October 03, 2005

Donald Sutherland Bashes Bush (Should We Be Surprised)

From Drudge Report:

Choking back tears, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF star Donald Sutherland warned this week: President Bush "will destroy our lives!"

The star of the new ABC drama, which follows the first woman President of the United States, lashed out at the real White House during a dramatic sit down interview with the BBC.

Sutherland ripped Bush and his administration for the war and Hurricane Katrina fallout.

"They were inept. The were inadequate to the task, and they lied," Sutherland charged.

"And they were insulting, and they were vindictive. And they were heartless. They did not care. They do not care. They do not care about Iraqi people. They do not care about the families of dead soldiers. They only care about profit."

At one point during the session, Sutherland started crying: "We stolen our children's future... We have children. We have children. How dare we take their legacy from them. How dare we. It's shameful. What we are doing to our world."

Sutherland went on rip Karl Rove's "methods and means" against people like Cindy Sheehan.

"We're back to burning books in Germany," Sutherland said of NBC's editing out of Kanye West's comment on Bush during a hurricane relief telethon.

Interesting. I thought it would take a few more shows for the stars of "Commander In Chief" to begin their public Bush bashing. Evidently, he is not afraid of losing a potential 50 million or more viewers. Well, the producers should be.
After all, why should conservatives and Republicans watch Mr. Sutherland's show if one of its stars publicly insults conservatives and their political leader? Any one remember the Dixie Chicks? Maybe conservatives should boycott this show.
The show is clearly an attempt to soften up the public in support of the worst kept secret in American politics - i.e., Hillary in 2008. The show is written by primarily leftist writers, the heroes are Democrats or left-leaning independents, and Republicans are viewed as evil.
I know that, inevitably, Mr. Sutherland and his supporters would view a boycott as infringing upon his right to free speech. Of course, this is a ridiculous argument as the right to free speech only protects against government infringement. It does not follow that one can say anything without any commercial repercussion. Regardless, conservatives have every right to decide not to support someone with his views.

John Fund had previously reviewed "Commander In Chief" for the Wall Street Journal and noted the following of Sutherland's character (the "malevolently conservative House Speaker"):

Suffice it to say, for now, that the first episode involved an effort by the dying (Republican) president to shunt aside the vice president (Ms. Davis) so that a malevolently conservative House speaker can take over. (Right, that would happen.) A member of the vice president's staff says that the speaker stands for "the return of book burning, creationism in the classroom and invading every Third World country." The statement is not meant as a compliment.

Well, it looks like they found a good person to play the part - he actually believes Republicans are like this.
| |

<< Home