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."

Comments

joe | June 27, 2005, 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.

sim | June 27, 2005, 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.

dhex | June 27, 2005, 10:35am | #

huh?

Geotech | June 27, 2005, 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.

ralphus | June 27, 2005, 10:38am | #

Don't forget about Stephen Baldwin.

Take that Alec!

Worst. Poster. Evah. | June 27, 2005, 10:41am | #

Someone explain the "Road to Damascus" reference to me. (Lawrence of Arabia?)

Marcvs | June 27, 2005, 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.

tarran | June 27, 2005, 10:46am | #

Saint Paul helped persecute Christians, until 'on the road to Damascus' he converted. Then he started trying to spread the faith.

XMan | June 27, 2005, 10:51am | #

The Contender was left-leaning as I recall. Oldman's a pretty well-known conservative, ditto Woods.

Brett | June 27, 2005, 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 | June 27, 2005, 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

joe | June 27, 2005, 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 | June 27, 2005, 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.

Mr. Nice Guy | June 27, 2005, 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?

Daze | June 27, 2005, 11:26am | #

What, no mention of Trey Parker? Fuck no!

rob | June 27, 2005, 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...

Mo | June 27, 2005, 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.

sim | June 27, 2005, 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.

joe | June 27, 2005, 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.

;-)

ABC | June 27, 2005, 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 | June 27, 2005, 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.

joe | June 27, 2005, 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?

Todd Fletcher | June 27, 2005, 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.

stubby | June 27, 2005, 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.

wellfellow | June 27, 2005, 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.

dhex | June 27, 2005, 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.

ralphus | June 27, 2005, 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!

newyorkdem | June 27, 2005, 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?

mtc | June 27, 2005, 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.

Rhywun | June 27, 2005, 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 | June 27, 2005, 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!

sam | June 27, 2005, 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

mediageek | June 27, 2005, 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.

Mo | June 27, 2005, 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.

Mr. Nice Guy | June 27, 2005, 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??)

Rhywun | June 27, 2005, 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...].

rob | June 27, 2005, 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...

joe | June 27, 2005, 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.

rob | June 27, 2005, 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 | June 27, 2005, 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.

newyorkdem | June 27, 2005, 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.

Mo | June 27, 2005, 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.

Rhywun | June 27, 2005, 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].

Rhywun | June 27, 2005, 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.

Steve | June 27, 2005, 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.

The Rest of America | June 27, 2005, 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.

joe | June 27, 2005, 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.

Eric the .5b | June 27, 2005, 2:25pm | #

OK, I'm curious.

What, precisely, makes this article slimy?

The Rest of America | June 27, 2005, 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.

mediageek | June 27, 2005, 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.'

Cedarburg | June 27, 2005, 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?

Mitch | June 27, 2005, 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.

Ayn_Randian | June 27, 2005, 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.

joe | June 27, 2005, 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.

Mo | June 27, 2005, 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.

zach | June 27, 2005, 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.

Ayn_Randian | June 27, 2005, 3:00pm | #

Sorry Mo, I just get pissed when every republican whines that they have to support the "electable" candidate. Fuck that, sez I.

drf | June 27, 2005, 3:01pm | #

just testing the sensitivity to insulting the religious right.

figgered.

Steve | June 27, 2005, 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.

Steve | June 27, 2005, 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

Jim Walsh | June 27, 2005, 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?

ChicagoTOm | June 27, 2005, 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.

Eric the .5b | June 27, 2005, 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?

Eric the .5b | June 27, 2005, 3:44pm | #

"What, precisely, makes this article slimy?"

It's contribution to a pattern of behavior.

Alright... But what's the contribution?

rob | June 27, 2005, 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 | June 27, 2005, 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.

Eric the .5b | June 27, 2005, 4:45pm | #

Switzerland and Saudia Arabia! That's two.

Though, if we want to stretch the definition of "bible"... ;)

grylliade | June 27, 2005, 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.

db | June 27, 2005, 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.

Max | June 27, 2005, 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?

rob | June 27, 2005, 6:13pm | #

db - Bwahahahaha! Heh...

sluggo | June 27, 2005, 6:55pm | #

Just dropping by to say the Sept. 12th Republicans are the biggest bunch of douches around.......
Go conservative libertarians!

Akira MacKenzie | June 27, 2005, 7:34pm | #

OK, can someone explain to me why a right-wing bias in Hollywood is any better than a left-wing bias?

The Real Bill | June 27, 2005, 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?

The Real Bill | June 27, 2005, 8:01pm | #

s/b likely not like and when I say accomplish, I don't mean new programs

Mo | June 27, 2005, 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.

mediageek | June 27, 2005, 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.

Stevo Darkly | June 27, 2005, 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.