Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Screen Right
The NYT reports that there's a "new wave in Hollywood, a group that intends to . . . promote godliness, Pax Americana and its own view of family values."
The "Hollywood Right," according to the Times, cuts "a broad political and religious swath, from 'right-to-life' Christians and foreign-policy hawks to more middle-of-the-road 'family-values' advocates. They include strongly identified Catholics like Mel Gibson and the manager-producer Doug Urbanski (The Contender), and evangelicals like Ralph Winter, who produced X-Men and Fantastic Four. One of their leading voices has long been Lionel Chetwynd, a Jewish neo-conservative whose credits include the 1987 pro-Vietnam War feature The Hanoi Hilton."
The Times also notes "A collection of what might loosely be styled conservative libertarians includes the actors Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey and Gary Oldman, along with the producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Gavin Polone."
Finally, there are "the so-called Sept. 12th Republicans. These include former liberals and centrists like the actors David Zucker, Dennis Miller, James Woods and Ron Silver." In the words of one conservative Hollywood producer, these figures "had a Road to Damascus experience" after 9/11.
The story reports efforts to establish a connection with the Washington right -- and its money -- as well, including a recent meeting in Maryland where "The idea was to start tying money from Washington's right-to-life movement to key Hollywood players," and another meeting in Santa Monica "'to find some intersection of policy and story ideas' for future Hollywood content."
|6.27.05 @ 9:48AM|#
The New York Times is pathetic. It's acting like every battered wife who ever tried to make the spaghetti sauce just right, because she got beaten up last time for putting in too much spice.
|6.27.05 @ 10:35AM|#
A better analogy joe, would be that the NYT is acting like a
spaghetti sauce manufacturing company, unhappy with it's sales and
getting a lot of negative feedback on the combination of spices it
uses, trying to play with it's recipe to get more sales.
Of course, this analogy wouldn't imply that everyone that
criticises the NYT still beats his wife, so I guess yours is better
in that regard.
|6.27.05 @ 10:36AM|#
I've seen Clint Eastwood identify himself as a libertarian, and I know about Drew Carey, but I'm curious about Gary Oldman.
|6.27.05 @ 10:46AM|#
Worst. Poster. Evah:
The reference is to the New Testament where Saul has a vision of
Jesus on the road to Damascus and changes his name to Paul and
begins preaching the Gospel.
|6.27.05 @ 10:46AM|#
Saint Paul helped persecute Christians, until 'on the road to Damascus' he converted. Then he started trying to spread the faith.
|6.27.05 @ 10:51AM|#
The Contender was left-leaning as I recall. Oldman's a pretty well-known conservative, ditto Woods.
|6.27.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Geotech,
I thought Oldman was a straight up Republican, but could be wrong.
He bashed Democrats on his appearance on Dennis Miller's HBO show a
few years back. He was also quite vocal after filming The
Contender, in which he played the Republican senator. I think
he was unhappy with the final picture, considering it too left
leaning. I haven't heard much from him since then.
Jeff|6.27.05 @ 11:12AM|#
I love how the inclusion of both right-to-lifers and family
value wonks constitutes a broad political and religious
swath.
I'll soon be starting a porn company that hires fornicators AND
sodomites. It's all about diversity
|6.27.05 @ 11:13AM|#
Nice try, sim, but it doesn't wash. The problems the NYT is
having with its circulation numbers have nothing to do with the
potential market for its papers - New Yorkers - become more
conservative. If anything, New York has become even more Democratic
in the past few years. There are a lot of things driving down the
Times' numbers, none of which have to do with a large and growing
market of Pat Roberston viewers descending on Queens.
They're giving the bully their lunch money, in the hopes that he'll
leave them alone. Now they get to learn that that just encourages
him.
Phil|6.27.05 @ 11:15AM|#
That's pretty funny about the guy who produced X-Men being included, since, along with its sequel, it's one of the highest-grossing, thinly-veiled gay-rights manifestos ever put to screen.
|6.27.05 @ 11:23AM|#
I think the most obvious analogy are the jews who had to first
be registered, then rounded up in Europe, and the Japanese here to
some extent.
I don't get much of a "gay" thing from Xmen except for Peter
running around with his shirt off. And the what the fuck happend to
his Russian accent?
|6.27.05 @ 11:27AM|#
A lot of talk about battered wives, bullies and the evils of
appeasement from joe this morning. (That tough talk might make one
think joe had shifted his policy on gun control, eminent domain and
the the War on Terror.)
But sadly, for joe such rhetoric is only valid when discussing
things that aren't ACTUALLY about real violence, bullies or
standing against appeasement.
It's only useful to talk in that kind of language when you're
trying to paint the people who don't care for the NY Times slant on
news as Very Bad People. Yeah, those crazy conservatives, they're
all a bunch of wife-beating bullies intend on taking over the NY
Times because they want "liebensraum" now that FoxNews is no longer
enough for them!
Ok, I don't care much for the Bible-beaters, either, but even if we
grant joe that this might be a reaction to being pummeled for their
bias, I don't see how there's much difference between right and
left. Long ago, liberals co-opted the higher education insitutions
and media outlets pretty successfully... At worst, if it's remotely
realistic, it would seem more like conservatives are coming around
to using the same tactics...
|6.27.05 @ 11:28AM|#
I though Clint Eastwood was a persona non grata among the right to lifers for his pro-euthanasia role in Million Dollar Baby.
|6.27.05 @ 11:29AM|#
tsk, tsk joe, I mentioned the company's numbers weren't what
they wanted and they were getting a lot of negative feedback; but
these are not known to be or not be related. You decided this was
what I was positing this as necessarily the case, but it's an
unknown.
Now maybe you have inside knowledge that the NYT knows the exact
reason that their numbers haven't been growing at the rate of, say,
the WSJ as of late, but I'm guessing even they don't have a hard
and fast understanding of exactly why. And since they are getting
more than the usual negative feedback as of late, here's a novel
idea for a business, adjust to the consensus of the feedback.
I know the presence of unknowns leaves those with a black and white
view of the world somewhat uneased, but you should try to be a bit
more nuanced at your understanding of the interaction of business
and politics.
|6.27.05 @ 11:33AM|#
Sing! Pow!
On the one hand, I can see where you're coming from on the issue of
nuance, sim. But let's not be too hasty here. It's a complicated
issue.
;-)
|6.27.05 @ 11:34AM|#
As per standard, joe has once again been speaking entirely out of his ass. Less than 50% of NYT subscribers live in NYC.
drf|6.27.05 @ 11:35AM|#
"I know the presence of unknowns leaves those with a black and
white view of the world somewhat uneased, but you should try to be
a bit more nuanced at your understanding of the interaction of
business and politics."
see rob's comments. apply those to the fat, bible thumping semi
rural people who fear dark people...
the difference with what rob suddenly has realized is that the
right has spent its entire career from the moral majority through
the christian right to the neocons decrying those exact liberal/ pc
tactics.
their hypocrasy is different from the left wing in that regard. and
they all can go to hell.
this includes those who are fringe on either side and don't have
the balls to say "i don't like these tactics of my side"
so there.
and don't forget roy scheider and that asshole from growing pains.
kirk "pig fucker" cameron.
|6.27.05 @ 11:38AM|#
ABC,
Remind me, what state is New York City in? And what would one call
the people who live in that state?
BTW, I think I might have dropped a comma in my post. That should
warrent a comment or two, no?
|6.27.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Circulation is down at newspapers in general. NYT's troubles
probably have more to do with the internet than anything
else.
BTW, what about Ahnold? He fits right in.
|6.27.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Joe: bullshit. I suspect you're right about the Times suddenly
covering conservatives because they're afraid of them, but they're
not afraid of losing their lunch money/subscription base. Rather,
they're terrified of the growing political power of wild eyed,
civilization-destroying conservatives, and they're attempting to
alert their faithful followers to the danger.
Has the paper ever done an "expose" about the links between
Hollywood and the Democratic party? No, cos it's only noteworthy
(read: scary to upper west side millionaires, Hollywood
millionaires, and a few liberal enclaves in between) if a few
(pitifully few) Hollywood people aren't doctrinaire liberals in
their politics.
Mel Gibson is the only major entertainment figure I can think of
offhand whose views are (probably) religious right conservative.
The others - Eastwood, Miller, Woods, Oldman - are more libertarian
in their Republicanism.
As am I (in the Republicanism part I mean - at least for now), and
if the last X-men movie was a gay-rights defense, that's great cos
I'd love nothing more than to see the tentacles of fundie
conservatism unwrapped from the Republican party's lungs.
Actually, what I'd really love is a third party that can actually
win elections.
|6.27.05 @ 11:47AM|#
I really don't see what the big deal is. NYT prints a story about Hollywood's diverse composition and simultaneously reaches beyond their own homogenized reporting and therefore must be buckling to the bullies. Stop it.
|6.27.05 @ 12:00PM|#
"Has the paper ever done an "expose" about the links between
Hollywood and the Democratic party? "
not to defend the times' cultural coverage or anything, but yeah,
duh. they cover this a lot.
|6.27.05 @ 12:03PM|#
Bias or no bais.
Straight up in a fair fight -
Chuck Norris would kick Tim Robins' ass.
That's all I'm saying.
Vote Republican!
|6.27.05 @ 12:21PM|#
New York is becoming more democratic? This is deduced from there
being Republican mayors for the past 12 years and Bush's votes
increasing from 2000 to 2004?
Am I missing something?
|6.27.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy-
I don't think Xmen2 was really intended as a gay rights manifesto,
but they certainly draw some parallells between of the difficulties
the mutant characters face and those that gays face in the real
world. One particular moment that sticks out is when a teenage
mutant reveals his condition to his mother and she replies
incredulously "well haven't you tried not being a mutant," just as
many people today insist homosexuality is a choice. That's about as
heavy handed as that aspect of the movie gets, but in the context
of a silly action flick, they do it pretty well.
|6.27.05 @ 12:49PM|#
Am I missing something?
I doubt New York is becoming more Democratic. I *do* think New York
Democrats are becoming more unelectable, however.
Jeff|6.27.05 @ 12:49PM|#
Stan Lee has often mentioned that the X-Men was his response to
social hot potataoes of the 60s like Equal Rights and racial
equality. Books like God Loves Man Kills pushed this point hard,
bringing up the concept of a Mutant Registration Act and religious
fanactics insisting that mutants are NOT humans.
Another thread falls to my geekery! HA HA HA!
|6.27.05 @ 1:02PM|#
anyone remember that show a few years ago that had batman's
daughter and some other chicks on it? with the "metahumans"? now
THAT was some thinly-veiled (like...tulle, or something)
gay-reference-packed stuff. they had a secret "metahuman bar" where
all the metahumans would go to escape prosecution. i was honestly
waiting for two metahumans practicing their powers in a car to be
stopped and questioned by the police.
-sam
|6.27.05 @ 1:02PM|#
Books like God Loves Man Kills pushed this point hard,
bringing up the concept of a Mutant Registration Act and religious
fanactics insisting that mutants are NOT humans.
I seem to recall that the evil senator guy in the first X-Men movie
referenced registering mutants as a good thing, like, you know, we
ought to register gun owners. Or something like that, it's been a
few years.
|6.27.05 @ 1:06PM|#
newyorkdem,
I'd hardly call Bloomberg a traditional Republican. He's a former
Dem that ran as a Republican to save money in the primary. He
supports all sorts of traditional Dem positions, like smoking bans.
In most states Bloomberg, like Arnold, would probably be Dems.
|6.27.05 @ 1:24PM|#
"One particular moment that sticks out is when a teenage mutant
reveals his condition to his mother and she replies incredulously
"well haven't you tried not being a mutant,""
Good point. And soon afterwards there's that great scene when Pyro
cuts loose (and what the fuck happend to HIS Australian
accent??)
|6.27.05 @ 1:24PM|#
In most states Bloomberg, like Arnold, would probably be
Dems.
Well, at least Arnold fits in the liberal wing of the Republican
party, and AFAIK has always been a Republican, unlike Bloombergs
craven switch just before the primaries [which didn't stop me from
voting for him at election time, given the other choices...].
|6.27.05 @ 1:26PM|#
"this includes those who are fringe on either side and don't
have the balls to say 'i don't like these tactics of my side'" -
drf
Just don't mistake either the right nor the left as being "my side"
please.
"the difference with what rob suddenly has realized is that the
right has spent its entire career from the moral majority through
the christian right to the neocons decrying those exact liberal/ pc
tactics." - drf
SUDDENLY realized? You mean suddenly as when I became a classical
Liberal /libertarian right after high school?
"their hypocrasy is different from the left wing in that regard.
and they all can go to hell." - drf
Now that I'll drink to! (If only my inebriation could speed them on
their way to hell.)
Altho I'm a bit dismayed by your depiction of "fat, bible thumping
semi rural people who fear dark people." There's a lot wrong with
that statement.
1) I know for a fact that not everyone of faith holds the Bible as
its expression, and not everyone who does hold with the Bible's
version
2) It sounds suspiciously like racism/classism, to put the PC to
it.
3) It might help make fat, city-dwelling people who seem to fear
"semi-rural Bible-thumpers" feel superior, but to everyone else it
sounds like a provincial who hasn't ventured outside of their
particular borough.
Perhaps I'm a little too easily offended this morning, but I
haven't had breakfast, lunch, or a cup of coffee yet...
|6.27.05 @ 1:26PM|#
"New York is becoming more democratic? This is deduced from
there being Republican mayors for the past 12 years and Bush's
votes increasing from 2000 to 2004?
Am I missing something?"
What you forgot:
The "Republican" mayor is a lifelong Democrat.
The Republican governor's popularity collapsed.
There is no Republican Senator, owing to traditionally Republican
areas on Lon Gisland and upstate turning Democratic.
|6.27.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Toldja I'm out of sorts this AM. LAst post should have
read
1) I know for a fact that not everyone of faith holds the Bible as
its expression, and not everyone who does hold with the Bible's
version is obnoxious about it. Faith is not necessarily counter to
a belief in freedom.
Vache Folle|6.27.05 @ 1:37PM|#
I am thinking of a possible sequel to the Look Who's Talking movies, only this time the smart alecky protagonist is an embryo. He starts out in a test tube and is either going to be implanted or frozen. Which will it be? Hilarity and suspense in one film. Plus family values, blah blah blah. I'm thinking voice of Chris Rock for the embryo but that conservative woman from Everybody Loves Raymond could be the potential womb carrier.
|6.27.05 @ 1:43PM|#
I'll give you the two senators (althugh we'll see if schumer
wins reelection).
The mayor's a lifelong democrat billionaire who had to run as a
republican to win.
A idiotic governor who might be back in the running after the court
decision allowing 2 to 4 billion dollars from the Blue Cross/Blue
Shield conversion to go to the state.
The property taxes are killing upstaters, and I don't think the
democratic strategy of upping medicaid benefits will be any more
palatable to upstaters than the republicans strategy of appeaseing
1199.
I could be wroing, though and there is certainly bushfatigue in the
air.
|6.27.05 @ 1:47PM|#
Rhywun,
True regarding Arnold. But considering his views on gay marriage,
abortion, gun control, etc., he's a Republican like Kennedy is a
libertarian. That was one shitty field for mayor of New York,
rivaling the CA gubenatorial race (pre-recall) for unappealing
options.
Vache Folle,
I think that "conservative" woman in Everybody Loves Raymond is
actually a pro-life Dem.
|6.27.05 @ 1:50PM|#
There is no Republican Senator, owing to traditionally
Republican areas on Lon Gisland and upstate turning
Democratic.
I don't know about Long Island, but upstate is heavily Republican,
except for the residents of the dwindling and ever more
impoverished cities like Buffalo and Rochester [my hometown].
|6.27.05 @ 2:05PM|#
That was one shitty field for mayor of New York, rivaling
the CA gubenatorial race (pre-recall) for unappealing
options.
And the next election looks to be no different. Sigh.
|6.27.05 @ 2:06PM|#
joe,
what exactly do you find objectionable about the article? It seems
like they're talking about a real trend to me. There's some of the
usual NYT condescension in treating right-wingers as an alien
species, but in this case, it's sort of appropriate, because in
Hollywood, they are an alien species.
|6.27.05 @ 2:17PM|#
I'll give you the two senators (althugh we'll see if schumer
wins reelection).
ohgodohgodohgodohgod, please please please let this be a
possibility. We're really kind of tired of Schumer inflicting his
brand of statism on the rest of us.
|6.27.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Steve,
I don't feel that the New York Times is making these changes in an
effort to improve the quality of their journalism (their top of the
heap market niche derives from being the best newspaper in America,
supposably). I feel that they're caving to bullying from a group of
loudmouths who've adopted the strategy of "working the ref," and
it's just going to encourage more such slimey behavior.
|6.27.05 @ 2:28PM|#
A collection of what might loosely be styled conservative
libertarians includes...the producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Gavin
Polone."
Yeah, maybe Jerry Brucckheimer is a libertarian.
And maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
Sorry, but his movies are generally seen as supportive of The War
on Drugs, gun control, and any number of other issues that
libertarians don't support.
Just because his movies pretty much entail the story of flag-waving
hotties supporting their men as they go out to do something
big and dangerous hardly makes him pro-freedom. It just
means he's good at dressing up his soulless shitfests with a veneer
that plays well in flyover country.
|6.27.05 @ 2:33PM|#
The same goes for his underling, director Michael Bay. Utterly horrid films- soulless and contemptible of their audience. Parker and Stone were right to rip on him with 'Team America.'
|6.27.05 @ 2:40PM|#
Joe:
The NYT, in the face of criticism on a variety of issues, hired
Daniel Orkent as a "public editor," as I'm sure many of us
remember. However lame the title may be and however undefined his
role, he pretty much surveyed the NYT and deemed it to have a
detectible liberal slant. He picked on Krugman in particular. Far
from conservatives "working the ref," it appears that the NYT and
some of their apologists asked for a ref, and the ref called
against them. Now they don't like the call and have fallen back on
the "liberal media bias is a myth" line of reasoning. Where have
they caved, really?
|6.27.05 @ 2:42PM|#
I don't know anything about sports, joe, but are you implying
that The New York Times is somehow the United States' referee, an
impartial arbiter and interpereter of the rules the American people
live by?
Anyway, joe, there is always the Daily Worker for those times when
the Times doesn't quite live up to your standards.
|6.27.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Hey!
For those who said that the CA gubernatorial field was bad, I
personally thought Tom McClintock was a great conservo-libertarian
choice. Although conservative all around, McClintock, despite
pressure from Bible-bangers, said his social conservatism didn't
belong as executive policy and that he was primarily concerned with
the budget.
All that stuff about Arnold "I'm really a kennedy" being better is
just revisionist crap...republicans are spineless whores who will
support anyone with an "R" next to their name, from Chafee to
Bloomberg to His Terminatorness.
|6.27.05 @ 2:51PM|#
Eric, "What, precisely, makes this article slimy?"
It's contribution to a pattern of behavior.
Cearburg, the weakness and demonstrable falsehoods in Okrent's
snippy Parthian shot and Krugman should cause you to question his
role as an impartial arbiter. The Times' refusal to provide Krugman
with the chance to rebut the charges - which he did, to great
effect, in an online forum, with little difficulty - is yet another
capitulation to the dishonest shills that have been working
them.
Mitch, the media as a whole is supposed to function as a sort of
impartial defender of accuracy between political factions, not
letting anyone get away with egregious violations of truthfulness.
Which is why Irving Kristol made the statement, back in the 1980s,
that the media really wasn't that liberal, that they were never
that powerful, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Right
about the "nattering nabobs of negativism" was akin to a football
coach "working the ref," giving him hell whenever a call goes
against them in the hope of making him think twice about doing it
again.
|6.27.05 @ 2:56PM|#
Randian,
I agree that McClintock was a great candidate (I voted for him in
the recall), especially when you consider a lot of his religious
conservatism wouldn't fly in CA and he understood that med MJ was
what the people wanted and the feds needed to back off. I was
talking pre-recall (specifically because of McClintock, I still
don't like Arnold), when we were given the choice of Davis and
Simon. Yuck.
|6.27.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Eric, "What, precisely, makes this article slimy?"
It's contribution to a pattern of behavior.
i think you meant to elaborate on that a bit.
|6.27.05 @ 3:00PM|#
Sorry Mo, I just get pissed when every republican whines that they have to support the "electable" candidate. Fuck that, sez I.
|6.27.05 @ 3:31PM|#
I just don't see what in the article makes it a contribution to
a pattern of slimy behavior. Is it excessively sympathetic to the
Hollywood right-wingers? It doesn't read that way to me. As I said,
it has a bit of the usual NYT "look at those weirdo conservatives"
tone.
Specifics, please, joe.
|6.27.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Randian,
It's funny you say that, because in California, pretty much the
opposite is true. Republican primary voters have a history of
picking "unelectable" conservatives like McClintock (Bill Simon,
Dan Lundgren) rather than moderates like Arnold or Dick
Riordan.
Here's a recent Jill Stewart column on California Republicans as a
circular firing squad:
http://jillstewart.net/php/issues/issue062205.php
|6.27.05 @ 3:38PM|#
Tell me please - is there any place on this planet where someone who is neither a left-wing wacko or a bible-banging neomidevalist can feel halfway in his element?
|6.27.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Bringing up Daniel Okrent just helps prove joe'e point. Daniel Okrent was a disgrace as a public editor, and his parting salvos were further proof of what kind of hack he was.
|6.27.05 @ 3:41PM|#
is there any place on this planet where someone who is
neither a left-wing wacko or a bible-banging neomidevalist can feel
halfway in his element
Saudi Arabia?
|6.27.05 @ 3:44PM|#
"What, precisely, makes this article slimy?"
It's contribution to a pattern of behavior.
Alright... But what's the contribution?
|6.27.05 @ 3:50PM|#
drf - That's not really criticism, it's just name-calling. Even
tho I don't buy into religion, I think people have a right to
believe whatever they'd like to believe.
It might surprise you that I'm an agnostic who occasionally leans
toward Deis, usually when I'm looking at a really good
sunrise/sunset - and I also enjoy long walks on the beach...
heh!
Frankly, I think that pretty much every organized religion in
history is about a) people who claim to know what God wants better
than other people tho that's HIGHLY unlikely b) usually claim this
special knowledge and status in order to obtain control over other
people and c)often implement that control to separate people from
their hard-earned money while pretending they'll use it for the
poor.
(Not true of every believer, not true of every individual church,
but true enough at the top of almost all organized religions - if
not 100% of them.)
I think a, b & c above are criticisms, not name-calling. But
maybe I'm just biased...
raymond|6.27.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Tell me please - is there any place on this planet where
someone who is neither a left-wing wacko or a bible-banging
neomidevalist can feel halfway in his element?
Switzerland.
|6.27.05 @ 4:45PM|#
Switzerland and Saudia Arabia! That's two.
Though, if we want to stretch the definition of "bible"... ;)
|6.27.05 @ 5:44PM|#
Wikipedia lists Tom Selleck as another libertarian Republican. Why can't any of these guys run for president? I'd kill to see Clint Eastwood as president, although he's far too old to be elected. Even Tom Selleck would be better than the likely Republican field.
|6.27.05 @ 6:05PM|#
taking over the NY Times because they want "liebensraum" now
that FoxNews is no longer enough for them!
I thought "liebensraum" is what a woman needs when her lover's
sexual organ is too big.
|6.27.05 @ 6:10PM|#
Couple of points;
you have all heard the term RINO I assume? Rebub in name only. That
sums up Guilliani, Bloomie, Whatzenagger, etc. One of the few
things I loved durring the GOP convention was the glazed robotic
look that came over the attendees when questioned about Guilianni
after his speach. You could see the little cogs in their heads
latching into place and after a moment or two and then they would
offer up some vague support- always sounded very similar from
person to person. Trust me- redblooded GOPers hate his guts. Wears
a dress on TV, pro gay rights, likes opera etc.
Another thing re: Bloomie and Swartzee- they were trying to get
elected in states that have democratic parties that are so
calsified and corrupt that they had to go GOP. Being a NYC dem I
find myself voting against my own party half the time in an attempt
just to shake things up a bit.
What was the "statist" comment about Schumer though- I dont
understand?
|6.27.05 @ 6:55PM|#
Just dropping by to say the Sept. 12th Republicans are the
biggest bunch of douches around.......
Go conservative libertarians!
|6.27.05 @ 7:34PM|#
OK, can someone explain to me why a right-wing bias in Hollywood is any better than a left-wing bias?
|6.27.05 @ 7:53PM|#
Okay, if Arnold is such a RINO, why does the vast majority of Cali Dems hate him and his policies? You'd think that more libertarians would like him a little more, but I don't suppose y'all are from California. Arnold is basically the closest thing to a libertarian that we're like to get in this state. With a state Assembly and Senate just left of the Reichstag, what do you expect Arnold to be able to accomplish without compromise?
|6.27.05 @ 8:07PM|#
Bill,
Quick, name 5 Congressional Republicans to the left of Arnold. NY
Dems hate Bloomberg too and his picture belongs in the dictionary
in the entry for RINO.
Most CA dems dislike Arnold because (a) He has an R next to his
name (b) He's trying to get rid of gerrymandering (so long safe
districts) (c) The recall (d) The special election (e) He's
attacking their union base (f) His view of fiscal sanity involves
taking on new debt. Of course, most CA Democrats (the voters, not
the politicians), aren't vehemently anti-Arnold. Anything that
helps clean up the CA legislature is a good thing. I dislike him
because our budget is still a mess, the business environment in the
state hasn't gotten any better and he hasn't pushed the Legislature
ashard as I would like to see. Sadly, you're right, he's the
closest thing to a libertarian CA will get because McClintock will
never get elected and CA Republicans demand the red meat issues to
be brought out in the primaries that kills Republicans in the
general.
|6.27.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Okay, if Arnold is such a RINO, why does the vast majority
of Cali Dems hate him and his policies?
Because they're so rabidly statist they make Karl Marx look like
Ludwig Von Mises.
|6.27.05 @ 10:15PM|#
anyone remember that show a few years ago that had batman's
daughter and some other chicks on it? with the
"metahumans"?
Was that "Birds of Prey"? I never actually watched it, but I think
it had Batman's daughter in it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245