The Dixie Chicks
 

I realize I may be the only one on this board who likes country muisc, but I thought I'd share something that gives me a small glimmer of hope.

The Dixie Chicks released a new album with a pretty powerful song Not Ready to Make Nice. This song has been on the Vh1 Top 20 since it was released and the album has seen record sales.

This gives me a glimmer of hope because the "Bu****es" (new word) who hate the Dixie Chicks and think that they shouldn't be singing anymore because of what they said didn't do anything but boost their sales and give them new fans. Concerts have been added to their tour.

I really think a new generation of politics is in the making and we will see the tides change sooner than we think.

HUmm... That should say Bush ites (as one word).

I love the Dixie Chicks! I'm thinking of actually, you know, going OUT, and seeing them this fall...

Dixie Chicks are great! They've made quite a statement with the latest album and the interviews theyve been giving have been well-articulated, intelligent and sincere. Go Chicks!

you think politics hinges on a country song?

I find this all to be very amusing.

If the Dixie Chicks wish to use concerts and songs to make political statements, that's fine. I just think it's so comical that when those who politically support Bush don't like it and make the choice to not purchase their music or even to talk badly about them that somehow it is interpretted as trying to suppress free speech.

It's a business enterprise. The DCs can say whatever they want. The same freedom applies to those who listen to them or choose to make a stink about not listening to them.

More power to the DCs for saying what they want. More power to their former fans for vocal opposition to their political positions and no longer purchasing their music.

Personally, I don't care either way. I don't think this signifies, however, a new generation of politics anymore than popular country music with religious overtones signals some sort of Christian revival.

I have a couple of their albums and I generally like them. Nothing of theirs totally blows me away, though. I mean, I love 'Landslide' but nothing tops the Stevie Nicks live version on Fleetwood Mac's 'The Dance' CD.
I got the DC's new single. It's good.
:)

Exactly...:snap:

Besides that- The "other side" still offers nothing to vote for.

The Dixie Chicks are part of the vast right wing conspiracy to turn Blue State Liberals into country music loving, RC Cola drinking, Stock Car Racing lovin, Red State Voters:)



Don't believe me?

We already have got you singing the Praises of a Hillbilly from Arkansas:eek:

;)

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=4251880

Good find, Sleepy. I would have suspected that might be a possibility, but had no evidence.

Bartop, where are the new concerts being added to the tour? I could see them perhaps drawing crowds in NYC or San Fran or other such liberal leaning places.

Yes, where is this great ground swell of support? Forget the comment about being ashamed that Bush comes from Texas- how about the latest "why do we have to be patriotic?" comment?

I still don't see it.

We saw them live just after the initial blow up. Personally I could care less who they like/dislike politically. It was a fun show.

But although I agree with them, and they do have the right to say whatever they want. I also agree that fans who disagree and don't buy their product have the right to do that as well. What kind of bothers me is the apparent "blackball" by country radio. Now honestly I can't say if that's a management dicision based on politics or lack of fan demand but considering how many albums have sold with apparently little or no country airplay it seems a bit odd.

Personally I think it's fine if celebrities want to show their political affiliations but there is some consequence for doing so. And I guess that's the price you pay for going public with your opinions if you are a public persona. In my opinion the controversy around their initial statments was way overblown and silly, I mean death threats? Just don't buy their product.

Why do they have to be? It's not a law.

No- not a law- but just like you said- they go public they deal with the consequences.

I like pie

So, death threats are an appropriate response to stating your political opinions?

Bizarro world.:rolleyes:

No; and no one said they were.

Personally, I don't understand making commercial and entertainment decisions based on the political opinions of the person on the other side.

Refusing to do business with a person because they are a Republican/Democrat is, to me, just as silly as refusing to so because they are black/Hindi. So, to me, if you like their music not knowing their political persuasion it is silly to stop liking it because you learned what it was. It is just as silly the people who now claim to like them simply because of their political persuasion.

Of course, everybody has that right. And nobody really cares what I find silly. All I know is Lani likes their music and that means I'm forced to listen to it at times as well. It tends to fall on the dislike side of my general musical indifference.

I'm hardly an expert on the concert scene, but from what I know it seems hardly surprising that someone might go to one and end up hearing a political opinion or two.

No, I guess the "you go public, you deal with the consequences" isn't exactly an endorsement of such behaviour, but neither is it a condemnation.:rolleyes:

...but the center point of this discussion was never about the death threats...that was just a side thrown in at the end of one post. Unless the post was quoted(which it wasn't) I don't see why a condemnation would be required. Clearly(at least to me anyway) the "go public and deal" comment was regarding the commercial consequences. Nothing bizzaro about that.

:)

Wow. I'm having dejvu from a conversation earlier today.

Leo - Once again I thank you for bringing intelligent arguments to the discussion instead of just getting all huffy. And there have been added shows in more liberal markets such as Chicago, Phildelphia and Toronto. Source Date: June 9th.

Katie, I think the blackball by the country world is almost amusing. But considering the country music foundation lays, I'm not suprised. The pop world has been welcoming and they may have found a new market.

It makes me so happy that a group who received death threats over comments they made (al-beit in another country) has stood their ground and has come back, regardless of what people think of them. I'd be so disappointed if they just "shut up" because another group of people with different views then them said so. And it makes me happy that their album sales are strong, they are adding shows and have risen to the #1 spot on music stations. The "liberal voice" is gaining steam. I have hope.

And on that note, I just got home from a wonderful, exhausting day at the park with a great group of people and I am going to bed.

Good night!

ok

Source

I'm wondering if they would have received so much backlash if they were the Dixie Dudes.

Shouldn't those country music fans that proudly wave treasonous confederate flags and laud rebels applaud the Dixie Chicks? :D

I don't believe it would make an iota of difference.

I wonder...

You know the conservatie Christian Baptists. Bad enough to speak out against the republican President, but since women aren't allowed to speak in general to the Bapists, it makes it inexcusable.

Seriously, I don't think gender makes a difference.

Typical assumption.

Because I don't type a condemnation- you assume a negative.

It's beneath me to even answer this.

I'm so glad you're here.

Wow! A meeting of the LoT liberals (nearly) all in one place at one time, and we miss the gathering of the LoT conservatives online! That's pretty funny.

I don't know if all the conservatives here gathering would really qualify as a meet. Smallest meet in LoT history.

We went into Iraq for sketchy reasons, Iraq is now a mess, Bush's ratings are in the toilet because of it... Why get mad at the Dixie Chicks? They were right to oppose him prior to the Iraq war. I can't believe they are paying some sort of price for being anti-war.

But I agree with Margaret Cho in saying, 'Uh, you're the Dixie Chicks...' :D

I can. Look at who their primary audience is.

So, you hate Neil Young, Bruce Springstein, Green Day and all those other war protest singers, too?
Okay, to use a scaeagles argument, if they lambasted Clinton, they'd be just fine. So, it's not about disrespecting the president or a state or being unpatriotic, it's disrespecting a right wing president and his right wing state... So one could say that the Dixie Chicks aren't anti-American, they're anti-right wing.

They aren't the only artists to speak out against Bush, though. So are these people just upset because some of their own are rebelling?

Hate? No. Choose to purchase their product? No. Same with Babs Streisand, Dave Matthews, Madonna, and countless others.

And actually, I do agree with that, GC, regarding lambasting Clinton - to an extent.

I have no desire, and I would suspect most people are this way, for my entertainment choices to lecture me on politics. They have their political viewpoints, which is fine. I just have no desire to go to a concert, where I want to hear music, and listen to a political speech or editorializing. However, the typical audience of a country music concert would rather hear a slam on a democrat than a slam on a republican.

Entertainers seem to think that because they are entertainers, their opinions on politics or social issues should hold more weight. I've never understood why. Their self importance is laughable, really. Not that their opinions always are, but that they think their opinions matter so much because they are a gifted musician.

So in response to Alex saying he doesn't understand why a political viewpoint would influence my entertainment choice, it is because it is my way, small as it is, to let them know with my discretionary dollars that I don't appreciate what they believe. There are countless Hollywood stars who I have no idea what their politics are because they make the choice to keep them quiet. They may take the money I spend on hem and contribute it to Hamas, for all I know. But ignorance is bliss in my little world of choosing where to spend my discretionary dollars.

I agree with you that entertainers think that their political opinions are golden. Bah. What do entertainers know about politics? Oh, wait. I know you're a Reagan fan... I'm kidding. I do agree that people like Sean Penn need to get a life.

And you don't own a single Dave Matthews Band CD? I'm glad I didn't go to your meet. I would have hit you with my purse. :D Not all of Dave's music is political. In fact, a lot of it is serene. And if one doesn't like his song entitled '#41' or 'Crush' they are made of stone... :)

Apparently not, as you just did.

Not even a one. No desire to. I've never heard those songs.

Of course, you need to understand something about me. I went to school on a music scholarship. Not because I wanted to study music, but because I wanted the no-cost degree. Music was a hobby that became incredibly unenjoyable because of studying it for four long years. Burned me out. Music is no longer music to me. It is a series of mathematical sequences to be analyzed. The only time I listen to music is when I'm on my elliptical.

:GC shakes his head: "Just ain't fittin', just ain't fittin'..."
:D

I responded to the post- but not to the ridiculous comment nor the rolling eyes. I don't have to defend a damn thing to any of you- especially when you engage in such nasty commentary.

Why is it that we all can have a good discussion until the same thing always happens? So predictable!

Personally, I believe questioning authority IS a Patriotic act. I'd rather have people asking the hard questions then people just following along like sheep.

Baaa.

NA, I agree with you, but so much goes into context. If the Dixie Chicks went on Larry King and said, you know, we don't agree with the Iraq war and here is why, I doubt many would have a problem. However, the Dixie Chicks went on stage and said they are embarrassed to be from the Texas because of Bush. Big difference, and that moves it from dissent or questioning what is being done to a more personal attack. That's going to turn a lot of people off.

They made it pesonal. Then they complain that a large portion of their fan base has made it personal with them.

I just love how people like Coulter and Limbaugh can say such horrible, vicious things (always under the guise of sarcastic humor) and their ratings go up, while Maines says something as relatively innocuous as she did and suddenly it's treason.

I'm also trying to figure out what about my post was particularily nasty. :rolleyes:

Because your a lib. It's what you do.;)

I don't think anyone has called "treason", but of course I could be mistaken not having followed the DCs and their little melodrama very closely.

Profession and Expectations.

What is expected of political commentators? To make political comments. I would stop listening to Rush should he decide to spend much of his air time singing songs he had written. Likewise, I'm not really interested in political commentary from a musician.

I find Leno to be pretty funny in his political humor at times. It's what I expect, and he slams on Bush all the time. Profession - comedian. Expectations - political humor.

I'm not sure about the Dixie Chicks, but I sure am digging the new Neko Case CD.

Leo, I guess I just don't see what's wrong with that kind of comment. If I was from Texas, I'd be embarassed too. I think it is reassuring to the rest of the world that no all Americans feel so fondly about our president. Saying something publically shouldn't be such a "crime".

Besides, this happened in 2003. Get over it idiots.

In a recent interview with the Dixie Chicks there was an example of a woman holding up her 2 year old child to a camera and saying "screw 'em, then telling her child to say "screw 'em". Nice.

Great interview.

Musicians have always addressed politics. That's what MOST good artists do - they comment on the times.

I think if I were to judge every entertainment venue based on the politics of those involved, it would be chaos. Typically I don't worry too much about the players and just look at the product. Otherwise where does it all stop? No domino's due to their owners stance on abortion? No French wine because their soccer player headbutted that nice Italian boy?

As for the Dixie Chicks, I think the only real issue there was time and place. It's fine for me to pick on my little brother and call him a twit in public, but if you do it, watch out. They lambasted old chicken legs on foreign soil right before the start of a war of aggression. Had they done the same thing in Atlanta or New Jersey it would never have become an issue.

If they had held that same child up and told them to say "screw Bush" why is it I think some people here would find that cute?

We deal in facts and reality here. You can say that YOU think some people would find that cute, but you could just be delusional. That incident hasn't happened, but the incident with the DC did.

I think it says great things about us that they did say that on foreign soil, without fear of reprisal from our government, which may have been naive of them given the repressive nature of said government these days. Weren't they in England at the time? All the better- we fought and won several wars against Britain to obtain the right to do just as they did. Besides, plenty of English celebs come over here and knock their own government- we don't seem to mind it when that happens. If a comment by the Dixie Chicks threatened to undermine our war efforts, then perhaps we shouldn't go into war while in such a feeble state.

Were there such claims? Again, a sincere question, I don't know.

I think comments from political leaders can undermine the war effort, but to say the DCs can do so gives the DCs way too much credit.

What bothered me the most about all the bruhaha was a remark was made about the president. To me it sounded like an off the cuff remark. It got picked up by the media and blown totally out of proportion. Then the argument was made that we were going to war and you "can't criticize the President". That was what annoyed me the most, of course you can criticize him, war or not.

I can't find my picture of it but I saw with my own eyes at a San Francisco anti-war rally a five year old walking around wearing a sandwich board that said "**** Bush! He wants to kill Iraqi children just like me."

Quite a few people seemed to be very amused by it. I make no claim that anybody here would have. No real relevance, just that I've seen parents on all sides of the war issue grotesquely use their children as political mouthpieces.

It does happen, I'm sure. But, I can't imagine anyone here pimping their child like that.

I refuse to take the "blame" of the stupid choices other make make just because their political leanings are similar to mine. General You doesn't post here. ;)

Not Afraid already touched on this but, the fact is that they are artists, and a part of art is social commentary on the world they live in. It has always been this way and I hope it always will. It's not that it holds any more weight than anyone else, it's that it is, by definition, part of what artists do. I think the "self-important" part is merely a label put on them by people who disagree with their opinion.

Nobody is forcing you to agree with them, just like I don't have to agree with a country song about the glory of shoving a boot up Saddam's ass. But I don't sit around saying that Tobey Keith is "self important". Rather, I just disagree with his opinion. I appreciate that he is allowed to exercise his creative freedom. And not once have I ever heard people say that he should be boycotted or that he is unamerican. I hear that about the Dixie Chicks all the time.

And what I love most about the Dixie Chicks is that I heard over and over from the likes of Sean Hannity that their career was ruined over this and that they were traitors. Clearly, the majority of people feel differently, as is reflected by their album sales. It shows that maybe it isn't the liberals who are out of touch with reality.

Apparently country music stars are only supposed to sing about trucks, the flag and tequila making your clothes fall off.

And if that means I don't like an artists commentary, I can shout it as loudly as I want. I don't find criticism of that art to be anymore a problem than the artist expressing themselves.

And self important? Of course they are, whether I agree with their opinion or not. I find a difference in using their art to express it rather than their art leading to other platforms for expressing their political opinion. But the self importance doesn't come so much from expressing it in their art as it does from expecting what they say to be held in high esteem because they think their art makes them more an authority.

No one has said anyone shouldn't have creative freedom to do it. But why expect to be shielded from complaints and perhaps financial conquences from boycotts should what they say or do be deemed offensive by their fan base?

Maybe the style of responses that makes it different, Scaeagles. I don't go around calling Toby Keith a murderer and traitor, and I don't wish to harm his career. It just seems like (generally speaking) the conservative response is rather harsher than warranted.

Well put.

There is definitely a difference between saying "I disagree with your view so I won't give you any money" and "you shouldn't talk about politics at a concert."

The former is something I wouldn't do but I suppose has some defense. The latter will just quickly reveal the speaker as a hypocrite as they've simply ignored it all the times politics was brought up at a concert but they agreed with it.

I haven't been to a concert since 1986.

Who was it? :) I gotta know.

Mormon Tabernacle Choir

For me it was Lisa Lisa....87'


:blush:

That was, of course, a joke. It wasn't the M.T. Choir.

During college from 86-90, being that I was a music major, I performed in and attended several concerts, but it's a tad different in context than what one considers to be a concert in this thread.

Well, I bought it. :D

But I've never heard any artist proclaim that they are the end all authority on anything or that they expect to be taken more seriously than a non-artist. They are just expressing their views.

When you post, I don't think "Oh, Leo thinks he is a self -appointed authority on everything. Man, he sure is full of himself". I am able to recognize the fact that you are expressing your opinion. I see no need to attach all the other preconceptions. So, why is it, when someone is an artist, they are only expected to express their opinions in their songs and nowhere else?

I think these labels only surface when one disagrees with the opinion of the person they are labeling. If you were to hear an artist say, "I support the war and this president in all that they do", would you honestly consider them to be a self-important, grandstanding, self appointed authority?

And as far as them sticking to their particular medium, why should their opinions be stifled in another platform, whether it be talking to a crowd or doing an interview? Why are they somehow out of bounds? Chances are, if they wrote a song about how they feel about the war, they are going to have the same opinion in other forums. Should you only express your political views in the area of computer programming but not on a message board? Does that make you self-important?

In my opinion, no it does not.

And if it is ok to speak politically when it meshes with the outlook of the audience it seems safe to say that an anti-Bush message probably played pretty well to a UK audience.

I suppose it depends on presentation. Are you going to tell me that Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Madonna, Barbara Streisand, blah, blah, blah, don't consider themselves to be far superior in intelligence than anyone else?

Many people here probably think I am full of myself. But this is a forum for debate and discussion. Many of these celebrities don't wish to be challanged or to debate or to have to defend positions. Criticism of them and/or their view is always uncalled for. While I am opinionated, I want to discuss and hear what you think. I don't think I'm smarter than any other poster here. NA being the exception that makes the rule.:)

Edited to add: I feel like I'm being pulled down a road that I'm not intending to go down. If someone wants to express themselves politically at a concert, fine. I just don't really want to hear it. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to go hear a performance of Tchaikovsky's 6th where the conductor stops the performace to tell me he doesn't like a minimum wage increase. It's OK that performers/artists do. It's also OK that fans don't want to hear it and therefore boycott silently, as I do, or shout about i from the rooftops, trying to rally others to their cause. This is all I'm saying.

Interesting, you only listed celebrities who have spoken out on the liberal side of issues.

No Charlton Heston, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dennis Miller, Tom Selleck, or Larry Miller.

No, I doubt they think they are smarter than everyone else. They just think they are right. We are all allowed to argue for the causes we believe in and promote them to the best of our abilities. Just because they happen to be in a position where more people are interested (rightly or wrongly) in listening isn't an argument that they should shut up.

I didn't say they should shut up. I just said I don't want to go to a concert and listen to political commentary. I just said that if they want to speak their minds they should expect a possible backlash from the fan base that doesn't like it.

If I wasn't interested in listening to opinions different than mine, I wouldn't post here, because about 90% of the political opinions posted vary from about.

True, I didn't list any conservatives. Charleton Heston has certainly been given grief by the anti gun lobby, has he not? Arnold is a governor. He kind of has to speak out. I've never bothered to listen to what Tom Selleck or either of the Millers has to say. However, I suppose I can justify my selection in that the majority of the Hollywood crowd seems to be on the left. Please note the word "seems".

The Dixie Chicks concert I went to was in Phoenix right after all this happened. There were no political comments made. One quick reference to "the controversy" was all that was said about it. I think it was a comment made for the audience at the time, which was in London.

After that they did come out and do interviews etc in which they expresses their political opinions. But I don't they made a habit of doint it during their shows.

As one who goes to concerts pretty regularly, I haven't been to a concert in ages where there WASN'T political commentary of some kind. Artists speak about society and politics is a HUGE part os life. It could be that there are artists out there who don't "imbibe" in social commentary and I just don't see them. It would be fair to say that I am just not attracted to artists that only deal in hearts and flowers.

It really was the MTC, wasn't it, Leo?
I went to see Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam with Full Force in '87. In Honolulu. I'm embarassed as well. :D

My last concert was Madonna.
:)

Rob Zombie here baby!

my ears are still ringing.


:evil:

(omg, I just realized the above is incorrect. last concert I attended was The Billy's!!!! )

My last concert was Garbage, last summer. So much fun! :)

Oops, I have nothing to add regarding the Dixie Chicks. I'm the farthest thing from a fan, really. My late best friend enjoyed them bunches, and another dear friend of mine played them once for me. I tried. I really, really did. Sort of. Okay, kinda. Maybe not so much. I was like, "The only instruments missing are a washboard & the jug. With XXX on the side". Only a Country Bear can keep my interest that way. It's nothing against the Chicks, God bless 'em. :)

Goodbye Earl, hello Morrissey. That's music to my ears! ;)

And that is my only point, your disgust with the actions of certain celebrities "seems" to be more their liberal point of view than the fact that they chose to express it at a concert. Had they all said "God Bless the USA", I doubt you would feel that they deserved to be labeled self-important and full of themselves. Otherwise, the list of entertainers you feel are deserving of this scorn would be a little more evenly distributed between those on the left and those on the right.

I love that song! :p I also love The Angry American by Toby Keith and I still like Reba (and Toby) and Gretchen Wilson. All people who "hate" the Dixie Chicks.

I guess I'm going to hell now. That's ok. Thinking for myself is worth it.

Only sheep go to heaven? Can I play the rude assumption game too?

I think you invented it.

I haven't been to a concert in so long that I can't remember what the last one was. Most just make me feel old. *sigh*

Really, I would swear it had a LoT Trademark on it.

Only when you're posting, dear.

Dear in the headlights!

I like the Chicks. I think the whole "burn/destroy their albums" after their Bush comments was a bit extreme.

I beg to differ... The biggest thing "the other side" has going for it is that they aren't the ones ruining... er... running things right now! :cheers:

OO, that was highbrow. You're dropping bait like you were on a bass fishing show- do you have a point other than your barbed tounge?

so, the idea is not to have someone to vote FOR it's to have someone to vote AGAINST? Do you really think that will win elections?

None.

I'm just experiencing what it is like to play the game. It's fun for a bit, but then it gets kind of boring. I can't see how anyone can keep this up for very long.

I don't like bass fishing shows.

Now I am thinking about shaping my eyebrows...

Stuff on my monitor again- warn a girl next time, okay?


"You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Not Afraid again."

ah-

yeah- just ah.....not a game I am inclined to play- not at all sure why you chose to serve up a volley. Hope you were amused- momentarily- by your game.

Now, I have stuff on my monitor.

Is this thread dead, or does someone have to invoke the name of a certain German dictator first?

Now now, We needn't drag the Kaiser into all this

How did this degenerate into an HMO discussion;)

Kaiser rolls with Roast Beed and Horseradish. I'm hungry!

Can we ignore negative attention seeking please? I thought we mastered that art by now.

And now I am hungry.

So what dictator-themed snack will you be eating tonight? Or will you have the Dixie Chick'n Sandwich?

Red Osier!

I had left over veggie Pad Thai (no egg). But a Dixie Chick'n sammich sounds yummy. Have you had any veggie Chick'n patties?

Nope. No Chicken, real or fake. But it's not a political thing for me.

That will now be known as Pol Pot Pad Thai

Based on the polls, it will in November.

People are fed-up with what's been going on. The Republican leadership will only have itself to blame if they lose one or both houses.

Jimminy Crickets! In the time it takes me to post ONE message, another whole page - and the discussion has turned to food. How's a girl supposed to keep up?!?

Edited to add: Never mind, I see I just missed reading the last page. Silly me!

Well, there's something to be said about returning a thread back to topic.

Don't you just hate it when someone messes up your nice little derail?

Based on the polls that matter, which are not the national opinion polls generally trumpeted in the press, don't get you're hopes up for either house changing control in November.

ElectionProjection was very good at forecasting the 2004 results and so far they predict a 2 seat gain in the Senate and a 7 seat gain in the House. Neither of which is nearly enough to regain control for the Democrats. The big swing, however, will probably be in governorships. Election Predictions seems to be good at keeping a neutral political point of view but their analysis isn't much tested yet. They're a bit more optimistic than ElectionProjection but still don't see either house going to the Democrats.

The problem with looking at the national polls is that they don't reflect our gerrymandered reality. San Francisco can move from 70% anti-Bush to 100% anti-Bush and not one House or Senate seat will necessarily change hands. Similarly, Alabama's 3rd district could go from 90% pro-Bush to 30% pro-Bush and it probably wouldn't signal a change in party victory at the state office level. It also doesn't change the fact that even if half of all registered Republicans report that they think Republicans aren't going to do well, most of them will still not vote for a Democrat (and keep in mind that quite a few people are mad at their office-holders for not being conservative enough).

Things could certainly change, but right now I don't see much hope for the Democrats getting either house back in November. Their hopes are much stronger in 2008 when the presidential ticket has a much stronger draft the lower offices can work with.

2008 Alex(which I am sure you meant).

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't even like saying 2008. That's almost to the sequal to 2001. Do you know how far into the future 2001 was? And how much farther 2010 was? The future is simultaneously cooler than I ever imagined and fundamentally disappointing.

While I see your point- I don't think the numbers work out. I don't think enough seats are up for grabs in areas that are going to make much difference.

How many governorships are up for grabs? That is often seen as an indication.

I know I will be thrilled to see a change in ours out here- can't stand Owens.

(ah yes, like Alex said)

I do wonder who is going to run for POTUS- on both tickets. Should be fascinating to watch-

(I wonder what polls- can those things ever be trusted?)

But July 11th is just around the corner. ;)

Current projections suggest Republicans will lose 6-8 governorships.

I don't know what you're talking about either.

Why, it's on the calendar!

I knew what you were talking about in the sense that I knew what you were talking about. But I don't know what you were talking about in the sense that I no longer see why you were saying it.

In which states?
...and are any dem Gov's at risk?

Honestly - where are our jet packs?

...and flying cars!

I'm so glad I quoted for historical accuracy. ;)

Here's one set of predictions based on current state polling.

It has the Democrats gaining Alaska, Colorado, Arkansas, Ohio, New York, Maryland, and Connecticut. Currently no gains are projected for the Republicans.

There are no gubornatorial races in Washington, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Indiana, Kentucky, West Viriginia, Virginia, North Carolina, or New Jersey. All other states are potentially up for grabs.

Many of the states are very close and could easily change before November. Of the five currently project Democrat gains only in New York and Ohio is the Democratic candidate well in the lead. Massachusetts is probably only still close because they haven't had their primaries yet and once they do it seems reasonable to assume a quick Democratic swing (how in the world did Massachusetts end up with a Republican governor?).

Your word against mine. Is it really so unlikely to assume that in an effort to dodge your typo-laden past you're attempting to cast doubt on the typographical erudition of others?

Alex made a typo. Alex made a typo.

Oh wait, maybe I shouldn't taunt Alex. He'll probably make MA a lot harder next time.

Oh well. Alex made a typo. Alex made a typo.

Thanks-

A dem winning in NY is moot- the republicans there are just like dems (for the most part)- so that would be almost meaningless. Same with alot of eastern states-

Course I am in CO- so I will be watching that one closely. Illegal immigration is a big one out here so I expect that to be a heavily discussed issue. I suspect CO will stay republican for Gov- but it's early.

I fully accept my typo-laden past, present and future, but I will always do what I can to add to the humor of the board - even at your expense. Besised, it WAS funny. Admit it. ;)

..and remember to hold the spirit of typos in your heart, the whole year thru;)

I think it's safe to say that I will anger political parties, pundits, and performers world-wide when I note that I like to put peanut butter on both hot dogs and hamburgers. Yum!

I'm glad I already ate. ;)

Wooo! NY! I know Spitzer's running. His ads are already on. But what does that have to do with the Dixie Chicks?

Shouldn't this discussion be more about whether or not celebs should use their status for politics and/or charity? There was a very interesting analysis of this in a recent Premiere magazine.

Are you suggesting the content of the discussion should relate to the title of the thread? that's crazy talk :)

Ah....yes, I suppose.

A lot of this comes from a perspective of assumptions I have based on the public persona of the celebrity in question. Do they walk the walk they talk about or is it an Animal Farm case of all are created equal but some are more equal than others? When Al Gore stops flying on private jumbo jets half way across the world to give a 2 hour speech, perhaps I'll start listening to him regarding the evils of burning fossil fuels. I think a satillite link would work quite well.

A couple of examples - Martin Sheen spent a night on a sewer grate so he would know what it was like to be homeless. HAH! Big flippin' deal. He knows he has his multi million dollar mansion (presumably...at least a very nice home) to go to in the morning. The homeless don't have that, so he knows squat and it was a ridiculous publicuty stunt. Bono, on the other hand, takes his charitable work with Africa very, very seriously and while I have no idea what he gives to his own causes, I would suspect (and S4Steph can pobably fill in the details) it is quite extensive.

So....I suppose I make a lot of assumptions based on what I'm seeing and/or reading. But I don't know how else to be, really. If a celebrity is going to use their public status to voice opinions or concerns, I need to see that they take such things seriously in their own lives before I can begin to take them seriously.

Dixie Chicks Cancel Concerts due to slow ticket sales

From the same article:
So, they're not dropping the number of shows. They just have more Canadian venues now.

This goes with my theory that they'll be adding more dates in areas that are more anti Bush and dropping dates in areas that are not. It's all about ticket sales. There's talk here in Phoenix that they'll end up dropping that show all together because ticket sales aren't just slow, they are practically non existant.

Makes sense. Why waste your time where you're not wanted.

Yep. Capitalism in action. Both sides are going to attempt to spin. The Dixie Chicks management will be saying something like "demand is so great in these areas that we can't put off our fans" and the disgruntled will be saying "see - America doesn't want them so they're going to Canada".

It just is what it is.

And their song Not Ready to Make Nice is still topping the charts.

They just need to book into a smaller venue - makes for a better show anyway.

And it keeps going..... and going.....

10th stragiht week of the #1 video.

Now I suppose by now some of you are wondering why I still care. It's record breaking and these rankings are done by the future.

There is hope, there will be a swing in 08.

Funny thing is that you can't call this issue controversial in LA: there are no country stations left.

Despite the fact that Los Angeles is the largest country music purchasing section of the country.

KFRG is still on the air. Or it was as of last night.

KZLA is fighting to get back on the air. Sean Parr has been working his butt off to get the station changed back.

And there is 95.7 (or something like that, I need to store it) that can still be heard.

....keep hoping.

(based on a song?)

And again. Totally blew the record out of the water.

And Nephy, yes a song. The people who vote on this stuff are the future, and they are pissed.

I find it hard to believe that the amount of records sold or the numbers of weeks a song has been on a chart is relevant at all politically.

I listen to a conservative talk radio station in Phoenix. It is the number one station in terms of ratings - not just talk, but any format - in the entire Phoenix metro area.

Yet we have a Democrat governor and a Democrat mayor.

The Democrats carry an unfair burden in this regard. The Republicans can trot out any number of violent, drunk/addicted and multiply divorced country stars, actors and talk show hosts at their events to demonstrate that they are the party that represent the people and traditional values. Why? Because a form of hypocrisy is at the heart of the lives of the Christian base: the need to embrace the moral life with the convenient understanding that we all fall perilously short.

W taps into that with his past drinking and drug problems. Clinton, who was a genuinely religious man while also being a complete dog, tapped into it as well, as did Reagan who preached family values while being completely uncomfortable walking the walk in his own life. By contrast, Gore and Bush, Sr., who seemed to live easy, committed lives, alienated a lot of people. (After Gore lost, there were all these pictures of him dancing, partying and sweating after he conceded. Everybody said, "Where was that guy?")

Because the Democratic party's celebrities and base have not mastered the theme of "doing the best you can" while clearly doing the opposite, they take a lot of heat.

How interesting. I look at the actions taken, but yet you have the ability to look at the hearts of those involved.

For example, you know that Clinton was a genuinely religious man. You know this how? Because he was filmed coming out of church after the Monica story broke?

You also seem to know that Reagan was completely uncomfortable with his Christian professions.

I do not call it hypocrisy for me, as a member of the Christian base you reference, to aspire to living a better life while understanding that I need to improve. Rather than citing that as hypocrisy, I would regard it as an understanding of my limited ability as a human to be good and do good. Is it a bad thing to wish to be better than I am? It is no "convenient understanding". It is a fact that I am not as good a person as I should be.

The more I type, the more insulting I find your whole premise to be.

Okay. "By all accounts," Clinton was a genuinely religious man, or, at least as genuinely religious as the next fellow. He certainly presented himself as such, which is really all that matters. I also didn't say Reagan was uncomfortable with his religion; I said he was not close to his children or emotionally available to them, a point I don't think anyone disputes. I also do not question the virtues of a humble approach to life, Christian or otherwise, and the recognition of human fallibility. You were the one who called Democratic celebrities hypocrites for their inability to fully walk the walk. You apparently do not disagree that the Republican party is happy to allign itself with celebrities who are drunk, abusive and who produce coarsening entertainments as long as those celebrities come from the world that appeals to the base (country music, action films, NASCAR, pro wrestling). I offered an explanation for why the base embraces these stunts while, out of the other side of its mouth, the base has no problem criticizing "Hollywood," when "Hollywood" is defined as the smug left that admits no self-doubt. If you have a better explanation, please share it.

To address Reagan and his children, I would suppose his adopted son Michael would disagree with you wholeheartedly. His other children? Probably not.

I am not suggesting that either republicans or democrats are without faults? Not in the least. There are plenty of drunk and abusive republicans. There are plenty of drunk and abusive democrats.

What I am referring to is, say, a Martin Sheen. He seems to think that because he can go sleep on a sewer grate for a night that he understands what it means to be homeless. Or a group including Barbara Streisand that goes on a "rolling hunger strike" where they skip a meal in protest to the war, and then pass it along to the next in line while just having a bigger dinner. Publicity stunts. I am sure republican celebrities do the same, but far more fall on the left side of the aisle politically, so it is more evident (at least to me).

There are so many who do good. Take Bono. Left side of political spectrum. Quietly goes about his business of providing real assistance to the needy in Africa, both in fund raising, soliticiting political assistance from elected leaders, and using his own money. I have no idea where John Travolta falls politically, but after Katrina he took his own money and own 737 and flew tons of supplies to people who needed it.

So, no, I do no criticize "Hollywood" as whole. But most of Hollywood is on the left side of the spectrum, so when there are stunts from the outspoken in Hollywood, my criticism falls on the left.

I do no expect anyone to "fully" walk the walk. What I don't like is the animal farm approach of someone telling someone else what they can do while doing he opposite themselves. Robert Redford - a huge environmentalist, except when is comes to his own property in Colorado, where clearing trees to build ski slopes is fine (my details on that are a bit sketchy, bu if I recall correctly i is something similar to that).

Yeah- people are pissed- but they are NOT falling over into the democrat side by any means at ALL- in fact polls indicate BOTH parties in the dog house.

So if you think this anger is going to add votes to the dem side I think you are in for a rude awakening-the people who are as angry as you were not conservative voters in the first place.

My point has been all along that the up and comming generation of voters is more understanding of the *real* world around them, aware of the catestropic fvck-ups of this administration and will make a difference. The day of the right-wing "rights-removing" administration are about to be a thing of the past.

We're about to see a swing in the leanings of this country; the "we're going to protect you by spying on you" and "we're going to let our religion dictate your rights" has worn it's welcome.

we'll see.

I doubt it- of course I disagree with your premise- but I don't think you are going to see any landslide towards the left by any means.

I'm just keeping my fingers crosss for a landslide towards the middle.

Oh, I think that has already happened. I just think that to a great extent the middle has abandoned the political process because regardless of whether it is from the left or the right they hate listening to the screeching righteous indignation.

And I wouldn't read much into the success/failure of the Dixie Chicks. Perhaps all that has happened is that by repeatedly playing her fawning interview, Terry Gross has successfully marketed the Dixie Chicks to the NPR set. They, for the most part, are already on one side of the issue and wouldn't represent any kind of demographic shift.

Kind of like when Christopher Hitchens stopped being a liberal and became a conservative. He went from X number of readers to Y number of readers but that isn't reflective of anybody other than Christopher Hitchens changing his mind (Arianna Huffington did the same thing in the opposite direction).

A non-politcal comment on the Dixie Chicks.

I think one of the reasons they may not be getting much airplay of their latest album (if the one single I heard is any indication) is that it ain't country: it is pop music pure and simple. There isn't the slightest bit of country to it. It is less country than Shania Twain.

I'm not saying it is good or bad ('though it ain't my cup of tea); I'm just saying that it ISN'T country.