Charlie Wilson did what?

My friends, we are now witnessing the re-writing of history(again) by Hollywood (again). It seems that somehow we all got things mixed up and accidentally gave someone else the credit for our side winning the Cold War. And, of course, the guy who got ripped off was a Democrat. He was Charlie Wilson, a Representative from the Second Congressional District of the great state of Texas. According to Mike Nichols, the film's director, it was Wilson who won us such a great victory.

Please allow me to tell you why he had to be Hollywood's choice to lead us to victory. First and foremost, he was a Democrat. The film was written by Aaron Sorkin. You know, the guy who sanitized the Clinton White House and turned it into a little program called The West Wing. This was Sorkin's re-writing of history as it was happening. Since we all seem to have forgotten the 1980's, I guess they figured that they were safe. If you ever watch his TV show, you soon realize that Sorkin has very little regard for the Grand Old Party and its members. That is the overwhelming attitude of Hollywood.

The second reason they like Representative Wilson is that he is their kind of guy. He is a "good ol' boy who liked company in a hot tub and was rarely found without a drink in his hand," according to Roger Ebert. (Source: Winston-Salem Journal, Relish [Entertainment Insert], Thursday, December 20, 2007, p. 8) Clint O'Connor adds the following: "a rootin'-tootin', hard-drinking, excessive womanizer, helped funnel vast sums of money and arms to Afghan fighters in the 1980s, thus helping defeat the Soviet army." (Source:

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2007/12/swagger_and_bravado_aside_a_gr.html )

Now isn't that the picture of a leader who inspires confidence. Of course, these Hollywood types are the same ones who were oddly silent about the whole Stained Blue Dress Incident of the Clinton years. Of course, Bill was just another "lovable good ol' boy," so like Wilson, all would eventually be forgiven, including his perjury to a federal grand jury. But when Reagan was accused of doing what Wilson did actually do, according to the film, he was the one of the worst men on the planet, regardless that the President can write foreign policy and Congressmen can't. But why quibble over what the Constitution says about the system of checks and balances? If a Democrat wants to ignore them, it's fine, but only when a Democrat does it. Republicans don't get those kind of passes in Hollywood.

The third reason is that Charlie is, according to A. O. Scott, "a liberal as well as a libertine." Also according to Scott, his choice of lady friends is their kind of girl, too: "Joanne Herring, a right-wing Houston socialite who loves Jesus and martinis and hates Communism. She is a splendid American contradiction, standing up for liberty and godliness while getting into bed (literally) with a bachelor congressman and (metaphorically) with President Zia ([played by] Om Puri), the military ruler of Pakistan." She says she loves Jesus, but she loves Charlie, too, so that seems to make everything all right with the Hollywood crowd. Aside from her questionable political leanings, she loves sex, alcohol, and Jesus, but I'm sure not in that order and she has, I'm sure, a well-developed sense of her moral foundation as well. And, being a good friend of the hero of a liberal, quasi-historical piece, she gets the rewards of notoriety and Julia Roberts portraying her in the film. The late, great Ronald Reagan just gets his rightful legacy stolen, but he's one of the bad Republicans, so Hollywood approves.

I guess the worst part of this for me were the following parting shots at the fortieth President. A. O. Scott commented, “The good guys are the ones who know how to have a good time, and who counter the somber certainties of totalitarianism with the conviction that fun is woven into the fabric of freedom.” So if Reagan had only had the Soviets over for a dinner party -- with the emphasis on party -- then we all would have had a rollicking good time as we won the Cold War. Don't you just hope that all the public servants have fun when going off to do the things they have no authority to be doing in the first place? As long as they have fun, that's all that matters. Then came Clint O'Connor again: "Charlie Wilson's War is the most American of movies, brimming with a can-do swagger that we could only hope for from our politicians.” Umm... Clint... we had that when Reagan gave us something that Barry Goldwater used to say: "peace through strength." Ronald Reagan did have a can-do attitude, but was modest enough not to swagger. And, by the way, when American Republican presidents do swagger, they get accused of having an "arrogant bunker mentality." But the one that made me mad was Roger Ebert: "The next time you hear about Reagan ending [the Cold War], ask yourself if he ever heard of Charlie Wilson."

Ah... Roger, we won the Cold War not because the Russians lost in Afghanistan, though it did help, but because Ronald Reagan scared the crap out of them. After four years of Carter's inept, mamby-pamby tenderfoot approach to foreign relations, along came a man who would not back down because he believed in America and her strength. They knew that Reagan would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them to the very end. They were afraid of him and were forced to respect him. So, Roger, I think you know that I'm giving you a "thumb's down." Comment on the movies, the acting, directing, and lighting, and whatnot and whether or not you like them. Some of us already know that you dislike Republicans. And I'm sure that Reagan had heard of Charlie Wilson just like I'm sure that you would love, like the vast majority of the entertainment world, to take this away from Reagan, but you can't.