Celebrities And Politics

Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Yeah Greg, you wanna be careful how you use those.
atomicage
Graduate
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:01 am

Post by atomicage »

Greg wrote:
atomicage wrote:Wow. I have never laughed so hard while reading political commentary. Thanks for that, Akash.

*Akash, allow me.*

butt nugget

Gosh. That's a good one. ???

God forbid I thank Someone :)
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

atomicage wrote:Wow. I have never laughed so hard while reading political commentary. Thanks for that, Akash.

*Akash, allow me.*

butt nugget




Edited By Greg on 1197065065
atomicage
Graduate
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:01 am

Post by atomicage »

Wow. I have never laughed so hard while reading political commentary. Thanks for that, Akash.
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

More reason to love Sean Penn.

Counterpunch
December 7, 2007
The Constitution, the Media and Kucinich
Piano Wire Puppeteers

By SEAN PENN


It’s been an odd week. For me, a particularly odd week. But that’s another story. So, wait a minute. Iran DOESN’T have nuclear weapon capability??? So, who are we gonna bomb? I want to bomb somebody!

Didn’t Senator Clinton just vote in essence to give President Bush the power to bomb Iran? If he had done it last week, would that have made her right? I mean, if she knew then what she knows now? Or am I getting that backward? Golly, I’m confused.

And what about President Bush? This week, Vladimir Putin, the man Mr. Bush said he “Looked into the eyes of and found to be very straightforward and trustworthy.” So much so, he was “able to get a sense of his soul.” Well that soulful fella has just successfully coalesced the most dangerous power base in Russia since the Cold War amid rumors that include allegations he ordered the assassinations of journalists and imprisonment of noted proponents of freedom (Oops).

Meanwhile, our President’s great enemy in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, that “totalitarian,” “authoritarian,” “dictator,” that “mad man run amok,” somehow was unsuccessful in his bid for the constitutional reforms that would have allowed him to be repeatedly re-elected for life…Hmmm?

Odd week, you know? Really.

What happened to Chavez’s “strong-arming?” His “electoral corruption?” His alleged “gagging of the press?” How in the hell could he have lost? I’m sorry, did I miss something?

How is it that this “Commie bastard” with 80% of his citizens having elected him in the first place was unable to prevail? Could it be that we’ve been lied to about him? I mean, Pat Robertson’s not a liar, is he? His god wouldn’t let that happen, would he? And god-forbid, our god would let the right-wing pundits, left-wing corporates, or our own administration send us a bill of goods!?

Is it possible, I mean I know it’s silly, but is it just a little bit possible that President Chavez is in fact a defender of his people’s Constitution? That, that’s how his referendum could fail? And that that’s why he accepted it with such grace? A constitution which I have read several times. Quite a beautiful document, not dissimilar to our own. You might give it a read. Oh, I forgot – he’s a “drug runner.”

Let me share something with you. Late one night in Caracas, I met with a couple of fellas, mercenaries I think you call them. Goddamit, I keep doing that. I mean “contractors.” They were Brits, their specialty: drug interdiction. These two were no great fans of Chavez. They called him “radical” and expected him to fall to an assassin’s bullet within the year. Like him or not, he had the cash to win their acceptance of his employ. And working alongside the Venezuelan military, these two, based in Caracas, had played the mountainous and jungled border between Columbia and Venezuela. A zone rife with paramilitaries, FARC guerillas, and mer…scratch that, contractors. What I was told that evening in Caracas by these piano wire puppeteers was that they had never worked for a government whose investment in drug interdiction was so genuine. “Yeah,” said one of the Brits, “I gotta give the bastard Chavez that.”

But I was talking about the Constitution. Most importantly, our own. And what an odd week it has been. Our culture is engrained with a tradition that blurs the line between what is right, what is just and what is constitutional, with what is a scam. That tradition is the cult of personality. What can TV sell, what kind of crap will we buy. And at what point are we buying and selling our rights, our pride, our flag, our children, and succumbing to meaningless slogans that are ultimately pure titles for un-Americanism. How do we know what’s American and what is not? Because John Wayne tells us so? Because Sean Penn tells us so? Susan Sarandon? Bill O’Reilly? Michael Moore? Senator Bull? Or Senator Shit? Ann “my bowel expenditure” Coulter? No. It’s our Constitution. We don’t use it just to win. We depend on it because it’s the only “us” worth being. And because it’s our children’s inheritance from our shared forefathers and the traditions that really do speak best of our country.

So, here’s the question. We got Iowa coming up, we got New Hampshire right on its ass. Do we sell it for electability? If Hitler were the only candidate, would voting for him be most American? Jump on a plane with me. Okay, we’re over the Middle East now…Let’s land. Take a deep breath.

Imagine the bodies, burned and mutilated, the concussive sounds of gunfire and explosives defining the last horrifying moments of the dying and the dead. Imagine the millions of refugees fleeing through the deserts of Iraq, the babies crying, and the stench of death in the air. Yuck. Let’s get back on the plane and head home.

Now, imagine American servicemen dead or broken, returning from a broken military to a silent casket or a broken veteran’s administration, to broken lives and broken businesses, broken wives, unspoken husbands, and devastated children. And what for? What have we gained?

Al-Qaida recruitment is up. Terrorism is up. Quality of life is down in our country and around the world. While the rich continue to get richer and the poor, poorer and more numerous. And on the verge of recession, we are witnessing the dramatic disassembling of the middle class amidst a flood of foreclosures and unpayable debts. To Osama Bin Laden’s infinite delight, we have become a country of principle breakers rather than principle bearers.

We are torturers and we too often, imprison only the weak. When our own administration chooses its bewilderingly un-American agenda (For the entitled people? By the entitled people?) over the Constitution in defining American values, principles, and law, Bin Laden laughs at the weakened sheep that we and our representatives have become.

High crimes and misdemeanors? How about full-blown treason for the outing our own CIA operatives? How about full-blown treason for those who support this administration through media propaganda?

While I’m not a proponent of the Death Penalty, existing law provides that the likes of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice, if found guilty, could have hoods thrown over their heads, their hands bound, facing a 12-man rifle corps executing death by firing squad. And our cowardly democratically dominated House and Senate can barely find one voice willing to propose so much as an impeachment. That one voice of a true American. That one voice of Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

This is not going to be a sound bite. Not if I can help it. I’m torn. I’m torn between the conventional wisdom of what we all keep being told is electibility and the idealism that perhaps alone can live up to the challenges of our generation. Of the democrats running for President, only Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s candidacy is backed by a voting record of moral courage and a history of service to our country that has fully earned our support and our gratitude. And when I say support, I am not speaking to democrats alone, but rather to every American who would take the time on behalf of their children, our planet, and our soldiers to educate themselves on the Kucinich platform.

In the recent debate among Democrats in Las Vegas, the candidates, one after the other, placed security ahead of human rights. Benjamin Franklin once said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Then, there was good ole Patrick Henry. Remember him? “Give me liberty, or give me death.” These were the real tough bastards. The real John Wayne’s.

These are the traditions we should be serving. I found the debate infuriating, nearly an argument for fascism with few exceptions, key among them Dennis Kucinich. Of course as a strategic politician, Mrs. Clinton pulled out her set of Ginzu knives and dominated once again on “centrist” political strategy. In fending off attacks upon she, the front runner, she reminded the audience and her fellow candidates, “We are all Democrats.”

Wolf Blitzer asked each candidate if they would support the other should they themselves not be the nominee. One after another, the answer, yes. One exception: Dennis Kucinich, who with the minimal time allotted him, once again rose up beyond the sound bite and put principal ahead of party; argued policy rather than politeness. He has been the dominant voice of integrity on issues of trade, labor, education, environment, health, civil liberties, and the one endlessly determined voice of peace.

But is he too short? Does his haircut not appeal? Is he not loyal enough to a cowardly democratic platform? Does he not appeal to the cult of personality? And what if the answer is yes? What if Dennis Kucinich, the most deserving and noble of candidates, the most experienced in issues of policy and the least willing to play into the politics of personal power? What if we can’t elect a man simply on the basis of the best ideas, the most courage, and the most selfless service? What does it say about our country when we can’t rally the voices of the common good to support a man, like our troops, who would die for us, who would die for our constitution? Who, as mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31 stood up against contracts on his life. Three separate assassins whose intent was to kill him as he stood up for his constituency there.

Nonetheless, he carries on. He continues to serve.

I’ve been a supporter of Dennis Kucinich for several years. And I’ve been torn lately. I’ve been torn by the allure of “electability.” I began to invest some support in a very good man (one among Dennis’s opponents) who seems to be finding himself as a constitutional defender, but he’s not one yet. He is however, among those that we allow the media to distinguish as electable. But we’re talking about the Constitution here. We’re talking about our country. I have decided not to participate in proactive support on the basis of media distinctions. I have chosen to pledge my support to the singular, strongest and most proven representative of our constitutional mandate.

Dennis Kucinich offers us a very singular opportunity as we share this minute of time on earth. We, the people. It is for us to determine what is electable. And here’s how simple it is: If we, those of us who truly believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, all of us, vote for Dennis Kucinich, he will be elected. Could we call him electable then? If so, America will stand taller than ever.

Let’s remind our friends in the social circles of New York and the highbrow winner-friendly and monied major cities that support Mrs. Clinton, that this is not Bill Clinton. For all the misgivings I have about our former President, he raised up friends and opposition alike, his great gift as a motivator of interest and activism, of self-education and participation was, on its own merits, a unique gift. But don’t underestimate personal agendas, those that initiated NAFTA, betrayed Haitian refugees and gay rights in the military within a minute of his own election. Don’t underestimate that part of him when he gives his wife the face of his talent. Don’t underestimate the damage her poisonous ambition can do to this country. We can’t wait for the benefit of hindsight to service the benefit of Mrs. Clinton’s career.

Let’s raise up men and women of vision, of integrity, of belief in our principles. How exciting would that be to do? How good would that be for television? What if we turned this game around? Imagine watching on television, our country raising up a leader because he represents our Constitution.

Yes, good things can be good TV.

So, let’s give the Constitution another read, shall we? And then decide who its greatest defender would be. I suggest that Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike will find that they know what’s really right in their hearts and minds.
http://www.counterpunch.org/penn12072007.html
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

This is way too rose colored for my taste, but it's well written and not entirely mirthless.

The Nation
diary of a mad law professor by Patricia J. Williams
The Audacity of Oprah

[from the December 24, 2007 issue]


This Christmas, the film The Great Debaters will come to theaters nationwide. Starring Denzel Washington and produced by Oprah Winfrey, it tells the story of an award-winning team of debaters from Wiley College, a small, historically black institution founded in 1873 and located in Marshall, Texas. In the 1930s the debate team, coached by poet Melvin Tolson, surpassed nearly every other team in the country in contests against universities as far-flung as the University of Southern California and Oxford. Nonetheless, the Wiley team was never officially accorded championship status because the national debate society of that day did not formally recognize black participation. Though unrewarded then, many of the graduates of Wiley's debate team went on to become the most eloquently influential movers in the civil rights movement, most notably James Farmer Jr., who founded the Congress of Racial Equality.

Recently the New York Times ran a front-page story titled For Struggling Black College, Hopes of Big-Screen Revival; it was about the effect that the film is having, even before its release, on Wiley College today. Wiley did not fare well through the 1980s and '90s and came very close to closing. Thanks to the glow of celebrity interest, however, the school's buildings have been handsomely refurbished, Wal-Mart has promised to set up a scholarship fund and enrollment has suddenly doubled. The Times story ends with a moving description of a young woman about to graduate, of her plans to attend medical school, of the room Wiley has given her to dream.

It's a feel-good story, no doubt: a very satisfying saga of the aspiring little engine that could, then did--and still had to wait all these years to be heralded for its remarkable accomplishment. It's also a story that plugs into a deeply iconic American narrative: the battered underdog picked up, brushed off and ultimately saved by the success of the spotlight--and nary a moment too soon. The story is also iconically American in the way it loops between reality and Hollywood dream. The real Wiley College gets legitimated in its educational mission by virtue of a fictionalized representation.

The role of media, particularly the entertainment media, in allowing us to understand our civic life is not to be underestimated. Great actors, great orators and great businessmen draw upon similar thespian skills--it's what makes them likable, salable, commercial. We Americans shovel money at those who can best perform our fantasies.

I say all this because I'm intrigued by the brouhaha attending Oprah Winfrey's decision to endorse Barack Obama's candidacy. The Internet is positively foaming at her decision to campaign for him. Celebrities--from Toby Keith to Sammy Davis Jr., from Barbra Streisand to Jon Bon Jovi--have always stumped for candidates, but a lot of people seem to feel that Oprah is different. She's not a background singer; she is no mere decorative backdrop. Oprah can turn a book into a bestseller!, fume the blogs. When she lends her magic touch, it's somehow complicated or even unfair. I suspect that some of the controversy comes from those who like Obama and don't relate to Oprah's television persona, or vice versa. But it's interesting to contemplate: what does it mean that some people are so concerned about whether this particular celebrity ought to express herself in the political realm?

In a very straightforward sense, it's no wonder that the Double O's are such an arresting team: one of the world's most influential black men links arms with the world's most powerful black woman, and together they sell out an 18,000-seat arena in Columbia, South Carolina, so fast that the computers crash. It's an unprecedented performance of black power in the heart of the old Confederacy. For someone who lived through the most hateful moments of the civil rights era, it's exhilarating and hopeful--and vaguely scary in the vertigo it induces.

From another perspective, to many people Oprah embodies a comforting sort of motherly everywoman, whose embrace has been perhaps too comfortably nonpartisan. If some part of her audience felt betrayed when she lost more weight than the average soccer mom, it stands to reason that they'll feel betrayed when she takes an overt stand in the political realm.

Beyond that, however, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama are indeed remarkable for how unstilted they are in the public arena. Like the Wiley College debate team of old, they defy the sideshow of the exceptionally "articulate" colored person. The two of them are our most fluent contemporary orators. They are brilliant speakers, easy with large audiences, and both have a talent for translating hard topics into lucid argument. There's good reason both Obama and Winfrey are so often described as trustworthy.

In addition, their particular form of raced celebrity enshrines the notion of American mobility at a moment when it is--in reality--sorely vexed. As I observed in an earlier column, Obama radiates a kind of hope that crosses the immigrant epic with a romantic desire for rainbow diversity. Similarly, Oprah is the black, female, Horatio Alger, rags-to-riches story of our day. From her humble beginnings as a traumatized little girl, albeit pluckier even than Orphan Annie (we Americans do love "pluck"), Oprah reinvented herself by sheer will and rose against all odds to the very top of the phantasmagorical bubble machine we call the entertainment industry. There's a general fear of, as well as attraction to, that bubble. Is the celebrity a platform or a dog-and-pony show? Is it serious debate or entertainment? How easy the purchase of cynicism.

But if we're lucky, maybe something enduring comes of artfully imagining our ideals. Maybe, as with Wiley College, that's how we escort them into renewed life. Maybe indeed it is not too much to hope that the redemptive power of an intelligent dream might reinvigorate the exhaustion of our embattled political landscape.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/williams
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

From the NY Daily News:

Stars urge President Bush to change policy on Cuba
Thursday, November 29th 2007, 4:00 AM

The list of names reads like a "Who's Who" of artists, performers, industry executives and scholars. And it keeps growing.

On Tuesday, they sent a letter to President Bush calling for an end to the ban on exchange between U.S. and Cuban artists.

"We are writing you as representatives of the cultural sphere in the U.S. We write you as American citizens. We write to express our dismay at your administration's continuing hostility towards Cuba," the letter said. "We write to express our opposition to policies that keep us divided from our Cuban counterparts."

Signed by actors Sean Penn and Danny Glover; author Alice Walker; singer Harry Belafonte; Ry Cooder, the musician who brought Buena Vista Social Club to the U.S.; Cuban-American novelist Cristina García and hundreds more, the document makes a powerful case.

It was inspired by a letter written by Alicia Alonso, Cuban prima ballerina of international fame and UNESCO goodwill ambassador.

"Let us work together so that Cuban artists and writers can take their talent to the United States," Alonso said in her letter, "and that you are not prevented to come to our Island to share your knowledge and values; so that a song, a book, a scientific study or a choreographic work are not considered, in an irrational way, as a crime."

Irrationality, though, has been the norm in our relations with Cuba for half a century.

During that time, U.S. policy towards the island has had as its centerpiece the longest and harshest embargo by one state against another in modern history. An embargo that began in 1961 was tightened in 1992 to make it illegal for U.S. subsidiaries in third countries to trade with Cuba, and tightened even further in 1996. It has never been worse than now.

Yet after 46 years, the embargo has succeeded only in making daily life more difficult for ordinary Cubans.

IN WHAT has become a predictable ritual, for 16 years, the world has sent Washington the same strong message: Drop the cruel trade embargo against Cuba.

Year after year, the UN General Assembly votes overwhelmingly to urge the U.S. to lift the embargo. But instead of heeding the UN call, or at least taking into account the overwhelming world opinion, the Bush administration has been steadily tightening the embargo.

Now Cuban-Americans can visit only very close family, and only every three years. Humanitarian travel, even to attend the funeral of a loved one, is prohibited.

The White House cannot be expected to pay attention to the letter's common-sense recommendations, worthy as they are.

The artists and scholars who signed the document are asking Washington for three very basic changes: First, open a respectful dialogue with the government and people of Cuba; second, end the travel ban; third, begin a process to develop normal relations.

For those who think that under a Democratic President things will be different, a word of caution: When it comes to Cuba, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and President Bush are ideological twins. She favors the embargo as it stands now, and if she is elected, do not expect any changes.

After 50 years of failure, no one can doubt that the country needs a new Cuba policy. Incredibly, after Bush is gone, we may still not get it.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

LOL. Thanks for the catch Cam. That's what 48 hours without sleep, studying for Con Law will do to you.
cam
Assistant
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Coquitlam BC Canada

Post by cam »

[Does Streisand even have any cache anymore? ]

I think you mean "cachet". A good word. "Cache" means " a hidden store." EVERYBODY's has visited Streisand's cache.




Edited By cam on 1196230122
Akash
Professor
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Akash »

Does Streisand even have any cachet anymore? Like isn't the average voter LESS likely to vote for Hillary with someone as unlikable as Babs endorsing her?



Edited By Akash on 1196282335
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

From the NY Times:


Streisand Endorses Clinton
By Katharine Q. Seelye
November 27, 2007

While Barbara Streisand has endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, she has given to other candidates, including John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama.

“Madame President of the United States,” Ms. Streisand wrote in a statement, “it’s an extraordinary thought.”
“We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman’s potential has no limitations,” she said. She said Mrs. Clinton has “transcended the dictates for what is thought to be possible for our time.”

The Hollywood diva’s endorsement is being rolled out just as plans are being made for Oprah Winfrey to make her first campaign appearance ever, on behalf of Barack Obama.

Ms. Streisand’s announcement today deepens the divide among Hollywood donors, many of whom are supporting Mr. Obama. While she is influential among those donors, it is unclear how much her endorsement will translate into votes.
Ms. Streisand likes to spread her wealth. In 2004, she gave to multiple Democrats, including John Edwards, who is running again this year, Howard Dean, who tripped in the early primaries, and John Kerry, who became the Democratic nominee but lost the election.

This year, she has given to an array of candidates — Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, Christopher Dodd and Mrs. Clinton.
But Ms. Streisand has always been a major backer of Bill Clinton. And as a promoter of women’s causes, it would have been surprising if she opted out of the chance to support a woman who, as she said in her statement today, “is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women.”
Her decision to take sides — as the race in the Iowa caucuses, less than six weeks away, appears to be a dead heat — may signal that other Hollywood types who have been playing the field are starting to feel the pressure to commit.
Meanwhile, look out, Ottumwa, the battle of the divas could be coming soon to your front porch.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

From Country Hound.com, here's a shocker:

MERLE HAGGARD ENDORSING HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

Stephen L. Betts

Merle Haggard has written a song endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. In a recent feature for Time magazine, Merle says that one of the biggest things Hillary has going for her is her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
“He cared about this country, about our problems," says Merle. “And I figure that whatever she doesn't know, he does.”

The new song is the first Merle has ever written in support of a political candidate.
==================================

From The Tennessean:

COUNTRY ARTISTS SUPPORT CANDIDATES IN BOTH PARTIES

By JENNIFER BROOKS
Staff Writer 10/28/07

Hollywood has a reputation for dabbling in politics, but Nashville stars do their fair share of politicking too.

Since 1992, donations to Democratic candidates have outnumbered Republicans by a ratio of three-to-one, due in part to six-figure donations from Bonnie Raitt, who, at best, falls into the Americana category. Even without Raitt's largess, Democratic-leaning artists come out slightly ahead in their political giving compared to their Republican counterparts.

The Dixie Chicks — whose anti-Bush remarks in 2003 sparked a harsh backlash among conservatives — give to Democrats. The Oak Ridge Boys give to Republicans. Dozens of singers and songwriters have given a combined $367,162 to political campaigns.

Fred Thompson's campaign has drawn the most interest and support from Music Row. In addition to John Rich, Cowboy Troy, Gretchen Wilson, Ronnie Dunn and Trace Adkins have donated the maximum, $2,300, to his primary campaign. Rich has gone a step beyond, touring with him through Iowa and the South, joining the campaign's Tennessee finance committee and planning to co-host a Thompson fundraiser in Dickson County on Nov. 8.

"I've had a lot of fans come up to me and ask, 'Why are you so hot on Fred Thompson,' " said Rich, a minister's son from Dickson County. "I tell them, I did my due diligence on all the candidates, I pulled up everything they ever voted on, and it became really clear to me that Fred Thompson is the only consistent conservative."

But the politics of country music spans the red state-blue state divide.

Willie Nelson supports Dennis Kucinich. Mitt Romney has Randy Owen in his corner. Raitt gave to both Kucinich and John Edwards. Randy Travis is a Bill Richardson fan.

Toby Keith, a lifelong Democrat, started giving to Republicans after 9/11. Merle Haggard wrote a campaign jingle this year for … Hillary Clinton?

"This country needs to be honest," Haggard sings in "Hillary," the single he introduced during a cross-country tour this year. "Changes need to be large/Something like a big switch of gender/Let's put a woman in charge."

Thunderstruck fans of the man who wrote the anti-hippy anthem, "Okie from Muskogee," greeted the new song with cheers and jeers when he sang it at a Seattle concert in March. Media there reported some people left the auditorium wondering if Merle was pulling their leg.

He wasn't.

"I might be biting myself in the leg here," Haggard said in an interview last week with National Public Radio, acknowledging that there isn't a lot of overlap between his fan base and Clinton's.

Haggard stops short of an actual endorsement of the Democratic senator from New York. But after a lifetime of voting Republican, Haggard has declared himself fed up with the war, with American jobs going overseas and with Wal-Mart replacing mom-and-pop shops. He says he's ready to vote for a Democrat.

"Things have changed around me," he said. "I still believe in my country, but I don't believe in some of the people running it."

The question is whether he speaks for his fans, too.

"In recent history, country music has been associated, fairly or unfairly, with Republican politics," said music industry historian John Dougan, a professor in the department of recording industry at Middle Tennessee State University.

In fact, the image of country music as a Republican anthem was so ingrained in the genre around the time of Toby Keith's 2003 album Shock'n Y'all that a group of artists and industry executives banded together to form the Music Row Democrats. They put together a compilation of protest songs and stumped for Democrat John Kerry.

"A lot of us felt the Democratic Party offered candidates more in line with the interests of country music fans. A lot of working-class folks in the South vote against their own interests," said songwriter Bobby Braddock, whose jukebox staples include Tammy Wynette's "D-I-V-O-R-C-E" and George Jones's "He Stopped Loving Her Today."

Dougan has noticed a growing willingness among artists to voice contrary opinions — such as Tim McGraw's criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Big Kenny Alphin waded into politics when he took an interest in the humanitarian crisis in Darfur — an interest he shares with Barack Obama. Alphin and his wife just returned from a trip to Sudan last week, delivering school and medical supplies and musical instruments to a school for girls orphaned in the conflict.

There are just as many committed Republicans. Sara Evans gave thousands to the GOP while she was married to Craig Schelske, a onetime Republican congressional candidate. Amy Grant has given almost $13,000 to Republican candidates and causes.

Cowboy Troy, aka Troy Coleman, spent long evenings talking politics with John Rich and Gretchen Wilson as they toured together. The new father of triplet sons said fatherhood inspired him to look for a presidential candidate who shared his conservative political and social values.

"Being a new father renews your sense of the future," Coleman said. "Fred Thompson believes what he says, and I believe what he's about."

A musician's politics don't usually have much to do with record sales. McGraw is a staunch Democrat. He and his wife, Faith Hill, gave $15,000 to the Democratic Party in the last election cycle — but not under their stage names. In campaign-finance documents, they are listed as Samuel and Audrey McGraw.

"Nobody has ever voted for a candidate because a celebrity endorsed them," he said. "Gretchen Wilson getting involved in the Thompson campaign isn't going to galvanize an army of Redneck Women of America to vote for him."

Nevertheless, a celebrity endorsement might make a country music fan give a candidate a second look.

It certainly might give red-state voters pause to hear Merle Haggard singing Hillary Clinton's praises. And Fred Thompson's low-key campaign style benefits from sharing the stage with a stars belting out high-energy hits like "Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" or "Redneck Woman."

Politics holds career risks

But mixing politics and entertainment can have drawbacks for the entertainers.

"As an entertainer, it's considered a risky thing to engage in politics," Rich said.

The Dixie Chicks learned that lesson in 2003, when lead singer Natalie Maines' criticism of President Bush sparked a furious backlash that prompted local radio stations to ban their songs and former fans to burn their CDs.

Rich got a taste of those risks this week. During an appearance as a political commentator on Nashville's The Steve Gill Show, Rich launched into a detailed explanation of why he opposes gay marriage.

"I think if you legalize that, you've got to legalize some other things that are pretty unsavory," he said Wednesday. "You can call me a radical, but how can you tell an aunt that she can't marry her nephew if they are really in love and sharing the bills? How can you tell them that they can't get married, but something else that's unnatural can happen?"

Rich's remarks might have been a hit with Gill's conservative listeners, but some fans of his music, which has enjoyed broad crossover appeal, were less than charmed.

By Friday, Rich issued a statement clarifying his views, urging tolerance.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

That the FEC has to determine whether this is a parody campaign or not says volumes about the lack of intelligence of this country.

I've talked to people who think he's running a serious campaign. What an embarrassment.


No Joke: Colbert's Campaign May Run Afoul of Law
Campaign Finance Law May Spoil Comedian's Fun
By RICK KLEIN


Oct. 24, 2007—

With its snack-food sponsorship, Democratic and Republican affiliations, and Sen. Larry Craig as a possible running mate, Stephen Colbert's run for the presidency is hardly serious business.

But the joke could be on Colbert if federal election officials decide his candidacy is for real.

If his campaign plays out the way he's indicated that it will, Comedy Central and Colbert's sponsor, Doritos, could be violating federal laws that bar corporations from backing political campaigns, election law experts say.

"How serious can you get about running as a joke?" said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finances. "The Federal Election Commission doesn't have a great sense of humor."

Feds May Take Colbert Seriously

Federal law bars corporations from contributing to candidates, either through donations or in-kind contributions such as free use of goods or services.

Media organizations are permitted to feature presidential candidates in covering campaigns.

But no precedent exists for a television network promoting and fostering a candidacy of one of its own talk-show hosts, said Lawrence M. Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. And comedian Pat Paulsen's 1968 candidacy predated current campaign finance regulations.

"The real problem comes in the fact that he actually has his own show, talking about his campaign, paid for by a network," Noble said. "These are the kind of things on slow days you'd debate until the late afternoon at the FEC, but there are serious questions that come up. In theory, he could end up having some campaign finance problems."

While he has talked about his candidacy publicly only in character -- as the combative faux-talk-show host who favors "truthiness" on "The Colbert Report" -- Colbert is taking formal steps that are consistent with an actual presidential candidacy.

He has begun collecting signatures to get himself placed on both the Democratic and Republican presidential primary ballots in South Carolina.

And while he has said he's in the race to run, not to win, he has talked about trying to win delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

"I think a lot of people are asking whether -- they say, 'Is this, is this real,' you know?" Colbert said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And to which I would say to everybody, this is not a dream, OK? You're not going to wake up from this, OK? I'm far realer than Sam Brownback, let me put it that way."

2008 Brought to You By...
After being alerted to a possible election law violation, he and the network dropped plans to post signature forms on Comedy Central's Web site, and instead created a bare-bones Web site for official campaign activity, www.colbert08.org.

On Thursday's program, he held up what he said was a letter from a Washington election lawyer, and made the legal framework part of his schtick.

"In accepting corporate money, I promise to respect federal election laws the same way I respect the must-shower-before-swimming law at the Y," Colbert said. "As a candidate, I am under no obligation to promote the zesty, robust taste of Doritos brand tortilla chips, regardless of how great a snack they may be for lunchtime, munch time, anytime."

He also said that, because of election laws, Doritos would technically be sponsoring not his candidacy but his program's coverage of his candidacy.

"It's illegal for my crunch money here to pay for the campaign, but it is legal for it to pay for my show, and the show can report on my campaign," he said. "Host: 'Eat them.' Candidate: 'I just happen to like 'em.' "

But even if Doritos has found a way around the ban on corporate donations, that doesn't address the issue of Comedy Central's promotion of a candidacy.

Noble said it would pretty clearly violate the law for the owner of a cable station to decide to give a talk show -- or otherwise hand over editorial control of a program -- to a favored candidate.

Comedy Central representatives did not immediately return calls seeking comment

Colbert's Cash Flow

Noble said that one key threshold for the FEC to consider will be whether he's an actual candidate for federal office. By one definition, a candidate is anyone who has raised or spent at least $5,000 to pursue office, Noble said.

No danger there yet for Colbert. As he put it Thursday, he has raised "zero-point-no-million dollars" for his campaign.

"As a practical matter, I'd think the FEC is going to stay out of it unless he starts soliciting a lot of money," Noble said. "If he was to start soliciting contributions, it could be a lot more serious."

The FEC could consider Colbert's entire campaign satire, which may allow corporate backing under the exemption that allows media organizations to report and comment on candidates as they choose.

But Colbert's continued candidacy makes it more likely that he'll actually have an impact on the election -- which makes him difficult to ignore, Noble said.

"Everybody is very cautious, not wanting to take this too seriously, or to say that campaign finance laws are going to stop satire, or what is clearly a joke," he said. "But he's trying to get on the ballot, and he could in fact affect the election."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

From My Direct Democracy:

Did Obama Just Lose The Gay Vote?
by Todd Beeton, Oct 22, 2007

What's worse than saying you think homosexuality is a choice?

This:

Barack Obama is drawing fire for including Donnie McClurkin, a Grammy-winning gospel singer who has crusaded against homosexuality, on a concert and political tour that the Democratic presidential candidate will launch in South Carolina later this week.

Wikipedia elaborates on what makes McClurkin so offensive:


He states that homosexuality is a spiritual issue, from which one can be delivered from by the power and grace of God. In his book, Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor (ISBN 1-56229-162-9), he writes: "The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."[6] He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became "a saved and sanctified man".

A firestorm has been growing steadily over the past few days. At HuffPo this weekend, political analyst and author Earl Ofari Hutchinson called on Obama to "cancel and repudiate" the gospel tour and Truth Wins Out has called on Senator Obama to "distance himself" from McClurkin. To try and mitigate some of the fall-out, Obama has released this statement, which denounces McClurkin but stops short of removing him from the tour:

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."


Chicago Tribune's The Swamp does a good job of explaining the tightrope Obama is walking and why it's politically perilous both to keep McClurkin on the tour and to let him go:


One gay activist involved with the Obama campaign said the situation puts the candidate in a bind, since he risks offending evangelicals in South Carolina if he cancels McClurkin's appearance but could alienate gay supporters if the performance proceeds as planned.

"This story is quickly turning into a disaster for Barack," said the supporter who is active on gay and lesbian issues. "He's screwed if he goes through with the trip with Donnie McClurkin....But he's also screwed in South Carolina if he dumps McClurkin. I hope that the staffer who set this up has already been fired."


Even so, the question remains whether this statement will be enough to pacify those in the gay community for whom this could be a dealbreaker. John Aravosis for one is not even close to being satisfied by the statement.

Obama's outreach to the black evangelical community is admirable and could reap benefits for the Democratic Party in the long-run but this conflict in values that has emerged between Obama's own base and those of this prominent figure whose base Obama is courting can't have come as a shock to the campaign. The paradox of running a campaign based on inclusion is that you're more than likely going to alienate somebody at some point based on who you're including, unless of course you're experienced and skilled enough to avoid those landmines. And I have to say, whether or not you feel the inclusion of McClurkin in this fundraiser for Obama is a deal breaker, Obama's inability to avoid this foreseeable bump in the road at the very least contributes to the growing crisis in confidence people seem to be feeling about Obama lately (see the results of the latest DailyKos straw poll for the most recent evidence of this.)
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

anonymous wrote:Stephen Colbert to run for president.

If I was American, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Stephen Colbert Moves Ahead of Richardson, Closes in on Biden, in National Poll!

editorandpublisher.com

Published: October 22, 2007


NEW YORK He's been "in" the race for less than a week, and already faux-pundit Stephen Colbert has surged ahead of longtime candidate Gov. Bill Richardson in one national poll gauging the race for the Democratic nod for president. And watch out Joe Biden!

The Public Opinion Strategies poll this past weekend of 1,000 likely primary voters that included Colbert's name -- as both a Democrat and Republican, as he wishes --- found him drawing 2.3 percent in the Dem race nationally (though he is threatening to run only in his native South Carolina).

This put his ahead of Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucininch (2.1) and, of course, Sen. Mike Gravel. And he trails Sen. Biden by just a tad (he's at 2.7 percent).

Of course he has a long way to go to catch up with the three frontrunners (you know who they are).

But Colbert fares less well among his natural constituency on the GOP side, where he draws less than one percent.

The poll was first noted by The Fix blog at www.washingtonpost.com.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”