This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"...and the weird thing is, your aura? Beige."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 01 October 2014




Tweet







October 23 2004

Joss to be interviewed today on Air America Radio. Marty Kaplan, host of the Air America Radio show, "So What Else Is News," will be interviewing Joss today at some point during the 4:00-6:00 p.m. show (ET). Joss will be talking about his support for Kerry. You can listen live via the web.

Whedonesque Bush supporters should know that this is a partisan (pro-Democrat) radio station. If hearing anti-Bush stuff gets under your skin, you might wish to give this a pass. If Joss says anything new and juicy about his shows or Firefly, I'm sure some helpful Whedonesquer who listens to the interview will post about it.

[ edited by phlebotinin on 2004-10-23 20:30 ]
Darn, my Firefly shindig is happening at that time, so I'm going to miss this.
Joss was good, althought his bit was short especially considering that even as a liberal, I was starting to get a bit bored of the show by when he showed up.

He talked about how he felt that he didn't really take a huge interest in politics but this current administration is forcing him out of the woodwork.

Then he talked about season 7 of Buffy being about taking the fight to them first, and how at about the same time Bush and Iraq came into the picture, and they were very afraid that the show would be seen as siding with Bush, and in fact showing his ways as heroic, when really that wasn't the intent.

And then finally spoke a few words about Serenity, saying that the movie thematicly is about the fact that the government can't change everyone to their ways. And that while yes it will have spaceships and fun stuff, it is very inspired by current events.

[ edited by rabid on 2004-10-23 23:44 ]

[ edited by rabid on 2004-10-23 23:44 ]
Well, I only caught the last 4 minutes of Joss (how much longer than that was it??)
Kinda funny that I never really saw the correlation (although accidental) between Buffy, season 7 and the way things were going with the bush/Iraq situation. Of course, now that I heard him talk about it, when they re-run s7 again, I'll be looking for it *s*.

I never really pay attention to "entertainers" when they start talking politics because they usually end up sounding like they don't know what they're talking about. But Joss actaully makes some good points, and explains them in ways us normal folk can relate.
cool *s*
If you heard the Buffy season 7 stuff than you caught most of it, he talked maybe 5 minutes.
Well, it was a very short interview, but for those who like to hear Joss hold forth on politics, it was interesting to hear him on Air America. It's quite a lot of exposure for Joss, which, well, good for him! He stressed the following:

(1) he and the other writers of BtVS did not intend viewers to draw parallels between seventh season Buffy as avenging hero, going on the offensive against The First, and Bush going into Iraq (Joss does not see Bush as a hero)

(2) Serenity the film is more inspired by real events than he had thought possible....that one of the main themes of the film is that you can't (successfully) impose your beliefs on the world, that the best of intentions can lead to the worst of totalitarian destruction.
I just caught the last part of the interview--the part about Serenity, so thanks for the summaries! I was afraid I had missed a lot.
Nope, MalloryM, this was very brief. It was probably a last-minute arrangement to get more publicity for the High Stakes parties, which is what the interview was structured around.

You know who I'd love to have interview Joss? Charlie Rose. That would be incredible. Half an hour of commercial free one-on-one talking between Joss and Charlie. That'd be hard to beat elsewhere in U.S. tv and radio. Speaking of radio, there was a pretty darn good interview of Joss (20+ minutes) on NPR by David Bianculli several years back but I don't know if NPR still has the clip on their website. The interview is full of good Jossian quips and background info on BtVS.
"I'm done waiting. They want an apocalypse? Oh, we'll give 'em one. Anyone else who wants to run, do it now. 'Cause we just became an army. We just declared war. From now on, we won't just face our worst fears, we will seek them out"

When I first saw 'Bring On The Night' I was struck with the realisation that this was a reflection on America foreign policy post 9/11. Interesting to read Joss' thoughts on the matter.

Anyway I'm going to break on of my cardinal rules and link to a scan of a interview Joss did with the now defunct UK magazine 'The Face' back in Jan 2004. As far as I can tell, this is the only interview that explores his political beliefs indepth.

Link to interview.
Thanks, Simon, for posting this article. It was one of the best I've seen on Joss. Is that Skip next to Joss? I really like the caption.
Thanks hugely for that, Simon. Great, illuminating article.

[ edited by phlebotinin on 2004-10-24 01:18 ]
Thanks, Simon, that was a great, inspiring read.
Interesting interview.

A couple of points came to me.

I have read on several ocasions that Joss was approached about making the Buffy TV series, not "fought to make the show" as this article suggests. No doubt whatsoever about the vision within the show but it changes the impression given.

If Joss's office, and I'd assume ME, is on the Fox lot then waht the hell is happening at the old Buffy lot, far from Fox? All the exterior Sunnydale set is still standing, only the grass area with the graves has been turned back into a car park, so ME must still own it and work there. Does he just have an office on the Fox lot to be close to the Serenity production? Makes sense.

Fox lost their nerve over the 'slow' two hour pilot with an ensemble cast? Seemed to work well for 'Lost' recently....

We (The UK) are to blame for reality TV? Noooooo!!!!!!!!!

An article in a non genre magazine that seems to have been written by someone why actually has watched the show! FHM had an article alongside some (very nice) photos of Emma talking about Anya's "kick ass vampire killing style".....


And I understand the comments about S7 appearing to support the Bush attitude. Buffy's "I don't care what you think I'm the one in charge and I know I'm right" speeches sound pretty gung ho to me. She didn't suggest building a coalition against evil, it was a case of "let's beat the crap out of the enemy!"

I suppose it all comes down to do you actually believe and trust the leader in question. We, the viewers, have seen seven years of Buffy and know her, she had earned our respect and trust and the right to demand loyalty. Joss, and many Americans I know, simply don't give GW anything like the same benefit of the doubt, as I know that I wouldn't trust Blair if he told me bears do actually poo in the woods. He's lied so many times before and is still doing it. He's finally got around to admitting (sort of, underhis breath and most likely with his fingers crossed behind his back) that there are no WMDs in Iraq. Only he says that it's "not important" because getting rid os Saddam was what really mattered. Until one of his own party quoted him saying, before the war, that if Saddam cooperated with the inspectors then he'd be allowd to stay in power....

Why oh why aren't WE having an election next month as well? (For all you Americans, our system lets the prime minister decide when to have the next election. One has to happen every five years but usual practise is for the PM to call one a year or so before when they think they have the best chance of winning)
Great article but what's with all of the stuff about Londinium and the monarchy and all that? I wonder if that's more backstory to be revealed in the movie... or maybe I just wasn't paying attention?
Wow, great article Simon. I enjoyed it tremendously and it makes me yearn even more to see Firefly. ZZ9, your points about Blair and Bush were spot on. I wish Americans would remember Bush saying practically the same thing before the war started, that if Saddam cooperated he'd be left alone and would be allowed to leave the country with his family. There was nothing then about taking him into custody. I do think Saddam is an evil person and I do think the world is better off with him in custody but the way it came about was just wrong. George Bush the first should've taken him into custody when we won the first war, and had a legitimate reason for being there but he screwed up big time and it went down in history as his biggest blunder. George the 2nd wanted to erase that mistake and that was his biggest reason for going after Saddam. It had nothing to do with Bin Laden but he used that as his excuse and lied to the American public to get our support.
If Joss's office, and I'd assume ME, is on the Fox lot then waht the hell is happening at the old Buffy lot, far from Fox? All the exterior Sunnydale set is still standing, only the grass area with the graves has been turned back into a car park, so ME must still own it and work there. Does he just have an office on the Fox lot to be close to the Serenity production? Makes sense.

There's a new sheriff in town. That lot is now where The Inside will be filmed. And Joss' old office? Is now Tim Minear's.

Joss' office on the Fox lot wasn't near where Serenity was filmed, so they had temporary offices at the Universal lot.
Blewessels, papers here have ripped into Blair for lying even when there was a moral justification for doing something, Saddams treatment of his own Kurdish population for one, so if they lie out of habit even when they don't have to then why should be trust them ever again?

And IMHO (as a useless forigner) I think Bush senior was a far brighter man and didn't go after Saddam because he could see what a quagmire it very easily become. Vietnam was lost not by the US troops on the ground but by politicians and advisors in DC dictating the rules of engagement on the percieved whims of the US public opinion. ( IF a US airman saw a Viet Cong missile site being built they were FORBIDDEN to attack it until it became operationial and started shooting at them!)
I think Bush Sr thought "I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole!" and stayed out. Too bad for all the Iraqi's who hade been encouraged to rise up against Saddam with the belief that the US would support them....
"I think Bush Sr thought "I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole!" and stayed out. Too bad for all the Iraqi's who hade been encouraged to rise up against Saddam with the belief that the US would support them...."

That is so true! Bush the first knew it would be a mess if he went in after Saddam but by encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up and then not backing them and then we just pulled out and left them for Saddam to do what he wanted with them was a huge, horrible blow to them and eventually made us hated even more in that region (and greatly led to the mess of them not trusting us now). We then allow ten years of this and our current Mr. Bush uses Sept. 11 and the emotions of the American people as an excuse to go after Saddam, knowing he didn't have the proof to back it up but presented it to us like he did. When the truth comes out, they did an about face and now it wasn't about the WMD, it was about helping the Iraqi people (but if Saddam had just cooperated and let the weapons inspectors search freely, it would've been okay then to still leave him to horribly rule his people).
There's a new sheriff in town. That lot is now where The Inside will be filmed. And Joss' old office? Is now Tim Minear's.

Joss' office on the Fox lot wasn't near where Serenity was filmed, so they had temporary offices at the Universal lot.


Thanks Allyson. I'll have to look out for that when it airs. And explains why Joss has never answered the twenty page letters written in blood that I've been sending him every week. You'd think they would have forwarded them!
Thanks for the link, Simon.

And explains why Joss has never answered the twenty page letters written in blood that I've been sending him every week.

Yes, zz9, that must be it...
As someone from outside the US I am wary of posting my thoughts here, apart from the 'UK perspective', so I think I'd better stop before I say something I shouldn't. I hope whatever happens and whoever is in the White House next year hopefully more people will take an interest in what's done in their name and keep the Chief executive accountable for his actions.

So, changing the subject, isn't Michelle Trachtenberg a babe!
"And I understand the comments about S7 appearing to support the Bush attitude....I suppose it all comes down to do you actually believe and trust the leader in question."

That's pretty much exactly what Joss said today. He said that Buffy in season seven had become more comfortable in her hero role and was ready to take the kind of preemptive action against the Big Bad that she hadn't really done in previous seasons. But this does not mean, Joss said, that preemptive action is ipso facto heroic. The key for Joss is that Buffy *is* a hero. But non-heroes can take preemptive action as easily as heroes. And non-heroes can speechify all over the place just as heroes can. For diplomatic reasons, I left out of my interview "report" the swipes Joss took at Bush but let's just say that Joss doesn't see Bush as a hero. (If you're anti-Bush, Joss's quips were hilarious. If not, not.)
Yes, zz9, that must be it...

Not my own blood of course! But that's a whole other story...
After reading Joss' interview I can say I am NOT sorry to be an American at this time. I am only sad that he has such a narrow-minded point of view regarding Republicans.

I would rather NOT know the political beliefs of celebrities.

All this ripping on each other just because we have different opinions is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing.
I am only sad that he has such a narrow-minded point of view regarding Republicans.

From what he has said so far I believe Joss has more of a problem with Bush the man rather than Bush the Republican. Give him that choice of who should be in the oval office next, GW as a Democrat or a JFK clone as a Republican and I think most people would vote for the man who they can trust and who will lead the country.

But I'm now putting words in his mouth so I'm going to shut up. Again.

Michelle Trachtenberg eh? Mmmm......
Right, because Republicans are so renowned for their open-minded views of others--gays, immigrants, single moms.

Yes, Michelle, quite a lovely gal...
You see, this is why I should shut the hell up:)
I don't think you instigated that, zz9. But I'll behave now.
Intensely disliking or disapproving of a particular politician and his/her administration does not mean someone has a narrow mind. People have to be able to take a position, don't they? Joss didn't smear Republicans in general. He didn't say all Republicans are stupid or wrong or bad. He is very much against the Bush administration, pure and simple. There are quite a few people who share that view and that does not make us narrow-minded.
I am a Demorcrat but if someone like McCain or Powell were running, I most likely would be supporting them. It's Bush I hate and distrust and he's given many Americans reasons to feel that way.
Joss did make a comment about "Left-wingers" as being people who have compassion for others." Ok, so anyone on the Right doesn't?
People can take a position, that's fine...but why is it that anyone who takes a position in favor of Bush is a moron? I've met the President. I like him, I think he is intelligent and a good man with good intentions. To put all the blame on him for what is going on is crazy. I don't agree with everything he does but the man isn't perfect. He's had a heck of a term to deal with since 9/11. Who among us would have handled it better?

I'm not even going to say anymore because I haven't been on the boards in a long time and I don't want to totally alienate myself from you guys, because I do enjoy this site. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have even posted.
Tracy, FWIW, I feel that if you're feeling hurt, you should by all means say so. Left-wingers do have compassion for others...so do right wingers. It's an odd statement.

If Joss' position is that he believes that Kerry's domestic policies are fantastic for reasons A, B, and C, and that his healthcare plans just knock his socks off, then that is all well and good and he can say, "I believe that these things are better for America in the short and long run, and that's why I'm supporting..." And that's just peachy keen.

My hope is that it doesn't all devolve into derision against conservatives, against republicans.

There's enough polarization, and the strawman arguments, the namecalling on BOTH SIDES needs to stop.

I'm just as tired with liberal being equated with communist russia and mass starvation. I'm sure conservatives are tired of being equated with fascist regimes and racism.

I do not support Bush for a great number of reasons that have nothing to do with his vocabulary issues or how he smiles. I do, however, firmly support your right to support him and object to the things I hold dear. Therein lies patriotism.

We could rant all day about our differences, why not, for five minutes, discuss common ground?

Regardless of what Joss said, he did learn how to be a showrunner from a right-wing Bush supporter. Angel would not have existed without David Greenwalt. So whatever has been/will be said, I think it important that Joss remembers that some of the people he holds dear, the people that helped him get to the point where his name can be lent to a political fundraiser with amazing success, do not share his political views.

And for the sake of my own country, I would hope that people on the left and right take a hard look at the people in their lives that they hold dear, and remember that those people probably also oppose some of the values they hold as truth.
Well, please don't feel alienated Tracy. The board isn't usually this political. I'm sure soon it will die down again.
There's enough polarization, and the strawman arguments, the namecalling on BOTH SIDES needs to stop.
Hear, hear! Fabulous post, Allyson.
Even more disturbing to me than the worsening polarization in this country,is the occasional outright hatred people in the opposing camps seem to hold toward one another. As a journalist, I frequently interview people about their political views, and I'm sometimes shocked at just how totally dismissive both sides can be of not only the arguments, but the people on the opposing side.
My own political views are frequently strong I'm reasonably well-informed and quite opinionated. But I hope I never get to the point where I don't want to engage in constructive debate with people who feel differently from me, and acknowledge that they often have excellent reasons for their views.
There's so much common ground despite our political differences.
And I say that on no particular high horse since I'm often just as guilty as the stakes get higher and the positions seem to diverge even more, I care more and more passionately and sometimes start wondering what I could possibly have in common with someone who looks at the last four years and is happy with the decisions our administration has made. But then I stop myself, or talk with Republican friends or family, and remember that ultimately, politics are beliefs, they're not what define a person. I look at the issues and come down on one side. Someone else can look at them and decide completely differently, and I respect that.
Bashing the other side whether on this board, to someone's face, or in an article does no one any good.
Great article. Thanks Simon.

Like on an earlier thread, I don't really understand when people read what someone has to say, while knowing they completely disagree with their views beforehand, and then are angry because of it. If this had been an Adam Baldwin interview, I pretty much would know what to expect. Also, Joss feels intensely about these things, that line about compassion is only half a quote, and he often talks in exaggerated sarcastic terms to make a point. I wouldn't take it that hard or seriously.

I've read some of Adam Baldwin's posts on boards and I strongly disagree. But you'lll still never hear me say I don't want to hear a celebrity's point of view or that he shouldn't be speaking. As long as they're sincere and well spoken I am always willing to hear what someone has to say. (as opposed to an Anne Coulter or a Rush Limbaugh who are basically lying shock jocks trying to pave their roads to riches by saying the most outrageous nonsense) And if it's someone I find I don't want to hear or read, then I don't listen. Or read.

"People can take a position, that's fine...but why is it that anyone who takes a position in favor of Bush is a moron? I've met the President. I like him, I think he is intelligent and a good man with good intentions. To put all the blame on him for what is going on is crazy. "

So let me see if I understand you correctly. Joss calls Bush a moron.(Not the people who support him btw) And you say it's bad how people like him talk and get angry about other people's different politics. And then because he has different views from yours, you get angry and call Joss 'crazy'... And since I agree with him (although I would say 'Bush administration' rather than 'Bush'), by default you call me the same, just like you felt insulted by him.

I'm sorry, but it just seems odd considering you were making a point against anger and name calling in political discussion.

"I do not support Bush for a great number of reasons that have nothing to do with his vocabulary issues or how he smiles.

I thought we were talking about Joss' words? I don't recall reading his *reasons* for not liking Bush are because his vocabulary issues or his smile. (Although personally I find an ability to speak coherently rather charming in a world leader but that's probably just me;-) His main reasons as far as I can tell are the decisions Bush has made during his administration and the consequences for America and the world in general.

"I do, however, firmly support your right to support him and object to the things I hold dear. Therein lies patriotism."

Also didn't read Joss or anyone here saying that people should have no right to support Bush. I'm sorry, Allyson, I don't mean to be snarky at all and I fully agree with the sentiments, but you seem to be countering someone I haven't seen on this board. Including Joss.

"Regardless of what Joss said, he did learn how to be a showrunner from a right-wing Bush supporter. Angel would not have existed without David Greenwalt. So whatever has been/will be said, I think it important that Joss remembers that some of the people he holds dear, the people that helped him get to the point where his name can be lent to a political fundraiser with amazing success, do not share his political views."

Joss is very liberal. He has worked very closely with several right-wing republicans for years as you say. I see no reason to assume he suddenly would forget all that, or need people like us on this board to remind him, simply because he is currently exercising his own right to speak out for what he believes in.
EdDantes, I guess I took Allyson's post as a more general comment on a lot of the discussion that's been going on on this board (not just on this thread, or about this article) over the past couple days most of it quite civilized and reasoned, but some of it descending to bitterness or name-calling.
Several posters, for instance (not Joss), have suggested that Bush-bashers only dislike him because of his smirk or his malapropisms, not because of the issues.
I also think it's true that Joss's quote about "left-wingers" being people who have compassion for others could very naturally be construed by someone to mean that he thinks right-wingers don't have compassion.
But I took her post to be more generally a comment on all of these threads, and a reminder (to all of us, not just Joss) that politics are about debating issues and ideas, not bashing politicans, or voters who support them. A reminder that I know I sometimes need.

(Allyson, sorry - I don't mean to respond for you, just commenting on the way I read your post and why it resonated with me, and why I didn't perhaps have the same reaction EdDantes did)
"EdDantes, I guess I took Allyson's post as a more general comment on a lot of the discussion that's been going on on this board (not just on this thread, or about this article) over the past couple days most of it quite civilized and reasoned, but some of it descending to bitterness or name-calling."

Which is fine and I agree. But it is why I made my point about Tracy's 'crazy' remark. And Allyson was responding directly to Tracy who was directly talkin about Joss, so it felt a little out of place for me. I didn't get the impression the talk was about 'other boards'.

"I also think it's true that Joss's quote about "left-wingers" being people who have compassion for others could very naturally be construed by someone to mean that he thinks right-wingers don't have compassion."

I can see that, which is why I said that you shouldn't take that too seriously, knowing how Joss talks. He often has a sarcastic tone and I didn't see the entire sentence or more of Joss actual words, just a partial quote. And like many always say about SMG or MT's remarks, sometimes things can sound a certain way in interviews.

"and a reminder (to all of us, not just Joss) that politics are about debating issues and ideas, not bashing politicans, or voters who support them. A reminder that I know I sometimes need."

As I'm sure we all do. However Allyson's words were "I think it important that Joss remembers.." which in this context seems very specifically about Joss and not very general. Again, I agree with the sentiments, and I certainly don't want to be misunderstood myself here. But I'm just answering your points as well as explaining the reasons of my take on things and my repsonse.
Just for the record, I second acp's assessment of Allyson's post. It came across as thoughtful, uninflammatory (or at least unintentionally so) and reasoned to me, with some fair-minded observations on the way political issues relating to the US election in general have tended to polarize this country and many boards (not just this one), and that this is an undesirable state of affairs with which she strongly disagrees (a view I admittedly most definitely share).

Please don't take offense, EdD. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred I agree with you. ;) Your interpretation is no less valid than mine, but I would offer that rereading the post in question may reveal a less specific interpretation of the text could be considered just as valid.

Many of us from the US are feeling enormous cultural stress related to the entire election process and its effect on our collective future, as well as that of the greater world community. It's difficult, in that light, to rein in the intensity of our personal feelings and remain judicious in our responses to others. Maybe a little extra kindness towards one another is in order?

[General comments re: political tangents on the board] Things are made harder when we think in black and white extremes about one side 'winning' and the other 'losing'; I'd personally rather focus on the idea of everyone working together, no matter what happens nine days from now. Parties and affiliations shift constantly throughout history and are just fictions of tradition and comfortable, established habit. Ultimately it's people who matter, and the way we conduct ourselves from here on out -- regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum -- is what can make a difference that sets the precedent for a new and better way of behaving. Both as politically-inclined citizens, and as human beings.

I echo Allyson, acp and others in hoping we can all start that process here and now.

[Edited because me + posting at 4:55 a.m. = less than coherent.]

[ edited by Wiseblood on 2004-10-24 10:55 ]
As a useless foregner I will just add one comment about how IMHO people abroad view Americans. In the past it has always seemed that the US people will fight for one side or another in a Presidential election but once one man wins they have always seemed to support and respect him as 'The President' wether they voted for him or not.

Is that a naive view? If it was the case it seems to have disappeared in the last few years.
EdDantes, just to clarify, I am not and was not angry. I did NOT call Joss crazy or even suggest he called Bush a moron. I was commenting about people on the left and I meant "generally". I don't have a problem with opposing opinions. Most of my friends are on the left. I love them, we debate, we discuss, we don't always agree, but we have fun doing it and don't get angry. I was just putting my two cents worth in. I love Joss and his work. I don't agree with his politics but that is fine. I am just tired of certain celebrities who foist their political views upon us as if they have all the right answers. I don't think Joss is guilty of that at all. This is such a heated time right now before the elections. I will be glad when it is over. I just hope things get better all the way around.
In the past it has always seemed that the US people will fight for one side or another in a Presidential election but once one man wins they have always seemed to support and respect him as 'The President' wether they voted for him or not.

Is that a naive view?


No, I think that generally used to be true. In the last few decades though, politicians just can't seem to stop politicking. It's made it very difficult to get anything done. The attacks on Clinton were relentless.

I think it probably started with Watergate--the general public lost any sense of automatic trust which is easily exploitable by career political organizers (who often switch sides depending on who is willing to pay them the most money.) I'm not a huge proponent of electoral politics so I generally count not blindly trusting authoritarian figures to be a good thing but this isn't coming from any really critical analysis unfortunately.

This case is even more extreme because Bush didn't actually win. It's possible in this crazy system for a candidate to win the electoral votes--which is how it's decided--without winning the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote, Bush, the electoral vote. This happened once before in the 19th century so it's not unheard of. Several investigations of the vote count in Florida show that Bush really shouldn't have even won the electoral vote. The findings were put on hold when 9/11 happened and after that it wasn't something anyone seemed overly concerned about. Now, I'm not a Gore fan. I've never liked him and I didn't vote for him, I voted for a third party, but he did rightfully win.

At any rate, I think that the polarization is probably good. It's gotten a lot of people involved in the election who might otherwise have sat out. The US has a notoriously low voter turn-out. Huge numbers have registered this year. We'll see how many actually show up at the polls. I hope that organizers can take this momentum beyond the actual election and get people to demand a more equitable system. Things like abolishing the electoral college and instant run-off voting could make a huge difference towards who makes it into office. Those are the kind of things we should be fighting for, not putting all of our eggs in one politician's basket.
We're used to that here, Blairs Labor party won in 2001 with 40% of the vote!

The Conservative party came second with 31%, but the 40%/31% split ended up with Labour getting 412 seasts and the Conservatives 166 seats.

WE also have a different system. We don't elect the leader, we elect a party. Whoever happens to be the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister and, as Margaret Thatcher found out, the party can change their leader without having to consult the voters.

The US system, where you elect that house seperatly would seem to suggest going for a pure popular vote for the President.

At the very least it would mean they couldn't take for granted states where they were certain to win as every vote for their opponent would count.
I think the US citizens, and not the politicians, tended to support our President once he was elected. Clinton left office with an very high approval rating. Reagan also had a very high approval rating which indicates that both presidents had people from other parties who felt they were doing a good job. Bush's approval ratings have been horrible, with the exception of the period right after we were attacked and early into the war. People wanted to support him and wanted him to succeed. I feel he has failed miserably. In an interview, when questioned about the American people supporting him, he smirked and joked, 50% of them do - like he was proud of that fact. It didn't seem to bother him that the other 50% didn't, and as a president he should be doing everything in his power to be representing all the American people. He has had four years to prove himself and if less than 50% of the people he's been leading think he's doing a good job that's a major indication that he's failed his responsibilities to us.

I wanted him to succeed. I wanted him to be a great president and I tried to support him but I can't do that anymore. He's had four years to bring us together as a country and we are even more divided now than we were when he started. Reagan and Clinton left their offices with a high approval rating and were able to unite the country and Bush has divided us like no president ever has and he just doesn't seem to care and seems content to just please his own party. That is not the President I want representing me.
Hear hear blwessels!

Funny too, that you brought up Reagan. I thought first-term Reagan was amazing. Look at all he accomplished in those first years: Perestroika, Glasnost...a true friendship with our deadliest enemy. (Gorbachev is great too, IMO), the Berlin Wall? Plus, he was incredibly "Presidential." Haven't seen one of those since ( I know he wasn't perfect, so don't throw things at me people, I just liked him).
I loved him, Willowy.

Two cents on the electoral college--I pray it is never altered an iota. It ensures that candidates have to campaign nationally, and it confers upon even minorty-popular vote candidates a mantle of authority and authenticity (which many Democrats as of late seem loath to recognize, unhappily.) Bill Clinton never won 50% of the popular vote, but he *was* elected president. As was Bush.

If the presidential election rested solely on the popular vote, candidates would spend virtually all of their time and money in the densely populated areas--Boston, NYC, (maybe) Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles...maybe Detroit, maybe not. The rest of the country would never see the candidates and probably not even surrogates. Please, please do not tinker with the genuius of the Founders as embodied in the electoral college.

Tracy: "I am just tired of certain celebrities who foist their political views upon us as if they have all the right answers."

Amen I say to you, amen, amen.
Believe me when I say this is most literate and polite debate I have seen in ages about US politics ( posters at other sites seem to go with KeRrY is a SoCIAList or BusH SuX!!!!) but I can't help but feel we're straying slightly here in this thread.

In a couple of hours I'll be posting a thread for the coverage of High Stakes 2004. Hopefully, it will all go according to plan and we'll get details of Joss' conference call as soon as he is finished. We may even get pics of the LA event (fingers crossed) and who knows we might get a VIP posting (maybe just maybe - not promising anything).

Is Joss going to direct X-Men 3, will there be Buffyverse TV movies and will Spike be prosecuted for tax evasion under a Kerry administration? The answer to these questions will be answered today (we think, maybe not the last one though).


Anyway we'll be back to our normal state of affairs in a couple of days.
The Thing that always Amazed me about the 2000 election was that even though 50% of the voters voted against Bush there were no riots, no uprisings no nothing, The transition of power went off without a hitch. Now I'm a proud Democrat and I didn't care for Bush then either but the only other time I felt more proud of this nation were the weeks after 9/11. Anyway I'm off to a High stakes party I Just wanted to say that quick.
(sorry Simon, Posted before I read yours, If I'm too far of topic delete my post.)

[ edited by adventures in spelling on 2004-10-24 19:16 ]
Oooh Simon I can't wait! I keep lurking here between bouts of pacing back and forth in my living room. I've also folded more laundry in one morning than I have this whole month.

Sorry, off-topic again. I'm just so nervous!
I can't tell you

**snip**

Thanks.

[ edited by Simon on 2004-10-24 19:45 ]
So much for our Polite Debate:(
Oh my GOD! >:(
OUCH! Everyone has their opinion but such harsh words for the man whom this site is devoted to is a bit over the top to me.
It smacks of Trollage. yuck.
Thank you for own "unique" views Timefortruth04 , we don't appreciate trolls of any nature here so you're banned. And to the rest of you, please carry on as normal.
Edited--issue already addressed! (Is it possible just to delete that off the board?)

Lizard--Candidates already spend a disproportionate time campaigning in swing states, it's really no difference. And the Framers really had no references to work from when they created the Constitution, that's ostensibly why they left allowances for changes to the documents. And don't forget the biggest proponent of the electoral college was monarchist Alexander Hamilton who didn't think the general population could be trusted to pick a candidate themselves.

adventures in spelling--Considering that most of the people disenfranchised in the vote last time were people of color, I was disappointed and a little shocked that there wasn't more outrage and uprising.

Did Simon say something about straying off topic? I'm in so much trouble! Sorry Simon.

[ edited by marmoset on 2004-10-24 19:41 ]

[ edited by marmoset on 2004-10-24 19:42 ]
I started to address the immature, uninformed comments of Timefortruth04, who apparently just signed on today just for that post, but realized that someone who knows nothing about the people who post here, and goes out of his way to insult all of us "dimwitted" folks who happen to agree with Joss Whedon's political views isn't worthy of my time or effort.

I will say this, Timefortruth04, it is people like you who give Republicans a bad name. There are a lot of Republicans who post here and who make their views known without insulting those who disagree. Unfortunately, it's the ones like you who try to force your own opinions in a nasty over the top manner that give the Republican party that reputation for being overbearing, insulting, nasty and rude. Good job!
Heh. So much for him!
I see his second attempt at a post was erased so my comments no longer make sense so I erased them.

[ edited by blwessels on 2004-10-24 19:53 ]
Simon, I love the "editing" you did with that post! Too bad you couldn't neuter him in real life!
He tried to post again?! What a *@$%#!
Wow, I missed the whole thing.

As a conservative Republican, I'm sorry that Timefortruth04 besmirched me and my ilk.

Marmoset, of course they focus on the swing states...but if it were stricly a popular vote format, do you think Ohio, Iowa, most of Florida and Pennsylvania, etc. would be even on a candidate's radar screen?

And, treading on perhaps dangerous ground, but there was and is no evidence of massive (or systematic) disenfranchisement of anybody's votes last time around. None.

Alas, the myth (lie? Yes, lie) has become Gospel truth among the Democrat faithful. What a pity.
Well things have settled down and I said before I was interupted this thread is drifting somewhat. Disenfranchisement of votes etc are all hot topics and to be honest do not really need to be debated about here.

So I would appreciate it if it wasn't.
Edited to comply with Simon's above post

[ edited by marmoset on 2004-10-24 21:28 ]
Woops, sorry Simon, didn't see your latest post.
Threads like these show how important it is for people like Joss to get involved in politics. It creates debate and fights the biggest enemy that democracy faces right now: voter apathy. It's a shame so much argument is about Republicans(although I'd call the current administration Neo-Conservative) versus Democrats. Kerry shouldn't win because he's a Democrat, but because he has reason on his side. Bush's administration is all about the politics of fear. They devote so much energy to building up external threats that people can't see (or choose not to see) what they're doing to the environment or the economy (where big companies and the rich are invariably favoured). Just look at their latest ad campaign, showing wolves closing in as what would happen should Kerry win.
Also, it's important to realise that it's not celebrities who have a responsability to get involved at times like these; it's artists. And the are fewer greater artists around that Mr Whedon.
Also, it's important to realise that it's not celebrities who have a responsability to get involved at times like these; it's artists. And the are fewer greater artists around that Mr Whedon.

Ah, so eloquently put. (Plus, love the Twin Peaks reference!)
UGH!!! I cannot wait for this election to be over so that we can return to being a UNITED group of Whedonverse lovers!!!

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home