Posted on 02/14/2006 10:11:24 AM PST by Chi-townChief
My favorite element of the photo accompanying this column is the Secret Service agent moving in on me like a bouncer breaking up a brawl.
In classic neighborhood tradition, I did the same move with the president of the United States that I do during virtually any photo op with any man, woman, child or dog. I throw my arm around ya, like we've known each other for years.
THAT'S the Chicago way.
But when you've got your hand squeezing the neck of the leader of the free world, it's the Secret Service's job to make sure you're not going to try some Vulcan Death Grip deal.
I trotted out that photo in the wake of this ongoing debate about whether Ozzie Guillen should have cut short his family vacation to join the team at the White House.
As e-mailer Gayle Feliksikof Willow Springs put it, "Everyone is up in arms about Ozzie not showing respect to the president. I believe the issue is not the president, but the office of the presidency of the United States of America, the country that allowed Ozzie to become the person he is today. It is not a one-on-one issue, man to man. It is the newly declared citizen showing respect for his new country. ... The fans showed their appreciation, it's time for Ozzie to do the same."
A Bush-league move?
I believe that Ozzie Guillen has the highest respect for his country and for the White House.
It was just six weeks ago that Ozzie was bursting with pride after being sworn in as a United States citizen. At the time Ozzie said it was a greater thrill than winning the World Series.
Guillen also said that he plans to quiz his players with questions from his immigration test. You gotta love the idea of Ozzie saying, "OK Tadahito, what were the original 13 states?" Ladies and gentlemen, start your interpreters.
As we've been reminded, Guillen has already been to the White House, as a coach with the Florida Marlins after they won the World Series. He had just been hired as manager of the White Sox, and President Bush wished him well in bringing a world championship to Chicago.
But let's not kid ourselves here. George Bush doesn't give a bleep about the White Sox, and he couldn't care less if Guillen showed up for a quick photo op. Bush would have been a lot more enthusiastic about welcoming the Astros -- or even better, the Rangers -- as world champs.
As for the belief that one should always respect the office: absolutely. One should be honored to have a privilege that will never be accorded to most Americans. Having been inside the White House, I can vouch for the give-you-the-chills factor.
Now, that pic of Clinton and me wasn't taken at the White House -- it was snapped in January 2001 at Phil Stefani's Restaurant at 437 N. Rush. I had a fairly lengthy talk with the president -- mostly about movies -- and even though I had defended him on some occasions and ripped him apart other times, I was pretty damn excited to be in that moment, talking to a two-term president of the United States.
If I had been invited to the White House during the Clinton administration, I would have been there in a heartbeat. Same for Bush I, Reagan, Carter and Ford.
What about today? Let's say the president and Dick Cheney were going to host a screening of "The Deer Hunter," and I received an invite to attend the event and shake hands with our leader.
Would I go? No.
Not for this president, not at this time. As much as I respect the office and as much as I believe in this country, I just couldn't shake hands and smile with President Bush, not when he's sending young men and women off to fight and die in a war that was launched on false pretenses.
I'm grateful I've had the chance to meet a couple of presidents. I'd love the opportunity to meet others down the road. I realize I'm turning down an invitation that's never come my way, but I'm just saying if it happened, I'd decline.
Ozzie declined to go to the White House for family reasons.
I'd decline for political reasons. And I'd feel like a patriot doing so.
rroeper@suntimes.com
Yeah, I'm sure that's true, too, since Jack is such an intellectual and I can't imagine he'd want to excuse his own stupidity for getting hooked in the first place. And, boy, what a great spokesman 'adrenalin junkie' Jack will be for your side in the WoSD debate.
That's right I forgot. Nobody who favors drugs legalization actually uses the stuff.
Like it! Would love to know if he actually responds!
I watched Siskel and Ebert in the 70's when they created their original show. I was bummed when the network gave the show to Medved and the other guy. Then Siskel and Ebert resurfaced and I ALWAYS agreed with Siskel over Ebert. No matter how bogus the 'expression pictures'of Siskel were, used during his fight against brain cancer, I was still glad to have his voice and opinions. My husband and I still watch Ebert and Roeper but it will never be the same enjoyable show that it was with Siskel. Gene, you are sorely missed by many down here!
He did respond.
He made fun of my real name and then said he didn't read past that.
Real substantive, eh?
So much for his claim of being an intelekshuwal.
"That's right I forgot. Nobody who favors drugs legalization actually uses the stuff."
Certainly not to the extent you WoSD advocates do, that's for sure.
Wow. How embarrassing for him! He's a right poseur! Real mature of him to make fun of your name. The intellectual capacity of those on television just keeps plummeting
Actually I don't even drink so you pick the wrong guy for that observation bubba.
I guess I should be surprised he even wrote back.
I wrote a message to Roger Ebert once, and he took the time to write back a letter that was several paragraphs long. And he didn't make fun of my name ONCE!!
Though I disagree with Ebert's politics, at least he has class.
So far as I have ever seen, Roeper is neither a good movie reviewer nor a good writer, most of his columns being silly fluff.
His movie reviewing is bad, as I said. He just reviewed the movie "Curious George" and gave it thumbs down because it was not adult enough and that it was too much for little kids.
DUH!! IT'S CURIOUS GEORGE a book written for 5-year-old kids!!! What a nitwit.
"Actually I don't even drink so you pick the wrong guy for that observation bubba."
And your posts are so indicative of your sobriety. /sarc
Riiiiight.
What kind of neurosis leads a man to turn down an invitation that would never ever come?
LOL
Of course not, dewd!--hey, don't bogart that thing!
bfl
That's the best you've got, huh? This is why I become less concerned about legalization every time I come across a drug-addled libertarian on FR: You have damaged your brain to the extent that you lack the imagination for a more intelligent comeback than "I know you are, but what am I?"
Roeper is a joke.
Keep it. I'm happy enough without needing to alter my reality.
Chicago sure does seem to have its share of clueless bozos. This clown "Richard Roeper" - - is he fresh out of college?
Chicago is totally socialist, I've lived here for decades, it's getting worse (Same can be said about most of the state of Illinois)
Does this guy actually get paid for writing? It's been a while since I have read such a disjointed piece.
Here's the deal, God: You send us back Gene Siskel. We send You Richard Roeper.
...No? Oh, well. I probably wouldn't make that deal either, if I were You.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.