Do celebrities add glitter and gold?
Presidential candidates trot out celebrities the way Aunt Mildred pulls out those old, fading vacation slides from her ’72 trip to the Jersey Shore.
Forget a chicken in every pot. There are stage, screen and recording glitterati — some past their luster, others still shiny and new — on every campaign trail.
Some perform at fund-raisers and appear at campaign stops while others just write their favorite candidate(s) a check for a grand or two.
John Kerry has a friend in Carole King.
Willie Nelson has Dennis Kucinich on his mind.
Hootie and the Blowfish only want to be with John Edwards.
Director Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen have been quite the pair stumping for the campaign-retooling Howard Dean.
Madonna is expressing her political self, backing retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark.
Michael Moore is supporting Clark.
Celebrities are the bait in a political bait-and-switch. They draw people in, then give the candidate a captive audience with which to share his vision.
The list of celebrity endorsers is long and dreary and it really just comes down to the democratic presidential hopefuls not having a solid platform to stand on in order to gain the attention and respect of the American people – - if they seriously need all these celebrities to get people to attend fundraisers, speeches and to gain support then that is truly pathetic all on its own.
Love Carole King for “Tapesty”..wasn’t too annoyed by Hootie..Madonna can suck a lemon…bottom line they will not sway me in the voting booth and to think that the public is that shallow..WOW..but hate to say it..a majority of the public is. It’s a helluva lot easier to listen to your favorite icon than acually follow the campaign trail for most. If you’re basing your vote on an “icon” than your vote should be null and void..seriously. I am sick to death of people who are being swayed by this kind of trickery but to be blunt and totally freakin’ nasty these are the people who are uneducated, jobless and holding a place in a welfare line..so screw ‘em
The right is always bellowing this ”Hollywood Liberal Elite” crap, but most actors who run for public office run as Republicans?
Consider:
Sen. Fred Thompson
Cong. Fred ”Gofer” Gandy
Cong. Sonny Bono
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
And, of course, the ALL-TIME Acting President…
Ronald Wilson Reagan
[While Schwarzenegger was doin' ''Total Recall'' Reagan said he COULDN'T Recall over 100 times to questions asked about the Iran-contra deal--isn't that cute?]
Ah, Ronald Reagan…I do miss Ronald Reagan. After sampling many of his letters in Time, I think it’s safe to say that, even on his weakest day, he was perhaps the sharpest politician we had seen since the likes of Kennedy.
At least imo.
Actually, it’s one thing to stand as a performer and behave as though you are a politician or an immortal being who cannot and must not be questioned where political agenda is concerned. It’s quite another thing to actually stand up and run for an office that you truly believe it despite (or because of) your status as a celebrity, making a difference.
Another thing about Reagan: looking back on the Reagan Era, I think it is safe to refer to his eight years as the best, most prosperous era since the all-too-short era of JFK. The economy was booming, the entertainment was of the highest quality, and the first steps towards ridding Russia of Communism had been taken. Ah, those were the days…and the fact that there was a stalwart in office who still had a staunch set of values by which to lead the nation didn’t hurt matters!
Do these values include Reagan’s assistance–with treasure and weapons–to such wonderful people as Manuel Noriega, Usama bin Laiden, and of course, Saddam Hussein?
Here’s a challenge for you, DG — a nice, old-fashioned question you answer with either two words: yes or no. If you answer with any more, I will not hesitate to ignore it, as I consider this a relatively simple question, and if your answer does not consist of the words either yes or no, I will automatically count it as a yes by default.
With that said, here we go:
Over all, were times really good and prosperous for America under Reagan?
NO!
Sorry. I can’t resist:
Reagan began with an executive order that froze the minimum wage for NINE (9) YEARS! This stagnated most other wages and has led to our declining living standards.
Then he introduced ”Reaganomics.” Others called it ”supply side” economics where large quantities of cheap, imported consumer goods flooded the US market at the EXPENSE of American jobs. What a patriot!
As the jobs left the US he enacted the largest spending cuts in US history. The simultaneous tax cuts and spending cuts led to the largest defecits in US history–or at least until Junior arrived.
And Reagans ”get big government off your back” really meant ”De-regulation” of private industry from government oversight: International trade, FDA, NLRB, OSHA. Reagan was the first president to put his sticky little fingers inside the Social Security cookie jar to help finance the US debt.
Don’t you remember the S&L scandals? In fact are there ANY Savings & Loans in the US? How much did that cost taxpayers? When Reagan introduced legislation that deregulated the banking industry, he said ”We really hit the jackpot with this legislation.” Not long after that Neil Bush sunk Silverado Savings and Loan.
Deregulation in the SEC led to inside trading (including sevral members of the Reagan administraion) fraud and the ultimate decline of the securities market which culminated into the crash of ’87.
Reagan was strong on defense but he had a lousy foreign policy. Remember the 250 Marines killed in Beruit? And what about his illegal excursions in Central America? Grenada, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicargua. And the CIA was allowed to cut deals with Manual Noriega in Panama that allowed the transport of drugs through Panama into the US, while the US funnelled guns and supplies to ”contras” and other ”freedom fighters.” A lot of money got made there at the expense of countless lives!
Reagan supplied Usama bin Laiden in Afgahnistan to fight the Soviets and sent Donald Rumsfeld to tell Saddam Hussein that even though the US was ”neutral” in the Iran-Iraq war, we would do whatever neccessary to support Iraq.
After supporting and supplying Saddam Hussein, Reagan allowed an illegal arms sale to Iran and used the money to finance his illegal war in Central America!
See a pattern here yet?
To sum it up:
Reagan cut the legs off the middle class, hampered wages, weakened labor unions, lowered our standard of living, eroded government oversight, insecured the securities and exchange markets, evaporated the Savings & Loan industry, spent $2.5 trillion on defense contracts while creating the largest deficits in history (or at least until AWOL showed up), created the largest trade defecits in US history, and paved the way for corporate campaign contributors to profit handsomely from little wars all over the world.
Here’s a fact:
The greatest econmoy in the history of the world occoured under–OMIGAWD–Bill Clinton.
Ah, you did answer my question after all.
Well, I guess you must have been living in a different America than I lived in back in the eighties. Of course, I’m assuming you were around in the eighties in the first place; is that a correct assumption? Did you have firsthand experience in the eighties, or did you only know the eighties via history books, as I admit to knowing about the sixties in only that fashion?
If the answer is the latter, then how on earth can I expect you to be a self-professed authority on the Reagen Era? I myself was very young, but I still saw that people were quite happy and prosperous for the most part. I remember the yuppies, the prosperity, the extolling of family values firsthand.
Heck, I even remember the then-liberal spin on it via Oliver Stone in “Wall Street,” the satirical slogan “Greed is good,” though I didn’t think much of it at the time.
I remember Reagan’s association with Gorbachev, which I didn’t quite understand at the time, but soon saw a lasting impact stemming from it in years to come, first in the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and then three years later in the fall of Communism in Russia.
I have my own memories, so I don’t need your spouting of articles, which are most likely completely rewritten in grand liberal tradition anyway. I would prefer to rely on my memories as long as I have them — I trust them far more than I trust your “facts.”
Do you even have any personal memories about the Reagan Era? I’m not talking about anything you’ve read in a history book or a magazine — I’m talking about firsthand experience here. Do you have any of that?
Trust me. I lived that nightmare that still haunts America. I watched stagnate wages, cheap Chinese imports, and my father lost his job as an industrial machinist because they moved the work off shore. Reagan loved America like a fox loves a chicken coop.
Can you point out specifically where you disagree with ANY of the issues I raised concerning the Reagan era?
For instance, did you know that Reagan had the largest administration in history–or at least until Junior. Not bad for a man who hated BIG GOVERNMENT.
Did you know that over 200 Reagan Administration officials had to resign under a cloud and some of whom (Lynn Noftzinger, Michael Deaver just to name two) went to prision for illegal stock trading, bank fraud and other high crimes?
You obviously just seen it on TV like some unreal-reallity show on FOX.
(No, FOXNews wasn’t around then. But a FOX producer named Roger Ailes did have a job working in the Reagan administration as Reagans acting coach–no shit!
dg- my my my, you do step deeper and deeper into your own load! Reagan did nothing for the middle class? Where were you? Did you not feel the relief after the Carter disaster? Even the dems welcomed that relief! The manufacturing sector in my part of the country hit a recession in 81-82(auto &Furniture) but from there it was up up up! Labor Unions are cutting their own throats these days! They need no help from a Dem or Rep!
dg- did you know that people were killed that kept secrects for the Clintons..they just refered to it as suicide..
Very good point indeed, Peejz! How could we forget the name Vince Foster among others? There were a lot of very interesting “suicides” during the Clinton administration. If things were really so great under him, why would so many feel the need to commit suicide?
Not that I think they did personally. But in the event that they did, it does make you wonder, doesn’t it?
Hmmmmm…
Oh so there’s a vast Left Wing Conspiracy?
Talk about stepping in your own load!
Ever heard of Ken Starr? In between masturbating to Lewenski’s testimony, Star investigated the Foster ”suicide”.
After the investigation and milions of taxpayers money, he did indeed conclude that Vince Foster’s death was a suicide.
Of course, if you say Ken Starr is a liar I would have to conced that.
I am guessing you weren’t of working age during the ”wonderful” Reagan era? While Reagan’s policies froze the average wage, the cost of consumer goods continued to rise. We will never be able to bring our standard of living to where it was prior to Reagan, even with Carter era inflation and oil prices. (I’ll spare you the history lesson, but the inflation of the mid 70′s involved Nixon, the ’73 Arab-Israeli War and OPEC.)
Are unions cutting their own thoats because they ask for better wages, better working conditions and affordable health care?
So do you beleive that it is the workers who are greedy for wanting more and more from these poor corporations?
Maybe we should all just give up two dollars an hour so the corporations can make more money.
What do ya say?
No I was in college living off of my rich republican father who made a very nice living at a corporation that would not allow a union in, paid the employees more than a honest wage, offered excellent benefits and if you didn’t pull your weight you were out. I networked at the country club to assure the right connections were made, married right etc. I have never worked for a union and things just could not be better! It just seems so odd though that all these evil corporations that keep leaving the US just happen to be UNION. Go figure!
So the unions–in order to keep corporations from going to China–should encourge it’s member’s to earn 16 cents an hour.
Tell me: If that happens, who’s going to buy your daddy’s products?
What do I say?
I say you’re getting sloppy, because I noticed this time around that you forgot to post the links that would confirm this. Could I politely ask you to do this, with as few editorial comments as possible? Because quite frankly, I have heard nothing to support this claim about Ken Starr.
If your claim is indeed true, my conclusion would be that he was most likely threatened by someone of a higher power, which I’m sure you’ve never heard.
Just to clarify: I have heard nothing that supports your claim that Ken Starr ruled Vince Foster’s death as suicide during the purgery impeachment trials of Clinton.
Hmmmmm. Let me work backwards here. First, all Reagan did wasn’t good, but he did do a lot of good. Look at what interest rates were before he took office and then after he left office.
Second, maybe the people from Hollywood who decide to run go as Republicans rather than Democrates because they’re doing something rather than just talking about doing something…
Good point Astro..
AG- I concur, and why would Ken Starr have jurisdiction over the police?
dg- maybe the Unions should take a look at what they are doing to themselves. Just think if they took all that money they spend on elections and passed it out to the members, maybe we would not be discussing China. How much does the Head of the UAW make as opposed to the guy working on the line?
As for the issue of unions and affordable health care, the last numbers I saw for the area I live in had union benefits at two to three times what non-union companies can do. The non-union companies can also offer superior benefits in some areas at that cost, such as giving the employee the retirement as something like a SEPIRA rather than having all retirement benefits being the property of the union to pay out as they feel (namely if I die, at 40 years old my retirement account goes over to my wife with no penalty).
Astro- that is a good point! Yes the unions can offer some great benefits, but who is footing the bill? The union isn’t paying the money…they just negotiate how much their members will pay.
IIRC, when our employees voted to go from union to non-union (and out of about a dozen employees the union would only let [b]three[/b] vote even though almost all of them had been with us for several years) it took about ten years for the health care costs to meet what we were paying with the union. I’m not quite sure how that’s affordable health care.
As for wanting fair wags, fair is one thing, greed is another. Two summers ago, when things were extremely slow and people were getting laid off in construction left and right, one fo the trades around us went on strike wanting a 10% raise per year for the next three years. This was an [i]unskilled[/i] trade who was not in a high risk job and who were already making over $35 per hour.
WOW! that could leave a bad taste in your mouth! I am sorry, but I don’t feel for the greedy ones! Good examples!
There were at least three (3) independent investigations.
If there’s a Left Wing Conspriracy, even Starr looked hard (and at what cost?) but has not found it.
Kinda like Bush and that WMD thing. Although, there’s over 500 American deaths in that case[+}:-(
http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/071697/starr.html
UAW boss’ salaries are the same as the highest paid members, which usually have the most seniority.
And how can you think that even at $35 an hour, the employee is greedier than the employer who’s salaries are, on average, 600 times the wages they pay?
Many employees at Wal-Mart, at far lesser pay (and who’s co-workers include hundreds of illegal mexicans) side with the corporation instead of their own livelyhood by opposing their own solidarity.
The bigger Wal-Mart gets, the less they pay their employees. And the NLRB has cited them with violating overtime laws, forcing employees to work overtime without pay. (Don’t make me look it up, just do a google search; i.e., Wal-Mart and labor and violation).
Well in all fairness, Starr did not suffer from any “suicides” in the Clinton Era, so I wouldn’t imagine he would have reported anything, even if he did find it.
Not if Hillary had anything to say about it, of course…
Mal Wart makes plenty of questionable business practices, and because of it I don’t shop there. There’s also a big difference between retail and most other businesses. If you want to talk greed I’ll give you another example with the unions. WHen we left, and granted this was twenty years ago but I don’t see things changing that much, the retirement plan was grossing 22% and netting 2%. The 20% difference went to the 2 business agents and their one secretary.
As to the bosses making 600% more than the workers, I highly doubt that this is even close to average for most companies. If you want to use Mal Wart as an example, why shouldn’t the head of it make 600 times more than the higher employees with what they have to do and risk in their job compared to what 95% of the employees there do????
just a comment to astroknight..I haven’t shopped at a Wal Mart in over 5yrs. I hate what it’s done to “small town America” but we’re going to Ramstein AB in Germany and I heard there is now a Wal Mart over there…I just can’t get away from that place.
dg..let me be cheeeky for a moment..Reagan was not the All Time Acting President..he really couldn’t act, just like Gopher on the Love Boat, the dudes needed a new profession.
And how is it that while construction is up, wages are down and illegal Mexicans are increasingly doing the work?
Here’s another odd bit of news:
Dodge trucks built in the US may cost as much as $30 grand while US auto workers earn about $25 per hour plus benefits.
Now, you may argue that the reason the trucks cost so much is because autoworkers are paid so much. But…
These same trucks are made in Mexico as well and while the Mexican autoworkers earn, on average, $8 a day (with NO benefits), that very same truck costs $30 grand. I’m not a mathematician, but where’s the cost savings to consumers?
This is the AFL-CIO paywatch site. I know you’ll say it’s slanted, but the facts and sources are documented.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/
Alright, let’s look at the paharmeceutical industry:
While they earn 17% on revenue, they are trying to stop seniors from getting their prescriptons from Canada (where they are half the cost as in the US). They claim the FDA has no jurisdiction over imported drugs, and that they might be unsafe.
But so called US Pharmeceutical companies have set up shop off shore (in Ireland, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain, and Japan where the FDA has NO JURISDICTION) have imported $40 billion worth of Viagra, Lipitor, Prevacid, Nexium, etc.
Whats more, the high prices of these drugs is guarunteed by Congress. Pfizer earned 28% on revenue, a rate twice that of General Electric, 9 times that of Mal-Wart (I don’t shop there either, btw) and 31 times that of General Motors.
While they claim the high price of drugs is for ”research and develpement” the US taxpayers fund 36% of all medical research.
Drug companies also spend tens of millions on advertising, but they don’t discuss that.
It should also be noted that there are 535 members of Congress, and there are over 600 pharmeceutical lobbiests. Look at the February 2, 2004 issue of Time magazine or go here:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040202/story.html
…even though it goes without saying, I’ll say it anyway:
Enron raped it’s emplyees while the top execs still made out, not ‘like’ bandits, but AS bandits. Where’s the justice for those employees who lost their retirement savings?
dg asked:
And how is it that while construction is up, wages are down and illegal Mexicans are increasingly doing the work?
First, construction is just starting to turn around for most areas. The only aspects of construction that I’ve seen going steady for the last few years was residential, and even those areas were having some problems. Most aspects of construction were on the downslide since about 1993 / 1994. As to your question, I don’t think wages are down. With the way the economy was going in the nineties labor and rates were going completely out of control. Although it did hurt a little, the downturn in the economy actually did a lot of businesses good by getting them focused again and reminding people that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.
As for the Enron employees, yes it sucks that they lost their entire retirment, but the market is never a sure way to make money. They gambled and they lost. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but it’s true. IIRC, it’s also true that Enron was a major contributer to the Clinton campaign. Kinda funny how the IRS overlooked so much with them…
astroknight
I have no idea how to respond to your conservative drivel.
Enron employees didn’t gamble. They were robbed. They were told to leave their money in the coporation while Bush’s buddy Kenny Boy Lay and Fastow were pulling their cash out. Thats fraud and theft–another fine, conservative Republican trait, ushered in under Reagan and perfected by Junior.
Clinton helped finance projects abroad. Clinton administration provided more than 1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron, projects overseas and at that same time Enron was contributing nearly 2 million to Democratic causes. Clinton officials refused to finance only one out of 20 projects proposed by the energy company between 1993 and 2000 bo build power plants, natural gas pipelines, and other big ticket energy facilities. Enron executives accompanied former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley and the late Ron Brown on seven overseas trips during the Clinton administration and joined the Trade and Development Agency on 11 trade missions. Enron played both sides of the fence here..Lay played gold w/Clinton so they were no strangers to one another.
they played golf..not gold