'Hollywood' to lose Obama the election

steelcityblues

Over the weekend, Sigourney Weaver, an Obama supporter, came on the long running 'Meet The Press' and made a stunningly narrow statement, given her own career experience:

"...the Democrats are always going to be about what the people need. And the Republicans are much more serving big business, and I don't think we can afford to serve big business for another four years with Mr. Romney."

Now, if it wasn't for 'Big Business', and 20th Century Fox's backing, she herself would not be propelled into stardom through 'Alien' and kept there thanks to other mainstream efforts later on. Same for other Democrat supporting Hollywood big names. Maybe then it is best that she not really preach against something, which has got her to the position she is in?

We know that the industry is majority Democrat supporting, and will the potential for more Obama endorsements from superstars - and more potential gaffes from these people - actually work against the President with ordinary Americans?

djk1000

steelcityblues wrote: »

Over the weekend, Sigourney Weaver, an Obama supporter, came on the long running 'Meet The Press' and made a stunningly narrow statement, given her own career experience:

"...the Democrats are always going to be about what the people need. And the Republicans are much more serving big business, and I don't think we can afford to serve big business for another four years with Mr. Romney."

Now, if it wasn't for 'Big Business', and 20th Century Fox's backing, she herself would not be propelled into stardom through 'Alien' and kept there thanks to other mainstream efforts later on. Same for other Democrat supporting Hollywood big names. Maybe then it is best that she not really preach against something, which has got her to the position she is in?

We know that the industry is majority Democrat supporting, and will the potential for more Obama endorsements from superstars - and more potential gaffes from these people - actually work against the President with ordinary Americans?

I'm sorry, I don't get how it was a gaff?

steelcityblues

djk1000 wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't get how it was a gaff?

Because Weaver has been a beneficiary from big business herself to become a big name in Hollywood. She would not have been on NBC yesterday, if it wasn't for that. Now she is hinting that one candidate being 'big business' is a negative thing (both Obama and Romney are, so nothing new), while she has no problem signing on to more bigtime roles. Hollywood hypocrisy at its finest.

southsiderosie

Does anyone really give a crap what Sigourney Weaver (or any other Hollywood person, frankly) has to say about a presidential election? I don't see how this matters at all.

Duck Soup

southsiderosie wrote: »

Does anyone really give a crap what Sigourney Weaver (or any other Hollywood person, frankly) has to say about a presidential election? I don't see how this matters at all.

It might matter if she'd actually made a gaffe. Like so much of the criticism of people who don't think the answer is to burn government to the ground and let billionaires roam wild, free and untaxed, there's a deliberate misinterpretation of what Weaver said.

We've seen the same process at work with statements from both Obama and Elizabeth Warren.

Here's how it runs. A. N. Other, a person to the left of Genghis Khan, suggests that policy has been tilted too far in the direction of the rich and powerful. Or, as Warren did, suggests that even the most go-getting entrepreneur relies on the roads that carry his/her products, the schools that educate the workforce, the police that keep the factory safe.

More often that not, A. N. Other will declare themself to be as fully supportive of the system of American capitalism as anyone else in the country, and that they themselves have done well out of it. But, they posit, wouldn't it be great if more people could do well by changing policies that have long being loaded towards making rich people richer? Wouldn't it be great if the little guys got a little more and a better shot and making a better life?

Cue stampede on Fox News and the interwebs calling them commies.

steelcityblues

There is no misinterpretation in what I said.

Weaver is in a profession where big business is key into getting the movies people like her herself feature in, to maximise publicity needed to put the bums in the seats at the cinema, and then to build up the DVD sales a few months later.

If she is bothered by this, will she take any steps to challenge the monopoly in her own industry, or just stay quiet like she is doing now?

Also, Obama is just as much of a big business candidate as Romney, as his backers have included the likes of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

To think this election is anything other than Big Business Candidate vs Big Business Candidate once again, conveniently goes against the reality.

DoubleBogey

Doubt it will make any difference. Obama will lose because he was over hyped, promised too much and failed to deliver. That and his skin colour.

Mjollnir

steelcityblues wrote: »

Over the weekend, Sigourney Weaver, an Obama supporter, came on the long running 'Meet The Press' and made a stunningly narrow statement, given her own career experience:

"...the Democrats are always going to be about what the people need. And the Republicans are much more serving big business, and I don't think we can afford to serve big business for another four years with Mr. Romney."

Now, if it wasn't for 'Big Business', and 20th Century Fox's backing, she herself would not be propelled into stardom through 'Alien' and kept there thanks to other mainstream efforts later on. Same for other Democrat supporting Hollywood big names. Maybe then it is best that she not really preach against something, which has got her to the position she is in?

We know that the industry is majority Democrat supporting, and will the potential for more Obama endorsements from superstars - and more potential gaffes from these people - actually work against the President with ordinary Americans?

Which doesn't somehow, magically, equate to "Hollywood to lose Obama the election' even in the most cosmetic sense.

steelcityblues

Mjollnir wrote: »

Which doesn't somehow, magically, equate to "Hollywood to lose Obama the election' even in the most cosmetic sense.

Well, I should have put a question mark in the title, so apologies.

However, I really don't think these preachy, often hypocritical, celebrities are liked by the average voter. Best for Obama if they are publicly kept to a minimum.

djk1000

Anyone that shops in Walmart is a beneficiary of big business. Is anyone that shops there a hypocrite for opposing some of what big business is doing?

Before Hollywood was big business, there were still studios and movie stars. If anything, big business has dumbed down cinema since taking over the studios, that has not benefited actors or other artists. Actors don't really have a choice but to benefit from big business, since there is no other option if you want a career in Hollywood.

I don't want this to come across as an attack, but I think the connection is tenuous at best and I still fail to see a "gaff".

steelcityblues

I don't get the Walmart comparison - a person will shop there if they see a good deal on clothes, food, whatever, but they are not a beneficiary in the sense that they are not on a payroll - like Sigourney Weaver is when she signs on for any movie.

al28283

You can benefit from something without completely agreeing with everything they do. i have benefitted in many ways from living in Ireland. Does that mean I should have to agree with everything the state has ever done or leave the country?

Overheal

So because Sigourney Weaver was in Alien, that means 20th Century Fox is somehow a big lovehugging company that gives the people what they need? Because from what I can tell they took in millions of dollars from plebians who wanted to watch a woman make millions of dollars setting a man in a zippered up suit on fire in an imaginary spaceship.

Its not like they did it as a fight for womens rights or some type of social reform.

You're treading on a discussion on the MPAA and the outcome will not fit into your narrative.

Dave!

Aren't rich Hollywood types more likely to get their taxes lowered under a Republican administration, so by supporting Obama they're going against their own economic welfare? Presumably in the interest of the greater good. Seems laudable to me.

Denerick

Some very spurious reasoning here. Its like saying that a novelist who became rich because they held contracts with major publishing houses (one of which is owned by news international) and who then proceed to say leftish sort of things, are somehow hypocritical? Sorry, the point is so laboured that it deserves all the ridicule heaped upon it thus far. Furthermore, who the hell could give a crap what this actress thinks (I didn't even recognise her name for Christs sake)

steelcityblues

Denerick wrote: »

Some very spurious reasoning here. Its like saying that a novelist who became rich because they held contracts with major publishing houses (one of which is owned by news international) and who then proceed to say leftish sort of things, are somehow hypocritical? Sorry, the point is so laboured that it deserves all the ridicule heaped upon it thus far. Furthermore, who the hell could give a crap what this actress thinks (I didn't even recognise her name for Christs sake)

My criticism is valid for two major reasons:

1. She is talking negatively about big business, when she herself has done well from big business

2. She is giving the notion that only Romney is a big business candidate, which is not true.

To get to your message, Is someone who works under a Murdoch stable who then attacks capitalism honestly not hypocritical?

al28283

steelcityblues wrote: »

To get to your message, Is someone who works under a Murdoch stable who then attacks capitalism honestly not hypocritical?

No, just because some works for a company does not mean they have to hold the same political opinions

Amerika

I’d bet these Hollywood type would only find other means to hold onto their money if their taxes were increased. They all have the ability to pay more voluntarily through https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454. I have yet to hear any of these types who tout they should be paying more taxes claim “I voluntarily paid more taxes!”

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

1. She is talking negatively about big business, when she herself has done well from big business

So what? Warren Buffet says that his social class have fought and won an heroic class victory over the past 20 years and he (rightly) feels guilty about that.

She is an actress, a hollywood actress will only be a big name through a studio. Just because she has worked for major studios doesn't mean she shares the same principles of her employers.

You're labouring what is an incredibly weak point. She isn't even remotely hypocritical.

2. She is giving the notion that only Romney is a big business candidate, which is not true.

Fair enough.

To get to your message, Is someone who works under a Murdoch stable who then attacks capitalism honestly not hypocritical?

Its probably a different case for journalists, but if a novelist gets published under Murdochs publishing house and then proceeds to criticise him, I don't see how that would be hypocritical. In any case this example is a different case in point as no major actor has any choice about working for a big studio or not - there simply isn't any other feasible option, unless they wish to remain a low key arthouse actor performing for niche film festivals.

Overheal

steelcityblues wrote: »

To get to your message, Is someone who works under a Murdoch stable who then attacks capitalism honestly not hypocritical?

I work for a major retailer that makes billions of dollars every year.

I make $10.25/hr. And even though I have spent only 14 of 54 weeks in the last year working 32 or less hours I'm still classed as a part timer with no health benefits. Yay capitalism, etc.

Mjollnir

steelcityblues wrote: »

Well, I should have put a question mark in the title, so apologies.

However, I really don't think these preachy, often hypocritical, celebrities are liked by the average voter. Best for Obama if they are publicly kept to a minimum.

No, that wouldn't have made any difference.

I live and work in Hollywood. Yes, THAT Hollywood.

People here are like people everywhere else. And the average voter loves preachy hypocrisy and breathless, irrational supposition.

Mr. Van Winkle, I presume?

spank_inferno

You make fair points OP.

Dems & Reps show little difference in how they treat "Big Business"

However the title is all wrong .

- Obama won't lose the election
- if he does it probably won't be because of "Hollywood"

poeticseraphim

steelcityblues wrote: »

My criticism is valid for two major reasons:

1. She is talking negatively about big business, when she herself has done well from big business

2. She is giving the notion that only Romney is a big business candidate, which is not true.

To get to your message, Is someone who works under a Murdoch stable who then attacks capitalism honestly not hypocritical?

She is not talking negatively about big business she is describing the preference for prioritising Industry and business rights over of the rights others in negative terms. That does not equate to big businesses are a negative thing.

But economic and social policy prioritising industry over individuals isseparat from giving support to industry it is penalising people and protectionism.


Her position is different she is not running for public office . She wasnot an employee but a hired actor her assoiation with studios is transient and temporary but lucrative. It is legitmate to point this out. However it is not hypocritical to point out that public representative or public policy is over generous towards an entity that you are a distant part of.

In fact if Romney said today , Yes Govt prioritises businesstoo much it would be hypocritical. He was ruthless as a business man taking advantage of Govt policy. But that was his job then and in that role his moral duty wasto do hisjob tothe best of his ability to fullfill his finacial obligations to invstors etc. Howeverasa public representative his moral duty is different. His job is to represent voters equally.

The term 'Hollywood' is a false metonym . What is it? It seems to be a false cultual label that people use to identify broad and vague ideas. Or a term that Americansuse to ulturally identify themselves to each other.

Signorny Weaver is an individual , an actor not a great itellectual or an elected official. She represents no one but herself , not even 'Hollywood'. She is an average Joe speaking on issues that she has no qualification on in over generalised terms. As an individual she has every right to but she must be taken on those terms and no more.

I am not saying to form an opinion worth anything that you must have PHD's comig out of your ears and represent an electorate. But she shoould have no more attention than any other voter. This is unrealistic of course. But it is that more than anything which seems to irritate people. Her opinion as a famous person is over represented , her rightsare ovwr represented over less famous less wealthy individuals. Not beause she works for big business but because the opinions, views and participation of ordinary members of the electorate in America are under represented.

That damagesthe reputation of Hollywood and the media more than anyone. It really does not affect Romney or Obama.

It will be a very lose election I think but generally electorates chooses the incumbent presidential candidate.

I am not an Amerian so please excuse my views if they seem to not as informed as yourselves from a local perspective.

Einhard

steelcityblues wrote: »

My criticism is valid for two major reasons:

1. She is talking negatively about big business, when she herself has done well from big business

2. She is giving the notion that only Romney is a big business candidate, which is not true.

To get to your message, Is someone who works under a Murdoch stable who then attacks capitalism honestly not hypocritical?

I worked for Dunne's Stores once as a student. Relative to my position before I took the parttime job, I did well out of the position.

Does that mean that I can never, ever criticise Dunne's Stores?

I did well out of the Irish education system...is that system too beyond reproach?

I don;t think your contention stands up at all to be honest.

steelcityblues

Einhard wrote: »

I worked for Dunne's Stores once as a student. Relative to my position before I took the parttime job, I did well out of the position.

Does that mean that I can never, ever criticise Dunne's Stores?

I did well out of the Irish education system...is that system too beyond reproach?

I don;t think your contention stands up at all to be honest.

Another stupid comparison, because I take it you were an ordinary minimum wage worker while you were there? Unlike the high earning Sigourney Weaver.

Denerick

steelcityblues wrote: »

Another stupid comparison, because I take it you were an ordinary minimum wage worker while you were there? Unlike the high earning Sigourney Weaver.

When you show me Weaver's stocks & shares in major film studio's you might have a glimmer of a point (Just the faintest kind). Why can't actors criticise large corporations? You haven't adressed how that is hypocritical. You've just stated that since they've made money from being in films that they are not allowed to have political opinions. By your logic, only poor people and peasants are allowed to be social democrats? Stupid.

Overheal

Why is this thread still going: I can not in a million years see how Sigourney Weaver would affect the outcome of a presidential election. Joe the Plumber *cough*. That election was lost by Palin, not by Joe, or Joe Biden, or by telling people to inflate their tires.

I expect to hear a lot more ridiculous election hyperbole leading up to november but Sigourney Weaver? Come on now.