Should our party try to recruit an actor for our Presidential nomination?

[Horse with no Name]

If so, who would you nominate?

My best pick would be Harrison Ford.

2nd pick would be Alec Baldwin--he donated upward of $100k to the Democratic party.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Warren Beatty?

He considered a run in 2000.

NGU.

[Horse with no Name]

2. You're so vain

was written for him.
He'd be a good one though.

[ClassWarrior]

3. The best politicians are.

You gotta be to take the slings and arrows. Look at the Big Dog.

NGU.

[shadowknows69]

4. NO NO NO NO

please no. Ok Warren would be cool but no one else.

[TomClash]

No

you need experience. Reagan was successful more because he was Governor of the largest state for eight years than becuase of his acting experience.

[OneBlueSky]

5. Robert Redford . . .

he's tanned . . . he's rested . . . he's ready . . .

and he's an environmentalist who happens to be smarter than most any politician you can name . . .

[TomClash]

6. he's shy, reclusive, inexperienced

and he doesn't want the job.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Martin Sheen! President Bartlett!

:bounce:

[msmcghee]

8. Your questions always make me think.

I see two kinds of politicians - and two kinds of actors. Repuke actors tend to have one personality that they are good at projecting to others. It makes them seem coherent and in control. Reagan, Heston, the Duke, Ahnold, etc. That appeals to social conservatives who fear ambiguity in life. They want desperately for there to be one set of simple answers to life's problems - like God. Any actor that conveys that worldview is in for them.

Progressive actors are able to enter the minds of others and take on their characteristics convincingly. They are fascinated by the millions of ways that the human mind can express itself. That requires a more complex intelligence. That makes them appealing to us on the left - but I think it scares the righties - especially fundies. The right won't see that nuanced intelligence as an advantage. They'll paint it as the anti-Christ - appearing in different guises every time they are on screen.

So, I don't think just being an actor will be an automatic advantage. We are undergoing a Reformation. It was already started but 9/11 kicked it into high gear. IMO the problem is not that we don't have an actor running for high office. It is that since 9/11 so many people passionately want a Charlton Heston type to deliver us from evil.

Dubya is much closer to Heston's persona than Kerry is, for example. For the majority in this country - it's not about brains, it's about projecting simple values (like revenge) and firmness of resolve. I was dissapointed that Kerry didn't understand this. He has the perfect features, strong chin etc. - to project a "firm resolve" that was not nuanced to the world. He did the opposite.

i.e. I think we're screwed until we get through this Reformation and pass on into the next Renaissance. Could be decades if life as we know it survives.

Just some thoughts generated by your cool question as I try to type around my 16 lb. Maine Coon sitting in my lap. (It's not love. She wants breakfast.)

:hippie:

[spindoctor]

9. Alec Baldwin!

I said it before....