we live in the internet age in which anyone, and I really do mean anyone, can go on a website, voice their opinion, and through several e-mails of the story have that story become "fact." It's a sad state we live in when all it takes is Photoshop, Caps Lock, and a blogspot be be believed.

What mostly infuriates me is that these people are dividing America in the name uniting it. With one tone of voice they will assert that Obama is Hitler and that he plans to kill your grandmother, but with another tone of voice they will lament that America is divided, failing to notice their contribution to this division. Glenn Beck is especially guilty of this.

From an English point of view, its incredible to see just how much America is two different countries, split almost perfectly 50/50. The first few times that I travelled to the states I went to New York and California, and I could never work out who exactly was voting for the Republican candidates; everyone seemed to hate them. But recently I was in Atlanta, and spent some time with a different set of californians, all of whom were quite the opposite. Intelligent sometimes, lovely people, but similarly set in their ways, except this time on hating Obama and what he stands for. Its bizarre. If Obama had been running for a hypothetical 'President of Europe' it feels as if he would have been elected in a landslide of landslides. 70, 80%. It seems that whatever your position, in a country as large and diverse as America, an enormous amount of people are always going to hate you unconditionally.

We live in a world where many students think writing a research paper is no more complicated than shampooing their hair. Google, cut, paste, repeat. I see a lot anti-Obama articles on the table in the lunch room. What scares me the most; what angers me the most is the hatred oozing from them. Who are these people? I almost hope that they are just spammers. But, even if they are, someone in this company thought that that pile of putrid print needed to be shared with everyone else at work.

I couldn't agree more that the lunatic fringe is frightening, but I don't think it just became so. Hearing liberals declare that George Bush was worse than Hitler offended me as both a Republican and someone interested in World War II. What strikes me most about this declaration of outrage at Obama's detractors is the insistence by many that this began with an African American President. Alexander Hamilton was a bastard, Andrew Jackson's wife was a whore. Bush went to war over oil, Bush 2 is worse than Hitler, and suddenly we think criticism has gone too far?

Certainly, undoubtedly, obviously, and unfortunately there are racists in this country and probably always will be. But I blame the unconscionable bias of the media for stoking the fire. How many riots did we see over the war in Iraq? How many war widows did we see weeping and railing against the President? How many celebrities did we see stand upon their own self importance to relay to us their feelings on global terrorist initiatives? Now we are shown the lunatics with guns at Presidential speeches (legal, but just plain stupid) or signs with Obama painted up as Hitler or inexplicably enough The Joker? Are there thousands of these people at these events? Or is it possible that those in control of the outlets want to magnify the lunatic fringe until it seems as large as the entire G.O.P.?

There was actually a woman who apparently states on her Tax return in the 'occupation' section 'journalist' who says that when Mr. Wilson said 'You lie!' she heard 'You lie, boy!' Well now that speech was recorded and a cursory glance passed YouTube would show this individual that he said 'You lie!' sans 'boy!'. Hell I heard it clearly the first time. Where's my friggin Pulitzer? It is 'journalists' and folks like this in the news in general who are stoking this outrage.

I watch about an hour of Fox news and an hour of MSNBC news each day just so I can attempt to piece together what the hell actually happened in the world that day. I have to do that brother because each damn day they broadcast different versions of the same sh*t. You are a news man Mr. Ebert, where IS the news? Who can you turn to to simply get The News? Today in the world something factual happened that not a single godd*mned soul can report without filtering it through their own ideas and beliefs. i am an intelligent person sir, all I need is the fact, I can formulate my own opinion.

Someone needs to make a program that filters all news through it, removes hyperbole and grandiosity and leaves us pure unadulterated truth. I believe that in that truth you would find a heap of good Americans wanting to help each other and live in peace, a few less than that with the same goals but different approaches to getting there, and then a group surprisingly smaller than what is shown on the news putting Oliver hardy mustaches on Obama and throwing shoes at Bush.

Clint Eastwood should run in 2012, even if you didn't agree with his politics who the hell would put a Hitler 'stache on him?

Roger: "Some of them may have been the victims of child abuse."

But it was 30 years ago and besides, he's an artist! Can't we just move on?

There have always been public figures with extreme or ill-informed opinions. The biggest change I notice is the media's tendency to treat every opinion as valid. The follow up question seems to be, "do you agree?" and not "is this factually correct?" You are right to say that 'these people' cannot be convinced by facts. The country is full of conspiracy theorists, and as you well know, you cannot prove a negative. Glenn Beck makes his audience feel intelligent by validating their suspicions, whatever they are. The problem is that they only feel intelligent, without having to prove it by knowledge or debate. The contempt for higher education is the most disturbing development of the last decade. When did our most educated citizens start being referred to as 'some professor?'

"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

This is something only a liberal could believe.

"Who can seriously compare American president to Hitler?"

You never said this while Bush was president, when innumerable people on your side of the political spectrum were comparing Bush to Hitler. Why the silence? Why the silence until someone on your team got hit with that insult?

Ebert: They were wrong to do that. You neglected objecting to comparisons of Obama and Hitler.

It was under the Bush administration when the two towers were hit, where was the Bush administration to prevent that from even happening in the first place. It was the under the Bush administration that could've prevented the overflowing of dams in the first place had he put in more money into proper reservoirs in Katrina but didn't have any money since a good percentage of the money went to a war (which is Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11 leaving the biggest recession since the 1930's resulting to bringing other countries to go down with it. Did Bush spend enough money to save all those people from Katrina, if you think yes, than you got to be the most dumbest hillbilly and least intelligent person on the planet.
Yeah that's right George Bush gets an A for leaving the stinking mess for Obama, and now the Republicans are using him as a scape goat for the mess the Republicans had left behind. This is a fine thing what this former president has left us.
All this is, is Right -Wing propoganda, where people refuse to look at the whole picture and believe what they wanted to believe. Stick with Fox News for your information, CNN is not accurate la-de-da.
If hitler was ever alive he would never go for free health care, all the money went to war just like George Bush.
In actuality Hitler has more similarities with George Bush than Obama even in his worst days invading a country for the sake of oil, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, it was always Afganistan in the first place. Now Time magazine is a waste of information space.

I am neither festering with hatred nor on the fringe of an extremist ideology. But I appreciate the comparisons between The House's proposed/Obama supported (sight unseen) bill and Germany's Nationalist Socialist Party health care system under Hitler. I appreciated criticisms of Executive Branch and general Federal Government expansion under Bush. Totalitarianism permeates incrementally, but proponents (on both sides of the isle) will lunge wildly when opportunities present themselves. 9/11 and the financial meltdown were two such opportunities. "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do" - Ben Franklin

I believe true reform begins with setting term limits for Senators and Representatives.
Then how about Malpractice Insurance Reform?
And maybe a few subsidies for alternative schools. Let's free students, parents, and teachers from the shackles of harmful Acts like No Child Left Behind. Just a few ideas...

Roger, even when I disagree, I truly enjoy your writing!

From what I've read recently about the history of our Republic, the current level of discourse in American politics is not so different from what it has always been. It's never enough to attack your opponent's ideas; you have to impugn his character and paint him as dangerous, rather than misguided.

I don't see much difference between "Obama is a Muslim" and "Bush invaded Iraq so he can steal their oil". Seriously. Each side will pick any detail, any allegation, no matter how small, and spin it into their platform. I don't think it's hate, I think it's America's oldest sport.

Half the time, whenever I hear Obama being criticized for wanting to do something for which no other president would receive objections (for example, speaking to the schoolchildren of the country he was ELECTED TO RUN), all I can hear is James Woods in the movie "Nixon" shouting, "Who let this negro in here? He's saying all these...NEGRO THINGS!"

Fringe movements have always existed on either ends of the political spectrum, and they have always relied on their imaginations to build fake arguments against the status quo. The problem is that these movements are being legitimated by the media, who provide platforms to lunatics with zero credibility.

I find it profoundly hipocritical that news outlets that defend the American policy of not negotiating with terrorists are providing right-wing hatemongers access to millions of American households on a near-hourly basis. Make no mistake: many of these nutjobs are tacitly inciting violence. How could we possibly win the so-called "War on Terror" when our media is fomenting domestic terrorism all day long?

parts of G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, which is in the Public Domain:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/130/130.txt

The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ's.

...Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large...

...Suppose, for instance, it were the first case that I took as typical; suppose it were the case of a man who accused everybody of conspiring against him. If we could express our deepest feelings of protest and appeal against this obsession, I suppose we should say something like this: "Oh, I admit that you have your case and have it by heart, and that many things do fit into other things as you say. I admit that your explanation explains a great deal; but what a great deal it leaves out! Are there no other stories in the world except yours; and are all men busy with your business? Suppose we grant the details; perhaps when the man in the street did not seem to see you it was only his cunning; perhaps when the policeman asked you your name it was only because he knew it already. But how much happier you would be if you only knew that these people cared nothing about you! How much larger your life would be if your self could become smaller in it; if you could really look at other men with common curiosity and pleasure; if you could see them walking as they are in their sunny selfishness and their virile indifference! You would begin to be interested in them, because they were not interested in you. You would break out of this tiny and tawdry theatre in which your own little plot is always being played, and you would find yourself under a freer sky, in a street full of splendid strangers." Or suppose it were the second case of madness, that of a man who claims the crown, your impulse would be to answer, "All right! Perhaps you know that you are the King of England; but why do you care? Make one magnificent effort and you will be a human being and look down on all the kings of the earth." Or it might be the third case, of the madman who called himself Christ. If we said what we felt, we should say, "So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvelous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!"

...The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Roger, I have to agree with the first comment.

What's funny, is that right now on National Review Online, Link (new window) they are making the exact opposite case - that liberal "elites" were mercilessly uncouth towards Bush, and that the kooks of the right demonizing Obama are merely the "unwashed masses". They're factually wrong, but I believe you are as well. This vitriol is thoroughly bipartisan.

I'm glad to see you're addressing it, but it needs to be addressed more symmetrically.

Roger-

Obviously you and I fall on opposites sides of the political spectrum. But you strike me as a reasonable guy (arguably one of the last, since the subject of your blog seems to be the death of the Reasonable Man). With that said, how can you actually say liberals played by the rules when it came to opposing Bush? It's kind of preposterous, actually. Liberals threw out the rule book when Bush was President. That doesn't justify the nuts, but surely you agree the treatment of Obama is in no way comparable to the treatment of Bush...

I'm encouraged by the crazies, in a way, because it shows just how amazing this country is (particularly with respect to the First Amendment and the bedrock-belief that even an acting President is no king or royal-subject free of criticism).

By the way: did you actually chastise Republicans for opposing health care by drawing comparisons to their opposition of Social Security? That in itself is a Ponzi scheme even Madoff couldn't have dreamed of.

Glad you liked Zombieland. I loved the cameo.

At first it is almost fun to talk to people who believe whole heartedly in wild conspiracies, because without weirdos, how boring would the world be? However, it becomes disappointing when these conspiracies go mainstream and somewhat normal people end up being caught up in them to some extent.

I believe many of the Obama fringers are fueled by covert racism. Others are blindly in defense of the republican party that they feel they have to jump on everything Obama does in order to feel better about Bush's failed presidency.

I am not a republican nor a democrat. But I feel there are wackos on both sides. If you think the democrats played fair, I beg you to check out www.loosechange911.com

I have a friend (who is a huge Obama supporter) who still believes to this day that Bush/Cheney planned the attack on the towers.

I do think most people start out wanting what is best for America, but they just think there are different ways to get there. Some people just end up getting so caught up in themselves and their own ideas that they forget the other side wants the same goal, a happy thriving country. I believe people's shortsightedness and stubborness are costing this country dearly every day.

I've been waiting for this post since the first tea party protest, and my patience has been rewarded.

Unfortunately for the fringe -- who only Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and maybe Lou Dobbs, take seriously -- their supposedly clever reference to "The Dark Knight" reveals their ignorance of the Joker's political views. I work on the Hill, and our office continually receives faxes that display Obama's face in the Joker's makeup, with the word "Socialist" inscribed near the bottom. Don't they know that the Joker was an anarchist, the diabolical opposite of a socialist? How can they expect to be taken seriously when they're message is a contradiction!? Don't they know that I'd join them in their protest if Obama was trying to destroy our government, not make it better?

But alas, that's why they're on the fringe... *sigh*

Roger, I love you man. I really do. You've been my favorite reviewer forever, in spite of the fact that I don't agree with a lot of your political views--and you will continue to be my favorite. I worry about your health and I want you to last along time. You have great gift. That said, I think it's really pretty rich of you, and so predictable that you would write something like this. I observed the vitriol of left-wing whackos towards George W for 8 years, including an actual feature film about his assassination. You weren't worried about HIS health were you? No, because you hated his politics. I don't like Obama's politics, or his credentials to lead one bit, but I worry about him. Why? Because he's my president.

To the people who say that the liberals are as bad: on a scale of one to ten, the liberals were about a five. The extremists here are off the scale - not just eleven, but twenty or thirty THOUSAND.

What's coming out of the US these days is very reminiscent of what came out of Germany in the 1929-1932 era.

Ever visit the Ku Klux Klan's website? I know I have... at least twice. I only go there for a laugh when I need one. It's delicious to watch ill-educated morons attempt to make themselves sound as if their opinion matters. "A message of love, NOT hate!" is their tagline. Sure.

I've noticed that their website hasn't posted a thing about the 2008 election or anything that's happened since. They won't admit that we have an African American in the White House. I suppose they're giving it the old Holocaust denial try: if there's no records of it ever taking place, then it didn't happen! Right?

One time they were speaking out against the movie "Amistad" (1997), and made every point to emphasize that it was being released by "Jewish film producer Steven Spielberg". They then started venting about how schools showing the film to students would pass out questionairres relating to the film's historical matter; one of the questions related to Morgan Freeman's Joadson character, even though Joadson was never in fact a real person. So, apparently, the KKK was mad because they thought our school system was implanting information about a fictional historical figure into the knowledge of its students.

You know who the KKK cited as their reference for this information? Get ready to laugh: Michael Medved. I'm not kidding. The KKK doesn't seem to know which sources are appropriate to cite and which ones are not. I just hope they find out- in case they didn't figure it out already- that Michael Medved is Jewish.

There's certainly some comfort in feeling you are better/smarter than others (witness the huge popularity of failblog.org - a site that I admit I kind of enjoy myself), but when dealing with complex subjects like government policy for 300 million people or scientific data and proof of the efficacy of vaccinations, it's hard for just about anyone to see all the angles and understand all the interactions and easy to feel "stupid". But if you can recognize that things are complex, it enables you to understand that you need to think, gather different opinions, research the actual facts and try to come to conclusions. But it's not easy and it's time consuming...

So I think people like their short cuts (unfortunately, not the Altman variety) to explain complicated problems - Obama is pure evil, vaccines cause autism, etc. - and then they can be part of the group who "know" they are right. When things are black and white, you pick a side, staunchly defend it and know that you are better than "them".

It must be reassuring for many people...

As for Coulter, she's not a political analyst. She's a comedienne. A bad one in my opinion (the video above shows her to have a poor delivery and bad timing), but that's her schtick.

Yeah, the liberal side plays by the rules, like when the Daily Kos gleefully applauded Tony Snow getting cancer...or Micheal Moore asserting that there is no terrorist threat or the things they said about George Bush...such as comparing him to Hitler... The right may be Facist but the left is Stalinist, choose your poison (they are equally repugnent to me) but dont try and convince me that liberals have choosen a higher moral path...thats a laughable assertion and a dishonest one as well.

Ebert: Did Kos do that? Did Moore say that? I missed it.

I don't necessarily agree with the notion that "liberals played by the rules." We saw plenty of Bush as Hitler signs and 9/11 Truthers.

But, to be honest, most of those on the fringe didn't come out until after we discovered that Bush lied us into a war.
After 9/11, Bush enjoyed the highest presidential approval rating ever at 92%. You don't get those numbers without a majority of liberals behind your back. Do you think the right would support Obama if we faced a similar tragedy?

What we didn't see from the left at any point was mainstream Democrats putting forth this nonsense. You have Michele Bachmann telling people not to trust the Census and questioning Obama's birth certificate. We see protests for the sake of protesting. We see the right use any excuse at all to bash Obama. (Even for many of the same things that plenty of previous presidents have done: Czars, the teleprompter, talking to school children.)

I agree, Roger. It's become downright scary. And I don't see any way it can stop.

I wanted to read this article, I really did, but unfortunately I was perusing the site in a busy coffee shop and was embarrassed to be seen reading any article with those ridiculous photos attached to it. I feel like posting those kind of things only bring attention to them-- "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

While I agree that political discourse has far too often devolved into baseless attacks and pointless bluster, educational problems and disenfranchisement are not the only causes of the problem. I don't doubt that you (and other readers) recognize this, but I thought I would bring up another point that I ran across recently: the problem of mass media.

Neil Postman has written a fine book dealing with the influence of media technology on contemporary culture. He makes two key points that help to diagnose some of the problems with the current political climate. First, television (and news / talk programs especially) offers primarily de-contextualized information. We are presented with short, opinionated slogans and truncated sound-bytes, but all this is given outside a proper context. The context is what lends any piece of information its significance and meaning, and even attentive viewers would have a difficult time assimilating such disjointed bits of data without distorting the original idea of the speaker. The second point follows from the first. The institution of television is inimical to the idea of sustained critical thought. TV programs have to be attention-grabbing, interesting, and focused on viewership and ratings; often they are focused on selling a product (information), not seeking the truth. Valid political discourse requires sustained argumentation and reflection, something not accomplished well in the television medium. Sadly TV is the primary (for some the only) source of political information for a large segment of the populace.

Thank you for your incredible words and insight. While people will dispute your claim that Liberals played by the rules, I must agree with you. There was outrage and protests about the war and the LYING that got us into Iraq (and I don't care that its 8 years on, we were LIED to by the Bush Administration about Iraq and fed mistruths and misinformation while allowing the true perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 go free), but they were done civilly and with fewer fringe nutcases.

Each "side" is going to have those that are on the furthest reaches of the argument, but the conservatives are far more dangerous, outspoken, paranoid, and rabid. Plus these nuts have GUNS. This is the truly frightening thing...they are armed and dangerous and egged on by elected officials who sit idly by and allow the extremist to overtake sane and rational debate.

And when something happens to Barack Obama (god forbid), people will wring their hands for a day or two and then it will be back to business as usual. And the blame will be at the feet of those that didn’t break free from the pack and denounce these lunatics.

I mention my mother often. I find her a useful topic of conversation because she lies so extremely on one side of things. She is a conservative Republican, and despises Obama. She says she actually thinks he is evil. She claims that it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, because she loves the (African American) chair of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, and would like him to be president. I do know that when she saw the picture of Obama made to look like the Joker, she was disgusted. She said "I hated it when they pulled that kind of stuff with Bush, and I hate it with them doing it to Obama."

The real problem here is a rabid case of the tail wagging the dog. way too many "political journalists" are essentially ambulance-chasers. As long as people are saying their names, they really do not care about the reasons. Facts are secondary to good TV. If one wished to take the time, it's usually easy to pick apart the claims of these TV pundits. The problem is they've made a career at being better than the average person at slinging filth and playing the right card. Basically, they don't have any real facts, so they yell things that are outright indefensible.
What makes the situation even sadder is that it is best to try and ignore them. I applaud Obama for not taking the time to make any comment about most of these ridiculous claims. By doing so, he would in the minds of these demagogues only lend credence to their points. It sucks, and it takes a while, but it's best to let them rail on until they become boring.
My grandfather had the most fitting comment about trying to debate people like Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly:
"When you wrestle a pig in his sty, you only discover 2 things: 1) You're covered in shit, and 2) the pig loves it there."

So everyone who believes / considers conspiracy theories is an intellectually immature nut? That isn't fair.. I would much rather deal with conspiracy theorists than people with boring minds, who only accept what they're told. yes someone can cross the line into believing everything they hear, but there are many out there who are in the middle. Conspiracy theorists are a diverse group, some are very liberal too. the best of them have a great imagination. Reading and being interested in conspiracies can be as stimulating as good fiction, maybe even more so ... the problem is when people let it overwhelm their sense of reality, I have found you have to keep a distance from them. but I would re-think the stance about conspiracy theorists, not all of them are what you describe... too many, yes.

What's funny is that the idiots who compare Obama to Hitler and socialism to Nazism have no idea that Nazism is "national socialism", which is different than socialism. You cannot expect intelligent discourse from these people.

Roger: Speaking from this side of the Atlantic , (UK) , the level of political discourse in the UK or the indeed the whole of Europe is not particularly high , but comparing Obama to Hitler is just inconceivable to most people here.

There would be universal condemnation if Gordon Brown or even Silvio Berlusconi (who seems to stumble from one sexual scandal to another) was portrayed in such a light, this is not discussion or debate or even democracy. This is bullying plain and simple and with frightening consequences.

What is intriguing is that , there doesn't seem to be a fight-back, everyone seems to go around as if nothing out of the ordinary is being said or done. Is the American polity really so de-sensitized ?

Thanks Roger, we see eye to eye. The fringe is quite distrubing, however I am sometimes more disturbed by the seemingly rational conservatives that seek to find equivacacy as a defense. The progressives protested against the what they felt was an unjust war and the decimation of our rights. If the arguement was liberal protesting against universal healthcare it would be an equal comparison, even if it was "they did it first" is not a justification.

How can you say that "liberals played by the rules" during the Bush Administration. Thats totally not true at all. Bush to this day gets bashed every minute and i dont hear nothing about it being a problem. Thats what happens when your a President. You will get criticized and chewed up no matter what. This world isnt perfect and you will get crazy people who state their opinions in different ways. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/ go to this website for proof

In my opinion, this is entirely the fault of the media. When people protested the Iraq War, the media generally castigated them, calling them lunatics and un-American. A few thousand people showed up on Tax Day with teabags and no clear vision of what they were for or against, and Fox News gave them a stage and a spotlight. The other networks followed with extensive coverage. Things have snowballed from there, with daily coverage, and they still don't have really significant numbers. Yet every day this is the news.

Seriously, would these people totally divorced from reality have any kind of attention, let alone a "movement" if they weren't getting propped up by the media? There were plenty of nutters who were anti-Bush, believing he profited from 9/11 and helped the attack take place. Where was their network sponsored tea party?

There has been much that has been written about this issue that I can't say anything original about. But I'd like to provide some persepctive from the Muslim world.

Having worked in Malaysia and now Saudi Arabia, I've talked to some people about how they feel about President Obama. People here in the Middle East greatly admire him, but not so much so because Islam is part of his heritage (they know very well he isn't a Muslim).

There is a uniform feeling of suspicion towards the United States here for many reasons (e.g. Israeli support, The Iraqi War, and the death of innocent civilians and Afghanistan being the most prominent ones). But people here are really supportive of President Obama simply because of the respect he has shown in his visits to the region. Simply put, he was everything W wasn't. And now when they watch US news with the right-wing nuts hurling these insults, they pretty much deduce that Republicans really are against any progress with the Muslim world.

People may think that this is unfair, but there you have it.

Ebert: Thieves for sure.

I am sorry but that also is a lie perpetuated by the left. There are many lies on the left and right.

Ebert: Explain to me how and why Bush won the 2000 election.

A friend once told me her Catholic grandmother exhibited hatred when discussing Obama. This was because he was pro-abortion.

I am honestly scared by people like that. They are terrible, uncompromising people who would in one way or another become tyrants over whomever doesn't think their way.

My first instinct is to get away from them. Failing that, I get the urge to pick up a blunt object and bash them into a fine powder. They are to me as big a threat as a hungry tiger. Please, I think, go somewhere and pretend you don't exist.

If only it were that easy.

This is my new manifesto, Roger (to inadvertantly refer to a piece of communist literature). I see it as your way of saying "I am mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more".

More people voted for Obama than any other President, no? We need to be heard.

"Zombietime has compiled a ton of photos, videos, etc. proving that these shenanigans were aplenty from 2000-2008 and equally, if not more, vile. It is sad to see this level of stupidity but it certainly has not been one-sided. I hope that you re-think your position in light of the evidence."

George - See if Michael Steele, or any elected Republican will condemn the ugly rhetoric coming out of the base of the republican party. don't think it will happen though, do you?

"Liberals played by the rules" ??? Are you kidding?? I'm not sure where you were during the years Bush was president but you obviously are forgetting the cruel, disrespectful, and indecent treatment that the Bush administration endured from many liberals and the mainstream media. Bush was referred to as Hitler many, many times..there were riots in the streets at various RNC conventions with bottles and rocks being thrown at Bush's motorcade..a movie was made about his hypothetical assassination...any of this sound familiar? Liberals thought dissent was fine during the Bush years, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, if you disagree with the president, you must be a racist.
I am a conservative. I disagree with many things that this administration is doing and the direction they are taking this country. All of my objections have to do with POLICY..not skin color.

Reply to: These beliefs are held by various segments of our population:

(1) Obama wants atheism taught in the schools.

(2) Obama wants us to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants.

These beliefs are absurd. Any intelligent person can see they are absurd. It is not my (end of Ebert)

What?

Do you remember the incident where "You lie!" was shouted at the President?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/59331-menendez-forces-immigration-debate-into-healthcare-fight

Obama declared in a speech to Congress: “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

By Alexander Bolton - 09/18/09 06:00 AM ET

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is putting Democrats in a bind by seeking to let illegal immigrants benefit from the healthcare overhaul. Menendez, the only Hispanic senator, may represent the deciding vote on the Senate Finance Committee set to mark up the legislation next week.

His objections come one week after President Barack Obama staunchly disputed GOP accusations that the healthcare proposal would aid illegal immigrants — prompting the now-famous “You lie!” outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.). (end)

Just to get things straight, the final version of the proposal has not been agreed on.

There are many intelligent people who can anticipate changes to the bill, in committee, that might change or remove ANY part of Obama's original proposal.

when you say "any intelligent person can see it's absurd"... I don't think #2 belongs on that list.

President Obama is a lawyer and a former professor of Constitutional Law, who may anticipate that it would be unconstitutional not to extend health care to the same people entitled to Due Process and police protection and protection of basic civil rights.

Reply to: With the zealous True Believers there is no debating. They feed upon loops within loops of paranoid surmises, inventions which are passed along as fact.

There IS NO FACT about this health care bill until it's actually passed into law. The precise wording of any section can change at any time.

The Congress is engaged in DEBATE. Maybe they're only trying to get their face on CNN to help their next reelection chances.

Reply to: Ebert: Leaving all ideology aside, who in his right mind doesn't want an affordable health insurance plan for his family and his loved ones? Who doesn't believe religion, any religion, does not belong in the schools? Who can seriously compare American president to Hitler? Who believes a man who attends church more regularly than any president since Carter is an atheist?

Over on the Darwin/ID thread, Mr. Mellon has been telling us about three Catholics he met while attending seminary, who are now atheists AND Catholic priests.

What does a politician attending church have to do with being an atheist?

You can't get elected IN AMERICA without support from large groups. Many of them are religion-based.

Right now, I don't think you can be elected President unless you identify yourself as a Christian.

And today, it's extremely common to be Christian AND atheist. using the term "Christian" to define a social agenda rather than a belief in the supernatural.

Teaching atheism in public schools would be a tremendous advance. It might be the only way to make American schools the best in the world again.

"Not teaching religion" is a compromise from 1800. The New Atheist movement only started in the last decade.

"I have lost count of the Liberal Pundits who described Bush and Cheney as Murdering (Iraq), Racist (Katrina), Thieves (2000 & 2004 Elections).

As recently as this week, Democratic Rep. Grayson stated Republicans want Americans to “Die Quickly” and used The Holocaust to make his point on the state of Health Care in this country."

All of that has the inconvenience of being true. Bush and Cheney caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq, abandoned New Orleans and engaged in shenanigans in both elections.

Meanwhile, Republicans haven't offered any health plan to benefit the Americans who are dying due to insurance companies denying them coverage and/or care.

A quibble: Grayson did not refer to "THE Holocaust," but rather used the term generally.

As I read your line "liberals played by the rules" I was already itching to find evidence to the contrary and I thank George in the second comment and Jeff in the fourth for getting there before me.

I might add the film "Death of a President" to the list of crass attitudes toward George W. Bush. Here was a film that took advantage of the First Amendment rights we all have in the U.S. to make an ethically suspect, morally repugnant fictional film about the assassination of a sitting president. Incidentally, my local video shop here in Seville, Spain, places that film on the documentary shelf. Wishful thinking from the European left?

Perhaps it is worse now with Obama. It certainly seems more rabid to me. I'm certain some of it is fueled by racism. But I'm also pretty certain a lot of the tropes (like conspiracy theories) spread so quickly and seem to have so many devoted followers mainly due to 24 hour cable news and the Internet. The Internet has been a marvelous outlet for the lunatic fringe. And susceptible people who have a computer easily fall victim.

Civil discourse has gone out the window with a media that love to play to ratings rather than broadcast what is newsworthy. Watching these people on television is better than Jerry Springer because we all knew Springer's show was mostly staged. But what you get on Fox News seems more like the real thing.

You have to understand that, with the exception of high talk show ratings, the Far Right has been consistently getting its butt kicked for the past ten years on just about every subject. They put a non-leader up for president in 2000 when a real leader would become crucial, they got us into a stupid war, they blew up the economy, and the rest of the world (including at least 50 percent of their own country) hates them. Their leaders now have been reduced to obnoxious tv personalities with no college degrees. And unlike the Left, they have no artists or philosophers to breathe life into their "freedom" philosopher. Look at the states that nonsensically voted for McCain/Palin last year... the most uneducated, superstitious, racist parts of the union.

How could this movement NOT descend into the madness we see now?

I'm always amused when those in the press ruminate on why the public is misinformed, and seem to investigate every possibility (bad schools!) other than the press itself. Can we expect a blog post in the near future that addresses this giant elephant (no pun intended) in the room?

Seeing Obama's precidency from the other side of the ocean (Belgium) provides me with different angle on things. Bush was depicted rather negative in our media. Invading Iraq with which later appeared to be no valid reason didn't do much good to his image. So far, Obama is being depicted positive. As previous comments have already shown, an affordable health and education system are common sense for us Europeans. So it's weird to hear people complain about a system which will provide just that to the average American. Let alone ideas that Obama would be a muslim or kill your grandmother. I hear these thoughts and I mostly just shrug them off as minority thoughts.

I have browsed through some of those extremists fora. Some of their visitors are clearly intelligent. They quote the thoughts of famous philosophers and are literate even if they pull the quotes out of their context. Yet they do miss the capability to think on their own. They have been indoctrinated since childhood. And those ideas are reflected in their environment. Breaking with those ideas might mean breaking with their environment and that's not an easy thing to do.

Your post seems to suggest that atheism is in some way wrong. Religion shouldn't be a reason to think negative of people. I really don't care if our ministers believe in God or not. That's their private business and I'm not biasing my vote on that. And as I believe in a separation of church and state, religion should be kept out of state schools. The whole thing reminds me of a phrase I recently read in Nabokovs book Lolita, a book from 1953: "There are three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The other two are: a Negro-White marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at age of 106." (the first one is of course pedophaelia). Some things have changed in the last fifty years but it will take probably take another fifty years to see an atheist as president of the USA.

Extremism is frightening, whatever its stripe or creed.

Only 6 comments so far, Mr. Ebert, but already 2 of them are arguing that hey, the Dems did it first, as if that is some sort of justification for what is happening now. I am astonished at what our country has become; I often feel like I am living in Bizarro land where up is down and right is left. There is no ability to argue, debate, discuss. All that is wanted is to destroy. I do not know how to get out of this endless partisan divide, but certainly our politicians will not make it happen, and have no will to make it happen. What to do?

While I approve most of what you said here, I must point a few flaws in your argumentation which, in my opinion,weaken the kind of seemingly "post-partisan" thinking you probably wanted to express. First, as others noted, the Hitler Card has been heavily used by both Republicans and Democrats, be it against Bush or Obama. This fact was exacerbated by the rather divisive measures taken by those two presidents, notwithstanding your personal opinion about their management of public affairs. Second, when you say that anyone with a sound mind should support universal health care, you forget that this social concept has not always existed and that alternatives effectively exist.

As I said, those are only minor gaps, since I consider myself a liberal. Actually, being Canadian and more precisely from Quebec, I perceive governement-run health care as a given. It is nowhere near the paradise painted by US reformists, but it is also definitely not a socialist failure where people are watched by some freaky bureaucrat eager to see them die to cut costs. Thus, republican attacks on our system based on a few misinterpreted cases, such as Natasha Richardson's death, tend to irk me, to say the least.

I must add, too, that the deep-rooted fear of governement seen among so many conservative Americans appears as downright irrational to many Canadians. I sometimes believe some people have read 1984 too many times for their own good, but I then think that those for whom the simple word "government" is cringe-inducing most likely never read 1984 (pardon the implied elitism). Yet, over-reliance over governement is no better, as it encourages waste and deresponsibilization. In this regard, small government advocates have a point.

Where I drop is when anyone refers to Obama as a socialist, or worse, communist or even Nazi. It demonstrates a definite lack of political culture, since socialism (which has received several definitions along the course of history)is, in communist doctrine, one step in the progress towards a classless society. In a truly socialist state, private ownership doesn't exist and all citizens are equal in rights and in comfort. Workers also own the means of production throught the state. So far, there never has been ANY socialist country on earth. Even Europe's various socialist parties never go as far as speaking about revolution; they are merely leftist politicians believing in the State as a force for good. Thus, calling Obama a socialist is incredibly far-fetched, despite the massive bail-outs; in many countries, such as Canada, Obama would be called a right-wing bible-thumping extremist, while our own conservative leaders would be portrayed as the descendants of Karl Marx in the US.

I believe all those approximations derive from a lack of deeper knowledge of the world and of politics; this can be observed everywhere, by the way. This radicalization of language hinders proper dialogue and rightful criticism, since sincere and articulated critics of Obama are not being heard as they should be among so many people in love with instant effect and catch phrases. This way, legitimate worries about public debt, the close ties within high-ranking officials and Wall Street executives, continuation of absurdly high agriculture subsidies get eclipsed by free advertisement for the likes of Beck or Limbaugh in the form of commercially secure headlines.

Ebert writes:

"How much of the anti-Obama outrage is racist? Some is. Many of these angry people (I believe, but cannot prove) are made deeply unhappy by the reality of an African-American in the White House."

I've got the proof, Rog.

I'm from the Deep South, home to a lot of hard-working white Democrats who believe in their hearts that the GOP only serves the powerful. But last year during the election, I saw many of these same whites vote Republican for the first time in their lives.

Yes, this is after witnessing the last eight years of catastrophic GOP rule.

But they did it anyway. And the looks on their faces were all the same when they tried to explain why... the look of someone who put pride before common sense.

And to me that says everything.

I probably have a lot in common with the "lunatic fringe, the extremist rabble who are sweeping up the ignorant and credulous into a bewildering and fearsome tide of reckless rhetoric" in that I am middle-aged, Christian, very traditional in politics and religious views. I do not , however, consider myself extremist, ignorant or lunatic, nor am I an Obama-hating Republican. But there I think lies the problem of your essay - if people disagree with us, our modern option is to call them names and degenerate them to something akin to a Neanderthal, because that's the only explanation we have for their behavior. We cannot conceive how a normal person could possibly have these views or fears. Never mind that these people are our neighbors and co-workers, maybe even our family, and that they lead perfectly normal lives just like we do. They must be lunatics and ignorant to have these opinions.

I think we ALL have some opinions that someone else would think "lunatic". I prefer to give people their American right to their opinion, but work towards better understanding and shedding light on views that promote untruths. I don't think anyone was ever ready to listen to opposing views while you are calling them crazy, so let's just assume addressing their concerns in a positive way will get more done. Our politicians are particularly bad at this, unfortunately, but lately, so are all of us . There's a Bible quote that fits well here and Obama used it in a speech: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things."

It would be refreshing to see Americans behave in this way, because it is childish to liken Obama to Hitler , but it is also childish to liken people who don't approve of Obama as lunatics.

Thank you, Roger, for delving into the ideologies and motives of conspiracy theorists. That anything may be subject to a conspiracy theory is a disturbing fact of life. If we are to believe conspiracy theorists, then nothing is safe. Our food, cars, clothes, schools, and everything else under the sun, they are all controlled by something that we can not see nor understand nor comprehend.

I agree with you and have long felt that conspiracy theorists are simply out for self-aggrandizement. They prefer to spread their own truths rather than seeking out what is true. They use the internet and other mass media outlets to spread their falsehoods, and susceptible people cite those resources as fact. As these "facts" are disseminated, they become distorted even beyond the original lie, and the world becomes a more ignorant place. It's like the world has turned into a big game of telephone. One thing becomes another and another until "Provide medical care to poor families" becomes "Kill your grandmother."

The trouble is with how loud these people shout. They are passionate, but so am I. However, it is difficult to respond with a reasoned, calm argument to someone who would just as soon spit his bile at you as look at you. Sometimes, you just feel like shouting back. And, that's when the whole system breaks down. But, I prefer to listen to John Milton when it comes to such matters: "The truth will win out." I can only hope that it does so in time.

For some reason, this blog made me think of words that John Stuart Mill wrote in "The Subjection of Women." He wrote that those who felt that women should not be equal to men had emotional arguments for their views, which made it difficult for him to debate or refute them, armed only with logic.

Such ingrained emotional arguments, and the inability to debate others in a civil manner, is what will doom us in America to substandard choices when debating such complex issues as health care. The emotional argument is not what America, a product of the Enlightenment, was founded on. It was founded on logical, rational arguments and open debate.

In "On Liberty," Mill writes that the best way to choose a course of action in a democracy (or republic) is to have each side plead its case, and then go with the stronger argument. He concedes that the course of action thus taken may not always be the right one and may not always be what's best for the nation, but it is the best way to decide the course of action over all other possibilities.

If, on the other hand, some rational arguments are not allowed to be heard, and we choose policy out of ignorance or fear, we will more often than not make bad policy choices. And that is why, like you, I worry about these shouting matches at town halls, the wide dissemination of information masquerading as knowledge, and the drowning out of that most important of skills necessary in a productive debate: listening to what the other side has to say. Of course, that skill does no good if what is being spoken is pure drivel, devoid of all logic and rational thought.

Or, as Jefferson so eloquently put it, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

I think a lot of it has to with the fact that we're being faced with something different. A black President, a Catholic Vice President, a female Secretary of State, etc.

But, like all things that are different, the outrage will explode at first, and then slowly dissolve into a non-issue with the exception of a very small minority (there are still some liberals who think Bush planned 9/11). Within 20 years, being Gay will be a non-issue, and no-one will take the Bible thumpers seriously except for themselves.

Likewise, the fact that we have a black president is still somewhat a shock to the "traditional" crowd. It will take a while, but by the next election the "he was born in Kenya" crowd will most likely be restricted to Rush and his disciples.

I don't know where we're headed, Roger. I could have guessed Obama would have it tough, but I didn't seriously think the emergence of the best and brightest politician I've seen in my lifetime would result in the kind of sandbox games the right (if I could go lower than all-caps on that, I would) have been throwing at our president. (I mean comparing Barry O. to Hitler is more than ridiculous, more than knee-jerk... hell, it actually makes me wonder whether these knuckleheads recall what the actual crimes of Hitler were... )

These are right-wing shenanigans, in the truest sense of the word. But what do they hope to gain? Do they hope to destabilize us to the point where we're susceptible to a comically slant-grinned villain like Dick Cheney again? Do they hope to finally pop the last nail in hope, so that we all as American shrug and say, "Okay, you win, the dreams are dead, now we'll all agree to just scramble around in corruption until the country truly falls apart into 50 states that hate each other and constantly embark on little wars with each other across the mountains..."

I mean, I gotta really agree with Jimmy Carter and the racism thing. Yes, there are enough forward-thinking people in this country to have gotten my man elected. What I didn't realize that wonderful election night (I can still feel the excitment, like we were all getting another chance) was that there were still SO MANY frankly unintelligent or just plain terrified people out there sharing our highways that REALLY would need no more info than that he was black to start the rumors and the conspiracies. Are we so blind that we can't tell that this man is, perhaps against his better judgment, and at this late date, trying to help us?

I dunno, he's still got three more years. And he is an amazing politician, and I believe what have been regarded as his "weaknesses" are just his attempt at a realistic, measured pace to fixing our problems that won't send the truly terrified among us into utter revolt.

But c'mon: health care! My mother, the vessel via which I entered the world, the shepherd of the shaft from which I emerged... she died last year S-L-O-W-L-Y at the mercy of the unbelievably sketchy healthy care (Medicaid) she was afforded... they didn't even know what kind of cancer it was until she was utterly wasted away. This was not pleasant for me, especially since I watched my more monied father die of cancer fifteen years ago in relative comfort...

The question is: can we break through the backwards thinking, the mob greed, the sharks?

I've been watching Ken Burns' terrific NATIONAL PARKS documentary, and it really allowed me to - for the first time ever, really - ruminate on the idea that America really was a basically untouched slab of prehistory at the time of its colonization, a truly "New World" that we could have taken in any direction we wanted to... And unless we discover another new Eden on the backside of the moon or underneath Greenland, we've run out of last chances and new frontiers. The real new frontier now is in our minds, new ways of thinking, trusting, hoping, fixing, loving each other, working together, cutting loose the past while remembering what we loved about it...

(P.S. I've been working on adding content to my blog, so please check 'er out if you get a chance)

I voted for Obama, and voted against Bush in '00 and '04. I was sick of Bush before his first term even started. My tendencies and values would be described by many as "liberal," even though I consider myself a moderate. My pro-Obama, anti-Bush sentiments aside, I have to say that much of the blame belongs to the anti-Bush folks who spent the duration of eight years crafting the most outrageous attacks, parodies, lampoons, rumor-mongering, and general day-and-night obsession with all things Bush. The mood and climate that this generated was certain to engender full payback from Republicans the moment they had the chance to turn the tables. Sure, modern hate-based campaigning was invented by Lee Atwater long before we knew Obama's name; the wild realm of talk radio (both liberal and conservative) has promoted spite, anger, and shouting regardless of who's in office; and then there's the fact of the disputed 2000 presidential election. All that said, I think the free-for-all on George W. Bush from 2000-08 ensured a future in which no president will be spared of vicious attacks on a 24/7 basis. I agree that the attacks on Obama are particularly frightening and reminiscent of organized hate groups, and I hope that people on both sides can learn to calm down and work with what we've got. While I'm here, let me posit one last thing: What happened to the "We have to support our president" talk that I heard from every conservative mouth during the Bush administration?

Once again, spot on social commentary.

It is indeed frightening, this climate of hatred. As a 25-year-old American, I was at once shocked and awed when Obama won the election. Although I voted for him, I never believed that enough of my countryman would do the same. Until the last minute, I thought McCain would win.

This belief was not unfounded. I live in a working class suburb of Detroit, where something like 75% of residents are union auto workers. It is a Democratic county, but the overt racism that I saw during the campaign was overwhelming. I can't tell you how many times I would meet a stranger and, upon turning the conversation to the election (I am a huge political fanatic), would be told that a "nigger" or "Muslim" should not be president.

Much like the First Lady, the moment Obama was announced the President-elect was the instant in time in which I was most proud of my country. It showed, for the first time, that the American myth can be true. That what America respresents - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness being unalienable rights to all men - isn't just an idea, but a truth.

Now this. It is a bit scary, although I must admit I am, on some level, glad that the Republicans are showing their true colors. Let us not skirt the issue - racism is at the very heart of the Health Insurance debate, and all others. It is why no rational debate can exist, just mad, fervent hysteria. I, and most of my liberal bretheren, hated George Bush. None of our elected officials called him a liar in the legislature, and there were no calls for coups. I hope the young people are able to see this, and the Republican party loses some of its draw.

The one things that I can happily say is that conservatives, by their very nature, are fighting a losing battle. They want to conserve the status quo, or even move backwards in time. This, thankfully, is impossible. They were against civil rights, Medicare, Social Security, and other progressive ideals. They lost in every case, and will continue to lose. These people were willing to seceed from the nation at one point in time, and now they openly fly the flag of the Confederacy, praising the greatest act of treason in the history of our nation. Time progresses, and society changes, evolved by education, the mutating force behind society. The change is always in a liberal direction, as people demand more and more rights. And time will succeed in all instances despite the loud minority of conservatives fighting the tide. That knowledge, that the human nature ensures that conservatives cannot win, is wonderful. Still, it sure makes for a great annoyance today.

Also, a reader named George made a rather silly statement above. George, if you are reading, please have the common sense to realize the difference between the liberal members of the electorate and liberal legislators and figureheads. Sure, some people called for Bush's head, but not one of our Senators ever had the gall to shout, "You lie!" during an address to Congress. No members of the "liberal media" ever called for a military coup, a tea party, a massive protest in Washington fueled by pure hatred (as evidenced by signgs likening Obama to a monkey, and worse), or armed protests at town hall meetings. Liberals are no angels, but this is just insane. And you shouldn't just buy the party line, but use a bit or reasoning. I don't insist you must like Obama or anything about him, but you must at least make legitimate arguments.

Let's face it. There are lunatics on both sides of the fence. Some people honestly believe that 9/11 was staged by the US government for economic gain. I don't care to argue whether the left or the right have more lunatics.

Ebert: In all honesty, I believe very few people of any political persuasion believe the U. S. government or the Bush administration had anything to do with staging 9/11.

Roger, there are three authors whose work, taken together, gives us a much clearer picture of what's really motivating the far right:

John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" (which was, incidentally, originally going to be co-written by Barry Goldwater) provides a fascinating look into the mindset of two groups: authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers. Dean's book is superbly well-researched, and given the mountain of documentary evidence he offers about the danger these groups pose, you'll see why he doesn't throw around phrases such as "proto-fascist potential" lightly.

Any of the recent books by the invaluable Mark Crispin Miller -- especially "Cruel and Unusual" and Fooled Again" -- are a good starting point for exploring the motivation behind the far right's belligerent nationalism, punitive religiosity and aggressive anti-intellectualism. Miller has also done a superb job (specifically in "Fooled Again") of documenting the far right's attempts to subvert democracy in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. Miller spends several chapters demonstrating -- with extensive endnotes -- that voter purges, harassment, intimidation and other illegal and extra-legal activities were hardly limited to Florida and Ohio.

Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" provided the inspiration for the film of the same name you recommended. In it, he explores the most perplexing question in modern U.S. politics: Why *do* people vote against their own economic self-interests? He also tackles a related question, which still puzzles me: Why do people who are motivated by conservative social issues keep voting for candidates who never make any progress on the issues they're so passionate about? The answer to both these questions seems to be a desire to stick it to some ill-defined but hated group of uppity know-it-alls known as "the liberals." The quotes Frank collects from his fellow Kansans help shed some light on these questions. Frank's overarching thesis, which is pretty hard to argue with, is that Democrats ceded a lot of ground to the militant culture warriors when they stopped talking about populist, kitchen-table economic issues and starting taking advice from people like Bob Rubin.

Dean, Miller and Frank have spent years documenting the growing rage on the right and the phony, pseudo-populism of politicians who exploit it. I would wager that none of them is surprised by the recent outbreak of unbridled hatred and paranoia you're talking about here. The question, it seems to me, is whether we're still the kind of rational country where the thinking majority holds sway or whether our discourse has been so poisoned and degraded by the nutty fringe that reasoned debate is impossible. Let's hope it's the former.

Jeff, I don't think everyone who criticizes Obama is called a racist. There's been talk of racism because there have been a lot of racist attacks on him. From "the magic negro" to the "B" girl, to the emphasis on his middle name as if it means anything, to "I don't trust him, he's an Arab" (and when Mccain objected to that remark, his own people booed him), to the birther movement, to Congresswoman Foxx reading criticism of Obama's health care plan by Thomas Sowell, and identifying him as an African American, as if that has any significance, to any number of the caricatures of him on signs carried at the teabagger rallies, etc.

And in regard to the Democrat/liberal vs. Republican/conservative reaction to Obama/Bush, the more vocal rhetoric about Bush didn't begin until the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, many liberals did think he stole the election, but they did accept that the decision was done, and they weren't clamoring for civil war and secession like conservatives did in the first fews months of Obama (and despite of the fact that it's a huge difference between being angry that you lost an election and being angry that you think it was stolen). The attitude of most liberals at the time (prior to 9/11) was that Bush would be easily thrown out in 2004, so there wasn't hatred so much as ridicule.

US too?

I watched the third video, the Fox News one. I'm guessing that's their version of an orderly and professional discussion.

It deeply saddens me as I see the world around me at 28 years of age. I grew in a housing project in the city of Buffalo, a city that is well known for its economic struggles and racism. From the day Obama was elected, I felt mixed emotions. I was left feeling as sense of pride as a black male in America, and a sense of doom because Obama will never be given an equal opportunity. Sure he is our president, but I feel at times like the government was simply following a trend, the whole affirmative action effort, which has been helpful and degrading in the same breadth. To think someone would only employ a person to fill a quota is painful, and I feel our country is acting in the same way. The sad truth is, millions of people believe the hype, that Barack will lead us to a new low. I am only left feeling that those same people haven’t seen poverty within their own lives. The Bush administration will always be debated, but the facts are within the public grasp. We know the Bush years were some of the hardest economically, we know our stance on terrorism was valiant but only a cover for a more private agenda, and finally we know that the comparisons between either are completely unfair, because Obama is cleaning a hefty mess left behind. I truly believe people look too deeply into party affiliation, instead of the man, and this has become a standard throughout American culture. From Greek affiliation to religion, who you belong two is more important than the soul of the individual. This is a practice that has become as dangerous as racism, and with these two diseases, I fear the United States is headed for further turmoil. The problems are deeply rooted within our society, problems that we will never see in the same way. Many times I have witnessed the divisions in our society and I just can’t see any end. I’m not giving up hope, but I am saying that the world we live in is not prepared to admit their faults, so we are not ready for change. I shouldn’t need any proof to support myself, I have learned that two people can read the same words yet come up different meanings. Religions biggest drawback is that, it’s open to interpretation. We celebrate lies in this country from the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights (clearly refers to blacks as slaves), Columbus Day (come on now), Thanksgiving (the celebration of a day before the genocide of an entire race of people, yet we hate Hitler), our 16th president freeing the slaves (Really people?), and so on……

Ebert: I thank you for this comment.

Off-topic: Why are you "singing chef?"

Democrats and liberals in general certainly did not refrain from playing the Hitler card with regards to the way the Bush administration invaded Iraq, and it's certainly not a quality form of political discourse, to say the least. That shouldn't cause one to lose sight of the difference between the two forms of protest - the anti-war protests were largely about the failure of Bush to make a convincing evidence-based case that invading Iraq was necessary - the current protests are the result of fear stirred up by lies about Obama's birthplace, religion, and healthcare plans.

I'm Canadian, so I have an outsiders view of the American political system, and the fact that one side is able to argue that a system where tens of millions of people are unable to get health insurance strikes me as unfathomably ridiculous. The Canadian political system has its own problems with partisan idiocy, no doubt, but the way the US system has developed over the last few years strikes me as something fundamentally different. It seems like partisanship has poisoned the well so much that when someone fights for a policy with actual public support (a public healthcare option) using a method people want to see more of (bipartisan consultation), it results in failure and a collapse in polling numbers. I don't know whether this is the result of people being uninformed about policy or about political manipulation, and whether that's the result of a diminished education system or not, but the options for each party seem to be to always have knives out, or for one party to voluntarily fall on the other's waiting sword (as demonstrated by the dismemberment of the healthcare plan by Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats).

It's no wonder that this type of political discourse (and a news media seemingly bereft of a single non-partisan interviewer capable of calling someone out on a lie for the sake of the truth and not for political gains) leaves so many feeling disenfranchised. I don't know how the jump is made from there to believing conspiracy nonsense about Obama (John McCain has been booed at both pre and post election rallies for suggesting Obama is not a secret Kenyan Muslim, and that he's a decent human being) but there definitely is a large and frightening section of the population with dangerously little interest in reality. There's a pastor in Arizona who has been preaching that he hopes Obama dies, and a member of his congregation brought an assault rifle to a protest outside an Obama speech (http://www.abc15.com/content/news/southeastvalley/tempe/story/Tempe-pastor-reiterates-wish-for-President-Obamas/MX2Vzd4unEi9n8PschT50w.cspx). Throw in a feedback loop of people like Glenn Beck and that pro military-coup editorial from Newsmax and it starts seeming pretty likely someone is going to take it too far.

Also, minor correction, It's Olympia Snowe, not Snow.

Roger,

Whenever there's a demmy-crat in the Whitehouse, right wing nuts... go nuts. When a Bush is President, they're fine. I remember when Clinton was president, many, many people (led by the NRA) believed they should stockpile weapons for a revolution.

And so it repeats itself. A Democrat in the whitehouse, pissed off conservatives.

I think the internet just helps their voices be heard. No one else wants to listen, but when you have videos posted online and pictures and memes, it becomes hard, hell IMPOSSIBLE to ignore.

Man, you gotta see a Right to Life protest video where this guy whips a woman and a fetus as she hells, "Don't hurt me no mo' massa!"

It's terrifying that many of these people own guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ny1y5O_CfA

My great-aunt is a fanatical Republican and only watches Fox News. She and my mother talk every night. My mother (who voted Democratic all her life) told me with absolute sincerity that Obama was going to set up death panels because she read it on a web site my aunt saw on the "news". I told her neither she nor my aunt are allowed to watch Fox News anymore. No matter what I say to my mother, she's convinced that the House of Representatives is going to set up Death Camps for Senior Citizens.

She's not a nut, she's not a fanatic, she just believes what she hears on the "news". She grew up with Huntley and Brinkley, and Walter Cronkite and thinks that the word "news" means truth. I can not convince her that you have to find truth now, on sites like factcheck.org because it doesn't come into your living room anymore. The big networks are as bad, reporting things that aren't true in the guise of "fairness". Why did it take them a couple of weeks and the President going on TV and asking why they don't do it for them to start saying "The false claim of Death Camps" instead of "Death Camps"? How is it "fair" to let a nut come on and say anything s/he wants without being challenged?

Robert Heinlien talked about the Crazy Years in many of his books. Well, welcome to the Crazy Years.

I think the real reason we have these nuts in such abundance has more to do with the awe, power, and spectacle of the office of the President. We think our government is more powerful than it actually is. This is bolstered by 24 hour news, conspiracy theories, films (yes, films), and various other cultural factors. The president has more expected responsibilities than actual responsibilities, which is astonishing. At some point, the President was no longer a member of the executive branch, but The Leader of the Free World.

That, and the Christian Right feels like they need to oppressed in order to feel good about their side. They like to be the underdog. A good explanation can be found from Penn Jillete. The Democrats are the party of hate, while the Republicans are the party of fear.

http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says_The_Party_of_Hate/2377941

Now is the time for the naming of names. Now is the time for the telling.

You are a key fulcrum, Herr Ebert. Keep it up.

By the way, was there not another Ebert, about 70 years ago or so, who did not stand up? Look what happened then.

Ebert: As Freidrich Ebert died in 1925, he didn't get much of an opportunity, did he?

I congratulate you, Comrade Seidel, on your relative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Seidel

I have been amazed at the unwillingness of many people (even my friends and family) to check out the facts before responding to something they have read or heard. They pass on ridiculous claims without ever checking to see if they are true (i.e. "anyone who doesn't purchase health care coverage will be thrown in jail"). I have recently taken it upon myself to get the truth on "fact check" or "snopes" and post that whenever I can to counter some of the craziness. This makes me not very popular with some people, but I don't care!!! The truth is out there!!!

Bah, of course liberals played by the rules, but once making fun of Bush became cool, a "bandwagon" sort of activity that ANYONE could hop in on, everyone just ran away with it. Bush vs. Chimp, Comedy Central's "Li'l Bush," even Harold & Kumar's parodic interpretation of Bush as a stoned-out kid who was resentful of his dad pushing him into the family business, every medium was inundated with it. We grew callous to the idea.

So I guess we had to top it for Obama?

The man's a born US citizen. Suggesting otherwise is ludicrous. I've seen the supposed "evidence" against it (as I've seen "evidence" for many other conspiracy theories), and as always under direct scrutiny by anyone with more than three functioning brain cells, it falls apart.

I saw an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer written by a man who was formerly a PR man for Cigna Corp (Wendell Potter is his name, for those who'd like to look this up). He made it a point to explain that any time health care reform (or health insurance reform as it's now known) comes up for debate, it is the job of "corporate shills" like he used to be (direct quote) to demonize it and shoot it down, or better yet, corrupt it into something more beneficial to the insurance companies. Thus the death panel nonsense! It's propaganda spread to do exactly this: kill the health care (sorry, insurance) reform.

To call this man (who admittedly hasn't been the most effectual president in his first 9 months in office) a Nazi because he wants to provide universal health care to the people is absurd. This particular slight offends my sensibilities perhaps more than any other (though accusing a man of being Muslim as though it were a slur is offensive in and of itself).

First a confession. i was a dittohead, i hated clinton. HATED HIM whitewater; mena; vince foster; i couldnt get enough'

i can't remember we ever calling clinton nazi; maybe im wrong. this hatred of obama seems more dangerous than the 90s hatred of clinton'; i could see one of these idiots shooting obama; and what happens then

What scares me most about people like this, Roger, is the fact that they're not willing to dialogue with anyone who disagrees with them. In college, I discovered that rational, respectful dialogue with someone who disagreed with me was a good way for both of us to grown in knowledge and develop better positions. With these people, however, asking them questions is just a way of disagreeing with them.

One of my dear friends is a fervent believer that global climate change theory is a pile of crock. This normally logical and A-grade person becomes different whenever the subject is brought up. He tenses up. He gets very angry and calls it a lie. It's not pleasant. Ironically, he's usually the one that brings it up in conversation.

He knows little on the subject. I have a science background and have done work related to the global carbon cycle, so I'm familiar with climate change research. If he were a stranger I'd met, I wouldn't say anything. And truth be told, even though he was my dear friend, I still avoided talking about this with him for a year.

But one time I decided to test the waters. When he brought up the subject again, I decided to ask him some basic questions, some along the line of "how do you know that?" and others along the line of "if that's true, then what about..." Such questions can be pointed, but I can honestly say I avoided that trap. After my second question, he suddenly shut off. He told me there was no use talking about it, since I clearly wasn't going to change my mind. I told him that wasn't true and begged him to keep talking. His response was to hum and then change the subject. My heart broke.

There was a study I read a year or two ago that said that confident people were more likely than others to be wrong. (I apologize, Roger, but I couldn't track the study down in time, and I need to get back to med school work.) The people who were willing to conceive that they could be wrong were more likely to be right. And that, I think, is the problem. In my experience, the most intelligent and mature people are the ones who take positions, but are willing to admit they could be in error. Oh, they can still be very certain, but they haven't thrown out the possibility that they could be off-base. The people who do scare me.

Josh Pothen (UVM's Meager Med Student)

Although I am a Liberal, I do not like the idea of comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. Although I am Democrat, I believe that in many ways Bush was treated unfairly. Although I am a person who tries to understand both sides of an issue, and respect other's opinions, and defend the viewpoints of others--even when I disagree with them, I think the Reporters at Fox News are insane.

What has Barrack Obama done that Fox News labels him a communist, or a terrorist, or a murderer? Why do they incite protests among people who probably have more to gain by healthcare reform than to lose by it? Why do they insult and accuse democratic protesters of hating their country and then turn around and glorify themselves when they commit the same "crimes" as the liberals, tenfold?

They are either insane, idiots, or proof of the existence of evil.

"I have lost count of the Liberal Pundits who described Bush and Cheney as Murdering (Iraq), Racist (Katrina), Thieves (2000 & 2004 Elections)." -Jeff

Oh, Jeff, can't you see the difference? Bush and Cheney are murdering, racist thieves. While Obama is not a fascist (certainly not Hitler), socialist, Kenyan, or Muslim!

In order for Bush/Cheney not to be murderers, or worse yet, war criminals, you'd have to believe the Iraq war was justified. And that would just be silly. Just peripheral evidence of Bush's attitude, coming from the woman who raised him, what was that quote about how the victims seemed to like their new residences because they hadn't returned to New Orleans? And thieves? On so many counts. I was just reading about how Cheney never divested from Halliburton during his vice-presidency in clear violation of oh so many laws, this all while the company's total worth skyrocketed due to the no-bid contracts handed to them during the war that Cheney, the recent Halliburton CEO, helped to orchestrate! If thief doesn't suit you, then I guess we'll go with war-profiteer.

I can't wait to find out why you think Obama is a Hitler-like socialist Kenyan secret Muslim.

"I have lost count of the Liberal Pundits who described Bush and Cheney as Murdering (Iraq).."

Yup.
Pretty accurate.
And even if you don't believe the countless testimonials that confirm just that (including Bush's own treasury secretary Paul O'Neil, and Richard Clark, Spanish President Azna, Col Laurence Wilkerson, Downing Street Memos etc), there is the pesky little fact that the weapons inspectors were pulled out despite finding ZILCH. I don't know about you, but when a President puts men and women in harms way for anything other than a last resort, that is murder.
And yes, I include LBJ in that lot.

You know something is wrong with America when a blatant racist named Ann Coulter garners THAT many viewers.

Education is suffering from a drastic change in parenting, or lack thereof. As the husband of a teacher, I can attest that somewhere along the lines, a shift has taken place, and children that require special help, special needs, or are just plain D or C students never get a dose of reality or assistance because their parents do not allow them to be perceived as anything but brilliant.

It is difficult to generate curiosity, or to be motivated, or to be inspired when one is told time and time again that they are smart, perfect, and in no need of improvement.

I have intensely pursued and succeeded in areas where people told me I couldn't, and I know I'm not alone. We have too many people addicted to being right just because they are inherently "themselves" instead of having any type of evidence to make their points.

Politics has turned into "You suck, we're great." I heard New York Giants fans saying they hate the Patriots more than terrorists, so the political discussions that are supposed to form our nation turn into sports talk radio. Welcome to the contact sport of politics, fueled by the "you're always right" education system.

And as for "You talked crap about Bush, so we can talk crap about Obama." Well . . . Bush perpetrated one of the greatest lies in American history, and Obama is a few months into cleaning up some very big messes. Quite simply, it's TOO SOON to assign him as a failure.

It's a sad state of the country when so many people root for the President to fail so that they can be "right," sacrificing the greater good for a better chance at victory in the next election.

I'm scared too, though I don't want to be. I hope that this is just another phase, and that this rhetoric is no worse than Clinton's presidency, which only featured one domestic terror attack.

I don't think conspiracy theorists are really the people behind this hatred. I don't think they really do what they do out of hate, I think they just like making things more complicated then they need to be. It's hard to say who is. But I think you're right that a good amount of it does in fact stem from racism. Before the election, I overheard an older woman flat out say she wouldn't vote for Obama because he was black. Another time, also before he was elected, a customer at work overheard me and a co-worker talking about Obama and venomously spouted that he was a "baby-killer" (if only she had known he killed grandmas,too.)

The abortion comment, although I completely disagree with, I can at least understand. But to actually say you wouldn't vote for someone because they were black? How can someone say that and still believe they're a good person?

And the people who so violently oppose him that AREN'T racist, well that's even more inexplicable. Maybe they really are just terrified of change (never mind that in many cases it would benefit them.) And maybe because these are tough times, more reasonable people are being caught up in the wave than usual. Whatever the cause, this ignorant, blind hatred is scary. Hopefully it passes before something bad really does happen.

Incilin: ... Do you not realize that, if you're espousing the views of ALEX JONES of all people, you're IN the group being talked about here of hyper-paranoid radicals?

Every time Roger writes something that has to do with politics or anything other than movies, he is as one-sided, myopic, and unable to see anything other than through the prism of his own brainwashing as an Anne Coulter is on the right.
Was Ebert living under a rock for the 8 years of Bush and not see the mindless hatred toward him?
But thats what happens to people like a Coulter on the right or an Ebert on the left. THey see things only through their own rigid biases and when it occurs on their side its simply the RIGHT THING.

I dont remember any real concern about a documentary talking about assasinating the President.

I dont remmeber any concern from this ideologue for all the vile things that were thrown Bush's way,etc

WHen people like myself say that Roger should stick with reviewing movies, its not because he doesnt have a right to blog about anything, its because its as informative as something coming from any of the ideologues that are out there on both sides.

Any reasonable minded person can see that, even if one disagrees, there is certainly a multitude of reasons why this current Presidents approval ratings has plummeted and he no longer has much in the way of faith left:
The unemployment rate is higher than the percentage he promised if we simply did NOTHING.
Jobs are being lost in crazy numbers every single month.
A health care system that a majority of Americans actually like is at risk of being taken over.

Disagree on all of these if you like, but there are certainly VALID reasons for vitriol against this president.

THere are loonys on both sides for every president. And there is no difference between that toward Bush or Obama.

To somehow put all or most of this on some deep-seeded racism is a copout, and an excuse for a President who simply might not. be qualified, as simple as that.

Mr. Ebert I direct you to the following website regarding information about Glenn Beck. You say Fox News alone can't be to blame but surely Mr. Beck, together with his television show, syndicated radio show, and numerous books is and has demonstrated a capability of manipulating the angry, fundamentalist christian fringe of the Republican Party through buzz words like "marxist" and "socialist". It requires no large leap of imagination to imagine what those words really mean. The majority of raving lunatics at town halls during August and the 9/12 movement last month (which he organized) chanted his name like the zombie drones you recently reviewed.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Glenn_Beck

Dear Roger,

May God (or whatever or whomever you believe in) bless you for writing this article, the most touching, moving, powerful, insightful and poignant article I have ever read on matters of politics, and I have read thousands of them.

I believe that much of what you said is obvious. But in the face of such hate, such hypocrisy (the people who say liberals did not play by the rules are doing nothing but saying, "Well, two wrongs make a right, and since we're the Party of God, we're more right than you are so we can out-hate and out-criticize you), sometimes stating the obvious can be most difficult indeed. You are a brave man indeed and I hope you believe that.

A favorite blogger of mine, Andrew Sullivan, features a quote on his blog that I think of every day, a quote whose wisdom I try to live by every day, even (sometimes especially) when I am so disgusted with how fractured what once passed for discourse in this country has become that the thought of making it through the day is revolting: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Thank you, Mr. Ebert.

A couple minutes ago i was upstairs on the second floor of my university's library reading a bit of Gore Vidal's "The Last Empire". I decided to come down to the computer lab and see if their was anything new on a few of my favorite sites. I saw that you posted a new entry in your blog and felt compelled to read it, as it was about the country and those dimwitted in it.
I was going to leave now and go back to my dorm, but have decided, because of your entry, to go back upstairs.

I was truly invigorated by Obama's election. But I have come to the conclusion that this country may be beyond governance, even for someone as capable as him. During the 60s, 70s, and even 80s, both party's leaders would at some point come together for the good of the country. Hell, even Ronald Reagan would meet with Tip O'Neill and work things out. However, ever since the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the only thing the mainstream parties seem to want to do is to demagogue and defeat one another (hence, the Jim DeMint line about wanting to defeat health care reform to destroy the President; never mind that it might just harm uninsured Americans and insured Americans with catastrophic illnesses).

Don't you find it interesting that when the Democrats were criticizing Bush, the lunatic fringe was screaming, "Unpatriotic when our troops are in harm's way!" Geez, what happened? Our troops are still in harm's way, but now some of these folks are comparing Obama to Hitler, which would be laughable if it weren't so incredibly maniacal, and talking revolution. Why is that not unpatriotic?

The Obama years are not only a test for him, but a test for us as a nation. This may be the last best chance we have of true reform. If we don't take it, I'm convinced that people will look back on this period as a wasted opportunity.

Interesting piece to say the least. Here in Australia we've also suffered through the regime of a leader who routinely lied and mislead the general public and refused to apologise when caught out. It's not surprise that he's a close pal of Bush, John Howard - possibly the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had.

These are sad, and dangerous, days for the American public. I've been staggered by sheer amount of hate that's been out-poured by certain sections of both the American media and the public. Is the education system really that bad? Surely not. However most people are idiots and easily led by what they see - if it's on TV it must be true. The sooner that cretins are removed from such 'media' outlets as Fox the better.

"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

Thank you for the funniest thing I've read all week.

The hate mongering is senseless. I cannot find an answer for it. I want to understand not only why it happens so much, but also what does it really mean, and most importantly, what will it lead to? I just don't have answers for it so I'm left only to shake my head and turn away.

What I find most alarming is that party leaders only begrudgingly denounce this lunacy, if at all. No American leader from any point in our history deserves even a reactionary comparison to Hitler. He's the darkest point on the spectrum along with Pol Pot, they are a modern era gruesome twosome. One can't call them true leaders and therefore no leader should be compared to them. There are many leaders of our government I disagree with and think if I knew in person I would even dislike as people, but that's as far as it goes, that's as far as it should ever go. When will someone from the upper echelon of the Republican party put their foot down and say enough is enough, we don't want the votes of lunatics, even if that is all the votes they have (of course its not, but that's not the point)? And don't those party leaders secretly hate that so many of their listeners and supporters are conspiracy spouting paranoiacs?

Neither party is perfect and both parties have their share of vocal wackos. I'm sure if a Republican was president we would embrace the same fear for our society for all the left wing paranoiacs. But the point that raises, to me, is not what you would think. It's not that both the left and the right have their crazies so therefore both are justified because of it, the point instead is that both have it and any salient points made by either side is weakened and crippled by it.

The only way this goes away is by party leaders addressing it directly and standing together to put down the wackos on both sides of the aisle. By ignoring it, by not addressing it, it festers, gains strength, and finds a seat at the table. What the political leaders are afraid to admit is that by giving this fringe contingent a seat at the table, it is scaring away all of the thoughtful, reasonable dinner guests. The leaders are left to break bread with only the wackos. And the corporate interests with too much at risk not to sit at the table, despite their dinner companions.

I feel that the real reason why the fringe is so damaging is that the fringe has been attacking the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. From the very start, people we proclaiming that Obama wasn't actually a citizen, and this was not even the fringe wondering whether he was a legitimate president it was LOU DOBBS! The fact that even the mainstream media is buying into the ideas of the fringe is what is bothersome to me.
Commenting on what George said earlier, I would say to some degree that he is right. Both sides play dirty, its politics. The fringe though isn't playing by those rules. In all those pictures from the zombieland link did you see one, let alone two, let alone three people bring guns to a rally of Bush's. Not only that, but Bush also did some very heinous things that the Republicans try to justify now, Obama hasn't. Never did anyone, let alone a Congressman, shout "you lie" during a joint session of Congress. The left fringe did some things that were low and petty but never did a vice-presidential candidate spread rumors of government "death panels."
It seems now our government is just playing to win seats in Congress and the White House. This is bad for two reasons. First, our government never should "play." They are responsible for running the most powerful country in the world. Right now all we see is a bunch of old white men ruin the chances to really change the country that would help future generations. I wish I could see the days when we had some brave politicians like LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act. I doubt that even that piece of legislation would have been able to pass today. Now all that you see are politicians just trying to get reelected which is becoming easier with increased gerrymandering. Secondly, when politicians start their presidential elections four years before an election you can't ever get anything done. Politicians are always looking to win the next election. The reason why they are in government has to be the feeling of power that they get. The funny thing is no one is going to remember them because no one remembers a person if they don't get anything done and right now that's what is happening. You're supposed to be our leaders, let's see some balls on you guys. (I think that the women politicians already have some, look at Olympia Snow).
One final thought. I use think that everyone (even Republicans) within the government is just trying to do what they think is best for the country. I feel now that some within the government are now just trying to do what's best for their party.

Follow to earlier comments:

I'm sure these moveon.org ads would not have prompted a Blog by Roger Ebert?

Why? Draw Your Own Conclusions:

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/moveonorgs-ad-comparing-bush-to-hitler

Oh, and if you need to me or others to respond with 1000 other equally hatefilled comments by both general public, pundits, and even politicians themselves, it can be easily done.

Whats offensive is the "selective" outrage.

Its no different than the article Roger posted about O'Reilly.

The lovely thing with our side comparing Hitler to Bushies was the fact that Prescott DID consort with Adolf and many independent essays were written that compared what Hitler did with what Cheney was doing and it was eerily similar. I do believe that Bush was a puppet and that Rove and Cheney were in charge. But this attack about "taking our country back" is rather absurd because of the simple fact that Obama was voted by THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. Bush was not. Greg Palast has many amazing articles written on the subject. So taking the country back for whom? Have we not seen the evidence that day after day corporations were given a blank...oh never mind. Sigh. Drop the bomb, let's start from square one.

Extremism isn't new, its just never had a target quite so irresistible as the President of the United States. I remember a news story or two from before the election about radical groups supporting Obama's campaign because they saw his election as a recruiting tool.

Your entry reminded me of British author Jon Ronson's work "Them: Adventures with Extremists." Originally published in 2001, the book chronicles the author's infiltration of several fringe groups. Its a fascinating and altogether frightening glimpse into an underground world of intense paranoia. Ronson makes you laugh at the oddity of such radical beliefs, but he can't stop you from feeling nervous about their consequences.

For those who say "liberals played by the rules" is nonsensical, ask yourself this:

1. Did you experience genuine fear (as opposed to hate) when President Bush was attacked by the media, by liberals, by whomever? What did the fear consist of?

2. Do you believe, as the Supreme Court held as recently as the Boumedine case, that Bush's policies regarding the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay was contrary to law? If you did, did you fear for the President and the country?

3. If you disagree with the Boumedine decision, and believe that Bush has never violated people's civil rights, did you nonetheless fear for the country? On what basis? That Bush was violating people's civil rights? That he wasn't?

4. Do you believe that the fact that tanks did not roll in the street when Bush was elected President in 2000 justified any fear you had for this country? Do you believe the fact that Bush was elected President then meant democracy worked? Did you have a problem with this?

5. When you were frightened by what you believed to be insane Bush hatred from 2000-2008, how did you react to the fear? How did you act on it? Were you so afraid to talk to friends who opposed Bush's policies that you simply kept silent, fearing for the President's life?

Even if anti-Bush hysteria was greater than anti-Obama hysteria, the anti-Obama fringe and pro-Bush fringe has reacted to criticism of Bush with hate, and to praise of, or even, a neutral opinion expressed of, Obama, with hate. To be sure, the anti-Bush fringe reacted to Bush's policies with no small degree of hate, but has reacted more by expressing fear. Perhaps this is a sign of cowardice. It is not a sign of evil motive, and it does not condone a "two wrongs make a right argument," which I'm sure the anti-Obama fringe disapproves of, right?

Was any attempt ever made to impeach President Bush that even made it to a single Committee, when the Democrats controlled the Congress? Do you (anyone) believe that if Republicans controlled the Congress, that they would already (if they have not been doing so already) laying the groundwork for impeachment?

Lastly, fringers, I ask you: if you state what you believe to be fact, and I have reason to disagree with you, how do I prove that you are wrong? Does it matter that you are wrong? Do you have to prove yourself right, or can you make any claim you wish to, and I then have to prove you wrong? Which is it? Really would like an answer. If I made a claim against President Bush, would I have to prove myself right, or would you have to prove yourself wrong? Again, would appreciate an answer.

Jeff: "I have lost count of the Liberal Pundits who described Bush and Cheney as Murdering (Iraq), Racist (Katrina), Thieves (2000 & 2004 Elections)."

It may seem like a partisan or biased argument, but the simple fact is there is a central difference between those statements and most of the ones being leveled today at Obama by the radical right: they have merit. An administration that bombs, invades, and occupies another country and population by choice are murderers. War criminals by the standards of the UN and Western legal tradition. They have the blood of thousands on their hands (as do the "liberal" architects of Vietnam). The pitiful lack of response to Katrina may not have been due to racism, but I think it was certainly classism. Residents of Martha's Vineyard or Silicon Valley would not have been allowed to drown in mass numbers, ignored or thrown into refuges as hazardous as the flooded streets. It's quite fair to look at the whole of Bush's presidency and conclude "George Bush doesn't care about poor people." Whether you believe in the literal fraud of rigged voting machines or not, intentionally disenfranchising thousands of voters and using the dirtiest tactics since the J. Edgar Hoover era to stifle the democratic process amount to stolen elections. Obama is manifestly not a Marxist, Muslim, Nazi, or Kenyan. There isn’t an ounce of merit to that.

It's not accurate or honest to hold all actions and statements by the left and right in equivalence. “Yeah, this side said this but the other said that.” The exact center of every debate is quite seldom the informed, objective, reasoned position.

Actually Roger, this is where my issue with your entry arises. While I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of this growing group of rabid hatemongers and share your concerns about what the movement may lead to, I also worry about your broad assessment and dismissal of "conspiracy theorists." Surely the conspiracies gaining traction in the fringes of the conservative movement are absurd and baseless, but I'd be careful before disregarding outright all "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" and instead putting trust in the mainstream media as an accurate source as you imply.

Anti-authoritarian, defiant journalists and historians from I.F. Stone and Howard Zinn to Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill have reported for years on the critical truths that are ignored or lied about in the mainstream media and dismissed by the majority as “conspiracy theories.” Is it so hard to believe that the five corporate giants who own 95% of mass media outlets might have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed? That the reporters who rely on direct access to the upper echelons of government and military officials may uncritically pass on their propaganda? Is believing that what’s reported not just on Fox News and the New York Post but also CNN and The New York Times might be completely false an irrational conspiracy theory given their track record?

In the recent past, it was a loony conspiracy theory to believe that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax, that Oswald did not act alone, that a secretive but massive bombing campaign was being conducted against Laos and Cambodia, that America was selling arms to our enemies in Iran to fund terrorists in Nicaragua, that the FBI and national security apparatus were illegally spying on tens of thousands of Americans, that the Project for the New American Century was manufacturing phony evidence to justify a war in Iraq, that an enormous chunk of our defense spending was going toward Private Military Contractors who were little more than drunken zealot Crusaders who killed as many Iraqi civilians as possible and boasted about it, that we kidnapped people the world over and tortured them in secret prisons, that Georgia rather than Russia was the aggressor in the South Ossetian War, etc. etc. We know the truth of those claims now (or at least, they are now demonstrably and verifiably provable), but there was a time when they were all dismissed in mainstream, respectable circles as the ranting of bitter, anti-authoritarian nutbags and consequently mocked and ignored by the majority of otherwise reasonable people, even committed liberals.

The exact same language you use to criticize the unhinged conspiracy theorists attacking Obama was applied to those who became aware of the above-listed facts before it caught on with the mainstream and were similarly derided for it. I think there needs to be much more of a distinction made on your part and that of most other intelligent, curious people in delineating between what is baseless, paranoid, hogwash and what may well be a “conspiracy theory” but is a factually supported and correct one. You can’t paint it all with the same broad stroke. I trust you can determine for yourself the merits of any such claim, but it requires an open mind.

The other factor here that really irks me is that there is an enormous list of legitimate things for people to be criticizing Obama for yet only the most out-there and ridiculous arguments get any attention. Obama reversed himself on FISA immunity. His pledge to close Guantanamo Bay is superficial and meaningless because he’s just going to house terrorist suspects in the equally law-free and torture-happy prison at Bagram. He gave away any meaningful chance at a public option (without “single-payer” ever being mentioned) as his first bargaining step with Congress. He’s using the Bush Administration’s discredited legal arguments, the same ones he and millions of progressives railed against, to deny people the right to habeas corpus and a fair trial to contest their indefinite detention and is meanwhile establishing an Orwellian pre-crime “preventative detention program” that reeks of the worst abuses Cheney authorized. To say nothing of his getting into bed with the banking and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of the American public’s best interest and his campaign pledges. The gap between his moving rhetoric and his actions is enormous. Yet we don’t hear these substantive arguments in any of the national newspapers or 24-hour networks. Instead it’s merely the shallow, distracting, and obviously false memes about a Kenyan birth certificate and ACORN taking over the world. It seems the only way to effectively level an argument at this administration that they’re forced by public pressure to respond to is to be a crazy person.

I sincerely hope that the people and ideas you discuss here are soon marginalized and rejected as the hogwash they are by both the American people and the press. If the formless and hate-filled tea party movement is allowed to substantially effect policy, it will be a dark day indeed. Republicans and the media alike share some of the blame for giving what is so obviously false a national outlet and air of respectability. But I also hope that you’re not so quick to judge anyone who distrusts the official story or believes in the oft-proven first rule of journalism, “governments lie,” as a fringe character merely spraying unfounded and unreasonable venom.

The following poll asks whether extremism in America is becoming mainstream and the results are pretty disconcerting: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-extremism-becoming-mainstream.html

I also hope you can add one more blog to the list of enlightening and fascinating sites you regularly visit. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com is probably the best journalist working today. By sheer force of facts, he routinely reveals the kind of corruption, deception, and hypocrisy at work in government, courtrooms, and corporate boardrooms and is a welcome antidote the onslaught of shallow stenography and outright distortions in the mainstream press. His essay on whether the right’s attack on Obama’s legitimacy is truly an unprecedented phenomenon is as good a place to start as any: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/12/conservatives/index.html

As a long-time reader, first-time responder, I want to thank you for this invaluable journal that offers fascinating and beautifully worded insight into the man most responsible for my passion for film.

Cheers

I think an increasingly important skill to teach our children (by schools, by parents, by mentors) is differentiating fact and opinion. The media, particularly cable news networks and bloggers, aren't helping by pandering to their customers. Walter Kronkite was slightly before my time, but I would welcome his no-nonsense impassive voice. Where can I get an honest, adult debate? Maybe a few Sunday morning talk shows. But they're not nearly as fun to watch for the average American looking for something sensational.

I miss Tim Russert, who would be equally tough on conservatives and democrats. I loved not knowing where he personally stood. When he moderated debates, his participant might have disagreed, but at least they acted like grownups.

I think that getting upset at the phrase "liberals played by the rules" is a pretty cheap way of skirting around the other thousand or so pointed words in the entry. Liberals, you will recall, gave George Bush a chance. Oh, there were protests over stolen elections and what not, but libs gave Bush a chance to prove himself. Went along with him after 9/11 because he asked us to come across the aisle. How many protests were there over No Child Left Behind? How many public outbursts were there over his handling of Katrina? Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, a million times Iraq: Once it was obvious that he lied us into war, that's when Bush's trouble started. That was 2003! Three years! I think the closest anybody came to suggesting military coup was suggesting that Bush be impeached. Nobody suggested that Bush was going to kill any grandmothers, either.

On November 21, gun shops across the country held Obama firesales. Endless groups of people have toted racist, xenophobic signs to city halls, public parks, and street corners because dissent suddenly became the highest form of patriotism. And this has been the case since well before Obama was elected. That adorable old woman who looked into John McCain's eyes and said that she was afraid because Obama was a Muslim? I never did figure out what was more sad: Her belief, or McCain simply saying that he wasn't a Muslim without saying that there's nothing wrong with being one.

All the fake outrage over Obama's joke about pigs and lipstick! Oh my God! He called Palin a pig! That discussion lasted a week! Videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0) were pushed aside for the adorable old woman. On one network, it was free speech. On the other, it was joke fodder. On the one in-between, it wasn't an issue.

I'm going to stop now before I start hyperventilating.

Ebert: Thieves for sure. (2000 & 2004 elections)

Who is into conspiracy theories now?

Ebert: What is it about the 2000 election you don't understand?

IMHO, the only field in which humans can justly claim and reasonable expect progress over time is technology. I don't know what all the causes of this ideological virulence we now see are, or which side is most to blame over time (I have a strong opinion, but it may be biased), or who's on first, but I can conceive of a technological solution.

Perfect a lie-detector. Neurologists are using fMRI scans to study human brain function, and have found indications of detectable involuntary signals which can be used to determine whether a subject believes what he or she is saying. More research is needed, but if an accurate procedure can be developed, then all politicians (and criminal defendants) could (voluntarily) use this procedure to counteract false claims.

Former President GW Bush could (if he chose and if the following are true) confirm that he was convinced that Iraq had WMD and was planning to let them be used for terrorism, and that his campaign did not conspire with his brother Jeb to cancel the voter registrations of minorities in Florida prior to the 2000 election; et cetera. President Obama could confirm that he is a U.S.A. citizen, is not a Muslim, and not a socialist.

I realize this would be an undignified procedure which might expose our politicians to ridicule, and that some would not accept any amount of evidence, but at least it would separate sane from insane charges among all reasonable people.

I wonder why Congress has not passed a bill to fund a "Manhattan Project" to accelerate the development of an accurate lie detector? (No I don't.) (And there may turn out to be some technical limitation, but I can dream.)

Right wingers love to bring up "http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/" but they neglect to mention a few details. Some of the sentiments shown there are indeed just as repugnant. But the events they were being shown at were far fringier on the left, then the events happening today on the right. It's a false equivalency and needs to be called out as such when it's brought up.

I am convinced that we see one of the following soon (if not both):

- a serious assassination attempt on the president
- a Timothy McVeigh-type attack on an institution representing the federal government.

The rhetoric I'm hearing from Beck, talk radio, and so on leaves me no other conclusion. And THAT IS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HATRED EXPRESSED TOWARDS BUSH AND THE HATRED EXPRESSED TOWARD OBAMA. The only explanation I have is that a considerable segment of the population just cannot live with a (half-)black president. Again, how else can the birthers be explained?

Roger, you are being a severe hypocrite unless you lived under a rock between 2000-early 2009. Basically you're saying 'x is ok when we do it' and only make a stink about it then. I wasn't that upset by the Bush protests, and after the left went there with hitler and whatever I SURE don't care about it with the current idiot president.

Ebert: An idiot? What word would you use for Bush?

Oh Roger: Thank you for saying something. White men & women of reason have to speak up. Jimmy Carter did. He's from the South, he knows.

The ultra right always carries a banner of Christian values but their talk is all about denial & exclusion (Keep them out, don't give it to "them") There's no talk of giving, or brotherly love.

Ah... the old days when a racist would just say "I hate him cause he's an "n-word"... I was so happy when a racist was called out and publicly disgraced. But that triumph for minorities has simply made these fools more creative. They hide their hatred under the guise of righteousness and concern for "our country"

As long as the illusion/pretense is out there they can hide behind it and go crazy with it. Who would honestly rant and rave publicly AND admit racism on FOX? They would all have to go back in the closet for another fifty years... or back to their "password-protected neo-Nazi or Klan site, not in a place where ostensibly intelligent people look for information."

Will Barack Obama be the first President who has to campaign for his entire tenure in office?

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, and I don't dismiss anyone just because they share a different viewpoint then my own, but Bill Hays, you're talking out of your arse. "What does a politician going to church have to do with being an atheist?" "Today, it's extremely common to be both Christian AND Atheist." What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds like you're saying that people can believe Jesus was the only son of God and died for our sins, and at the same time believe there is no higher power. That's not just a contradiction, that's an oxymoron. If you're saying many people PRETEND to be Christian for social reasons, while in actuality holding atheistic beliefs, then fine. But those people aren't actually Christians, they're impostors. And although I'm sure some politicians have been guilty of this in the past, I don't think Obama's one of them.

Mr. Ebert, good day...

I apologize if my comments reflect earlier postings from others.
What I have observed over the last twenty years has been an accelerated coursening of public opinion towards the officeholder of the Presidency. Beginning with Bill Clinton and continuing to the present, the vitriol of hatred towards these men of authority has been escalating. I may object to every policy being implemented today by those in authority, but I have the responsibility to respect those who hold positions of authority. This can be difficult at times, but yet the responsibility is still mine.

My only crticism of your article deals with your following quote:

"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

It was during President Bush's second term that the movie "Death of a President" was released in which you included the following from your review:

"The scenario is a familiar one: What would happen if a much-hated world leader was killed in office? Since the failed assassination attempts on Adolph Hitler, fictions imagining how things might have changed with the elimination of one powerful figure have fascinated historians and the public. How could they not?"

I have never seen this movie and don't plan on seeing it ever, because I consider this content inflammatory. Your review analyzed the movie as "electrifying drama." If a fictional account of assassinating a current world leader can be viewed as electrifying, why do we act surprised when anger towards President Obama (for whatever reason) gets ratched to these levels today?

If a movie studio came out with a movie involving the fictional death of President Obama, I could just envision the hue any cry from most media outlets.

In closing, I continue to enjoy your reviews and I hope that your health continues to improve. Take care...

@Jeff "As recently as this week, Democratic Rep. Grayson stated Republicans want Americans to “Die Quickly” and used The Holocaust to make his point on the state of Health Care in this country."

And he was also immediately called out for it by left wing media. Something right wing media isn't doing for those acting badly on their side.

I really think Americans need to stop following what everyone else says and actually think for themselves. The hatred for George W. Bush become so banal after a while, most people didn't even know why they hated him. Did he stumble a lot when he spoke? Yes. Did he lack confidence in himself? Yes. But what strikes me as odd, is the fact that most people never mention Dick Cheney when they complain about the last president. Everyone who followed the last few years of American politics knows that Dick Cheney was the real culprit behind virtually everything wrong with the presidency; not Bush. When you look at Bush, can you seriously and honestly tell me that the man has enough pure hatred in his heart to be a terrorist? Or does it just so happen that his vulnerability and his easiness as a target of American satire has left him an easy scapegoat?
Its kind of like how the words "socialism" and "communism" scare the citizens of America because everyone else thinks they're horrible ideas, when a good 90% of them haven't the slightest clue what they mean. No, a tyrannical dictator is not the definition of a Communist.

Roger: I admire your opinion greatly. I am not sure if you know this but your voice represents a lot of us without one right now. Your voice is that of reason - you have a forum that reaches a good deal of people and for that I am thankful because people need to hear this.

I think the commenter who cited "by any means necessary" sums up exactly what you are trying to point out. We are in uncharted territory here. These people are fanning the flames on purpose...they are trying to inspire a certain kind of individual to commit a heinous act. They are like tantrum-addicted children playing with matches in a great forest.

In a perfect world, those that are angry would use execute their right to vote and turn the tide in their favor, just like we did. However, our instant-obsessed culture has caused these people to short circuit and seek a short-cut...and a grave one at that.

Every day I wake up with nausea due to everything you cited in this blog. Every day I wonder what life will be like for my children - what kind world will I leave for them? Like you, I have fear - many of us do.

Thank you for writing this. Please continue to speak your mind.

- SJR

Roger, Bush did a lot of things wrong, but obama's going down the tubes faster than any president before. You guys can think this is all racism if you want, but it's much more than that.

And people are also out of their minds if they fear some 'coservative attack' scenerio. Look at all the arrests around the country lately and you guys will see who the enemy is (still).

Ebert: I missed something. What arrests? Who is still the enemy?

Great post! I noticed that you amended (or maybe clarified) your prior thoughts on Bill O'Reilly. I have noticed recently that he seems more sane and level-headed every time I see him (which is not that often). I can only think of a couple reasons for this:

1.) He has softened his approach because he even he is repulsed by some of the hate/vitriol of the last ten months.

2.) He hasn't softened at all. He only seems more palatable and less strident because my/our senses have been bombarded with so much detestable crap since Obama's election.

3.) Something is wrong with me. Maybe my eyes and ears are not working correctly. Or, I have gone insane, and/or the small section of my brain that processes Bill O'Reilly is somehow broken or used up. Bill O'Reilly hasn't changed at all and I am the only one who perceives a change.

Ebert: I believe O'Reilly is often wrong and frequently rude, but I don't believe he is a bad man.

Excellent analysis of the "fringe" from an unexpected source, and especially insightful in the last two paragraphs. A wonderful reminder of why Roger is a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Your blog should by syndicated. I hope you will continue to be a voice of reason and not hesitate to add to the national conversation.

@ Jan Van Werth

Indeed. This has more than a little to do with the fact that many of those who opposed Bush opposed him in large part because his policies were so recklessly and unnecessarily violent.

The right can say what they will about progressives, we're not violent people.

Even at the height of anti-Bush outrage when he had barely a quarter of the country's support, there was no emergence of the separatist, weapons-stockpiling, Constitution misunderstanding militia movement prevalent during Clinton's presidency and poised to become resurgent over the next eight years.

I think the threat of a domestic terrorists threat is now more severe than the threat of Al Qaeda successfully attacking the States again. And if, fsm forbid, that happens the Michelle Bachmans and Glenn Becks of the world should be held as responsible for their part in it as any radical cleric.

The murder and display of a census worker in rural Kentucky with "FED" scrawled across his chest may prove to be just the tip of the iceberg for this increasingly deranged faction.

Four words keep surfacing in my with increasing frequency these days:
Timothy McVeigh. Oklahoma City.
How soon we forget.

Roger, it seems you're getting a lot of flack for the "liberals played by the rules" comment. You and other posters have shown how that false equivalency is ridiculous, but even assuming lefties were wrong to condemn Bush (and the very rare Hitler comparisons indeed were) it strikes me how many conservatives are satisfied with the argument that it's okay because someone else did it first. When did "I know you are, but what am I?" become a valid central argument?

Your words might ring a little less hollow had you said a single word condemning that wretched 'film' about the assassination of President Bush.

But you didn't.

So all you do is become another glittering example of left-wing hypocrisy.

And to think that just 3 short years ago dissent was patriotic.

Ebert, you're a fraud.

Ebert: I haven't seen it and suspect you haven't, either. Most of the nation's critics didn't like it, although they are allegedly all liberals.

Since so many posters have been bringing it up, I offer this excellent (negative) review by Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post. I read it all the way through, and I hope others do, too:

'Death of a President': Realism With a False Face
By Ann Hornaday
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 27, 2006

"The whole world is watching."

Those words, chanted by demonstrators at the disastrous 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, are never uttered in "Death of a President," but they echo nonetheless. An unsettling and exceptionally skillful exercise in blurring the lines between appearance and reality, this fictional, documentary-style film uses the incendiary premise of the assassination of President George W. Bush in the not-too-distant future as a springboard for thinking about the practical and psychic toll of how America deals with terrorist threats.

Produced by Britain's Channel 4 television network and co-written and directed by Gabriel Range, "Death of a President," or "DOAP" as it has come to be called by its publicists, has garnered understandable notoriety after making its debut at the Toronto Film Festival and being picked up by the same studio that distributed "The Passion of the Christ." Two theater chains have refused to show the movie, which uses real-life news footage and flawless computerized special effects to create a chilling approximation of an assassination, and a few television and radio networks have decided not to air advertisements.

The hubbub must please the filmmakers, who surely chose their putative subject for its potential, in marketing argot, to garner invaluable unearned media. The question is whether "DOAP" has earned its own inflammatory conceit. Is it politically provocative agitprop or merely a cynical, exploitative stunt?

Probably the latter, but one that has been performed with unusual dexterity. Structured like an installment of "Frontline," "DOAP" often has the taut urgency of that PBS series, with witnesses providing a detailed tick-tock of events as they unfolded. Indeed, "DOAP" is so convincing that, like most he-said, he-said documentaries, it eventually suffers from a fatal, talking-head inertness.

Still, "DOAP" gets off to a riveting start, with presidential aides and FBI agents (portrayed with terrific verisimilitude by the actors who play them) "recalling" the day in 2007 when Bush, in Chicago for a speech to a business group, encounters the biggest and most unruly demonstration of his administration. Range intercuts archival footage of past demonstrations -- picture the fury of Bush's first inauguration combined with that of the 1999 anti-globalization march in Seattle -- with staged interviews to create an atmosphere that crackles with dread; when Bush finally enters the scrum of the fatal rope line (his face is digitally superimposed on an actor's), the mood turns sickening. (As is the occupational hazard of anyone working with of-the-moment material, events have in some ways outstripped the film's attempts at realism, from recent doings in North Korea to the drama co-starring Dennis Hastert.)

Those who would condemn "DOAP" without seeing it should be made aware of one crucial fact: Range does not depict that event with glee or even a smirk. The shooting of Bush is indeed portrayed with solemnity and grief (although some red-meat Dems will no doubt mentally insert screeching "Psycho" violins when someone first refers to "President Cheney"). The ballast of "DOAP," after the horrific event itself unfolds, becomes a true-crime procedural dedicated to the search for the assassin. It's at this point that Range reveals his true agenda: Although a few suspects come under scrutiny, only one is finally railroaded into a kangaroo conviction, the result of a beefed-up Patriot Act, political expedience and a populace agog with paranoia and fear.

With its seamless use of actual and staged footage, "DOAP" at its best will remind some viewers of "Medium Cool," Haskell Wexler's brilliant neo-realist thriller that was filmed during the 1968 convention and released the next year. "DOAP" possesses the same sense of immediacy and political moment, and when Range focuses on the anti-Bush demonstrators, their faces contorted into masks of fury and contempt, he taps a vein of present-day rage that in some quarters seems to be on the verge of bursting again.

And in playing into the historical fascination with assassination, it resembles a kind of 21st-century "JFK," tweaked to hit the hot-button issues of the day. (The most obvious comparison is with the politically charged pseudo-docs of avant-garde filmmaker Mike Z, whose work has been shown at the DC Underground Film Festival. His Internet hoaxes are so good that he's been investigated by real FBI agents.)

But it's not as if those issues -- the tensions between civil liberties and security in a post-9/11 world -- aren't being addressed in pop culture, whether in such television series as "24" and "Sleeper Cell" or even the recent film "The Departed." How American democracy will engage those issues in months and years to come will in a very real sense define this country. And a rigorous, sober, intellectually honest discussion, not a partisan food fight or piece of cinematic showmanship, is what is called for.

Range doesn't advance that discussion as much as use it as a fig leaf for his own self-serving interests. He's artistically akin to the man who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and then wonders why no one sticks around to hear his argument for brighter exit signs.

At such a pivotal juncture, we deserve better. We need better. Nearly 40 years on, the world is still watching.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

From An Earlier Poster:

"The scenario is a familiar one: What would happen if a much-hated world leader was killed in office? Since the failed assassination attempts on Adolph Hitler, fictions imagining how things might have changed with the elimination of one powerful figure have fascinated historians and the public. How could they not?"

I have never seen this movie and don't plan on seeing it ever, because I consider this content inflammatory. Your review analyzed the movie as "electrifying drama." If a fictional account of assassinating a current world leader can be viewed as electrifying, why do we act surprised when anger towards President Obama (for whatever reason) gets ratched to these levels today?

If a movie studio came out with a movie involving the fictional death of President Obama, I could just envision the hue any cry from most media outlets.

In closing, I continue to enjoy your reviews and I hope that your health continues to improve. Take care...

I just wanted to thank this poster for pretty much summing up this blog better than I ever could, thank you.

The short answer is this: Ebert would never even "CONSIDER" this as possibly being inflammatory.

And that's all from me tonight.

Al qaeda and other assorted islamic terrorists are the arrests I spoke of. Did you miss that stuff? No wonder you see things only 1-sided.

Ebert: You wrote: "Look at all the arrests around the country lately and you guys will see who the enemy is (still)."

That sounded like you were against the arrests.

Yes, I agree the Justice Department under Obama did a great job on these arrests.

Actually, you yourself compared Bush to Hitler in your review of "No End in Sight"

"No, I am distinctly not comparing anyone to Hitler, but I cannot help being reminded of the stories of him in his Berlin bunker, moving nonexistent troops on a map, and issuing orders to dead generals."

I don't disagree with you, but i'm just pointing it out.

Roger, I too fear for our country. It seems like party loyalty has taken the place of common sense,labels like Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, more important than the common good of our nation. What we need is more people willing to speak up, calmly,rationally,gently urging people to shun the herd mentality and seek the facts for themselves. People like you Roger. Thanks for keeping up the struggle, great article.

I get it.

All that ugly stuff over the last eight years was okay because Mr. Busch is a bad man.

Ugly stuff aimed at a good man like Mr. Obama cannot be allowed.

Either ugly stuff (Hitler comparisons, crazed conspiracies theories, assassination chic, etc.) is wrong, or it is not.

Perhaps it only matters when the subject is near and dear to you?

...and "I didn't know" or "I must have missed that" is, at best, a poor excuse.

Celebrity culture plays its role as well. My name links to a post on my website -- the Top 10 Celebrity 9/11 Conspiracy Theory nutjobs. Celebs inspire and feed off the type of fringe websites you mention.

It's a scary situation when Rosie O'Donnell has the podium to tell millions of people that 9/11 was the first time in history that fire melted steel, and Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are fronting an anti-vaccination movement.

Roger you should stick with judging movies. Because it's evident you don't know jack about politics. Where were you when MoveOn was comparing Bush to Hitler? Did you review the movie that was made that had a scene in it showing Bush being killed?? You preach about hate. Interesting during all the Global summits during the Bush years, you had the crazy leftist going around burning buildings, cars, and business, yet you don't write about that. Yet, when you have our WWII verterans showing up at town hall meetings worried about their health care you call them a mob!

As usual Roger movies you give a thumbs down most people like, and the ones you give a thumbs up are wierd, hard to follow, kinda like your writings.

Too funny. The Left spilled vile hatred for Bush out for eight years. Funny how these fellow travelors never noticed that. The G-20 has rioting Leftists wearing masks and throwing bricks, but that doesn't bother these newly sensitive Socialists.

Obama is a fascist. That's not my opinion, its the actual definition of the word. He's a statist who wants the government to have final say on all production, labor and our personal lives.

After thoughtful consideration, all I can say to you Leftist, anti-Constitutional, newly offended, bed wetters is, "Go to Hell." I don't care what you think or say. You are bringing on a second civil war in this country.

Ebert: He "wants the government to have final say on all production, labor and our personal lives."

No, he doesn't. He simply doesn't. Fact.

"Ebert: Explain to me how and why Bush won the 2000 election."

1) Gore lost the initial election.
2) Gore lost the first recount.
3) Gore lost the SECOND recount.
4) Gore lost the THIRD recount.
5) Gore 'contested' the results and set the stage for what has since become standard operating procedure for every election, not just in this country, but across the entire globe - if you lose, say your opponent 'cheated' and contest the results.

In a nutshell - how did Bush win? Because Gore LOST. And no amount of conspiracy frothing from you or anyone else changes that. He lost. You lost. Get over it. We had to choke it down when our dud candidate (McCain) lost. You do it with yours. After eight years and a 2008 victory, you're still whining and moaning with fantasies about what a Gore presidency 'might have been like'. When you and other liberals who mourn the defeat of Gore choose to wallow in your misery, it's truly a pathetic sight.

Gore was an odious man who has done more to destroy faith in free elections than anyone in modern history. It was a glad day for this country when he finally accepted his defeat and slunk away from the national stage. Though it was still a terrible day for the world since he continues to peddle his global warming nonsense across the globe, ordering everyone to live 3rd world lives while he himself lives in the lap of luxury with millions he's panhandled from gullible fools who follow his eco-socialism. The man is a ghoul who feasts of the money of those who are susceptible to his weapons of guilt and fear.

What? No cries of 'racism'? Oh right - Gore is WHITE. But he's still a loser, a crook and a charlatan.

Ebert: What about the systematic disenfranchisement of Florida black voters?

It was bound to happen. Our society has been becoming more and more fringe over the last twenty years. And, while politically we are becoming more polarized, logistically we are closer to one another than we've ever been before. The internet has allowed for any group of people who believe something to get together and make a balanced attack.

Paul Simon wrote "People searching for the voice of God hear lunatics and liars." The internet has allowed those people to come together as one voice.

I am fully behind Jimmy Carter's assertion that many of the issues at hand are rooted in deep racial issues. I read an essay by Eric Deggans on the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-deggans/jimmy-carters-words-give_b_289984.html

Here is the excerpt I want to discuss:

Race-baiting conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh turned Carter's words into an argument against electing a black president at all. "Any criticism of an African American president's polices or positions or statements is racist and that's it," he declared Wednesday. "Therefore the question: Can this nation really have an African American president?"

But I think Carter's statement raises a different question: Will conservatives move to condemn those who make racist arguments against Obama, so opposition can proceed against him that isn't based on race?

I think that there is a way to hold people accountable for the things they do say that ARE racist and I think we can reach the point where Republicans can indeed condemn those who make racist statements, just like Obama has been forced to condemn so many publicly (Wright, Ayers, ACORN).

Lindsey Graham has certainly realized today that he needs to step up his game. He denounced Glenn Beck and the Birther movement and referred to Obama as a good man. McCain took similar action during the campaign... a little late, but he did.

I think others can be held accountable too. I think they will act similarly and return to these discussions with the grace and tact that is needed. Or at least I hope they will.

Many (white) people that the worst thing you can be called in this country is racist. Through discussing the issue with people that feel this way, I realize how little the term itself is understood. They feel that it's being used as this big boogie man, and some resent that it is being thrown around at people. They view the labeling of Joe Wilson as a racist to be the same as labeling an innocent man a sex offender. It becomes something they can't shake. A friend of mine has been using the compromise of referring to those people as xenophobic (the fear of a foreigner linked by skin pigmentation implying foreign descent). After all, the many statements that indeed have been rooted in racial issues are largely the result of fear, rather than anger or hatred. The anger that is there seems largely to be people angry because they're afraid.

I think it's our responsibility in talking to people to discuss their fears and concerns rather than to reverse their hatred. When people argue that we're calling them racists, we need to not back down and instead take the opportunity to verbally separate those people from the person we're talking to and bring them to the point where they admit something like "okay well, yeah, Glenn Beck IS racist". Then we can put it aside as it's a partial condemnation and we can talk about the real issues again.

As for the birthers, the leader Orly Taitz has earned her dual label of racist and psychotic. She is an Israeli who is terrified of anything remotely Muslim or connected to Islam, thinking that it is part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel. One MSNBC interview, she spends the whole thing asking why she's not allowed to speak and then the interviewer asks her if she rejected NBC's driver in Israel because he had a Muslim sounding name. She suddenly answers a question in such a way that you realize she absolutely did.

Good ol' Orly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G42vW9UTsC8

Anyway, all labeling aside, I think it's best to shake off discussions of Obama's birth and other conspiracy theories as crazy and not get into a discussion over them. If someone is really buying into them, it's because they WANT to believe them.

Hello hypocrites. Please refer to the following:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

(Scroll down to the mass of pictures if you've been educated in public schools and can't read.)

You reap what you sow.

Mr. Ebert, perhaps I did not read closely enough but unless I completely missed it, you expressed an increasing fear (whether it's justified or not is not up to me to decide) but you never really came out and said what, exactly, you are afraid is going to happen. Are you just afraid in a general sense or is there something specific that you worry is going to happen?

In case it really hasn't occurred to you after all your years of living, there are a LOT of crazy people on this planet. There always have been, there always will be.

Many people seem to have taken issue with your comment that "liberals play by the rules." I would offer this interpretation to those who are skeptical, or who are just trying to lay some blame on both sides of the aisle in the interest of maintaining an image of bipartisanship - I thank you, by the way, for not playing into this. (Trying to assign blame to both sides no more helps our climate than assigning blame to only one - the trick is to stop assigning it.)

The fact of the matter is that the liberal voice overall, while perhaps guilty of the same bashing that occurs every four years, [though remarkably less sensitive about it than the "Why do you hate America" movement], are, at the very least, not willingly intellectually dishonest.

Fox News found tens of thousands of protesters to "teabag" (heh heh heh) the White House. Over what? The repeal of a 3% tax cut. It was called was "spreading the wealth around," or "tyranny", or "socialism."

During the Bush years, Bush-bashing was rampant. But the tone was one of a demand for the truth about a war based on lies. And at the very least, most responsible for these demands believed them to be lies. The folks at Fox News are far too intelligent to believe that a 3% tax hike is akin to rebranding our country the USSA. They are intellectually dishonest, and that is what this is about. (You will always be able to find an example of a liberal who was intellectually dishonest once - Miss Pelosi, but she is not the voice of liberal America, and has not been for a long time.)

And the truly sad thing is, that is even more damaging to the true conservatives, those Nixonian conservatives who are still just fighting for fiscal responsibility. Few though they are.

Hi Roger. You've expressed your concern and your viewpoint insightfully and eloquently, as always. Always a pleasure to read your articles.

It is, however eloquent, a partisan and elitist and skewed viewpoint I'm afraid.

Partisan left, while decrying partisanship. You see only bad in conservatives and are blind to the same foibles on the left. You see hatred in Newsmax - have you never read the scurrilous DemocraticUnderground during the Bush years? A vile and vulgar site where the F-bomb dropping Bush-haters often wished him or Cheney dead.

You are partisan when you say "They cite facts that are not facts", and then do the same:

When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he is said to have observed that with one signature he had lost his Democrats the South. It took moral courage to sign that bill. He did indeed lose the Southern racists, who were to its shame embraced by the GOP -- a poisoned pill, it is becoming obvious.

Why would you slander the GOP with this mistaken tale?

Who said this, during the cloture debate to cut off a filibuster on the Civil Rights Act?

Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

That would be Sen Everett Mckinley Dirksen (R,IL), who played a major role in writing the legislation and who defeated the Democrats fillibuster in order to bring the legislation to a vote. The Republicans deserve credit for the Civil Rights Act, not the Dems - who deserve shame, and yet you wrongly cast aspersions on them. That is a partisan-left skewing of the facts.

It's elitist, in that you make the classic people-who-disagree-with-me-are-stupid argument. Must be bad education. It couldn't just be a policy disagreement.

It's skewed, in that you equate opposition with hatred.

It's not hate. It's passionate opposition.

I'm opposed, for example, to the cult of personality that Obama represents. He's an empty suit, way out of his depth, and yet the left worships him. It's disgusting.

I'm opposed to the radical transformation that he's pushing that half of our electorate didn't vote for. He does not have a mandate for "transformation" of America.

I'm opposed to the appeasement of thugs internationally, and the snubbing and betrayal of our allies.

I'm opposed to the radicals that President Obama has brought to the White House as unelected and unaccountable Czars.

I'm opposed to the federal takeover of private industry, and the political payback to unions.

I could go on, but you get the point.

It's not hatred. It's not racism. It's opposition. But then, we've been through this recently, as I recall. :)

Randy

Thank you, Roger, for your intelligent article. However, I think you are probably wasting your breath and time with many of the people who replied. Those that cannot or will not try to see the differnce between President Obama and former President Bush are not reasonable people and you cannot reasonably discuss these things with them. They will remain steadfast in their ignorance & fear. Remember the town hall meeting Barney Frank held in Dartmouth . . .At one point, confronted by an audience member holding a picture of President Obama defaced to make Obama look like Hitler who asked how he could support Nazi policies, Frank asked "on what planet do you spend most of your time?" When asked if he would respond to the question, he said "trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

God Bless your health and you and yours, Roger, and thank you for speaking up. Hope you continue to do so . . .

I'm an independent libertarean-leaning Conservative.

I absolutely despise Obama. I didnt like McCain either. I think Clinton would have been better than either of them.

Why don't I like Obama? Simple enough. Everything about the man is a lie. He's no moderate or centrist (I have to laugh at people who bought that lie.. look at his face. he's angry... all the time. That's a Radical)

He's a Collectivist, surrounded by racists, Marxists, Maoists, Communists. Can anyone name a long-time association of his that isn't a racist, Marxist, Maoist, Communist, Terrorist , or Islamist?

Anyone, anyone?

Why are people so upset now? Because they aren't stupid and they sick of the Federal Govt .. Congress and the White House.. from sending us down the path of ruin.

Lots of partisan Leftists like to use rhetoric nonsense "Where were you when x years ago..."...

What's different now then than was TARP.

Washington and the banking system got themselves into a financial black hole due primarily to the Government.

And the response is nearly 1T ? We dont want that. Let the companies fail. That is the attitude of everyone I knew was.

Americans were overwhelmingly against TARP and yet Nancy Pelosi pushes it through. (Most conservative House GOP were against it)

Then Obama swoops into office and within weeks they're going to pass a near ONE TRILLION in debt spending directed to the groups of Democrat voters

And they were given less than a day to read the thing (released over-night) and Nancy Pelosi was dashing off to Europe that afternoon, so they had to vote quick.

They were saying it was life or death that it get passed. So Congress votes for it with less a day to read it and it goes to the President who is having a date in NYC all weekend.

Then Mr Line-by-line signs a budget from Congress loaded with earmarks.

Then his 10-year budget is announced and it's 1 Trillion a year in deficits every year now.

THIS GOVERNMENT IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY WITH THIS DEBT

The only big-ticket item in hte Federal Budget that has any Constitutional legitimacy is the Defense budget.

The only thing that is going to save this country is restoration of Constitutional rule. I know this notion is what many of you call "extremist"... All of us folks who want the true Constitution restored are scary mean people because we believe in the American Revolution.

Oh well.. I work downtown, I suppose i'll be annihilated by an Islamic nuclear bomb soon. Worrying about the debt is probably pointless.

One 30 second video out of thousands submitted to a contest that made references to Bush & Hitler is not comparable.

Criticizing Bush for his indifference to the threat of terrorism and ignoring a presidential daily brief titled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US, his support for Rumsfeld over General Shinseki, claims of a uranium purchase based on a laughably bad forged document, outsourcing the hunt for Bin Laden at Tora Bora and putting a college roommate of a fundraiser in charge of FEMA are criticisms all based in reality. Sadly those are but a few examples of incompetent leadership.

GOP governance has failed this nation miserably, yet the deadenders can not admit culpability.

T think they actually want Boehner & McConnell back in charge would be amusing if it were not insane.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/full/

Remember something about the people you are talking about. They are worse off, both economically and psychologically, than their fathers and grandfathers, and their situation is going to get worse yet.

The real income of high school educated white working men has been declining for years. There are no more 30 year and a pension jobs down at the plant. Since the mid-70s the share of income going to the middle 60 percent of households has shrunk almost every year, and the share going to the top 20, 10, 5 and 1 percent has risen. If you are an owner, a manager or a professional you're doing ok. If you are a working man without a college degree, you've hung on to the standard of living of 30 years ago only because your wife now works.

That's not going to change; global competition means that an American pulling the handle on a drill press is worth no more to an employer than a foreigner pulling the same handle. The New Deal and the Depression put the white working man into the middle class; he is now falling out, and he knows it. He also senses that neither the mandarin Democrats nor the managerial Republicans intend to do anything about his problem; all the educated people, who seem to be doing just fine themselves, are content to see him go under because they think he's just a rube and no better than a Mexican or a Chinese who can do his job.

Alongside economic decline, this guy has lost control of the culture. He is no longer what's normal. Athletics and pop culture are pervaded, if not dominated, by non-white performers. He knows that the educated look down on him. People talk in front of him in languages he can't understand. Immigration means that in the near future he won't even be the majority any more, just the largest of many ethnic groups. The consolation of superiority is going, if not gone. Instead of seeing himself reflected everywhere, he has to retreat into an ethnic bubble of NASCAR, Branson MO, and talk radio to be comfortable. He thinks the country should be HIS by birthright, and that it's being taken away from him. He resents it.

Obama is the symbol of everything this guy hates about where the country is going. The educated classes who idolize Obama and the future he symbolizes are the people this guy regards as his enemies.

120 years ago August Bebel, the head of the German socialist party, said that anti-Semitism was the socialism of idiots. He meant that people who knew they had real economic problems blamed them on non-economic causes. We all know how that worked out. Well, in this country, racisim fills the same niche in the public mind.

"Obama is a Muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Obama was a terrorist. Obama will destroy Medicare. Obama will kill your grandmother. Obama is a racist. Obama wants atheism taught in the schools. Obama wants us to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants. "

"These beliefs are held by various segments of our population. They are absurd. Any intelligent person can see they are absurd."

Well, that settles it now.... Thank You (sarcasim)

Be quiet children and let the "Intelligent persons" do the thinking for you. Your just not bright enough to understand such things..

Roger Ebert you're a silly old man..kinda sad really.

Republican or Democrat "Leadership" Real Differences? NONE!!!
We understand that now.. It was a scam all along.

So beat the drum,, beat your gums.

Sorry old buddy but your Story is timeworn,, dialogue hackneyed. The plot? dull, predictable..

One Star is the best we can do for you.. And to be quite frank were being generous at that for old times sake.

V

P.S. Why don't you try to look at it this way: yes, of course, this kind of treatment of a US President was pretty much unthinkable before the 2000's.

Then, the "liberals" - and I'm not talking only extremes, but practically mainstream "liberal" sentiment - brought, popularized and welcomed these kinds of disrespect and downright blind hatred.

I mean, come on, liberals were playing "by the rules"? Which rules, their own rules of hatred and defilement?

These are exactly the standards that were, sadly, set then, by the liberals. I don't recall you ever complaining about that, although it was way wider-spread than what you're so passionately writing about today.

You, Mr Ebert, are a great man. And these are some serious times. Perhaps the amount and clarity of arguments written, and nobly published by you, in the comments, shall inspire you to rethink this and write another blog about the treatment of US presidents nowadays.

One not gudied mainly, or perhaps even exclusively, by your personal opinion and feelings about a particular one.

And once again: the current kind of idolizing a single individual person as a leader has, again and again, brought on disastrous consequences to mankind. Perhaps time will teach American mainstream to see through whatever perceived charisma stands in the way of some kind of level-headed assessment of the qualities of this man - who is, after all, only one in a succession of great and not-so-great men that have been presidents of the USA (wherein the USA stands for more than one single president, however popular, might ever hope to embody, not vice versa, for crying out loud!?).

Ebert: Yeah, Clinton got a pass.

This is typical of Ebert, that self hating jew.

Ebert: Self-respecting Anglo-Saxon, actually, but I'm posting your comment to allow it to speak for itself.

Jesus, Roger. Next thing you'll write is that real men don't ride Harleys. Danglin' fresh meat there, friend.

You know, when Clinton was in office, a policy was adopted of putting out wildfires before they could spread. That left us with a lot of dead wood out there and now, instead of a manageable fire in the back yard, we've got massive blazes beyond anyone's control. Just look at the Station Fire in Los Angeles.

It's my opinion that since Reagan, the same thing has applied in American political dialogue. Nothing's had a chance to flare up and burn out in its own time. Now we pay the price.

We saw it with Ruby Ridge. We saw it with Tim McVay. The Branch Davidians. The Bush fighter plane flight, and every word that he said publicly. "I did not have sex with that woman."

It's not the current rhetoric that's out of hand. It's that the dead wood is so deep and dry that it's bound to burn.

We're not conservatives and liberals. That's just more obfuscation, weird code that usually means educated and not educated, enlightened and not enlightened--town and gown. We're not black and white--look at Obama, for god's sake. He would have been called mulatto a generation ago, and if that term is hurtful, at least it acknowledges a basic fact every mixed-race person knows in their heart--that there's no true acceptance to be had on either side. But you can't say the word. Maybe you can't even recognize the reality of it. And the resentment builds and the dead wood gets thicker.

Roger, it's going to reset. Listen to those last few minutes of Talk Radio again, and let's all hunker in the bunker and watch a few good pictures.

Well, right when I read this I thought "This will generate a lot of comments." I debated whether or not I would post anything and then I decided to go ahead and throw my two cents in. But then I started reading the other comments (which I always do so that I don't simply repeat something every one else has said) and they are just completely depressing. There is apparently no way to discuss politics sensibly. I have therefore decided not to bother with a particularly long or quote filled post. All I will say is that I consider myself an independent but it would be fair I suppose to say that I "lean right" (I do reject the label "conservative" however) and feel the Democratic party and commentators on the left (including you Ebert, alas) are being EXTREMELY hypocritical on this issue. I don't find the various conspiracy theories surrounding Obama to be any more offensive or irrational that the ones that surrounded Bush; from the whole "Bush allowed 9-11" silliness to the "Bush stole the election" silliness - and it is silly, even though Ebert and many others on here have asserted that it is "true". Truth is itself a flexible concept (thank you, post-modernism) and these points of view are true only to the people that believe in them. In other words, they are exactly the same as the conspiracy theories the anti-Obama crowd believe in. Each group has their own set of facts, their own experts, and their own insiders (who of course know what REALLY happenned). When people can't agree on the facts (a point which we are at and have been at for many years now)there is no possibility for any agreement to be reached or any civil discussion to be had. People will simply call eachother names and cling their sense of ideological superiority, JUST AS WE ARE SEEING ON THIS VERY THREAD. Pathetic really. I have no hope for the future of this country.

There's one big difference between left and left fringe criticism of Bush and right fringe criticism of Obama. The American left are merely talkers and wishers. If you look for people in this country who believe in political violence as a matter of principle, indeed as a matter of manhood, and who are ready to act, you find them on the right. On the left there's no counterpart to Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or the men who have killed abortion providers. There are no left wing militias. As we speak there's probably some Second Amendment guy out there who thinks he's going to save the republic by killing Obama and is making plans to do it. That was never a prospect with Bush.

'Some may have been victims of child abuse.'

As long as your engaging in conjecture and ascribing things without proof, why not say conservatives 'may be pedophiles' or 'may be mass murderers' or 'may have horns' or 'may be aliens from another dimension trying to take over the world'.

'Oh,' you say, 'well now you're just being silly.'

I think I hear the pot calling the kettle something....

'MAY be victims of child abuse'.

Now please inform us all about how you water your pillows every night with your tears, crying great rolling tears of misery over the 'declining nature of civility' in this country.

Now I think I hear you digging at the floor with your toe, shuffling back and forth while looking at the ground and saying 'Well.... they STARTED it.'

Ebert: I think that may apply to some conspiracy zealots on both left and right. It may be an attribute of conspiracy types and it has nothing to do with left or right.

Rob (very first comment) wrote, most of the people that are fighting against the socialist are conservatives that value freedom and We are tired of being told we need be more moderate to attract the illegal alien vote.

I think this illustrate the problem with some of the most virulent Obama "critics" quite nicely. Words like "socialist" or "communist" are thrown around to describe Obama by people who have no idea what those words actually mean (apparently, Rob believes that being a "socialist" means being against freedom). They also seem to believe that you can attract the "illegal alien vote" (good luck with getting illegal aliens to vote).
The problem is not that they are willing to repeat this nonsense, but that they are unwilling to educate themselves when they get called on it. What really frightens me is that we're not only talking about uneducated people here. To use an example on this very blog, Randy Masters (even though I disagree with him on basically everything) comes off as an educated, intelligent person. Yet recently, he described Obama as a "radical leftist" and a "Marxist," which shows how misguided he is in his understanding of those terms (he also called him a "corrupt bully and thug," which is beyond misunderstanding of political terms).
I expect intelligent people to have enough critical sense not to accept that kind of thing without questioning it. When they don't, that's when I get scared, because it means something other than reason has taken over.

Satire we can believe in: http://rescuemarriage.org/

I am surprised and pleased to come to your blog and see my thoughts mirrored in yours and expressed with a wisdom that makes them clearer to me. The people who you talk about here are the kind of people who give me nightmares. Though it is not directly connected with what you are talking about that same kind of blind ignorant hatred is aimed at gay people. I have two mothers and they have been together for 30 odd years. They are the most loving and kind couple I know and yet people who have never met them, hate them. I have spent most of my life knowing that people hated my family for no reason, but completely unable to understand why. Your reasoned thought process concerning education, personal history and skewed political process has come very close to really explaining it to me for the first time.
So thank you for presenting truths that remain true no matter what the topic.

While I consider myself liberal, I will say that the liberal pundits did not play "by the rules," whatever they are. Bush was decried as an idiot from day one, the elites said they would leave the country, et al. Politics got ugly when the Clintons were under attack, and we threw it back at them.

However, the difference was that under Bush, the GOP ran rampant and tried to block the Democrats from filibustering, and other foul tactics. The Democrats were too timid to say "YOU LIE!" to Bush when he lied over and over again, getting thousands of our soldiers slaughtered and maimed to fill the coffers of his cronies, spending more than we'd ever need to reform health care. And before he left, he threw $700 billion to Wall Street, no strings attached. Any "conservative" who defends Bush- who increased the size of the Federal Government more than any President since FDR- is fooling themselves.

I voted for Obama, but calling him a socialist when he's clearly a moderate is disingenuous and proves just how far our compass has drifted to the right since Reagan. Nixon, though reviled, would be considered a bleeding heart liberal by today's standards.

>>"If a movie studio came out with a movie involving the fictional death of President Obama, I could just envision the hue any cry from most media outlets."

The film you are referencing, "The Death of a President", was made outside the studio system. In fact, it wasn't even made in America. Did it find a distributor here? Of course.
Most incendiary material eventually does.
And why shouldn't it?
Don't tell me you are against capitalism?
That said, it was an underground art film and remained that way.
Mouthpieces like Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity, on the other hand, have injected the fringe into the political bloodstream.

"But liberals played by the rules..."

Excuse me??

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Take a good long look at all the kill-Bush protest signs, bub. Don't even think about lecturing the rest of us about how "peaceful" the American left is.

Furthermore, you have oviously never heard the hate-filled and violence-oriented rantings from lefty talkers like Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Montel Williams, etc. They make Glenn Beck sound like a kitten.

Ebert: "hate-filled and violence-oriented rantings from lefty talkers like Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Montel Williams, etc. They make Glenn Beck sound like a kitten."

URLs, please.

Just wanted to chime in on behalf of my ideological colleagues.

There are many conservatives for whom disgust at Bush's treatment and fear of fringe resentment of Obama are not mutually exclusive. This conversation devolves so quickly into a tit-for-tat game of oneupsmanship ("Well, Republicans abused Clinton before Democrats abused Bush," and so on), but that's petulant and entirely beside the point. American politics has become so permeated with glib truculence that it's driven all of the adults from the room. The behavior of our elected representatives - from Michele Bachmann to Barney Frank to Jim DeMint to Alan Grayson - is of a caliber that most of us would find unacceptable in children. When Alan Grayson called Republicans "knuckle-dragging neanderthals" and Bachmann calls Obama un-American, they're giving they're winking consent to the populace to take up their mantle. It's intolerable.

As as active, enthusiastic Republican, I'd just like to say that I deeply admire our president. He is a paradigm of American exceptionalism - a person who has, throughout his life, embodied the very conservative values of personal responsibility and earned merit. I don't bear him the slightest ill will. I didn't vote to elect him and can scarcely imagine voting to extend his tenure (unless we nominate Palin or Santorum, but I digress...), but I'd take a bullet for the man.

It chagrins me that the first black president has been met with a flurry of derangement of such sinister underpinnings.

Roger, the gentleman below put forth a reasonable arguement and you attacked with childish complaints/excuses instead of addressing the statements he made. Obviously you can't face the argument and are no real man. Stick to movies - something you might intellegently argue. Here's the previous post and your response:

By Alan on October 1, 2009 4:07 PM
"Were liberals angry about Bush? Yes. But liberals played by the rules."

The rules that allowed liberals to make frivolous and frequent comparisons to Hitler, year after year after year? That allowed liberals to talk constantly about impeachment and murder prosecutions? The rules that made it perfectly acceptable for even mainstream liberals to say things like "Heil to the Thief," "Idiot-in-Thief," "Commander-in-Thief," and so on? The rules that condoned accusing this man of lying to get this country into a war for oil--accusing him of sending thousands of our best citizens to their deaths, and far more thousands of citizens of another country to their deaths, all while allegedly knowing full well that no one was going to find any WMDs? The rules that allowed Maureen Dowd to put in Bush's mouth a statement he never made to the effect that terrorism wasn't a problem anymore? The rules that allowed liberals all across the fruited plain to call Bush a murderer and a tyrant who shredded the Constitution and had no respect for freedom? All that was playing by the rules?

Either your memory left you long ago, or you're applying a double standard. I think the latter is more likely. The Bush hatred that swept the left for eight years was just as vile and vicious as what you're seeing directed at Obama.

"Who can seriously compare American president to Hitler?"

Did you ever ask that while Bush was president and innumerable people on your side of the political spectrum were comparing Bush to Hitler? If you didn't (and I'm quite sure you didn't), why didn't you? You can't pretend that you never knew about this. Everyone heard it, countless times, and everyone has seen lots and lots of posters depicting Bush as Hitler, going back even to before Bush was inaugurated in 2001. Your question should've been asked a lot in left-wing circles in the eight years Bush was president. It wasn't. Yet now you start to complain that Obama is being compared to Hitler. Hypocrisy like yours is very hard to come by.

I'm amazed that you can write at length with such condescension to people you don't know, psychoanalyzing this large number of people with some supposed mental pathology, while you ignore that huge plank in your own eye. You spent eight years tolerating and ignoring an equivalent amount of venom being sprayed at Bush by the left. But only now, only in the year 2009, are you frightened by the level of rancor and hatred at the president. Think about what that says about you. Think about what it says about you that you think that Bush's critics played by the rules but Obama's critics aren't. None of the accusations or insults hurled at Obama is worse than what we all heard and saw when Bush was president. Shame on you for pretending otherwise.

Ebert: Was the 2000 election stolen? Did Bush lie to get us into war? Did Bush violate the Constitution?

Yes.

Roger,

Here is how Richard Hofstadter described the rapid rightwing back in 1954. His words are eerily relevant now.

"There is a dynamic of dissent in America today. Representing no more than a modest fraction of the electorate, ... it is powerful enough to set the tone of our political life and to establish throughout the country a kind of punitive reaction. The new dissent is certainly not radical -- there are hardly any radicals of any sort left -- nor is it precisely conservative. Unlike most of the liberal dissent of the past, the new dissent not only has no respect for nonconformism, but is based upon a relentless demand for conformity. It can most accurately be called pseudo-conservative ... because its exponents, although they believe themselves to be conservatives, show signs of a serious and restless dissatisfaction with American life, traditions, and institutions. They have little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism in the classical sense of the word ...

"The restlessness, suspicion, and fear shown in various phases of the pseudo-conservative revolt give evidence of the anguish which the pseudo-conservative experiences in his capacity as a citizen. He believes himself to be living in a world in which he is spied upon, plotted against, betrayed, and very likely destined for total ruin. He feels that his liberties have been arbitrarily and outrageously invaded. He is opposed to almost everything that has happened in American politics in the past twenty years. He hates the very thought of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He is disturbed deeply by American participation in the United Nations, which he can see only as a sinister organization. He sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world -- for instance, in the Orient -- cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed. He is the most bitter of all our citizens about our involvement in the wars of the past, but seems the least concerned about avoiding the next one."

Mr. Ebert, I am a fan and I have been reading your blogs for a long time but I have never seen more bias from your article, or more arrogance in your responses. Many of these questions your not even answering but simply mocking and ridiculing with arrogant remarks. What has come over you today Mr. Ebert?

Rodge, are you on vacation after finishing these latest wonderful reviews? Which I just finished, and am all ready to do as you suggest, as they are more convincing than ever? Because you've just started the thread to end all threads, even outpacing the Darwin thread. I bet.

'bama in the hiphop Frank Sinatra outfit is my fave.

I dunno, man. I read all the tinfoil hat news I can, plus the good-for-you news. I find misstatements everywhere, and I've had occasions to find lies that seem deliberate in the NYT and WSJ. You've got to follow this stuff for YEARS... it is quite a hobby to try to untie a Gordian Knot.

I'm writing at the point of a mere 84 postings and there hasn't been a detail or rumor posted about who and whichever I don't already know about. Yet any 4 of them would take a day to amplify and illuminate and rebut where fact, reason and belief is required.

I s'pose you didn't hear that Dubya, too, was under a sort of quiet house arrest by the military -- now a rumor that they're doing the same to Obama, I see. The former story originated with Chicago's own dear old Sherman Skolnik, who died a year or so ago. I say GOOD old Skolnik. He just passed on all the news he heard, crazy or not. Print 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

We're living in a country where the direct descendant of two U.S. presidents (The Harrisons) has been trying to convince people to stop voting since 1960. Is she crazy? In 1960 her sideline was selling health food, things like sea-salt... actually, everything you'll find in the vast health-food store chains there are now. What has spread? Her craziness?

So too the "conspiracy theory" crowd, which strictly speaking is undoubtedly far smaller than it's been built up to seem. A steady perspicacity, a caution about one's government and the facts it claims, is what Jefferson recommended. This lady wasn't crazy, nor a John Bircher. In the way that she served to spread the health-food ideas, she was a part of an increasing need for skepticism against, for one thing, the burgeoning tendency for people and the media to treat presidents as though they were gods. She'd certainly know they weren't. Yet these healthy skeptical people, whom I meet everywhere, are being lumped in with the conspiracy addicts -- which there most certainly are.

Now, who is doing this lumping? Who, exactly? Are you? Going from one tinfoil hat site to the next, comparing with the "liberal media," and so on, it appears to me that people are being lumped and categorized in a polarized way that is just as fantastical as any conspiracy theory about the whole thing being orchestrated by the Lizard People from Space.

Why is this lumping not considered out loud as a news item, or at least a thought piece by any public "pundit"? Is this tendency to lump one side against another as addictive a fantasy as Hitler's brain having been removed from Bush, then placed in Obama's head? It appears to me that it is.

You know, they started putting Hitler's brain in Presidents' heads ever since Eisenhower. They had quite a patch-up job to do with Kennedy, but it would have been a little large for Johnson's head anyhow. They're out to get us, Roger.

The teabaggers are out to get you. The Christian Right is out to get you. The White Aryans are out to get you. The gun-nuts are out to get you. The vast right-wing conspiracy is out to get you. The anti-semitics are out to get you. You name the zombie, it is out to get you.

Or maybe not. In sifting through this enormous tangle of contradictory trees, trying to gauge the shape and size of this forest, one thing is clear: the people, meaning the people, and the institutions designed to serve them, have long become remote from one another.

Lumping American people into handy groups of scarecrows to bellow about will without a doubt make things worse.

Those voluntarily lumping themselves into one group of scarecrows or another, particularly on the basis of what they read in the news in all the emotional glory of the gullible, are making things worse as I write line by line. The probable outcome of masses lumped against one another would bring one unified consensus: things will get worse. It's a good thing a fair amount of this is sheerly imaginary lumping made by the various rousers. It would be a better thing for those with the fiery imaginations to spend time with the enemies their imaginations are so busy manufacturing.

more money clearly does not always correlate with more intelligence. however, less money is often associated with less education, and less education will often line up with less intelligence. nothing is always, and nothing is never, of course.

however, those with less money, and often less education/intelligence, will spend more time at home using alcohol (which isn't cheap) and will often end up procreating because they don't always make the effort to use birth control, or they might be too drunk to remember or care.

meanwhile, on the other side of the tracks, those more well off are seeking outside cultural entertainment. not always of course, but more often. a knowledge of economics forces them to be aware of child-rearing expenses, thus they are more careful about how many children they have.

this leads to a population imbalance in which those more likely to lack resources, education, and intellectual stamina are procreating at a much greater rate than those more likely to have resources, education, and intellectual stamina. yes, i know there are a great many wealthy right-wing wackos. however, those of lesser means are more easily duped by right-wing propaganda.

i don't like comparing anyone to hitler, but i must make a comparison here by explaining how hitler came to power. following world war A, germany signed a treaty in which they agreed to suspend any manufacturing of weaponry and other similar industries. the result was a great economic hardship. unemployment was out of control, and many people were in a very similar situation to what's happening here now.

enter a young man who just didn't get enough attention when he was little, so he grew up to be a publicity whore, crying and screaming for anyone to listen to him. he'd stand on a box in an alley for an audience, but he wasn't always saying anything that anyone wanted to hear.

he figured out that people were just too angry and depressed from the economy, and they didn't have time for him until he found a new angle: blame for the depression. he convinced people that all of the money they had lost was going to the jews. they were hoarding everyone's money. it was absurd and circumstantial, but there were many unemployed men who had just graduated college or high school and had nothing in the direction of a job prospect. those angry young men were looking for something to rally around to express their fury about what dire straits the were in, and their fury was turned into a song for a pied piper, eventually to be known as der fuhrer.

economically, we're in trouble right now, just as germany was then, but for different reasons. however, desperate is desperate. we've seen several news stories about fathers who shot their families and then themselves because of the savings and investments they'd lost in the past year. they were scared enough that they'd rather their families were dead than living in poverty.

i'm not sure of whom i should be more afraid. the uneducated and easily duped are rallying around a false cry, but they're not able to grasp what's wrong with the doctored picture. those intentionally spreading misinformation will be leading the rabble, should they rouse enough angry people so as to get in the way of progress.

CS Lewis once said (paraphrasing) "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else"

Whenever I read one of Roger's political journal entries I'm reminded of this quote, not because Roger is a Christian (he isn't, I don't think, and I don't care a whit either way) but because he is exactly, precisely the same creature as the right-wing knuckle-draggers he detests. He is a person, like Sean Hannity, who wakes every day and sees the world through a prism he cannot acknowledge, a veil of comfort and certainty in what is Right and what is Wrong and who is Good and who is Bad. Roger's religion is his leftist politics, and he can recognize his hypocrisy and blind faith no more than a rattlesnake-toting Christian fundamentalist.

Bush/Limbaugh/Beck are Wrong, and not just Wrong, they're Bad. Obama/Krugman/Moore are Right, and not just Right, they're Good. It's ultimately banal, but remains fascinating in that I'm reasonably certain Roger is affected by a certain pitying bemusement of all the deeply religious. Ironic, that.

Ebert: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/04/how_i_believe_in_g.html

I was for Hillary, but all my kids were for Obama-and we live in the south. They don't identify with the Republicans in any way. That tells me they observe and they actually believe that we are all equal,like we tought them. I think that the republicans are digging they own grave . By embracing these big mouth radicals they are also assuming their identity as their own.

Ahahaha I love this section. Brilliant writing!

"Read the web sites of conspiracy zealots and you will find articulate people who can write well. Their handicap is that they missed the boat when it sailed toward intellectual maturity, and now they're rowing furiously in pursuit, waving a pirate flag. Their screeds are a facsimile of reasoned, sensical arguments. They don't know the words, but hum a few bars and they'll fake it."

Seriously though... America, F*** Yeah... =[

An American friend of mine living here in China with me was thinking of moving back to America. He took a three week trip there last summer, starting in San Francisco, and bussing it through the midwest, then down south, and back to San Francisco again to fly back out. When he came back, he told me he was actually literally scared about the state his country was in and how glad he was to be in a foreign country right now.

The current ideological gulf will only increase so long as the left continues to try to marginalize the exponentially increasing numbers of Americans who are just now discovering that an obviously inexperienced and (seemingly) narcissistic hack politican is in charge of the White House. At the risk of being called a "fringer," please keep in mind that at least one half of this description of the President is true, not something that the intensity of my belief just, well, makes it true....or what may be better termed as the fatal certainty of liberalism.

Oh what crazy times we live in. I recall not too long ago, our local governer Rick Perry stopping just short of saying the state of Texas could secede from the union of new taxes were adopted. Some in the audience even shouted "Secede!" Those are the words of a revolution. I believe one is in the emminent future, but not for the reasons that Perry or many other conservatives thought.

Within the past year we've seen the housing market fail, banks that were too big to fail collapse, and an African American man become president. Yet this wasn't how the rules were written, was it? The United States had gotten quite comfortable operating under a years old system of capitalism and democracy that was an infallible. Yet under that system, we nearly entered a depression era economy. In this sense, a system of checks and balances was put in to secure our economy. This is a major change that hasn't even finished yet.

Now we come to health care. Again, a system we've been operating under for years is failing. It needs a major overhaul. People are uncomfortable with major changes and they will fight them using two dollar generalizations about our commander in chief. As you stated, educated people come out in droves with a seemingly myopic view of what's really happening. We latch on to falatious reasoning because it sounds bad. Now let's see what happens if we try and prove it. Don't get me started on the argument about Obama's citizenship.

So our economic and medical system are in need of major change. A revolution, if you will. And people are uncomfortable with that. But our revolution is incomplete without one special ingredient: A political overhaul. The rules of a revolution is that the old system no longer works. It is broken. In terms of politics, the partisanship gets greater and nastier with each administration. No need to debate it, the climate is getting worse. I think the inane arguments between the parties are getting so bad that people are about to get fed up with the lack of progress in our government because of the party system that like the economy and health care before it, the system will break and the way we play politics will change.

I'm not trying to spell out any conspiracy or anything like that, but I believe that what you are hinting at, Mr. Ebert, is a breakdown of political order. Yest it's always been bad, but we are seeing a process where everything - healthcare, the economy, and politics - are coming to a head - and all withing nearly a years time, that change is due if we are to continue to be a successful thriving democracy.

How can we expect the people we elect into government to get anything done for us if we can't even stop pointing fingers and placing blame in a blog discussion? Both sides are appalling. Before we know it, four years of bureaucratic quibbling will have passed ... and, sure, Republicans will discredit Obama, or whatever, but what about the American people who need strong, positive strides in legislation right now? The president is only one branch in government -- everyone involved needs to stop acting like ego-bruised children and work to get things done. Time is not a luxury we have for playing sides ("we" being my generation who will inherit all of these problems and again pass them on to our children at this rate). What we have on our hands is a passive coup, and it's inefficient, unnecessary, and potentially devastating.

Fox news is being left behind because it's NOT extreme enough? That is one of the most frightening things I've ever read.

I feel fortunate to live in Canada away from Republicans. Our conservatives do use sleazy tactics against the opposition, but nowhere near what the Republicans do on a mild day.

I can't wrap my head around how average, middle-class Americans have been turned against what would be one of the best things to ever happen to them. A few years ago Canada voted on it's Greatest Canadian Ever, and Tommy Douglas (Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather for 24 and Dark City fans) won, the man who was responsible for health care here.

It is ironic to me though that these Republicans who wave the bible around on almost every issue, such as homosexuality, have conveniently ignored the fact that this would have to be something Jesus would be in favor of. Socialist or not, compassion for your fellow man is a good thing. Especially when the only reason not to do it is greed.

Everytime someone grumbles about the legitimacy of the 2000 election, I direct them to the New York Times study on such:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

The conclusion that the paper made being that Bush won Flordia and thus the election. If the NYT says so, then I sure as hell believe it.

Right wing extremism, white supremacists, the militia movement, and the Moral Majority (a movement that is ironically more likely to produce an "Anti-Christ" than anything else on Earth, if one were so inclined to believe in myths) did not cease to exist on 9/11. They simply became less important to the media and the government during that past eight years. During this period of neglect by institutions that otherwise would have counteracted them, I'm sorry to say, these ideologies have indeed festered into a rotting pool of bile and hatred.

There are also two concurrent wars being fought in countries that has a religious component to it and the first three categories practically deify former & current special forces and infantry personnel who they quickly utilize upon recruitment to train their other members. This isn't even to mention private mercenary contractors, who are even more at risk of involvement than average soldiers. While most of the world has become better educated, less paranoid, less militant, more rational, and less superstitious, a significant portion of America has actually been reverting in the opposite direction. Our nation is polarizing into the progressive generation and the regressive generation.

Yesterday, someone threw feces on a cardboard cutout of President Obama on the other side of a window at the Douglas County Democratic headquarters in Roseburg where I'm at. If the problem is occurring here in a small town in Oregon, a blue state, the situation will only get worse and is already worse in the red states. I wonder how many Fox News viewers even realize the man who owns that station is not an American and has admitted to utilizing it for propaganda purposes at times. That even the Columbia School of Journalism has cited it as not living up to its role as part of the fourth estate. Yet the masses keep on eating it up, bile, crap, and all. They're seemingly distracted by the beauty queens and handsome all-American men who are just pretending to be journalists.

This all adds up to something, and I'll tell you, I'm afraid for my country.

Thomas Friedman does it. Jimmy Carter does it. Peggy Noonan does it. Now Roger Ebert does it. The liberals and RINOs of the Democrat Party and the legacy media are suddenly enthralled with repeating endlessly the idea that "crazy right-wing racists" want to harm the President.

Gosh, it leads one to think it might be a political campaign orchestrated by the White House and the Democrats to attempt to marginalize and vilify the opponents of Obama's health-care takeover.

Heck, it worked when they smeared and threatened President Bush for eight years; but nobody has much to say about that. It worked when they did it to Governor Palin. Why not do it to the good, honest, and hardworking American citizens that have the temerity to challenge their betters?

The Democrats know they can count on their sympathizers in media, academia, the unions, and the trial lawyers to go along with whatever vile plan they come up with.

Good thing for America, there are still citizens that understand it is our innate liberty, not government handouts stolen from the productive, that makes us great.

Nobody I know wants to harm Obama. In fact, as my Commander in Chief, I will take a bullet for him. I despise his policies and all he stands for but this is a country based on the rule of law. We will vote him out of that office.

History shows it is, in fact, the left-wing that usually resorts to violence. Left-wing governments murdered 262,000,000 people in the 20th century, JFK was killed by a communist, green nuts burn houses and cars, and we know it is not conservatives rioting in the streets. It was not a conservative that bashed in the head of that 16 year old honor student in Chicago.

Here is an idea so simple even an Obama voter can understand it. On the political spectrum, all that matters is the degree of government control. Left-wingers want more and right-wingers want less. By this definition, the communism, socialism, and fascism really are distinctions without a difference and are the left-wing.

Why anyone would want to associate themselves with the left-wing defies history and logic but that is exactly what people like Ebert are doing and they should be ashamed.

I have to agree with AlAN posted so far above. The Left is so outraged that a minority of radical right--not even necessarily Republican--are comparing Pres. O to Hitler, etc. Whine!
Everything I have heard along this line in recent months pales in comparison to the consistent, vitriol spewed against our former president by the radical Left. Your hypocrisy, Mr. Ebert, is so obvious that I am flabbergasted that you believe you have any intellectual talent. Your article is very rude in tone and based on illogic.

Even your response to ALANs post shows that you have failed to separate what you want to believe from what the truth is. For instance you claim that it is fact the Bush stole the election, that Bush lied to get us into a war, etc. These are not FACTS. These conclusions are your biased opinion being presented as fact. Let's add some intellectual honesty, some objectivity to your wit, and you will do better at presenting your opinion, if anyone really cares.

Dr. Mark Woodworth
http://markgwoodworth.blogspot.com/

Ebert: What is it about the 2000 election you don't understand?

I understand everything about the 2000 election. I lived it intensely every day.

Surely you know, for example, that an objective media pool conducted a recount after the dust settled - obtaining the ballots through the FOIA. Under the rules of the election and of the Gore recount challenge, they concluded that Bush had won the election as advertised on election night.

Why do you doubt the media pool's actual recount and prefer a conspiracy theory?

Randy

Ebert: Do you have an opinion on the well-documented GOP strategy of disenfranchising black voters?

Reply to: Sean Kelly: Bill Hays, you're talking out of your arse. "Today, it's extremely common to be both Christian AND Atheist." What exactly are you trying to say? It sounds like you're saying that people can believe Jesus was the only son of God and died for our sins, and at the same time believe there is no higher power.

Jesus was NOT the only son of God.

Even in the Old Testament, it's quite clear that God had other sons.

Jesus did not die for your sins because there is no such thing as a sin. A "sin" is just an invention of a con man, for various dishonest reasons. Jesus said a woman who divorces her abusive husband, and marries a second man, commits the sin of adultery. Nonsense.

OK, first, the Truth. Jesus was an ordinary human being. 40 years after Jesus died, after the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in 70 AD, the Gospels were re-written. It became very important for Jesus to be the Son of God.

Why? Because Roman coins proclaimed Emperor Augustus Caesar as "son of God". Monuments proclaimed Emperor Augustus Caesar as "son of God."

In order to preserve Judaism after the Temple was destroyed, a cult chose to pretend Jesus was a son of God, too. Then, the synagogues kicked out the Christians, and it stopped being a cult within Judaism.

Atheists don't think Jesus was actually the "son of God." In fact, anybody who understands the Roman Emperor cult would reject that idea, too.

Reply to: That's not just a contradiction, that's an oxymoron.

Not if you use the correct definitions. Not MY definitions, but definitions used by millions of Christians all over the United States.

Reply to: If you're saying many people PRETEND to be Christian for social reasons,

No, they define "Christianity" on the basis of social issues.

Thinking Jesus was a wise teacher. Many Christians think "all men are created equal" was a Christian invention.

Clearly, in Christianity, women occupy a subservient position to men. How many of the disciples were female? Women cannot become Catholic priests, only nuns, the subservient 'brides of Christ.'

But Christians like to PRETEND that sexual and racial equality is a Christian thing. When your country is occupied by a foreign army, and a man like Pilate placed in charge, it's not surprising that "racism" may occur.

Reply to: while in actuality holding atheistic beliefs, then fine. But those people aren't actually Christians, they're impostors.

They're NOT imposters. Their definition of the word "Christian" is just as valid as yours.

Personally, I don't understand how you can be Christian after learning that God does not exist. But Mellon said he knows three Catholic priests who find they can live fulfilling lives as priests without having to say the God word.

"The true value of dialogue is not to be found solely in the results it produces but also in the process of dialogue itself, as two human spirits engage with and elevate each other to a higher realm."

I don't really see any difference between people who go bezerk on Obama than the ones who did so under Bush. Unless you seem to watch Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck fo 24 hours a day, then I don't know where you come off saying this. It's okay to make up Bush as Hitler because you agree with it even though it's just as hateful. "No, no, but it's okay, Bush sent our soldiers to die needlessly..." Yeah? So did almost every other President in the last 70 years! Clinton invaded Kosovo, blew up glue factories! Reagan used our Military forces to train future members of Al Quida. He did it unknowingly thinking they were allies, but he did do it.

My point being, no matter who is in power, no matter who is in office, there's going to be a growing and festering hatred for whomever is in there from anyone who disagrees with the policies of said President. If Obama was a Republican, there would be the Democrats who would no doubt be in uproar for every little thing he does. But because he's a democrat, it's the Republicans who are going off their rocker. Nevermind trying to single out the conservatives with Independents, it's just asinine. Endless protests and hoopla during the Bush administraion. Not only that,umm...wasn't there a liberal talk show host who referred to Condelezza Rice as "Aunt Jemima"? Oh yeah, real freakin' priase for that.

People with ideologies will only hear what they want and precieve what they want that fits their thinking structure. I do the same from time to time, but, unlike many of the people who have responded to you and surely many of the people who like to compare ANY U.S. President to Hitler, I have the power to stand back and have an unbiased opinion of what is around me and look at things from a point of view that reflects good and bad, right and wrong, and make clear rational decisions for myself.

I suggest you also do the same...

I agree with you 100%...except when you dodge the undeniable point that much of the Bush opposition was similarly unhinged, right down to invoking the same Hitler analogy. The analog of the 9/11 "truthers" and the Obama "birthers" is almost as precise. To assert that "liberals played by the rules" is to ignore a vast array of assaults well detailed earlier in this thread. Would that you had seen fit to bring your considerable eloquence and intellect to bear then, or even that you would retrospectively do so now.

Instead, to this point, we have one line from you,and only after numerous posts: "They were wrong to do that." And, in the next breath, you undercut that most timid of condemnations by criticizing the commenter for failing to explicitly criticize the Obama-Hitler comparisons.

Let me be explicit, then: the Obama-Hitler comparisons are vile, they are reprehensible, and they deserve every drop of the contempt you paint them with above. And so were the Bush-Hitler comparisons. And so, lest we forget, were the claims that Bill Clinton was a murderer and/or a traitorous stooge of the Chinese. (One could cite examples going back to Jefferson.)

The issue is not left or right, nor Obama or Bush. It is the steady erosion of civil discourse, and what Richard Hofstadter dubbed "the paranoid style in American politics" nearly half a century ago. Your assessment of their line of "logic" is spot on. But you do a disservice to a vitally important argument by denying the prominent place the paranoid style occupied on the Left over the last eight years.

When you respond, as you did above, to Alan's reasoned, civil post (4:07pm) by citing your objections to Bush's actions, you are saying, intentionally or not, "Because I believe Bush to have been an awful and/or evil president, the vitriol directed toward him is excusable." That is PRECISELY the reasoning that leads us to where we are now. The people Photoshopping Obama's picture no doubt feel exactly the same way...and no, I don't believe race is the primary motivator for most of them. Again, look back at the assaults on Bill Clinton, and multiply by nine years of explosive growth in the blogosphere.

I daresay if the odious Ann Coulter had written "Checkpoint" instead of Nicholson Baker, and substituted Obama's name for Bush's, you would quickly, and rightly, condemn it. It is simply not good enough for those on either side of the spectrum to reserve that condemnation only for assaults on presidents with whom one agrees.

BTW, some of the most egregious attacks, including one of the YouTube clips you embedded above, come not from the GOP but from the Lyndon LaRouche faction, nominally Democratic but realistically far removed from any mainstream party. And speaking of YouTube, this is the Michael Moore comment you say you missed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ8rpcgCoi4. Jim Emerson discussed it in 2004 on this very site. It took all of .08 seconds to find it on Google.

Thank-you for being one of the first people I know to stand up for our president. I hear negative comments about him all the time. I voted for him, and yet when he was elected because I live in Idaho my celebration had to be private. There are people who support our new president. He is not alone. I have seen him do more this year for our country than Bush did in the last four years. So good job Barack, I am on your side. Before I go the day of the election, my downstairs neighbor knocked on my door at 7am and the first thing he said was "do you like six doller gasoline?" "If you don't like six doller gasoline, don't vote for Obama." Now the one thing I truly detest is scare tactics. And if I hadn't been voting for Obama already I would have changed my vote to Obama just because I do not like being pressured into making a decision that is not my own. I can think for myself. Come to think about it, we were paying almost five dollers a gallon for gas last summer and Obama wasn't president, it was Bush.

Roger,

Voting on the Civil Rights Act of '64:

The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.
-------------

Isn't it amazing, a Republican signed the Emancipation Proclamation and Republicans had higher percentages on the '64 act. And last I checked, the Democratic party is the only party that accepts a former member of the Klan in it's ranks in the Senate. I guess you couldn't include those little tidbits in your post because they don't fit the template for your post. No, just mention the signature because that paints the picture for me.

It's a shame when people see everything filtered by their politics.

By the way, where was your fear when 'documentaries' were being made depicting the assassination of President Bush? Can you imagine what the reaction would have been were it President Obama?

You actually wrote that the film was maybe even necessary....that is sickening. No president should have to endure that. It only takes one crazy person, and for you to argue the film was 'maybe even necessary' shows you do the same stuff you now deplore...now that your guy is in office.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060912/EDITOR/60912001

Yes, folks, Roger Ebert considered a film depicting the assassination of a sitting president as 'maybe even necessary'. As though there are no other ways to understand his role in the world?

Tell us Roger, did your heart skip a beat when he went down? The excitement in your review is palpable.

Imagine what you would say if someone wrote this about Obama, or even attempted to make a movie like this about Obama. I'm sure you'll have some reason for saying such depictions were justifiable under Bush, but now we're in a different time and it's not justifiable for your guy, Obama.

Deplorable and sickening...

Ebert: I did not see the movie nor write that review.

At the time the bill passed, the "Solid South" was Democratic and the North had many moderate and liberal Republicans. Think that had anything to do with it?

"Yes. But liberals played by the rules"

You mean by routinely calling for Bush's death and calling him a Nazi?

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

I am so sick of liberal hypocrites like Ebert who turned a blind eye towards the far worse hate speech directed towards Bush and even deny it now.

Ebert: Routinely?

The protester wearing the Stupid White Mother***** t-shirt in two photos holding two different signs is not your routine liberal.

I applaud you for this statement! The things I am hearing, even from people I care about deeply disturb me. I am personally a democrat, and yes, I voted for Obama, but people don't THINK for themselves anymore. They latch onto one theory and will defend it into zombieland. Logical arguments, hell, arguments of any kind seem to make no difference. The culture seems ripe for another McCarthy. Is there anyone in the news media today to do what Murrow and other brave journalists like him did? Sadly, the only name that comes to my mind is John Stewart, and he's a comedian!

Yes, I did leave out earlier today that comparing Obama to Hitler is wrong. But you left out for eight-plus years that comparing Bush to Hitler was wrong. I repeat: what took you so long to say it, and what does it say about you that you said NOTHING in criticism of those who compared Bush to Hitler from January 2001 to January 2009... but then suddenly started wringing your hands, fearing for the Republic, when the same comments were made about Obama? And how could you ever have said that liberals played by the rules?

Oh, but you apparently "missed" the oceans of hateful comments, like the Kossacks applauding the news that Tony Snow had cancer. Very impressive that you missed things like that. Very impressive that you missed so many of those things that you could somehow, in your mind, justify saying that liberals played by the rules when Bush was in office.

And at one point you apparently try to justify much of what was said about Bush by saying that he did in fact steal the election (forget that the Florida Supreme Court rewrote Florida election law for Al Gore's benefit, in order to authorize recounts that were permitted only in the event of an error in the vote tabulation, when in fact the errors were errors in the vote-casting process), that he did in fact violate the Constitution (which provisions, exactly, and in what respects is Obama not doing likewise?--for example, what do you think of the Obama administration's treatment of the Uighurs, compared to the position taken by Bush?), and that he lied to get us into war (which entails that Bush is evil, because only an evil person would send thousands of people to their deaths knowing full well that his stated justification for doing it was false--and that accusation puts you squarely in the same camp as the people who compare Obama to Hitler). What exactly is the relevance of all that, if not to defend the statements about Bush that were equal in their intensity and hatefulness to the talk about Obama that FINALLY has you saying that there's too much rancor etc. etc. etc.?

Oh, and since Obama's administration is defending the government's action prohibiting a film of political advocacy from being shown, never mind that pesky First Amendment, I suppose Obama has actually merited some of that passionate hatred Bush got for violating the Constitution. Unless you think that for the federal government to ban a film expressing political advocacy is just hunky-dory under the First Amendment--but that would make you a pretty poor arbiter of constitutionality, and thus a pretty poor judge of the constitutionality of Bush's actions.

Roger, it sounds like you don't know any of these people personally. You're probably lucky. Several comments have been left on this blog suggesting that these people are mostly from the South. My own experience suggests otherwise. My wife's mother, as well as most of her family, both sides, belong in this camp and they have lived in the Boston area for several generations. My wife travels a lot and recently, on a trip through Oregon, she saw a big sign that read, "Check the birth certificate."

Our tolerance for idiocy has allowed idiocy to pervade the intellectual sphere--if that descriptor still applies; growing up [as children, and as a society], we are taught tolerance for differing ideologies. However, this platitude is insufficient; ignorance is insidious, and its tolerance cannot be tolerated.

We have harnessed nuclear power; to our prehistoric ancestors, we would be as gods, the power of the sun bending to our whims. All this, and our own idiocy threatens our species; our reality has become satirical.

We must remember; we must remember three words:

You are wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Logic is the answer; logic must be allowed to purge idiocy. We cannot allow idiocy: it cannot be tolerated, because it does not tolerate intelligence; it rots and rusts the mind, virulently spreading with the host's every syllable.

Idiocy is wrong; the idiots are wrong. This is neither hyperbolic nor grandiose; it is a statement: we have allowed idiocy to pervade our species, and we must purge it. Otherwise, truth will conquer us.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/

Scroll down and look at the pics. Yeah, the left doesn't have it's share of frightening wackos....

Seek the truth Roger....

Ebert: This link has now been supplied 10 times. I gather its posters don't read comments.

It is interesting to see some commentators lumping the 9/11 Truthers in with "liberals" - because apparently every fringe group that spread lies about Bush must obviously be on the side of the Liberals (and thus apparently justifies all the mainstream lies so many Republicans are spreading about Obama). In case people don't see the humor in that accusation, the overwhelming majority of 9/11 truthers are fringe loony-bin anti-government types and describing them as "liberal" couldn't possibly be any further from the truth.

Roger, Roger, Roger...have you forgotten that the libs compared Bush to Hitler and that the lib talkshows were filled with conspiracy theories about Bush-Cheney?

>>>But liberals played by the rules.

No Roger, they didn't.

>>>I am frightened by the climate of insane anti-Obama hatred in this country.

I was angered, not frightened, by liberal climate of insanity during the Bush years (and I didn't like Bush). It convinced me that liberal Democrats were not political adversaries, but rather BLOOD ENEMIES.

>>>Obama is a racist.

Indeed he is. I would walk out of any church preaching hatred; it wouldn't take me 20 years and I certainly wouldn't describe a hate monger as my spiritual leader. It wouldn't take presidential politics for me to throw a racist preacher under the bus.

>>>Who really thinks the census, which is a vital tool of democracy, represents some kind of occult threat?

It is political voodoo, Roger. Voting lines are drawn based on the outcome of the census. ...guess you haven't read much history.

I find it laughable that you are critical of the purveyors of BS when your commentary is cut from the same cloth.

Ebert: "Who really thinks the census, which is a vital tool of democracy, represents some kind of occult threat?" It is political voodoo, Roger. Voting lines are drawn based on the outcome of the census. ...guess you haven't read much history. "

You are opposed to that?

Roger,

Congratulations on saying it outloud, giving life and words to the unsettling, however subtle fear that must be brewing in every semi-rationally thinking man and woman.

Well said... it's just not OK. I think you do a nice job of reaching for the origin, the style, the root of the thinking that's not working. I agree that there is likely some residual racism in here but I'll add that there's another thing in place here. Think about the "thinking."

I propose that it's the result of a way of thinking, a mindset, a value system, dare I say a "consciousness." It's the thing that makes a 5 year old throw a tantrum... it's not the mind fully evolved, at least not to a standard that would be supportive to more open views. That would be able to make informed decisions, beyond the trap of being emotionally centered.

Ironically, it's the root of the issue we deal with in the middle east. Shaazaam, huh? They run around killing each other and everyone else and we can't make a lick of sense of it. But hell, when you're dancing with the right "OS" Operating System it looks brilliant.

And we've all found out just how difficult it is to do a damn thing about. You can't welcome an OS to a new level with a greeting card, and you can't hug Charley Manson into Mr. Rogers... sometimes, just like the 5 year old, the only way to emrbace the "level" or "OS" that your dealing with is to admit it and meet it, where it is.

You have to meet them where they are, not above, or below... force may know only force. What this means for how to meet craziness I don't know for sure.. it's certainly not with more craziness. but I'm confident there is something in this "know thine enemy" or know where they are coming from and what the motivating force is.

Well, any way we go, it's not going to be easy but we've got to keep recognizing the elephant in the room and raising the bar, collectively.

Here's to the next level we do desperately need and which is waiting for our arrival.

In Strength,
Shawn

Roger,
You might want to go to a meeting. You are sounding like a dry drunk. Perhaps it is time to go back to the Twelve and Twelve.

Ebert: That's a message unworthy of the program.

@ T.J.

So just to be clear, you guys were right in hating Bush because you disagreed with his policies. Your logic is no different than the most mindless dittohead.

@ Casey

Nobody is saying its "OK" except folks like your buddy TJ up there who says that the hate from the left was justified and hence "OK".

This not a validation of the right-wing idiots out there. This is a criticism of the hypocrisy of liberals like Ebert.

These two sentences are brilliant:

"They have a peculiar intensity in their circular reasoning. They cite facts that are not facts, supported by authorities who are not authorities."

I see this on display within this very column. I hear it on Air America, I see it on MSNBC, and on all of the hateful, ignorant blogs a la Dailykos and Huffington Post. Sadly, this partisan foolery is even present on the WhiteHouse.Gov blog.

"They have a peculiar intensity in their circular reasoning. They cite facts that are not facts, supported by authorities who are not authorities."

That's you and yours, Ebert. You've had your own personal battles with Bush Derangement Syndrome and this is just a side effect. Aren't you the one who considered Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a great "documentary"? Of course, you saw nothing wrong with criticisms directed at Bush for the last eight years. Do I really have to direct your hypocritical self to your own web site? Here's an approving review of Death of a President [Bush]:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060912/EDITOR/60912001
Gee, a couple years ago anti government propaganda was so in vogue!

For someone who, like his liberal wacko colleagues, can't actually cite any examples of racism when making the charge, George Will coined the phrase: Liberal McCarthyism. (Because anyone who challenges Obama must be racist, right?)

Townhall meeting after townhall meeting, thousands marching in D.C. and where's the violence you and your ilk keep promising? There is none, but when Obama gets in trouble in the arena of ideas, you cry racism instead of considering the opposing viewpoint.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 you referred to found Republicans favoring the bill 138 to 34; while Democrats supported it 152-96. So much for facts, huh Ebert?

It's perfectly reasonable to think Obama could (further) destroy Medicare and that he wants tax payers to pay for illegal immigrants' health care. Barack Obama did lie, (or to say the least, has been forthright) about his plans. Yet, you're content believing that, while he's never even run a hot dog stand prior to his brief time in the Senate, he should take over health care, (1/6th of the American economy)?

Even the President has said these are legitimate differences people have with his policies and are not based in racism.

You've jumped the shark, Roger.

I'm a college student and Barack Obama was the first president I ever voted for. When Bush was in office for his second term, I was half way through high school and still too young to understand the whole grasp of his policies. I wanted to go to prom and have a boyfriend.
Going into college and knowing that I could vote in the next election, I became more aware of the political climate and I was whole-heartedly not only excited about voting for Barack Obama but also to watch a new presidency be born from beginning to end.
And so far, I've got to say, I am terrified. The right wing and their scare tactic speeches are just incredibly horrifying. I can't believe what is being said over the issue of universal health care. I can't believe what people are saying about the man who is trying to introduce it. I've never been able to watch more than ten seconds of Glen Beck because I get so scared. Not of Glen Beck but of the fact that there are enough people watching him to keep him on TV.
Since January, I feel like my eyes have really been opened to what kind of sects we have in this country. I want to deny it, say that the people I live around don't act like that, but we all live in the same country and these are my countrymen. And right now, that is incredibly disheartening.

Incidentally, the John Birch Society survived the end of the Cold War and was able to transition from its bizarre anti-Communist paranoia to agitation about the New World Order conspiracy which currently prevails on the paranoid fringe. They are crazy as ever.

Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" documents the history of this ongoing peculiarity in American political thought and is quite interesting. The chain of paranoia stretches all the way back to the colonial period and has maintained its continuity for two centuries and some change with wild prognostications of doom from those prophesying the imminent tyranny of the Illuminati, Masons, Catholics, Jews, Communists, Rich People, Socialists, etc.

What's most interesting to me is the recycling of rhetoric. Documents from the original anti-Illuminism movement of the late 18th century can be made appropriate for the 1950s with a simple change of proper nouns; without proper nouns, it's often impossible to tell which movement produced the literature in question because the general characteristics of the Adversary and the way the conflict is framed by the paranoid have always been the same. The Adversary is terrifyingly evil, a force of pure malevolence with nearly unlimited power and competence, on the very cusp of completing its conquest and destroying civilization; the paranoid sees himself as the last defender on the barricades.

The history is somewhat encouraging in that it shows paranoia waxing and waning over time, never overwhelming the mass of the sensible, and casualties have generally been slight. But I personally am concerned about the combination of wild right-wing paranoia and paramilitary gun culture. The contemporary fringe is capable of much greater violence than maniacs of generations past; the Oklahoma City bombing testifies to this. Contemporary paranoids are voracious consumers of firearms and ammunition and would consider any attempt to disarm them a call to Armageddon, a party for which they will not be late.

I believe the sensible will always prevail, being more numerous and socially adaptive, but at what cost in needless tragedy?

Mr. Ebert, you pretty much mentioned the reason why this embracement of the fringe is so rampant now. Three things have changed that made such behavior more widespread in my opinion. The Internet, Talk Radio, and FOX News.

Often times, the similar approach of comparing Bush to Hitler was widespread on the Internet. Such imagery and hyperbole were spread throught that in my opinion. You have that now as well. But what you also have is talk radio and FOX News. Talk radio had a similar impact during the 1990s with right-wing militia movements. Those movement fell out of favor though because of their involvement of terrorism. But by far the biggest motivator of all this is FOX News, Glenn Beck and Hannity. The network has given almost a validity to this particular message because it is on television and on a news network.

And, please forgive me, but those doctored photos of Obama are absolutely hilarious. Are those humorous mockups or are they actually taken from right-wing sites?

Ebert: The latter, I fear.

---------------------------------

Here's the background on the joker photo. The creator isn't exactly a conservative, he would have preferred Dennis Kucinich

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-artist.html

-------------------

Of course, instead of providing clarity, it's easier for you to use it as an example that supports your point. Who's increasing the fear and hysteria now?

Ebert: Here's the (interestng) blog where I found it:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009_08.html

My fiancee is not American, and sometimes she's perplexed by the things that happen here. After talking a great deal with her about many issues, I've come up with one simple theory that explains almost everything that happens in the US:

"If something happens that's absolutely incomprehensible, it's most likely happening because either (1) someone is making a lot of money from it, or (2) someone who has been making a lot of money is worried that it's going to come to an end soon."

Yes, the people with the signs comparing Obama to Hitler are idiots, but they're being manipulated by some very smart people who stand to lose a lot of money should meaningful health care reform ever take place. Check out opensecrets.org and take a look at the recent political contributions made by the health insurance and pharma companies versus the contributions made by everyone else; the NRA, big tobacco, AIPAC, and the big unions aren't even a blip by comparison.

By the same token, Sean Hannity isn't on the air because Rupert Murdoch thinks he's got an important voice that needs to be heard; he's on the air because he brings in the listeners, and that's it. If his numbers cooled off, he'd be out of that cushy job faster than you can say "not even qualified to be a toll-booth collector." The same goes for Rush, O'Reilly, and crazy old Glenn Beck.

What you said in your article is 100% correct, but don't overthink things too much when you go looking for reasons; what's happening right now is happening for purely financial motives. And in America in 2009, there's no deeper ideology.

Roger-

The reason why the shrill voices on the extreme right or extreme left sound the loudest is that the sane, calm, soothing voices on the moderate right or moderate left fail to criticize when criticism is due. If liberals like you and conservatives like me got off our high horse, saw to the fact that the presidency of Bush was a failure and the presidency of Obama is heading down the same road (albeit for different reasons), we could have a change in Washington that would allow extremism to be overcome with positive action.

My problem with you Roger is that you seem to think Liberals or Obama can do no wrong. I have long since accepted that the presidency of Bush was an abject violation of the constitution (taking away privacy rights, going to an unproductive war, suspending habeus corpus etc). However, you seem to be blind to similar actions from the Obama administration (though they are veiled in the cloak of rendition, wiretapping still continues, the war in Afghanisthan now is not only unproductive, it is not even being fought). On top of all this, both administrations talked a good game regarding bipartisanship, looking out for the common man but are as partisan as ever, and continue looking out for wall street.

If only, Roger Ebert, Michael Moore, Ariana Huffington step up their criticism of Obama for continuing to erode our freedoms that were lost during Bush and for continuing to invest in an economic system that has lost competitiveness with the rest of the world, I would feel that the far right is all alone. At this juncture, the far right and the far left are blinded by ideology. What you see as a threat to the life of the president based of the shenanigans of the far right are no different to the shenanigans of the far left that burned effigies of Bush, were happy to see a shoe thrown at him in Iraq, and were more than happy to see him strung up from a pole (many such protests exist). When the fair minded liberals like you take a reasoned approach to drop your ideology and offer constructive criticism of the current administration, these extremists will be isolated and their numbers will drop.

Until then, I can only hope and pray to bless this great land and the president.

I agree with most of your post, but I think you've missed a crucial point. The Republicans --- and it's really all of them, including their incompetent Michael Steele as RNC chairman (and I believe it's spelled "Snowe," not Snow) --- have a long and proud history of changing the subject.

When Bush was asked basically how he placed us in a misguided, false war, he turned the page and asked why the Democrats voted for it.

When Kerry campaigned on his heroic service in Vietnam, the GOP decided to attack his strengths.

When the Democrats now introduce health care legislation, the Republicans --- who did absolutely NOTHING for 12 years of Congressional control on this issue --- now change the subject and replace it with lies.

Dozens of additional examples exist, and this is how Republicans --- even decent, moderate ones -- always operate.

This is why, for three years, Barack Obama has had to put up with this crap about him being a Muslim, a Socialist, a Marxist, a Nazi, a Terrorist, a guy who "pals around" with terrorists, you name it. By placing these false labels on Obama, they're not just creating fear and paranoia (which they are), they're doing something more shrewd: they're forcing Obama and the Democrats to defend what their ideas are NOT about instead of what they ARE about. And the media follows suit, reporting on insanity instead of the real issues of the day.

And your blog comments are largely like this, too: instead of the Republicans agreeing, they simply say "you guys did it, too."

I am socially liberal and I guess fiscally moderate. Tired of the Democrats inability to push things through, I changed my registration a few years ago from Democrat to Independent. I voted for Obama, especially considering the ideas of McCain and his unintelligent, uninformed, unqualified running mate. I'm critical of many of Obama's decisions now that he's in office --- he's acting too much like a statesman and not a leader, and the Democrats just can't get their act together. But health care reform is not one of those issues. We need it to pass, now.

I also think it's worth acknowledging the Bush-as-Hitler comparisons. Bush's campaign in 2004 for "re-election" ran an ad that showed prominent Democrats intercut with images of Hitler. He refused to apologize for the ad, which was on his own website, GeorgeWBush.com.

And although Bush is NOT Hitler and should not be compared to Hitler, the comparison is LESS offensive than it is for Obama to be compared. Why? Because Bush started a war based on confirmed lies and errors, that resulted in as many as 650,000 dead Iraqis and 1-2 million people misplaced who were NOT all terrorists. That isn't Hitler, but it certainly is worthy of the title of war criminal IF Congress investigates and goes after Bush, Cheney & Co.

I would love for responsible Republicans in the House and Senate to hold a press conference very soon decrying this kind of vitriol and hatred. It's going to result in violence, and it's not a good thing. You and I know that isn't going to happen.

Ebert in response to a poster pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy by using Death of a President as an example:

Ebert: Have you seen it? I haven't, but I don't believe it calls for assassination. One critic says it contains nothing for a Bush supporter to object to.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/deathofapresident?q=Death%20of%20a%20President

----------------------

No nothing to object to...JUST THE DEPICTION OF THE ASSASSINATION OF A LIVING, EVEN SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Good grief Roger.
-------------

The post 'By Alan on October 1, 2009 4:07 PM' was my favority though. Notice how your comment has nothing to do with his statements. Your hatred is justified, but everyone else's is frightening. Sorry Roger, you just lost a reader forever. I've read your reviews and posts for a long time, but your lack of integrity on this and other issues, your hypocrisy and double standards have become too much. Wish you the best.

Mr. Ebert,

I love your blog, especially when you write about Chicago and newspaper life from days past. But boy, do you step in it sometimes. You do not see that you yourself, like everyone, filters the news. You forget Howard Dean saying "I hate George Bush, and I hate Republicans". You forget John Kerry threating to kill Bush on Bill Maher's show (certainly it was a joke, but if that does not qualify as "out of bounds" as you say. Imagine the same joke against Obama).

I completely disagree with the President's approach to health care. And I am an unempolyed father of 5, paying for my own insurance. I have reasoned arguments, and am passionate about them. Most of the people against this and other policies are thinking, careing, intellegent people. They just happen to disagree with you. I admit, I could not even finish your blog entry. The whole bit about how a lunatic fringe is misleading and inciting myself and the rest of the gullable right is a bit hard to take. You seem to see three camps; those that agree with you, those that are pitifully misled by the "fringe", and the fringe itself. Do you see how one might find that offensive?

And for the record, I do believe Obama wants to fund health care for illegal immigrants. You dismiss it to easily. I dont think this is an indefensible position either. There are good reasons to cover a person, illegal or not. I happen to think that as a policy it has unintended consequences that make it a poor policy decision. But I am bothered by the dismissive attitude some, like yourself, take to these hot button issues. Its as if you were unaware of the debates in Congress around this very issue, and the proposed, and rejected, ammendments to the bill meant to close any potential loop holes.

Well, I could go on, but it would not do any good. I am not that eloquent, and it seems everyone is hardened into their mindsets anyway. It is hard to be an optimist when it comes to our representatives, right, left, and middle.

Regarding Dem Rep Grayson saying Republicans wanted Americans to "die quickly":

Winter Seale said:

And he was also immediately called out for it by left wing media. Something right wing media isn't doing for those acting badly on their side.

Nonsense. A quick trip to DemocraticUnderground finds this typical comment:

To state the bone-obvious: Grayson attacked the Pugs on THEIR diversions. He thereby demonstrated that some Dems have a spine, illuminated the health care issue starkly for millions of Americans, showed up the Pugs as stinking hypocrites, shamed some of the more timorous Dem "leaders", and implicitly told the DLC to fuck off.

Meanwhile, after the Dem controlled House censored Joe Wilson for a unplanned emotional outburst in the chamber, Nancy Pelosi announces that nothing needs to be done about Grayson's planned attack speech in the chamber.

What left-wing media called out Grayson?

Randy

I have lived a short life, nothing too exciting. Just the mundane existence. In this life, I have already lived through two huge events. An earthquake and religious riots. An earthquake of massive scale which left thousands dead and brought millions together out to help and take care of the fallen and the grieving. That is what I saw in America a few years backs. The US of today is a country which I saw in the pretext to the riots where people in self righteous indignation killed and murdered and plundered. The last few months have showed me that side of America. Well this country has seen it once, not sure if it will not happen again....

"What about the entire climate of paranoia and hate? Have these people always been there? Are they only now becoming more visible because of the internet, cable news and talk radio?"

Yes.

Roger, the frothers, of which you speak, are an insignificant
sliver of society, whom all clear thinking people readily
dismiss. Being a news junkie, I know all about the "birthers"
and some of the other ridiculous things uttered at McCain
campaign stops but I don't know what futuristic backhoe you
used to dredge up some of that other stuff. In my view, you'd
have to be on high-alert with your vast right-wing conspiracy
radar on eleven to see these anomalies as anything other than
a few selective kooks. Oh, and liberals "played by the rules"
in their anger towards Bush? Give me a break, how about anything
Howard Dean's ever said about Bush, or how many liberals wanted
Bush impeached because of the Patriot Act, even though every
senator but one (Fuss Feingold) voted FOR it (another didn't
vote at all)? And throw a dart at any single frame of Fahrenheit
911 and you will find Unfair, misleading lies. Don't bother
responding to that particular comment, I know you and Moore
spoon on a regular basis. I've never heard one second of Glenn
Beck's radio show but I caught a few of his TV shows on Van
Jones and ACORN. You say he's "beyond the pale". Okay, that's
your opinion. But video speaks for itself, and if you think it's
okay for a man who supports another man (Mumia Abu-Jamal), who
murders a police officer, and also thinks that the U.S.
government was behind the 9-11 attacks, deserves a position in
the administration of a U.S. president or if you think it's okay
for taxpayers to see their hard-earned money go to an organ-
ization that employs people who see no problem in facilitating
underage prostitution, then you and I live in two different
gallaxies. You know, I've been watching and reading you since
the 70's, when you and Gene were on PBS, I've purchased your
books, I've basically always been a fan.......but, jeez dude.
Get it together!

In the place where I grew up (I'll call it "Appalachia") it was pretty common last year to hear the phrase "I don't like McCain and I hate Palin but I sure as hell don't want no n_____ president."

Such are American values. Anyone who says "I'm from Manhattan/Chicago/San Francisco/Austin/enlightened college town, I don't think that way" is lying to themselves. As long as one American thinks like the people from my hellhole hometown, WE ALL DO. We are all guilty as long as we tolerate this. That we're all stuck tolerating it in order to have our own lives is simply a technicality and an information on our own weaknesses.

Mr. Ebert, if you want to be proud of something, be proud that you know your way around London and that you've survived as long as you have without succumbing to ignorance. This continent is doomed.

Hello Roger,

I'm from Montreal and I have a deep respect for the American people, always have. However, how can they not see how insane this is ? It's not only the media, it's not only gossip or conspiracy theories. What is is then ? Have people completly lost the ability to think freely ? That's my biggest fear, whatever the issue. Mass thinking is the most dangerous thing for a society and can lead to all sorts of horrors (intellectually and ideologically). That people compare Obama to Hitler, whatever, there'll always be people who are nuts, but that it takes such a massive toll, what is happening ? Are we so dumbed down that we can't think for ourselves ? I can't seem to understand, and I have great fears for the future.
Also, those Larouche nuts also try to gather people in Montreal, at subway stations, but most people laught at them, their claims being so damn ridiculous. Why can't the americans see how much nonsense this is ? And is the obama-Hitler movement as big as we see it from here ? Please reassure me that's in the minority and not the majority.

Jonathan

Civil political discourse left us years ago. Bestsellers, TV networks and multi-million dollar web sites all have been built around the vitriol. The first time I noticed personal attacks replacing ideas was Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot." That title came as a shock to me at the time; instead of humor, there was only hate. Unfortunately, hate from both sides has continued this way downhill ever since. The gloves are now off, way off, and it's Obama's turn. (Actually, if Hillary was in the WH, I think the anger from the fringe would be even worse.) Some of the people you point to may legitimately hate Obama, but for most I expect they are thinking "it's time to make a buck, get famous, be heard, make the news." I was sickened by these attacks when they were made on Bush and his family, but eventually I stopped getting emotional by them. Now when I hear Obama as the target I shrug. Not because I justify the attacks with "Well, it happens on both sides." But simply because I have tuned these out, I can no longer be shocked to see a President compared to Hitler, or to hear of guns being carried outside of presidential appearances. It's 99% showmanship,and I trust the secret service to handle the truly frightening 1%.

A neat cycle of anger in politics in America has formed, and you can trace its path cleanly if not equally from both sides. After the political points scored during Bill Clinton's impeachment, I now fully anticipate every 2-term president will be impeached. Bush escaped by a whisker, and ominously for Obama, some respected pollsters are predicting a party switch in the 2010 House elections -- if that happens, expect impeachment proceedings to start taking shape. Doesn't matter if there is an impeachable offense there or not, as long as there is an impact on the favorability ratings . Another sordid prediction: expect a record-breaking race to the NYTimes bestseller list for the first turncoat ex-loyal aide to write an Obama-bashing book.

Rodger,
Go back to reviewing movies. Are you are simply ignorant when you fail to mention the nut jobs from LaRouchePAC you linked are not actually far right nut jobs but are in fact far left nut jobs? If you want to pretend to be a journalist you should start with either having some clue what you are talking about and should try being honest.

Ebert: Reportedly those same carolers made a tour of Town Hall meetings.

Hey Rog,

This blog spoke to me a lot because I'm going through a situation with a friend of mine (or more like former friend of mine if you want me to be more accurate) when it comes to something like this. He, unfortunately, believes a lot of things you are talking concerning Obama, and that truly does scare me. Not only that, he has over the years become a conspiracy theorists with no concept of reality and, as you put it, ".. missed the boat when it sailed toward intellectual maturity." Every time I talk to him, it's all about conspiracies about Obama, 9/11, Kennedy, you name it. I had warned him years ago when he was starting to get into conspiracy theories that they were gonna cause him to cloud his judgement, and I told him to be careful. He unfortunately did not listen to me and now it has caused him to be close minded, say and argue things that lack common sense and logic, and starting being around people that will cause him to continue that kind of behavior and thinking. He, of course, denies that. It was only the last straw when he admitted to me that he liked to drive while under the influence of Marijuana. He tried to excuse that behavior by saying that it's not so bad and that no one was gonna change his mind about that.

The point is, this kind of mentality causes people to lose friends and it is a downfall to our society. And the fact that I see this first hand with my friend is absolutely frustrating.

You conveniently omitted a number of key points:
1. While I believe the American military actions in the Middle East are not being fought as they ought (think VietNam!) and will get more of our troops killed for little gain, the action against Iraq WAS justified inasmuch as Saddam DID have WMDs. Unless you are prepared to say that he murdered the Kurds with air freshener, he DID have WMDs and a huge amount of yellow cake uranium was recovered and shipped out of the area to prevent its use by the radical muslims there who want us DEAD.
2. With respect to the essay in WND THEORIZING that Obama's actions MIGHT trigger a 7 Days in May scenario, it was written by one John L. Perry, a respected journalist and editor who served in two administrations: LBJ and JIMMY CARTER, BOTH DEMOCRATS! If conditions here are becoming such that a liberal Democrat is concerned that they MIGHT trigger a coup, there's probably some fire within that smoke.
3. And as regards the late Teddy Kennedy, former KGB agent Yuri Bezminov, whom I introduced at one of his speeches before the State Department refused to allow him back in here from his home in Canada, told of Kennedy's drunken visit to the USSR and the distain in which he was held by the Soviet rulers. Recently Kennedy's offer to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up the nuclear deterrent in Europe was unearthed by a Times of London reporter in the 1990s after the KGB files were opened. Communist? No. A patriot who put his country ahead of partisan politics? Not quite!

Your friend Obama is pushing a center-right America (check the polls if you don't believe me) to the left so fast that if there those who want nothing to do with it have no choice but to resist.
For the most part, that resistance is based on philosophy and ideology NOT race. Most of those in the conservative community with whom I have contact would quickly embrace a Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain or Alan Keyes (for whom I spoke at a rally here due to a schedule conflict when he ran). I would happily campaign for any of those named or others who share their ideology.

Obama ignores that resistance at his peril and I, while I pray is doesn't come to this, I can predict that that if he fails to stop pushing the rest of us into his socialist utopia, that resistance will take forms we shall all come to regret.

Over 150 years ago, a man spoke to this in most eloquent terms:
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate
agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the
ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical
one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a
struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did, and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit
to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and
wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue
until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those
whom they oppress." Frederick Douglass August 4, 1857

Douglass was, of course, referring to resistance to bondage. So are those Americans who see that as the end game of the Obama agenda.

Those who oppose him will deal with the problem in the mid-term election by clearing out of congress as many Obama supporters as possible. Once he is neutered, we can deal with him at the polls in 2012 (unless the election is cancelled).

I could go on but I may already have exceeded the allowable characters for this comment.

Roger:

As someone who has been a journalist for nearly half a century, I think you'll agree that we've practically returned to the days of William Randolph Hurst's "Yellow Journalism" of yore. Hearst's media outlets frequently reported sensational news, and people belived it. As time went on, media outlets were made more accountable, and people could more or less belive that what they read in the paper or saw on the evening news was credible.

I simply don't think that's true anymore. Take CNN, once considered by many, myself included, to be a credible media outlet. But recently, Lou Dobbs ran a story on the bogus conspiracy that Obama was not born in the U.S. Now, why would someone like Lou Dobbs even CONSIDER covering something so bogus. It's because TV news has just turned into infotanment. Nothing but talking heads and pundits saying whatever they can to get ratings. Obama gives a press confrence on health care, all we hear about is his comments about the Cambridge Police department. After giving an absoutley marvelous speach before Congress, all we hear about is Rep. Wilson's outburst. And the kind of rude, beligerant soapboxing pioneered by Hannity and O'Riely is now the norm. I think that Kieth Oberman and Rachel Madau are just as deplorable as Hannity or Glenn Beck or whoever, even though I'm a Liberal Democrat.

Roger,

As a future educator you've taken the words out of my mouth with how I am feeling at the moment. Yes, I do believe it is an educational issue...specifically in regards to curiosity. Too many teachers, even now, simply lecture to students but do not offer them any kind of hope to express their creativity or allow themselves to let their curiosity roam.

I am happy to say that this has been a recognized problem, at least with those I have encountered in the educational field. Teachers at my college are being taught how important it is to let students *learn* more than simply teach content. Explore their creativity. And...dare I say...student-centered learning?

It is important now, more than ever, for teachers to step up and think outside the box. After all, we have X-Boxes we have to compete with, among many many other things. The internet can do what some teachers are being paid to do. We are living in a technology fueled world which can provide simple answers, but we as teachers can provide the experiences...and we've failed at that so far.

One thing I knew that the election of Obama would do was bring the crazy out into the open. Whether racially, politically, or culturally based, I knew there was something about the rational demeanor of our 44th president that would drive a certain kind of mentality absolutely bugfuck and they wouldn't be quiet about it. I thought that this would be a good thing -- akin to lancing a boil and allowing the pus to drain out. I hoped that these social sicknesses might finally become sterilized when they bubbled up to the surface and were exposed.

I am disappointed at how virulent and resistant this social disease has proven to be.

"I believe very few people of any political persuasion believe the U. S. government or the Bush administration had anything to do with staging 9/11."

Without attempting to convince anyone of the merits of the 9/11 truthers argument, this simply isn't true. Gore Vidal voiced suspicions of US government complicity in the recent Italian documentary ZERO. Former US democratic Senator Cynthia McKinney held a lengthy congressional hearing criticising the 9/11 commission report on July 22nd 2005, and has spoken out further since then, adding blurbs of praise to various '9/11 truth' books. UK Blair government minister Michael Meacher has repeatedly done the same (beginning with his September 2003 Guardian UK article "This War on Terrorism is Bogus"). Former Carter administration figure Robert Bowman has done countless lectures suggesting that 9/11 occurred due to government complicity. Andreas Von Bulow, the former defence minister in the Helmut Schmidt administration, wrote a whole book critiquing the official story of 9/11. Ray McGovern, the ex-CIA figure who confronted Donald Rumsfeld on national TV a couple of years back about WMD's ("Why did you lie..?") hosted an entire presentation in 2007 that again was frankly unimpressed with the Bush administration's version of events. Former CIA official Robert Baer (of SYRIANA semi-fame) was asked by radio interviewer Thom Hartmann in 2006 whether there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the US government and directly responded "There is that possibility, the evidence points to it".

As a final note, the other conspiracy theorist of probable interest to the commenters in this thread is Michael Moore. Moore was captured on camera in the (middling) Alex Jones 9/11 truth documentary TRUTH RISING just over a year ago, and offered some fairly explicit comments suggesting that he now does believe that there are serious unanswered questions about the official story. The Moore footage in question runs less than a minute and is viewable at the Youtube link right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWQIwzICtjw

If Moore doesn't count as a person of 'political pursuasion' then who does? This thread, and Roger's strong article, has been pretty good at avoiding knee jerk attacks against anyone that now holds questions - big or small - about the official story of 9/11. All that said, and whatever your thoughts about the aforementioned folk's arguments, the statement made by Roger at the top of this post simply isn't true.

Ebert: To repeat, "I believe very few people of any political persuasion believe the U. S. government or the Bush administration had anything to do with staging 9/11."

Roger,

You're suffering from selective memory if you think the left "played by the rules" during the Bush years.

I remember the Bush/Hitler juxtaposition being much more commonplace. I remember "Compassionate Conservative = Friendly Facism" bumper stickers. I remember 9/11 Truthers who accused (and still accuse!) Bush of planning (or allowing) the terrorist attacks [my boss, a man I consider otherwise fairly intelligent, is one!]. I remember claims of stolen elections---and anger that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and anger that he won it in 2004. I remember Bush being blamed for Hurricane Katrina. I remember how every word Bush ever uttered was parsed and re-parsed until someone could claim it was a lie. I remember a film full of deceptions about his administration winning the Academy Award for Best Documentary. I remember how another film about his fictional assassination. I remember John Kerry calling for "regime change." I remember CBS fabricating evidence to do a hit piece on Bush's National Guard Service from three decades ago the week before the election.

These were not small, uncommon, or isolated events. Now, you may have overlooked all this at the time. Or maybe you saw it and thought it reasonable because you were unhappy with the direction of the country. Well, guess what? There are plenty of people who are unhappy with the CURRENT direction of the country. VERY unhappy.

I'm not defending the vitriol you protest in your blog; I'm just reminding you that it ain't nothing new.

Roger wrote:
Obama is a Muslim. Obama was born in Kenya. Obama was a terrorist. Obama will destroy Medicare. Obama will kill your grandmother. Obama is a racist. Obama wants atheism taught in the schools. Obama wants us to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants.

Bush stole the election. Twice. Bush planned the 9/11 attacks as justification for war in the Middle East. Bush wanted black people in New Orleans to be flooded out. Bush wants Christianity preached in the schools. Bush wants war so his oil industry buddies can profit.

How much of the preceding do you believe? If you won't acknowledge the possibility that some of the hyperbole on your side has gone overboard, how can you claim the moral high ground now?

I have a whole section on my blog (blatant plug!), where I attempt to debunk various conspiracy theories. It's wasted effort, but, well, I have to try, don't I? I mean the only other option is to let the lies fester and keep spreading their infection.

Keep up the good fight, Mr Ebert. It's appreciated.

Hey, Ebert. You live in your own little ivory tower. Been sitting in the dark watching lowsy Hollywood drivel for too long. The Dems and the deranged liberals started all the so-called hatred in their vendetta against President Bush. All of the pictures you posted about Obama have originals that featured Bush in the same poses over the years. They are posted at Newsbusters. Before the great and mighty Obama ever came on the scene. But true to disgusting liberal hypocrisy, its playing by the rules when scum like you do it. I guess you are proud of all the educated and enlightened people Obama has brought to rule over us. The latest in the horrible bunch is a pedophilia-excusing, National Man Boy Love Association sychophant in charge of "safe schools" for the Obama administration. Just another example of the kind of people that represent all the greatness that Obama stands for. How can you look yourself in the mirror in the morning for supporting people like that. And at the same time look down your ugly nose at average Americans. So, you know what -- You can go the hell.

It's a sad comment on the world that this article had to be posted in the first place. That being said, it did have to be posted, and I thank you for doing so; I simply mourn the fact that some minds cannot be changed.

In my mind, you either respect the First Amendment or you do not. When you slice out the racist elements, like the Birthers and the skinheads, everything else being spewed at Obama from the right was as intensely targeted at Bush by radicals on the left up to and including his assassination. The Tea Party movement is better organized and better attended than the demonstrations against Bush were, that's all.

The cultural divide in this country has grown and grown until we've reached a point where each side in incomprehensible to the other. This is manifested in two political parties that are equally corrupt, with extreme positions that pose nothing but problems over the long term. Conservatism was once an intellectual pursuit; the policies might not be "nice", but they were results driven. That changed with Reagan, who saddled the Republican party with Dixiecrat Southern evangelicals that have swallowed it from with in. The Republican party of today would be unfathomable to the Republican party of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller.

Liberalism has always been an emotional pursuit; with social policies that sacrifice maximum economic activity for greater social justice. As demonstrated by the New Deal reforms of the 1930's, the liberal cause can have an enormously positive effect on country. But I can't think of a single great liberal achievement in my lifetime, as the Democratic party's vision grew smaller and became dominated by special interest groups like ACORN and worse, limousine liberals who were born into wealth or married into it and have thus never had to operate in the practical realities of the private sector. This ivory tower mentality helps explain why Republicans can enact their agendas with razor thin margins while Democrats can't enact theirs even with overwhelming majorities.

And any hopes for Obama to bridge the partisan divide went out the window when he hired Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff, one of the most bitterly partisan congressmen in the House. The combination of bland platitudes from the president and cynical, cutthroat tactics from his administration have left many Americans, myself included, feeling betrayed.

None of this is to say the Tea Parties offer a solution. They are driven by the most intellectually bankrupt figures on the right, which manifests in the lack of an coherent vision from their ranks. I saw a video from the massive D.C. rally where a man with a megaphone demanded that Obama keep his hands of Medicare and Social Security in one breath, and then demanding that Congress cut out-of-control entitlement spending in the next. What does he think entitlement spending is? How are we to both cut taxes and close the budget deficit with Medicare and Social Security spending left intact? All of the shouting about socialism is nonsense. The greater danger comes from the certainty that Congress, like the last several Congresses before it, will load up whatever health care bill finally emerges with disgusting unrelated provisions and pet projects that no one will discover until well after the law has taken effect because no one could read all 12,000 pages of the thing.

A far more useful movement would be for a constitutional Amendment requiring all laws to passed by Congress in increments of no greater than one hundred pages. The result would be a badly need rebirth of accountability that would outlive either party's dominance of federal power.

I know some very intelligent, reasonable people that buy into the fringe beliefs. As a matter of fact, some of them are very close friends of mine. And I don't understand it. Whenever I ask simple questions about any of their vitriole, they can only answer with "Well, watch Glenn Beck. He knows all about it." or "Well, it's obvious that we're becoming a socialist nation." I just have to shake my head and wonder how this all happened. I blame it on the talking heads and the internet. Cable news and blogs have pushed newspapers out of business. Newspapers were the one objective (seemingly) source of information and they are slowly being pushed out the door in place of people screaming over the more reasonable voices.

Wait a minute, "By any means necessary"

What!?

I...I can't believe you would...I'm...No, for god's sake no. That is absolutely no excuse, in name of preserving some kind of fiction you read in your history books you plan to sell this entire country out to fascism? To anarchy? To what? You claim your doing it for the good of America, to freedom, to Liberty but I scoff at you.

You claim your not racist, yet you allow your party to be associated with them who are. You associated yourselves with the most racist and the most foul, claiming that they are "patriotic" Americans. Why is it that at a tea party rally, I see the president in grass skirt and spear? What's with all the Hitler mock ups? And What is with that picture of Obama as the Joker (this one really baffles me). Why doesn't the Republicans and the Conservatives, and Libertarians denounce these groups instead of embracing them for there own political agenda. They act as enablers for racist and bigots. For god's sake, are we a nation of three year olds?

Calling-names, and shouting like baboons!

T