Entertainment And Politics
When ex-actor Ronald Reagan won the presidency for the first time, I became convinced that American politics had become indistinguishable from show business. Nothing that has happened in the intervening years has caused me to change my mind on the subject. But the phenomenon of television personalities throwing their own pseudo-political "rallies" on the National Mall in Washington certainly breaks new ground in both the political arena and the entertainment world, I have to admit.
I'm speaking, of course, about the upcoming "rallies" on the Mall thrown by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, as a response to the "rally" thrown by Glenn Beck earlier this year. I began thinking about the subject a few weeks ago, when a friend of mine asked if I would be travelling to D.C. for Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" or Colbert's "Rally to Restore Fear" (now combined into one giant "rally"... to restore "sane fear," or perhaps "fearful sanity," one assumes). Well, no. No, I won't. Sorry about that.
Now, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, so to speak. I certainly don't want to annoy the fans of Stewart and Colbert, who are legion. I guess (to be scrupulously honest) that I don't mind annoying the Beck fans, but they already seem pretty annoyed -- so it'd be hard to even measure any effect my humble column would have on their level of annoyance, I suspect. But someone's got to point out the fact that these "rallies" are nothing more than glorified commercials for television shows. Beck and Stewart and Colbert are entertainers, not politicians or even activists.
But then, so was Reagan. At least when he began. So was the current governor of the state I live in, for that matter. As well as one of my favorite members of the Senate right now. Reagan's ascension shows that the political arena is not closed to entertainers at all, and in fact making the leap between the two is easier for those in entertainment than in most other professions, since they bring a huge asset along with them that is golden in both worlds -- name recognition.
Reagan was a pioneer on this crossover pathway. He wasn't the first entertainer to enter politics successfully, but the level of his political success was a lot greater than any who came before him. Reagan not only became governor of an important state, but he actually reached the Oval Office -- something no other actor has managed to do, before or since. But that's not to say that we can't eventually have a President Stewart, or (shudder) a President Beck at some point. Reagan started small in politics himself -- by cutting an album for the A.M.A. fighting the "Socialism" of Medicare. This effort (even though unsuccessful) gave him a taste for politics, and the rest is history.
When Reagan first got elected president, there were three television news channels. Well, technically, CNN had begun broadcasting a few months before the election, but not many people had cable at the time and other cable news did not exist. There were no blogs, no podcasts, and no world wide web. No Fox News. It was a different media universe -- in fact, looking back it seems more like a media solar system than a whole media universe (or even a media galaxy). But, putting such cosmic star-gazing aside, we return to star-gazing of a different type here on Earth.
Because that's really what these "rallies" are all about -- a free, live outdoor show where you can see your favorite television star. Which is why I can't even bring myself to stop using the "scare quotes" around the word rally when describing them. Because I don't really consider them rallies at all, at least not how I define the word.
Glenn Beck pointedly told everyone before his "rally" that it was not going to be political (I believe there were tax code reasons why he could not sponsor a political rally, actually, but I could be wrong), and then the collective media was shocked that he didn't issue some sort of call to arms from the stage, and instead put on a fairly non-political show. The media could barely contain their disappointment that Beck wasn't kidding when he said it wasn't going to be political, because the media truly wanted to report on a carnival sideshow, and were denied this opportunity.
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will assumably be doing their usual schtick, where "being in on the joke" is half the fun. What astounds me is that some in the media are taking it seriously, when it is so obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Deep discussions are held by Beltway insiders (who mostly don't know what to make of this new style of "rally" yet) about why it is a good thing or a bad thing to "restore sanity" to politics -- as if Stewart were serious and not poking fun at the entire political scene. Here's a clue, for media types pondering the nuances of "restoring sanity" to politics -- the other half of the "rally" is to "restore fear." In other words, you are missing the punchline, guys.
Again, not to belittle anyone's motive for attending the upcoming "rally," but anyone attending for the serious purpose of "restoring sanity" is going to find themselves in the same boat as the fiscal conservative/Libertarian core of the Tea Party movement, in a way. Not ideologically, of course (perish the thought!), but in how the media presents your "cause." Think about it -- which signs do you think will make the network news from Stewart's "rally": the ones seriously saying "stop the yelling in politics," or the ones with hilarious and outrageous images and slogans? I'm not saying there won't be people seriously fed up with attack-dog politics at Stewart's "rally" (just as there are non-racist, non-crazy people at Tea Party rallies, even if they don't get on television much), but I don't think that's the image that will be broadcast to the rest of the country, that's all.
Jon Stewart is absolutely brilliant at what he does, I should also mention. But what he does is comedy. He calls himself a comedian, which is completely honest and fitting. The problem's not with him -- it's with everyone else. Stewart calls what he does "fake news," but he also gets nominated for journalism awards, because he provides commentary on the news that is completely absent from the "real news" shows. He regularly (and cheerfully) points out when the Emperor has no clothes on, no matter who the Emperor happens to be at the moment. Viewers appreciate it, and not just as comedy. When polled, the public rates Stewart very highly on the "America's most respected journalist" scale -- tying or beating the biggest network "real news" anchors. There's something very wrong with that. Not with the public so much as with what passes for "journalism" elsewhere. Stewart's viewers, when polled, actually score very highly on their knowledge of current events as compared to viewers of other cable and non-cable news shows. Even though a comedian, Stewart is obviously informing the public better than the sensationalistic and glittery trash passing itself off as "news" on other stations. Perhaps this is because, to the viewer, watching comedic news spoofs (such as, to give another example, the "Weekend Update" segment on the Saturday Night Live comedy show) is more entertaining when you know more about what is going on -- because you "get" the jokes a lot better.
And comedic commentary about the state of the nation also has a long history, even before information dissemination became all flashy and bright. Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken spring immediately to mind. Not to mention Gulliver's Travels. So I'm not disparaging what Stewart does in the slightest, and cheer on his success at the niche he's carved out for himself in the convergence of entertainment and media, because as I said previously, the man is simply brilliant at what he does and how he does it. And Stewart may have a future in the political world, as well, if he chooses to pursue one. Senator Al Franken certainly has blazed his own pioneering path when it comes to crossing over from comedy into political office, and Stewart may eventually opt to travel this route as well.
But, in the here and now, the political world is edging a bit too close to ignoring the joke and taking all of this too seriously. I have to say I found Stephen Colbert "testifying" before a congressional committee "in character" a little puzzling. Other than perhaps Kermit The Frog, I can't even imagine any other "character" -- from anywhere -- being invited to give such testimony, for any reason whatsoever. I mean, other than a photo-op for politicians, what precisely is the point?
I suppose I shouldn't be so amazed at the concept of a television-show-sponsored "rally" on the National Mall. As I said, I've held this to be true for decades now: politics has truly become indistinguishable from show business. As mentioned earlier, blogs did not exist when Reagan became president, so I have no easy way to prove that I've felt this way all along. I have nothing to link to, so you have no other way of knowing that's true than the fact that I said so. You have to take it on faith, in other words. And although I am nowhere near Stewart's ballpark in terms of audience or influence, I also swim in the waters between comedy and journalism on occasion. Doing so and yet retaining an audience's trust is an important thing, I fully realize. The main thing, as Stewart reminds anyone who will listen, is that you not take yourself too seriously. One of the high points of Stewart's career was appearing on a supposedly "serious" political commentary show, and absolutely taking them to school on what does and what does not constitute journalism. Stewart knows the difference between what he does and "journalism," but most people you see on television news shows simply do not understand the difference between reading the soporific pablum they do and real journalism -- which was Stewart's point.
Gil Scott-Heron may still be right in his prophesy, that "the revolution will not be televised." Instead, there may be a new "Best Revolutionary Portrayer" reality show on television next season. But the two are not the same thing, so don't make the mistake of blurring those lines. Indeed, some are even suggesting that the Stewart/Colbert "rally" may actually hurt the progressive movement, because it is being held so close to the upcoming election. People who feel strongly enough to travel a great distance to see Stewart and Colbert in the flesh may include people who feel strongly enough about politics to be making "get out the vote" phone calls back in their home districts. But they won't be available that weekend, because they'll be on the road to see Stewart and Colbert. And I bet the audience will consist of a lot more liberals and Democrats than it will of conservatives and Republicans.
This may be too harsh an assessment, though. Perhaps the people who show up are so turned off by the political machines in this country that they wouldn't be volunteering at a Democratic "get out the vote" phone bank if Colbert and Stewart weren't holding a "rally." Perhaps the people who show up are just television fans of the two, and don't normally participate (for whatever reason) in any such efforts anyway.
I'm certainly all for the concept of rallying, but that likely comes from my growing up near Washington, and being able to freely sample the all the wares of political theater at an early and impressionable age. Which is why I don't begrudge anyone their moment in the sun. I even encouraged the first Tea Party rallies, even though I didn't agree with their aims in the slightest. I think the more Americans -- no matter what their issue -- exercise their First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly, the better off our country would probably be. I am unabashedly pro-rally, pro-march, and pro-demonstration, in other words. I'm even pro-"rally" as well. Get out there and exercise your rights, no matter who you are!
So it's not like I'm advising anyone else to skip the "Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear." I'm sure it'll be a great day on the Mall. I'm sure it'll draw a big crowd. I'm sure the entertainment will be top-notch, and the only danger will be of sides splitting from laughter. A good time is just about guaranteed for all concerned. I'm just saying that I won't be going. Even if I was, I would be going for the giggle factor, and not to cover it as a political "rally" -- because no matter how good a show Stewart and Colbert put on, I just don't think it fits the definition.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Very timely, CW. I was just thinking about this last night as I was digesting the corporate media's take on this event.
Yesterday morning Salon had posted an article about there not being many details on the event. And by afternoon, Frazier Moore at the AP had parroted much of the story. I saw it here at ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wirestory?id=11985005&page=1
Mr. Frazier uses the lack of details to speculate that the event is going to be more political than everyone thinks.
Despite Stewart's insistence to the contrary, are he and Colbert perilously straying from illuminative mockery into full-blown political activism?
To me, this misses the point.
I think, if anything, this is a commentary on the sad state of our media that turns everything into the great Right vs. Left crusade.
So it's funny to me when the press tries to portray his rally as part of the great Right vs. Left crusade. No matter how much John actually says that's not what it's about.
Yes, a lot of people who would be called "liberals" by the right will probably attend his rally. But that's because most of the liberals I know don't believe in this "Right vs Left" crap.
And I know a lot of independents and even some conservatives who are tired of it as well.
What I think upsets John the most is that the story that he wants to see in the media is a story about a comedian who is tired of "Right vs. Left". What he wants to see in the media are fact-based stories. What he gets in the media is "Right vs. Left". Ad nauseum. Or, maybe I'm projecting here and this is what I miss from the media :).
The event will make for some great comedy. I just have to keep asking myself, why is it that people voted for John as the most trusted anchor in America. He runs a comedy show!!! He even continuously tells you he runs a comedy show.
I think the reason is that the traditional media no longer does the job that it once used to do.
Great topic, Chris!
-David
Indeed, some are even suggesting that the Stewart/Colbert "rally" may actually hurt the progressive movement, because it is being held so close to the upcoming election. People who feel strongly enough to travel a great distance to see Stewart and Colbert in the flesh may include people who feel strongly enough about politics to be making "get out the vote" phone calls back in their home districts. But they won't be available that weekend, because they'll be on the road to see Stewart and Colbert.
I think there is some validity to that theory.. Like you said, fans of the two are exactly the kind of youthful activist that made the Democrats ascension to power possible..
And they ain't gonna be around this weekend. Hell, it will provide those people an excuse NOT to vote or volunteer..
"Sorry, I really wanted to do my part and vote Democrat but I was just too damn tired from the weekend in DC to pull myself out of bed on Tuesday."
And, since Arianna is providing transportation for tens of thousands MORE Lefty activists, the Dems numbers will be even MORE depressed come election day.
It's gonna be a rout....
Michale.....
To say that Beck "put on a fairly non-political show" is to imagine his audience sees a separation between religion and politics. They don't, and Beck is happy to mis-educate them on that score. Given how the tea party has morphed into a new home for the same old faith-based conservative politics, it's perfectly fitting. What I saw was a four-hour Goldline commercial with blatant Mormon symbolism and Randian philosophy.
I saw Colbert's "testimony" as a direct attack on the phenomenon you note here. For that matter, Beck's event was ostensibly about a charity; Stewart has been pushing his own charity in conjunction with the Rally4Sanity.
Stewart came up with the rally idea *after* "WhiteStock." I think it's undeniable that satire of celebrity politics is the goal this weekend, just as Colbert always pauses on his way to the guest interview area and receives the adoration of the crowd. By saying 'it's all about ME,' Colbert lampoons ego-driven celebrity pundits.
David,
If it is not a "Right Vs Left" venue, then why is Arianna Huffington paying a quarter of a million dollars to bus liberals into the event??
Michale.....
If it is not a "Right Vs Left" venue, then why is Arianna Huffington paying a quarter of a million dollars to bus liberals into the event??
From what I understand, Michale, Ms. Huffington offered to provide buses to anyone interested in attending.
As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of people are fed up with all the Right vs. Left screaming. People across the political spectrum.
If you check the Interwebs, she may have posted more on her reasons. I did a brief search and couldn't find but I wasn't too inspired.
Believe it or not, Michale, and I consider myself pretty liberal, I honestly don't hate conservatives or Republicans or Tea Partiers. What I don't like is the atmosphere where we can't sit down and discuss things instead of calling each other Hitler :).
That's why I try not to do it myself and also why I like hanging out here at CW.com (blatant plug for Chris)
I think it's undeniable that satire of celebrity politics is the goal this weekend
Good point, Osborne. Couldn't agree with you more that both comedians like to make fun of celebrity pundits (especially Colbert).
-David
p.s. Here's a post from Arianna with contest winners expressing what they would do to "restore sanity":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huffpost-readers-weigh-in_b_775232.html
What's interesting about it to me is that there's no mention of Right vs. Left.
What's interesting about it to me is that there's no mention of Right vs. Left.
The fact that it is Arianna MAKES it a Left vs Right issue.. Not to mention the simple fact that I can't post to Arianna's commentary makes it a Left vs Right thing. :D
Just as it would be a Right vs Left if Limbaugh or Beck offered to bus people in, as I am sure you would agree. :D
Having said that, I did read the responses to How Would You Restore Sanity and I have to admit that I am suitably impressed...
But once again, I point out how Arianna doesn't like to hear all opinions, which is a strike against her...
It's ironic. Most of the suggestions more or less say, "listen to other people's opinions" and "keep it civil".. Yet, I am still banned...
Which is why it's hard to think that HuffPo'ers are really serious about it..
Michale
This is a good clip that demonstrates the massive insanity America seems about to slip into..
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/10/the_tea_party_i.html
Of course Michale won't take it seriously because Cesca banned him from his site, but the sheer volume of wingnuttia Olbermann lists is staggering.
Just as it would be a Right vs Left if Limbaugh or Beck offered to bus people in, as I am sure you would agree. :D
I disagree. I'd be happy if Rush or Glenn were busing people in if they were busing people with the non-partisan goal of restoring some civility to the conversation.
I'm sure Stewart/Colbert would be too as they are entertainers and the bigger the crowd, the better.
If Arianna went to see Star Trek, would that make it a "liberal" movie? :)
-David
Kevin,
Of course Michale won't take it seriously because Cesca banned him from his site, but the sheer volume of wingnuttia Olbermann lists is staggering.
I am sure that, if I had the time and the inclination, I could find an equal volume of wingnuttia from the Left..
But you prove my point for me. In the realm of political blogs it is usually ALL about "Left vs Right"...
As for Cesca's site. It's nothing but an echo chamber for people to go to and be ditto heads.. Everyone that posts a dissenting opinion is called a litany of names or banned.. Or both... I challenged the resident ditto head to a debate regarding his hypocritical posting and his response was personal attacks against myself, my wife and my mother...
Yea, they are REAL classy over at Cesca... :^/
I disagree. I'd be happy if Rush or Glenn were busing people in if they were busing people with the non-partisan goal of restoring some civility to the conversation.
Sure didn't seem that way back before Beck's lil gathering.. :D
If Arianna went to see Star Trek, would that make it a "liberal" movie? :)
Ohh oooooo, don't get me started on THAT movie!!!!! :D
But seriously... Read over some of my posts at HuffPo... Are ANY of them worthy of a ban?? Check Cesca's site or Oink's site.. NONE of the posts there were attacks or anything. They were simply logical and rational responses that disputed the echo chamber..
And THAT is why I was banned there. Because I had the audacity, the unmitigated GALL to dispute the echo chamber...
But, I digest... :D
Dissent is as American and as patriotic as Mom and apple pie...
A point that the Huffington's and the Cesca's and the Oink's just cannot seem to grasp...
Michale.....
In the realm of political blogs it is usually ALL about "Left vs Right".
I don't know if that's true w/ all blogs, but I'd agree w/ you that certainly some of them. And, you may find this surprising, Michale, but I think Olbermann often gets caught up in the "Right vs. Left" trap. Or, at least that's what his show feeds into.
Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I don't watch a lot of Olbermann so I could very well be - but I find he spends too much time talking about things like the "crazy Tea Party".
I'd rather see progressive commentators talking about things like our economic philosophy and defining what progressives stand for.
Unfortunately, Olbermann's getting big ratings (like some of those on Fox) so he will likely continue. *sigh*
-David
I don't know if that's true w/ all blogs, but I'd agree w/ you that certainly some of them. And, you may find this surprising, Michale, but I think Olbermann often gets caught up in the "Right vs. Left" trap. Or, at least that's what his show feeds into.
I would say MOST of the other blogs are like that. If yer bored one day, take a gander.. You'll be amazed at how nice we have it here at CW.com.. Suburban Guerrilla is another good site where the debates are good. Of course, my definition of "good" is a site that doesn't ban people simply for a dissenting opinion. :D So, my standards in that regard are pretty low. :D
But, getting back to the topic.....
What do you think about the theory that has been put forth that the upcoming rallies might negatively impact the Dem vote???
Michale.....
Sigh, again.
Michale, could you come up with ONE example of wingnuttia from a serious Democrat candidate? Blue Dogs don't count. (We need some minimal standards...). Maybe I'm too isolated up here in the British Columbia wasteland, but if ANY Democrat candidate was spouting similar bilge to your avaerage bagger, I'm sure it would be front page news everywhere and you'd be harping on it as an example of "both sides are the same". Given your intelligence, I don't understand how you can honestly believe this tripe.
P.S.
Whoops. Forgot to re-read for typos, obviously I meant average.
Kevin,
Michale, could you come up with ONE example of wingnuttia from a serious Democrat candidate? Blue Dogs don't count.
Why not?? They are Democrats?? You can't pick and choose who gets to be "real" Democrats and who doesn't.
Regardless, I don't even need to go to Blue Dogs..
Pelosi claiming that Dems are going to hold onto control of the House is about as nuttia as it gets...
Tell ya what.. You give me an example of "nuttia" from a current candidate from the Right and I will match it with an example of "nuttia" from a current candidate from the Left..
But it has to be REAL nuttia, not just something you disagree with...
Michale.....
Brain..overload...from...too many...choices.
How about that East Germany admirer in Alaska, wanting to eliminate Unemployment Insurance? ....Are there no poorhouses; let them eat...what exactly? Too many Americans are already in danger of losing their benefits; what would the Republican's have them do when that basic support is wrenched away by them? Eat grass? Or do you blame your unemployed for their plight? (I know, it's Obama's fault, even though every respected economist in the world has said his policies have cushioned the disaster), and rightly place the blame on the Bush administration's "policies". But what do they know, they've just got the ACTUAL numbers to back them up.
David -
Good points. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the responses to this article, as I was fully expecting Stewart/Colbert fans to gang up on me and pummel me with snarkiness, but so far that hasn't happened either here or at HP.
The whole thing, to me, is one of those moments where you wish one of the political commentators on teevee would just stop and say:
"Why are we talking about this, for Pete's sake?"
Michale -
Even if they have to travel, I bet most of them will have recovered by Tuesday. Heh.
Osborne -
Yeah, Beck's show was chock full of "dog whistles" -- messages that his followers know what they mean, but the media is clueless about. I should have mentioned that.
Michale -
Hey, I'm just amazed the Left has its act together RE: busses. Usually the only ones that organized on the Left are the Unions.
David -
Blatant CW.com plugs are always appreciated!
:-)
Kevin -
I'm actually glad the idea occurred to Stewart, and not Olbermann. I think an Olbermann rally would be a far different thing.
David -
Ooo! Good "Star Trek" zinger! Next time Michale watches a ST movie, he's going to have to fight to get the image of Arianna sitting there next to him, watching, out of his head. Heh.
:-)
-CW
For what little it's worth, I'm not particularly an Olbermann fan....It was the length and mass of verbal stupidity that caught my attention; at the moment I only get 3 or 4 TV channels that I can watch/hear where I live, so almost all of my information comes from websites I frequent. I DO like the few Olbermann clips I get to see, I can heartily agree with his frustration...Our premier is a right-wing lightweight who embarrasses us all with his similarity to Steven Harper. Liz knows what I mean.
Ooo! Good "Star Trek" zinger! Next time Michale watches a ST movie, he's going to have to fight to get the image of Arianna sitting there next to him, watching, out of his head. Heh.
Oooooooo now that's just MEAN!!!! :D
Michale.....
David,
From what I understand, Michale, Ms. Huffington offered to provide buses to anyone interested in attending.
She won't even let me post comments to her blog.
Do you HONESTLY think she would allow me to ride on her bus??? :D
Michale.....
Of course there are nut jobs on the left and of course there are nut jobs on the right. And in the center, off to the side, or completely separate to the issue at hand. The Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Tea Partiers and any other political party in the American political system have a legal framework that prevents them from baring entry. Nut jobs are free to join any of them at will. Has there ever been in the history of mankind any group with more than a handful of members that did not have at least one nut job? No, really, trying to define a group by the measure that they have greater than one nut job is proof the looker has found one. To paraphrase Walt Kelly, We have met the nut job and he is us. The real question is how representative are the nut jobs to the general character of the group?
It's too bad more people are not taking this rally seriously. What if Jon Stewart is serious and sincere? Is there some reason that an entertainer can't do this? Is there a class in society that is allowed to be political and have rallies and others that are not? Must everything be singular in it's goal? It will be interesting to see how this pans out. There are something like 600 sister rallies planned around the world. My wife and I were considering going but we are on the opposite coast. If we lived on the east coast we would be there and we are not generally the rallying types. This might end up surprising a lot of people, or at least a lot of cynical journalists…
What if Jon Stewart is serious and sincere?
I think he's very serious and sincere in many ways, Bashi. I really do think he wants to restore some sanity to the conversation between folks. Saw a recent interview with him and what seemed to frustrate him most was not anything conservative, but rather the media and their failure to do their job.
Though he wants to be sure to have some fun along the way.
I'm just amazed the Left has its act together RE: busses. Usually the only ones that organized on the Left are the Unions.
Heheheh. Very true, CW. Maybe they're old Volkswagon buses :)
I DO like the few Olbermann clips I get to see, I can heartily agree with his frustration.
Kevin, I can't quite put my finger on why I'm not a big Olbermann fan. I think only part of it is because he seems to play into the Right vs. Left thing more than most. Maybe it's because he talks like his pants are on too tight. If I compare him to Rachel Maddow, for example, she just seems like she's having more fun.
It's hard to take something seriously that started out as a joke... :D
Michale.....
Michale,
Still waiting for your Democrat counterpart. Pelosi was weak, especially for you. That's the best you've got?
Kevin,
Yea, that Pelosi one was weak, I grant you.. But it was just off the top of my head..
Let's start with Candidate Al Green of South Carolina.. :D
Bashi made a good point. There are whack jobs from the Right *AND* the Left. What bothers me is that the majority of the Left is always slamming the Right, implying that THEIR side is as pure as the driven snow..
Speaking completely objectively, the Left's snow has a few tire tracks thru it...
Michale.....
Michale.....
Hay CW,
Do you have an Alter Ego?? :D
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/29/richard-socarides-obama-house-democrats-republicans-wednesday-tea-party-muslim/
Michale.....
Michale,
You DO know the Greene "campaign" was a joke, right? Did he ever put forward ONE idiotic plan? I asked for a serious candidate, which is actually granting the Republicans on Olbermann's list more credit than they deserve. Your both sides are the same argument is just silly; repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it so. (Little Star Trek there for ya...I know, very little).
Kevin,
You asked for a Democrat that was nuttia.. I gave you one...
I mean, what are you telling me??
"Michale, I want you to show me a Democrat who is nuttia. But you can't choose any Democrat that IS nuttia..."
:D
Seriously??
:D
Of course the Greene campaign is a joke. That's my point... It's even more nuttia than you think O'Donnell's campaign is... Yet, O'Donnell has a LOT better chance of winning than Greene does...
Let's face it. You have nuttia from the Right and you have nuttia from the Left.. To castigate one side's nuttia while ignoring the other side's nuttia is just not right.. or left.. :D
Michale....
Nice of you to concede, Michale. I notice you couldn't come up with one "nutty" plank from Greene's non-campaign. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but as I understand things O'Donnell, Miller, et al are "serious". Nice of you to pretend you didn't know what I meant in my challenge, it makes things so much easier to continue with your schtick. Anyhow, I'm tired of this, so you're welcome to your "both sides are the same" delusions. No one else on this site with the possible exception of the recently absent CB would agree with you, but then you already know that. Happy Halloween anyway, and enjoy your "present" this Tuesday. God help your poor souls...
and enjoy your "present" this Tuesday.
Oh you can bet I will.. :D
God help your poor souls...
If there is one obvious fact it is that the GOP can't frak it up any more than the Democrats already have.. :D
The proof of that, of course, will come in 2012...
Michale.....
Ya see, ya gotta ask yourself one question??
Why aren't Democrats running on their record???
Why are the indulging in personal attacks against their opponents instead of crowing about their accomplishments??
OK, that's 2.5 questions, but still..
They are valid questions.
Michale.....
No one else on this site with the possible exception of the recently absent CB would agree with you, but then you already know that.
Yea... And ya'all hated that.. :D Because it made you think, "Hmmmmmmm Maybe Michale is right about things.. "
Can't have THAT, can we.. :D
That's OK... I don't mind being the token Non Political Entity around here.. :D
Michale.....
David,
Here is an example of the "civility" of the Left...
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/10/rally_to_restor_1.html
And before you ask, yea that's a typical example of the Left....
Michale.....
And, since we haven't bashed the Liberal Media in a while...
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/29/major-media-far-more-interested-jon-stewarts-rally-glenn-becks
And ya'all still claim there is no media bias.. :D
Ironic though...
The media was more interested in the Send In The Clowns Rally..
The American People were more interested in the Restoring Honor Rally...
Kinda sums things up perfectly, don't it? :D
Michale.....
Michale,
If Arianna went to see Star Trek, would that make it a "liberal" movie? :)
I'm not sure exactly what Arianna is but she ain't no liberal ... worthy of any respect, that is.
She damn sure is a card-carrying member of the "professional left", though ... of that, there can be no doubt.