In order to survive, should Dem Party also employ Celebrity Figureheads?

[ElementaryPenguin]

It's obvious that a majority of Americans are now voting precisely like children - without regard for substantive issues or even party affiliation, strictly on a like or dislike of their perception of the personality and appearance of the celebrity, er...candidate showcased, er...campaigning before them. (Arnold = Mr. Olympia - Gray Davis = pencil-neck geek)

Perhaps the inescapable truth is, that in today's uninformed, ultra-superficial American society - the Chris Bustamantes and Gray Davis's of the world are much better suited to pulling the strings behind the scenes - the same way that big business interests are presently pulling the strings for the GOP a.k.a. Gimmick Oppressor Party!

What's the alternative? Enduring the tenure of Senator Dennis Miller from California?

Diane Feinstein? Barbara Boxer? Both excellent for behind the scenes policy formation (or, more accurately, writing the "script" to be followed) - but the truly electable Dems - perhaps those are:

ROBERT REDFORD
TOM HANKS
TOM CRUISE

even JACK NICKOLSON - and the like!!

If this rapidly descending into pure celebrity wars - and I'm not sure it hasn't already - then perhaps we liberals need to utilize ALL of our resources, and (as revolting as this concept may be) we really ought to include among those resources, the fact that MOST Hollywood celebs are LIBERALS - liberals that we can utilize, not just to raise money for candidates - but to pose as actual candidates and elected officials themselves!! (What the hell was Ray-Gun but precisely that) Afterall, even the Chimp was a celebrity of sorts - his ONLY true claim to fame was that he was the son of a former president - whom he shared a name with.

Think about it. I maintain that Arnold would have won had he been a Democrat.

Real politicians? Real statesmen? Perhaps the ugly truth is, in America - those concepts are REALLY passe'!

[CBHagman]

1. You don't mean "survive," you mean "get free publicity"

Corporations want to sell, sell, sell, and what's important in our lives matters not a bit to them. In Schwarzenegger they knew they had an entertaining story, and they ran with it.

Unfortunately, a lot of dolts (YES, THEY ARE DOLTS!) voted for the has-been and will have to live with the consequences.

They would have acted pretty much the same if JFK Jr., God rest his soul, were still around to glamorize the Democrats. We need visibility.

[ElementaryPenguin]

3. JFK, Jr. would have won the presidency at whatever point in his life

He would have seriously desired it.

[ElementaryPenguin]

6. Your point about "story" is very important. We do need to provide

The dolts, er...public with an "inquiring minds need to know" story about the Celebrity, er...candidate's PERSONAL life - not their stands on those pesky, boring issues!! This is why when we have a boring, unattractive looking Dem talking about a boring subject like MediCare - the dolts, er...voters think their being sent back to school to do some boring homework - and WE ARE ALREADY BEATEN!!

[CarinKaryn]

2. Martin Sheen

Big time, well liked celebrity who already supports the causes he believes in - unlike the groper whose only cause is money and fame.

[ElementaryPenguin]

4. Excellent choice! A very passionate speaker, charismatic...

And a very compassionate man! His fire and brimstone speaches would help him run circles around a comparitive neanderthal like Ah-nulled!

[Neecy]

5. the difference is...

We don't have to hide our core beliefs behind stealth celebrity candidates.

The reason this idiot didn't campaign on the issues is that he didn't want to have to tell the voters of California that they weren't voting for a moronic, incoherent movie star, but a Republican agenda that the majority of them don't and will not support.

Wait until he caves in on the first wingnut item on the agenda, and then the shit will really hit the fan.

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. I agree with you 100%, Neecy...

But my using a celeb, the Repukes beat us. They failed when they used regular scum right wingers like Bill Simon or McClintock! Rest assured, we are going to see MORE gimmicky Repuke Celebs. Whatever works - in true Machiavellian fashion!

[Neecy]

10. don't forget the double standard, though...

The media has a major whore attack when a liberal celebrity speaks out...MSRNC had a huge segment a couple of weeks that basically asked if celebrities had ANY right to speak out at all.

Of course, their discussion was limited to those who are liberal.

At the same time, MSRNC failed to mention that the RW 'celebrities' are campaigning for governor of California, are whoring for Bush and his illegal war and attacking OTHER celebrities who lean left. Huh? So, only wingnuts can be vocal, everyone else has to shut the hell up?

If the Groper had been a Democrat, you can bet he would have been smeared by the media every single fucking minute. Instead, the last month has been a non-stop paid ad for Arnold. CNN even went so far yesterday as going to his hometown in Austria and having lots of people tell us that he'd never grope women, and doesn't like those nasty ol' Nazi's. And gee, the polls were still open. Talk about voter manipulation, a political ad passing as legitimate journalism.

[ElementaryPenguin]

11. Excellent point, Neecy!

But there comes a point when the stature of the Celeb is so great - that they are at least on an even playing field with the whore press. I'd like to see a media whore like Bill Schneider convince people to hate Tom Hanks or Bruce Springstein - simply because he does! And with enough of them out their - I believe the whore press could be overwhelmed - plus CNN - owned by TimeWARNER - is not going to risk blowing PR for the next, upcoming Tom Hanks film!! There is no question about that double standard being a problem, however. This is why Al Gore's new cable news station is so crucial!!!

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. We could conjure up a far more palatible Celeb Figurehead

Than a Hitler loving Gropinator!! The fact that they won with him - even though the mainstream did reveal this terrible baggage of his - shows me just how far the dolts, er...the public is willing to follow this ridiculous celebrity culture of ours!!

It's simple - You fight fire with fire - you fight popular Celebs with lousy ideas - with equally popular Celebs with great ideas!

[HereSince1628]

8. Thanks, but I'll stay with principles rather than Hollywood charismatics

I understand the underlying principle of political pragmatism, but even if I'm the only "left" left standing I'd rather waste my time urging others to progressive principles than to pander to populism.

Don't worry, I know a coffin awaits my dreams.

[ElementaryPenguin]

9. I definitely respect that, 1628 - but without "pandering to populism"

How can your/our progressive principles ever be enacted? Are you satisfied with just having a better world ON PAPER?

[ElementaryPenguin]

13. Justifiable public service kick!

:kick:

[Drifter]

14. NO NO NO NO

California is the laughing stock state of the laughing stock country.

Why the hell would you want to do this with Democratic support.

I am not against celebrities holding office. I am against celebrities thinking they can bypass the "experience" part of politics and simply jump in at the top.

Start at the bottom and work your way up. There is no short cut to gaining experience.

Cheers
Drifter

[JHB]

15. I think some people are forgetting Hillary Clinton

Granted she had more experience with the law and politiking than Thrud the Barbarian does, but let's not forget, folks:
in 2000 she had never held an elected office herself, she had not been personally responsible for running a federal or state agency or other large organization, and she barely qualified as a resident of the state she was running in, but she vaulted over every other senatorial hopeful, and a hell of a lot of the reason for that was her public image and celebrity. It works both ways.

We don't have to "decend" into celebrity wars. Just be more judicious in our choice of celebrity.