Redstate

takes "P-Diddy" seriously.  A "get the vote out" campaign for people under 30 that isn't mostly just liberal propaganda is long overdue!  

choose who they were going to vote for, because their favorite musician is voting that way makes me cringe.

I don't think Rock the Vote has ever been nonparitsan, although it seems like they are getting worse in recent years.

Isn't that the title of Laura Ingraham's book.  I must say everytime I hear Bruse Springsteen, Dave Matthews, etc. put there 2 cents in I get sick.  What scares me the most is that there is an entire generation that thinks there word is gospel.

...is even more contemptuous of them than a lot of us are.

I don't think most of the younger set with a brain pays them any attention in particular.  Sadly, given the condition of the school system, that qualifier ("with a brain") may be the key point.

that the rightwing rails against entertainers getting involved in politics if they are on the left.  But if an entertainer is on the right then everything is okay.  Let's see:  Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Grandy, Sonny Bono, Ted Nugent, a certain B-movie actor who became president.

So, you listed a current governor, a former congressman, a former mayor turned congressman, Ted Nugent, and a former governor turned President of the United States.  Which of those doesn't really belong -- Nugent, who is not out beating the bushes trying to get kids to vote or die.

It's not that we "rail against entertainers getting involved in politics."  In fact, we encourage Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Jeanne Garafolo to become very involved, up front, and vocal so we can demonstrate how absolutely shallow and idiotic most of their views are.

As for the entertainers getting involved to get out the vote, they just highlight how they do not fully connect with the average young voter who does not have the same lifestyle.

Their silliness is our gain.

I think there is a big difference between an actor running around making off the cuff accusations and assertions with nothing to lose is pretty darn different from a former actor who runs for office and is elected, don't you?

"An entire generation that thinks there word is gospel."

The 18-29 year old age cohort voted 54%-45% for Kerry.  That's (at least) 45% of the younger generation that does not hang on every word of their performers.  I think the Shut Up And Sing mentality is popular for all but the activists.  Most don't want to hear politics in their entertainment in the first, regardless of it agrees with them.

Additionally, Republicans have been doing much better with younger voters than in the past.  In 1996, Clinton had a 19% edge in the youth vote. In 2000, Bush and Gore were even in that demographic.  In 2004, Kerry won by 9%.  Keeping that below 10% is nice especially as more people vote Republican as they get older (at least they have in the past).

Bono.  He knows what he is talking about (Africa, AIDS, aid) and he does so clearly.  He has obviously researched the issues and talked to people who know what they are talking about.  He could run for office and succeed (if he were American).

The Republicans you mentioned all ran for office.  Please let Sean Penn and Rosie O'Donnell run for office.  Then it will be even more apparent that they don't know what they are talking about.

*One other exception.  I still appreciate music that has political tones to it.  Green Day's new CD "American Idiot" falls into this category.  But I don't see them doing interviews on the news trying to persuade people.  They express their feelings and views through their music, which I happen to like listening to.

I think most people would prefer that actors and singers stick to their acting and singing without all the politicizing.

I mean they can certainly have their opinions and all that, but honestly when I go to a concert, or pay to see a movie, I am there to be entertained, if I want politics I will go to a political oriented meeting or rally.

I've heard others say the same thing about Bono. Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with his work outside of U2.

is that he isn't politicized.

He is very outspoken about Aids and issues regarding Africa-and he is very passionate about it.

But he also gave a lot of credit to Bush (somebody he probably disagrees with on a lot of issues) and his administration for trying to do something in Africa.

That to me shows he cares more about the cause than the politics, and as long as he can get people from any party or poltical persuasion on board to help out, he is fine.

His desire is to see things change, he doesn't really care who does it.

Verses a lot of other people (Jeanine Garafolo comes to mind who can't say or admit at all anytime Bush has done something right).  I mean honestly, you have a real problem if you can't think of a single thing to praise Bush for over the course of the last 6 years.  AT the very least he has been and advocate for other human rights issues (Africa, the issue of slavery in Asia and Africa etc).

I think that is what sets Bono apart.

as long as left-wing rockers' opinions aren't "too politicized" (which I guess means publically anti-Bush) they are okay.  I think the reason you like Bono so much is that he is a damn good politician.  He is so much further to the left of most of the shrill Hollywood liberals you deride that it would shock you.  He is just good at appearing very moderate and reasonable and exploiting photo ops.  He knows that it is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.  

And I mentioned Ted Nugent because I heard him on Hannity's radio show the other day spouting off about right-wing politics.  You also have Charlton Heston, former president of the NRA, and lots of others including notable sports figures.  

The point is that we are a fame-obsessed society that for better or worse puts inordinate faith in celebrity.  Arnold is a perfect example.  The complaint of the right seems to be that actors and musicians don't know anything about politics so they should just shut up.  Yet Arnold, who had absolutely zero experience in politics, and hadn't even been particularly politically active, is suddenly qualified to be governor of the largest state in the country?  Does that make sense?  And what were Fred Grandy's qualifications before he ran for congress besides shepherding Charo around the Pacific Princess?  

Yes, there are some real idiots on the left who say some really stupid things that nobody should pay attention to.  And the right is ready to jump on them.  Cameron Diaz is a case in point.  I wish she would just shut up but she made a stupid comment about rape during the campaign and Hannity wouldn't let it go.

The difference you haven't addressed is that difference between loudmouth actors and elected former actors who are now politicians.

Now I am not the kind to tell celebrity to shut its face anyway. To me, there is no difference between the Dixie chick spouting off and me doing it on a blog, other than that I am not famous.

But that doesn't make your comparison of Arnold and the Nuge a valid comparison. Or Arnold and Alec Baldwin. Or Reagan and Jane Fonda. The situations simply aren't comparable.

And you clearly misunderstand what it is that people here are admiring in Bono. I am hearing them say they admire the manner in which he conducts himself, not necessarily the leftness or rightness of his viewpoints.

Anyway, what boggles me about lefties is not that they listen to celebs, it's that they think that we don't get to call the celebs opinions hogwash. If someone is an idiot, demonstrably an idiot, if some Dixie chick wants to put her uninformed foot in her sensuous little mouth, then we all have the right to not buy their albums and publicly call her an idiot. Right?

If their ideas are wrong, we get to say so.

it looks like the rightwing condemns any celebrity who dares hold an opinion that they disagree with.  The Dixie Chicks is a case in point.  Natalie Mains made an admittedly ant-Bush comment, but a rather mild one, at a concert in London in an introduction to what is an anti-war song.  Big deal, she is entitled to her opinion and last I checked the First Amendment is still in the Constitution.  Yet, from the reaction of the right wing in this country you would have thought she had called him Hitler and burned him in effigy using the American flag as fuel.

For her statement, the Dixie Chicks became public enemy #1.  Clear Channel organized stunts where Dixie Chicks were destroyed (I don't know if they actually burned any) and they were yanked off the playlists of a bunch of stations.  Toby Keith in particular made some statements that were even more ignorant than anything that ever came out of the mouths of the Dixie Chicks.  It was an obvious attempt to suppress any criticism of the war or the administration.

I see just as much crying about the 'liberals' and the so-called 'liberal media' here as I see complaining about the 'corporate' media or about conservative influenced media from liberal sites.  Except, honestly, liberals have a better case to make on this front.

As for RTV and the entertainment and hollywood liberals I hear consrvatives talk about day after day.  I mean, you and I (and I'm a liberal and democrat)could care less about what some hollywood actor or some rapper says, and apparently so do most people.  So....what's the preoccupation with them?  Why go on and on about hollywood liberals, why do you care when some of them speak (dare to speak it seems in many rightwingers eyes) out for issues they care about?  If they are not influential (and obviously they are not swaying many voters) than why?  Well, they are a nice symbol for joint hatred and helps galvenize passions among the Right.  'Darn them librul hollywood elitist.'  Like basing those vague mysterious liberal elitists or 'X elitists.' Like Hillary Clinton, something you can all bash and hate together, unifying the right.

A generalization to be sure, but considering these "hollywood elitists" lack of power and influence, I fail to see the reason for such crying except as something to unify yourselves with.

But it seems to me that if the situation were reversed, if people were burning pro-Bush CDs, no one on the left would cry censorship or suppression.

The fact is, if private citizens want to publicly berate and humiliate people who make stupid comments, they have a right to do so. They do so all the time. On the left and the right. It's practically a sport!

And that still doesn't address the comparison issue. And I'm right wing and while I may criticize the opinion of a celebrity I disagree with, personally I don't see the problem as being their celebrity itself, nor is the problem their lack of being elected. Like I said, it's no different than me spouting off on my blog.

The fact is I get to call their opinions stupid, and liberals don't like it. When it comes down to it, it seems they want the celebrities they favor to have a platform that is free from and above all criticism. Doesn't seem very open-minded to me.

(it sounds funnier than it looks)

Reimer just came over from Center for American Progress, a lefty group. In fact, most of the people behind Rock the Vote, including the MTV execs, are all liberals. Yet, while assailing Republican positions and stirring fears of a draft among young voters, RTV keeps up the charade that it is fair and balanced.

And Rock the Hypocrisy is yet another arm of the Koch Industries octopus, an astroturf organization made up of professional conservative lobbyists who assail Democratic positions and poo-pooing the quicksand of the Iraq War, RTH keeps up the charade that it is fair and balanced.

So if RTV is so lame and ineffectual, why is all this digital ink spilled on the subject?

liberals who are attacking conservative speakers on colleges.

I haven't seen cries of censorship from the left at all regarding those cases.  About the only people who have said anything have been conservatives.

I'm curious, is Rock the Hypocrisy just another mostly-fake conservative astro-turf group posing as some large body of youths, you know, kind of like the that fake group NextUSA (I think) pretended to be a large seniors group to oppose AARP (a REAL group with REAL members numbering in the milions)

I wouldn't be surpised one bit.  That seems to be the MO of many of them.  

I'll have to research this angle a bit more.

Damn....The Web of deceit is EXTENSIVE and surprise surprise it ties back to a corporation heavilliy aligned with the WHite House.  Oh, this is definitely an astro-turf group, not real grassroots.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_05.php#005795

follow the link, but here is the short version:

Rock the Hypocrisy is the offshoot group of the group 'Americans for Prosperity' who other daughter is another astro-turf group 'Social Security for All', but it turns out that the Parent group 'Americans for Prosperity' is just the political arm of Koch Industries, used to promote conservative agenda.  ASTROTURF!

Oh there's  more in the link.  Good day!!!

....from Rock the Vote being corporate sponsored in what way?

If rich conservatives get together and fund a group, it is somehow bad, but if George Soros or the Tides Foundation or someone like that does that same thing, that's good?

I fail to see much difference either way.  So what exactly is your point here?  

"it looks like the rightwing condemns any celebrity who dares hold an opinion that they disagree with."

"[Bono] is so much further to the left of most of the shrill Hollywood liberals you deride that it would shock you."

I know how far to the left he is, and I still respect.  For the same reasons mentioned above.  He is knowledgable about his issues and he speaks about them well.  He is not just following an anti-Bush fad (or any other one).  He obviously cares about what he talks about.  He is sincere.  I would never vote for him, but I do respect him.  

...and its never taken a stand on who to actually vote FOR president. Who exactly is RTV getting its money from and how is it translating into direct influence is the question.  Groups like MoveON or other liberal groups are clear about who they are, but they also have genuine grassroots, including millions of actual members (I am one)and including most of their money from fund drives (I've donated).  More over, moveon was not created by a big corp, it recieves some money, like it recieved most money from its ACTUALL members.  What of Rock the Hypocrisy, they are CREATED FROM DIRECTLY of this one single PRO-BUSH corporation.  And read the link: It's also that these groups, like Social Security for All, and Rock the Hyporcisy where created SPECIFICALLY by Koch Industries through Americans for Prosperity to promote its and conservatives interests, that DENOTES direct influence from Koch Industries and the various rightwing figures involved with these groups.  Bottom line: these ARE FRONT GROUPS, not real groups, ASTRO-Turf, not grassroots, Rock the Vote is real, Rock the Hypocrisy is fake, just like NextUSA was fake and AARP is real.    

And no, my man, the polling data does NOT say that younger people support Bush's plan.  It depends on what question is asked.

"Do you like idea of personal accounts?" gets a good response

"Do you like """,[address risks and costs involved]" gets a poor response

"Do you support President Bush's plan to partially privitise SS?"  (All questions paraphrased) And you still get less that 50%

Americans for Prosperity Foundation the parent organization of Rock The Hypocrisy and Social Security for All is a grassroots organization, funded by conservatives who believe in the cause from all walks of life (including many $5,$10 donations). You may call AFPF "astroturf" but I can tell you that the vast majority of the work done for this event has been done by college students both at AFPF and at Students for Saving Social Security.

I know this doesn't fit nicely into the Rock The Vote talking points Hans Riemer sent out, but sorry AFPF is a grassroots organization and this effort wasn't setup by some evil corporation rather largely by a couple of college students who want a choice in their retirement.

I really don't care if some large corporation is funding this stuff, as long as the information is out there to be found.

And last time I checked MTV is hardly grassroots.

My issue with RTV is that they pretend to be non partisan-they don't come out and say who to vote for, but if you look at their events, and their voter information stuff, it has a left wing slant (sort of like you would see coming from a right to life group or Christian Coalition).  

Will RTH have a right wing slant-my guess is yes, but then their goal is to be a response to RTV's left wing slant.

But who really cares at this point who is funding it-both sides of the aisle and their various special interest groups get funding from corporations and wealthy people.

This is just another reason why McCain Feingold qualifies as some of the worst legislation ever.  I would much rather see people and corporations be able to give however much they want to whoever they want, but those gifts be made public record and easily available as soon as the checks are cashed.

and think some of the more deserving victims (i.e., Ann Coulter) can't take a joke.  Throwing harmless food at blowhards is a time-honored tradition and most of the victims condemn it but shrug it off, which I think is the appropriate response.

I think pie-throwing should be reserved for people whose rhetoric is so shrill and full of lies that there is no rational response.  Therefore, Ann Coulter is the perfect target.  She lies so consistently and frequently with so little regard for the truth, it is obvious she is interested in nothing more than lowering the discourse and demonizing the left.  Since there is no way to respond to someone who will lie or just hurl insults if she is presented with facts, a well-placed pie is probably the best response to her words.  

Now of course I will have to state that I am just kidding and abhor violence in all forms and that of course we should have a full and open exchange of ideas without resorting to throwing pies at poor defenseless rightwing pundits.

been reversed.  I haven't heard about people burning Toby Keith or Lee Greenwood CDs (although both should be on artistic merit alone) or demanding radio stations stop playing their music.  Ratings for "Everybody Loves Raymond" didn't drop because Patricia Heaton was a very vocal Pro-Life Activist, even if she did try to milk the "conservative in liberal Hollywood" meme for sympathy to anyone who would listen.  Unfortunately, Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears remained just as popular after they came out in support of President Bush.

There was a thread on this site a couple weeks ago asking what people considered the quintessential American rock song.  And although some people voted for Born to Run and a couple other Springsteen songs I couldn't believe some of the outright hatred displayed at him.  My God, the man is an old style pro-Union working class Democrat!  If you think that people like Bruce Springsteen are some kind of enemy of the State because they don't like the direction this country is going in and think the war with Iraq is wrong then you are saying there is no room for dissent in this country.

Because I certainly didn't see any at the time and I just went back and read the entire thread.  If I'm missing something help me out.  

I post a mom oriented message board that is over run with left wingers, and I can tell you that there is a huge dislike for Toby Keith on that board, and all of the haters don't buy his CD's.

You see it isn't censorship to choose not to buy something from somebody, if you do'nt like their politics, that is everyone's perogative.  If the government on the other hand was banning Dixie Chicks that would be censorship.

Honestly the biggest mistake the Dixie Chicks made was that they forgot their audience.  The majority of country music listeners are God and Country type people.  But even the DC protest was really kind of short lived, as far as I know their record sales haven't really been hurt that much, and their concerts still sell out.  If some people choose not to listen or buy, that is their right to vote with their pocket book, just as it is the liberals I know right to not purchase a Toby Keith CD.

You know, I think I'm getting as fed up as some of the other people around here at the casual slander being directed at commenters here at RedState.

Here's a link to the Bruce Springsteen comments from the rock song thread you specifically mention.  

Can you point out which of them (comment numbers or specific quotes please) contain the outright hatred displayed at him that surprised you?  Or any of them which might remotely support your accusation that commenters here think that people like Bruce Springsteen are some kind of enemy of the State because they don't like the direction this country is going in and think the war with Iraq is wrong then you are saying there is no room for dissent in this country?

And if you can't support those statements (which I don't think you'll be able to do), I'd appreciate you withdrawing and apologizing for them.

and Communist wasn't very nice.  How about this comment:

I sold all my Springsteen albums and CD's, and sent the money to the Swifties. The soundtrack of my life just doesn't sound the same any more, and I really wish I could get over it. But I can't.

That's pretty harsh!

But you're right.  Overall the comments weren't as harsh as I recalled.  That one in particular just really grabbed me.  I'll just call Jack Savage the one displaying outright hatred.  

I apologize to everyone else.  

That was a comment by me and it was a defense of Bruce.  Here's the quote:

Sure his politics are laughable but even if he's a Stalinist like his hero Woody he'd still be the best songwriter alive today in my opinion.

I called Woody Guthrie a Stalinist NOT Bruce.

Perhaps I missed my Torts class the day they covered the "she was a big meanie" defense to battery.

of "fighting words" should have been covered in your constitutional law class.  And while I guess Ann Coulter certainly has the right to press charges she would sound like less of a crybaby if she shrugged it off at reacted more like the other recent victims of food assault. (I think it was Kristol and Buchanan--they both basically called it a stupid prank by harmless idiots and didn't press charges).  Ann Coulter talked about how she hoped her attackers would be raped in prison.

"outright hatred for Woody Guthrie" post let me just say I'm a fan of his too.  And Pete Seeger.  And Bob Dylan.  And Tom Waits.  Did I miss anybody?

Now there is a group that was blatantly anti-American.  

Well first off, I don't think it's true that it hasn't been reversed. There are plenty of people and businesses that are put under enormous pressure by groups such as those who gather at Americablog. They don't merely boycott CDs or burn their own copies, they threaten court cases against those who disagree.

Nevertheless, as I said. People are free to be as mad as they like against someone for their opinion. It is simply untrue to suggest that disagreeing with a celebrity, even if it is public and loud, is disallowing dissent. Clearly these dissenting voices are heard every day. No one has been silenced. No one is being censored. Dissent gets more air time than agreement, for the obvious reason that nobody wants to watch a boring TV show where everyone is like, "yeah, yeah me too." Dissenters are here every day at Redstate. They dissent on public hate blogs like americablog, on political blogs like DailyKos. They dissent on the news, in the papers, in magazines. They dissent in speeches and protests.

They dissent in the House and the Senate, they dissent in the U.N.

Celebrities give their dissent in interviews, award speeches, movie scripts. Who is being silenced??

I say again, a celebrity mouthing off is using a megaphone at their disposal. Not one bit different from my using my blog or you using yours. But I reserve the right to bash, humiliate, correct, and boycott them when they say things that I think are total crap. If that seems to happen pretty frequently, blame them for not being smarter, don't blame me for not smiling and nodding.

Don't get me wrong, I know what you mean. From your perspective it seems like celebrities are getting the raw deal. But I think a little scrutiny may change your mind.

The right is much quicker to throw out phrases like anti- or un- American, unpatriotic, Traitor, Communist, etc. at people who disagree with this administration than the left is at the right.

Again, Look at Ann Coulter, and I pick on her because I think she is one of the most egregious and popular examples.  The titles of her books are bad enough: Treason, Slander?  But it extends to a great swath of the rightwing radio and television pundits: Michael Savage, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly.  They all make their livings out of demonizing the left.  

You can't seriously argue that there is a remotely well-organized and viscious attack mechanism on the left.  Michael Moore? come on.  Air America--Even the most strident are a lot more low key than Rush.

You must be living in la la land.

I will caveat you that Ann Coulter is over the top, but that is how she plays herself, and she absolutely has a tendancy towards propganda.  But please don't pretend that Air America and Michael Moore aren't above some good old propaganda-shoot that is how Michael Moore makes his living, by twisting the truth.

Seems like an entirely different point. We're moving into demonization of the other side as the territory to cover, and that's much bigger territory than simply celebrities.

I do believe that there is a well-organized and vicious attack mechanism on the left. I just think the left hides these mechanisms under titles like watchdog group, media reform, what have you. They boil down to the same thing. I mean, let's be real here, both sides have organizations and groups the sole purpose of which is to bring down the other side. Let's not pretend anyone is above it.

As to the celebrity issue, I pretty much stand by what I've said so far. They have megaphones, they use them, good for them, and if they can't take the heat ... etc.

The "fighting words" doctrine protects pie-throwers, you're saying?

Please return to your armchair. You're just embarassing yourself here.