Aug. 8, 2007--
PoliSat.Com exposes Hollywood's release of anti-John-McCain campaign ad disguised as movie titled "Lions for Lambs" with Tom Cruise as the "bad" guy-- a "Maverick" Senator supporting the war.·
Hollywood releases anti-war and anti-McCain campaign ad thinly disguised as a movie titled "Lions for Lambs" with Tom Cruise reprising the role of an older "Maverick" as a U.S. Senator supporting the war and Robert Redford as a professorial Obama sans tan exposing the "folly" of young American males volunteering to serve in our military. This characterization by PoliSat.Com ignited a media firestorm first appearing in John McCaslin's "Inside the Beltway" column in the Washington Times and at Town Hall.
Jim Wrenn, the Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com, issued a release (linking to the movie trailer) stating:
One of the latest example of Hollywood political-action-movie tripe designed to influence public opinion against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and in favor of the current crop of candidates for the Democratic nomination for 2008 is "Lions for Lambs." The movie is a thinly disguised de-facto political campaign ad against supporters of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in general and against McCain in particular. I'm not a "McCain" supporter (I'd prefer Giuliani), but I'd surely support McCain over any of the current crop seeking the Democratic nomination for 2008, each of whom is pandering to, and simpatico with, the soft-headed, professorial naiveté of the American Self-Defeatists. Where are the John F. Kennedy "classical liberal" Democrats? Joe Lieberman isn't seeking the nomination.
In the wake of this attention, Wrenn wrote a set of explanatory limerick-stanzas (quoted below) highlighting the predicament for McCain as a result of the movie (the accompanying image below pre-dated McCain/Feingold becoming law):
By PoliSat-Com overheard:
McCain's muttered words when he learned
how Hollywood "clams"
for "Lions and Lambs"
were spent so McCain would be spurned.
The "Maverick" (McCain) said: "Shazaam!
The movie named 'Lions for Lambs'
makes perfectly plain
that "Cruise" is "McCain"
and Redford's 'Obama' sans tan."
"When campaign 'reform' I did start
to limit the campaigning arts,
I erred not including
I'm hoisted upon my petard."
"So now, with the limits imposed
on candidates, parties and pros
but not on the darts
in Hollywood's arts,
I"m wounded by Cruise as me posed."
"To stop it, I'll need to resort
to pleadings requesting a court
to promptly declare
'reform' that I dared
is trumped by free-speech ever more."
So many of us tried to show
McCain what "reform" would impose,
but John wouldn't listen
so now he must listen
to us say "We toldeth you so."
Who has the financial clout and production skills to counter Hollywood's "Lions for Lambs" campaign-ad? Does not McCain/Feingold unconstitutionally limit the capacity of political parties, candidates, their supporters, grass-roots organizations, etc. to effectively counter such naked propaganda? Of course it does. Are we who opposed McCain/Feingold now entitled to say "We told you so"? Of course we are, but there's no satisfaction in that.
How can opponents of such naked propaganda counter it? Here's one of my meager attempts at http://PoliSat.Com/BaseballFootballAndWar.htm (which includes a windows movie video -- above right) or, if you insist on giving traffic to Google/Gorgle, you can view the video on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ww3VocsYFc. or by using the YouTube image (above-left).
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com and sometimes the "Washington Bureau Drawer Chief."·