[typoon]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 30, 2003 20:42:05 ET XXXXX

HOLLYWOOD DEMS GATHER FOR 'HATE BUSH' MEETING AT HILTON

**Exclusive**

Top Hollywood activists and intellectuals are planning to gather this week in Beverly Hills for an event billed as 'Hate Bush,' the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

Laurie David [wife of SEINFELD creator Larry David] has sent out invites to the planned Tuesday evening meeting at the Hilton with the bold heading: 'Hate Bush 12/2 - Event'

The message reads:

"This is the most important meeting you can attend to prevent the advancement of the current extremist right wing agenda. Do not miss this meeting. This will be a high-level briefing to discuss the strategies... to affect what happens next November."

Political heavies Harold Ickes, Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff and Campaign Manager for the ¹96 Clinton/Gore re-elect, and Ellen Malcolm, Founder of Emily¹s List, a political action committee that elects pro-choice, Democratic women, will chair the gathering.

Names included on the "HATE BUSH" invite, obtained by DRUDGE, include:

# Julie Bergman: producer ("G.I. Jane," "The Fabulous Baker Boys," "Washington Square"), daughter of lyricists Alan and Marilyn Bergman. Came up with the anti-Iraq war "silent protest" idea for Oscars where celebrities wore blue-and-green quarter-sized peace sign pins.

# Scott Burns: "Got Milk?" campaign creator and producer of Arianna Huffington ad campaign which linked SUVs with terrorism.

# Steve Byrnes & Jamie Mandelbaum: Jamie is an entertainment attroney at Armstrong, Hirsch -- represents Hillary Duff, Tori Spelling, among others.

# Ariel "Ari" Emanuel: Emanuel is a founding partner of Endeavor Talent agency. Brother of White House Rahm and agent to West Wing Sorkin.

# Naomi Foner: Screenwriter of RUNNING ON EMPTY, LOSING ISAIAH; executive producer of HOMEGROWN a comedy thriller set in northern California about inept but lovable pot farmers.

# Cami Gordon: Children's book author lives in Pacific Palisades, Calif. Member of Mothers for Natural Law. Husband Howard, producer ("X-Files", "Strange World").

# Robert Greenwald: Executive producer of the 2002 documentary, UNPRECEDENTED: THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, about the "stealing" of the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Also produced CROOKED E: THE UNSHREDDED TRUTH ABOUT ENRON. He and Mike Farrell started "Artists United," a group of actors and other stars opposed to war in Iraq.

# Sally Hardwicke: [no data].

# Ruth Hunter: [no data].

# Lyn Lear: Wife of Norman Lear.

# Michelle Kydd Lee: Executive Director, Creative Artists Agency (CAA) Foundation.

# Julia Louis-Dreyfus: 'FRIDAYS', 'Seinfeld' alum. Married to fellow SNL alum and sitcom producer Brad Hall.

# Darcy Pollack: [no data].

# Nancy Stephens: Actress (RUSSKIES), environmentalist.

# Laure & Daniel Stern: Daniel is actor (CITY SLICKERS, HOME ALONE).

# Anne & Jay Sures: Jay Sures is an agent at United Talent Agency. Hosted fund-raiser for Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark at his Brentwood home.

# Marge Tabankin & Earl Katz: Tabankin is Barbra Streisand's philanthropic and political guru. Ran the Hollywood Women's Political Committee.

# Katz is the executive producer of UNPRECEDENTED: THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

# Heather Thomas: Actress ("The Fall Guy"), 80s pin-up model. Married to Skip Brittenham, top Hollywood lawyer.

# Elizabeth Wiatt: Wife of William Morris heavyweight Jim Wiatt.

[thunderous_funker]

Hey, whatyaknow? I was right. I always figured you could fit most of the "Hollywood Dems" in one room.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by typoon:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 30, 2003 20:42:05 ET XXXXX

Bah. another anti-semitic conspiracy theory from drudge...

[NYCFarmboy]

HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE

Oh wait...oops...that bumper sticker popular with the left I guess only applies to moderates & conservatives...... silly me.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE

Oh wait...oops...that bumper sticker popular with the left I guess only applies to moderates & conservatives...... silly me.

Never seen that bumper sticker in my life.

Please, this thread already has one gross generalization too many.

[MacGorilla]

Will they be meeting at the Paris Hilton?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Will they be meeting at the Paris Hilton?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Will they be meeting at the Paris Hilton?

At? They will all be IN.

*rimshot*

People from hollywood always like to act more important than they really are.

They are like monkeys dancing for real expensive peanuts for the most part.

[Lerkfish]

I'm more concerned the "blacklist" nature of the mccarthy, er, drudge report than I am that people are getting together to make poltical strategy.

I guess we can assume no republicans ever gather to determine a strategy, right?



Its a free country (at the moment). Even if people want to get together and put on bedsheets and burn crosses...guess what? they can.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I guess we can assume no republicans ever gather to determine a strategy, right?

No, we gather to determine strategery.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, we gather to determine strategery.

LOL!

[Lerkfish]

on a more serious note, I might add how its intriguing that many conservatives buy into the hollywood conspiracy theory, the Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory, the whitewater conspiracy theory, the liberal media conspiracy theory....to name just a few.

but if you mention the neocon conspiracy theory, you're a nutcase.

Its all a matter of perspective.

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
on a more serious note, I might add how its intriguing that many conservatives buy into the hollywood conspiracy theory, the Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory, the whitewater conspiracy theory, the liberal media conspiracy theory....to name just a few.

but if you mention the neocon conspiracy theory, you're a nutcase.

Its all a matter of perspective.

Take heart, Lerk. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[Zimphire]

Come on Lerk, you cannot say that the majority of Hollyweird isn't liberal based.

[einmakom]

Or that they don't blacklist the conservative voices, preventing them from getting jobs, or on the occasion that they do get work, being derided before cast and crew as the "resident facist."

For open-minded liberal folk, they sure seem awful close-minded and unaccepting.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Or that they don't blacklist the conservative voices, preventing them from getting jobs, or on the occasion that they do get work, being derided before cast and crew as the "resident facist."

For open-minded liberal folk, they sure seem awful close-minded and unaccepting.

evidence of this claim?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Come on Lerk, you cannot say that the majority of Hollyweird isn't liberal based.

*shrugs* I have no definitive knowledge either way. I've not seen any polls or statistics that indicates that.
All I've seen is conservatives like yourself that seem to think so, based on no data.

I also know conservatives like yourself seem to think the media is overwhelmingly liberal. As it happens, I DO have slightly more knowledge of that and call it for what it is: a false conspiracy theory. Newspapers are almost entirely owned and run by conservatives.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I also know conservatives like yourself seem to think the media is overwhelmingly liberal. As it happens, I DO have slightly more knowledge of that and call it for what it is: a false conspiracy theory. Newspapers are almost entirely owned and run by conservatives.

Usually when people say that, they are talking about a few major newspapers - the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and so on. Those aren't "most newspapers" but they are the heavyweights and they are influential disproportionate to their numbers. And they are undoubtedly liberal-leaning.

Secondly, people who talk about the liberal media are often thinking primarily of the broadcast media -- mainly the three TV networks. Most people who are honest about it would admit that they lean left as well, especially in their news coverage. Cable media, on the other hand, is more diverse, and so is radio. But they don't have the numbers. It's still true that more people get their news from you-know-who than any other source, which is pretty frightening considering how vapid TV news broadcasts are.

Thirdly, nobody is talking about an actual conspiracy. That's a strawman. What people are talking about is a set of shared assumptions that tends to shape how the news is reported. It's a subjective impression that viewers receive, but it is palpable. It's probably also one of those things that is easier for the viewers to perceive than it is for those on the inside. Sometimes you have to step back a bit to separate the wood from the trees.

Fourthly, I have a feeling that what you would call a conservative may not be what most Americans would call a conservative. You are a little out on the wings, there, Lerk.

BTW, have you read Bernie Goldberg's book? It's not very well written, but it is interesting.

[thunderous_funker]

Please, not another media bias debacle. That discussion invariably reveals more about the participants than about the alledged bias of the media.

But yes, the "Hollywood Dems" is a very funny and largely unfounded myth. Just look at the utter nobodies that make up this list. Sure, they might carry some clout at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club, but they are virtually unkown to anyone outside the insular and narcissistic world of Hollywood.

The real power brokers in Hollywood are not liberal. Even the ones that might be Democratic are not liberal, and it is incredibly rare for them to do anything that would rock the boat. They are in the business of catering to people's fickle attitudes, not in the business of shaping attitudes and preaching ideology.

The preachy types in Hollywood are mostly on the outside looking in. Barbara Streisand is a prime example. For all her fury and fuss, she is some washed up old bag married to a has-been B actor living in some retarded fantasy world that still pretends that she matters.

[Nonsuch]

There are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood too, folks. I'm sure the next year will see Bruce Willis, Kelsey Grammar, Tom Selleck, Charlton Heston et al busting out their checkbooks for Bush/Cheney. Bush has already raised more than half a mil in Hollywood, not as much as all the Dem candidates but still not exactly chump change.

[davesimondotcom]

Funny how most of this discussion has been about the use of the term "hollywood dems" rather than what was interesting about the memo in the first place, the use of the term "Hate Bush."

After all, many of these people would claim to be totally against hate of any kind (unless it's a republican.)

Yes, there will be help for Bush in Hollywood, that's not the point. It's unlikely that those raising money for Bush will do it in the name of "Hate Dean" or "Hate Kerry."

And Drudge listing the names of the people attending isn't a "blacklist." Drudge doesn't have the power to blacklist anyone.

[thunderous_funker]

Since when are conservatives worried about PC terms like "hate"?

Who cares if the executive producer from Everybody Loves Raymond and key grip on Family Feud hate anybody?

the Druge story is a non-starter, like most Drudge stories.

I only jumped in to poke fun at the imaginary solidarity movement known as the "Hollywood Dems". Sounds like something Rush would make up to con some more hicks out of their time and money.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
There are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood too, folks. I'm sure the next year will see Bruce Willis, Kelsey Grammar, Tom Selleck, Charlton Heston et al busting out their checkbooks for Bush/Cheney. Bush has already raised more than half a mil in Hollywood, not as much as all the Dem candidates but still not exactly chump change.

Tom Selleck... another gay republican? LMAO!

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by typoon:
[B]XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 30, 2003 20:42:05 ET XXXXX

HOLLYWOOD DEMS GATHER FOR 'HATE BUSH' MEETING AT HILTON

**Exclusive**

Top Hollywood activists and intellectuals are planning to gather this week in Beverly Hills for an event billed as 'Hate Bush,' the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!

Laurie David [wife of SEINFELD creator Larry David] has sent out invites to the planned Tuesday evening meeting at the Hilton with the bold heading: 'Hate Bush 12/2 - Event'

More like the Flying Pigs convention to me

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


BTW, have you read Bernie Goldberg's book? It's not very well written, but it is interesting.

Yeah, what Simey said.

[osiris]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Tom Selleck... another gay republican? LMAO!

I already find Black Republicans laughable, so don't get me started on Gay Republicans. Sh*t, these people are stupid. LMAO


The few remaining non-fascist individuals in Hollywood are attempting to reveal truths. There are way too many red flags with GWB and his gang, and even if 1% of the talk is true... you have to be a blind deaf mute to not understand the modus operandi of these fascist pigfu…|kers.

The picture is quite large when you step back and take a good honest look at it. But it's ugly.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So which ones are supposed to be the "intellectuals" again?

Perhaps contrasted with some of the most petty and shallow of numbskulls among the Hollywood left, the term could be qualified by way of a direct comparison.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
So which ones are supposed to be the "intellectuals" again?

Perhaps contrasted with some of the most petty and shallow of numbskulls among the Hollywood left, the term could be qualified by way of a direct comparison.

Reminds me of that "Celebrity Boxing" show that was on a while ago. "Celebrity" appeared to be a very relative term.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by osiris:
I already find Black Republicans laughable, so don't get me started on Gay Republicans. Sh*t, these people are stupid. LMAO

Yeah, those black Republicans sure are laughable. Damn them for not towing the Democrat line that has gotten them so far, so far.

They really have some nerve for supporting a party that doesn't really intend on judging them by the color of their skin, but rather as members of the party.

After all, what have Republicans ever done for the black people in this country? Oh, that silly little Emancipation Proclimation thing. That was nothing. Oh, and the Civil Rights bills of the 60s, that wouldn't have passed without Republicans, but were opposed by people such as Bill Clinton's mentor and Al Gore's father.

As far as Gay Republicans, I'll let Simey comment if he wants to...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Reminds me of that "Celebrity Boxing" show that was on a while ago. "Celebrity" appeared to be a very relative term.

So was "Boxing"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
As far as Gay Republicans, I'll let Simey comment if he wants to...

Sure. I obviously have views on it. I'd say that Democrats tend to be more supportive. Certainly, the national party platform is much more supportive. However, I think that a lot of it is lip service. For example, Al Gore talked the talk, but that didn't stop him inviting the notorious anti-gay bigot Fred Phelps to both of his inaugurations as vice-president.



Al Gore never did explain this, or apologize for it. He has said that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was a mistake, but not until he was safely out of office and not running for president. Neither he nor Bill Clinton tried to stop it (it was devised mainly by Democrats such as Sam Nunn). Nor did they attempt to veto the Defense of Marriage Act. Not that they originiated that Act, it was the creation of the Republicans. But lots and lots of Democrats signed on, both in Congress and in the various states that passed similar amendments. You can't do that and claim to be the party of gay civil rights.

On the marriage issue, Democrats are pretty much useless. The furthest most Democrats will go is lukewarm support for civil unions. Of the presidential candidates with a hope of winning the Democratic nomination, NONE support equal rights. They all have the same position as the Bush Administration. That's not a horrible position. It is certainly better than the position of some social conservatives. But it is still a cowardly position and I don't see any reason to thank them for it.

In sum, it isn't that Republicans are better than Democrats on gay issues. Quite the opposite. But it is the case that Democrats aren't anywhere near as supportive as they like to pretend they are. I don't like parties taking me for granted, and I don't like the dishonesty. If they are ambivilent, fine. Just be honest about it. Don't ask for my vote and my money as a gay person and then kick me in the teeth later.

I'm a Republican because of the rest of my political views, not because of this issue. I'm really more of a soft-libertarian anyway. All politics is choosing the coalition that best seems to espouse your views. There are many Republicans who are just as gay-friendly as many Democrats. There are also bigots in both parties. The proportions may be different, but it is not as dramatic a difference as people pretend. My experience is that Republicans tend to be more gay tolerant than their public statements might suggest, and Democrats tend to be less gay friendly and more condescending than theirs might suggest. Democrats have a tendency to just include gay rights in a shopping list of special interests, most of which they seem to regard as much more important. The way it works is that we are supposed to support all those other interests, but it is very rare that those other interests will be asked to do anything in return.

I prefer to be a vote in play. I don't think we are safe being a block vote that one party aligns itself against, and the other takes for granted. We'll get full equal rights when both parties perceive it is important to seek our support, and when both parties listen. Better yet, we'll get equal rights when people across the political spectrum just see us as normal people with a variety of political concerns and with opinions worth listening to. Thus I am not a "gay Republican," I am a Republican who is gay.

[osiris]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yeah, those black Republicans sure are laughable. Damn them for not towing the Democrat line that has gotten them so far, so far.

They really have some nerve for supporting a party that doesn't really intend on judging them by the color of their skin, but rather as members of the party.

After all, what have Republicans ever done for the black people in this country? Oh, that silly little Emancipation Proclimation thing. That was nothing. Oh, and the Civil Rights bills of the 60s, that wouldn't have passed without Republicans, but were opposed by people such as Bill Clinton's mentor and Al Gore's father.

As far as Gay Republicans, I'll let Simey comment if he wants to...

whatever.

Democrats scream for civil rights, then Republicans want to take credit for it? OMG ROTFLMAO.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Thus I am not a "gay Republican," I am a Republican who is gay.

Well said, Simey.

As a fellow small "l" libertarian, I agree with most of what you have to say around here.

I, too, would agree that neither party is very active in it's support of gay issues, such as marriage. Democrats do pay lip service, which to me is worse than just opposing someone - to say that you support them, then not have their back when it comes down to it is distastful to me.

As far as marriage, I'm all for it. Shouldn't "family-friendly" Republicans be? I mean, how many have attacked gays for being promiscuous (when we know just as many straights are) - and when it comes down to gays asking for the right to have their monogamous relationships recognized, they get the DOMA...I think it would be better for Republicans to embrace the idea of gay marriage as a step towards "family values."

But I also think that you are right in not defining your entire political experience by your sexuality. That would be just as silly as being a one-issue Anti-Abortion voter. When people decide elections based on one issue, they usually lose AND get a candidate unfriendly to the rest of their views.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by osiris:
whatever.

Democrats scream for civil rights, then Republicans want to take credit for it? OMG ROTFLMAO.

Many Republicans were screaming for them too...

It wasn't Democrats or Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act. It was Americans...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sure. I obviously have views on it. I'd say that Democrats tend to be more supportive. Certainly, the national party platform is much more supportive. However, I think that a lot of it is lip service. For example, Al Gore talked the talk, but that didn't stop him inviting the notorious anti-gay bigot Fred Phelps to both of his inaugurations as vice-president.



Al Gore never did explain this, or apologize for it. He has said that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was a mistake, but not until he was safely out of office and not running for president. Neither he nor Bill Clinton tried to stop it (it was devised mainly by Democrats such as Sam Nunn). Nor did they attempt to veto the Defense of Marriage Act. Not that they originiated that Act, it was the creation of the Republicans. But lots and lots of Democrats signed on, both in Congress and in the various states that passed similar amendments. You can't do that and claim to be the party of gay civil rights.

On the marriage issue, Democrats are pretty much useless. The furthest most Democrats will go is lukewarm support for civil unions. Of the presidential candidates with a hope of winning the Democratic nomination, NONE support equal rights. They all have the same position as the Bush Administration. That's not a horrible position. It is certainly better than the position of some social conservatives. But it is still a cowardly position and I don't see any reason to thank them for it.

In sum, it isn't that Republicans are better than Democrats on gay issues. Quite the opposite. But it is the case that Democrats aren't anywhere near as supportive as they like to pretend they are. I don't like parties taking me for granted, and I don't like the dishonesty. If they are ambivilent, fine. Just be honest about it. Don't ask for my vote and my money as a gay person and then kick me in the teeth later.

I'm a Republican because of the rest of my political views, not because of this issue. I'm really more of a soft-libertarian anyway. All politics is choosing the coalition that best seems to espouse your views. There are many Republicans who are just as gay-friendly as many Democrats. There are also bigots in both parties. The proportions may be different, but it is not as dramatic a difference as people pretend. My experience is that Republicans tend to be more gay tolerant than their public statements might suggest, and Democrats tend to be less gay friendly and more condescending than theirs might suggest. Democrats have a tendency to just include gay rights in a shopping list of special interests, most of which they seem to regard as much more important. The way it works is that we are supposed to support all those other interests, but it is very rare that those other interests will be asked to do anything in return.

I prefer to be a vote in play. I don't think we are safe being a block vote that one party aligns itself against, and the other takes for granted. We'll get full equal rights when both parties perceive it is important to seek our support, and when both parties listen. Better yet, we'll get equal rights when people across the political spectrum just see us as normal people with a variety of political concerns and with opinions worth listening to. Thus I am not a "gay Republican," I am a Republican who is gay.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

As far as marriage, I'm all for it. Shouldn't "family-friendly" Republicans be? I mean, how many have attacked gays for being promiscuous (when we know just as many straights are) - and when it comes down to gays asking for the right to have their monogamous relationships recognized, they get the DOMA...I think it would be better for Republicans to embrace the idea of gay marriage as a step towards "family values."

I certainly think so. I think that marriage and military service are entirely consistent with my soft-l libertarian/conservative views. That's certainly the reason why so many of the more left-wing gay groups (such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) were very reluctant supporters.

Obviously, regardless of party there are those (and a lot of them) with religious and traditionalist objections. Those can be rational, or irrational. It depends on the individual. If they are rational, then I think you can have a civil debate even about things that I think are very important. But that isn't everyone and the "ick" factor is pretty huge. Andrew Sullivan (in another context) had a line that I liked. He said you can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Here is the thing, though. I find that even people who have anti-gay views about gays in the abstract, tend to make exceptions for individuals. "I don't like homosexuality, but person X seems OK." Sometimes that is just hypocracy (and of course, there are plenty who will me mean or violent to your face). But to the extent that this is part of human nature, I think it can be used in a powerful way. The problem with the Democratic block vote approach is that it encourages people to think of gays and lesbians as a monolithic block, and not as individuals that they might know personally. That can be very counterproductive.

This, however, isn't a complaint about Democrats or praise of Republicans. It is just a tactical disagreement.

[davesimondotcom]

We've gotten totally off topic, but I really don't care.

I find it ironic that many of the people who object to gay marriage on a religious grounds want to legislate it away. If they truly believe in their church, etc, and that marriage is an institution of God, then it wouldn't need legislating...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
We've gotten totally off topic, but I really don't care.

I find it ironic that many of the people who object to gay marriage on a religious grounds want to legislate it away. If they truly believe in their church, etc, and that marriage is an institution of God, then it wouldn't need legislating...

Nothing is quite as scary to some people as other people's Liberty. Sad, but true.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Oh, that silly little Emancipation Proclimation thing. That was nothing.

That's right. The Emancipation Proclamation was a publicity stunt in order to discourage the European powers from intervening on the South's behalf. Note this little clause in the actual text (opening sentence, emphasis added):

That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as
slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people
whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall
be then, thenceforward, and forever free;

He was careful not to free any slaves in states where the North could actually do something about freeing them.

That being said, Lincoln did do what most people think he did, in terms of freeing the slaves. He just didn't do it with the Emancipation Proclamation, is all.

I'm glad you've been paying attention in history class.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I prefer to be a vote in play. [...] Thus I am not a "gay Republican," I am a Republican who is gay.

The bit before the ellipsis and the bit after seem to contradict. If you are a Republican aren't you, by definition, a vote that isn't in play?

I could buy an Independent who is gay, that would jive with the first statement. An Independent can lean one way or the other in their voting record, so it isn't like you'd have to vote against your conscience if you were an Independent.

Let me try to give an analogy. Imagine Shakespeare saying, "They only play lip-service to freedom in France, that is why I swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth."

Do you see where I'm coming from?

It just seems to me that anybody who has declared themselves as a member of any party is basically telling the party, "I'm a safe vote." In exchange for that allegiance, individuals may try to advance in the party and gain power. I suppose that there's an implicit bargaining that goes on, too, where the members of the party basically play quid pro quo on the issues that matter to them. That, too, can have an advantage. It only works, though, if there's a credible threat of leaving the party if the deal isn't satisfied.

So, I can see being an Independent who is gay, if you don't feel you're getting your quo from the Democrats. What I can't see is becoming a vote that's isn't in play on the other side. That seems to me more like abandoning the issue than anything.

BlackGriffen

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Never seen that bumper sticker in my life.

Maybe you should get out more -- I've seen it on lots of cars, beginning before the 2k election.

This "Hate Bush" rally shouldn't surprise anyone -- just as there are hatemongers on the political right, they have their rabid counterparts on the left. Only the right doesn't control which movies get made and which television shows depict Ronald Reagan as a buffoon.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Only the right doesn't control which movies get made and which television shows depict Ronald Reagan as a buffoon.

Only which ones get aired.

[Y3a]

It WAS on cable.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Y3a:
It WAS on cable.

That has more to do with money than politics. From what I heard, the producer wanted a feelgood thing about the Reagans. When the director gave him what he got, he wasn't happy, but money was more important than message to him. So, he decided to recoup his investment the only way he could: show the finished product.

When ABC caved to the Reagan lovers, the producer still wanted to recoup his investment, so he sold it to a cable company.

Make no mistake, the only reason it was shown was money.

The director, on the other hand, he's a sneaky lefty bastard.

BlackGriffen

[Sven G]

Poor Bush: he seemed to be a lot more human in "those days"...

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
evidence of this claim?

Of course there are links to articles which quote conservatives in Hollywood who suffer under such conditions.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...03/4/21/112149

and Hirsen's Tales from the Left Coast are places to begin;

True, there are no Congressional committees pursuing conservatives and no blacklist maintained by the studios, but a lot of people lose jobs daily in this town because of their conservative beliefs. Nobody can show you the proof of that for the obvious reason that no one wants to lose more work. The power in Hollywood is all on The Left. There's a graylist.

And I know of the examples I named, the writer who was introduced to cast, crew, and studio audience as the 'resident facist' because I know it happened personally. I also know that he related to me he was suing to get recognition on a script he'd written, which was taken and had other author's names slapped on it in place of his own, and in the men's room when the mediator was at the sink and the author in a stall, he heard the mediator say that he wouldn't give that 'dirty conservative credit, no matter what.'

It happens. It's dirty. Unfortunately for the people who've chosen to make their careers there, and the people in so-called flyover country who watch the product produced, it doesn't appear primed to change anytime soon.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by einmakom:
.... The power in Hollywood is all on The Left. ....

This is the premise which is being questioned. I have no doubt that on an individual basis people of both political persuasions find themselves the victims of prejudice at some point or another.

But the idea that all of Hollywood's power is on one side or the other is quite laughable. If anything, the power in Hollywood avoids controversial politics like the plague.

A lot of this myth is based on the notion that notable persons are the real power in Hollywood. Celebrities. Certainly there are quite a few outspoken prominent celebrities on the Left (and on the Right), but they aren't the real power.

The real power in Hollywood are the Studios. Those are massive corporations. And like most massive corporations, they court everybody and play to the middle as much as possible.

The other mistake is to automatically associate Democrats with Left and Republicans with Right. The fact of the matter is, lots of the powerful and influencial people of both parties remain comfortably moderate and centrist. And they are both quite conservative as they have much invested in business as usual in politics.

[einmakom]

The people who hire and fire have power. Casting, Directors, Producers, who all work at the mercy of the studios, and decide who will and will not be hired.

And there have been clearly a number of instances where conservative and Republican (separated because T_F makes a solid point) both have been denied work due to political alignment.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by einmakom:
The people who hire and fire have power. Casting, Directors, Producers, who all work at the mercy of the studios, and decide who will and will not be hired.

And there have been clearly a number of instances where conservative and Republican (separated because T_F makes a solid point) both have been denied work due to political alignment.

And vice versa. Consider the shunning that Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon get from the Hollywood establishment because they are so outspoken politically. AFAIK, they are both "uninvited for life" from the Academy Award Shows. Michael Moore got the same treatment at Sundance a few years ago for pissing on the rich and famous when he screened The Big One. Word is, he might not be invited back.

But this kind of prejudice and cronyism isn't limited to politics. In fact, I'd say politics is one of the least powerful factors in Hollywood cronyism.

Your Hollywood career will get a helluva bigger boost by being a Scientologist than it will by being a Lefty.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I have to say I find it annoying all the whining back and forth about so-called political 'blacklists' in this town, from both sides. I’ve worked in Hollywood, as a conservative for 13 years, and have never felt blacklisted. Personally, I think the people that complain about this on both sides, tend to be people who just love to spout politics at EVERY POSSIBLE OCCASION, when it’s not even remotely relevant to the job at hand. Such will make you a less than desirable hire in any profession. I can assure you for absolute certain there's at least one small production company in Hollywood that slants conservative in its ownership: MINE.


Sure, there's lots of dippy left-leaning movie stars/Directors/Producers, etc. Big deal. There are also quite a few conservatives. Conservatives in higher positions in Hollywood perhaps tend to be less publicly outspoken. I think it has more to do with tact, than any fear of some bullshit blacklist. Who on the Hollywood right, even among powerful celebrities, feels the need to flap off at the mouth about politics to the extent of someone like Barbara Streisand on the left? When did anyone of the Hollywood ‘right’ ever feel any burning desire to stage some ‘Hate Clinton’ event? The Hollywood left is noisier than it is ‘all powerful’.

This town is about money. If you have unique skills that entertain people and can make a buck, you’ve have little problem working, whatever your political views.

Working with a known Hollywood leftist doesn't mean compromising your principals if you're a conservative- it just means it might not be such a good idea to go flapping off about conservative politics with them, when such has nothing to do with the job at hand- which is making movies and TV shows.

Likewise, if one is on the left, and wanting to work for prominent Hollywood conservatives, it's probably not a good idea to go spouting off about left wing politics with any of them, when such has nothing to do with the job of making movies or TV shows.

No matter where you are, in whatever profession, chances are people are hired to do WORK, not spout politics.


If you just can't resist however- go to your office, log onto the net, and yap politics on MacNN!