Posted on 03/14/2003 7:53:16 AM PST by ewing
I agree with you -- This is a BS "apology" if I ever saw one.
Explain to me again how they're 'anti-American'? Once you get to a certain status you're not allowed to have an opinion any more? Heck, she has questions about the war. I have serious questions about this war. I have questions about what this President (who I voted for, so I have the right to question) is thinking. Does that make me anti-American too?
I wonder if they thought yet about the tendency of dixie to not go for liberal BS? Especially country music fans. I hope their sales drop.
I'm going to buy the Darryl Worley CD Have you Forgotten (featured on Fox in the morning and Hannity and the Crypt Keeper)when it comes out - a very get Saddam pro America kind of song.
How colorful. I haven't heard that kind of descriptor used since junior high...
That statement prompted all kinds of reactions from the American public, causing the group to further explain their stance on their official website. "We've been overseas for several weeks and have been reading and following the news accounts of our government's position," the group explains. "The anti-American sentiment that has unfolded here is astounding. While we support our troops, there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost."
Maines also says, "I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view.
Do I share those sentiments? Do I have questions about the Constitutionality of the war? And considering North Korea is building missiles to reach our borders yet all the while we reopen aid to them ? Do I have questions about the war considering that even some of our 'allies' and supporters in this battle (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc) are sponsoring terrorism?
Yes I do. I support and pray for the troops but yes I have questions about this war. And before you start calling me Frenchie (as I am wont to see the arguments presented tend to be filled with) it has nothing to do with the UN. We should protect our national sovereignty however I still have questions of exactly how much a threat Saddam Hussein (no pictures of 9/11 either please, while tragic, the only evidence of the supposed ties we've seen is from the government, the guys wanting to fight the war remember?) is compared to some other dictators in the world
Ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your argument. Try telling me why they're wrong, instead of calling them names.
Incidentally, two of the three DC's are extremely attractive women. Not sure why you'd call them "cows".
That's exactly why I try to stay away from any thread having to do with Iraq and the possible war. Few make arguments, and most just attack. The name calling of the Dixie Chicks is very uncalled for. Some people such as Baldwin, Clinton or Streissand deserve some of the name calling, but not these ladies.
The way in which these folks try to make their case is so over-the-top sometimes I find myself arguing against my beliefs, just because I can't agree with the tone of their ridiculous posts.
I happen to have a fair amount of experience with celebrity branding, and I can tell you why you're mistaken.
This isn't about the Dixie Chicks. They became irrelevant when the story broke.
Lipton and The Dixie Chicks have a co-branding arrangement. Someone at Lipton, or one of their agencies, recognized the base that the Dixie Chicks appeal to as under-represented on Lipton's desired range of demographic. This might be southerners, middle income women, country music listeners, it doesn't matter. Lipton 'bought' the Chicks, much as they'd buy radio time.
As such, Lipton contracted with the Chicks such that Lipton would be well represented and both would prosper. Lawyers write contracts to cover unseen but later-litigable circumstances as 'other considerations of value'. Contracts are written with 'performance clauses' and 'good faith' clauses too. More on that in a moment.
Lipton's contributions to the tour may not have been cash. It may have been the underwriting of expenses or promotional consideration, ie. tradebacks with TV, radio, venues, or newspaper ads. In any case they viewed their association with the Chicks as an opportunity to have their brand favorably presented in a market they might otherwise not have access to. Branding is all about favorable, reinforceable perceptions.
I will tell you from experience this is very hard to establish, but once in place, not so difficult to maintain (if you're competent, that is).
To use the industry parlance, the Chicks are, at the moment, 'toxic'. No sponsor will consider them going forward until this 'problem' is fixed, and maybe not even then.
Even if that were the only case, it might not be enough to sink them. Their 'brand' among their fans remains intact and some people will buy their music no matter what.
However, Lipton may be able to prove that the Chicks, by drawing negative attention to themselves and thus to Lipton, have inalterbly severed the contractual bond. Lipton may well be able to sue and recover all monies paid to date, as well as damages. This is of no small concern. Such contracts can run in excess of a few million dollars, and if you add damages to that, it ain't chump change.
Every email and phone call, every dismissive remark and boycott by a radio station puts leverage in the hands of Lipton, and takes away the Dixie Chicks' leverage.
I would encourage each and every one of us to continue to press Lipton.
One last thing. If you think that these women have the right to prance around the world and speak ill of the US, I suppose that's an argument. But I would opine that going on foreign soil and criticizing your government in a time of crisis gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and emboldens the enemy to foment more such unrest. This is of no small consequence to me as I have close friends and family either overseas or ready to go. In my view the Chicks' "free speech" is treasonous.
And Tally, these are not 'ladies' in any sense of the word I've ever heard used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.