He's not a wartime president anymore. Now he says he wants to be the peace president.
http://www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/072004.html
Boy, that sure reminds me of something:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1933tbse.htm
See 1933 March 17, and 1933 May 17.
But anyway, the trouble with analyzing Bush is you can't really do the job right in a short post, or by saying a few sentences to a crowd. There's a great book out called _The President of Good and Evil_ by Peter Singer that examines Bush by giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding all his statements. This careful, fairminded approach yields a portrait of the president far more damning than anything the Ronstadts, Goldbergs, and Springsteens of the world could come up with.
In the case of Bush, we've got an intellectually lazy and deeply mean spirited person who's gained leadership of our country. I personally don't view myself as politically to the left or to the right, but I'm delighted anytime somebody with peoples' ear says something that will help get this guy out of office. I'd certainly rather hear Springsteen play "Thunder Road" than hear him talk about politics, but the thought of what Bush would accomplish in his second term makes me very happy that the Boss will speak up about the need for a regime change.
Just added this little bit to the post, regarding the audience members who reportedly tossed their drinks into the air and demanded a refund:
Better stay away from the 2005 Oscars. I'm saying it right now: If Fahrenheit 9/11 is nominated for Best Documentary, the announcement of that award will be the most anticipated moment of the show.
I actually loved Farhenheit 9/11. And I think artists are within their rights during their concerts to dedicate their songs to whomever they want, or make political comments, because, it's their show and they have the stage. That's freedom of speech. I think Aladdin overreacted, but freedom of speech only guarantees you won't get thrown in jail for what you say. Employers are allowed to fire you for what you say. I think Las Vegas and the majority of people who go there, are a less liberal, more conservative crowd. So she took a risk in unfriendly territory and it bit her on her fat ass. Speaking of which, why is Moore, who I find amusing, her desperado? Because, Moore, like Ronstandt, refuse to be cowed by the health-food crowd. They both appear to have no compunction about saddling up to the all-you-can-eat buffet 5 or 6 times a night? Man, all you have to do is look at that Time mag from so long ago to realize how she's let herself go, she's possibly a bigger porker than he is. Have you seen Linda lately? She looks like Roseanne Barr.
I'm amused every time throws out "freedom of speech" and "first amendment" and "censorship" when something like this happens.
Yes, it's true, Linda Rondstadt has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
We live in a free market society, and if you're going to pull a Dixie Chicks, you'll have to live with the financial consequences.
Censorship is only censorship when the government takes action.
I am also of the opinion that I've paid good money to hear your music, not your stance on political issues. While I respect everyone's right to speak their mind, once in a while I just want to smack some people and tell them to keep it to themselves for 5 minutes. It is kind of like how I can't even watch "The Daily Show" with my mom. Everytime they make a Bush or Rumsfeld joke, she goes off on how Clinton cheated, lied, and on and on. I turned on the TV to laugh, not suffer through your political views.
While I am not a fan of President Bush, and will most likely not vote for him in November, I do think the Hitler comparisions are unfair to the man. Hitler came to came to power at a time where Germany was in shambles, and he used that to slowly wrestle power for himself. Our system of government is in place to protect us from just such an occurance. To say the Bush Administration is anything like the Third Reich is perposterous. This administration may be involved in legally questionable activities in holding people in Guantanemo Bay, but they haven't killed of 6-12 million Arab men.
IMO it is all going to backfire on the liberal entertainment community. Their whining and hate will turn people off. Who wants to be on the same side of people like that? Moore can't even stick to the truth to get his point across. That's lame.
Keep up the good work Paul!
I think this whole episode with Ronstadt's dedication to Moore was blown way out of proportion to the point of being ridiculous. She's not the first entertainer to use the stage as a forum to voice political/personal views.
I saw McCartney in 2002 and he wore a "No Landmines" shirt in support of eradicating landmines and even said at the intro of a song, "Please give...donate now." Did the people who $250/per ticket say "F-you, Paul" and storm out? No.
Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders once said on stage..."You should bury dead animals, not eat them." Did outraged meat-eating Pretenders rise in protest and demand a refund from the arena box office? No.
Sure, who wants to spend money to attend a concert only to have the performer spew his/her personal views onstage? But unless Ronstadt went off on a 30-minute dissertation on the film and Moore - which apparently she didn't, she only dedicated a song to him and spoke some words of praise - I don't see what the big fuss is about.
Just a huge overreaction by the audience and obviously the catalyst for that is the sensitive political climate that currently exists in this nation.
And I think it's a sad commentary that so many people today cannot sit and intelligently - and maturely - discuss opposing political viewpoints. It instead turns into a "lib vs. con bitchfest."
Sad. Just my .02 cents.
Great post Erik, I mean hell - a president says he's for peace and you compare him to Hitler? jackass.
People get so wound up about this stuff because some idiots try to compare Bush to Hitler. So when Whoopi makes a stupid joke, people get way too excited about it.
Julie is right about the whole incident being blown out of proportion. There was no reason for the casino to just drop her out the door. Was she even given a warning? Does anyone know, because I'd like to? While I don't think it merits getting the hook, I do think it was somewhat out of place. I remember the Grammy's a couple of years ago when Chris Martin from Coldplay painted "Free Trade" on the side of his piano. I am a huge Coldplay fan and a believer in free trade, but I still slightly perturbed by the incident. I had tuned in to listen to them play, not be flashed political views. I spent most of the performance thinking about free trade and not listening, and although I credit my ADD somewhat for that, it was distracting from the music. Like with Paul McCartney and Hynde, Martin was promoting somewhat less volitile subjects, so there wasn't as much backlash. You have to be a real piece of work to say "No Landmines?!? I am so in favor of innocent people having appendages blown or being killed".
Unfortunately, there are people, like Julie said, who cannot talk politics in a civil manner, taking time to at least listen to other viewpoints. It has reached a point in American politics where you have to be an off-your-rocker extremist (left or right wing) to be heard, because that's what makes the best stories. Often the media is unfairly blamed at the drop of the hat for anything and everything. This is one area where I truely believe that media sensationalization has led politics down the road where you have to say increasingly outrageous things to be heard. Often, people with middle of the road views, or those being respectful of others' views do not get heard because it makes for dull news. Sad, but I belive this is true.
Paul, I have to disagree (I think for the first time). It's funny how Springsteen can play a set with 'Born in the USA', 'Code of Silence', 'Souls of the Departed', 'Lost in the Flood', 'American Skin (41 Shots)', 'Land of Hope and Dreams', CCR's 'Fortunate Son', and Dylan's 'Chime's of Freedom', and then spends less than 2 minutes requesting that people ask questions of their government, and people flip. I don't get it. Are they not listening to their own voices as they belt out each lyric?
Whether the artist is singing it or saying it, I just don't see the difference.
Great point on the Boss. I guess you expect it from him, just like you would from some performers whose careers have been defined by their political activity.
I think Ronstadt is an exception, and I'd hate to think that everytime I see a show now that I'm gonna be subjected to a political campaign.
But there are worse things in the world, too. Like not having the freedom to speak your mind. And if it bothers me that much I just wouldn't buy a ticket next time. I'm not gonna start throwing drinks and ripping down posters, like some in Vegas.
Wow..Elton has a take on everything - from alleged bigotry on "American Idol" to the purported "bullying tactics" used by the US government to derail musicians' anti-war views.
I'm a lifelong fan of Elton's - and even though I raise my eyebrow at some of his comments - I don't fault him for speaking his mind. I respect anyone who openly expresses his/her views in a mature and intelligent manner.
Thanks, 7thAngel, for the comments in your post. Had forgotten about Chris Martin painting "Free Trade" on his piano...
Funny how only "liberal" entertainers are hammered for expressing themselves while "conservative" entertainers get elected: Reagan, Schwarzenneger, Fred Thompson ("In the Line of Fire," "Law and Order") to name a few.
On that note, Linda Ronstadt has the right to say what she wants. The Aladdin has the right to fire said performer. Both quite possibly know what they're getting into and this episode shows that both are getting much mileage out of the publicity from it.
As far not expecting an entertainer to espouse their political views on stage, well, I can't expect that. It's their show. If I don't like what they say, then I don't buy a ticket the next time. That being said, I know what I'm getting into when I go to see the Boss or U2.
And if he doesn't think Moore's film is factual, it's time for Mr. Murphy (above) to start a defense fund to bring litigation against Moore for slander. Either that, or he can make a movie refuting Moore.
>Great post Erik, I mean hell - a president says
>he's for peace and you compare him to Hitler?
Well, no. I'm not at all suggesting that Bush is a worthy comparison to a demon like Hitler.
The point I've been making is that in both Hitler and Bush, you've got bellicose leaders who mouth all kinds of sweet words about peace when it serves their interests.
And there's just no denying that Bush has little reverence for life. From blowing up frogs on daddy's ranch as a boy, to mocking the pleas of a death row inmate as Governor, to his famous "Bring It On" taunt to the Iraqis as President. Oh, and we hit the 900 dead mark today, by the way.
>jackass.
I see you've graduated from the Dick Cheney school of discourse.
"Dick Cheney School of Discourse" - classic. :)
When the fear that speaking an opposing opinion to or about those in authority will result in unpleasant consequences prevents a citizen from honestly stating his belief(s) in a public (or even semi-public) forum, then that individual is no longer living in a free society.
Granted, we (Americans) might not be thrown in jail and tortured for publicly disagreeing with our government and those who govern, but losing your job, getting publicly condemned by your government and having other citizens verbally (and/or physically) assault and harass you ought to constitute a lack of free speech.
Yes, there are consequences to to the words we speak. However, the consequences for verbally (and fairly mindly, in Rondstadt's case)disagreeing with our government (which is, in essence, what Rondstadt was doing) shouldn't be life-changing.
Disagreeing isn't un-American. It is the point of being an American. Our forefathers lost lives, families, fortunes and reputations so that we could look our government in the eye and disagree without fear of losing our lives, families, fortunes and reputations.
If you don't like someone's point of view, you don't have to personally attack them. That's sort of a Saddam-like thing to do, doncha think?
"And there's just no denying that Bush has little reverence for life"
aah yes, he blew up frogs as a kid, so he has little reverence for life. Makes perfect sense. I think your comment applies to a decent percentage of American kids, myself included because I used to fry ants with a magnifying glass, and I've hooked at least 2 dozen frogs right through the mouth with a fish hook. I truly am terrible.
He made a crass joke about a MURDERER, but he has no reverence for life. I get it.
Can Bush be stupid and crass? yes. Does that mean he has no reverence for life? absolutely not. If he had made the decision not to stop 500,000+ tutsis from being slaughtered for political reasons, maybe I'd agree with you.
I'm well aware of the 900 mark. I'm also well aware of the happiness many seem to get from watching the death toll rise, so they can say "I told you so". I'm sure the Kerry campaign is salivating for the 1000 mark cause it will make a great soundbite.
I think the issue boils down the fact the singers or actors, becuase of the nature of their job, have a the ability to comment on things they really don't know anything about.
And their opinions reach many people and actually influence many people.
Where as a regular guy like me can say something and no one cares. I guarentee that I am better at what I do for a living than Linda Ronstadt is at what she does. It is just that my profession is judged to be drab in comparison. So no one pays attention if I said something.
The people that react negitively are probably just people saying "I too have an opinion and noone will listen, because I dont happend to sing in a Vegas lounge".
It is a joke. No one respects Linda Ronstadt for her foreign policy experise. They respect her becuase she can sing.
Ronstadt should have known better. She said in a LA Times article yesterday, that she had been giving the same dedication to Moore at many of her concerts recently across the country and was surprised each time at the intensity of the reactions she was getting. She was expecting a reaction, and that’s why she did it. She deserves the consequence. There was going to be a riot and they removed the source of it.
Freedom of speech. Most people don’t realize it, but your right to it STOPS when others start.
That said, as far as Moore goes:
He’s a pure propagandist plain and simple. He makes millions of dollars spreading blind hate and fear by influencing the “little people” he pretends to be fighting for. Millions of people, who apparently don’t know how to google, believe his half truths and flat out lies without question. Why? Because he gives them someone to blame by creating a “house of cards” he calls a real documentary. But like all house of cards, you pull one of his created “facts” and the whole thing comes apart. His success proves there’s a sucker born every minute. It would seem that there are millions of suckers, who can’t think, research or even remember as far back as the year 2000. Here’s an essay link of a girl, who at 17, is already ahead of everyone of Moore’s zombies:
http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html
Moore's film was far from perfect, but on Florida he was correct. Instead of relying on our dear high school girl, check out any of these numerous articles on this site:
http://www.gregpalast.com/index.cfm
Ronstadt may have made a tactical error in what she did, or perhaps was really trying to piss off the casino owners enough to fire her. That is small potatoes compared to the issues raised.
Actually, Seth, the exceptions to the first amendment in regards to the freedom of speech are most likely not applicable in Ms. Ronstadt's case.
The Supreme Court, in Texas v. Johnson said that, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." It has said that the first amendment does not allow special prohibitions on speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.
In Schenck v. United States, Justice Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic...The question in every case is whether the words used...create a clear and present danger."
While the government may, indeed, proscribe 'fighting' words, or those "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace", the Court was referring to utterances that are "no essential part of an exposition or ideas" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. 'Fighting words' as an exception has always been very narrowly interpreted and is, in fact, rarely used by the Court as a basis for abridging free speech.
It is difficult to imagine convincing the Court that Ms. Ronstadt's expressed support of Mr. Moore's film were words that could be expected to incite a riot. Additionally, Mr. Moore's film is precisely the sort of expostion of ideas to which the Court refers.
You state that she was "expecting a reaction and she got it. She deserves the consequence." makes me thankful that you are not interpreting the first amendment for our country now and that you weren't interpreting it in the 1950's and '60's when blacks were standing up and demanding equal and civil rights, often in places where there was a long history of deliberatly denying those said rights. I'm sure that they often expected a negative reaction from those they spoke to- does that mean that some of them deserved lynching?
And no, Seth, it's not a leap from Ms. Ronstadt's declaration of support to civil rights. That's what the first amendment is all about.
If anything, the audience's reaction is more a reflection on our society's increasing acceptance of boorish and ill-mannered behaviour when confronted with a differing opinion than it is anything else. We all have a responsibility to exercise restraint regardless of what inflammatory words we might hear.
Personally, I tend to avoid most extremest politics and those who advocate them. I've never seen a Moore documentary and I doubt I'll see this one. This brouhaha is not about what he said, but what Ms. Ronstadt has the right to say in support of his opinions.
/lecture
Go figure, gregpalast.com contains numerous articles written by or interviewing Greg Palast.
I used the link above to Brittany Craigo’s article to illustrate that even a 17 year old high school student can figure out Moore’s lies simply by checking them out, not as my sole reason for knowing that Moore is a liar.
But as far as the 2000 elections go:
The recounts showed that Bush won, it’s as simple as that. The people that are still pissed off, are mad because they didn’t understand the electoral college process. The same process we all learned about in government class in school. Gore understood it and backed down when he realized the recounts weren’t in his favor.
I think whether the vote in Florida was correct or now has been rendered moot. If, as some contend, Gore actually did win, that does not change the fact we are currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Might it have turned out differently if Gore was declared the winner? Perhaps, but that doesn't really matter right now.
My graduating class sent 10 kids (out of approx. 135-140) to the military, more than the previous 3 classes combined. I've got friends who are Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force, and National Guard. I know Erica is worried sick about Jay because he's in Afghanistan. Neither of them cares about an election almost 4 years ago. They just want to be back together. They'll be married when he gets back.
So for people to complain about past elections have lost sight of what is important. Arguing now will not bring anyone home, or resurrect those who have died. All we can do is to continue to debate pertainent, current issues to keep America a free and open society. We owe them that.
I was against the war at the beginning. Now that we are in it, I advocate trying to establish a stable government so that their may be peace in Iraq. Whether we should have invaded or not is not the point anymore. Now we have to look at what we need to do next. Anyone who debates that needs to open their eyes.
It was certainly valid in the context of the discussion of Moore's F911. He is using the 2000 elections as a BASIS of demonizing our president so that he doesn't get re-elected. This guy crafts lies and stories and will use anybody to reach his goal. He’s even traveling around the world and demonizing America as well as our President. The same President who’s currently running the war in Iraq as well as terrorists worldwide AND trying to gain other countries support. Demonizing our President and our country is dishonorable and puts Jay in more danger. And Moore is making millions doing it.
That said, I most sincerely hope for Jay's safe return. He's is doing our country a great service in making our country as well as the world a safer place and is indeed a true hero.
Wow. Politics at PK.com!
Didn't Ronstadt have a long relationship with Jerry Brown, the uber-liberal former governor of California?
I guess it doesn't suprise me that much that she'd get a little political on stage.
Uh ... make that *surprise*.
Wwe all hope for the safe return home for all troops. I feel safe in saying that. That being said, we all have a voice in selecting which people we want being in charge of decisions come January.
Quesion, listen and vote. No matter what your side.
I don't know if its late, or whatever... but Seth makes me laugh. Thank you Seth for taking up so much space to basically call Michael Moore a liar-liar-pants-on-fire.
And, no, you're not getting my email - despite your inadvertent hilarity.
lucy-
Whoa!...I've been "Moore-d?" I put the First Amendment comment on different paragraph specifically so one wouldn't do what you did with my comments. You're taking what I said way off base so I must clarify what I meant.
Ronstadt knew the comments she made would spark something. She deserved what she got, meaning getting escorted off stage and off the premises. She definately has the right the say what she said and I never stated or implied that she didn't or shouldn't have that right. Just as the patrons should have the right to not have to listen to it and the Casino the right not to employ her and refuse their services to her.
You are trying to say I meant that she'd deserve anything she MAY HAVE gotten, which is utterly FALSE. And trying to stretch that even further and imply that I'd think that lynching was justified is completely ridiculous.
To be clearer about me saying that "your right stops when mine starts" was along the lines that Person A's right to free speech doesn't extend to them being able to punch Person B in the face or throw a glass in their face, etc.
Here is an article on Ronstadt's side of the story. It sounds more realistic than what we've been hearing.
Any political documentary will be skewed. When politics are brought into the mix, everyone has a different opinion of what is the truth and what is being spun around. This post is just the perfect example. Seth brings up the point of the 2000 Elections with regards to "F. 9/11" Michael Moore is one of those people who need to forget about it and move on. If he really wanted to make this country better, he would stop trying to undo what's been done and try to change what the future will hold. With me, he lost credibility the minute he started in on the election. If he really thought Bush should be gone bad enough to make an entire movie about it, he should have focused on what he as done once he became president, regardless of how he got there. Election controversy aside, Bush is and has been the president for 4 years whether Michael Moore likes it or not, and it's time to accept that fact.
Paul -
35 comments. Damn. This alone is eveidence of just how important this election year is. Everyone of the posters above, whether I agree with them or not, seems very intelligent, articulate, informed and passionate. I think this bodes well for our upcoming election - for the first time in years Americans are energized and passionate about an election.
People are talking about how America has been lulled into sleep again after that brief bit of energy after 9/11. I call bullshit! The forums and Blogs I read are going off the hook lately.
Dare I say it but perhaps we will have close to a record voter turnout this Fall?
Henry brings up a good point. It's often assumed that people don't vote because they don't care. In my dorm when the subject was brought up, everyone wanted to be heard but didn't feel they had a ligitmate voice. I don't know about anyone else's age here, but its pretty safe to assume I'm one of the younger posters at 18. Older people assume that because I wear baggy jeans and have shaggy hair that I don't care about anything, my own parents included. I actually can't wait to vote. Maybe I'm dilusional, but I know most of my friends are the same way. I think with the advent of the Internet and blogging that younger people who have a huge advantage in technological experience having grown up with the Internet and PC's has given them an edge in wedging themselves in the political arena. Young people finally feel they can express themselves and are being heard. I agree with Henry that young people will finally begin to start voting.
There was a Page 2 article about Adonal Foyle and his attempts to help young voters feel like they are making a difference. I rather like his ideas.
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/neel/030421.html
Seth-
You've been Moore'd? Pffft.
You are reinterpreting your previously strongly worded comments to reflect a more moderate stance. I do not believe my interpretation of your comments was unreasonable or unjustified, and I will stand by that belief.
When restating your comments as being less inflammatory than originally depicted, you left out an important sentence: "There was going to be a riot and they removed the source of it." Placing that sentence between her deserving the consequence and the first sentence of the next paragraph about freedom of speech and "stopping here" leads the reader to a conclusion that implies quite clearly that she should have her freedom of speech abridged because the incindiery nature of her remarks created an atmosphere which encouraged violence.
And my comments about the abridgement of free speech were directly related to that, as is quite obvious when you read them.
As for the correlation between what she said and lynching, I think a careful reading of my comments will show how I got from point A to point B. Which, incidentally, has nothing to do with your right stopping where mine starts, as this conversation was about free speech, not assault.
I would have let your revision go and shrugged it off had it not been for your comment about being Moore'd. It reminded me way too much of my 9 year old who, when faced with incontrovertible evidence that he has transgressed, composes his face and solemnly and earnestly says to me, "I'm a victim."
It's funny when you're nine. It's annoying as hell coming from an adult.
One last thing:
7th Angel- I know exactly how you feel, as there was a presidential election the year before I turned 18 and I couldn't vote and desparately wanted to be able to make my voice heard. I was thrilled when I was finally about to throw the lever on a voting machine and cast my vote.
Now go get out and get your friends to register! Better still, call the county where you live and find out about becoming a voter registrar or a poll worker. When you have that much enthusiasm, you should use it!
Girl Power. :-)
Lucy, thanks for your encouraging words. Was your "girl power" for you or me? Because if it was for me, it was a little misguided as I am a guy.
-lucy
Revision, my ass!
That whole first paragraph, which was the only time I mentioned Ronstadt in that post, was about whether she deserved the consequence. But fine, I’ll address the “important sentence” (“She deserves the consequence. There was going to be a riot and they removed the source of it.”) Her statements were intended to cause a stir, but in this case the stir got either out of control or on the verge of out of control. I never once questioned her right to say what she said as this paragraph was commenting on the CONSEQUENCE of what she said, which was being removed from the casino.
The second paragraph was only a statement on ones freedom of speech in general, thus the separate paragraph and no comment on Ronstadt. I believe the FOS doesn’t allow one to infringe on the rights of others. I believe that most people would agree and I’m sorry if you don’t.
“..as this conversation was about free speech, not assault.” You yourself added civil rights to it along with the idea of lynching. I find it truly sad IF you really believe that freedom of speech gives you the right to assault someone as expression of that free speech.
“Moore’d? Pfft” Sorry, you’re the one who’s trying to paint a picture of me as one who would’ve supported lynching in the 50’s and 60’s. And then as a 9 year old “victim.” Cant’s prove a point, so paint a ugly picture instead…..classic Moore.
Hey Paul,
Linda's comments may have a lame execution, but she's totally in her right to shine a light on a Moore, who's exposing a guy (George WWW Roscoe PecoTrain) who's exploited 9/11 for personal benefit. Get disgusted about something more tangible than some drunk Las Vegans.
Yo, Jimbo!!! It's Roscoe P. Coltrane, you big dummy!
Here's my last two cents on the subject:
I proved my point just fine.
"Tough crowd, eh, Ms. Ronstadt?"
5000 drunks who came to Vegas to party down and _escape_ the real world; go figure...
I absolutely agree with you on each of those points. That was NOT the right forum for Linda Rondstadt to air her views.
And I say this even though I think she is a painfully beautiful woman.
He's not a wartime president anymore. Now he says he wants to be the peace president.
http://www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/072004.html
Boy, that sure reminds me of something:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1933tbse.htm
See 1933 March 17, and 1933 May 17.
But anyway, the trouble with analyzing Bush is you can't really do the job right in a short post, or by saying a few sentences to a crowd. There's a great book out called _The President of Good and Evil_ by Peter Singer that examines Bush by giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding all his statements. This careful, fairminded approach yields a portrait of the president far more damning than anything the Ronstadts, Goldbergs, and Springsteens of the world could come up with.
In the case of Bush, we've got an intellectually lazy and deeply mean spirited person who's gained leadership of our country. I personally don't view myself as politically to the left or to the right, but I'm delighted anytime somebody with peoples' ear says something that will help get this guy out of office. I'd certainly rather hear Springsteen play "Thunder Road" than hear him talk about politics, but the thought of what Bush would accomplish in his second term makes me very happy that the Boss will speak up about the need for a regime change.
Posted by Erik at July 21, 2004 9:06 AM