Fisher’s new memoir, “Shockaholic,” recalls an evening out with the Connecticut politician which briefly included a third party – Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Those who recall Dodd and Kennedy’s “Waitress Sandwich” won’t be too surprised to read what happened next.

“Senator Kennedy, seated directly across from me, looked at me with his alert, aristocratic eyes and asked me a most surprising question. ‘So,’ he said, clearly amused, ‘do you think you’ll be having sex with Chris at the end of your date?’”

According to Fisher, “Chris Dodd looked at me with an unusual grin hanging on his very flushed face.”

Fisher, being the trained actress she was, responded coolly: “Funnily enough, I won’t be having sex with Chris tonight. … No that probably won’t happen. … Thanks for asking, though.”

Kennedy wasn’t finished yet.

Had Fisher’s encounter had happened today, the Mainstream Media might have mentioned it in passing before returning to its wall-to-wall coverage of Herman Cain’s sexual harassment imbroglio.

Famous film critic Richard Roeper tee’d off on Andrew Breitbart in his Sun-Times column today.  Here’s the passage:

Here’s ultraconservative activist Andrew Breitbart at a Tea Party rally in Wisconsin last Saturday, with a message for pro-union forces that had shown up:

“The Tea Party has been the most peaceful, law-abiding . . . group in the history of American protest. . . . You have no right to lecture us on civility. You have no right to lecture us on language. . . . Go to hell! No, serious. Go to hell! Go to hell! You’ve been so rude, you’re trying to divide America. . . .”

Right. And telling people to go to hell because you disagree with their politics isn’t divisive at all. That’s an instant classic of hypocrisy and a breathtaking lack of self-awareness right there.

Then again, this is the same Andrew Breitbart who went on Twitter in the hours after Ted Kennedy’s death to call Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick,” so he’s well-qualified to tell others they can’t lecture him about civility.

Roeper walked into two Breitbart traps in less than 200 words.  Can you identify what they are?

The first one is that Breitbart didn’t tell the union protesters to “go to hell” because he disagreed with their politics, but because he considered their tactics reprehensible.  Breitbart explained this in the column he posted following the rally. Simply take a look at the full context of the speech.

Here are some examples of the incivility Breitbart may have had in mind:

Note the attempt to drown out the rally with vuvuzelas and the WalkerHitler sign.

In this clip, the union protesters barely get it together to suspend the booing by the end of the “Star Spangled Banner”:

Here’s an unhinged heckler screaming profanities at a teenage girl during the rally:

And finally, incoherent lunatics scream at Sarah Palin:

Breitbart also notes that he saw “Koch Suckers!” signs throughout the protest (in reference to the Koch Brothers) and that the names he heard Sarah Palin called would have made Bill Maher blush.  Politics aside, it’s hard to fault Breitbart for reacting the way he did.

Roeper either dishonestly (assuming he understands the full context) or lazily (assuming he published the column before he bothered to seek out the full context) characterizes Breitbart’s comments as political.  They weren’t.  They were clearly a reaction to the way the union protesters obnoxiously attempted to disrupt a peaceful rally.

Roeper should seriously consider correcting his post.

***

The other trap Roeper falls into is trotting out the ubiquitous criticism of Breitbart for calling Teddy Kennedy names just hours after his death.  This is a trap because the right wants to talk about this.  For the half-dozen of you unfamiliar with the Chappaquiddick incident, it started with then-Senator Ted Kennedy driving a car into a Massachusetts tidal channel on July 19, 1969.  Sen. Kennedy successfully swam to safety, but his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, did not.  Sen. Kennedy, who was married to then-pregnant Joan Bennett Kennedy at the time, did not report the accident to the authorities until the next morning, over eight hours later.  Kopechne didn’t drown and wasn’t killed from blunt force trauma–she suffocated.  That means the woman sat in Kennedy’s car until her death, waiting for someone to help her.  But help never came.

While the Kopechne family lived through this most-avoidable of tragedies, Ted Kennedy maintained his seat for the next 40 years until his death, and even became known as “the Lion of the Senate.”

Roeper took issue with the fact that Breitbart called Kennedy a “villain” and a “prick,” among other, shall we say, colorful descriptors, just hours after Kennedy’s death.  But how many women do you have to leave to die at the bottom of a body of water before the sketch Breitbart drew resembles you?

Roeper bringing it up out of the blue gives people like me the chance to retell the story of Chappaquiddick and illustrate just who Ted Kennedy was and what the liberal media will do to defend him.

***

Exit question: What position does Andrew Breitbart hold that makes him “ultraconservative,” as Roeper says he is, as opposed to, ya know, regular conservative?  Is it Breitbart’s religious agnosticism?  Is it that he threw a “Big Gay Party” at February’s CPAC?  I’ve worked for Breitbart for three years and would be hard-pressed to name one issue where he is to the right of mainstream conservative thought.  He just fights harder for conservative values than the left is used to.

So, can you name an “ultraconservative” viewpoint Breitbart holds?  Or is movie-guy Roeper demagoguing here to marginalize a man who’s clealry a threat to his side?

On the other hand, Hollywood elites and members of the upper echelon of political life have long been embarrassed by President Ronald Reagan. Far from giving America another “Camelot,” he was born into a relatively poor family, and while children like those in the Kennedy family were learning which utensil to use for the various courses of their meals, a young Reagan was learning to go out into the snow and literally drag his drunk father into the house to keep him from freezing to death on a winter night.

The contrast between the Kennedy’s and Reagan was as great as that between upper white collar and lower blue collar: between a Fortune 500 executive and a brick layer. And with choices like that, elites threw their allegiance to the family (and experience) they’d most like to duplicate.

This was recently brought to mind with a vengeance when the History Channel refused to air an eight-part miniseries on the Kennedy’s, because it cast them in a bad light, but didn’t hesitate to air a special on Reagan that undercut his economic achievements as president. (To be fair, no History Channel representative said the series cast the Kennedy’s in a bad light, but that they pulled it from their lineup because of “pressure from the Kennedy’s over its depiction of the political family.”)

In other words, the Kennedy’s thought the series cast their family in a bad light, and the History Channel kowtowed to the family that gave us the death of Mary Jo Kopechne (Ted Kennedy), allegations of rape (William Kennedy Smith), prescription drug abuse, and “alleged” drunk driving that looked a lot like actual drunk driving with no consequences (Patrick Kennedy). Yet the same network had no problem misrepresenting history when it came to Reagan, and chalking up the economic boom of the 1980s “to the Reagan tax increases.”

That’s right: the Reagan tax increases. (Who knew?)

While alive, Reagan demonstrated the hope of the American dream by working his way up from a life of poverty to become Governor of California and then President of the United States.  Along the way, he not only listened to the plight of average Americans but empathized with them and rebuked all who sought to demean them: particularly those who sought to demean them by stealing their freedom via a government that knew no bounds.

Why couldn’t the History Channel communicate this to the 21st century? Why couldn’t they remind us that Reagan cut taxes for the sake of the people and the economy boomed in return?

I guess it’s just easier to play to the elites, and put Reagan in his place while making sure the Kennedy family fan club never has to face the truth.

Note: No underworld spirits were actually stoned during the making of this video.

Remember how ridiculously funny the whole “teabagging” thing was? Those other networks really got into it – and there was no one better at denigrating those silly folks with signs, than that classy lady Rachel Maddow.

(pause for gleeful Maddow saying teabag back in April.)

She got a kick out of that. Now, fast forward to last night – where we have more uproarious footage of Rachel.

(pause for miserable Maddow glumly reporting that Scott Brown won).
Sorry, I guess “uproarious” isn’t the right word. “Downroarious?” Yeah, she’s definitely “downroarious.”

Anyway, I might quote Morrissey, and say the joke isn’t funny anymore, but that would be wrong. The joke, I’m thinking, is just getting started.

See, now is the time for the tea party movement to embrace the “teabag” moniker, for it’s that silly slur that helped amp the angst leading to Scott Brown’s huge win.

(Note: how come there are no ugly people named Scott? Scott Baio. Scott Bakula. Scott Raggins -my freshman science teacher.Taye Diggs – I know – his name’s not Scott, but you can’t argue with his non-ugliness.)

Fact is, the phrase “teabag” is a profound symbol of the disconnect between elitist jackasses and the rest of America. Every time an MSNBC host snickered about “teabagging,” it reminded everyone else that the media won’t take you seriously, if you reject their liberal assumptions about the world. Plus the media only likes protestors if they look like protestors: anti-war t-shirt in place, earnest look on your face. Oh, and don’t forget the $200 cushioned, air-bubbled jogging shoes. And, if you’re going to protest, you better protest about the things the media wants you to protest: saving the planet, nuclear power, flat mimosas at brunch. But protesting the lefty expansion of government? That just won’t cut it.

Anyway, Maddow and her ilk learned a valuable lesson last night: the people who nail you in the end, are usually those you take lightly. And calling them teabaggers just helped them kick your ass.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist homophobe who hates the planet.

Tonight we’ve got …

the lovely Diana Falzone,

the yummy Carrie Keagan,

and the always awesome Mike Baker! 

Plus, Andy Whitfield, from Spartacus! ]]> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/01/20/daily-gut-teabaggers-tuesday-triumph/feed/ 249 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/01/20/one-year-gone-hitler-finds-out-scott-brown-won-the-lying-of-the-senates-seat/ http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/01/20/one-year-gone-hitler-finds-out-scott-brown-won-the-lying-of-the-senates-seat/#comments Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:44:14 +0000 John Nolte http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/?p=297342 Because he is a good and gracious man, George W. Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind. He held his hand out across the aisle (something Obama has yet to do), and brought the Senator on board to help craft and put his stamp on that piece of legislation.

–

Just a couple years later, in the middle of a tough war in Iraq, Kennedy would play the scorpion to Bush’s frog when his ugly, ungrateful, unpatriotic, selfish, leftist default position would rear its ugly partisan head when he accused Bush of being a fraud who cooked up the war for personal political gain.

Today, let us celebrate the delicious irony that Kennedy the Horrible’s Senate seat is about to be occupied by a rock-ribbed conservative who believes in and campaigned on everything Kennedy the Horrible opposed. Yes, a pro-water-boarder will sit where “The Lying of the Senate” once did. 

The Lying’s legacy was supposed to be the punishing health care reform his successor, Scott Brown, effectively killed last night. That this occurred on the one-year anniversary of President Bush’s last day in office makes that victory all the sweeter.

There was a lot of leftover campaign rhetoric about bringing us together. The old “I’m bipartisan as long as you are willing to agree with what I want,” was in there. We got a shot of McCain smiling haplessly like he did when he suspended his campaign to go to Washington and get the financial crisis straightened out. President Obama hit all the talking points about what is and isn’t in a piece of legislation that really isn’t even written yet. Hey, who doesn’t like a little magic? At the end there was even a little recycled Kennedy too.

I will say there was one new figure in there. The President said there were 30 million uninsured Americans. In July he put the number at 47 million. Just by talking about health care reform for three months we have reduced the number of uninsured by more than 33%.  If we just continue to talk, at this rate everyone will be insured by March! That’s change I can believe in!

Let me finish with a note on the behavior of James Wilson of South Carolina.  Boorish? Yes. Uncouth? Yes. Disrespectful? Absolutely! Should he be reprimanded? Yes, right after Ms. Nancy relieves Charles Rangel of his committee chair for tax evasion. I ask you which is worse, being a rube or giving a daring digit to the IRS.

Not long ago we learned from Mr. Biden that paying our “fair share” is patriotic. Perhaps Mr. Rangel just isn’t that into patriotism.

Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” premieres at the Venice Film Festival today. Reuters has most of the details, the usual-usual from the 55-year old mega-millionaire. But buried below the usual-usual is the real story — a point of agreement with we right-wingers:

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama’s rise to power may bolster it.

Well, let’s hope Ted Kennedy’s enjoying his day on the slopes because Mr. Moore and I just found some common ground.

Here are the other bullet points. To save you time, the following words are not used together in describing the film: ”personal” and “responsibility” — “taxes” and “too high” — “Michael Moore” and “gave all his wealth to the federal government.”   

1. “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,” the two-hour movie concludes. “You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.” …

2. The bad guys… are big banks and hedge funds which “gambled” investors’ money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood[.] …

3. [L]arge companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits. …

4. [R]egulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street. …

5. [E]ncouraging ordinary Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the financial crisis, and with it to homelessness and unemployment. …

6. Moore interviews priests who believe that capitalism is anti-Christian, because it fails to protect the poor and encourages greed.

And one final point of agreement:

Moore drives a truck up to some of the biggest banks in New York and, through a loud speaker, demands they give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

Though entertaining, Moore’s films have never been at all persuasive. Whether it was the reelection of George W. Bush or a push for socialized medicine, Moore’s a gift from above for our side — who, like Oliver Stone, is so clownish and anti-intellectual he’s become a national punchline.

May Michael Moore live forever and never stop making movies.

I started thinking about how much I’ve been hearing the word “universal” lately.

“Universal” is the “it” word, as in universal health care or “The Universe will guide me,” or “Leave it to the Universe.” 

There was a different word for it back in the day, more imposing but less confusing: God. But God is not a trendy word anymore. God is not popular, just like the Republicans. You are guilty by association with both. Even C.G. Jung was annoyed by it (the not calling God a ‘God’ part, not the Republicans). 

There was also that video tribute by Ken Burns to Ted Kennedy’s legacy. 

Ken Burns, surely, is a gifted storyteller in love with Americana. I have heard him speak many times, and Ken Burns is no Michael Moore. Michael Moore is an indoctrinated “half intellectual” (as Jean- Luc Goddard called him once) who follows Karl Marx verbatim. On the contrary, Ken Burns is a voluntary propagandist who, just like most of America’s talented artists, made an inevitably subconscious left turn in order to succeed in a better-marketed liberal Democratic cultural establishment. Burns does try to maintain his independent artistic spirit somewhat, at least to the degree allowed by PBS. 

In short, Ken Burns is PBS’s Sergei Eisenstein. 

So, it was even more disappointing to see how lame of a video tribute it was. All I learned was that Ted Kennedy loved water and universal health care, and that the people whom he helped loved him. The video’s real purpose, though, was an apparent attempt to make Obama look like an heir to Kennedy’s long desired health care reform. 

As everything in the age of Obama, the video turned out to be about Obama.

Sadly, Obama is gradually becoming the zero of any socio-political equation-any number multiplied or divided by him becomes a zero. Or, rather like a zero on a roulette table, once the ball stops on him, all the money goes to the bank (a government owned one, of course). It is a uniquely universal quality.

The Kennedys were instrumental in Obama’s ascension to power. In fact, Ted Kennedy, as his friends were emotionally emphasizing during the tribute, helped a lot of people…except for one whom he left dying in the water that he loved so much, for which he was never held accountable because of the universal love for the Kennedys. Except for people who do not drink and drive, no one is exempt from drunk-driving accidents, and the shock that follows could impede anyone’s swift judgment. 

Ted Kennedy, as many mentioned, also sincerely cared for “simple folks.” 

Documentary Filmmaker Ken Burns

Yet, what would have been enough to sink any other good man’s public career was forgiven to Ted Kennedy-a testimony to the major dysfunction of our consumer-driven democracy that is still unable to break the chains of seduction to its universally hailed icons and idols. 

So, there is, after all, a difference between the concepts of “Universal” and God. God brings justice; the Universe forgives. God is personal; the Universe is not. You can’t even curse the Universe. Who would be offended by cursing the Rings of Saturn, anyway? 

A half-junkie acquaintance of mine in Hollywood was telling me that she applied for many jobs and by doing so made a statement to the Universe that she needed a job. Now, the Universe must help her… 

Do you see the pattern here? The Universe is entitled to help. The Universe is the substitute for the judgmental and (rapidly disappearing) God. God and his Republican guards leave people alone and uninsured, but the Universe helps them. And Unions help them too. And the Soviet Union helped people too, after it got rid of the people who did not ‘care’ about other people. The Universal end justifies individual means, even if by the “means” one implies vilifying half of the population who do not agree with the Universal Agent of Change.

Once in thousand years, the Universe sends savior figures that materialize people’s desires and protect them against social injustice. Sometimes, however, these agents of change commit locally individual acts of injustice; yet, ultimately, they bring on the kind of “universal social justice” so eloquently championed by Ted Kennedy throughout his distinguished career.

In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: Health Care Legislation, Ted Kennedy, President Obama, Cap and Trade, Fairness Doctrine, Douglas Brinkley, Obama Summer Vacation, David Letterman, Town Hall Protestors, Chelsea Handler, and KFC.