News slash: director RObert Altman has pledged to leave America forever if George W. Bush is elected president.
I think we’ve found a way to guarantee a Republican win. All George has to do is send out a copy of “Ready to Wear” or “O.C. and Stiggs” to all the undecided voters, and Altman’s no-talent ass will be on the first Concorde to Orly the day after Election Day.
Or maybe we could send out copies of The Player, Nashville and M.A.S.H. and we can keep the bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, imbecilic son of a bitch out of the White House!
So somebody else made this idiotic claim? (Alec Baldwin)
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Are we going to lose our freedoms if we elect a republican? Isn’t there still a congress? Isn’t there still a Sumpreme Court? Doesn’t he have to face re-election in 4 years? Even if we assume that G. Dubya will do badly, one man can’t wreck the country.
If Altman doen’t want to stick around and fight, I say good riddance.
Or is this just a joke?
While I feel that the claim to leave America forever is quite harsh, it would be rather unnerving to know that you live among people who would consciously elect someone like G.W.B. to an office as important as the Presidency.
Yes, we will still have a Supreme Court if he is elected but he appoints four (I believe) justices this year. That could seriously alter the politics of the Supreme Court toward directions that many people are not comfortable with.
Well, some people just might if we elect this particular republican.
How can you say the next prez is going to appoint 4 Supreme Court justices? On what are you basing the number of potential retirees? Who are you assming the retirees will be? Are they all liberals or are they conservatives? Are you also assuming that the Republicans are going to retain control of the Senate, which holds final approval of Supreme Court justices?
For a superb analysis of the ideology of Supreme Court justices see also John Corrado’s and Gadarene’s posts in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36374
and Corrado’s fisrt post here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36374
Now, why do you feel you’ll loose your liberties if a republican wins the presidency? It’s my, and most peoples’s, opinion that the democrats are the party that typically passes laws that encroach upon the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Just which liberties do you think Bush is planning to circumcise? And how? Is the entire legislative branch, which, by the way, is charged with the passing of laws going to be abolished?
Um, no. U.S. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. They don’t have terms that expire. Predicting how many vacancies there will be during a particular president’s term is a matter of pure guesswork, and even the worst scaremongerers on this issue aren’t claiming that there will be four vacancies “this year.”
This issue has been raised as a scare tactic since at least 1976. Guess what? Republicans have been elected over and over again, with no significant change in Roe v. Wade. In addition, nearly every current justice who is likely to retire or die in the next four years was appointed by a Republican predident. Bottom line, no matter where you stand on this issue, don’t expect a reversal any time soon.
I see. So what you’re saying is that we should instead vote for the lying, theiving, traderous, loony son of a bitch, eh? (Before you say prove it, take a look at how ridiculous your statement is. sheeesh.)
tradesilicon- I believe the word you meant to use was traitorous, unless you’re calling Gore “traderous” given his support for NAFTA.
UncleBeer- thanks; I’m blushing. Honest. But the second link you wanted was
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36285
where I point out that the “appoints three Justices” is based upon the assumption that, by the end of the next President’s first term, every Justice over the age 72 retires, and noted that two of those three were considered “conservatives” upon the bench.
As for Altman, I’ll say the same thing as I did about Baldwin: This kind of demagougery (“This country will be unlivable if X is president!”) is disgusting and unconsciable*. Say whatever you want about Al Gore or George Bush, but both have shown a competence at leadership and politics, and this country has easily survived more destructive presidents. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple.
[sub]*Gaudere’s Law in action![/sub]
Whoops. Copy and Paste. Paste alone won’t do it. Thanks, John.
It also strikes me as whiny and juvenile. Don’t like the current prez?..then lobby Congress (yeah, that OTHER branch) to pass the legislation that you favor…not to mention state government, which last time I checked has at LEAST as much power over the day to day events of your life as the federal guvmint…
I believe you are correct John, thanks. But who actually looks at spelin and gramir anyways?
Okay, first:
Posted by tradesilicon
And you would be referring to which candidate? Gore? Nader? Buchanan? I don’t believe I advocated voting for any particular candidate. I don’t happen to find any of the front runners suitable.
Posted by UncleBeer
First, I didn’t say “will”, I said “might.” Let me point out up front two aspects of my life that cause me to feel a little more strongly about Bush’s platform than some of the people posting in this thread. I am a pro-choice woman and also a Wiccan. According to Dubya’s policies, I should not have the right of freedom of choice or the right to practice Wicca as a religion. Now, before you jump all over that, let me say that I do know that he has stated that America is not ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and that he wouldn’t require any Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion “litmus test” (see here. I never claimed that these things would happen. Read my post again. I said that the potential change in the politics of the Supreme Court might slant opinions toward a more conservative viewpoint that some people (like myself) might not be comfortable with. I also know that his comments on Wicca were stated in context of religion on military bases (see here). While I do not serve in the military, I fail to see why one religion should not be allowed over another on a military base or anywhere else. The fact remains that these are his views. Not only do I oppose the fact that he is anti-choice on the matter of abortion, I find his stance that abortion is always wrong except in the cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger extremely hypocritical. The man has also stated that he does not feel that hate crime legislation should extend to cover crimes against gays and that gays should not have the right to adopt children (see here). These beliefs infringe on the rights of many Americans.
Also, I apologize for getting the number of potential Supreme Court justice nominees incorrect. (Thank you, UncleBeer and John Corrado) I also did not mean to write this “year” but rather this “term.”
Again, I also find the idea that Robert Altman would leave the country permanantly over an election ridiculous. As for Alec Baldwin, I wish he would leave for any reason. However, I do have some serious problems with George W. Bush and his views limiting the rights and privileges of other people. I am not advocating Al Gore, either. I’m just pointing out some of the problems with Bush.
In fairness, it should be noted that Alec Baldwin may not agree with GWB but he never said he would leave the country.
Also, allow me to just add to this that I don’t favor hate crime legislation at all. However, if we are going to have it, I fail to see why gays should be excluded.
evilbeth accuses Bush of being a bigot. I’ve seen no evidence of bigotry. Is there some reason you could say this other than “He disagrees with positions I take”? I find this to be a common tactic among liberals. Oppose hate crime legislation…he must be a bigot. Favors the death penalty…must be a bigot. Pro-life…must be a bigot. Thinks the way to help minorities is by rethinking preferences or funding allocation…must be a bigot.
How about I go around calling Gore a bigot because he favors some legislation over another? Opposes vouchers, which would let more minorities attend private and suburban schools…must be a bigot. Don’t want those disgusting little urban kids contaminating our nice upscale classrooms, dontcha know.
Disagree with policy all you want. Take economics for example. I, as many Republicans, think that the mindset that believes creating yet more social programs and throwing yet more money into the system is the worst method to help the disadvantaged. People are free to disagree, but don’t assign a motive of bigotry.
But Gore has stated explicitly that he will impose a litmus test. (I have the quote at home; it’ll have to wait until this evening). A litmus test is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. If the Democrats have a pro-choice litmus test; and I contend they do (the day a Democratic president appoints a pro-life Supreme Court justice is the day I bequeath my estate to Planned Parenthood), then why would it be so bad if the Republicans have their own litmus test?
Again, I contend it is a matter of perspective, not that one side is virtuous while the other is craven.
Tretiak- thanks for the link! I guess I’ll have to change my position on Baldwin, and stop boycotting his movies. Of course, since I can’t think of anything I’ve seen him in (was he the Baldwin in Usual Suspects? They all run together in my mind), it doesn’t make that much of a difference, I guess…
divemaster- not to put words in her mouth, but I think you’re mis-interpreting what evilbeth is saying. I’d be willing to speculate that she calls Bush “bigoted” because of his stance on homosexual rights (not that Gore’s particularly more willing to do anything on the issue); I’m interpreting her statment on “litmus tests” as a matter of “Well, yes, it’s possible that Bush’s presidency won’t see a loss of abortion rights, but I’m sticking with Gore because he’ll guarantee my abortion rights”.
I don’t agree with evilbeth at all on the issue of who to support, but then, my primary issues (reforming Social Security, less government intervention in business and regulatory affairs, lower my taxes) are completely different from hers.
You left our Harry Browne.
Thanks for explaining. I have no great love for any of them either, but always feel the urge to to poke a little fun at anyone who claims there is clear superiority in any one of these candidates - you seemed to imply that Bush was completely unacceptible, so I like to point out the Gore ‘image’ is not all that nice either.
There are plenty of threads all ready discussing Bush, Gore, etc. so I’ll stay away from the deep political discussion here, but I will say that if Gore gets elected look for more of our rights to disappear, much more so than if Bush gets elected. Start with your car, after all the combustion engine is our greatest enemy…
Scare-mongers may have been making appointments to the Supreme Court an issue since 1976, but it is impossible to ignore that so far we have seen the longest stretch without new appointments since the Madison administration. Guesswork it may certainly be, but the odds are extremely good that there will be more appointments.
The radical right knows this as well. Am I the only one who has seen NO MORE SOUTERS posters?
Finally, Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by a democratic Senate.
I rest my case.
For futher information, please see http://www.supremecourtvote.com
MR
Nope. Sorry. Confirmed September, 1986 by a Republican Senate.
Unless you were trying to state “by a Senate elected by the people (democratic with a small ‘d’)” to give the impression “even a Senate the majority of which is are members of the Democratic Party were happy to approve Scalia.”
I’d point out that the Democrats certainly didn’t go quietly into that good night with Bork or Thomas.
Hmmm. Y’know, although I’m voting for him I have no great love for Gore, but I always feel the urge to to poke a little fun at anyone who intentionally misrepresents a candidate’s views so as to create a scary impression of the damage they might do if elected.
I think you mean that Gore is proposing tax incentives for the development of hybrid and alternatively fueled vehicles, and would probably also push for stricter fuel economy regulation and higher gasoline taxes. Neither approach disposes of anyone’s rights. Or are you asserting that Gore will somehow be able to ban internal combustion engines and take away your car?
BTW, just to forestall an ideological pissing contest, please don’t assume I believe the anti-Dubya propoganda either.