C-Poll

The latest C-Poll is closed. You can read all about it here!

October 8, 2005

It depends on what the meaning of "wrong" is, Mr. Clooney

Brit Hume reports (emphasis added):
Movie star George Clooney is warning other Hollywood liberals to keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics, saying they're likely to hurt the candidates they're trying to help. Clooney says he declined to campaign for John Kerry last year because critics would use his involvement to paint Kerry as beholden to liberal Hollywood. But while he thinks it's dangerous for actors to go public with their politics, Clooney still defends his left-leaning views, saying, “It's pretty hard to find a time when liberals were on the wrong side of an issue."
Kinda funny how always being on the right side of the issues is like poison to your favored candidates, Mr. Clooney...

5 comments:

Ray said...

I wonder if Clooney imposed his "no campaigning" rule when his dad ran for Congress? If not, I wonder if that led to his defeat.

Tim said...

Yes, he did. I read elsewhere that he was afraid to campaign for his dad -- same reason as stated in this article.

Adam Graham said...

“It's pretty hard to find a time when liberals were on the wrong side of an issue."

Apparently, he missed that whole "cold war thing."

Anonymous said...

As a bleeding heart liberal, and proud of it, I believe I was wrong on the first Gulf War. I was for sanctions. I was under the impression that Saddam would have eventually left Kuwait. I now know that I was wrong and the he would never have left without the incredible force Bush the first arranged against him. By the way, I was not against him for calling off the war when he did. The orders were 1) Free Kuwait and 2) inflict about 10 years worth of damage on Saddams army. The goals were established ahead of time. When we met the goals, the war ended. It's too bad the meatball we have in the office now didn't learn anything from his dad. But then again, all the players from that first war that were upset he called it off are back at it again. Chaney and Rummy didn't want to stop the first time. Now they see why Colin Powell was so smart.

Tim said...

Hey, Anonymous -

You're comparing apples with oranges.

Bush I was following the age-old policy of pursuing stability of Middle East governments, regardless of the despotic nature of those governments. It was in just such an environment that the Islamic extremists got their footing. Not without reason, they saw the US as one of the prime enablers of those who were oppressing them.

Bush II has recognized that policy to be a dismal failure and has explicitly renounced it. In its place he is pursuing two goals: (1) putting the Islamist genie back into its bottle, and (2) doing what he can to effect democratic transformation in the region so that the conditions so favorable to the proliferation of Islamism no longer exist.