YOU HAVE TO LOVE HOLLYWOOD DON'T YOU? Warren Beatty weighs in on the Governator, notes that he would do a much better job, and maps out a plan for the future.
"And although I don't want to run for governor, I would do one hell of a lot better job than he's done," the 68-year-old actor said. "I could name you a lot of Democrats who would be so much better than I would, and maybe even a few Republicans."
Noticeably absent from this extensive list is Gray Davis, the last Democrat who led the state, and who almost flushed it right down the toilet.
This next passage, I am certain, is going to be the new line from Democrats who have noticed the significant drop-off in campaign contributions.
In a fiery and overtly political speech, Beatty called for higher taxes on the rich, if only temporarily, to close the state's budget gap, as well as for public financing of elections.
Indeed, if your party can't raise money on it's own, taxpayers should be forced to fund it. A greater assault on free speech I cannot name at the moment. Like judicial filibusters and a new appreciation for the "fairness doctrine," it shows that Democrats would prefer to change the rules than moderate it's party to reflect mainstream America.
Beatty also made a remark that I think is a lame attempt at reverse psychology.
He said Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder and star of "The Terminator" movies," was playing politics in a bid to prepare himself for a run for president.
Do not be fooled by this statement. It is another example of Democrats desire to change the rules. I personally believe that they would like nothing better than to see the constitutional requirement of "American by birth" be taken off the books. What better way to clear the field and allow someone like George Soros, or Koffi Annan to run for president?
Beatty gives a nice peek into the future platform of the Democratic Party, and nowhere to be found is any desire to fashion a party that appeals to voters. No wonder he won't run for governor.
2 comments:
It's far worse than that Caleb. Imagine that you would be forced to pay for campaigns of candidates that you don't support.
The money we give to political campaigns is a freedom of speech issue and determines the viability of a party. If there is a party, like the Green Party for example, that is incapable of raising campign funds, there is a reason for that.
Forced campaign support is a way to legitimize political parties that the American people don't see as legitimate. Could there be anything worse than having your freedom of speech compromised in this way?
Forget the tax issue for a moment and consider that this would force you to support political parties that you deem dangerous to America.
Why should your tax dollars be used to allow fringe parties to have an equal say in the future of our country?
I continue to be amazed by the miracle of Hollywood. One day you're Joe Sixpack.. then you make a movie or two, and suddenly you are a political scientist of the first magnitude. You assume your every word is of interest to the rest of the mere mortals...ummm.. noooo... We don't care. Shut up! Get it?
Post a Comment