It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
After years in the desert. This man, his words, and beliefs represent — at least for me — an oasis. He’s the reason to get excited about this country again. He’s the reason to believe that what was can be again. That’s a good feeling to have as a citizen of this nation. Too bad John and Hillary lack to ability to grasp this resounding sentiment.
McCain and Hillary are like pan-and-scan.
Obama is like letterbox.
Most people are going to think the format they’ve lived their whole lives with, the one that fills the screen the most, is the best. To the untrained eye it certainly looks the best. But if you take the time and show people why they’re seeing a clearer, bigger, brighter picture between a thin black frame, they’ll almost always come around.
And I think that’s what’s happening now. Common sense is winning. The future is on it’s way. America’s first black president…
…and in gorgeous 2.35:1 aspect ratio!
All this negativity that’s come out in the past couple of days that’s showcased his resilience makes me so confident that no matter shit is in store he’ll rise above it. More hope, less worry for me.
Crow; you need to suggest that slogan to the Obama campaign. OBAMA IS WIDESCREEN is rather freakin catchy. Good show, sir. Good show.
OBAMA IS DIGITAL… clinton is analogue
Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps…
He also needs to provide some substance to go along with the style. ‘change is coming’ is getting a little tiresome.
bluelouboyle, I take it you’ve never actually listened to a full Obama speech. The man is full of policy ideas. They just don’t show that part in the 15-second clips on the news.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to credit Obama with being all positive when he has been given an utter free pass by the mainstream media. Can you actually say the media has done a fair job questioning and critiquing him like they have Clinton?
Really?
I am currently reading his, Audacity of Hope and while it is a quick zippy read…it is also a typical generic, light on substance tome of a man who desires to be president. And you know what…there is nothing wrong with that; they all do it.
But even Obama supporter Joel Stein had a great read on the weekend about the seeming shallowness of Obama supporters. It’s Beatlemania all over again for the 10th time!
For many of us…Obama mania jumped the shark when Scarlet Johanson did that little faux, waiting for her cue bit in the silly and vapid ‘yes, we can’ video.
Obama does not appeal to the best of people. Instead, he is a savvy and dare I say, cynical, uber left wing politician who knew he had to speak in vagueries and rhetoric to get traction.
And he did. And he is.
Neither Clinton nor McCain are my cup of tea, but let’s not call them negative because they actually have more substance.
Nicol bashes Obama. I am shocked. I live in Chicago, and believe me Nicol, the media has questioned and critiqued him plenty. As I said before, the Chicago Tribune is basically a John McCain newsletter. They endorsed Obama, but only because of how much they hate Clinton. Uber left wing? How so? Because he is left of Clinton and McCain?
I get tired of the “fanatic” label placed on Obama supporters. The fact is, any winning candidate has to draw a great deal of people to their side and has to motivate them sufficiently to not only vote for them, but to hopefully convince others to do so as well. And that support is going to come in all shapes and sizes.
Yes, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Obama campaign now, but it’s not a new thing. I remember the same kind of factor at play in 1992 and I’m sure it has antecedents before that. Reagan had a massive surge of “fanatics” behind him.
It’s strange. Normally we have a quiet, barely vocal population that can barely get the energy up to vote- and often does so out of “well, that one’s not as bad as the other one.” Now when people are actually motivated to engage in the process, people have to throw up a red flag. “They must have lost their minds! They’re like teenage Beatle fans!”
Maybe a lot of people are sick of uninspired leadership. Maybe they’re hoping there’s more to life than what we’ve gotten lately.
Stella,
Have you looked at his voting record? Yes, aside from the votes where he strategically said “present” he is as left wing as they come.
That’s why you like him.
L.B.
The difference is…when you say Ronald Reagan had “fanatics”, you just mean Christians and working class middle America.
When Obama gets criticized for fanatics, we are talking about people who fawn and cry at his rallies like they have just seen the second coming of John, Paul, George and Ringo. We see the facile rhetoric and the extreme defensive nature against anyone who dares question him.
Does that mean that everyone who likes Obama is without substance. No.
Does it mean I think he is a bad man. Of course not.
It just means he is playing to that crowd that is more geared up by emotion and rhetoric than by actual knowledge of the world and how it works. I am no fan of Hillary but she has always done better in the debates and showed more substance.
Obama is catching a wave of populism that is actually quite facile and has nothing to do with substance and everything to do with rhetoric.
And let’s be honest, I also get tired of this:
“Normally we have a quiet, barely vocal population that can barely get the energy up to vote- and often does so out of “well, that one’s not as bad as the other one.”
What you really mean is left-liberals are very enthused so why can’t everyone?
I do believe more and more that Obama will be the next president. But I do not think it will be close. He will not get the Reagan landslide, nor will McCain be Bob Dole.
If the majority of Obama fans do not want to be seen as simple teenagers…they should quit acting like them.
i have not made up my mind on who to vote for. normally, i wouldn’t even start thinking about it til after primaries. but mr. poland is stumping hard for a particular candidate (which is absolutely his right). so, i ask this simple question (well, two really).
what is it that you think obama will do if elected and how will he do it?
i’m not picking a fight. i genuinely want to know. a poster above said his policies aren’t shown in the sound bites. okay, take this opportunity to expound please.
Nicol, how do you explain Obama’s appeal to many independents and even Republicans (Obamacans, as they are affectionately called)? It is hardly only “left-liberals” who are enthused about his candidacy. Also, did I say I like Obama and will vote for him? I could be wrong but I don’t recall saying that.
“What you really mean is left-liberals are very enthused so why can’t everyone?”
There were plenty of enthused right-conservatives. The past two elections proved that.
Wait, Obama’s followers are “fanatics,” but the folks who continue to seal themselves off from the real world and worship Bush (remember the cardboard cutout in JESUS CAMP?) are NOT?
A disingenuous argument from Nicol. A very small minority of vocal Obama supporters may be acting immature and frivolous, but that does not at all correlate to the people who make up the bulk of his support. The hyperventilating statements of Halle Berry or an energetic 18 year old blogger are not representative of the nearly 60% of people who voted for him yesterday in Wisconsin. If you saw the exit poll data, he won support from nearly all demographic groups (except older women). The open primary in WI does not consist of a group of crazy cultists. They’re reasonable voters, and they backed Obama.
Has the Obama campaign played up the hero worship? Yes. As he’s gotten vast sums of cash as a result. But let’s give voters some credit; they aren’t being sucked in by a messianic cult leader. They’re voting on who they think will make the best president.
It is typical of Nicol. He constantly makes broad generalizations about the left but would throw a hysterical fit if someone else did the same with the right.
“A disingenuous argument from Nicol. A very small minority of vocal Obama supporters may be acting immature and frivolous, but that does not at all correlate to the people who make up the bulk of his support.”
How do you know?
“But let’s give voters some credit; they aren’t being sucked in by a messianic cult leader. They’re voting on who they think will make the best president.”
How dow you know? Your assertions are as anecdotal as Nicol’s. And Nicol has not bashed Obama, as has been suggested. His assertion that Obama is getting a free pass compared to Hilary seems very reasonable, if one is paying attention.
What does seem to be quite apparant is the cult of personality that is driving much of Obama’s support. Look no further than DP’s posts about him. Maybe its stage fright, but his supporters cannot seem to name one policy success. This is not an accident. Obama is as left-wing as they come, and must know that America has not elected a left-wing president since FDR. The less he expresses his socialist agenda, the better.
“when you say Ronald Reagan had “fanatics”, you just mean Christians and working class middle America.”
Actually, no. I’m talking about the people who saw him as the second coming in the 80s, who still talk about him like he had god-like power, and say things like “he won the Cold War.” (Because all those presidents from Truman onward had nothing at all to do with that.) Once again, you apply words that weren’t spoken or implied. I’ve known many people I would call Reagan fanatics and I think a couple of them were Christians and maybe a handful were working class. The vast majority were fairly well-off and, to be honest, most of them I can’t say what their religious leanings were. So, again, don’t apply implications to something that wasn’t said.
“What you really mean is left-liberals are very enthused so why can’t everyone?”
Again, no. I’d like to see everyone motivated to vote. The small voter turnout in pretty much every election I can remember is a disgrace and an idicator of a deep apathy that afflicts people of many political stripes. Yes, I have a party I lean towards (and one that loses my vote time and time again because of who they give me to vote for). But the fact that every candidate that’s won the presidency since I can remember could have been beaten if every eligible voter who didn’t bother to vote had gone in and written in Mickey Mouse depresses me. So, I’m moved by the fact that so many are feeling connected and motivated enough to go out and exercise a most basic right. So many cry about rights that are infringed or taken away and one of those rights generally just withers on the vine from inattention. That’s deeply depressing.
I would also avoid making genralizations based on what’s presented in the media or on comment threads. The media will always pay attention to the most vocal (and often odd) voices out there. It makes a better story. And the net will bring out the goofballs on every side. (Just like the movie tastes extressed the strongest in the net don’t tend to represent the feelings of the general moviegoing public.) For every loudmouth who bases their vote on pure emotion and flash, there are leigons who do the research and know the issues. And if Dems can be criticized for voting for someone because of what they say and not what they do, I’d say that street goes both ways.
I’m not offended when someone disagrees with me. But, again, it does bug me when motivations are applied to me or anyone without more than generalizations to back them up. Are there Beatlemaniac Obama supporters? Yes. Just as there are for Clinton (both of them actually). I haven’t personally met any McCain fanatics, but I’m willing to bet they’re out there. Regardless, the presence of fanatics does not negate the presence of people who support him based on a deep understanding of politics and a desire to see something different come out of Washington? Is that possible? I’m cynical enough to say probably not. But right now I’m willing to back the possibility. You can’t offer only inspiration, but the power of inspiration used inteligently can’t be completely discounted either.
“Nicol, how do you explain Obama’s appeal to many independents and even Republicans (Obamacans, as they are affectionately called)?”
Stella,
Many independants and Republicans are rooting for him because of a pure hatred of the Clintons. Some less ideologically disposed might feel differently, but mostly, it’s an anti-Clinton stance right now. For some, it is anti-McCain.
Cadavra,
“..but the folks who continue to seal themselves off from the real world and worship Bush (remember the cardboard cutout in JESUS CAMP?) are NOT?”
Movies are not the real world. That you can’t see that is exactly why I question Obama supporters.
Wrecktum,
“The hyperventilating statements of Halle Berry or an energetic 18 year old blogger are not representative of the nearly 60% of people who voted for him yesterday in Wisconsin.”
Do you know that? Even on Chris Matthews last night one of Obama’s reps could not answer a simple question about what his legislative accomplishments are. Obama does well because he can be whatever you want him to be.
Look at how many leftists who loved JFK yet knew nothing of his polcies (anti-Marxist, capitalist, for lower taxes, started Vietnam etc.) But they loved the rhetoric and youthful zest and appeal.
“…they aren’t being sucked in by a messianic cult leader. ”
Then why are so many acting that way. Even a reporter – a supposed professional – a while back said he couldn’t help but be seduced into the Obamamania. Why do you think the media is giving him a free ride?
Until Obama faces real media scrutiny get used to this very relevant sort of questioning.
Stella,
Yes, because I am known around here for throwing hysterical fits and resorting to vulgarity. I am always commenting every time someone says something negative about the right. Thanks for calling me out Stella. That took real courage. Sheesh.
L.B.
“So, I’m moved by the fact that so many are feeling connected and motivated enough to go out and exercise a most basic right.”
Bush motivated a lot of people to do the same. Same with Reagan. I find it funny that the left only loves that right when they are in the lead. When they are not it is the old canards of dumb people stealing elections and democracy is broken. Remember, in the last election Bush got more votes than any candidate in history. Did that passion of his supporters move you positively as well?
“For every loudmouth who bases their vote on pure emotion and flash, there are leigons who do the research and know the issues.”
Sadly, the opposite is true. For every person who does research knows the issues, legions vote on emotion and flash. Nobody knows this better than Obama. Why do you think the majority of his senate votes were ‘present’. He knew he had to be a relatively blank slate.
“I haven’t personally met any McCain fanatics, but I’m willing to bet they’re out there.”
There are – no – John McCain fanatics. Period.
Last night, my New Media, Old Media professor stated that he is in fact a John McCain fanatic. For some reason he shared this with the entire class. So I guess you are wrong Nicol. And you do make broad generalizations of the left, and if someone did that about the right you would call them out on it.
The dramatic swing from Hilary to Obama is more evidence that voters aren’t deciding based on policy. I’d wager that the broader reason is similar to DP’s reason– he now thinks Obama can win it all. People were holding their noses and voting for Hilary because it was thought she was their best chance. Now that somebody they actually LIKE can win (along with the fact that there is very little distinction between the political platforms of Hilary and Obama), the switch was easy.
Obama has known from the beginning that Hilary’s lack of likability was her biggest vulnerability. All he’s done is focus on being likable.
Obama’s socialist agenda? Really? And if all Obama supporters are somehow irrational sheep, does that count DP as well?
“Obama does not appeal to the best of people.” – Nichol D
Written like a true outsider looking in. That is EXACTLY why he is getting this groundswell of support. I don’t know who you thought you could convince with such a mindbogglingly newspeak statement, the reader or yourself.
People are sick and tired of the appeal to hatred & fear that so fueled the Rights rise (hatred of gays, hatred of Hispanics masked as “immigration” fear of their new wet dream bogeymen: “the” terrorists) that did nothing to improve their lives.
You can call it empty and devoid of substance if you want, but Obama’s support has everything to do with the fact that he appeals to that very desire people have to strive for the best.
“Why do you think the majority of his senate votes were ‘present’. He knew he had to be a relatively blank slate.”
Actually, in Illinois a “present” vote is used to express disapproval of the particulars of a bill while signaling that there would be support for a different version of the bill later. In other words, you support that, say, a bill is addressing a transportation problem, but can’t suport the way it addresses the problem. Or you support the way it addresses it, but can’t support other portions of the bill. It’s used as more than just a sidestep and is a particular to Illinois legislative process.
“Remember, in the last election Bush got more votes than any candidate in history. Did that passion of his supporters move you positively as well?”
I was actually impressed that so many people came out finally and voted. I was still depressed that at a critical time so many didn’t. (On the other hand, it’s not like either side had much to choose from.)
“Remember, in the last election Bush got more votes than any candidate in history. Did that passion of his supporters move you positively as well?”
Fear mongering paid off.
Added to which, as a population grows the number of votes will naturally rise. (Kerry also received more votes than any president in history.) The percentage is the number to pay attention to. And that number remains remarkably low.
Just a note: Thank you ALL for keeping it pretty civil in here. I am always proud of this blog when we can use hard words and exchange hard ideas without making it personal.
AND
The reality is that Clinton has been given the red carpet treatment for a year now… and she strutted like a peacock, which even SNL picked up on (before the strike) in the “oh you little distractions” bits. Obama has risen in the wake of that arrogance.
The nasty truth about The American Presidency is that it is not a nuts & bolts job. The most popular presidents since Kennedy – Reagan and Clinton – both were shining examples of that reality.
And there is no “most liberal since FDR.” Liberal politics in mainstream America is many clicks to the right of FDR, just as the Conservative politics have moved to the left.
As things stand, the American economy is not driven by the president, except on the level of confidence.
More importantly, the power of The Presidency is driven by the ability to sell policy to America, thus making it politically expedient for Congress to get behind those policies. So… when the Republicans come up against an important push by a new Dem president, who do you want trying to convince America of the validity of their side and raising pitchforks against political intransigence
Nicol, it’s not accurate to say that Republicans are voting for Obama because they hate Clinton and McCain. First of all, Republicans who don’t like McCain are voting for Huckabee, who’s still gettng around half of the Conservative vote in the primaries that have happened even since McCain became the de facto nominee, suggesting a major level of discontent.
Second, if Republicans are going to cross over and vote in Democratic primaries, they’re more likely to vote _for_ Hillary Clinton because she’s perceived as easier to beat in November. Your assertion is way off base.
Nicol,
I’m a Republican, although I will grant you a fairly moderate one. I gave money to McCain in 2000 and then voted for Bush in the general election. In 2004 I held my nose and voted for Kerry, solely based on the matter of the war. In the Cali primary I voted for McCain since I’m registered Republican, but I’ve given money to Obama and will vote for him in the general over McCain (although of course I’d vote for McCain over Clinton). I’m not voting for Obama because I’ve been sucked into his cult, or because I don’t understand the issues. I obviously disagree with him on some of his economic policy stances, although I am solidly in agreement with him on what I consider the two most important issues of this election, Iraq and health care (Hillary’s is way too aggressive while our party is way too in denial about the state of health care in this county). But mainly I am voting for him because I think he can energize and unite the country, which is arguably a president’s biggest job.
I just want you to know that your simplistic explanations of who supports Obama and why do not speak for me, or for people like me, and so you might as well stop trying to generalize us because it’s only gonna make you look more and more out of touch as this election goes on.
i find it interesting that roughly seven hours later the only one that seems able to articulate what obama means to him is biscuits, a self-described republican. but sadly in the most generic way.
i thought this is the guy that excites everyone to vote FOR him. does he have something going for him that’s a little less vague than “hope?”
Hendhogan, I’ll answer your question:
He’s not a Republican, and he has a better chance of winning than Hillary. That’s all I need.
sadly, jeff, that is what i expected.
of course, that’s not going to work for my vote. i’m going to need more to vote for the man (not that it matters much being a citzen of california, which i am confident will stay securely in the blue state category).
Well Hendhogan, if you go to his website you can see what he stands for. He wants to prevent lobbyists from exerting their control over politics, he has a great plan for health care, he wants to get us out of Iraq and secure the region, he is supportive of Israel and supports its right to defend itself, etc. I happen to be behind him in regards to those issues, but if you are not, then it’s understandable why you might not be a fan. But if you do agree, then why not vote for somebody who you agree with on big issues?
didn’t say i wasn’t a fan. not made up my mind. i will read what he has to say.
but i’ve been around the block a few times to note that when a politician talks about hope and change to be careful. great generic terms with little meaning to the words themselves. so, i always ask hope for what? change to what?
with passions running high for the man here, i was hoping to hear some of those ideas from those who endorse him. and explanations of how those ideas will be implemented. for instance, on face value, getting out of iraq and securing the region seem to contradict. i’m sure there’s a good explanation for that though on the site you mentioned.
thank you for your response, noah.
No problem, Hendhogan. And I agree with you about being suspicious about politicians. The knock on Obama seems to be that he doesn’t have a firm plan, but I couldn’t tell you what Hillary or McCain’s solid plans are either. I think Obama’s website offers some clues about what kind of President he would be, but I agree that we should be cautious and recognize that most politicians are full of shit. So, as I’ve often said in the past, it’s basically about whose bullshit you like the best. If Obama’s platform is bullshit, then so is Hillary’s and for me, I like Obama’s brand way better.
Agreed that most politicians are full of shit. (Remember that guy who ran in 200 on a platform of fiscal responsibility, stregthening the military, and avoiding nation-building?) Sure, there’s a possibility that Obama is full of crap and his idealistic ideas won’t come to pass. But at this point in every election all you have to go on is the message they’re delivering, their character, and the possibility that they can enact what they want to enact.
I think Obama’s health care plan is the best shot we have at getting a workable and available health care program for the vast majority of Americans. The idea of pulling out of Iraq and securing the region are not so much contradictory and predicated on the idea that if we aren’t there to draw fire and give the Iraqi government excuses for not getting its act together it has a better chance of happening. Our presence there hasn’t exactly secured the region thus far and beefing up our force there has only managed to reduce violence to an “acceptable” level. Our military is stretched way too thin right now and we’re ill prepared to take on any new crisis. Staying there doesn’t fix that. And it may surprise people like Nicol, but some of us lefties think you need to have a military capable of kicking ass when you need it to kick ass.
Obama’s plans to rid the legislative process of big money and lobbyists seems too big an acomplishment to be realistic, but I think it’s worth trying and I hope he gets some of those plans in place. There was a time when a president went after the biggest buisnesses in the country and busted trusts and he pulled that off, so anything is possible.
And I agree with David in that one of a president’s biggest jobs is to build support for policy and to use the bully pulpit to bring about necessary changes. Obama is remarkably qualified in this regard.
So, when he talks about “change”, these are the ones that leap immediately to mind and are high on my list of changes I’d like to see. I like that he’s willing to engage with foreign leaders whether he agrees with them or not. (That’s hardly solely a lefty Democratic principle. It’s just smart foreign policy.) I like his college plan and agree that teachers need to better pay and better resources and that No Child Left Behind has proven to be a joke. And I like that he talks about “hope” and “change”, but also talks as much about bringing the population into the process, motivating people to engage with political process again, making hard sacrifices to fix our energy problems and social issues, and regularly calls for everyone to work hard to make things better. It’s not a gift handed on a silver platter to be delivered by fairies, it’s a call to action for people down here. Not the most radical platform ever, but he possesses skills that can help it happen. And I hope it works. That’s why he has my vote.
And, of course, I meant, 2000. I can’t remember who ran in 200.
Well said, L.B.
Does it really affect that many of you, personally, who the president is?
I personally subscribe to the MOTLEY CRUE THEORY. Which is, in their adult lives, we’ve had Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr…
and they’ve been rocking, partying, and banging chicks with equal aplomb throughout.
Has who’s been president really mattered?
Unless you have an active livelihood that relates to the U.S. political scene, I tend to think most people get too worked up about shit that DOESN’T AFFECT THEM IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
Obviously Hollywood is a liberal bastion filled with overopinionated people, but for all the eight years of outsize complaining about the current administration… how many of these issues really affected the day-to-day lives of those sounding off?
Just to use Poland as an example; Has any given day under Bush been SO much more personally oppressive to you than a day under Clinton, or a day under Bush Sr., or even how you’d foresee a day under Obama?
It’s not like you were rolling like Jay-Z under the Clinton administration, and for the last eight years you’ve been living at the soup kitchen.
Again, there are obvious exceptions, people in careers or situations that do relate to the national scene.
But I tend to think the rest of us, especially successful Hollywood types, are hugely overstating the case and operating on guilt or towing the lefty line, rather than ranting from a place where they’ve somehow been personally affected.
You’re right, Lex, I should just ignore the world around me until I’m personally affected, like when someone I know gets shipped off to Iraq, or if the cost of a gallon of gas goes over $2.00, or when I have trouble finding a job because of the economy.
Oh wait, all those things already happened.
In other words, what you just said is one of the most profoundly selfish and insular things I’ve read here in a long time.
You’re gonna throw up GAS PRICES as part of your argument?
I don’t know, I always kinda bristle at that; It’s one of those bullshit, grassroots populist issues — GAS AND TAXES — that really rally the masses, but the right to CHEAP GAS is hardly some inaliable American right. Go ask a Brit about how “expensive” our gas is.
And anyway, anyone who still has the money to go see seemingly half the theatrically released movies, as you seem to, or to buy countless DVDs, or (not necessarily you, but…) cigarettes, or the Internet, alcohol, eating out, etc, has NO FUCKING PLACE to be bitching about expensive gasoline.
As for your other issues, you could conceivably hit an employment speed bump under ANY administration. Given your locale and aspirations, are you saying you were working a set, steady, paycheck JOB-JOB in all earnestness and were let go, and subsequently couldn’t find ANYTHING, ANYWHERE?
Or, as I suspect, are you a proud L.A. aspiring artist who’s hit a slow stretch and can’t make ends meet via piecemeal creative/freelance/film production work? ‘Cause I doubt any administration could ASSURE you of a comfortable living from that. So basically it’s Bush’s fault you can’t make a living from screenwriting?
Hey, transcription companies are ALWAYS, ALWAYS hiring. Lemme guess, you’re too good to do something so far removed from your “craft.”
Lex, the point of your argument is “I don’t care who the President is” which logically extends out to become “I don’t care about anything to do with politics or current affairs.”
I’m kind of glad. I don’t want you voting. So tell us more about Jessica Alba being hot.
It’s stupid of me to continue this conversation, but I have to ask: What, if anything, would constitute ‘being personally affected’ by national or international events?
I might vote and write in PARIS HILTON.
At least she has hot, shiny legs and looks good in heels.
Hey, nice dodge of my salient retorts though.
In other words, you’ve just been OWNED. I schooled your dry ass on that gas and employment shit.
Plus Bush is sending us 600 bucks.
AWESOME.
If you want to think you just OWNED me, feel free.
With apologies to David Poland though, you’re too much of an idiot for me to want to respond to your stupid arguments. It’s like arguing against somebody who doesn’t believe in gravity or that water is wet. If you want to discuss this in person, I’m up for it.
Hey, I thought you were too broke to drive across town.
ZING.
EIGHT MORE YEARS!
Anyway, I’m sure, Jeff, that your ONE VOTE will singlehandedly change our nation from the theocratic police state you probably imagine it is into a blissed-out Utopia where cushy postproduction jobs and schoolmarmish women fall out for the sky for you…
…but I’m pretty sure if it swings McCain, Hillary, Obama, or a THIRD TERM OF GWB, I’ll still be able to drink, party, listen to METAL, and ogle starlets.
I would be happy to take the bus to call you an idiot to your face. Fortunately my car gets good mileage (because it’s Japanese) so not necessary.
Tell you what.
THE FIRST CANDIDATE WHO PROMISES ME A SAG CARD AND A ROLE IN A TONY SCOTT MOVIE GETS MY VOTE.
A Bay or Ridley Scott movie would suffice too.
I have two IMPOSSIBLE GOALS in this lifetime:
1) Getting into SAG (not humanly possible, at least not if you work a 50 hr/week desk job).
2) Having sex with actresses.
Thank you for the added reasons to not take anything you say seriously.
For someone who’s not taking it seriously, you sure are making a night of it.
Maybe I’ll go down and register Republican tomorrow. Congrats, you’ve done your part!
It won’t matter, you live in California.
But I’ll give you $20 bucks if, without the internet, you can tell me the names of your Congressperson and both of your Senators.
BOXER? FEINSTEIN?
ALL I KNOW IS VILLARIGOSA REMINDZ ME OF ACEVADA ON THE SHIELD.
THAT OWNS.
Don’t stop.
I’m stumped at congressperson. And I don’t care.
Half the people in this town don’t know, and don’t care, and make millions more than you or I.
Half the loudmouths shouting anti-administration rhetoric probably couldn’t answer that either.
This no longer has much of anything to do with the topic at hand; Not that I care, and I’d gladly do this DURSTIAN (he said/she said) back-and-forth all night, but I doubt anyone else wants to read this nonsense, at least not in this thread.
My original post on the matter was in earnest; You guys are RIVETING to B.O.; Cool. Glad he’s so inspiring.
But for that matter, if my one Republican vote wouldn’t count because “we’re in California,” why bother showing up as a Dem, either? It’s not like EVERYONE’S gonna sit it out.
That day might be better spent watching JESSICA ALBA MOVIES.
JESSICA ALBA is a more impressive and AWESOME person that anyone who’s running.
Lex… to answer your question… I am pretty calm about Bush hysteria. I laughed at my friends who claimed they would leave the country if he won. And I have argued that his presidency is not nearly the disaster that some scream about. And I have argued that Clinton’s presidency was not nearly the nirvana now remembered.
But The Presidency can matter. People are really disturbed about feeling that the world dislikes America more because of Bush. (Again, I think it’s an overstated argument, but feelings are genuine.) And it is not a great feeling to be embarrassed when your president speaks. And on social issues, left or right in that office does matter… judiciary too, especially the Supreme Court.
People want to feel good about their country.
DP, didn’t Benjamin Gates say that?
I’m kidding. Thanks for the evenhanded response; Just to clarify, when I cited you as an example above, I did so merely as you’re an Obama enthusiast and fit the hypothetical. Didn’t mean to imply you’d been particularly vocal about the current or previous administrations.
Lex, if you were as reasonable as you just were, I wouldn’t have gotten so pissed off at you earlier. Surely your “nothing matters” post was just a rhetorical tactic to, let’s say, stimulate people. Right?
“And there is no “most liberal since FDR.” Liberal politics in mainstream America is many clicks to the right of FDR, just as the Conservative politics have moved to the left.”
But Obama’s positions aren’t mainstream liberalism. And it remains true that the US has not elected a liberal president since FDR. And while the Republican party has moved to the left, capital C Conservative politics have not, which is why you see all the bristling at making McCain the figurehead of the party. This far, no farther.
The president doesn’t matter as much as people think, except in the matter of judges and national security (which are, granted, important). And ANYONE who thinks that Obama is going to pull the troops out of Iraq notably earlier than any other president is being foolish.
How do you define “mainstream liberalism?” And what are Obama’s positions?
But The Presidency can matter. People are really disturbed about feeling that the world dislikes America more because of Bush. (Again, I think it’s an overstated argument, but feelings are genuine.) And it is not a great feeling to be embarrassed when your president speaks. And on social issues, left or right in that office does matter… judiciary too, especially the Supreme Court.
just thought i’d throw this article out there in response:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html
Just as the Chicago Tribune reports on war profiteering, made possible by whom?
yes, stella, bush invented war profiteering. how do you think the family got so rich?
your proposed argument is facetious. the good thing is negated by the bad thing over here. an inability to accept a good thing on its own face value seems like a very sad way to live.
I never said Bush invented war profiteering, and excuse me if I am not overwhelmed with joy over the “good thing.” I accept it on its own face value, but it fails to ease my anger over the “bad things.” I don’t think that’s a sad way to live at all.
the war profiteering line was a joke. because it is such a large thing to put at the feet of one man.
i’m not asking you to like either the man or the president, stella. you clearly don’t do either. but david’s original comment was on how the world views him. i would argue that our comprehension of that is limited to what our own media tell us. this article, by the way, is the only article that took up that story. you can dismiss it if you want. a lot of other people in the media did too.
it’s sad, because your response wasn’t “huh, didn’t know that but it doesn’t change how i feel about him.” it was completely dismissing the point as a whole by bringing up a secondary point that isn’t linked to the first.
I read that story yesterday hendhogan. I believe Drudge linked to it. Did the media dismiss the story because they dislike the president, or because they can’t be bothered to write about anything not related to the upcoming election and school shootings?
i believe that falls under the heading of good news is no news.
“And I have argued that his presidency is not nearly the disaster that some scream about.”
Not one of your finest arguments.
19 percent approval for Bush? That is a scream.
and as of february 8th, the democratic lead congress is down to 22% the devil must be in that 3%, although i believe that’s the +/- differential.
Ah, but that’s “Congress” as a whole. Ask people what their approval is of their individual Congressperson and the numbers will be very different (as in larger).
Correct, Jeff. Everyone hates congress, but they love their own congress member. Welcome to the biggest disconnect in American politics.
or, in other words, i like you i just don’t like what you’re doing.
No, this is still job approval. I’m sure more people would like to have barbeque with George W. Bush than approve of his performance of President but they don’t ask those questions in polls.
polls in general are useless. you can get opposite answers depending on how the question is phrased and how it’s grouped together. and it depends on what group you ask. after all, there are clinton democrats and obama democrats here, but their answers to the questions might not always be the same. and yet, they will be listed as x number of democrats polled as if they were all in the same group.
quite frankly that’s one of the things that disappointed me in the first clinton. he lead depending on what the polls told him. and, yes, that’s just my opinion (not a proven fact) so everyone doesn’t have to jump all over me.
The reason people hate Congress is because they gave it back to the Dems to put a stop to Bush’s excesses, and instead they just drop their pants and bend over; the GOP may be in the minority, but they’re still running the show. This is not news.
and yet bush has had, what, one veto in all 8 years. sure, he threatens it, but rarely uses it. so, the question is how can the dems in congress let the GOP run the show? and isn’t that a major failure on any democratic congressperson?
it’s like buying a ferrari and never driving it. just leave it the garage and look at it longingly.
If you’re a person who desires to see a change in how things like the war are handled by Congress, voting a Republican President (especially “100 years in Iraq” McCain) in right now certainly isn’t going to help anything.
i don’t know if that’s directed at me, cap. i don’t really want to talk about iraq. i’ve been posting here long enough to know that my views are minority ones and i really don’t want to pick a fight.
but in the spirit of the original topic, the top two contenders of the democratic party are both members of congress. members of congress who could not lead a majority to make policy changes. to me, that demonstrates an inability to get things done in both a partisan and bi-partisan sense. unless one is able to ascribe supernatural powers to the republican side, i don’t see how this can be ignored. but, at the same time, i know there are people like jeff (not meant as a slam) who don’t care as long as it’s their party’s candidate.
hendhogan, I am not a blind partisan, despite what you may think. I have certainly not been thrilled with Congress since the Democrats took control. I am also an undecided voter. I really wish that I had stronger feelings about one of the candidates, but I currently do not. However, I believe that Bush has been a disaster as president, and I think McCain is a poor contender for the job. Just because one is unhappy with our current president and plans on voting Dem, that doesn’t make them an unthinking sheep who refuses to admit flaws within the Democratic party.
“How do you define ‘mainstream liberalism?’ And what are Obama’s positions?”
That’s DP’s term, but if ‘mainstream liberalism’ is several clicks to the right of FDR, then it only means that Obama (and Hilary) are not mainstream. My contention was that Liberalism, in presendential terms, is NOT mainstream, which is why there hasn’t been a liberal president since FDR.
The ironic thing about Obama is that he’s being touted as something ‘new’. But Obama is liberalism in its classic form– cradle-to-grave entitlements, big government solutions, income redistribution, anti- big corporations, etc.
Is it the policies that are being touted as new though, or is it the candidate?
Is Conservatism mainstream in presidential terms?
sorry, stella, did not mean to imply you were partisan sheep (i wouldn’t use the term anyway as that is disrespectful). i only used jeff as an example as he openly said he is only interested in the democratic candidate.
mine were in general questions in response to your posts. for example, the inability of congressional democrats to meet their promises connection to the ability to meet their promises in the upcoming election was something that occured to me while having this conversation.
Oh no need for apology hendhogan. I didn’t think you were implying anything about me. I just wanted to be clear about where I’m coming from.
Is it the policies that are being touted as new though, or is it the candidate?
Is Conservatism mainstream in presidential terms?
and in response to this, i think it’s the man. ironically enough, there are a lot of similarities between the obama campaign and clinton the first.
and, no, conservatism isn’t mainstream either. most of us (i believe) are middle of the road people. as far as getting elected goes, the ones closest to the middle usually win. now, do they stay in the middle after elected? usually, no.
Hendhogan, I’m not even a registered Democrat. I just would never vote for any Republican presidential candidate unless the Democrat was somebody that I couldn’t stand, like Kucinich.
“Is it the policies that are being touted as new though, or is it the candidate?”
I don’t think the distinction is being made, yet.
“Is Conservatism mainstream in presidential terms?”
No, its not. I would say that conservative principles are more openly promoted by GOP candidates than progressive principles are touted by Democrat candidates. And if Obama is elected, he will further left than any elected Republican has been to the right.
“And if Obama is elected, he will further left than any elected Republican has been to the right.”
What are you basing that on? What facts can you use to support that statement? To me it sounds like nothing more than right-wing rhetoric.
It certainly seems to me as if the candidate is being touted as new, not the policies.
Swift boating is back! That darn Obama. He doesn’t wear a flag pin anymore and once even forgot to cross his heart during the National Anthem! He must be an unpatriotic traitor. This is some seriously silly shit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_attack_fodder