"He's not a Democrat."
January 8, 2001 12:59 PM Subscribe
I take HUGE issue with the line: "In '97, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was honored at the MTV/CONDE NAST "Pre-Inaugural Cocktail Party" at the Corcoran
Gallery of Art. Rep. Barney Frank and actor Kevin Spacey partied together at the Corcoran, along with Sumner Redstone."
Barney Frank is an out of the closet gay man, Spacey is rumored to be. I don't know about Redstone, but is the implication somehow that Redstone is gay, and therefore anti-Bush (no pun intended :-) )?
Matt Drudge doesn't make me angry anymore--just sad.
posted by jpoulos at 1:28 PM on January 8, 2001
Bush II rarely responds to anything. I can't even count how many articles I have read over the past 6 months that said "George W. Bush was invited... has yet to respond." As recently as this morning I read about the minister from Foundry United Methodist Church—the church the Clintons attended while in DC—sending a letter inviting the Bush's (they are also United Methodists) to attend the church.
"[Pastor J. Philip] Wogaman said he has not heard back from the president-elect."
There was another article in today's Washington Post which may hold the answers to such evasiveness.
posted by terrapin at 1:30 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by tiaka at 1:41 PM on January 8, 2001
Whoa, stop the bus, I already know I don't agree with wherever this is going. "Successful" in what sense?
I also have a hard time with this snippet from tiaka's Drudge Report link:
"The Bush family is in to the REAL thing, Country Western, so who cares what these punks at MTV do," noted one observer.
"One observer"? Give me a break. (I've got plenty of free-floating cynicism to go around, so keep lining up those deserving targets, Metafilterites!)
posted by wiremommy at 1:57 PM on January 8, 2001
(I'm with you, wiremommy; do you think we could talk Matt into a MeFi killfile feature?)
posted by m.polo at 2:01 PM on January 8, 2001
I'm sensing some serious democrat-baiting.
posted by jpoulos at 2:01 PM on January 8, 2001
As far as a drudge link, sure he's wrong on a lot of stuff, but this is just writing up on something that's a fact. We get 'dancing bush' links and no one has problems with that. How is posting this baiting?
And that the REAL thing does look rather bad. heh.
posted by tiaka at 2:10 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by Doug at 2:13 PM on January 8, 2001
m.polo: tiaka called Senator Clinton a "media whore" which, if I understand my hip slang correctly, is something quite different than a plain ol' whore.
And really, m.polo you didn't mind making fun of perot, did you? Oh wait, I forgot, he's a whacko, not sane and trustworthy like Mrs. Clinton.
Now, I am not decrying the mocking of political figures, in fact, I am behind it 110%, but there's no need to get offended if someone makes fun of your favorite public figure.
Now let's have magnanimity, kids, and bash all famous people equally, regardless of race, creed, or hair length!
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:24 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 2:30 PM on January 8, 2001
And Drudge didn't mention Frank and Spacey because of their sexual orientation, but because they're both high-profile Democrats.
Anyway ... The article brings up a legitimate point. MTV, and MTV "News" especially, has long made much of their supposed objectivity and nonpartisanship on political matters. This proves the lie. (And it shows that both Bushes gave MTV short shrift because they knew full well the deck was stacked against them. You don't think Clinton and Gore gave MTV so much attention just to be nice, do you?)
MTV, whose demographic is clearly at odds with W's policies...
Not any more. The under-24 crowd - MTV's prime demo - has become steadily more conservative over the last couple of years.
The article also brings up important questions of about the major pro-Dem slant of Choose or Lose and Rock the Vote. And since Sumner Redstone is in full control of CBS News...
posted by aaron at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2001
"young conservatives = something to fear." Nah, not a troll.
posted by aaron at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2001
Also, the idea that Spacey is considered a high-profile Democrat is ludicrous, and we all know that "Barney Frank" is, in conservative circles, a euphamism for "fag"--just ask Dick Armey.
posted by jpoulos at 2:39 PM on January 8, 2001
You'd think every conservative in the country gets together w/ dick for poker and beer night, biweekly, bring your own Tobacco.
Metafilter: broad generalizations 'R' us!
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:50 PM on January 8, 2001
But conservatives like to make it seem like they're the underdog, and constantly being opressed by the big, bad liberals, so this is a perfect news story for them. I mean, the country let them steal the election, do we have to celebrate it? :)
posted by Doug at 3:02 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by gluechunk at 3:06 PM on January 8, 2001
MTV has a right to do what they are doing. Bush as a right to ignore the issue, laugh at it, or do what he wants (does he know about it?)...this is no big deal. The big deals are in the offing, the day the music dies.
posted by Postroad at 3:06 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by aaron at 3:08 PM on January 8, 2001
No kidding. They're the world's most oppressed majority.
The article also brings up important questions of about the major pro-Dem slant of Choose or Lose and Rock the Vote.
That reminds me ... Katherine Harris paid Norman Schwarzkopf state tax dollars to do get-out-the-vote commercials here in Florida. At least MTV's activism was privately funded.
posted by rcade at 3:26 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by snakey at 3:26 PM on January 8, 2001
I find it funny how you accuse me of being vulgar, then call me a troll, when you say that all conservatives are sad. How are they sad? I would really like to know! Are you absolutely, positively sure that the liberal agenda is always right and correct and can never be questioned? That any other view is *WRONG*?
"...I'm sure aren't overly thrilled with the fact that we have a pro-life president, a pro-gun president, all that good stuff."
Gore was all for SBC's official stands on pro life, but, I guess he saw the -truth- right when he was about to run with Clinton in 92. Nice timing huh?
I'm not too thrilled with guns and the current laws we have. I have argued on this, though, I'm sure somewhere, in one of the posts, I lost. I don't really understand how those same people can then argue that Bush is pro-gun and it's a negative point on his views.
All good stuff? What? What will it be? Is he dumb? Can he not spell? Do you not like his hat? Do you think he looks like a chimp? What is it now?
posted by tiaka at 3:27 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by Bag Man at 3:35 PM on January 8, 2001
Gore might have once been pro-life, but almost certainly wouldn't fill up supreme court seats with pro-life judges. He wouldn't have appointed a billion pro-life cronies to his cabinet. I don't even like Gore, didn't vote for Gore, but I can see why the MTV viewers might rather have him than W.
posted by Doug at 3:51 PM on January 8, 2001
MTV's not throwing Dubya a celebration ball. Big deal. When the Tennessee Titans knocked my team (the Jaguars) out of the playoffs last year, I didn't fly to Nashville to have a hoedown with the hometown fans. I picked up my empties and went home and sulked. I'm still sulking, by the way.
posted by Optamystic at 4:00 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by Dreama at 4:24 PM on January 8, 2001
If I was Spacey I'd fucking SUE :)
In all seriousness, the homophobia that oozes from that line in the report is quite shocking. Whether or not it's there to troll the Dems, it's good to be reminded that some people really do put air quotes around friend when they talk of same sex partners, and some people still think being openly gay excludes you from high office, being a movie star or a teacher.
posted by fullerine at 4:28 PM on January 8, 2001
Because young people, with few commitments to anything, have the least to lose by latching onto new ideas. A young conservative person denies themself this opportunity (by definition, conservatism is opposed to the adoption of new ideas) and thus loses the chance to make their society more just than their parents' was. (Maybe this is why "golden age of the past" thinking seems so common in conservative circles?)
It's very difficult to change people's minds. A far more effective tactic is to sell your idea to the kids, then wait till their parents are dead, and presto! you own the world. If the kids don't bite, you're out of luck.
-Mars, tongue partially in cheek
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:43 PM on January 8, 2001
I don't really support either Gore or Bush - but dems out there, you can't lie to yourself. The mass media (eg MTV, many newspapers) is VERY pro-liberal.
posted by swank6 at 4:53 PM on January 8, 2001
However, in fact there is no reason to abandon old ideas that work just because they're old (or advocated by conservatives).
posted by kindall at 5:06 PM on January 8, 2001
The same mistake is made about universities. Colleges within universities are split: arts, humanities, some few other are; but business, phys ed, po;y sci, engineering, nursing, etc are very conservative in outlook and in affiliations (university organizations). It is of course the liberal arts (humanities) people who are vocal and thus give the notion of a very liberal batch of folks. Just is not so.
posted by Postroad at 5:23 PM on January 8, 2001
The ideas of the democratic party are more in line with Sumner Redstone's than the ideas of the Republican party. Cool. We all gotta pick a side. That doesn't mean that he's using the network to promote his own political views. (Personally, I think he's using it for purposes far more insidious. Like making 'N Sync famous, for instance.)
posted by Optamystic at 5:41 PM on January 8, 2001
- Winston Churchill
posted by Aaaugh! at 5:58 PM on January 8, 2001
I just like to chime in with my usual rhetoric about the fact that, as mentioned above, conservatives by definition think that best answers lie in the past. To me, it's obvious that these answers can't possibly be correct. Especially for America.
See, my folks didn't even come to this country until just before the 70's. So how could a politician in his 50's or 60's, who was born in the 1940's or so, think the best answer comes from a past which doesn't include my family? Is he saying that this country is better off without the contributions I've made to my friends & family? Without the employment my company gave to dozens of freelancers? Without my tax dollars?
Off topic, I know. The conversation just provokes a rant sometimes...
posted by anildash at 6:11 PM on January 8, 2001
Now I'm not saying this did or did not happen, dems mostly think it did and republicans don't. But just by watching TV, it really made it seem like it did.
Optamystic, MTV may not tell the viewers which way they should vote, but the fact that they're not giving Bush a party or whatnot is a mild suggestion that they side with Clinton/Gore, which shouldn't happen at all if they claim to be non-partisan.
posted by swank6 at 7:28 PM on January 8, 2001
There simply is no such thing as a big media "liberal bias." Whether or not media companies lean more toward the Republicans or Democrats is a pointless arguement, since both parties agree on giving more privelege and money to the superrich. Til that issue is addressed in a comprehensive way, both parties will be little more than talking heads.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:20 PM on January 8, 2001
posted by Neb at 9:13 PM on January 8, 2001
« Older eBlots | Teenager jailed for his 'imagination.' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Gore fielded questions from a "town hall" of teenagers during the race on MTV. Bush declined the opportunity to "rap with the youth of America" so it is no surprise that he would be snubbed.
Although it does appear that Bush has been rapping recently.
posted by jasonshellen at 1:16 PM on January 8, 2001