I've yet to see a single report demonstrate entertainers are effective as political commentators. I believe this kind of childish BS just demonstrates the worst qualities of the Democrats on a daily basis.
Martin Sheen's rants in 2000 didn't help Gore. The Dixie Chicks comments didn't help the DNC. Susan Saradon only hurt her career (which is why she and boy toy Robbins have been remarkably quiet for months, btw).
I see it like this. When your opponents insist on displaying a infantile view of the world in general, and this President in particular....give em all the media coverage possible. It only reinforces the most disgusting traits required to be a Democrat in the year 2004.
Think it over. Has Gore's rants convinced ANYBODY that "We the People" would have been better served with him as President?
Did Dean's rants help him? How about Kucinich?
I don't want to shut them up, I want them to get even more airtime, more print coverage. Its killing any hope of Kerry pulling out this election in my opinion.
People are tired of this stuff.
"I've yet to see a single report demonstrate entertainers are effective as political commentators. I believe this kind of childish BS just demonstrates the worst qualities of the Democrats on a daily basis."
This is political naivete. You're confusing negative conservative reaction to lib entertainers and negative lib reaction to conservative entertainers with the reaction from the middle roaders (swing voters), which you can't possibly judge or evaluate. I haven't seen a single report about the effectiveness of entertainment political commentary either, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. To reject out of hand that they may have influence just because you haven't seen a report on it, is an invalid conclusion.
"Martin Sheen's rants in 2000 didn't help Gore."
You can't possibly know this with any degree of certainty. The last I checked Gore won a plurality of the vote. Who knows how many undecided voters, WEst Wing fans or teenage MTV listeners were affected by his comments.
"The Dixie Chicks comments didn't help the DNC. Susan Saradon only hurt her career (which is why she and boy toy Robbins have been remarkably quiet for months, btw)."
Once again, how do you know they didn't help the DNC? What is certain is they definitely hurt their careers, but that only happened because their was a very public backlash to them. You are quoting examples to support your position that, IMHO, contradict them and support mine.
"I see it like this. When your opponents insist on displaying a infantile view of the world in general, and this President in particular....give em all the media coverage possible. It only reinforces the most disgusting traits required to be a Democrat in the year 2004."
Infantile to whom? You? Me? This stuff looks ridiculous to us, the libs applaud it and the people in the middle don't know what to think so they wait to see who screams the loudest and many times adopt that position. You say give them all the media coverage, but if we don't speak up that coverage will consist of Dan Rather and CNN talking about how wonderful they are, how meaningful their comments sound and what heroes they are for having the courage to speak their minds.
Those kind of lies, repeated often enough without contradiction, become facts.
"Has Gore's rants convinced ANYBODY that "We the People" would have been better served with him as President?"
As mentioned, apparently 50%+ of the voters. Bush got in due to the quirkiness of the electoral college system.
"People are tired of this stuff."
Here is where you make a critical mistake. You're tired of this stuff, conservatives are tired of this stuff. You simply cannot extrapolate your views on to the population as a whole. You may be right, you may be wrong, but nobody knows. Saying that as a statement of fact is simply not correct.