Clooney: Hollywood Liberals Should Shut Up Already

Irish Examiner – Ocean’s Eleven star George Clooney is urging his fellow Hollywood stars to keep quiet when it comes to politics, because he fears celebrity endorsements could wreck their favourite candidates’ chances of victory.
Democrat Clooney and a number of screen stars have recently come under attack for voicing their political views.
And the actor, whose father Nick Clooney was recently defeated in his bid to be elected the congressional representative for Kentucky, has now vowed to be a lot more politically low-key.
He says: “My father ran for congress last year. I couldn’t campaign for him and I knew I couldn’t, because I’d hurt him. They tried to get me to get on the John Kerry train and I said: ‘We’ll hurt him. They’ll use us as ‘liberal’.’

You’d think that some of these celebrities would get the hint when every candidate they try to endorse is largely hurt by said endorsement. There’s a reason why the majority of Americans don’t like Hollywood-types weighing in on politics.. Its because Hollywood politicos are, largely, out of touch with reality and on the extreme fringe of politics. They seldom have anything of substance to say on an issue and seem interested in donning the mantel of “interested participant” more for the sake of looking intelligent than anything else.
A prime example of that is this quote from Clooney himself:

“Now, I would argue that (throughout) American history, it’s pretty hard to find a time when liberals were on the wrong side of an issue. We thought that the conservative view was: ‘Witches should be burned at the stake.’ Moderate view was: ‘Well, just in case,’ and the liberal view was: ‘There’s no such thing as witches.’
“We thought women should be able to vote and blacks should be allowed to sit at the front of the bus and Vietnam was wrong. We haven’t really been on a lot of wrong sides for us to be sort of used as this bad word.”

Of course, Clooney is forgetting that Abraham Lincoln (the father of the GOP himself) was the great emancipator who freed the slaves. He’s forgetting that Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was the first President to entertain both a black man (Booker T. Washington) and a black woman (the wife of some federal appointee who’s name I’m forgetting) at the White House. He’s forgetting that it was Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights act in the face of filibustering Democrats (among them Al Gore’s father).
Which isn’t to say that the Republicans haven’t had their fair share of idiots among their ranks, but that Clooney would make such an idiotic and naive statement proves the point: Hollywood liberals just don’t know what they’re talking about.

Tags:


«
»
  • WOOF

    Seth when you finish explaining what I said, have you got someting to say?

  • http://www.moderninstances.com/ modern instances

    You had me right with you until this paragraph:

    Of course, Clooney is forgetting that Abraham Lincoln (the father of the GOP himself) was the great emancipator who freed the slaves. He's forgetting that Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was the first President to entertain both a black man (Booker T. Washington) and a black woman (the wife of some federal appointee who's name I'm forgetting) at the White House. He's forgetting that it was Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights act in the face of filibustering Democrats (among them Al Gore's father).

    I think it's a mistake to conflate Republican/conservative and Democrat/liberal. Lincoln and Roosevelt are, at best, several times removed from today's Republican party, just as Democrats are far removed from Jefferson or Roosevelt (the other one). Also, those Dems who opposed the Civil Rights Act work under a different name now: Republicans.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Also, those Dems who opposed the Civil Rights Act work under a different name now: Republicans.

    Nice empty claim. It sounds good though.

  • WOOF

    He's forgetting that it was Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights act in the face of filibustering Democrats (among them Al Gore's father).

    Your forgeting that the CRA was proposed by Kennedy/Johnson and was passed by both parties, the Southern states voting agianst.
    Barry Goldwater voted against and became the Republican standard bearer and Presidential candidate that same year. He won 5 southern states and Arizona.

  • WOOF

    Senator Strom Thurmond, D-SC, who switched to R-SC in 1964

  • John

    I think it's a mistake to conflate Republican/conservative and Democrat/liberal.

    Here, here. However, one still needs an adequate definition for the term "liberal" in order to take any stance on what Clooney said. More simply, it's usless to qualify Clooney's statements without understanding what he himself thinks is liberal.

    Referencing his words, the Puritans were conservative. How else could they have proposed burning witches at the stake. Given this, separation of church and state and public education are also conservative ideals, as Puritans of the time were open proponents of both.

    And since conservatives are bad…Clooney believes separation of Ch&St, and public education are bad.

    Extrapolating from his statement, liberals believed that laisse-faire economics is a good thing (circa 18th century). As Republicans are the laisse-faire proponents of today, Republicans are the new liberals, and are thus, on Clooney's side of good.

    The point is that: Clooney is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Speaking of either liberals or conservatives as the main force of good in the long history of this country is so contradictory at times, that Clooney must be an idiot for even claiming such a thing.

    To answer my question: what is it that Clooney thinks is a liberal?

    Well, I'm biased. I don't like Clooney just enough to think he's dumb enough to believe "Liberals good, conservatives bad". Was I assuming too much?

  • John

    Strom Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican, ergo both Republicans and Democrats hate black people?

  • Seth Williams

    OK WOOF, then what, exactly, was your point in bringing up Strom Thurmond and his switch to the Republican party?

    I guess I'm just slower than the other kids, because it seemed to me that you were implying something.

  • Seth Williams

    I see, Strom Thurmond turned Republican, ergo Republicans are racists. Nice leap of logic, that.

    It's funny to me how Robert "Sheets" Byrd gets a pass from Democrats ("Oh, the 60s were a long time ago, people change!"), but Strom Thurmond doesn't get afforded that same benefit of the doubt.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I think it's a mistake to conflate Republican/conservative and Democrat/liberal. Lincoln and Roosevelt are, at best, several times removed from today's Republican party, just as Democrats are far removed from Jefferson or Roosevelt (the other one).

    Fair enough. Its tough to play the labels game. Square pegs, round holes. Plus the definitions have shifted over time.

    I actually didn't mean for it to come out as "Republicans good/Democrats bad" as it sounded. I intended to point out some history that people like Clooney tend to forget in their mindless opposition bashing.

  • John

    I actually didn't mean for it to come out as "Republicans good/Democrats bad"

    And I never came out and said "Republicans good/Democrats bad" is invalid. :P

    You've got a pretty good site here. I've been reading for a couple weeks now.

  • http://thepoliticalteen.net/?p=2714 The Political Teen &

    &heellip; Clooney: Hollywood Liberals Should Shut Up Already Don’t you wish that they would take his advice? &heellip;

  • WOOF

    , Strom Thurmond turned Republican, ergo Republicans are racists. Nice leap of logic

    Your Leap Seth, got a parachute?

  • Seth Williams

    I was pointing out the fallacy of WOOF's posting, John.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You've got a pretty good site here. I've been reading for a couple weeks now.

    Well thanks John. I tend to be a bit of a right-winger, but I do try to be fair and I'm certainly not opposed to letting everybody have their say.

    I hope you keep coming back.

  • WOOF

    There were Dems who had Senior commitee positions that they wanted to hold on to, the power of incumbency.
    Others changed their views Last opf the Dixiecrats Byrd.

    Jesse Helms became a Republican.

  • Seth Williams

    Ooooh, ok. So you're not saying all Republicans are racist.

    You're saying Strom changed parties so the other Democrats who opposed Civil Rights did also.

    Nope, not going to work. Still a fallacy.

  • WOOF

    Seth,
    lik said,

    Dems who opposed the Civil Rights Act work under a different name now: Republicans.

    Nice empty claim.

    I answered "Thurmond"

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ Seth Yantiss

    Probably he thinks "liberal" means the government should intervene to promote social and economic equality. Is that a definition with which both sides agree?

    I would add "liberal" means the government should intervene to, fallaciously and irresponsibly, promote social and economic equality.

  • Seth Williams

    So, WOOF, is your point that some who opposed Civil Rights went to the Republican party, and some who opposed Civil Rights stayed with the the Democratic party?

  • Dave

    To answer my question: what is it that Clooney thinks is a liberal?

    Probably he thinks "liberal" means the government should intervene to promote social and economic equality. Is that a definition with which both sides agree?

  • John

    Probably he thinks "liberal" means the government should intervene to promote social and economic equality. Is that a definition with which both sides agree?

    He defined people against witch hunts as liberal, and those against the vietnam war as liberal. While Clooney would probably would agree to your definition, the fact that he is willing to credit the most palatable parts of both the liberal and conservative philosophies of yore to modern liberalism just kind of ticks me off. He is spreading the idea that American liberalism has been historically good (implying that modern liberalism is morally right) and that conservatives have historically been (and, he claims, now are) on the wrong side of all issues.

    While it shouldn't matter to me whatever a celebity says, it would be nice if Hollywood liberals would shut up, already.

  • Marty

    I'm still trying to figure out why Mommies have a constitutional right to kill their kids, but daddies are sexist bigots if they say "wait — that's MY kid too!".

    There's just something about liberal "equality" that does not compute.

  • Seth Williams

    Well, WOOF, no need to get ticked off. Is that what you meant to say? I was asking a question, not making a statement:

    So, WOOF, is your point that some who opposed Civil Rights went to the Republican party, and some who opposed Civil Rights stayed with the the Democratic party?

    Since I don't seem to follow what, exactly, your point is, I though maybe you could clear it up for me.

  • Dave

    I would add "liberal" means the government should intervene to, fallaciously and irresponsibly, promote social and economic equality.

    I strongly disagree with that statement!

    What did your high school English teacher say about split infinitives, young man? ;)

    No, you're right, though. For the life of me, I do not understand how, say, affirmative action promotes social or economic equality. In a very general way, however, I think my definition of "liberalsim" applies.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ Seth Yantiss

    What did your high school English teacher say about split infinitives, young man? ;)

    HAR!!! I can't even picture what my HS English teacher looked like!

    My wife teaches English, her mother taught English for the last 30 years, Seth Williams teaches English, and now (soon to be) you… I'm not going to be able to get away with poor grammar. ;) However, I don't know the rule about split infinitives.

    No, you're right, though. For the life of me, I do not understand how, say, affirmative action promotes social or economic equality. In a very general way, however, I think my definition of "liberalsim" applies.

    I agree with your definition in a general way! I also noted that you did not move to disagree with my point out of hand, which I appreciate! You took the comment in the intended vein!! Thank you!

    I don't disagree with all progressive/liberal ideals. Just the ones that play favorite to one group while diminishing the value of others.

    If you feel like explaining the "Split Infinitives" thing… I'd like to read it.

  • Chad

    So how did this become a grammar lesson? I thought you were talking politics. Hollywood has lost it's relevancy, and the denizens thereof take themselves far too seriously. The industry of Hollywood should be to entertain, not try to influence political policy in a nation they've lost touch with.

  • http://www.moderninstances.com/ modern instances

    Perhaps the most famous split infinitive is:"To boldly go where no man has gone before."

    "To" is the infinitive, "go" is the verb. The infinitive is not to be separated, or split from, the verb.

    So, the proper version of the above sentence is "To go boldly where no man has gone before." But, that doesn't sound so dramatic.

  • http://whatamaroon.blogspot.com/2005/10/george-clooney.html WhatAMaroon

    their politics, Clooney still defends his left-leaning views, saying, "It's pretty hard to find a time when liberals were on the wrong side of an issue." Oh really? Hard to find a time when liberals were on the wrong side of an issue? Here's more: Clooney: Hollywood Liberals Should Shut Up Already

  • Seth Williams

    They're just living the creed "Say Anything".

    Actors are entitled to their opinion, and entitled to express it. That having been said, they often come off as ignorant and arrogant.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    modern instances said, Case in point: "From my cold dead hands!"

    Explain.

  • http://www.moderninstances.com/ modern instances

    Actors are entitled to their opinion, and entitled to express it. That having been said, they often come off as ignorant and arrogant.

    Case in point: "From my cold dead hands!"

  • Fed up Bitch

    John said:

    Referencing his words, the Puritans were conservative. How else could they have proposed burning witches at the stake. Given this, separation of church and state and public education are also conservative ideals, as Puritans of the time were open proponents of both.

    This is an interesting idea, let me make sure I understand…

    Puritans believed in separation of church and state.
    Puritans believed in public education.

    Here's a few quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville's
    "Democracy in America", generally considered to be the seminal work on the roots of our government:

    No sooner had the immigrants landed on the barren coast described by Nathaniel Morton than it was their first care to constitute a society, by subscribing the following Act: 10 . IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, &c. &c., Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; Do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience," etc.

    Among these documents we shall notice as especially characteristic the code of laws promulgated by the little state of Connecticut in 1650.17

    The legislators of Connecticut 18 begin with the penal laws, and, strange to say, they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ.

    'Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord," says the preamble of the Code, "shall surely be put to death." This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy~ Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death; an outrage offered by a son to his parents was to be expiated by the same penalty
    …… The Code of 1650 abounds in preventive measures. It punishes idleness and drunkenness with severity. Innkeepers were forbidden to furnish more than a certain quantity of liquor to each consumer; and simple lying, whenever it may be injurious, is checked by a fine or a flogging. In other places the legislator, entirely forgetting the great principles of religious toleration that he had himself demanded in Europe, makes attendance on divine service compulsory, and goes so far as to visit with severe punishment, and even with death, Christians who chose to worship God according to a ritual differing from his own

    ….. But it is by the mandates relating to public education that the original character of American civilization is at once placed in the clearest light. "Whereas," says the law, "Satan, the enemy of mankind, finds his strongest weapons in the ignorance of men, and whereas it is important that the wisdom of our fathers shall not remain buried in their tombs, and whereas the education of children is one of the prime concerns of the state, with the aid of the Lord…." Here follow clauses establishing schools in every township and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, to support them. Schools of a superior kind were founded in the same manner in the more populous districts. The municipal authorities were bound to enforce the sending of children to school by their parents; they were empowered to inflict fines upon all who refused compliance; and in cases of continued resistance, society assumed the place of the parent, took possession of the child, and deprived the father of those natural rights which he used to so bad a purpose. The reader will undoubtedly have remarked the preamble of these enactments: in America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom
    ….. This was not peculiar to Connecticut. See, for instance, the law which, on September 13, 1644, banished the Anabaptists from Massachusetts (Historical Collection of State Papers, Vol. I, p. 538). See also the law against the Quakers, passed on October 14, 1656. "Whereas," says the preamble, "an accursed race of heretics called Quakers has sprung up," etc. The clauses of the statute inflict a heavy fine on all captains of ships who should import Quakers into the country. The Quakers who may be found there shall be whipped and imprisoned with hard labor. Those members of the sect who should defend their opinions shall be first fined, then imprisoned, and finally driven out of the province. Historical Collection of State Papers, Vol.I, p.630.
    ….. By the penal law of Massachusetts, any Catholic priest
    who should set foot in the colony after having been once driven out of it was liable to capital punishment.

    Shall we assume that the public schools of the puritans were open to alternative religious views? I think not.

  • Dave

    I would have probably used someone like….. oh, Ted Nugent, rather than Heston.

    Charlton Heston always comes off as intelligent and thought-provoking. Ted Nugent is just…. a conservative George Clooney, shall we say?

  • http://www.moderninstances.com/ modern instances

    But have you ever seen him play live? The Nuge rocks hard enough that I can forgive him his excesses.

  • Fed up Bitch

    Charlton Heston…always johnny on the spot with a gun..

    Oh man, what was that movie where he's the last real human alive, with all the NYC armory, and all the subway dwellers were dropping like flies?

    Now that was acting! Oh the angst! Oh the loneliness! Oh the humanity!

    And the beach scene in that other movie? Gives me shivers, just thinking about it!

  • John

    FuB said

    Alexis de Tocqueville said

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    a^bunch^of^stuff^I^didn't^care^to^read.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Ok, withdrawn. Good thing it didn't really apply to my comment, and was just a makeshift example from what little I remember from pre-Revolution US Hisory. It's easy enough to see why Clooney's argument of the liberal/conservative, good/evil divide doesn't make sense. Even without the example.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development