Tuesday, October 14, 2008

What the hell was that all about?
The Chuck takes on James Cromwell




11 comments:

Elaine said...

I reluctantly checked "Pissy". My take on this is that Chuck is subconsciously picking up Joe Scarborough's arrogance. At least he didn't yell out, "Hey! This is my show!" We don't want to lose you,Chuck. Perhaps the producers could make sure that Joe takes his Prozac or else send him over to FOX. Then you could call the show "Morning Mika".

Anonymous said...

Oh good grief. what with all that is going on in the world, TC says something a little... whatever... and people (his friends no less) get all bent out of shape and whip up a snarky little poll?

This "behavior" is MORE likely to happen when you have two passionate. well-spoken individuals goin' at each other.

In the age when man walked with the dinosaurs... oh heck, just see YouTube for a walk down memory lane:

"William Buckley Vs Gore Vidal"'

tagline(s): Democratic Convention, "nazi," "queer"

amaducias said...

My take on this is that Chuck was trying to ascertain where the information regarding conversations, situations, etc. that cropped up during the movie came from, or was it history "Oliver Stone Style." I felt that it was James Cromwell who got pissy first, and The Chuck sort of fell into the mood after that.

Dave in Omaha said...

From my point of view, Chuck was playing the part of the skeptic.

As I found out on a local radio show today, in which James Cromwell was interviewed, he stated his political views are far left.

Quite frankly I though Mr. Cromwell was rather defensive, and I agree with The Chuck that not getting sued doesn't neccessarily indicate whether if something is true.

Also, "Filibuster Joe" must go!

Dina said...

It seems that, like me, Chuck takes great offense at the way Oliver Stone re-wrote history with his JFK movie. As a political junkie and a fan of history, Chuck is offended, and so am I, that many people will see JFK for generations to come and believe it to be historically accurate. I haven't seen an Oliver Stone film since JFK, so I get where Chuck is coming from.

It's hard to give the guy a pass on the veracity of this new film (though, unlike Chuck, I may break my moratorium on Stone films for this one). Even the clip they showed before Cromwell's appearance, I noticed, showed the tongue-tied mangling of the old saw, "Fool me once..." that W made in public as having happened in a meeting with advisors.

For Cromwell to insist that Oliver Stone was somehow able to research and accurately portray what happened behind closed doors is patently ridiculous and Chuck called him on it. And I am a huge fan of Cromwell -- so it's not that kind of bias. I wish Chuck had come off better, but when I've been wound up I haven't always used the tone I might later have hoped.

Dina said...

I really am a fawning "Chuck can do no wrong" Chuckolyte, aren't I?

Donna said...

I think Chuck was a little pissy, and that was my vote, reluctantly so. I saw Chuck roll his eyes -- was I right? I was very disappointed.

Ed the Redhead said...

I have to say that seeing Chuck go at Cromwell with a hardened opinion (and a dismissive attitude at that) gave me the chills about the whole Meet The Press thing.

You can't broadcast your disdain for something even if it is an Oliver Stone movie. I don't know, I voted pissy too Donna. I hated to do it.

MotoMikeK said...

Maybe The Chuck was still fatigued from rescuing Luntz from that burning building.

Interesting point about Meet the Press. I too, am a loyal Chuckolyte and think he's about the best game in town these days. But he's probably better served by leaving adverserial commentary like that (true as it may be) to the likes of Joe.

And is it even fair to him (or anyone) to be measured against the inimitable Tim Russert?

J said...

I think Chuck was just putting his own opinion, making sure the far right's concerns are heard. Not that they would see it, but their possible criticisms could be correct. I thought Chuck was good voice of dissent here, Mr. Cromwell was being pissy. I think Chuck's concern is, you only get one film to make the president's story right essential, so why not wait a few more years, let a little bit more become revealed, when it is not fresh in our minds.

Boo said...

I think it's just Chuck reacting to what he saw as a hell of a lot of conclusion drawing from not that reliable of sources all things considered. I don't know how anyone but the Bush family could say how they feel about some of the things Cromwell was infering. I just think he was being defensive of people not spewing out truthiness.