Isn't a star a citizen?

I don't doubt that Mr Tapper has done his homework, on the social history of Hollywood film, very well - as befits a professional in his field. I don't for a second question the facts as to who is where on the right - left scale in Tinseltown. The problem lies in the relevance of his application of this knowledge.

First of all, we are faced with a case of culture collision. The United States have a long, well-established tradition of celebrities taking political stand, to an extent unheard of in many European countries. Just to quote one well-known example, from the "other" camp, Lauren Bacall was unequivocal, persistent and eminently high-profile in her support of the Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson. (And I have yet to see a critic trash, say, "How to Marry a Millionaire", made just about then, for that particular reason.)
Secondly, it is sad to see anyone behave so unprofessionally in his political zeal as to give a false account of a film's content. "Armageddon" may qualify as garbage, for a variety of reasons, but describing Harry Stamper as an "oil millionaire" is stretching the term most considerably. Besides, if Mr Tapper feels that playing a character who practices his golf swing against a Greenpeace motorboat makes an actor a reactionary jerk, what does he make of Gary Oldman's various psychopath roles or, for that matter, of Alec Guinness playing Hitler? (In "Hitler: The Last Ten Days", 1973)

As for the ideology underlying "The Kid" - Mr President Bush certainly hasn't copyrighted the ambition individuals may have to sort out their personal lives. To start looking after one's social network when approaching middle age is just about the most intelligent and constructive thing a person can do. Studies in life expectancy show that people with a solid social network (and, by the way, pet owners) in average live longer and feel better than loners in similar economical circumstances. Money or commitment to a worthy political cause only helps insofar that it helps a person to find friends and/or a life partner. I'll even go further and claim that someone who has an interesting job and lives with a person whose company (s)he enjoys will in the long run function better even in his/her socio-political activism. Zealots to a cause, any cause, who don't , as we say, "get a life" as well, run a distinct risk of becoming dangerous fanatics. So, if this need for balance actually mirrors Mr W's personal beliefs (of which I know nothing), good for him.
I have never read a comment by Mr Tapper on Hollywood's Committee for the First Amendment , active during the McCarthy era, but the usual attitude among our country's intelligentsia is one of respect and sympathy for a group that fought for freedom of speech and freedom of belief. Now, the rub is in that the freedom should be equal for all who follow the rules of the democratic system. Being "one of them", as opposed to "one of us", is not a crime - except under the doctrines of Stalin or McCarthy. Under Stalin, an actor was forbidden or permitted to work depending on his "class" background and his loyalty to the Party. In a democracy, an individual, no matter how higly paid or influential, has a fundamental right to posess and express a political orientation. This right includes the right to be "wrong", as judged by the standards prevalent in a given media community.

In all, it would be interesting to read a series of articles by Mr Tapper on the political influences in Hollywood filmmaking. There, obviously, his knowledge would come to good use. Also, political cronyism may well be a factor among many in the casting of a film.
But when judging the finished product, the critic has to distinguish between an actor and his character - while it is still his duty to tell us when he finds that a film as a whole is a piece of flag-waving, extreme-right trash.
And please, Mr Critic, when discussing US politics, respect the First Amendment!