Sharon Stone bombs twice
Crossposted on Marathon Pundit.
Basic Instinct 2, Sharon Stone's new film, is out today. The New York Times review comes this way from Ed Driscoll via Allahpundit/Michelle Malkin:
It should come as no surprise that "Basic Instinct 2," the long-gestating follow-up to Paul Verhoeven's 1992 blip on the zeitgeist screen, is a disaster of the highest or perhaps lowest order. It is also no surprise that this joyless calculation, which was directed by Michael Caton-Jones and possesses neither the first film's sleek wit nor its madness, is such a prime object lesson in the degradation that can face Hollywood actresses, especially those over 40. Acting always involves a degree of self-abasement, but just watching trash like this is degrading.
Sharon Stone is headed to Chicago next month for a fundraising Jan Schakowsky fundraising event. Jan is a far-left congresswoman from Evanston, I'm one of her unfortunate constituents.
From Lynn Sweet's Chicago Sun-Times blog:
Sharon Stone, the sexy star of the sizzler "Basic Instinct 2,'' which opens today, hits Chicago next month to headline a fund-raiser for Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).
Stone will be featured at Schakowsky's "Ultimate Women's Power Lunch'' at the Chicago Hilton. Some 1,500 attended last year, when Jane Fonda was the marquee draw.
Stone and Schakowsky became friends during the 2004 presidential campaign, when they were part of a "Women on the Move'' drive for Sen. John Kerry that paired female pols and stars.
Sizzler?
Well, maybe her co-worker Roger Ebert liked it. Let's find out.
"Basic Instinct 2" resembles its heroine: It gets off by living dangerously. Here is a movie so outrageous and preposterous it is either (a) suicidal or (b) throbbing with a horrible fascination. I lean toward (b). It's a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. I cannot recommend the movie, but ... why the hell can't I? Just because it's godawful? What kind of reason is that for staying away from a movie? Godawful and boring, that would be a reason.
Not a sizzler. Better than Jane Fonda's Monster In Law?
It wouldn't take much to top that stink bomb.
37 comments:
Wow, that post took all the courage Andrew Jackson could muster.
Perhaps Ms. Stone, for her next movie role, can play a Congresswoman whose liberal stands on issues try to hide the fact that she is an utter hypocrite, and that her sleazy husband is to be sentenced for a stretch of prison time in federal court. She can call it "The Jan Schakowsky Story," and she can pick up some pointers on the role while she's in town.
Being backed by Sharon Stone? That's not good. Not as bad as Roskam being backed by Tom Delay, Dick Armey and Dick Cheney, but still not good.
Incidently, nothing quite says "I have no issues or plan" like "My opponent is backed by Sharon Stones."
If the ILGOP stood for something, they would be talking about ideas and not about Hollywood.
Ok, brinking Roskam into this debate is beyond hilarious Skeeter, you just can't help yourself huh?
Last time I checked, Roskam's spouse wasn't indicted.
THE SPOUSE!
Good point.
It is far worse to have a SPOUSE who did something than to have PERSONALLY worked for people, consider them friends, and have them show up for fundraisers to support you.
Is that your argument?
Anon 3:27, Let's be honest, Skeeter's gotcha on that one.
So Skeeter, I guess if your boss is ever charged with a crime, we'll just have to think that you're guilty as well, or if your friend if caught robbing a liquor store, we might as well charge you as well.
Yeah, you're a genius.
I think in Skeeter's world, you're only guilty of doing something wrong if you're not a member of his party, his comments on here have proved that time and time again.
He's a partisan hack, which is fine, but when he tries to play himself off and someone above the fray, that's when he loses all credibility.
Skeeter,
Roskam worked for Delay for all of about 10 minutes several decades ago. (okay, to be fair, it was closer being 10 months, 21 years ago). And I’m not sure if you are married skeeter, but most people consider their spouse to be a friend……in fact, perhaps their “best friend.” And most people’s spouses support them…..usually more than anyone in their life. I’m not sure if the Congresswoman’s spouse attends her fundraisers, but I suppose that’s a double edged sword - embarrassing for her either way.
So, I don’t see how the idea that Schakowsky's spouse being indicted is worse than briefly working for someone 20 years before any unethical behavior was allegedly practiced by them is really a ridiculous argument.
BTW, I don't think either is really relevant. I could care less about Jan's husband. And I could care less about which then-relatively uknown and obscure congressman Roskam worked for 20 years ago. And as far as Dick Cheney and Dick Armey supporting him at fundraisers, last time I checked neither of them were indicted...so they are the oranges in what was an apple-apple comparison.
My nameless friend:
Is Delay supporting Roskam?
Is Armey supporting Roskam?
Is Cheney supporting Roskam?
Has Roskam publicly denounced Delay, Armey, or Cheney?
Actually, we don't know if and to what end Delay is supporting Roskam. Has he donated money to him? I don't think so. Has he publically endorsed him? I don't know. The only Google links between their names are the dozens of liberal bloggers trying to make the few months Roskam spent as a hill staffer in his office 20 years ago an issue in this election.
Has Roskam publically denounced Dick Armey? - For what?
Dick Cheney? - For what?
Tom Delay - okay, you have me there. Perhaps it would be best if he did actively distance himself more from Mr. Delay, but I think that's the only leg you have to stand on. To bad it's obsured with red herrings named Dick and exaggerations about how he PERSONALLY worked for him (as if he was a lifelong protégé)
Just got this in my email, wish that would have never gotten onto FTN list.
When will these knuckleheads get in the game and become team players!!!!
FTN Editor's note:
Despite the bad news on Election Day, the good news is that the Family Taxpayers Network is being energized by the incredible grassroots response to the Protect Marriage Illinois effort.
In fact, while many conservatives are crying in their beer, we remain fully engaged in the important work of activating new recruits. FTN has thus far mobilized over 30,000 of our friends and neighbors to help circulate petitions. Last week we may have lost more campaigns than we won, but future prospects look bright as we engage many new volunteers with PMI.
Protect Marriage Illinois:
Help the Family Taxpayers Network Protect Marriage
It's not too late to join the largest conservative grassroots movement in Illinois in many years. We are on pace to reach and surpass the number of signatures needed to place an advisory referendum on the November ballot. But we still need your help! Please join this important and historic effort. Take a stand to protect marriage.
The Champion:
The Threat to Make the Schools Worse Proves to be a Winning Strategy
The campaign to increase property taxes in many school districts didn't succeed because voters were convinced that more money would produce better schools. Instead, the winning message was: "give us more money or we'll make things worse." No doubt many busy parents voted "yes" because they knew that a public school system capable of mediocrity is certainly capable of taking away even more opportunities from their kids.
How schools pass referenda
Cathy Peschke, of Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes , has compiled a typical list of newspaper headlines that show the not-so-new-or -secret strategy by the public school establishment to get referenda passed. It's no longer all about "the kids." Now, it's about how the school districts will punish the people they serve if voters don't approve tax increases.
The Education Intelligence Agency highlights Illinois IEA chief's quote
"We have a critical election coming up this fall. We need legislators and a governor who legislate and govern in a responsible manner; who get it that a no-new-taxes pledge is unacceptable irresponsible public policy."
The Topinka Tattler:
What if there isn't a lesser of two evils?
We didn't say it. WLS's Tom Roeser said it on his blog, TomRoeser.com . "Re: Topinka. This Blog at Least Says Never. Never. Never. Now that the choice is between pro-abort Judy Baar Topinka and pro-abort Gov. Blagojevich, what should social conservatives do-vote...? Neither course would be prudent. While Natural Law sometimes prescribes the lesser of two evils, here there is no lesser. The answer is clear. Give the category of governor a pass.
The Taxing Land of Lincoln
In light of Judy Baar Topinka's victory in the Republican primary for governor, it's time to re-read this thought provoking article from American Spectator magazine by the Illinois Policy Institute's Greg Blankenship. Greg writes, "If you want to raise taxes...vote Republican.
At least in Illinois you do."
One Conservative's letter to the RNC Chairman
Paul Speer has a suggestion for the National Republican Party's chief: if you want a victory in Illinois, you had better start working towards conciliation. Mr. Speer's advice is to "invite Mr. Kjellander to make his National Treasurer post a full time position and to resign as Illinois' National Committeeman."
To answer the question, Peter Roskam was not only an aide to Tom DeLay, he's taken money from him, and Tom DeLay held a fundraiser for Roskam last year. It's all right here.
GOP, I know you're an intellectually honest guy, and you can defend DeLay or Roskam's political alliance with him if you want to, but these two are irrefutably tied to each other at the hip.
The kicker is, $1,000 is such a piddley amount, you'd expect him to give it back. The fact he refuses to give it back tells me that either he and DeLay really are close friends, or his afraid he'll alienate all of those Alan Keyes-loving, stem cell research banning loony tunes he calls his "base".
Maybe Lynn Sweet can get some answers for us. Lynn?
By the way, GOP, the most distasteful thing I've heard from Roskam was his Illinois Leader interview, where he talked about how his dear old buddy Henry Hyde pulled some strings to get him into law school.
He said it so nonchalant, it gave you an idea of just how much of an insider he's become. And I found it ironic given Roskam's opposition to affirmative action.
YDD: I am right, though, that Roskam worked for Delay less than a year. And he worked for Hyde for a year. So why is he never referred to as a "Hyde" protege by the liberal commentators or blogs?
Best post in days!
Thank you Mr. President!
Skeeter,
Cheney was just in to do a fund raiser for Roskam. They were all over TV smiling together.
Ruberry - I'm one of Fat Denny's unfortunate constituents. What say we swap houses, so we can both be happy with our Congresscritters?
The obsession of YDD and Skeeter with Roskam is great! Especially when they start making things up about Roskam.
You two really are sad, go out this weekend, have a drink, relax...maybe even try to meet a girl or two.
But please, stop coming here and preaching about the second coming of Tammy Duckworth. It's getting old, as is her campaign.
Just to pick up on this again:
Roskam and Delay “irrefutably tied to each other at the hip?”
The only connection I can find, even on the site you linked, is that Roskam worked for Delay for a few months in the mid ‘80s, and Delay held 1 fundraiser for him and personally contributed $1000 dollars. Now, YDD, you’re a sharp guy. You understand politics. So why would you make such a boldly exaggerated claim based on such meager evidence?
GOP:
You call that meager evidence?
DeLay held a fundraiser, as did Cheney.
That looks pretty strong for me.
If Roskam does not want to associate with people like Cheney and De Lay, he can return the money and renounce them.
Roskam sees eye to eye with those guys though, since, as I originally pointed out, Roskam is a far right extremist.
Politians (Delay in particular) host fundraisers for other politicans all the time....that doesn't mean every such event is evidence of the two politians being "joined at the hip" - particularly when you are just talking about a single event. Roskam undeniably has a closer and stronger alliance/relationship with Hyde than either Delay or Cheney. But I don't hear any Democrats making an issue of that. So why make such a bigger issue of a looser and more distant relationship/alliance?
And yes, Roskam has strong conservative beliefs. I don't think I have tried to deny that at all. But a lot of people in this country (and, coincidently,in Roskam's district) have strong conservative beliefs. Is Roskam "joined at the hip" with every one of them as well? I don't consider myself "joined at the hip" with everyone I see "eye to eye" with, do you?
My point is that while it is completely fair for you to exploit whatever connection Roskam does have with Delay, it is NOT fair if you exaggerate that connection to make it appear stronger or more sinister than it actually is. I know, that (being fair) does matter much in politics, but I'm an idealist and think it should....and I, for one, think perhaps some honor amongst us bloggers when it comes to such things shouldn't be a laughable idea.
So, to recap, the extend of the connection between Roskam and Delay is this: Roskam worked for Delay for less than a year, 21 years ago, when Delay was a freshman Congressman. Delay has held a single fundraiser for Roskam - one of many fundraisers he holds for Congressional candidates accross the country. And that's about it. So, how exactly do those two facts demonstrate that they are "joined at the hip"? Use the connection that is there if you wish, but don't misrepresent the truth about it.
And please, regardless of your personal feelings about the man, there is nothing wrong with Roskam being supported by the Vice President- who has never been idicted or even implicated in a criminal matter (which is more than Jan can say about her closest friend and biggerst supporter - the issue that started this line of debate) and who was on a ticket that won in a landslide in Roskam's district.
The Vice President lied repeatedly about connections between Saddam and 9/11. He outed a CIA operative in order to make a cheap point againt a political foe [one who made the mistake of calling Mr. Cheney on his lies]. He is corrupt to the bone, and most Americans realize that.
With regard to Mr. Delay: Roskam worked for the man. Delay has held a fundraiser for the man. Delay and Roskam are both cheap hack politicians with extremist views. To me, that makes them joined at the hip.
If Roskam has differences with Delay, he should tell us all. Until then, C6 will continue to view them as the extremists that they are.
One more note on this: If Tom De Lay fits in well with the 6th District, why do people here complain about the comparision?
If he is as fine a guy as you all claim, you all would be saying "Damn right Roskam walks hand in hand with De Lay."
You all are not saying that, because you all realize that Tom Delay is a dangerous right wing extremist. So is Roskam though, or Roskam would have returned that money and publicly denounced his old boss.
Finally, to nobody's shock, another Delay high ranking aid pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday. Despite all the talk about "cleaning up the mess in Washington" it is clear that those House Republicans are completely corrupt.
Skeeter,
“With regard to Mr. Delay: Roskam worked for the man. Delay has held a fundraiser for the man. Delay and Roskam are both cheap hack politicians with extremist views. To me, that makes them joined at the hip.”
- Ah, yes. ‘To you.’ That’s fine, but that is purely your opinion. I think I’ve made the case that you are grossly overstating the extent of their relationship. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. But just be prepared, because everytime you point his out, I will be right there to put it in context:
Roskam worked for Delay for less than a year, 20 years ago, when Delay was relatively powerless, freshman Congressman. Roskam’s was only one of dozens of Congressional fundraisers that Delay has hosted for different candidates across the country. And I don’t think Roskam has, or plans on, downplaying his conservative views in this election……perhaps because the district he is seeking to election is, by an large, pretty conservative. If you want to change that, maybe you should move to Wheaton and register to vote.
“One more note on this: If Tom De Lay fits in well with the 6th District, why do people here complain about the comparison?”
- I’m not. Again, I’m simply putting it into perspective. It’s never good to have your candidate perceived as being too close to a controversial political powerhouse from outside. Why did Duckworth’s supporters bristle so much at accusations that she was “Rahm’s” candidate? You are trying to make Roskam seem like something he is not…and I am simply trying to put the record straight. In doing so, I have not said anything untrue, have I?
Only one trying to inject Delay in this race is your Skeeter...good luck. Shows that your candidate isn't as strong as you think if you have to go negative this early.
GOP:
We didn't "bristle" at Duckworth being linked to Rahm. Everbody knew that Rahm did his job, which was to recruit the finest possible candidates to run as Democrats.
What we did bristle at was the suggestion that Major Duckworth was unable to think for herself. I personally believe that a Major in our armed forces deserves the respect and credit for thinking for herself, but the Republicans keep claiming that the Major is too stupid to do so.
That's the diffference: Democrats respect our vets. Republicans don't.
Finally to my nameless friend:
The solution is simple. Renounce Delay. When Roskam does so, it will no longer be an issue. But, as I pointed out, Roskam is a Delay pal who worked for the disgraced Republican, took money from him, and likes Delay's ways of doing business.
Jan Schakowsky and Sharon Stone are enough to make me sick. Two old hags who's time has long past. One's husband is going to jail and the other cannot keep one. Just another bomb in the making.
Skeeter:
So, you didn't "bristle" at attacks linking Duckworth to Rahm, you just put it in persective. She's wasn't his stooge, just a candidate that she recruited. That's a prefectly reasonable and legitimate point to make.
Sounds an awful lot like what I am doing. Putting into perspective the links between Roskam and Delay. i.e., that while Roskam may have worked for Delay for less than a year, 21 years ago & was one of MANY Congressional candidates to benefit from Delay-hosted fundraisers, that doesn't make them "joined at the hip," or make Roskam some sort of Delay protege.
But, whatever. Good luck keeping up that fight for returning intellectual honest to the world of politics.
GOP,
I don't believe that I accused you of "bristling" at the connection between the two.
And, as I said, if Roskam doesn't believe that Tom De Lay's way of doing business is the right way, Roskam can say so and return all that cash.
Skeeter,
check back at your 3:35PM comment above. Do you really want to start splitting hairs about whether "bristling" about something and "complaining" it are different enough for you to take issue?
Now, I can't dispute the fact that Roskam has not returned the funds raised with Delay's help. And whether he should for whatever reason isn’t really relevant to the point I am trying to make about the closeness of their relationship. I don’t think that Roskam’s refusal to return that money makes him anymore "joined at the hip" to Delay than Duckworth's comparatively MUCH heavier reliance on Emanuel for fundraising makes her any less of her own person. But that’s just me, I guess.
GOP,
I have never denied that Rahm and Major Duckworth are close. I think it is great that they are. Rahm is a national leader who has done a fine job in getting only the best to run for office as Democrats. He has provided needed political experience to Major Duckworth, who has a record as a leader but who is new to politics.
What I have objected to is the idea that a Major is merely a tool. I would never make that comment about one of our vets. Republicans have no such problems in insulting American soldiers in that manner.
Skeeter,
Can you cite or otherwise reference an actual quote by a Republican calling Tammy Duckworth “too stupid” to “think for herself?”
And let me ask you this: do you think that the Swift Board Veterans for Truth were “merely tools” of the RNC, or were they deserving of respect based on their service in uniform? I’d be interested to know what you think and why.
In response:
1. When you accuse somebody of merely being a tool, the only implication is that the person is unable to think for herself.
2. No, I do not believe that the Swift Boaters were a tool. I believe they served their country but then were so overcome by political passion that they lied through their teeth. I blame them, not the RNC. They served their country and then they disgraced themselves. Of course, that is far better than the vicious lies told by the Bush Team about Senator McCain in 2000, but that is a different matter completely. When it comes to smearing our vets, nobody does it like Republicans.
Man you guys are geeks-I thought the talk was whether Sharon Stone was doing the nasty with her sponser.
Skeeter's funny. He's really a Republican troll, right?
Post a Comment