Celeberty Presidents? Umm...No, Please
Name recognition is an important thing for any candidate for president. But should we start looking at those who already have a high amount of name recognition, rather then those who have to build it?
Celeberties actually going into politics just sounds like a bad idea. Even some that don't have any negative publicity or known political afiliation, like Bono of U2, I can't really see as good presidents. They also do a much better job in the entertainment industry for their respective causes then they probably would as a political figure.
But then again, most celeberties that would run would likely be already deep in politics as it is. Warren Beatty is attempting to run against the "Goven-ator", and only neck and neck to my knowledge (I believe he is behind, but I don't keep track of California politics much).
Then there's some like Tim Robbins who is already steeped into politics, and his politics are well known (see Bob Roberts, the movie).
ABCNews quoted Oprah (here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=1371339 ) that while many would vote for her, she is declining to run. As much as I don't mind her political activities, I just wouldn't trust her to run the country.
The only celeberty that I can think of that I would actually vote for is Jon Stewart. I wouldn't elect him for his ability to run, but his ability to rise above much of the political hackery that is still about. He's a person who calls it like it is, and points out the rediculous things that politicians say often in anger. I can see his lack of spin and unspinning politicians on both sides to be a very positive thing, one that would last longer then his theoretical political career. The trick is, he would just have to last the four years of the presidency, and not suck doing it.
I do fear that it would become a problem. I already oppose Hillary Clinton running in 2008 just due to the fact that in nearly two decades, we have always seen either a Bush or a Clinton in office; we need new blood in that office. If a celeberty wins a presidential election, the same thing may happen, where one would have to be successful in DC and Hollywood to be president. We just don't need that.
Celeberties actually going into politics just sounds like a bad idea. Even some that don't have any negative publicity or known political afiliation, like Bono of U2, I can't really see as good presidents. They also do a much better job in the entertainment industry for their respective causes then they probably would as a political figure.
But then again, most celeberties that would run would likely be already deep in politics as it is. Warren Beatty is attempting to run against the "Goven-ator", and only neck and neck to my knowledge (I believe he is behind, but I don't keep track of California politics much).
Then there's some like Tim Robbins who is already steeped into politics, and his politics are well known (see Bob Roberts, the movie).
ABCNews quoted Oprah (here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/stor
The only celeberty that I can think of that I would actually vote for is Jon Stewart. I wouldn't elect him for his ability to run, but his ability to rise above much of the political hackery that is still about. He's a person who calls it like it is, and points out the rediculous things that politicians say often in anger. I can see his lack of spin and unspinning politicians on both sides to be a very positive thing, one that would last longer then his theoretical political career. The trick is, he would just have to last the four years of the presidency, and not suck doing it.
I do fear that it would become a problem. I already oppose Hillary Clinton running in 2008 just due to the fact that in nearly two decades, we have always seen either a Bush or a Clinton in office; we need new blood in that office. If a celeberty wins a presidential election, the same thing may happen, where one would have to be successful in DC and Hollywood to be president. We just don't need that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home