Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One industry won't back Fred Thompson [Hollyweird] (Rudy & Mitt have fans there, though)
The Los Angeles Times ^ | September 7, 2007 | TINA DAUNT

Posted on 09/06/2007 5:38:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

POLITICIAN turned actor turned politician Fred Thompson may have a Hollywood strategy when it comes to his presidential run (after all, he did announce his candidacy this week on the Jay Leno show), but he'll have a hard time getting a Hollywood audience.

For starters, the entertainment industry Democrats are much too busy shuttling between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraisers to even think about helping out a fellow actor, let alone a conservative Republican one. And the Hollywood Republicans -- what few there are -- already have yard signs out for the far more moderate Rudolph W. Giuliani.

So what's Thompson to do? Take the show on the road and rake in the dollars elsewhere. The place that made the former Tennessee senator rich as an actor cannot be counted on to pour cash into his presidential run, especially if he's going around bashing gay marriage and Roe vs. Wade. The minute he comes out strong against embryonic stem cell research -- a fervent Hollywood cause -- he'll be banished from every cocktail party north of Sunset Boulevard.

"You're asking me if people here will support Fred Thompson?" said Donna Bojarsky, a longtime industry political consultant. "How do I put it? No. No. And no."

Politico Andy Spahn, who has enough Hollywood clients to pack a Directors Guild gala, was more diplomatic.

"I think he will raise some relationship money from people who know him and have worked with him," Spahn said. "But I don't think he'll raise much beyond that here. His political views are out of sync with the community."

And Spahn is not just talking about the Hollywood Democrats. Thompson's political views are at odds with those of many industry Republicans, who tend to be fiscally conservative but socially progressive.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: ca2008; electionpresident; elections; filmindustry; fred; fredthompson; gop; hollyweird; hollywood; mittromney; republicans; rinorudy; rinos; robertduvall; ronsilver; rudygiuliani; schwarzenegger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: wardaddy

There are three reasons the left invented the term “progressive” (which is Marxist in origin):

1) It fits into their idea of historical inevitability. Marxism is inevitable, you know, so why fight it?

2) It wins over dimbulbs who latch onto anything if it seems “new” and “fashionable”. So ancient, barbarous practices such as promiscuity and abortion get repackaged as “progressive” and a lot of nitwits think they’re brand new.

3) It covers up for the fact that liberalism can’t create a civilization. Imagine a great civilization being built on wealth redistribution, appeasement of enemies, promiscuity, homosexuality, egalitarianism, and secularism. You can’t imagine it because it would never happen. Therefore, liberalism can never be traditional. So its proponents are forced to advertise it as new to provide political cover for its destructiveness.


21 posted on 09/06/2007 6:24:16 PM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator; 2ndDivisionVet
re: "Fiscal Conservative - Social Progressive"

I call BS on this label.

You pegged it. Next time someone makes this claim just ask them "How can you have a fiscally conservative government and still pay for all those government programs the social progressives you elect will enact?

22 posted on 09/06/2007 6:27:54 PM PDT by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
Fred doesn’t need the support of the whackjobs in hollyweird.

If Fred can get ho-wood to support his oppenents, this would be even better. When ho-wood endorses a candidate, it's the political kiss of death for him or her. Even salami-baloney-george-clooney admitted it earlier this decade. One of clooless's own family members was unable to win a campaign, despite receiving a good dose of clooney's supposedly valuable ho-wood presence.

Receiving ho-wood endorsements is worst than meaningless: it's actually lethal.

23 posted on 09/06/2007 6:30:51 PM PDT by Vision Thing (liberals are Americaphobic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
For starters, the entertainment industry Democrats are much too busy shuttling between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraisers to even think about helping out a fellow actor, let alone a conservative Republican one. And the Hollywood Republicans -- what few there are -- already have yard signs out for the far more moderate Rudolph W. Giuliani.


24 posted on 09/06/2007 6:33:27 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puroresu; wardaddy
There are three reasons the left invented the term “progressive” (which is Marxist in origin):...

Good points. Whenever somebody tells me their beliefs are progressive I like to tweak them by replying "You mean like cancer?"...

25 posted on 09/06/2007 6:33:53 PM PDT by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Finny

#####My hackles go up when I hear, “I’m fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.” Hello??? Socially “progressive” causes are fiscally irresponsible!#####

Yep!


26 posted on 09/06/2007 6:34:18 PM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bray

With good reguard for our fellow Conservatives out in California and Massachusetts: Can you think of ANY better argument for ‘States Rights’ and secession than it would end their polution through federalism upon some of the more sane states in the West and Mid-West and South?


27 posted on 09/06/2007 6:35:16 PM PDT by JSDude1 (When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck, Sam Elliott& Bo Derek will be there. The rest are IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
28 posted on 09/06/2007 6:35:31 PM PDT by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Well, Ronald Reagan could NEVER have been elected president of the United States unless he had the full backing, political and financial, of the Hollywood set. It was pivotal.
29 posted on 09/06/2007 6:37:14 PM PDT by Free State Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Peter Blood

Add James Woods.


30 posted on 09/06/2007 6:38:00 PM PDT by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator

“socially progressive” is LA Timesspeak for “favors abortion of children.”


31 posted on 09/06/2007 7:36:12 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty

I agree. And while Fred wont pull the bulk of the Hollywood political establishment he will be backed by good people like Gary Sinise, Patricia Heaton, Tom Selleck and his common approach will draw out those in conservative Hollywood who otherwise would be keeping their mouths shut and quietly going about their business.


32 posted on 09/06/2007 8:00:03 PM PDT by Finatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Free State Four
Well, Ronald Reagan could NEVER have been elected president of the United States unless he had the full backing, political and financial, of the Hollywood set. It was pivotal.

I don't remember it that way with all due respect...the older folks liked him and Nancy and I think Valenti supported him but the younger folks loathed him.

33 posted on 09/06/2007 10:36:14 PM PDT by wardaddy (the future of the West is bleak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

/s


34 posted on 09/07/2007 1:41:20 AM PDT by Free State Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Free State Four

sorry..


35 posted on 09/07/2007 7:59:31 AM PDT by wardaddy (the future of the West is bleak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson