Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Who?
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, January 15, 2006

Talk about living in a bubble:
Movie star George Clooney is convinced he ruined John Kerry's chances in the race for US president in 2004 - by snubbing an invitation and hurting his feelings.

The Ocean's Twelve actor was one of several screen stars invited to ride on Kerry's election train, but it all went downhill for the Democrat when Clooney stayed away. He recalls, "Kerry asked me to ride on his train - he had a train going cross-country after he was nominated and some actors went on board.

"I called him and explained that I couldn't do it. I'd hurt him. I'd actually caused him harm at the polls."
Get over yourself, Mr. Clooney. You were a non-factor despite your titanic ego and delusions of grandeur. Talk about insufferable.

Amazing.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Just more backwards magical thinking, of the same type as "I won the game when I wore these socks, so if I don’t wash them, I’ll never lose!"
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
What is amazing it’s that pseudo quote. George Clooney has said on numerous times that he didn’t go on board of that train because otherwise it would have hurt John Kerry or any other candidate. This is the reason why he didn’t officially support his own father. It would have been very strange if he did make that statement to Contact Music, the very same site which has reported so many false rumours about one celibrity or another. I wouldn’t take much more credit on this one.

 
Written By: bird
URL: http://
I think the quote’s been misinterpreted, that Clooney’s saying his presence would have hurt Kerry, not that his absence did. The difference comes in the tense of a single word:

" "I called him and explained that I couldn’t do it.

"I’d hurt him. I’d actually caused him harm at the polls."

Take the "d" off of of "caused" and you have something more logical — Clooney’s presence would hurt Kerry, wrapping Kerry in Hollywood would prove painful at the polls.
 
Written By: Ezra
URL: http://ezraklein.typepad.com
Clooney is basically a B or C grade actor still capitalizing on his ER years. Perfect for the Surrender Monkeys!
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
Whether Clooney means that he did hurt Kerry by his presence or would have hurt Kerry by his presence, the point is the same: who in their right minds would say either, "Well, I WAS going to vote for Kerry, but that Clooney guy likes him, so I won’t" or "Well, I wasn’t going to vote for Kerry, but if Clooney likes him, maybe I will!" Maybe Clooney’s got some diehard fans or enemies that would do that, but I doubt they’re a significant enough population to swing the entire election, and I seriously doubt they’re concentrated in the right areas to have swung some of the closer states either way. It takes a lot of either ego or magical thinking to believe you can be personally responsible for the outcome of a presidential election.

Maybe next time Clooney can do a special Presidential interpretive dance. If he moves his arms just right, various segments of the population will be entranced and see things his way.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
Thing is, the two of them are insufferable. Can you imagine being on the same train with the both of them?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I think Ezra is right here:
Take the "d" off of of "caused" and you have something more logical — Clooney’s presence would hurt Kerry, wrapping Kerry in Hollywood would prove painful at the polls.
That interpretation makes a lot more sense, and has the benefit of internal coherence. I can’t see any potential causal mechanism by which Clooney declining to ride on Kerry’s train could hurt Kerry, but it’s perfectly logical—and, apparently, consistent with precedent—for Clooney to believe that his presence could alienate voters.
Clooney is basically a B or C grade actor still capitalizing on his ER years. Perfect for the Surrender Monkeys!
Individual mileage varies, I suppose, but I’ve always thought he was a pretty good actor. Apart from everything else, I’ve admired his selection of roles. He hasn’t gone the Richard Gere route of playing The Good Looking Romantic Lead in every movie. He’s played roles requiring some range. He was great in O Brother, for example.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Whether Clooney means that he did hurt Kerry by his presence or would have hurt Kerry by his presence, the point is the same: who in their right minds would say either ...

Precisely Hermit ... thus the title "Who"?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Whether Clooney means that he did hurt Kerry by his presence or would have hurt Kerry by his presence, the point is the same: who in their right minds would say either ...
Um, McQ would. The last time George Clooney said that "he fears celebrity endorsements could wreck their favourite candidates’ chances of victory", McQ wrote "Who knew that sort of stuff could hurt your cause, huh George?"
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
And this sign would seem to indicate somewhat widespread belief that Hollywood campaigning might have helped Bush win the ’04 election.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Um, McQ would

Um, apples and oranges, Jon. And nice selective quoting, btw.
No, I don’t think anyone minds a Hollywood type having a reasonable political view or even expressing it. Most, however, are simply in awe of the blatant cluelessness and hypocrisy they normally espouse. But I think what they mostly get tired of is the hate which is expressed by the star as a valid "political viewpoint".
That was the point of the earlier post.

So, "Who knew that sort of stuff could hurt your cause, huh George?" addressed the basic cluelessness of Clooney’s remarks and how, instead of persuading people to agree with his ideas, it probably had them simply laugh instead.

But the "cause" I was addressing in that post wasn’t Kerry’s election. And that is the cause in question in this post.

I mean does Clooney really think his participation or lack thereof played any significant part in the election? Or said another way, had he been on that train, would it have meant a Kerry win?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I mean does Clooney really think his participation or lack thereof played any significant part in the election? Or said another way, had he been on that train, would it have meant a Kerry win?
I don’t know, why don’t you look at what he said. Here is what he said on 10/4/05:
And the actor, whose father NICK CLOONEY was recently defeated in his bid to be elected the congressional representative for Kentucky, has now vowed to be a lot more politically low-key.
He says, "My father ran for congress last year (04). I couldn’t campaign for him and I knew I couldn’t, because I’d hurt him. They tried to get me to get on the JOHN KERRY train and I said, ’We’ll hurt him. They’ll use us as ’liberal’.’
Here is what he told the Sunday Mail on 12/18/05:
When his father, Kentucky television anchorman Nick Clooney, ran unsuccessfully for the US Congress last year, Clooney did not campaign despite the massive media attention he would have drawn.

"Politically, nobody wants to hear from an actor," Clooney said. "It would have been Hollywood versus the Heartland, so I stayed as far away from him as I could."

He had a similar response to a request from the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry.

"Kerry wanted me to get on the train and ride with him after he won the nomination and I was, like, ’I’m going to hurt you. Actors hurt politicians right now’."
Seems to me he is simply saying what he said before, namely, that wingers would use any support Clooney had to offer Kerry against Kerry. And they would have, of course. So he didn’t get on the train.


McQ’s position seems to be this: (1) Any Hollywood liberal who jumps aboard a political campaign is an out-of-touch egomaniac. (2) Any Hollywood liberal who stays away from a political campaign is an out-of-touch egomaniac.

Heads I win, Tails you lose.




 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
McQ’s position seems to be this: (1) Any Hollywood liberal who jumps aboard a political campaign is an out-of-touch egomaniac. (2) Any Hollywood liberal who stays away from a political campaign is an out-of-touch egomaniac.

Seriously? This is your conclusion?

Yikes.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Both sides need to praised for the partial-libertarian views — not criticized for their partial-conservativism or partial-liberalism.
 
Written By: Vishal
URL: http://vishal.khubani.net/blogs.htm
Clooney is basically a B or C grade actor still capitalizing on his ER years. Perfect for the Surrender Monkeys!

Now, I could be wrong. But something about his choice of words tells me that Mr. Teach may be letting Mr. Clooney’s ideology cloud the judgment for his work.

But like I said, I could be wrong. George Clooney may have an abundant film career, millions of adoring fans worldwide, and critically acclaimed movies…

But he’s no Tom Selleck.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Um, apples and oranges, Jon. And nice selective quoting, btw.
I don’t think I selective quoted you. What’s more...
So, "Who knew that sort of stuff could hurt your cause, huh George?" addressed the basic cluelessness of Clooney’s remarks and how, instead of persuading people to agree with his ideas, it probably had them simply laugh instead.
Seems to corroborate my own point. That Hollywood political activism can rebound negatively upon the causes for which they are agitating.
But the "cause" I was addressing in that post wasn’t Kerry’s election. And that is the cause in question in this post.
You posted a picture of a sign in Hollywood that read "4 more years. Thank you Hollywood!" That seems rather explicit concurrence with the idea that idiotic celebrity activism hurt the Kerry campaign.
I mean does Clooney really think his participation or lack thereof played any significant part in the election? Or said another way, had he been on that train, would it have meant a Kerry win?
No, and that’s a strawman. Nowhere in the story will you find Clooney saying that his participation would have played a "significant" part in the election or caused Kerry to lose. He just said that his activism might hurt Kerry.

I find that an eminently reasonable proposition and a laudably self-aware observation by a Hollywood star.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
That Hollywood political activism can rebound negatively upon the causes for which they are agitating.

Nope. Not the cause I was addressing in the post. See the word "ideas" and then consider the quote I added to the previous comment.

No, and that’s a strawman. Nowhere in the story will you find Clooney saying that his participation would have played a "significant" part in the election or caused Kerry to lose. He just said that his activism might hurt Kerry.

And that’s not anything "significant" in your world?

I find that an eminently reasonable proposition and a laudably self-aware observation by a Hollywood star.

But not significant.

I see.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And that’s not anything "significant" in your world?
Well, not in an election-changing way. His participation wouldn’t swing massive numbers of voters, but it would almost certainly create some negative blowback.

Let’s try this from a different angle: Do you believe that political activism by Clooney on behalf of Kerry would have had a negative effect? Do you think that pundits and observers would have made fun of that activism?

Frankly, in light of how often you post about Hollywood stars commenting on politics and being despised for doing it, I find it difficult to believe that you’d answer with anything but an affirmative. If not, what, exactly, was the point of all those posts criticizing Hollywood stars for their oft-misguided political activism?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Do you believe that political activism by Clooney on behalf of Kerry would have had a negative effect?

No, not really. Thus the purpose of this post. That seems to have slipped past you in your hurry to discredit me.

Frankly, in light of how often you post about Hollywood stars commenting on politics and being despised for doing it, I find it difficult to believe that you’d answer with anything but an affirmative.

Well you’re wrong, aren’t you?

If not, what, exactly, was the point of all those posts criticizing Hollywood stars for their oft-misguided political activism?

Because I choose too. Why, are you now my editor?

When is the last time I questioned that on which you post?

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Don’t be obtuse. I’m not questioning what you post, I’m questioning your point. If you do not, in fact, believe that Hollywood activism hurts "the cause", what is the point of things like "4 more Years. Thank you Hollywood!"?

What is the point of citing George Clooney saying that Hollywood activism is "dangerous" because "we hurt candidates right now" — and agreeing with him on that point — if you do not, in fact, believe that Hollywood activism actually has some negative effect on the causes they support?
That seems to have slipped past you in your hurry to discredit me.
I don’t think so. It seems to me that, in your hurry to mock Hollywood, you’re trying to have it both ways. You want to argue that the liberal celebrity activism may create "another backlash against your garbage in 2008", but simultaneously criticize celebrities who argued that it would have done so in ’04? If there was no political backlash, then how can there be another and why would Republicans thank them?

The Right has been criticizing the Hollywood Left, the Hollywood Liberals, etc, for years. It absolutely beggars belief that there would not be some basis for this criticism — that anybody could reject the notion that vocal idiotarianism would not contribute to discrediting the causes of the idiotarians. Of course it does.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Don’t be obtuse. I’m not questioning what you post, I’m questioning your point.

Don’t be an ass. You are indeed questioning what I post and I’m not going to play this game.

I don’t think so.

I do. Why not spend more time on posts and less time trying to discredit your blogging partners?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Look, if you’re not comfortable with me questioning your arguments, say so, but don’t make this personal. I questioned your argument, not your person. If you’re taking substantive criticism personally, that’s your own issue.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No you didn’t Jon. You may believe you did, but that’s not the case ... and that’s your problem. I just don’t have to put up with it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
What?!?!? How did I criticize your person? My arguments focused solely on the question of whether Hollywood activism hurt their political causes, and whether your current argument squared with your previous argument.

I have focused solely on the merits of the argument at hand. You may disagree with my argument, but don’t pretend I’m attacking you personally.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
You may disagree with my argument, but don’t pretend I’m attacking you personally.

First words of Jon’s non-personal attack:
Um, McQ would.
Then a mischaracterization of the argument in the cited post and the beating about the head of the strawman produced.

But it wasn’t personal.

Uh, yeah, right.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Mentioning your name is not a personal attack. It’s a reference to a previous argument you’d made. Hell, I wasn’t even responding to you at the time. I was responding to a comment by Wacky Hermit.

And I simply cannot accept the notion that Clooney’s "cause" was not the election. You’d started the whole thing by citing this:
"George Clooney is urging his fellow Hollywood stars to keep quiet when it comes to politics, because he fears celebrity endorsements could wreck their favourite candidates’ chances of victory."
In fact, Clooney explicitly cited just that in the very article you linked.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Mentioning your name is not a personal attack. It’s a reference to a previous argument you’d made. Hell, I wasn’t even responding to you at the time. I was responding to a comment by Wacky Hermit.

What was the reason to mention it at all?

You couldn’t make the argument otherwise?

And I simply cannot accept the notion that Clooney’s "cause" was not the election.

I really don’t care what you can "accept" or not accept, I know why I wrote the post and it had nothing to do with the Kerry campaign per se. It had to do with Cloony’s apparent desire to be taken seriously when he spoke about politics. And the entire point of the post was to say "you can’t be taken seriously when you say things like this" and I listed a number of dumb and ill-informed things he said. I then concluded, to his credit, that he may be finding out that "shut up and act" might be the best thing for him and others on the Hollywood left to do if they couldn’t do any better than the highlighted quotes.

In fact, Clooney explicitly cited just that in the very article you linked.

That doesn’t at all mean that was what I was talking about for heaven sake. I had a different angle.

And that was why I included my words from the post to try to allow you to buy a freakin’ clue:
No, I don’t think anyone minds a Hollywood type having a reasonable political view or even expressing it. Most, however, are simply in awe of the blatant cluelessness and hypocrisy they normally espouse. But I think what they mostly get tired of is the hate which is expressed by the star as a valid "political viewpoint".
THAT was my key comentary on the issue I was highlighting.

The fact that you don’t understand that, or accept that as my intent isn’t my problem.

Let’s review:

Hermit’s comment:
Whether Clooney means that he did hurt Kerry by his presence or would have hurt Kerry by his presence, the point is the same: who in their right minds would say either ...
Jon’s comment:
Um, McQ would. The last time George Clooney said that "he fears celebrity endorsements could wreck their favourite candidates’ chances of victory", McQ wrote "Who knew that sort of stuff could hurt your cause, huh George?"
So with the mischaracterization of what I was talking about in the post, what argument are you trying to "disagree" with, Jon?

You spent how much time dredging up and then mischaracterizing those posts to argue what?

"Who in their right mind would say either?"

"Oh, McQ would."

But it’s not a personal attack, is it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
No, it’s not a personal attack, and repeating it doesn’t make it so. I brought up the fact that you’d made that argument because WH asked "who in their right minds" would make that argument, and I thought that the fact that the argument had been made close to home by a member of this very blog was relevant. I agreed with the argument I said you made.

Are you really saying that it’s a personal attack when I cite you making an argument with which I agree?
I know why I wrote the post and it had nothing to do with the Kerry campaign per se. It had to do with Cloony’s apparent desire to be taken seriously when he spoke about politics.
I think it’s plainly obvious that Clooney’s "cause" was the election of favored political candidates. I call it "obvious" because the first sentence in the story you cited said Clooney was speaking out "because he fears celebrity endorsements could wreck their favourite candidates’ chances of victory". It’s rather clear that Clooney’s "cause" was electing politicians he favored. If you want to argue that you’d misread the statement, you certainly may, but there’s just no way to read that story any other way. If you had a different angle, that’s one thing, but you cited Clooney’s "cause" and there’s no reason to believe that Clooney’s "cause" was being taken seriously except insofar as it helped his candidate.

To the quote you cited, absolutely....people get tired of listening to celebrities espouse silly views. But Clooney only commented about that in regards to the effect it had on their candidates.
So with the mischaracterization of what I was talking about in the post, what argument are you trying to "disagree" with, Jon?
With the argument that Clooney could not have "have hurt Kerry by his presence" and that nobody in their "right mind" would make that argument. The fact that the Right throws around terms like "Hollywood liberals" or "Hollywood elite" and criticizes Democrats for being connected with those celebrities is plenty of evidence that the phenomenon is widely perceived to exist.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The point you’re missing, Jon;

Each of those you cite, suggests Hollywood as a whole... not just Clooney. There’s the key. You tried mixing two issues, and it didn’t fly.

Look; That Hollywood as a whole had a negative effect on John Kerry’s chances is arguable. I don’t think much of the argument, Thinking, rather, that they did provide some momentum to the left side of the isle, but wuld have not changed anyone’s mind....but I’ll entertain the argument.

However; To aver that Clooney alone was responsible for Kerry’s downfall... as the quoted story reports Clooney is doing, is absurd, and the height of misplaced self- importance. implies an importance attached to call me that the facts simply do not support. Clooney alone, on his very best, most persuasive day, could not have affected Kerry’s chances either way, in any significant numbers. His position as an actor, much less is position as a pundit simply is not that important to the general public to make that big a difference.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
No, it’s not a personal attack, and repeating it doesn’t make it so.

And repeatedly denying it in the face of the evidence doesn’t make it not so.

I think it’s plainly obvious that Clooney’s "cause" was the election of favored political candidates.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the article wasn’t about what Clooney considered to be his cause it was what I defined as being his cause, i.e. being taken seriously politically. Now you can trot this canard out as many times as you wish, but since I wrote the article, I think I’m a bit more of an authority about my subject than you.

So excuse me if I don’t "accept" your interpretation of what it was about.

If you want to argue that you’d misread the statement, you certainly may, but there’s just no way to read that story any other way.

It had nothing to do with me misreading anything. It had to do with me addressing the point that if he wanted to be taken seriously when talking politics he’d have to quit making dumb statements like he’d been doing and I listed some of them to illustrate the point.

Now, that’s what I did. And you trying to claim that I misread something when it was never my intent to address your fabricated point in the first place is the freaking hilarious, not to mention disingenuous.

The fact that I used a quote from a story as a lead into the subject doesn’t mean that quote is the point of my article.

With the argument that Clooney could not have "have hurt Kerry by his presence" and that nobody in their "right mind" would make that argument. The fact that the Right throws around terms like "Hollywood liberals" or "Hollywood elite" and criticizes Democrats for being connected with those celebrities is plenty of evidence that the phenomenon is widely perceived to exist.

But again, if it wasn’t about me, then why was it necessary to use my name at all?

Why couldn’t whatever point you were trying to make be made without injecting my name?

In fact, why couldn’t you have just said what you said above? See, not a name used in any of it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And repeatedly denying it in the face of the evidence doesn’t make it not so.
Great. So if I use your name in the future, that’s a personal attack? I want to be very clear on precisely what it is I did here, because so far all you’ve alleged in the way of "personal attack" is that I mentioned your name while citing an argument that I agreed with. And if using your name when I agree with you is a personal attack, I want to know this.

Alternately, you might acknowledge that I wasn’t attacking you personally when I said I agreed with your argument.
what I defined as being his cause, i.e. being taken seriously politically
Ah, I didn’t realize you were just making stuff up. In an article entitled "Clooney vows to keep quiet about politics", you’ve deduced that Clooney’s point was that he wants to be taken seriously when he talks about politics.
It had to do with me addressing the point that if he wanted to be taken seriously when talking politics
Here’s the story. Please point me to the part wherein he indicated an interest in being taken seriously when talking about politics.

Because if he didn’t say he wanted to be taken seriously, then your point was a strawman.
But again, if it wasn’t about me, then why was it necessary to use my name at all?
WH asked "who" and your argument was at hand. I could also have used Glenn Reynolds, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ed Morrissey, or any number of other pundits, almost all of whom have pointed out in the past few years that the Hollywood activism hurts the Democrats by putting them in the same light with Whoopi Goldberg, Barbra Streisand and other such luminaries of poor taste and silly opinion. Do you actually disagree with that? Do you actually believe that Hollywood activism — the "blatant cluelessness and hypocrisy" and "hate" as you call it — doesn’t hurt the Dems at all?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Great. So if I use your name in the future, that’s a personal attack?

Now you’re being obtuse.

Please point me to the part wherein he indicated an interest in being taken seriously when talking about politics.

Jesus Christ ... now you’re being even more obtuse.

Hey, I’m not going to explain it again if you can’t figure it out after two previous explanations.

I’ve had my say as have you. I reject your argument that this was anything other than a personal attack.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
To aver that Clooney alone was responsible for Kerry’s downfall... as the quoted story reports Clooney is doing,
The headline is incredibly misleading and there is no support for it in the story. It’s perfectly clear that Clooney claimed no such thing. In fact, as far as I can tell, it seems like this was just a rerun of the same story from last year.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Now you’re being obtuse.
Well, you have yet to be clear on exactly how my reference to your post constitutes a personal attack.
Jesus Christ ... now you’re being even more obtuse.
No, I think you’ve tried to have it both ways and, when that’s pointed out, you retreat to claiming "personal attack" instead of actually defending your argument with logic and evidence.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I do wish you’d answer my questions rather than avoid them, though:
the Hollywood activism hurts the Democrats by putting them in the same light with Whoopi Goldberg, Barbra Streisand and other such luminaries of poor taste and silly opinion. Do you actually disagree with that? Do you actually believe that Hollywood activism — the "blatant cluelessness and hypocrisy" and "hate" as you call it — doesn’t hurt the Dems at all?
They’re reasonable questions and there’s nothing personal in them at all.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I do wish you’d answer my questions rather than avoid them, though:

Why should I do for you what you wouldn’t do for me?

As I said, this conversation is over.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The headline is incredibly misleading and there is no support for it in the story
Oh, come on, Jon... the headline was not the point of MCQ’s post,(Which would seem to explain why he didn’t quote it....) and Clooney’s illisions of responsibility was. How ELSE are we to read Clooney himself saying in a direct quote: "I’d hurt him. I’d actually caused him harm at the polls.", except that he considered himself responsible, and that someone was taking him seriously?







 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
I think it indicative that the only two hits on the web I can find for the phrase are the new article McQ Linked... and Clooney’s own website... a site designed to PROMOTE George Clooney... Gee... now what would be the purpose of claiming he killed Kerry’s chances EXECPT that he was engaged in a rather weird kind of self-engrandizement? (sp?)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Why should I do for you what you wouldn’t do for me?
I’m not aware of any questions I’ve avoided. In fact, I’ve gone back through the entire thread and I can’t find a single question that I haven’t answered. If you disagree, though, re-state it and I’ll be happy to answer. Or you can drop it and I’ll consider that an answer in itself.
Oh, come on, Jon... the headline was not the point of MCQ’s post,(Which would seem to explain why he didn’t quote it....)
You fucking retard, I was responding to you, not McQ.
How ELSE are we to read Clooney himself saying in a direct quote: "I’d hurt him. I’d actually caused him harm at the polls.", except that he considered himself responsible, and that someone was taking him seriously?
There’s a world of difference between saying "I’d hurt him" and saying that "Clooney alone was responsible for Kerry’s downfall". The former is what Clooney said; the latter, you pulled out of your ass.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Clooney’s own website
Pull yourself together. That’s a fan website. He’s been consistent in arguing that he would hurt Kerry. He has not said that he was responsible for "ruining" Kerry’s chances. That was artistic license on the part of the copywriter — also known as "bullshit journalism".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Pull yourself together.
Take your own advice.I’m not the one attacking the credibility of everyone in sight including my own blogging partner. I pretty much held my peace when you pulled that stuff with me...(I’m a patient man) but when I see you pulling it with McQ, I know you’ve got some serious issues that don’t involve the subject at hand.

Lighten up, Frances.
He has not said that he was responsible for "ruining" Kerry’s chances.
Apparently, you’re so busy being pissed off, you didn’t bother reading the atricle posted on his site:

Kerry’s chances ruined by Clooney George Clooney is convinced he ruined John Kerry’s chances in the race for US president in 2004 - by snubbing an invitation and hurting his feelings. The Ocean’s Twelve actor was one of several screen stars invited to ride on Kerry’s election train, but it all went downhill for the Democrat when Clooney stayed away. He recalls, "Kerry asked me to ride on his train - he had a train going cross-country after he was nominated and some actors went on board. "I called him and explained that I couldn’t do it. "I’d hurt him. I’d actually caused him harm at the polls."
That’s not the headline, Jon... that’s the story.

Now, you can tell me, if you like, that he never said that. But why would Clooney leave it on a site which he presumably has editorial control over, unless that was the impression HE WANTED TO LEAVE?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Or you can drop it and I’ll consider that an answer in itself.

Or, as an alternative, I can drop it because there’s nothing you can say, given your previous responses, that will convince me this is worth continuing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
That’s not the headline, Jon... that’s the story.
That’s the editorial embellishment of the author, nitwit. Clooney’s quotes don’t actually substantiate anything like that.
Now, you can tell me, if you like, that he never said that. But why would Clooney leave it on a site which he presumably has editorial control over, unless that was the impression HE WANTED TO LEAVE?
Because it’s not his fucking site, you moron. It’s a fanboy site.
Or, as an alternative, I can drop it because there’s nothing you can say, given your previous responses, that will convince me this is worth continuing.
I’m not sure why you’ve grown unwilling to debate and instead take everything personally, but I want to note that I started this off by agreeing with you. I’ve also asked you to go back and clarify your opinion on the matter at hand, but you’ve refused to answer my questions. Instead, you’ve accused me of failing to respond to your questions — though, in fact, I went back to check and I believe I’ve responded to every one.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Like I said... you have issues to deal with.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
zzzz
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
zzzz
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
asd
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider