´óÏó´«Ã½

Not sure about this one, I mean we don't have a huge record in this country of 'Stars' becoming politicians though we have many musicians who like to moan about politics in their songs. Now personally I am fed up with the likes of U2, The Rolling Stones and Bob Geldoff, moaning about the state of governments yet making a tidy profit on the side lines, they show little conviction in my eyes, perhaps if they did actively get involved, IE campaign for parliament then they would gain my respect when I listen to their lyrics.

Though I would also have reservations about film actors and pop-stars getting involved in politics mainly because of America; the amount of clueless individuals who want to seem intelligent, like Britney Spears for example who support candidates during electoral campaigns, doesn't do themselves or the candidates any favours, by all means show you support them, but why must they speak?

And then you have America's history of actors in congress or the Whitehous; Regan??? (not the first or last cowboy to be president) Schwarzenegger??? The terminator?? Are you mad? If Tom Cruise ever decides to get involved then that's the last straw! Hollywood actors are like kids, they should be seen but not heard!

Helping to secure aid, yes. Celebrities are as best an advertisment you can have.

Politics, no. Just look at Arnie Scwarenegger. You can't have political debates with people who say 'GET INTO THE CHOPPA!' when asked about health.

The political process is supposed to be open to all, so celebrities shouldn't be excluded.

Wyclef would hardly be the first, Ronnie and Arnie spring to mind immediately.

Should stars get involved with politics?

Like any politician it depends on their motives.

Many 'ordinary' people are attractedto politics through personal ego, or the oppurtunity for self-grandisement and personal enrichment.

There are also those who genuinely care and want to make a difference.

In this specific case, presumably Mr Jeans personal wealth may make him less vulnerable to both general corruption and the crimal gangs which prosper on Haiti.

Who knows he may even be willing to use his own personal wealth to improve conditions for the islanders.

I hope he asks Saul Williams to be his deputy....

Everyone should get involved with politics !

There is a simple test if a performer should go into politics its called a ballot.

It would probably be a large improvement over the majority of career politicians who are not doing it because they want to change the system for the benefit of the people, career politicians are only interested in maintaining the status quo and ensuring the large corporations and banks that sponsor them get exactly what they want. So that when they leave office eventually after we get sick of them or they retire from politics they get a very very lucrative contract from a major international company.
Take the example of Tony Blair now working for a large middle eastern oil company.

I don't care.

Why not? Admittedly celebrities may be out of touch with the concerns of the common folk, but no more so than career politicians. In my native Australia we have the lead singer of a political rock band (Peter Garrett, singer with Midnight Oil, Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts) as a cabinet member and he seems to do fine.

1. At 12:01pm on 29 Jul 2010, Joe wrote:

Now personally I am fed up with the likes of U2, The Rolling Stones and Bob Geldoff, moaning about the state of governments yet making a tidy profit on the side lines,

-----

U2 & Geldoff, fiar enough.

But the Rolling Stones would quite happily play a private party celebrating '40 years of tyranny' for Kim Jong Il and Bob Mugabe if the price was right...

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, if your heart and commitment are there; all politics should be a calling, a vocation, so what Wycliffe is doing is more acceptable than these career pollys that have never worked in their life, accept for the Village.

How can you trust anyone with power who has been to uni, got well off parents, and researched for another MP for a couple of years, or worked in Daddy's firm? It's very different working when you don't 'have' to.

Often attributed to Billy Connolly, but he's right, that the desire to be a politician should ban you for life from ever being one.

Good luck Wycliffe and good luck Haiti.

Other than that, stars are mostly just full of hot gas and plasma and should be kept well away from important stuff that could melt.

5. At 12:10pm on 29 Jul 2010, General_Jack_Ripper wrote:

Everyone should get involved with politics !

........................................

Agreed... you changed my opinion!

As always you get politicians who are good at the job and those that aren't regardles of their background.

Some win, some lose, some shouldn't win but do, some shouldn't lose but they do. Only time can tell.

What difference does his background make if he has a good head on his shoulders.

Who is this guy any way?

Should stars get involved with politics?
Why not? Non-Stars get involved in politics (and by and large do a lousy job).

Who knows, maybe sometime in the future even Barbie can run. Or Ken.

Theyre extremely popular, some would say Super-Stars too.

Sarcasm aside, perhaps theres nothing wrong with it in a modern democracy.

After all, Tony Blair was voted in on popularity..so maybe democracy should be recoined 'populocracy'

I've no problem with a performer, or indeed someone from any profession, becoming a politician. But a politician should not also be a performer; George Galloway should never have appeared on Celebrity Big Brother and Terminator 3 should not have been made. Mind you, those things are true regardless of whether or not Galloway and Schwarzenegger were in/entering politics!

The odds are that Wyclef Jean will not be so easily corrupted, unlike Haiti's so-called professional politicians that helped make the country the basket case it is.

I am not sure for Haiti,but here in India it's the shortest route for political leadership for otherwise fading stars of yester years to cash on their whatever residual 'brand equity' to find a place under the 'political' sun.Even US has political leadership in this category from the state of CA the state of Hollywood.

8. At 12:22pm on 29 Jul 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:

I don't care.

------------------------------------------------------

Then why comment on it in this thread?

It is not the celebrity, or their participation of politics I don't like.

It's the fact a large number of people will see their popularity as some sort of qualification to do anything. These people are called idiots, and appear to be the vast majority of almost all countries.

If he has the necessary skills and committment then I can't see a reason why he cannot run for President.

Should celebrities enter the fray of politics? Why not. Look at the clowns we have in office already. A few more more sideshow acts always enhances the entertainment value.

13. At 12:37pm on 29 Jul 2010, Nakor wrote:
As always you get politicians who are good at the job and those that aren't regardles of their background.

Some win, some lose, some shouldn't win but do, some shouldn't lose but they do. Only time can tell.

What difference does his background make if he has a good head on his shoulders.
.....................................................................
Well said.

Why not? He's probably just as qualified as most politicians.

I mean, if we can have an education minister who never taught a day in his life, then Mr Jean could head a small country without political qualifications (although it'd be nice for us if Mr Gove had a clue...).

I only disagree with famous people being voted in simply because of their celebrity status and not on important issues (Governor of California spring to mind?)

Yaaaaa man!! tis eh greet idea!

The super egos of North American fame have such delusions of grandeur that they think the world wants them, that they can make a difference. Haiti’s government is pretty useless but can a painfully under qualified singer really pull them out of the mess they’re in?

5. At 12:10pm on 29 Jul 2010, General_Jack_Ripper wrote:"Everyone should get involved with politics !"

Totally I agree. However the problem is that stars might get votes because they are famous and people know them and not because of their policies.

Finally the ultimate X Factor contest!

Maybe this is how Nick Clegg wants us to pick our next government?

Talentless fools dreaming of glory - no comparison whatsoever.

Unfortunately, because of the way in which many people view "stars" and their apparent belief that East Enders is real, the stars could probably stand for anything and be voted in.

I do get very annoyed at those who take any opportunity in an interview to bring in their political views.

I have no problem with "stars" getting involved with politics; sometimes, I have a problem with the level of their ignorance.
Being a "star" doesn't automatically flood one's brain with political wisdom, or even understanding. So, I think the onus is on the people and those who truly understand the situation to be cautious, ask a lot of questions in order to draw out the star's real "political" opinions.
As for Haitian-born musician Wyclef Jean, I can find nothing in his background that would particularly qualify him as President of Haiti. Does this man even understand the complexities among - the United State's mega-influence, the United Nations, relief efforts in gneral (and where the money is going?), etc.
If Wyclef is "committed" to his homeland, I feel the very best thing he could possibly do is
1. bring huge publicity to the Haitian lack of progress (post earthquake) and
2. ask questions about the lack of accountability for charitable donations and
3. demand the restoration of the real Haitian President: Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Aristude was President of Haiti in 1991, prior to a September 1991 military coup, and was President again from 1994 to 1996 and from 2001 to 2004.
Aristide was ousted in a February 2004 "rebellion". In my opinion, this was another situation like Honduras' Manuel Zelaya. The US orchestrated a coup d'état. Aristide was forced into exile, being flown directly out of Haiti to the Central African Republic and eventually settling in South Africa.
If Wyclef Jean wants to do a extremely important service for the people of Haiti, he should be asking them if they want their real President back.
Incidentally, a former "star" once became President of the United States; he gave the country "Reaganomics" - that's a "star" for you!

If Wyclef Jean thinks he can do something beneficial for the poor people of that God forsaken country I wish him all the best and if some of my tax money goes down there that is OK also, however.
It is interesting to note how this one Island of Hispaniola split in 2 half’s and not fighting over any border issues, how one side the Island the Dominican Republic, Hispanic influenced can prosper producing food, fine tobacco, finished cigars, Tourism, and American multi millionaire baseball players. While the other half of this same Island, African influenced, Haiti has virtually no exports, little food, rampant poverty, and a long string of corrupt inept governments.
Without being racist someone please explain this to me.

Why not? Angelina Jolie has proven to be a very effective Ambassador for UNHCR. If he has the right credentials and is the right man for the job, then good luck to him. His celebrity status may assist in attracting attention to Haiti's difficulties - if so, that is not a bad thing.

I think you must consider this on the question of motive. Why do they want to do it. Is it all about fame or money, or are they idealists wanting to make a difference. You can keep your Obama's and give me a Gandhi every time.

Frenske wrote:
Totally I agree. However the problem is that stars might get votes because they are famous and people know them and not because of their policies.


It wouldn't be any worse than politicians getting votes for their manifesto promises which are then abandoned the day they get elected, or voting for a Labour/Conservative candidate because that's how they've always voted.

Democracy isn't perfect; it's just the best system we've come up with so far and the more people that take part, the better it works...

It has as much credibility as when a celebrity launches "their" new fragrance: same old product, new face on the packaging... I'd rather see completely unknown geniuses run countries, not partying celebrities... why not just move the House of Commons into the Big Brother house?

If they've got something to say, and something to contribute, I don't see why not.

30. At 1:50pm on 29 Jul 2010, BluesBerry wrote

As for Haitian-born musician Wyclef Jean, I can find nothing in his background that would particularly qualify him as President of Haiti. Does this man even understand the complexities among - the United State's mega-influence, the United Nations, relief efforts in general (and where the money is going?), etc.

---

All completely fair comment.

Which I shall attempt to answer with a question.

Do you think Sarah Palin understands the Uniited States increasingly complicated position in the world?

Or that she knows what 'fiscal policy' means, let alone how to implement it?

Do you even believe that she can name all the American states?

Or is she just riding a wave of popularity that not even she understands, possibly all the way to the Whitehouse?

I'm presuming that at least Wycliffe knows that Africa is not a country, which immediately puts him ahead in terms of foreign policy.

The likes of bono, geldoff etc get up my nose. Billy bragg too...but he is hardly a celeb! I dont respect their opinions over an average person.

It makes no real difference who politicians are, they soon bend-over backwards and contort themselves to please the fat-cats.

Success in a democracy simply means pandering to the lowest common denominator! Bring back enlightened despotism!

Should stars get involved with politics?

Only if I agree with the policies they want to implement. If not then they should butt out.

Celebrities are as equally qualified as most politicians to be in power.

In addition and to paraphrase Plato: those for whom it is an ambition to rule are probably the least suitable to do so. The best leader is one who is compelled against his will to serve a nation.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The yard-stick should be if they have the qualifications to lead, the honesty and the empathy to lift their fellow citizens out of hardship and squalor. If they are interested only in power, they should desist as power corrupts. Haiti needs selfless leaders.

I don't know about getting involved in politics but stars or celebrities should keep out of elections, just look who got in when the "luvvy" brigade backed Tony Blair. We ended up bankrupt.
They then turned their attentions, with the big African American Hollywood "Stars", to Barrack "All Style and no Policies" Obamma. This was the worst thing ever to happen in the history of mankind. We will be lucky to get by without him destroying the world but then again Will Smith can play him when Holywood rewrite history..again.

If a person can do the job, i.e. is capable of more than saying I’m a celeb, then let them try. They are unlikely to do worse than the so called professionals!
Just imagine the Beckhams’ or Coles’ or Jordan as our leaders, wouldn’t you sleep better in your bed!

"Yes why not Actors and most show business people are great at fooling they public as well."

We in America have more then our share of TV, Movie, Sports, and Music stars though very few have made a name for themselves in politics. The benefit they have is name recognition which can be bad or good. If your a Ronald Reagan or Arnold Swartzneger and your name associated with Americanism, freedom, liberty, and patriotic causes this can be good.
On the other hand if your a George Clooney, Matt Damon, Tom Cruise, Susan Sarandon or Tim Robins and name associated with Anti American Leftist causes and undermining our military after a decision has been made to fight somewhere, then you will fail at both politics and your chosen carrier in entertainment too.

As long as that 'star' is committed and has genuine realistic goals that will help a country in distress, and the massive ego is left on the stage whilst partaking in his/her political endeavours, I really don't see why not.

48. At 3:28pm on 29 Jul 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:
We in America have more then our share of TV, Movie, Sports, and Music stars though very few have made a name for themselves in politics. The benefit they have is name recognition which can be bad or good. If your a Ronald Reagan or Arnold Swartzneger and your name associated with Americanism, freedom, liberty, and patriotic causes this can be good.
On the other hand if your a George Clooney, Matt Damon, Tom Cruise, Susan Sarandon or Tim Robins and name associated with Anti American Leftist causes and undermining our military after a decision has been made to fight somewhere, then you will fail at both politics and your chosen carrier in entertainment too.

-----

Please don't take this the wrong way,

But your post seems to underline a theory of mine, that McCarthyism in the US never really went away.

Only in the modern era 'unAmerican activities' are judges and punished by the media in collusion with the general public, rather than by the government itself.

The simple answer is NO-we have enough vain people in politics!

Only if they vote Conservative.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Everyone is entitled to a second career if they wish. It's up to the voters to choose wisely.

Celebrities have the same rights as all citizens. Educate the citizens to vote for candidates with substantive ideas and to avoid being blinded by vacuous celebrities.

I don't see why stars should not be involved, but they must have the proper motivation and the policies to enable them to make a good job of it, and people should be voting for them on that basis, not on any percieved 'star quality'
Unfortunately some people are so star struck that they would vote for the personality and not the policies. In the UK there are some people who would vote for Katie Price if she stood.

Stars should not exploit there positions of trust in the media by entering into politics....this almost never ends in success.Even Arnie is having a bad time...remember Joanna Lumley Glenda Jackson...? No neither do I!!

Yes Togodubnus it is interesting you would mention McCarthy and his Black-listing of Communists as now the Black-listing is being done by the Communists in Hollywood who prevent Black-listed Conservative writers, actors, and talent from performing.
As to just what are Un-American activities who would be better to gauge that than the American public? Certainly not the news media who are now part and parcel of the leftist entertainment establishment.

50. At 3:44pm on 29 Jul 2010, Togodubnus wrote
-----Please don't take this the wrong way, But your post seems to underline a theory of mine, that McCarthyism in the US never really went away. Only in the modern era 'unAmerican activities' are judges and punished by the media in collusion with the general public, rather than by the government itself.

No problem with celebrities involving themselves in politics, or any other form of public life, provided they have something to offer..

However, the difficulty is that more often than not, they are so conceited that they can't see how useless and ridiculous their participation often is - with Glenda Jackson being the very best example!

Should stars get involved with politics?

Wyclef Jean is considering running for president of Haiti. Should celebrities be politicians?


Ultimately........ should politicians attempt to be celebrities

Limpit armpit wotsisname comes to mind!!!

Using star power and visbility is the only way to highlight so much of the world's ailments. What else are 'we' to do in the face of so many politicans, grabs for corrupt world power and secrecy.

I for one welcome stars using their money for good causes and I'm still waiting for George Clooney's TV Master Classes in music artistry to come out on DVD (so I can see the performances with no gizmos and flash lights, just the music and performances) so I can buy it. Anyone got any news on it? Surely a portion can go to Haiti as well.
If Clooney hadn't got 'political' and done something we wouldn't have raised money in Canada and the US for it and had a memorial to Haiti via the perfect mediums/channels to stir the emotions and give money.

So carry on (or KBO as Churchill was fond of saying) there's a lot to do and we need all hands on deck.

Politicians are play actors and so are actors, so there is not much difference. Although actors may make better liars.

As citizens they have the same rights as anyone else to run for political office in the country of their Birth.
I would like to see a ban on Politicians using Stars of any description for the endorsment of their views, a star might have a large youth following which might be more easily swayed or motivated by the stars endorsement.

1. At 12:01pm on 29 Jul 2010, Joe wrote:
... Now personally I am fed up with the likes of U2, The Rolling Stones and Bob Geldoff, ...

That's 'Sir Bob Geldof', to you!

Only joking :-) Anyway, he isn't really officially allowed to use the title "Sir".

The opportunity to hold political office should be open to anyone and everyone, if they wish. Surely, that is part of democracy.

58. At 4:22pm on 29 Jul 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:
Yes Togodubnus it is interesting you would mention McCarthy and his Black-listing of Communists as now the Black-listing is being done by the Communists in Hollywood who prevent Black-listed Conservative writers, actors, and talent from performing.
As to just what are Un-American activities who would be better to gauge that than the American public? Certainly not the news media who are now part and parcel of the leftist entertainment establishment.

---
cheers

much appreciated

I see no reason why stars and celebrities should not get involved in politics, many politicians are actors, because they clearly tell copious lies when they advise us as to what they will and will not do in their manifesto,s and then clearly do the reverse, so they are already adept at working with fiction.

Why not, of course stars should, after all we have a bunch of clowns in the U.K. government now. Just look at Gove Cleggy Cable and May. I say I say. Just watch the state vanish with the wave of the hand and it will be up to you fill the gap, for no pay mind.

Well Bush and Clinton and Obama got involved in Haiti and why because of the money that was coming to that country six months on and what is happening the rich get to leave in newly made houses and there is opening of eating places and the rich come and holiday and those who suffer are living under plastic and have not enough to eat and suffer more than they did before the earthquake. The USA managed to get in loads of soldiers for what to protect the shop keeps from looting well that's the first thing you think off when your world is turned upside down by nature. Were is the money and the medical help why is the airport full of new 4x4 for whom are these and why is the Governors house not being used to house the people No there is talks going on while the people starve again. So why should the stars not take over they can not do worse that's for sure.

Why not? The UK parliament has a history of giving careers to clowns and bufoons......

In regards to whether celebrities should get involved in politics, I don't see why the rules would be any different from everyone else. If they are qualified (are either highly intelligent, educated, or both, and posses a strong character), and have a desire to serve in the government of their country, stars, just alike anyone else, have the right to participate in politics.

Where celebrities get confused about this is when they think that their celebrity, or the reason for it (be it skill in the arts, sports, or just being blessed with good looks), automatically makes their opinion more valid than the average person's. I think that every celebrity should read The Apology of Socrates by Plato (and then have it explained to them) before they go on television or etc to talk about politics. Just because one is skilled in music or acting, it does not mean that one possesses knowledge or wisdom regarding higher things, such as politics and the governing of society. Both celebrities and their fans would do well to remember this.

if they are passionate about they're nation I don't see what harm it does.as long as they're not just wanting your vote for more celebrity status

The incoming Administration should appoint Wyclef as Secretary of State. He could encourage foreign investment in Haiti. The country needs good jobs, not social welfare.

Ronald Regan and Glenda Jackson were around the movies for a while. I once hear Bono say that he was a rock star and wanted to end poverty and stop global warming which suggests he is either a God or an aspiring politician.

Ronald Reagan had another life before becoming President of the U.S.

He was a film actor. He was probably a better president than actor.

Should stars get involved with politics?

Yes my sun!!!

"Can celebrities make good leaders?" Ronald Reagan, answer your question?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why not? He couldn't be any worse than the lawyers who get into politics and then enact legislation drafted by their incompetent colleagues which is then exploited by their other colleagues.

Toad In The Hole wrote:
"Can celebrities make good leaders?" Ronald Reagan, answer your question?
===================== indeed! He made a fantastic leader.

everyone should get involved with their government. only then can we have government FOR the people instead of AGAINST the people. VOTE OUT THE CORRUPT AND PRIVILEGED CAREER POLITICIANS. its time for average citizens to hold government office.

Its better for celebrities to involve themselves publicly in serious world issue like politics, than for them to waste their vast wealth and influence on tabloid frivolities like materialism, parties & intoxication.

Its also better for the nations of the world to have individuals in positions of power who are already personally well-off enough, and who will not succumb to the temptations of graft & greed that afflict too many leaders in too many places today.

My only concern is one of the celebrities' competence - they are entertainers by trade, not leaders, and they can be eaten alive by unscrupulous ministers if they are not cereful. However, I'd imagine those celebrities who are actively involved in serious world issues to be on the more competent side of their community.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Politicians and actors are very egotistical. Its the wrong match. We need normal, everyday people who have to manage and scrape by on very little because they understand the value of a dollar and know how to make it stretch. They also instinctively find ways to cut back without hurting their children's lifestyle. Single moms like myself would make the best politicians. We've clawed and scratched to get the highest and best education for our child on a pauper's salary. We know how to raise a generation of caring, responsible, highly educated children. We share our resources and good will. We aren't egotistical and greedy and we think of ways to improve life for everyone not just for our children.

Im sure some would make a good job of it , so long as they leave the acting out of it , one job or the other , the only worry is the voters will vote for someone because they have seen him on tv or cinema and think hes handsome ..sad but true, some will not cut because they are celebs and cant leave it alone.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If that star has the relevant experience, being an award winning singer and being a politician is a very different ball game, apart from being in the public eye of course.

TOAD IN THE HOLE POST#77.
RONALD REAGAN gave major tax breaks to the rich and corporations and hammered the middle class. a corrupt leader but a good actor if you get my drift? the bush crime family did the same thing. its now all about destroying the middle class in america to achieve absolute control of the people. if there is only the rich and the poor, the poor will work long hours to barely feed, clothe, and house their family. there will be no time to protest. most people will not open their pie hole for fear of loseing what little they have. now the U.S.government is forceing uncontroled illegal immigration down our throats to make things worse for the people. look at what is happenening in arizona. the people want the state to enforce existing federal immigration laws but the federal government sues the state to stop enforcement. DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?
big corporations like walmart and fast food want millions of minimum wage employees and lobby(bribe) the government to ignore the law AND THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. i believe the only way to put this corrupt government in order is to have an armed mob 1 million strong marching on washington.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

They couldn't make a worse job of it than the politicians!

#68 Here here & what a nice handle!

He can't do a worse job for what is one of he poorest countries on earth.

#48 Some Republican's "thought" processes are sooooooooooo scary - they actually take Sarah Palin seriously.....honest.....really...

No, of course not. Since when, did being a celeb make you an expert in government?

I almost NEVER listen to any celeb's opinion on government. Once in a while they will, of course, like any other citizen, have worthwhile comments, but endorsement of candidates, is rarely one of them.

how about sean penn for president? what a blithering idiot he'd make?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

How about when politicians become actors? like the venezuelan clown who orders all channels public and private to retransmit his verborrheic discourses for hours at a time where he sings, recites poems, screams, kicks, jokes, etc etc etc?

I think that in the case of Haiti someone who is uncorrupt and passionate would be very valuable to a country that has been devastated by natural disasters and corruption. He's the kind of person who is very much in the public eye both in Haiti and the US, and I think that would contribute to keeping him on the straight and narrow. I hope he does go for it and does something good for the country.

I really believe that he has his nations best interest at heart,and I believe that he wants to do the best that he can for his people.However entering politics at this level without any previous experience is dangerous.He may do more harm than good by making bad decisions.In such an event history would record him as an incompetant do nothing, as apposed to the status he enjoys now.That of patriotic humanitarian. I would advise him to keep his feet planted on the humanitarian side of the fence.Politics are dirty and they have corrupted the very best of us.

"
19. At 12:49pm on 29 Jul 2010, Joe wrote:

8. At 12:22pm on 29 Jul 2010, Toad In The Hole wrote:

I don't care.

------------------------------------------------------

Then why comment on it in this thread?
"

Because I wanted to.