Just a little bit silly. The last time I heard such an argument someone was telling me that he refused to watch “Saving Private Ryan” because he saw a picture of Tom Hanks at a Democratic Fundraiser.
If Hanks injects lefty politics into his flicks, I’ll agree and join the boycott but for my money “Private Ryan” is a great movie.
If some former Planned Parenthood fundraiser puts a lot of left wing, pro-abortion slant into a childrens museum project that is one thing, but if the director is effectively raising funds and is putting together a good museum, then I don’t see what she used to do is an issue.
What is "silly"? Your original statement was based on an incorrect inference that a pro-lifer wanted the job. I responded that this was certainly NOT TRUE.
Now, your position is that it simply shouldn't matter. I agree with you that "Saving Private Ryan" is an incredible movie ("Shawshank Redemption" is another favorite of mine and Tim Robbins is a far bigger leftist than Hanks). However, your premise is inaccurate. When an actor plays a role, they are acting a part, if I don't object to the premise of the movie, I probably won't object to their role and an actor's political activism is usually just another publicity stunt.
This case is different, this woman ACTIVELY raised money for an organization that has KILLED over 20 MILLION CHILDREN, having her at a children's museum is more than ironic, it's devoid of any sense of right and wrong.