Kimmel is now taking the same first steps that Franken did: He’s getting involved, publishing ideas, and so on. And those are good first steps. But note what Franken’s next step was: He didn’t come right out and run for President immediately; he ran for a lower position, and is steadily building up experience in that position. And even that was an awfully big step for someone who’d never held political office before: The House would be a more logical starting point.
adaher, if any of those folks actually wins the Democratic nomination, or even comes close, I’ll save you the trouble by saying snide things myself. But celebrities publicly talking about running for President is nothing new. It’s been happening all my life, and I imagine that it’s been happening for the entire life of the nation.
And remember that Franken’s first three steps were books. Franken wrote about and involved himself in politics at a high level for two decades before seeking public office. He proved that he’s wiling to put in the work. No other celebrity has. I want Kimmel to write a 300 page book about his views that isn’t just boilerplate like a typical candidate book. Franken wrote about politics like someone who wasn’t ever planning to run for anything.
Right now Kimmel has just shown he can read a script and sound more convincing than 99% of politicians. So he’s basically Reagan at this point. Which is really, really good, but not really a sign of seriousness.
Yeah, but we’ve been heading in this direction for awhile. Ever since the social media age started, anyone who went viral was immediately touted for high office. Wendy Davis makes a stand against an abortion ban in the Texas House that millions thought was awesome? Obviously she should run for governor! A candidate has a famous name, like Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy? They should be President! Barack Obama gives one awesome speech at the convention… you get the idea. At first we limited our celebrity candidates to people with political experience but we were still elevating people who in years past would have had to prove themselves more. Moving to nominating non-political celebrities was a natural evolution of the process, exacerbated by the failures of the political class.
I know I’m not great at predictions, but I do think at least one person on that list is running. And will have a very good chance of winning. And don’t leave out the famous political dynasty names. Chelsea, Sasha, Michelle, George P, we’ll be seeing at least half of them soon enough.
Al Franken on LSD for the win please.
I’d vote for Franken twice, but it isn’t happening.
-
He KNOWS what simply running would entail, and he doesn’t want that, not for him or his family. Even if he wanted the job, and didn’t fear the job, he doesn’t want to be part of running and all that entails. He’s clearly laid that out in at least one book.
-
Even if he DOES run: The “Rape Joke.” It doesn’t matter WHAT the rape joke was, or context, or what have you. All people have to say is, “the rape joke” over and over, and that alone could kill him. Ridiculous. “Grab 'em by the pussy” means nothing, but the same people who overlooked that will nail him to the wall on a daily basis because at one point in a long, successful comedy career, he made an edgy, risky joke about a touchy subject. “Rape joke” will be the new, “emails.” Democrats are held accountable for even mild faults, whereas republicans get away with murder, which baffles me, because one of them claims to be the party of family values, and it isn’t the democrats.
-
Fake diaper picture. Everyone will have seen it, and the fact that it’s fake won’t make a lick of difference. Since when is reality important?
Cool! That way I’d get to say I saw future President Rock playing against the Riders at Taylor Field!
I’m a little surprised that Kimmel’s monologue is the one that’s trending. I thought Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah put the argument for us at least *discussing *gun control more straightforwardly.
“People” like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder have had a field day with pointing out minor errors Kimmel made (yes, of course many of their points are disingenuous, but that’s no surprise. But he gave them a couple things to try to grab on to).
The emotion was very real, and definitely added something, but didn’t in itself make it a great speech.
But still, if enough people thought otherwise, who am I to argue? I’m happy if the issue gets any traction.
Sounds like a great idea. Take a young TV celebrity with no experience of governance or politics or life really outside of his own pampered circles and make him President because, hey, he looks good on TV and spoke about his kid… Do Americans really want to continue electing flashy nonentities in the mould of Donald Trump? Sure, Kimmel has opposite views but he’s just as vapid and almost as unintelligent. Come on people, this is the land of Washington, of Lincoln, of Roosevelt. Although come to think of it I guess it’s the land of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover too! 
Well, Washington was a very unpleasant man, but he had very little experience of hands-on politics before the Revolution ( outside the Burgesses, where he did not administrate ), despite his brilliant craftiness. He was chosen as a celebrity who was immensely rich and who offered to lead the army.
Lincoln had run no government department and had only a single previous 4 years in Congress; he despite his brilliance was more of a party-creating, anti-slavery celebrity than an experienced politician in the 20th century mode of starting delivering pamphlets and driving the morons to the polls, glad-handing and then spending 20 years speechifying, before becoming a junior minister.
Roosevelt, although helped by family wealth and connections unlike Lincoln was more traditional; he became more of a poseur-celebrity when in office.
All 3 were very capable and would have been if appointed to anything without any experience whatsoever.
Celebrity for office isn’t a disqualifier; nor is lack of experience. They cannot fuck things up worse than the parasitic permanent political priesthood — including the good old friends W. and Hil, who both had experience — and as always, thank God, there’s always the Civil Service to carry a nation through, even under the worse and most incompetent leaders.
You know, I’m starting to come around to Joe Biden running - not just supporting the idea, but thinking he might do it.
I think by the time 2020 roles around, we’re going to need an experienced, steady hand to guide us back on course. Someone fairly likable without lurking skeletons. Someone non-divisive. Joe’s spent his life in politics, and seems to actually consider it a public service, and not a big scam, which is why I think he might do it. I don’t really want to elect a person of his age to the presidency, but I might overlook that to get him into office for 4 years to start the job of un-fucking the government.
I’d want him to choose a vice-president based on their electibility in 2024, because I think Joe would almost have to be a one-and-done president at his age. Someone who could benefit from a raised profile and further experience.
Damn. He is getting up there though.
In the height of the Cold War, after the national emergencies of WWII and the Depression, Americans understood the need for a professional presidency. Even though Reagan was a celebrity, he had transformed himself into a wonkish ideological revolutionary with his governorship and support of the GOP. It was understood that you didn’t want just anyone in Washington.
Now that we’re far removed from that time, we’ve forgotten the lessons of the past and gone back to the more traditional American view of politics, which is that it doesn’t really matter whom we elect, it’s just an office to be occupied. The consequences of having the wrong people in office are a lot more serious in 2017 than they were in 1817, 1917, or even 1937.
Alright…who are you, and what have you done with the real Adaher?
Say what you will about adaher, but I think he’s shown a consistent willingness to praise some Democrats (including Franken, in this very thread) and criticize some Republicans (including Trump).
As to the topic of the thread, the skills needed to be a successful entertainer have a fair bit of overlap with the skills needed to run a successful political campaign, but not much overlap with the skills needed to be a good President. I’d rather not sacrifice the latter for the sake of the former.
That said, if my only two choices were Kimmel or Trump, I’d go with Kimmel without hesitation. At least he can give a heartfelt speech about something other than his own greatness. (Plus, he’d be more likely to listen to the people whose politics I actually agree with. Hell, he’d be more likely to listen to knowledgeable people, period, wheras Trump is the buffoon who thinks he’s the smartest one in the room.)
Reagan wonkish? The second-least-engaged President of our history? Reagan epitomized the hedgehog who knew One Big Thing, not the fox who knew Many Things. He had handlers be wonkish for him, if wonkish is even the right word.
Reagan was wonkish compared to say, Donald Trump or pretty much any other celebrity short of Al Franken. It’s true that there were a legion of subjects he was uninterested in, but when engaged, such as on tax reform, immigration reform, saving Social Security, or weapons systems, he was better than average. Of course Reagan isn’t up to the standards of modern Democrats, who consider extreme wonkishness to be a basic qualification for the Presidency, and maybe it should be, but by 1980s standards he was just fine for either party, at least on subjects he was interested in. What made him a little different and kinda insufferable to friends and enemies alike was that unlike most politicians, who can pretend to be interested in donkey subsidies, Reagan never hid his boredom and/or disdain when he didn’t care. And that was a problem when it was an issue like AIDS.
Fight your ignorance. Reagan had a radio commentary for several years before he was President.
Kimmel said that the murderer Chris Benoit was a better father thsn Flava Flav
http://m.tmz.com/#2007/07/23/kimmels-benoit-burntoo-hot-for-tv/
I think you can make a case for that if you assume Benoit was not accountable for his actions. His autopsy revealed that his brain was severely damaged. Men that have lots of children with different women are a special kind of scumbag and can’t claim dementia as a defense.
And I hope we didn’t just derail the thread.
It was a joke made at Flava Flav’s roast. The point is to be edgy. I honestly don’t find that to be the most offensive roast joke I’ve heard, and people would laugh like crazy when they heard them.
I don’t think bringing up an offensive joke made in a place where offensive jokes is the point has anything to do with whether Kimmel would be good. I know the American public is not the smartest, but I think even they understand how jokes work.