This is pretty
delicious. It really is impossible that a group as large as
"Hollywood En Masse" could be so uniformly stupid re Liberal fraud. Or,
maybe not? Anyway, David Mamet is not Mel Gibson or Stephen
Baldwin; conservative leaning actors who can be destroyed by gossip
sheets, and uninvited to necessary
soirees. He's not Jerry Bruckheimer or David Zucker, conservative
directors who can be dismissed as unserious, and who make films
catering to lowbrows. Mamet is Broadway. Mamet is Pulitzer
Prize. Mamet has thereness.
To the extent then, that one person can give cover
to others wishing to escape the Big Lie, Mamet's defection could have
significance. Anyway, here's a bit more fun from the Wall Street Journal's David
Mamet's Coming Out Party . |
“
|
On
the left, Mr. Mamet is accused of having ulterior motives for his
political shift. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait writes that the
story is a familiar, Zionist one: "An increasingly religious Jew with
strong loyalty to Israel, he became aware of a tension between the
illiberal nationalism of his right-wing views on the Middle East and
the liberalism of his views on everything else, and resolved the
tension by abandoning the latter." Mr. Mamet calls this a "crock of s—."
The Slate website has run with the "Rich Person Discovers He Is a
Republican" narrative. And then there's the jiu-jitsu theory offered by
a film blogger: "Mamet's escalating interest in martial
arts—traditionally the domain of right-wing nutjobs like Chuck
Norris—has pointed toward this new stance for some time." Obviously.
|
|
Snort.
|