Ellen DeGeneres’ Explanation For Chilling With George W. Bush Does Not Sit Well With Many

Ellen DeGeneres is facing backlash after she was filmed sitting next to former U.S. President George W. Bush at a baseball game, talking and laughing with like they are old buddies.

In response to critics, the talk show host went on her show and explained that she is indeed friends with Bush and others who “don’t share the same beliefs that I have.”

“But a lot of people were mad, and they did what people do when they’re mad—they tweet,” said DeGeneres. “But there’s one tweet that I love, and this person says: ‘Ellen and George Bush together makes me have faith in America again.'”

Ellen DeGeneres' Explanation For Chilling With George W. Bush Does Not Sit Well With Many
The Ellen Show

She went on to compare her being friends with Bush, who famously pushed to a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman, to being friends with people who wear fur even though she thinks it’s wrong to do so.

“And I’m friends with people who are furries—friends who should tweeze more,” she joked. “But just because I don’t agree with someone on everything, it doesn’t mean that I’m not gonna be friends with them.”

Ellen DeGeneres' Explanation For Chilling With George W. Bush Does Not Sit Well With Many
The Ellen Show

However, many people were unsatisfied with this explanation, to say the least. Some are calling this a poorly-timed sentiment, considering the Supreme Court began hearing arguments today on a case that is expected to decide whether employers can legally fire people for being LGBTQ+. DeGeneres herself is married to a woman, leading to no small amount of bafflement.

Others have pointed out that there might be a significant difference between being friends with someone who wanted to deny a group of people equal rights and humanity, started a long and deadly war over what was later revealed to be lies, and likely committed international war crimes, and being friends with a hairy person.

The debate around the moral question of whether you can remain friends with someone who holds beliefs that could lead to people being harmed has been raging on and off since the 2016 election.

Some quickly cut off friends and family who voted for Trump, while others argued that political beliefs shouldn’t ruin relationships. The latter attitude may be put to the test, however, when the relationship is with someone who has done more than hold potentially harmful beliefs.

There may also be a difference between being kind to people when you happen to come across them and maintaining a whole friendship with that person without being like “what about those war crimes, though?”

It may also not be the best sign when self-identified “ambassadors” to Turning Point USA are applauding you.

Others have pointed out that the people who really need kindness and friendship can’t afford box seats at baseball games and some of them had their lives entirely destroyed by George W. Bush.

The debate on whether it’s good or bad to be kind to bad people may never end. But can we at least agree that having an entire friendship with someone responsible for millions of deaths is an entirely different subject?