Casino Jack and the United
States of Money (1/10)
by Tony Medley
Run time 118 minutes.
Not for children.
A key point to consider
when watching this is that it’s made by writer/director Alex Gibney, who
is responsible for
Enron: The
Smartest Guys in the Room (2005). That’s relevant because the
entire Enron movie never once mentioned the name of California Democrat
legislator Steve Peace. Nobody with any actual knowledge of what
happened with Enron could make an entire movie about it without
mentioning Peace because he wrote the California legislation that
enabled Enron and caused the whole mess. But for Peace, there would have
been no Enron. Making a movie about Enron and not mentioning Peace would
be like making a movie about the founding of our Republic and not
mentioning George Washington. So either Gibney was incredibly stupid, or
had a pro-Democrat bias, and I have little doubt that the reason is
bias.
Gibney takes up here where
he left off with Enron, because this is a clumsy hatchet job. The
premises are that Republicans are corrupt and capitalism is evil.
Because facts don't fully support this agenda (the latter, at least),
Gibney intentionally makes this tale of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff
so convoluted it’s almost impossible to follow. He often shows
interviews with people without further identifying them, or only
identifying them once. Who can remember all these people? Worse, he
never presents any information about where these people are coming from
or if they have any political bias.
There’s little doubt that
Abramoff was corrupt, but so are a lot of people in Washington. Gibney
makes it all look as if what Abramoff did was a conservative plot to
take over Washington, mostly ignoring the fact that lots of Democrats
were involved with him, too, and that there are Democrat lobbyists who
are undoubtedly just as peccant as Abramoff. Gibney goes to
extraordinary lengths to hoodwink his viewers.
There are probably some
gullible people who will fall into Gibney’s web and come away thinking
that everyone pictured (including Ronald Reagan, and all conservatives)
are just horribly iniquitous people and that the Democrats are all
mostly simon pure. But the film is so clumsy that it only takes a grain
of sense to see through it like a pane of glass.
The film is peopled by
interviews with devoted left-wingers. Prominently featured is Melanie
Sloan, executive director of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington). Melanie Sloan is hardly unbiased, having worked
for John Conyers, the vitriolic leftwing Democrat from Michigan, and
Charles Shumer, the partisan Democrat Senator from New York. Lest one
think that CREW is fair and balanced, eight of the eleven governors who
made its “worst” governors list were Republicans. Seventy Percent of
the people named in its list of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress
were Republicans. Prominently missing are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd,
who enabled Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and who (along with their
President, Bill Clinton, who was cheering them on) are probably the two
people most responsible for the financial meltdown caused by forcing
banks to grant loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them . They
should be at the top of any list of corrupt members of Congress. Dodd
realized he could never be reelected to his seat in the Senate and took
the coward’s way out by chose not to run for it. But his name isn’t on
Melanie’s list.
Compare Melanie’s list with
Judicial Watch’s list of the 10 most corrupt politicians of 2009, which
included seven democrats, the aforementioned Messrs. Dodd and Frank,
Jesse Jackson, Jr., Roland Burris, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and
Charles Rangel, and only one Republican, John Ensign. None of these
Democrats made Melanie’s list of the top 20. Nobody in his right mind
could doubt that Dodd and Frank belong at the top of any list of corrupt
Members of Congress. Even so, Melanie appears throughout this thing as a
talking head spouting her opinion which is represented as fact. Gibney
clearly stacked the film with uninvolved people to interview who only
support his virulent leftwing POV.
Gibney does tell a story
about the way Abramoff and associates took advantage of a naïve Indian
group, and I remember that story. He quotes from emails and
correspondence between and among Abramoff and his associates that sound
particularly damning. But could they have been taken out of context?
I wish I could rely on Gibney’s
verisimilitude to believe this as shown, but after what he did with
Enron, and because he limited the people he chose to showcase
to those who all share the same tendentious POV, I can’t. This must
be watched with heightened skepticism.
|