Bands gather to stump against Bush

[TripleRLtd]

http://nj.com/newsflash/entertainmen...=entertainment

You have to admit, their is a division of thought when it comes to the "Enternainers" as political voices debate, But, I hear more and more often (not just from techs) that

this was the most important election of their lives.

Here's the article for thos who would need to subscribe:

By LARRY McSHANE
The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) — In an unprecedented series of concerts in nine swing states, more than 20 musical acts — including Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks — will perform fund-raising concerts one month before the Nov. 2 election in an effort to unseat President Bush.
The shows, which will begin Oct. 1 in Pennsylvania, will take an unusual approach: as many as six concerts on a single day in cities across the states expected to decide the November presidential race. Other stops on the tour are North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the key state in 2000, Florida.
"We're trying to put forward a group of progressive ideals and change the administration in the White House," Springsteen told The Associated Press in the most overtly political statements of his 30-year career. "That's the success or failure, very clear cut and very simple."

The artists of different generations and genres will tour under the name "Vote For Change," with shows Oct. 1-8. But the money generated will go to America Coming Together, which promises on its Web site to "derail the right-wing Republican agenda by defeating George W. Bush."

The anticipated millions of dollars will be spent in the swing states before the presidential election, said ACT president Ellen Malcolm.

The shows will be presented by MoveOn Pac, the electoral arm of the liberal interest group MoveOn.org, with an official announcement expected Wednesday.

There was no immediate word on prices for tickets, which were going on sale for all shows Aug. 21. The shows will pair artists, such as Springsteen and or the Dixie Chicks and James Taylor. There will be 34 shows in 28 cities.

Natalie Maines, of the Dixie Chicks, who memorably told a London audience last year that she was ashamed to share her home state of Texas with Bush, echoed a Springsteen comment that this was the most important election of their lives.

"A change is in order," Maines said. "There's never been a political climate like this, which is so the polar opposite of me as a person and what I believe in."

The idea was hatched by several of the acts' managers, and quickly expanded. "Once we started talking to each other, ideas started percolating and other artists started reaching out to us," said Jon Landau, Springsteen's manager.

Other artists participating in the shows include hip-hoppers Jurassic 5, John Mellencamp, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Babyface, Bright Eyes and the Dave Matthews Band. Most have a history of social activism, from Browne's anti-nuclear concerts to Mellencamp's Farm Aid shows. Pearl Jam front man Vedder was a Ralph Nader backer in 2000.

"At some point, you can't sit still," said Vedder, a harsh critic of the Iraq war. "You can't spend your life, when people are getting killed, without asking serious questions about why."

Springsteen said he didn't fear any backlash over going public with his personal politics.

"It's a pretty clear-cut decision in November," said Springsteen, whose songs have provided a backdrop for some Kerry events. "We're chipping in our two cents. That's all we're trying to do."

Is it really that so many people are seeing this as some sort of "life-altering" election. Or, at the least, history altering?

[jitBob]

...Is it really that so many people are seeing this as some sort of "life-altering" election. Or, at the least, history altering?

Yes we do, hence so much passion in the political posts. If they come here I will be there.

[TripleRLtd]

Yes, I see it, too.
But why do you think so? Is Bush that much of a monster? Why do you think this particular election, which means getting rid of this particular "right-wing conservative" party leader and President is so much more important than past elections?

[edball]

Yes, I see it, too.
But why do you think so? Is Bush that much of a monster? Why do you think this particular election, which means getting rid of this particular "right-wing conservative" party leader and President is so much more important than past elections?

Because people are dying.

[Cleetus]

After 8 years of hearing how bad Clinton was, we realized that he wasn't. The dividing factor was the right, as they have shown through the Bush presidency. If the nation is going to band back together and truly prosper, the message needs to be sent to all of those on the right from your lowly local right wing talk show guy, to Hannity, to Rush, to Coulter, to the entire Fox news staff, to the right wing papers, to Karl Rove, and on up to the president himself. The platform of bringing us all together was just one of the many failures we are all beginning to see through. The rose colored glasses are coming off of more and more people(or we have those cool glasses on that one Rowdy Piper movie) are seeing the atmosphere pushed by the right for what it really is. Hatefilled.

[TripleRLtd]

It is starting to look to me like you may be right Cleetus, and others. Bush and clan seem to be very divisive not only for us but for the world. You would think that after 9/11 we would be looked up to now and really be a unifying force by now, instead of what we seem to have become. I don't know. If anything, for just those reasons alone, perhaps a change is necessary. But damn, it has to be Kerry??? We really need a viable third party in this country.

[edball]

It is starting to look to me like you may be right Cleetus, and others. Bush and clan seem to be very divisive not only for us but for the world. You would think that after 9/11 we would be looked up to now and really be a unifying force by now, instead of what we seem to have become. I don't know. If anything, for just those reasons alone, perhaps a change is necessary. But damn, it has to be Kerry??? We really need a viable third party in this country.

I agree, but if you take that stance in this election then you might as well vote for Bush. Kerry wasn't my first choice (Wes Clark), he's too ingrained in the system, but it's basically him or Bush.

[Ya_know]

It is starting to look to me like you may be right Cleetus, and others. Bush and clan seem to be very divisive not only for us but for the world. You would think that after 9/11 we would be looked up to now and really be a unifying force by now, instead of what we seem to have become. I don't know. If anything, for just those reasons alone, perhaps a change is necessary. But damn, it has to be Kerry??? We really need a viable third party in this country.

The start of the problem was because of stupid sh!t like France and Russia threatening to veto what was probably going to be a decision in favor of invading Iraq from the UN, forcing us to play our hand alone. That’s the start of all of this. Lest ye forget France had their hands caught in the cookie jar of exported oil over that one. What ever happened to all of the French bashing anyway???

Then Liberal leaders lashing out to every bias news station they can find to denigrate the President, instead of standing behind him…it’s not the president’s fault that they have their own agenda as well as the Republicans.

Also the president's physical public appearance as a stanch cowboy, and his difficulty with public speaking. I don't think any of us have a defense for someone that just doesn't do well with public speaking...but that representation is what most of the people around the world have to go by, and it’s not at all accurate to formulate a stance for or against.

Then of course there's the sh!thead Moore...nothing more needs to be said their.

You blame one man for not rallying the troops, and bringing everybody together…I seem to remember that the months following 911 he had everyone’s attention, and support. Little by little that eroded away due to some of the things I had mentioned…not his fault…find another patsy.

[Cleetus]

The start of the problem was because of stupid sh!t like France and Russia threatening to veto what was probably going to be a decision in favor of invading Iraq from the UN, forcing us to play our hand alone. That’s the start of all of this. Lest ye forget France had their hands caught in the cookie jar of exported oil over that one. What ever happened to all of the French bashing anyway???

Then Liberal leaders lashing out to every bias news station they can find to denigrate the President, instead of standing behind him…it’s not the president’s fault that they have their own agenda as well as the Republicans.

Also the president's physical public appearance as a stanch cowboy, and his difficulty with public speaking. I don't think any of us have a defense for someone that just doesn't do well with public speaking...but that representation is what most of the people around the world have to go by, and it’s not at all accurate to formulate a stance for or against.

Then of course there's the sh!thead Moore...nothing more needs to be said their.

You blame one man for not rallying the troops, and bringing everybody together…I seem to remember that the months following 911 he had everyone’s attention, and support. Little by little that eroded away due to some of the things I had mentioned…not his fault…find another patsy.

I say him because he is the "leader" of the party, who better to attack when trying to get at te party and the mindset

[Diver01]

I think it goes even further back than Ya-Know sudgests...

I think it goes all teh way back to the election. There are still many people in this country that are convinced that Al Gore won the election. I think in their eyes, no matter what GWB does, it will be wrong.

[Ya_know]

I think it goes even further back than Ya-Know sudgests...

I think it goes all teh way back to the election. There are still many people in this country that are convinced that Al Gore won the election. I think in their eyes, no matter what GWB does, it will be wrong.

I actually forgot about that...valid point!

[Cleetus]

So you two are just completely skipping over the part where I talk about this going back deep into Clinton's term?

[Ya_know]

So you two are just completely skipping over the part where I talk about this going back deep into Clinton's term?

It's all the same crap. There are three sides to every story, the Democratic side, the Republican side, and the truth. But, since the country is run by a bipartisan government, we forget about the truth, and argue from the two sides, instead of right in the middle.

Ya_know for Politicos '05!

[Cleetus]

Too bad the Republican side is also the lieing side

[Major Kong]

I agree with Diver01's assessment. Ever since the results of the 2000 election became final I know people who do not like Bush no matter what he's done. Even when it was discovered later that Bush did win the Florida election and actually increased his vote count (I've always wondered why that didn't get more coverage than it did. I mean the Miami Herald spent a small fortune on that exercise) it was a case of "Hey don't confuse me with the facts...Bush is a retard" as expressed to me by a highly educated lady who then spent 10 minutes apologizing when my special son looked at her like she was the biggest idiot in the entire State of Arizona.
As far as celebs being involved in elections...well it's nothing new. Rarely has it amounted to anything. I think it's much more a case of the celeb thinking his/her opinion is more important than anyone else's. Many times a "star" will think they are in touch with the common man, or they know the pulse of the nation when in reality they are more so clueless than the politicians and pundits (just ask Larry Sabato). It normally becomes a sobering experience for some folks. Is this election going to be a close one? You betcha! Is it going to be decided by the Dixie Chicks? Naw.
But hell far I would pay a Benjamin to see the Boss and JT!