On another note, based on this column along with the other articles that I have read on the subject, I am comfortable in declaring in my blog that Oprah Winfrey is a racist. This woman's lips have been, at least I believed, superglued solidly to Hillary Clinton's rear end. However, all support for her fellow female dissolves when the black man enters the race. So long Hillary. Vote for Osama...uh...Obama. Sorry, I get them confused. Where are the other black political extremists: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Reggie Jackson, Tito, Jermaine and Janet Jackson, et. al?
Susan Estrich's column this week also discusses Oprah jumping to support Obama.
Fortunately, middle America understands the idiocy of west coast politics (specifically the nonsense that comes from Hollywood). You can bet that those people will support the candidate or candidates least likely to stand up for or protect America. Those people hate America and would sell us to the enemy if they were ever really in charge.
Celebrities Unqualified to Give Political Endorsements
by Pat Sajak (more by this author)
Posted 11/28/2007 ETUpdated 11/29/2007 ET
There have been so many debates and interviews and columns and profiles and polls, it’s hard to believe the election for president is still about 11 months away. Recently, celebrity endorsements have been making news, with Oprah Winfrey saying she would campaign for Barack Obama and Barbra Streisand making the not-so-stunning announcement that she was supporting Hillary Clinton.
There are reasons, of course, why candidates welcome such help. First, there’s the bonanza of free publicity. With so many names and faces vying for attention, what could be better than the burst of news such endorsements bring? There’s also the burst of money these high-profile celebs can bring in themselves and attract from others. Then there’s the extra attention and excitement these stars engender when they appear at a candidate’s political events. It’s far easier to attract a crowd in Des Moines if a big TV, movie or recording star is standing next to the politician.
Putting those obvious benefits aside, the question remains: do these endorsements really translate into votes? Does anyone decide which candidate to choose based on the recommendation of a TV talk show host or a singer/actress? If any group of citizens is uniquely unqualified to tell someone else how to vote, it’s those of us who live in the sheltered, privileged arena of celebrityhood. It’s one thing to buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it (he’s in good shape, isn’t he?) or a grill because George Foreman’s name is on it (he’s a great guy, so it must be a great grill!), but the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me.
This is America, and we celebrities have just as much right as anyone else to speak up about any issue. The problem is that more attention is paid to what we say because we’re well known. But why should that matter? O.J. Simpson is one of the world’s best-known celebrities, but I can’t imagine anyone following his lead in a voting booth.I suppose anything that gets people engaged in the political process is a good thing, but the idea that a gold record, a top-ten TV show or an Oscar translates into some sort of political wisdom doesn’t make much sense to me. Trust me, one’s view of the world isn’t any clearer from the back seat of a limo.
Mr. Sajak is the host of "Wheel of Fortune" and PatSajak.com.
Advertise Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
4 comments:
Pat Sajak's argument falters toward the end when he brings O.J. Simpson into the mix. First, Sajak is saying that celebrities have too much, unearned, influence and then he says he cannot imagine anyone following O.J.'s suggestions.
Can't you see that he is arguing to the absurd? He is saying that a person's celebrity status does not qualify him or her to advise people on who the leader of the greatest nation in the world will be. All of those people live in a world that is foreign to us just as our world of of middle class day to day strife is foreign to them. OJ epitomizes the idiocy of celebrity as well as the idiocy of who can become a celebrity. Whether it's OJ, George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Streisand, Richard Geer or any of those other bombastic blowhards, none of them understand the middle class family or values. We want to be protected and we want the government (and everyone else for that matter) to keep their grubby claws out of our pockets. These people make their living by pretending to be other people. OJ is just a moron, but the others are just as ignorant of the lives we lead. Do not forget that all of these people are members of a powerful labor union. The labor unions are socialistic in nature, plus they insist on reward or payment based upon criteria other than merit. Typically a value set of the democratic party.
I agree that celebrities are not qualified to speak for the majority of Americans.
I agree that actors make their money pretending to be someone else but perhaps, on the other hand, that could, sometimes, lead to, empathy. Give it a thought.
I was only saying that Sajak's logic falters with the O.J. analogy.
Actors are barely qualified to speak for themselves (that's why they pay 10% of their income to agents). To be empathetic, you have to actually care about your fellow man. If they cared anything about their fellow Americans, they would quit trying to lend aid and comfort to America's enemies.
Post a Comment