Old and busted politics thread

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:56:47

BuddyGroom wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:Jon Voight, Dennis Miller, Bruce Willis, Joe Pesci, Sylvester Stallone , Curt Schilling, Danny Aiello, Mel Gibson, Tom Clancy. There are others, but these are the ones that I could think of off the top of my head..

Given how the right responds when a celebrity goes their way, it's not that they don't like celebrities involved in politics, it's that they don't like celebrities involved in politics when they are helping the other side.
So the real main difference is that the dems don't embrace celebrities and then complain when reps do it. Only one group is being hypocritical.

Very good explanation. If Hollywood was monolithically conservative, of course you wouldn't hear conservative pundits sneering about dilettante movie and TV stars interjecting their opinions into politics.

Other right-leaning celebrities: Shannon Doherty, Cheryl Ladd, Dennis Hopper, Ric Flair (yeah, he's just a wrestler but don't underestimate his influence in the Carolinas), pretty much any mainstream country music star you can name, pretty much everyone in NASCAR, most of your politically active NFL and MLB folks (Tom Brady and Al Leiter, for instance), Bo Derek, John Malkovich, Robert Evans, the producer of "24", Jessica Simpson, Ron Silver, Sammy Hagar, Ted Nugent.

It's a list that is plenty long, if not overweight with A-list or of-the-moment types.

Don't forget Patricia Heaton.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:12:20

Monkeyboy wrote:So the real main difference is that the dems don't embrace celebrities and then complain when reps do it. Only one group is being hypocritical.

It's just like anything else in politics. Lefty heads explode at the mention of Fox News. But they're happy to have MSNBC trotting out Olbermann and whatnot.

Everyone is hypocritical about everything when they are partisan.

by **CMD** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:38:16

I'm not sure who came out ahead after the debate last night. I think Obama needed to distance himself from Clinton...he didn't really do that (w/ exception to differences on Iraq and mandating change). Clinton really helped herself as coming across as warm and personable, something she rarely does. The tone of the debate benefited her more, IMO.

I am really having a difficult time this late in the game in selecting a candidate. I lean towards Obama as I see him as less polarizing/more electable in the general election, as much as I like Clinton. I am also concerned w/ Republicans retaking Congress if she is elected...it gives them something to rally around.

With regards to the dream ticket, I do not think Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama is it...I think Obama/Gore, Clinton/Gore would be the real dream ticket. I don't think Clinton/Gore would ever happen.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 13:09:03

VoxOrion wrote:From FirstRead

Post-mortem preview? With Mitt Romney on the ropes, the post-mortems are inevitable; call them O-Mitt-uaries. Anyway, we're starting to hear from a lot of smart Republican strategists about what happened. And the thing that everyone seems to come back to is Romney's religion. Why? Ask yourself: Without the issue of Romney's religion, does Mike Huckabee ever take off? Because Mike Huckabee is the single biggest obstacle to Romney coalescing economic and social conservatives behind him to take on McCain. Take a close look at the Florida results by county from Tuesday night. In more than half of Florida's 67 counties (37 to be exact), the Romney-Huckabee combined vote total equaled or surpassed 50%. And in those counties, 17 of them tipped to McCain. Well, extrapolate this out to, say, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee or Georgia this Tuesday. Will the combined Romney-Huck total surpass 50% while delivering all four states to McCain? Now, if Romney hadn't given evangelicals second thoughts simply over his religion, would Mike Huckabee have happened? It may be Romney needs another four years to convince evangelicals his religion won't interfere with their priorities.

I don't buy this. I don't buy the fact that Huck's brief surge had anything to do with evangelicals' second thoughts about Romney's Mormonism. Huck's surge had a lot to do with his at first glance looking fresh and new--that is, being an unknown, his charismatic authenticity, and his saying things that lots of populist Republicans liked at first.

Romney's possible failure to gain the nomination had to do with his lack of retail political experience, the fact that he was from Massachusetts, and the fact that he reminds voters of John Kerry.

by **TheDude24** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 13:31:56

CMD wrote:With regards to the dream ticket, I do not think Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama is it...I think Obama/Gore, Clinton/Gore would be the real dream ticket. I don't think Clinton/Gore would ever happen.

Why would Gore want to be Vice President again? Unless you mean Tipper.

by **CMD** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 14:01:19

TheDude24 wrote:
CMD wrote:With regards to the dream ticket, I do not think Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama is it...I think Obama/Gore, Clinton/Gore would be the real dream ticket. I don't think Clinton/Gore would ever happen.

Why would Gore want to be Vice President again? Unless you mean Tipper.

Not saying he would want to, just saying Obama/Gore would be a pretty sweet ticket. We have heard a lot of lip service given to energy/environment concerns over the past eight years. It would be nice to have someone near the top who is actually concerned as most Americans are and not in bed w/ oil interests. Maybe that is a pipe dream but it would be nice.

by **pacino** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 16:29:32

Vox/DSP or DSP/Vox?

by **CMD** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 16:31:05

Not that anyone cares, but Coulter is endorsing Clinton over McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/

by **traderdave** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 16:46:10

CMD wrote:Not that anyone cares, but Coulter is endorsing Clinton over McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/

Stunning. :roll: Anyway, I'm curious what you guys think about Joe Biden? I know he flopped in the primaries but he never really had much of a chance.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 16:53:41

CMD wrote:Not that anyone cares, but Coulter is endorsing Clinton over McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/

Coulter is a me-first attention whore. When people were like, "Oh my, how can she call John Edwards that? Conservatives are evil!" I was thinking, no, she just said it because she knew it would get her on TV more. Same thing here.

by **Macho Row** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:01:12

Thought that this was an interesting read. It looks at the 22 Super Tuesday states considering things like demographics, early voting periods, and recent polls. Sort of gives a breakdown of how the delegate count could look after Tuesday.

It's from Daily Kos and may be a little optimistic for Obama, but I think it's a pretty good way to get an understanding of what can happen and that there's the distinct possibility that neither candidate separates from the other. Any thoughts?

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:09:45

traderdave wrote: I'm not sure Obama would agree to be Clinton VP; wouldn't that essentially mean no presidential run for him until 2016?

Yeh, but he wouldn't get to make a presidential run anyway if Clinton is President because she would be the nominee (and likely winner given the advantages the incumbant has). If he's her VP, then he gains some executive and foreign policy experience, and avoids spending 8 more years in the Senate, which is where presidential hopefuls go to die. The downside is that usually the electorate is ready for a change after 8 years and he might have trouble running from the VP spot if people want change. JMO.

by **CMD** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:11:22

Very interesting numbers in NY. I'd call it a "win" for Obama if he can get ~ 40-45% there. I had no idea he was near 40%.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:16:53

Monkeyboy wrote:
traderdave wrote: I'm not sure Obama would agree to be Clinton VP; wouldn't that essentially mean no presidential run for him until 2016?

Yeh, but he wouldn't get to make a presidential run anyway if Clinton is President because she would be the nominee (and likely winner given the advantages the incumbant has). If he's her VP, then he gains some executive and foreign policy experience, and avoids spending 8 more years in the Senate, which is where presidential hopefuls go to die. The downside is that usually the electorate is ready for a change after 8 years and he might have trouble running from the VP spot if people want change. JMO.

Obama's different enough from Hillary that I can easily see him running a successful 2016 campaign as Hillary's veep.

I don't think Hillary is likely to pick someone who will overshadow her as her veep though.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:19:28

Macho Row wrote:Thought that this was an interesting read. It looks at the 22 Super Tuesday states considering things like demographics, early voting periods, and recent polls. Sort of gives a breakdown of how the delegate count could look after Tuesday.

It's from Daily Kos and may be a little optimistic for Obama, but I think it's a pretty good way to get an understanding of what can happen and that there's the distinct possibility that neither candidate separates from the other. Any thoughts?

Honestly, I don't know enough about how the Dems break out their delegates to know if all of that is super accurate.

I do think they're reading too much into Ted Kennedy supporting Obama.

In any case, an impressive work product. I wish the right had a Daily Kos.

by **dajafi** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:22:13

I think we're almost at the point where HRC would pick Obama as her running mate--if only to increase the odds of holding on to the young voters and Dem-leaning indies whom he's brought into the tent. Though I agree with jerseyhoya that the Clintons would be scared of being upstaged--and Obama probably is sharp enough to realize that with Billy Boy running around, the VP job reverts to John Nance Garner's description... if that.

No way he'd pick her--maybe Sebelius or Napolitano, more likely a tough old white guy like Webb or Biden.

by **Macho Row** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 17:52:19

Here's something that mentions some possibilities on running mates for the "Final Four".

McCain: Huckabee, Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, SC Gov. Mark Sanford, and SD Sen. John Thune

Romney: RI Gov. Don Carcieri, Sanford, and former MO Sen. Jim Talent

Clinton: IN Sen. Evan Bayh, Wesley Clark, Edwards, Richardson, OH Gov. Ted Strickland, and former IA Gov. Tom Vilsack

Obama: Former SD Sen. Tom Daschle, Edwards, VA Gov. Tim Kaine, MO Sen. Claire McCaskill, KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 18:15:40

VoxOrion wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:None of this gets to the question I posed - why are liberals so attached to celebrities and comedians? It's not a question of hypocracy, the argument is always about the cultural influence within entertainment.

I tried to address that, but obviously failed. I don't think lefties are any more attached to celebrities than righties. There are more liberal stars in Hollywood than conservative ones, so it may seem like there's more of an interest from lefties, but I don't think that's the case. If a conservative celebrity shows up at a GOP event, the crowd gets just as excited about the celebrity as the lefties do at a Dem event. What are you basing this on?

No - I get your point - I think I was thrown off by the last bit (being hypocritical - in another post I described why I don't think that's the issue). I think dajafi probably made my observation make more sense when he mentioned the equal attraction thing.

I also probably answered my own question a bit when I mentioned the cultural domination vs. hypocracy - perhaps I should have mused as to why are so many entertainers are liberal.

I think you're saying that if the majority of stand up comedians, daytime talk show hosts, movie stars, etc were conservatives conservatives would love on them just as much just as much as liberals love on their equivalents. I can't disagree with that.

I confused myself for a moment too when I got off on that tangent. I should pay more attention. I've got to concentrate....concentrate. I've got to concentrate...concentrate.... concentrate.... Hello?... hello... hello... Echo... echo... echo... pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon, Manny Mota..Mota...Mota....

by **TheDude24** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 18:39:34

jerseyhoya wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:
traderdave wrote: I'm not sure Obama would agree to be Clinton VP; wouldn't that essentially mean no presidential run for him until 2016?

Yeh, but he wouldn't get to make a presidential run anyway if Clinton is President because she would be the nominee (and likely winner given the advantages the incumbant has). If he's her VP, then he gains some executive and foreign policy experience, and avoids spending 8 more years in the Senate, which is where presidential hopefuls go to die. The downside is that usually the electorate is ready for a change after 8 years and he might have trouble running from the VP spot if people want change. JMO.

Obama's different enough from Hillary that I can easily see him running a successful 2016 campaign as Hillary's veep.

I don't think Hillary is likely to pick someone who will overshadow her as her veep though.

As far as her getting my vote, having Obama as her VP may be the only way I'd vote for her, if it's her against Romney. If she's up against McCain I'd still vote for her, I think.

by **Bakestar** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 19:26:57

Good Lord who would let Tom Daschle near a Presidential ticket? That guy is as useless as tits on a bull.

Archived

Old and busted politics thread