An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Palau ‘Honored’ To Take Chinese Detainees

The Brits & Mrs O’s Dress: Differing Perspectives »

Jon Voight? The Actor?

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Arts & Entertainment, Politics.
Jun 10th, 2009 | Comments

At the Palin-and-Gingrich-blessed Republican Congressional fundraiser the other night, Jon Voight — the actor, not the periodontist — called President Obama a “false prophet”:

Everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous.

*****

We are becoming a weak nation. Obama really thinks that he is a soft-spoken Julius Ceaser. He thinks he’s going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet talk. And really thinks he’s going to bring all the enemies of the world into a little playground where they’ll swing each other back and forth. We and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression.

Yes, Jon Voight — an almost great actor, once upon a time, in one or two great films (Midnight Cowboy, at least) — is a devout Republican.

But, given the extent of his inanity, where to begin? (Check out Tom Watson, who runs down “the paroxysms of pleasure quivering in the downtrodden conservative blogosphere” — great line.)

Oh, why bother? It’s Jon Voight, not Liam Neeson, and one has come to expect such nonsense from him.

– Everything Obama has touched? Really? Like what?

– America is weakening? Because of Obama? Really? He’s to blame?

– Obama as Julius Caesar? Caesar was a soft-spoken sweet-talker? I’d like to ask the Gauls about that, if I may. (And did not Caesar help usher in the Roman Empire?)

– Obama as false prophet? But he’s neither false nor a prophet. In fact, Obama is being criticized from the left, and from many of his supporters (including the proprietor of this humble weblog), as too pragmatic and as too much of a realist.

– The Obama “oppression”? Of what? Of whom? Well, of idiots like Jon Voight, apparently, who see whatever they don’t like, whatever challenges their right-wing ideology and partisan orthodoxy, as somehow oppressive. In loss, they do so whine and complain, don’t they?

I’d prefer it if Mr. Jon Voight, the once-relevant actor, stopped talking politics, or whatever this feces-spewing was, and went back to the post-stardom oblivion whence he came.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

  • CStanley
    I’d prefer it if Mr. Jon Voight, the once-relevant actor, stopped talking politics, or whatever this feces-spewing was, and went back to the post-stardom oblivion whence he came.

    LOL, we'll trade you one Jon Voight for the rest of the Hollywood liberal idiots. Deal?
  • jchem
    LOL, we'll trade you one Jon Voight for the rest of the Hollywood liberal idiots. Deal?

    Well said CStanley. If we want to start focusing on the crowd in Hollywood to find the crazies, it wouldn't be very hard. Why the spotlight on Voight, anyway? This is the second post on him here in the last two days. Did Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney or even Miss California not say something worthy of print today?
  • DLS
    "Why the spotlight on Voight, anyway?"

    Perhaps it's neurosis, common along with other problems among lefties, or it's just a distraction from more pressing, adult things, such as the "create [then added, later] or save 3.5 million jobs" that has achieved the stellar figure of 150,000 jobs, or the sinister takeover of the Detroit dinosaurs (now augmented by Congressional meddling in addition to horrible behavior by the Obama administration), to name something bigger that we adults (non-lefties) prefer as examples of more important issues to be concerned about. (The "camel's nose, head, and front quarters" in the form of the "public option" health care proposal currently considered is far too important to eclipse any neurosis about any single Republican.) To name something that is a small issue but more important than the trivial subject of obscession and neurotic behavior of the moment by Mikey here, what about the revised "pay-as-you-go" proposal by Obama that isn't on an annual but on a ten-year basis, and which specifically excludes discretionary spending?

    Serious, intelligent issues aren't the object of the lefties' ("Moderates'" is misleading) obscession and frequent commentary that makes gossip columns often more intelligent, sadly.
  • kathykattenburg
    I don't think Jon Voight should stop talking politics -- if that's what that was. His speech was notable not because he is a well-known actor sharing his political opinions. His speech was notable because what he said was pure garbage. Not because it was conservative. Because it was irrational, inchoate raving. He's an extremist both in his opinions and in his manner of expressing them.

    And yes, he is an actor. Or was. At one time he was a very good actor -- some might even say outstanding. I don't know if he was hiding this side of his nature all along, or if he has some terrible mental wasting disease, but what came out of his mouth at that fundraising dinner was frightening. I confess to being a little shocked that anyone who self-identifies as a respectable, mainstream conservative would find his positions respectable.
  • CStanley
    He's a great actor. I'm not a fan of actors taking the political stage though in general, and since I get highly annoyed when lefties (read=99.99 percent of Hollywood and the music industry) think their opinions should be given a soapbox, I'm also not going to lionize a conservative celeb (unless he/she has some actual experience that would give credence to their opinions.) I don't have a problem with him saying what he thinks- particularly since it's courageous to do so and swim against the current- but I think it's stupid everytime a conservative speaks out in Hollywood that so many other conservatives decide that this person should be a major spokesperson and perhaps run for office.

    Kathy, since you still haven't specified what he said which you find shocking or 'mad', it's rather hard for me as a conservative to address your complaint. I stated in the other thread that I think he goes too far in his criticism of Obama's rhetoric on Isreal, but that's just a matter of degree. I disagree with the intensity and the way he stated it, but the position itself isn't at all indefensible IMO.
  • DaGoat
    I don't see where Voight is any more or less shocking than many celebrities and pundits on both sides of the aisle. What specifically upsets the left so much about Voight?

    On Obama as a false prophet I would say it a different way. Obama comes across as an eminently reasonable and thoughtful man, but when you look at what he actually is saying and doing there is certainly the potential for harm as well as positions that are at odds with themselves.
  • HemmD
    CS

    "I'm not a fan of actors taking the political stage though in general, "

    I guess that leaves out Ronny and Arnold. :)

    As to Voight's speech. Can the man be substantive in any way? You yourself state his rhetoric was a little thick. We only disagree as to the thickness.

    How do you separate anything of value from the hyperbole? Obama was failed in all he's touched, he's turned back mid-east relations by advocating the only logical hope for an Israeli/Palestine solution?

    You read the other post about this speech? I listed three alternate solutions, If the two-state is so bad, which alternative does Voight or the right advocate?
    If you wish to blame Obama for the economy, you ignore the eight years that led to its demise. Convenient for right wing fund raising but lacking rational analysis.

    I won't even touch the Caesar comment except to say after 8 years of cowboy foreign policy, Voight demonstrates intellectual blindness or simple ignorance.
    Crazy talk? you betcha
  • CStanley
    Re: Arnold and Ronnie- Arnold I can definitely do without. ;) Ronnie, however, was politically active throughout his career and made a change into pure politics. He wasn't a political novice by the time he campaigned for office, and wasn't just spouting trendy positions like most actors do.

    What a lot of these criticisms of Voight's style and rhetoric seem to miss is that this was a partisan fundraising appearance. Do you guys really think that when Dems speak before that audience they give detailed intellectual discussions of policy? Do we need to dig up some footage of 'thick' rhetoric at DNC events?

    As for your comment about the two state solution, Hemm, Voight didn't indicate that that's the point of difference he has with Obama. I take it that his objection is to the hard line that Obama is taking on Isreali settlements, which is clearly putting pressure on Isreal and creating tension with the internal politics there, as well as with conservative supporters of Isreal here.
  • caymen
    Jon Voight is a fine actor, I've always liked him in that regard. I don't care if he wants to share his political opinions anymore than I care if Sean Penn shares his. They have as much right to express their beliefs and opinions as any other american. They also open themselves up for alot of criticism when they choose to do so.
    It's odd to me that people care so much either way as if celebrity gives you either a greater or lesser voice.
  • HemmD
    Cs

    I guess if you can swallow that kind of paranoid fantasy non-fact based rhetoric , just write out those checks.

    Obama re-called for the two-state solution, Israel's right wing doesn't want it. Voight appears to see that as a direct attack upon Israel. I don't begin to see any logic in that. As I said in the other post, consider the alternatives: (sorry for the paste, but let's put the criticism in context.

    1. Apartheid - Rule the Palestinians much as the South African whites did.
    2. Expulsion. - Kick out the Palestinians from Palestine. or kill them all and let Jehovah sort them out.
    3. One State - Make the Palestinians Jewish citizens. as if they would want such citizenship, and would include either the dissolving of Gaza among neighboring Arab states or annexation by Israel.

    I know you didn't say you were defending all Voight said, but I'd welcome any rational alternative.
  • CStanley
    Hemm, you're misrepresenting what Voight said. Show me where he said he opposes the general idea of a two state solution?

    What he did criticize is the demand that Obama is making for Isreal to swap land for peace- which time and time again Isreal has attempted to do according to international peace brokers demands, and then has been attacked in the aftermath of the concessions.
  • EEllis
    HemmD you are creating a discussion and then limiting the scope. You carry the 2 state solution discussion from another post without missing a step trying to beat people into talking about it. Voight didn't trash the idea of a 2 state solution. He trashed Obama for scolding Israel for not making it work when Voight feels they (Israel) tried several times to do so and the Palestinians purposely sabotaged the attempts. disagreement is of course possible but I hardly think holding that opinion would be grounds for a clinical finding of insanity.
  • DLS
    "Obama comes across as an eminently reasonable and thoughtful man, but when you look at what he actually is saying and doing there is certainly the potential for harm as well as positions that are at odds with themselves."

    There's a risk of a great deal of harm if the Congressional Dems and members of Obama's executive mistake public appeal and acclaim for Obama with a desire for vast new amounts of government interventionism and spending and taxing, and for a swing to the left that is not being sought by the majority. Already there seems to be with health care the notion that the public approves of all kinds of spending and deficits (far greater than in GOP leadership times) and that there's no need to wait for the economy to improve before launching ambitious new things such as we're starting already to see with health care.
  • DLS
    "the demand that Obama is making for Isreal to swap land for peace"

    Not only is the concept wrong, and not only has it been proven by Israel's enemies to not lead to peace. In addition to the nature of the speech placing Israel more closely toward equal blame for strife in the region, which is false (Israel's enemies are almost completely at fault, Israel nearly free of blame), Israel is now being pressured, when it has been the party making routine concessions, a largely one-way record of them, with the other side not keeping to theirs. Now Obama is pressuring Israel with the settlement stance of his administration (effectively a form of "land for peace"), undercutting its bargaining power in any future negotiations. It was also simply wrong to be blunt and openly public, though it did fit in with the nature of his speech.
  • CStanley
    Heh, in reading your last comment, DLS, it occurred to me that if we apply Einstein's definition of insanity then it is Obama who is insane for suggesting that we try once again to force Israel to make concessions of territory.
  • JSpencer
    Hey, just because you were once a good actor doesn't mean you still can't be a raving nut... or that other raving nuts will come to your defense. Of course it's not a big deal, only another symptom of of the pervasive fruit loops mentality coming from starboard these days. Ho hum...
  • elliemae
    GOD BLESS Jon Voight for standing against the Liberal coup. It isn't just Obama. It began well before he was a citizen. We must vote out all the House of Reps that have been in for 6 years or more. It can be done. Google GOOOH!
  • AustinRoth
    HemmD

    Maybe the Israelies should just continue to do what they have been doing:

    1. Killing little Palestinian kids and using them for blood rituals
    2. Dropping poisoned candy from helicopters into Palestinian schoolyards
    3. injecting the AIDS virus into Arab prisoners
    4. Marketing radioactive belts to Arabs
    5. Burning Palestinians in ovens

    Etc.

    Those are not accusations of fringe elements, either. They are all positions taken by Hamas and the PA, broadcast on numerous shows sponsored by the PA and Hamas.

    I am not actually a big fan of Israel and many of their actions, but I really cannot see why they get singled out as the problem when it is their enemies that are bent on their destruction, not the other way around.
  • AustinRoth
    JSpencer -

    Being a good or bad actor, or singer, makes no difference on becoming a completely unhinged political nutcase. And it certainly isn't a predominantly 'right' tendency.

    See Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Harry Belefonte, Alec Baldwin, Marin Sheen, Meryl Steep, Richard Gere, Danny Glover, Ted Danson, Janeane Garofalo, just to name a quick list off the top of my head.
  • HemmD
    I don't speak for others, but the problem certainly has appeared two-sided. Elements with Israel are just as nuts as Hamas, and other country's agendas have not helped. Despite the BS rhetoric, the fact remains that eventually, a solution has to be found or war will continue to no purpose.

    Like I've said before. Religion is the work of the devil. What's more diabolical than having people slaughter each other in the name of God?

    Peace
  • EEllis
    "just because you were once a good actor doesn't mean you still can't be a raving nut."

    Well you have Penn to make your point, but I don't think it's automatic.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC