Oprah balks at Hosting Palin

[less0305]

Many other intelligence agencies throughout the world believed Saddam had WMD and was continuing his build-up of them. The German, French and Japanese intelligence agencies, along with the United Nations, and even Bill Clinton during and after his administration, all believed there were WMD in Iraq. I don't think President Bush lied about anything, he based his decisions on all the information he was given, as did Congress.

Back to Oprah. I remember seeing footage of Cameron Diaz on Oprah's show before the 2004 election. Cameron, almost in tears, looked at the audience and claimed that the Republican party was going to make rape legal, and she told the audience that if they wanted rape to become legal, not to vote. Most celebrities do Democratic candidates no favors, IMO. And, replying to one of the posts above, I don't think most outspoken celebrities are articulate when they discuss politics. To me they sound pretty hateful, and ignorant yet arrogant. Also, they tend to use sound bites out of context, and they don't seem to do much research. They are especially annoying around election time.

Excellent post!!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[eve]

People tend to listen to celebrities for a number of reasons, and here are just a few:

-Celebrities tend to be far better-informed than the typical citizen. I'm not saying that they always are, but when you consider how ill-informed most voters are, the average television "bimbo" is a political genius in comparison. There are voters out there who still can't locate Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan on a blank world map, who can't even name the justices of the Supreme Court, who are too lazy (or "busy") to crack open government reports such as the 911 report... I could go on. Celebs typically have the free time, resources, and connections to investigate, research, and travel to see/experience for themselves. The guitarist for Queen is an astrophysicist on the side, for instance- an education he could easily afford in terms of cost and time.

-Celebrities are for the most part articulate, much more so than the average political activist. Again, not always, but there is that tendency, especially in Hollywood, where speaking in a practiced manner is a large part of the job.

-Celebs often have a very unique and different way of looking at things, and often that's what's made them popular. They have the opportunity to meet people, discuss things, and gain insights that most of us will never have.

-Celebs often have a strong set of skills in terms of personal success- that driving force that makes them get up and try again after a long series of failures. For ever "instant rock superstar" there are many more musicians who are quite satisfied with their success, attained only through thousands of major projects and works. Frank Zappa was a musical genius, and combined with his strong personal moral ethics, it gave him a strong foundation upon which to build his witty and often hilarious social commentary.

I guess it bugs me when people sigh and say "Hollywood" and roll their eyes, when the people that they roll their eyes at often know what they're talking about. For instance, punk rocker Henry Rollins. He travels extensively, and has spent a lot of time wandering around Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, not just for the USO but on his own as well. He's spent a lot of time in military hospitals and bases, and when he talks about politics, he speaks from a very informed perspective.

I think it all comes back to one of America's most core values: deep down, we do not want leaders who are as intelligent as the guy who mops the floor at McDonalds. As we saw in the last presidential election...

MOO

Your post reflects the thinking that gives celebrities such a captive and gullible audience, imo.

Celebs are not better informed about BEING an average citizen, that's my big issue with them. Those who remember being an average citizen seem to be few and far between. Although my opinion is that they often display merely average intelligence at best, masked by celebrity.

They do have a unique way of looking at things because many of them simply do not venture out of their own little worlds very often. They might as well be on another planet. Their money makes them lose touch with the concerns that drive average Americans. Nice job if you can get get it.

I enjoy celeb watching, movies, entertainment, admire their skill (when they have skill) and do not resent them or dislike them as a group, but I certainly do not think they are any more qualified to speak about politics than any American. I take their political views with a grain of salt because they are simply on a different playing field because of their wealth and because too often they reside in la-la land. I am somewhat repelled when they cash in on their celebrity to present themselves as political experts, but also know they have as much right to speak as anyone.

I just wish audiences would recognize that the platform celebrities have received to speak politically was not usually earned through their political knowledge or necessarily, through first-hand life experience with the issues affecting most voters and weigh their views accordingly.

I think your comment about the McDonald's employee was very telling and rude, btw. Are you a celebrity yourself? Interesting you made the reference in the same paragraph where you referred to America's core values.
Wow.


Eve

 

[robinparten]

Your post reflects the thinking that gives celebrities such a captive and gullible audience, imo.

Celebs are not better informed about BEING an average citizen, that's my big issue with them. Those who remember being an average citizen seem to be few and far between. Although my opinion is that they often display merely average intelligence at best, masked by celebrity.

They do have a unique way of looking at things because many of them simply do not venture out of their own little worlds very often. They might as well be on another planet. Their money makes them lose touch with the concerns that drive average Americans. Nice job if you can get get it.

I enjoy celeb watching, movies, entertainment, admire their skill (when they have skill) and do not resent them or dislike them as a group, but I certainly do not think they are any more qualified to speak about politics than any American. I take their political views with a grain of salt because they are simply on a different playing field because of their wealth and because too often they reside in la-la land. I am somewhat repelled when they cash in on their celebrity to present themselves as political experts, but also know they have as much right to speak as anyone.

I just wish audiences would recognize that the platform celebrities have received to speak politically was not usually earned through their political knowledge or necessarily, through first-hand life experience with the issues affecting most voters and weigh their views accordingly.

I think your comment about the McDonald's employee was very telling and rude, btw. Are you a celebrity yourself? Interesting you made the reference in the same paragraph where you referred to America's core values.
Wow.


Eve

Great post, Eve, and I agree completely.

 

[southcitymom]

Your post reflects the thinking that gives celebrities such a captive and gullible audience, imo.

Celebs are not better informed about BEING an average citizen, that's my big issue with them. Those who remember being an average citizen seem to be few and far between. Although my opinion is that they often display merely average intelligence at best, masked by celebrity.

They do have a unique way of looking at things because many of them simply do not venture out of their own little worlds very often. They might as well be on another planet. Their money makes them lose touch with the concerns that drive average Americans. Nice job if you can get get it.

I enjoy celeb watching, movies, entertainment, admire their skill (when they have skill) and do not resent them or dislike them as a group, but I certainly do not think they are any more qualified to speak about politics than any American. I take their political views with a grain of salt because they are simply on a different playing field because of their wealth and because too often they reside in la-la land. I am somewhat repelled when they cash in on their celebrity to present themselves as political experts, but also know they have as much right to speak as anyone.

I just wish audiences would recognize that the platform celebrities have received to speak politically was not usually earned through their political knowledge or necessarily, through first-hand life experience with the issues affecting most voters and weigh their views accordingly.

I think your comment about the McDonald's employee was very telling and rude, btw. Are you a celebrity yourself? Interesting you made the reference in the same paragraph where you referred to America's core values.
Wow.


Eve

:blowkiss: Eve. I actually liked alot of what Marauder had to say (and agreed with much of it) until the McDonald's line, which I too found condescending to the nth degree. My first job was mopping floors at Burger King....sigh! I'm even stupider today than I was then! Damn children.

 

[southcitymom]

Matt Damon's take on things - video.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420621,00.html

As I have stated before, it doesn't bother me a bit when celebs speak out politically. I'm just posting this video to stir up trouble!:crazy:

 

[eve]

:blowkiss: Eve. I actually liked alot of what Marauder had to say (and agreed with much of it) until the McDonald's line, which I too found condescending to the nth degree. My first job was mopping floors at Burger King....sigh! I'm even stupider today than I was then! Damn children.

Hi south:blowkiss:

I certainly understand what Maruder was saying insofar as celebs being articulate for the most part (some major exceptions lol), and able to spend time and resources on their interests and causes.

I just find them no more "intelligent" or qualified to evaluate political issues than most of us, especially issues which seem not to affect them, and those issues are often the very ones they are most vocal about, which I confess, annoys me no end. The ones who have been persistent after failures and have reached success are people I admire and there are many of those.

There are also quite a few who say they are apt to keep their mouths shut about their politics because they know they will lose roles or be unable to get projects off the ground if they don't. It is said some very heavy hitters produce their own projects because they are out of favor with the party politique in Hollywood. The ones I can think of are perfectly able to do so, they have the money, they back their pet projects - that's a-ok.

I bring it up only to point out that celebrities speaking out politically aren't always greeted kindly. I have even heard some who are "politically incorrect" don't get roles and I think that is sad. I'm not sure of many professions where politics plays such a role, but maybe I am wrong about that.

Eve

 

[Kiki]

People tend to listen to celebrities for a number of reasons, and here are just a few:

-Celebrities tend to be far better-informed than the typical citizen. I'm not saying that they always are, but when you consider how ill-informed most voters are, the average television "bimbo" is a political genius in comparison. There are voters out there who still can't locate Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan on a blank world map, who can't even name the justices of the Supreme Court, who are too lazy (or "busy") to crack open government reports such as the 911 report... I could go on. Celebs typically have the free time, resources, and connections to investigate, research, and travel to see/experience for themselves. The guitarist for Queen is an astrophysicist on the side, for instance- an education he could easily afford in terms of cost and time.

-Celebrities are for the most part articulate, much more so than the average political activist. Again, not always, but there is that tendency, especially in Hollywood, where speaking in a practiced manner is a large part of the job.

-Celebs often have a very unique and different way of looking at things, and often that's what's made them popular. They have the opportunity to meet people, discuss things, and gain insights that most of us will never have.

-Celebs often have a strong set of skills in terms of personal success- that driving force that makes them get up and try again after a long series of failures. For ever "instant rock superstar" there are many more musicians who are quite satisfied with their success, attained only through thousands of major projects and works. Frank Zappa was a musical genius, and combined with his strong personal moral ethics, it gave him a strong foundation upon which to build his witty and often hilarious social commentary.

I guess it bugs me when people sigh and say "Hollywood" and roll their eyes, when the people that they roll their eyes at often know what they're talking about. For instance, punk rocker Henry Rollins. He travels extensively, and has spent a lot of time wandering around Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, not just for the USO but on his own as well. He's spent a lot of time in military hospitals and bases, and when he talks about politics, he speaks from a very informed perspective.

I think it all comes back to one of America's most core values: deep down, we do not want leaders who are as intelligent as the guy who mops the floor at McDonalds. As we saw in the last presidential election...

MOO

Celebrities are more articulate and better informed? That is not true. I fail to see how having your own reality show, being able to sing or act, strutting about in designer clothes, being photographed in an evening gown at an awards show or snapped by the paparazzi stumbling into a limo with cocaine reside in your nostrils demonstrates high intelligence.

They do get to meet lots of people. That is true. However, a lot of these people are paid yes-men or yes-women telling them how wonderful and talented they are because they work for them, wish to promote their latest film or want them to wear their latest line of clothing. Alternatively, some of the people they meet are fans who gaze adoringly at them and ask for their autograph. This does not make them more well rounded individuals. Teachers meet and talk to a lot of different people as do doctors, counsellers and people who volunteer to do charity work abroad.

Some celebrities do make an effort to improve the lives of others and campaign for charitable causes. For that I applaud them. Nonetheless they should stay out of politics. If they are ardent supporters of a particular party or candidate they can volunteer quietly behind the scenes. They can fold fliers or contribute financially to their campaign.

Personally, I would much rather listen to the political viewpoint of a fast food worker than a celebrity. They know hard work and financial struggle far better than the rich and famous. Many of them are trying to put themselves through school or have more than one job. They know far more about the issues affecting the average citizen than those earning millions of dollars for several months work.

SouthCityMom, I don't know how I feel about ministers and churches taking political stances. If issues like abortion and stem cell research that are anathema to some faiths are involved I can understand a church taking a stand and supporting the candidate or party who is in line with their views. But if no issues are involved that violate their beliefs they should butt out. I can understand the view of those who believe religion should stay put of politics. It is a difficult issue. BTW - I like how you sometimes ask people to explain why their views on different issues. People should be able to articulate their views and be open to questioning their beliefs. Often someone asking questions can make us see issues in a new light and raise points we had not yet thought about. :clap: SouthCityMom

 

[EntreNous]

Many other intelligence agencies throughout the world believed Saddam had WMD and was continuing his build-up of them. The German, French and Japanese intelligence agencies, along with the United Nations, and even Bill Clinton during and after his administration, all believed there were WMD in Iraq. I don't think President Bush lied about anything, he based his decisions on all the information he was given, as did Congress.

Back to Oprah. I remember seeing footage of Cameron Diaz on Oprah's show before the 2004 election. Cameron, almost in tears, looked at the audience and claimed that the Republican party was going to make rape legal, and she told the audience that if they wanted rape to become legal, not to vote. Most celebrities do Democratic candidates no favors, IMO. And, replying to one of the posts above, I don't think most outspoken celebrities are articulate when they discuss politics. To me they sound pretty hateful, and ignorant yet arrogant. Also, they tend to use sound bites out of context, and they don't seem to do much research. They are especially annoying around election time.

Yes, well there always are the Cameron Diazs', the Charro's, and to be fair, the Matthew McConoughey's of the world. Not everyone is very articulate. Why, George W. Bush is a fine example of being inarticulate.

But looking back on it, it's frightening just how close to home Cameron actually was, bless her little bombshell heart.

Since that 2004 election it's been revealed that republicans sent dirty e-mails to young male pages and had improper conduct with male pages, (at least one was a 16 year old boy). It is believed to have contributed to the Republican Party's loss of control over Congress in late 2006. Republicans have also solicited sex from male prostitutes, and made passes in airport bathroom stalls. Maybe not quite rape, but if you want to deal in truth, Cameron was trying to talk about a woman's right to choose and was referring to rape in the sense of women losing that right to their bodies. So, you actually took the quote out of context. Nevertheless, lewd conduct with a child is pretty damning.

And let's not even get into the wonderful Reverend Ted Haggard, George Bush's confidant and religious advisor. Instrumental in rallying the mega churches behind the Bush campaign of 2004, President Bush consulted with the evangelical preacher every single Monday without fail. No pastor in America held more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism. That is until he was busted.

 

[EntreNous]

Just curious - do you consider it an abuse of power when a pastor or minister takes a political stand? I actually find that fairly stomach-turning, though again - I think I understand why they do it - certainly I find it much more revolting than a movie star mouthing off. JMHO!

I couldn't agree more!!!

 

[robinparten]

Yes, well there always are the Cameron Diazs', the Charro's, and to be fair, the Matthew McConoughey's of the world. Not everyone is very articulate. Why, George W. Bush is a fine example of being inarticulate.

But looking back on it, it's frightening just how close to home Cameron actually was, bless her little bombshell heart.

Since that 2004 election it's been revealed that republicans sent dirty e-mails to young male pages and had improper conduct with male pages, (at least one was a 16 year old boy). It is believed to have contributed to the Republican Party's loss of control over Congress in late 2006. Republicans have also solicited sex from male prostitutes, and made passes in airport bathroom stalls. Maybe not quite rape, but if you want to deal in truth, Cameron was trying to talk about a woman's right to choose and was referring to rape in the sense of women losing that right to their bodies. So, you actually took the quote out of context. Nevertheless, lewd conduct with a child is pretty damning.

And let's not even get into the wonderful Reverend Ted Haggard, George Bush's confidant and religious advisor. Instrumental in rallying the mega churches behind the Bush campaign of 2004, President Bush consulted with the evangelical preacher every single Monday without fail. No pastor in America held more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism. That is until he was busted.

You probably need to think twice before opening the discussion of "which party has committed the most heinous sins." I think we all know that people on both sides of the aisle have done bad and/or stupid things.

 

[EntreNous]

You probably need to think twice before opening the discussion of "which party has committed the most heinous sins." I think we all know that people on both sides of the aisle have done bad and/or stupid things.

I think twice on a regular basis. I was replying to the earlier comment regarding CD's comment on Oprah. And my comments were referring to how she was more correct than some may have thought. If you have something you'd like to share on topic or off topic for that matter, please feel free.

Would you prefer I discuss Troopergate? The bridge to nowhere? Palin's all too successful abstinence program?

 

[robinparten]

I think twice on a regular basis. I was replying to the earlier comment regarding CD's comment on Oprah. And my comments were referring to how she was more correct than some may have thought. If you have something you'd like to share on topic or off topic for that matter, please feel free.

Would you prefer I discuss Troopergate? The bridge to nowhere? Palin's all too successful abstinence program?

Feel free to discuss whatever you like. It makes for an amusing show.

 

[EntreNous]

Well, I'm replying to the earlier comment while trying to stay somewhat on topic. My point hasn't been refuted so do you desire a new topic or would you like to address what is already on the table?

 

[Saffron]

Since that 2004 election it's been revealed that republicans sent dirty e-mails to young male pages and had improper conduct with male pages, (at least one was a 16 year old boy). It is believed to have contributed to the Republican Party's loss of control over Congress in late 2006

I think that was ONE Republican, and yes it contributed to the Republicans losing during that election because Republican voters try to hold their party accountable for the behavior of its members.

Republicans have also solicited sex from male prostitutes, and made passes in airport bathroom stalls.

That was ONE Republican, Larry Craig. If the policeman's account of Craig soliciting sex in the restroom is true, Craig's constituents couldn't have known that he was doing such things in his life until the story came out. If someone is a criminal or a hypocrite, it's when the truth gets revealed that people can make better choices.

Maybe not quite rape, but if you want to deal in truth, Cameron was trying to talk about a woman's right to choose and was referring to rape in the sense of women losing that right to their bodies.

Women didn't lose the right to their bodies during the Bush administration.

So, you actually took the quote out of context. Nevertheless, lewd conduct with a child is pretty damning.

And he paid the price, as he should have. But, again, voters can't know a candidate is doing such acts until it gets revealed. A hypocrite's acts speak to his own character, not to people who didn't know the truth.

And let's not even get into the wonderful Reverend Ted Haggard, George Bush's confidant and religious advisor.

NOT Bush's confidant, NOT Bush's religious advisor.

Instrumental in rallying the mega churches behind the Bush campaign of 2004, President Bush consulted with the evangelical preacher every single Monday without fail.

This pastor didn't consult with Bush, he participated in conference calls with a staff member, along with hundreds of other lobbyists.

No pastor in America held more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism. That is until he was busted.

Most Christianss hadn't even heard of this clown. Again, when hypocrites lie about their sexuality, criminal behavior or whatever else, it speaks to their character, not to the people who knew no better than to believe them, and certainly not to the group or organization they pretended to be a part of.

I'm leaving this thread for good, as it has gone way off topic. I didn't mean to contribute to it going off topic, but EntreNous' post was in reply to one of my posts, and I felt compelled to reply.

 

[robinparten]

Well, I'm replying to the earlier comment while trying to stay somewhat on topic. My point hasn't been refuted so do you desire a new topic or would you like to address what is already on the table?

What "topic" are you trying to stay on? You have taken this thread so far off topic as to be laughable. I won't engage with someone who clearly has a bone to pick. Like Saffron (who, by the way, did an admirable job putting into context your ridiculous assertions), I am outta here.

 

[becklynn]

The other day I was in the State Attorneys office with a victims advocate. She had tons of religious pamplets laying around. One had a Darwin Fish on it and then told why evolution was wrong. It said fish could never fly the space shuttle so we could never have decended from them. I was shocked that a woman in this position could flaunt her beliefs, flaunt idiot ideas about evolution and think she was doing anyone a favor by being a victims advocate.
Tell me I could have evolutional pamplets in my office and not get in trouble.
I asked her where she got the pamplet, she smiled, then I told her I had a Darwin fish on my truck. She frowned and said she did not remember where she got the pamplet. I was angry, my son was angry. It was an unwelcome sign to us. There is seperation between church and State or there is supposed to be.
Oprah can have or not have whoever she wants.

 

[EntreNous]

What "topic" are you trying to stay on? You have taken this thread so far off topic as to be laughable. I won't engage with someone who clearly has a bone to pick. Like Saffron (who, by the way, did an admirable job putting into context your ridiculous assertions), I am outta here.

Oprah Winfrey and her choice of guests is the topic. Specifically Sarah Palin, a political figure. Someone made a comment about other guests on her show and a specific comment one of her guests made regarding the 2004 election. I addressed that segment in reply to that episode of Oprah and that guest. I was not the one who brought other guests or other elections into the thread, I merely replied and gave facts which applied to that misguided comment on the OPRAH show. Oprah being the key here. Perhaps you're thinking of a different thread? Or perhaps you'd like to address the original comment which took the focus off of Sarah Palin.

 

[EntreNous]

I think that was ONE Republican, and yes it contributed to the Republicans losing during that election because Republican voters try to hold their party accountable for the behavior of its members.

That was ONE Republican, Larry Craig. If the policeman's account of Craig soliciting sex in the restroom is true, Craig's constituents couldn't have known that he was doing such things in his life until the story came out. If someone is a criminal or a hypocrite, it's when the truth gets revealed that people can make better choices.Women didn't lose the right to their bodies during the Bush administration. And he paid the price, as he should have. But, again, voters can't know a candidate is doing such acts until it gets revealed. A hypocrite's acts speak to his own character, not to people who didn't know the truth.

NOT Bush's confidant, NOT Bush's religious advisor. This pastor didn't consult with Bush, he participated in conference calls with a staff member, along with hundreds of other lobbyists.Most Christianss hadn't even heard of this clown. Again, when hypocrites lie about their sexuality, criminal behavior or whatever else, it speaks to their character, not to the people who knew no better than to believe them, and certainly not to the group or organization they pretended to be a part of.

I'm leaving this thread for good, as it has gone way off topic. I didn't mean to contribute to it going off topic, but EntreNous' post was in reply to one of my posts, and I felt compelled to reply.

With all due respect, that is incorrect. Mark Foley, Jim Colby (sp?), and Larry Craig are but 3 right off the top of my head. A deceptive candidate that has been questionable before only lends to the travesty of voters not doing their homework and thoroughly researching a candidate prior to voting them into office. The best way to do that is to stop relying on FOX news for your information. I would advise all voters to read the facts before voting and not rely on commercials or a biased source for information.

And to correct the above statement, Bush consulted Ted Haggard, i.e. the Reverend Ted Haggard was an adviser to George W. Bush. He did so every Monday. And the Reverend Haggard was head of the largest mega church in America. If a person stays current with the actions of this country, stays current with the Christianity movement in America and abreast of the administration and it's policies I would be floored to hear that most Christians have never heard of Haggard. He was an extremely public figure.

While I agree that people who have been hurt by these figures are not at fault, I also am reminded of what George W. Bush tried his best to say and never could quite get it out of his mouth,
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Republicans did re-elect George W. Bush for a second term in 2004.
Republicans now support John McCain although he was part of the Keating Five, has mob ties, is in poor physical and mental health and is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Republicans now support Sarah Palin although she's been caught in her lies of 'stopping the bridge to nowhere', the Troopergate scandal in which she ignored a Federal Judge's order because of personal reasons with her sister's volatile marriage to Alaska's state trooper Wooten. She actually fired the chief for not firing trooper Wooten who was divorcing her sister. Insanity.

Oprah has every right not to have this woman on her show. Palin has been trying to get on talk shows for a long time, even before McCain made her his VP running mate. She tried and failed to get on the Craig Ferguson show as well. I really think this is a non-issue in light of Palin's very short but very ugly record.

And I'm afraid I have to say, if after knowing the facts about these candidates, you still feel compelled to vote for them and they continue this behavior, (as I doubt they're going to change from who they are now), then yes my friend, the responsibility is going to lay very squarely in the lap of those that voted for them.

 

[raisincharlie]

Silly me - I thought this was a thread about Oprah not the politcal forum thread.:doh:

Bunch of hogwash here.

 

[EntreNous]

Silly me - I thought this was a thread about Oprah not the politcal forum thread.:doh:

Bunch of hogwash here.

Actually this thread is about Oprah's not wanting the current republican vp candidate on her show, i.e. politics.
Not about Oprah as a person. If you want to talk about Oprah, Gail, Steadman and the dogs, I think you'd be better served in a different thread.