I saw something in Time that said Kelsey Grammer might be considering a future run for the Senate as a Republican. I'm so glad that there are successful Republicans working in Hollywood, cause sometimes it seems to be dominated by radical Communist liberals like Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn. I remember Grammer campaigned against Governor Gray Davis when he ran for reelection in 2002. Now that King Davis has been recalled, and a fellow actor is in Sacramento...maybe Hollywood will start leaning a little (just a smidge) toward the right.

It would also be something if someone from the Bush administration or maybe first lady Laura, could make an appearance on Frasier, a la the Mary Tyler Moore episode with Betty Ford. Frasier is longest running (live-action) sitcom on TV today. It is entitled to the prestige of having an important official guest star. I mean if Tony Blair can do a voice for The Simpsons.....

Politics and Sitcoms don't mix for me.

Politics and life dont mix for me.

You may be forgetting "GeorgeJefferson" that, although Kelsey Grammer is one of the executive producers of the show, he isn't the only one - and some very important people on the production end of the show are probably what you would label "radical Communist liberals" (or what I would call "thoughtful, intelligent people"), so the likelihood of the conservative agenda being promoted on Frasier is slim to none, IMO. After all, it was widely reported that Kelsey really wanted a show done that somehow referenced back to the 9/11 tragedy and it never came about because, no doubt, saner voices overruled him. If he indeed was able to get whatever he wanted on the show, I think that 9/11 show would have been made, but obviously there is a consensus approach when making such decisions (not a dictatorial one) so they don't *always* reflect just K.G.'s views (or his politics). Which to me is a blessing - I agree with "Brian Damage" - party politics and sitcoms don't mix.

Don't go lambast Kelsey Grammer simply because he sees eye to eye with majority of the country and not the majority of the media and entertainment world. Sure, it's obvious that most people working in television today are very left-leaning. However, the idea of bringing a prominent Republican on a sitcom is not exactly absurd.

Look at Betty Ford on The MTM Show or Nancy Reagan on Diff'rent Strokes. Do you think most people involved with the productions of those shows were Ford and Reagan supporters?
All I was saying was it would be interesting to see someone from the Bush administration or some other distinguished conservative make an appearance on this show, which has always seemed to be nonpartisan. Even a liberal show like Friends had Republican actors Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, and even Charlton Heston make appearances. After all, artistocrats like Frasier and Niles, and a former cop like Martin usually don't tend to be liberals.

As for Kelsey having an idea about a show with a tie to 9/11, don't be so quick to criticize him for that. If you recall, "Frasier" creator/producer David Angell was on board one of the planes that went into the towers, and I'm sure any idea related to 9/11 would be in the form of a tribute to people like him. I'm not quite sure how much comedy could come from an episode like that, but at least Kelsey had honorable intentions in bringing it up.

Oh come on! Get off your high-horse about me "lambasting" anyone or calling anyone's ideas "absurd" (those are entirely *your* terms - *not* mine!). I was just saying that I disagreed with him and that it isn't a good idea as far as I am concerned to mix party politics with a sitcom. I don't think it is a good idea for any politicians (liberal or conservative) to be guest staring on T.V. shows (they aren't trained actors and usually detract from the quality of the show). You seemed to be saying in your original post that Kelsey should be commended if he pushes for and gets more conservative icons on the show (because of his personal politics). I really don't care if Friends or Different Strokes or what ever show (liberal or conservative) did - what I care about is what happens on Frasier (and only that) and I think whatever Kelsey's personal politics are, the reason that the show has remained "non-partisan" about guesting political figures is that they don't rule by dictation by one person - they probably decide things by concensus (which makes sense) and others must have decided that there shouldn't be partisan politics practised on Frasier. I agree entirely with that idea!

As far as 9/11 goes - I am *not* being "quick" to criticize him - I have thought long and hard about it and still agree with DHP and others associated with the show, that Frasier isn't the correct venue for that sort of theme. The show *did* pay tribute with a written statement at the end of one programme and statements in the press at the time of the tragedy (as well as holding a memorial service to honour them where many friends and family spoke about their affections for David Angell and his wife). I know Kelsey had good intentions, but they were channeled towards something that wasn't really appropriate (IMO) and I still think that the decision made not to show what he wanted was the correct one. Those people who made that decision were also affected (just as much as Kelsey) by David A.'s death and had just as much emotional involvement in the tragic loss of life that happened that day and yet chose to express their loss in different ways (and ones that I agreed with more).

BTW - Niles' and Frasier's politics were *clearly* defined in the episode "The Candidate" - they were shown to be die-hard liberals (no doubt they are much like some of those "radical Communist liberals" you detest so much ;-P). Martin was revealed to be very much a conservative. It's all in the transcripts, if you care to check on the Frasier Files. :-))

OK, let's just agree to disagree.

Some of us think politics and sitcoms don't go well together. Others of us think an occassional appearance by someone recognizable can be an interesting blend. Especially after a dull season, like Frasier experienced last year.

I haven't seen "The Candidate" episode, so I guess you've got me there with my original assumption about them being conservative since they are snobby aristocrats. But I guess liberals like the Kennedys are the same way.

Thank you for your input, "Valma". I would like to know what others think about possible future cameos by politicians on the show.

Of course we can agree to disagree - that's what these boards are about - everyone getting a chance to have their say! :-))

BTW - it's not just politicians I have an aversion to for guest appearances - it's all non-acting types! :-)

Seeing Bill Gates' "performance" (using that in the *broadest* of terms!;-) ) in the 200th episode left a bit of a hankering in me to take a shower - it was soooo obvious that they were obliged to *let* him come on the show to advertise his product! For my money John Glenn's appearance was the best of the lot, but I really don't like non-actors coming on the show. Leave it up to the professionals and let's see quality - not self-promotion by the powerful or influential!! :-))

I don't think Bill Gates' appearance was meant to be a "performance" as it was a ratings-grabber cameo, just because of the show taking place in his hometown of Seattle. It was funny just to see him there, and it was smart not to do an entire episode with him as the guest star.

Famous people who aren't actors are usually effective in getting laughs if they only appear briefly and say little to nothing, like Walter Cronkite on The MTM Show. Famous actors making guest appearances can often carry an episode with the rest of the cast as Michael Douglas did with Will & Grace and as various actors like Adam Arkin and Anthony LaPaglia have done with their roles on Frasier.

Again we have to agree to disagree. :-)

It was not funny to see him there for me. It was painful.

I would rather see a good character actor any day than a non-actor (of any profession) inserted into a story just because that person if famous (for whatever reason). The non-actor usually stick out like a sore thumb and everything seems awkward, even if they are on screen for a short time.

Famous actors are another overused tactic that some programmes employ for ratings - stunt casting. Usually it only counts if that person hasn't been a regular on a fairly recent television series or is a mega-star in live theatre or other form of the performing arts - so Michael Douglas would be one such star (even though he did do "The Streets of S.F." it was sooooo long ago that most viewers wouldn't have watched it when it originally aired), Madonna, Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt etc. would be others.

But I wouldn't classify Adam Arkin or Anthony LaPaglia in the same group - both of them have starred on more recent shows and although they are familiar to television and movie goers, they aren't what I would classify as being in the same league of stardom as a Michael Douglas or Brad Pitt.

Although Frasier goes for well enough known actors, they don't go in for "stunt casting". David Lee confirmed this on the Frasier newsgroup stating that often the network has applied a great deal of pressure, trying to get the producers to go for bigger names to pull more casual viewers in, but they have purposely refused to do this. They are very selective about the guest actors they choose and I think that attention to quality shows. They also have a penchant for choosing actors who have a heavy background in live theatre.

Well, what about when they have Frasier's old buddies from Cheers come on with guest spots. I know they're reprising their roles from a previous show and they are, in most cases, enjoyable to watch again, but wouldn't you consider that stunt casting? I mean, NBC knows more people are going to tune in if they have the opportunity to see Ted Danson as Sam Malone again after all these years. Granted, Lilith has basically become a recurring character because she shows up at least once nearly every season.

I would have to say the ones with Lilith, and the individual episodes with Diane, Sam, and Woody were pretty good. But that Cheers "reunion" episode, that they hyped two years, with Norm, Carla, and Cliff, seemed forced for NBC's 75th Anniversary specials. Would you say that Frasier, at its lowest, has stooped to stunt casting, because of an incident like that? That certainly wasn't the quality writing viewers have grown accustomed to seeing on this show.

The Cheers reunion show *was* totally forced on Frasier by the network so I don't count that as the writers and producers fault - I blame *intense* pressure from the network in that unique situation (and I feel that if the producers of Frasier had had their way it probably wouldn't have ever been made). They did the best they could with what they were ordered to do.

As for the stunt aspect of the occasional guest appearances from Cheers actors - I would say no, I don't classify it the same as if some really big *mega-star* is "parachuted" into an episode (as the ex-girl friend, or mother or ex-whatever) with no previous
"history" or reference points to the regular character's timelines. The Cheers characters have a place in Frasier history and fit nicely into the occasional story line. *All* guest appearances are in some way a "gimmick", to bring something a little different into the regular cast lineup (that's why it is called a *guest* appearance), but what I am talking about is inappropriate casting done *just* to get viewers to tune in. Having Madonna drop by for coffee at Nervosa or have Elizabeth Taylor become Daphne's real mother - that is the type of casting that qualifys as "stunt casting" to me (and it is done a lot on many other shows).

As a conservative Republican, I think this is great! Kelsey Grammer seems to be a very intelligent man. I think he would make a great senator. It is nice to see some conservatives in Hollywood.

Well said, Dr. Crane. :)

Dr. Frasier Crane wrote:
"As a conservative Republican, I think this is great! Kelsey Grammer seems to be a very intelligent man. I think he would make a great senator. It is nice to see some conservatives in Hollywood."

Kelsey may well make a good senator if he indeed decides to take his life in that particular direction in the future, but I think you should realise that there are *plenty* enough of conservatives in Hollywood. He isn't alone by any means, nor are conservative thinking people an endangered species in "Tinsel Town". ;-)

Name some.

All right - here's a few that I can name of the top of my head:

Bruce Willis
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Kevin Costner
Charlton Heston
Mel Gibson
Sylvester Stallone
Chuck Norris,
Steven Seagal
Farah Fawcett
Suzanne Somers
Clint Eastwood
Drew Carey
Demi Moore
Edward James Olmos
Jay Leno
Dennis Franz
Kurk Russel
Ronald Reagan
Dixie Carter
Travis Tritt
Reba McIntire
Heather Locklear
Gerald McRaney
Ted Nugent
Gary Bussey
Pat Sajak
James Woods
Regis Philbin
Bill Paxton
Susan Anton
Loretta Lynn
Joan Rivers
Joe Mantegna
Tom Wopat
John Schneider
Delta Burke
Scott Baio
Susan Lucci
Mary Hart
Jan-Michael Vincent
Tony Danza
Danny Aiello
Fred Savage
Bruce Boxleitner
Melissa Gilbert
Donnie & Marie Osmond
Kelsey Grammer
Patricia Heaton
Andy Garcia
Gloria Stefan
Cheryl Ladd
Susan Lucci
The Judds
Shirley Jones
Jamie Farr
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Efrem Zimbalist, Jr
Ernist Borgnine
Robert Conrad
Art Linkletter

And some famous conservative types from the past -

John Wayne
James Stewart
Robert Taylor
Sonny Bono
Robert Stack
Bob Hope
Buddy Ebsen
Bob Crane
Fred MacMurray
Roy & Dale Rodgers

Of course if I had the time I could research it more and make a longer list. :-))

A well-constructed list, but it will never get near the number of liberals there are in the industry. Plus many of those people currently have very little influence (Susan Anton, Tom Wopat), are too old to have any name recognition with people today (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., Ernest Borgnine), or, like the great former President Reagan, are no longer associated with the industry. I am also unsure how some of these people have made their views known. Joan Rivers? Demi Moore? Melissa Gilbert? I know Gilbert signed one of those petitions in opposition to the war in Iraq. Just because Moore was married to Willis, doesn't necessarily mean she was a Republican like him. And Joan Rivers? When has she ever voiced any favortism toward the right?

Granted, stars like Bruce Willis, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (who may soon be out of the Hollywood loop, because of his new profession) still are very popular with fans and maintain a great deal of influence with Hollywood players. However, you must admit that the most powerful, influential, and biggest names do make up a majority of liberals. Tom Hanks, Oprah, Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Barbra Streisand, Michael Eisner, Ted Turner, Harrison Ford, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington.......and those are just some of the biggies.

Wow. That was a very interesting list. I had no idea there were so many conservatives. That's great.

You just said "name *some*" and I did. I also didn't say that all of them were influential (and neither did the other poster say "good to see some *influential* conservatives in Hollywood", for that matter). I was just trying to show that conservatives aren't an endangered species in show biz. That's all. :-))

I also didn't claim that the list that I gave would be complete or would "outdo" the list of liberals in Hollywood. I can believe fully that there are more liberals in Tinsel Town (for a mirade of reasons that I just don't have time to go into right now) - and my real response is --- so what!??!

In the country I live in liberals have almost always out numbered conservatives (even when the conservatives were in power) and the world hasn't come to an end!!!

What - do you think there is some type of "liberal" plot to take over the world with "Democrat actors"? LOL!!

Don't worry - if that were a real threat all the *ultra-conservatives* in the business world who have the *real* power (like the oil company executives and the bank CEO) would stop them! And the conservative media mogels like Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black and the Brofman's would use *their* influence much more than Tom Hanks or Brad Pitt!! LOL!!! :-))

All right, there's no need to allude to powerful conservatives in America when we're just talking about Hollywood here. I never suggested you thought Hollywood was dominated by conservatives, I was merely inquiring if you did or not, because most Hollywood liberal defenders complain that their industry is predominately conservative and that is why their voices fail to get heard. I don't see how that is possible when celebrities are so adored by the media, but that's a whole other thing. Anyway, I am glad that you can agree Hollywood is not "dominated" by conservatives and they are, in fact, a minority in that business. I think that is mainly due to the fact that many of them being low-profile stars, as your list proves.

For a conservative like me, it's great to see well-known actors, like Kelsey Grammer, become more vocal in their opinions. It's a break from hearing irritating liberals like Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, and the worst one of them all, Barbra Streisand preach about how much they hate Bush. I know they're entitled to their opinions, but after awhile, it becomes pretty redundant to hear of Hollywood opposition to the current administration. I think most of them are probably bitter that they don't have the "ear" of the president, like they did with Clinton for eight years. He always seemed to be in awe of celebrities, since he actually let them spend nights in famous White House rooms. That's a whole other gripe I have, so I'll just stop here.

So, Valma, I will agree with you that conservatives are not an "endangered species" in Hollywood, even if they carry little to no influence when it comes to expressing their views through the works that come out of the industry.

Oh, I think that the business (the *real* money end) of show business *is* dominated by very conservative people. :-))

In the profession of acting and perhaps directing there are probably many more liberal types - artistic people tend to be more free-thinking, less rigid, less myopic in their vision and have a larger sense of community (all "commie-pinko" ideas right?
;-) ).

But on the business end of Hollywood, most (but not all) media "conglomerates" are top heavy with shadowy (who prefer it that way) executives who are very much on the conservative end of the spectrum. :-)

And as far as expressing conservative views in movies and television - well, how do you think completely propaganda-based material like the upcoming special "Saving Jessica Lynch" gets made if it isn't conservative "mover and shakers" behind such "projects"! For every so called "liberal, homo-loving, Democrat-touting, kinky sex-laden" plot there are just as many "family-values, hetro-relationship endorsing, I-love-America-ain't-she-a-grand-country" stories - but that is what makes us civilized I guess - differing views. ;-)

If you think *you* are irritated at hearing liberal actors whine about the Bush administration doings in Iraq (which I personally think has been far too muted and much too late - but that is another beef of mine that I won't go into at the moment ;-) ), just remember the "left" has a lot of catching up to do, since in the US conservativism ran Hollywood since the thirties with the Hayes Censorship Act (which wasn’t replaced until 1968!!) and continued to do so with the Hollywood Blacklist, Joe McCarthy and R.M. Nixon (and that little committee they ran) in the fifties, studio executives forcing gay actors into “beard” marriages, and showing any lack of support of war efforts throughout the 40’s and 50’s, even in the mildest form was career ending etc. So it is really just a matter of balancing things out I think now. :-))

Everyone has the right to say what they want. That is what is so great about the United States. But, I just get sick of seeing awards shows like the Oscars of Grammys turn political. Viewers tune into award shows to be entertained, not have left-wing propaganda shoved down their throat.

I think liberals definitely dominate in Hollywood. When Kelsey Grammer attended the Bush 2001 Inuagural dinner, he joked that he would probably never work in Hollywood again. I wish more conservatives would speak out. I know there are a lot of them, but we hardly ever hear from them.

If you really want to hear liberal actors and others in the entertainment industry voice their opinions, go to rightnation.us and look under the "Hall of Halfwits". Yes, it is a conservative site. But the quotes come from the actual lips of the stars. I don't understand how you think Hollywood is dominated by conservatives when virtually every project that has come out of it lately has some liberal message. "Saving Jessica Lynch" is a movie put out for November sweeps, because most of America was interested in the story. Anything that isn't liberal is considered "propaganda" nowadays. The movie is about the rescue of a fellow soldier. I think both liberals and conservatives can admire that.

I don't understand why you can be against movies that express family values or pride in one's country. If you argue that those are propaganda, why can't any of these movies with liberal messages also be considered as propaganda? Just because the current administration is Republican? It seems to me that films "that carry messages" demonstrate the difference of opinion in America. People have the option of whether or not they want to view it or accept the message. In the case of the Jessica Lynch movie, I can't see a network like NBC, which produces pure smut, like "Coupling", ever decide to promote "propaganda" favoring the conservative cause.

As for liberals in Hollywood "catching up" to the power held by Hollywood conservatives in the 1940s and 1950s, that is simply a childish way to look at it. Writers and directors who held radical ideas back then were unheard because most American moviegoers did not want to listen to the ideas they preached. Therefore, they were unsuccessful in finding a great deal of work.

First of all let me apologise for the length of this post but I feel I had to answer with George J.'s text inserted to maintain the integrity of the post. - Valma

If you really want to hear liberal actors and others in the entertainment industry voice their opinions, go to rightnation.us and look under the "Hall of Halfwits". Yes, it is a conservative site. But the quotes come from the actual lips of the stars.

Lots of people, both conservative and liberal say stupid things at some point. I don’t wish to getting into a nitwit pissing contest with you, but your current president, is *famous* for uttering some pretty ridiculous statements – so let’s just leave that alone, before I have to dredge up some embarrassing quotes from conservatives that would make any educated person cringe – O.K.? ;-)

I don't understand how you think Hollywood is dominated by conservatives when virtually every project that has come out of it lately has some liberal message. "Saving Jessica Lynch" is a movie put out for November sweeps, because most of America was interested in the story. Anything that isn't liberal is considered "propaganda" nowadays. The movie is about the rescue of a fellow soldier. I think both liberals and conservatives can admire that.

Well, I can admire stories about courage (my husband is a author and has written a number of books about my country’s war heroes), but what I can’t stand is trumped up fiction that is done purposely to whip up jingoistic feelings among a country’s populous. The true story of what happened with the Jessica Lynch story was told a while back in the Toronto Star (as well as on by the BBC and a few other newspapers) by a respected Middle East Bureau journalist Mitch Potter on May 5, 2003 (not some left-leaning Democrat actor with a liberal axe to grind ;-) ). I doubt you will take me up on the offer but I can send you a copy of the article (it is too long to reprint here), if you are interested.
I don't understand why you can be against movies that express family values or pride in one's country.

WHAT!?!?!? Where did you get the idea that I was doing that!!!???!! Please re-read my post (or read it for *real* this time)! I *never* said any such thing! I said that movies and television shows that show such perspectives are all part of the greater scope of living in a democracy.

"For every so called "liberal, homo-loving, Democrat-touting, kinky sex-laden" plot there are just as many "family-values, hetro-relationship endorsing, I-love-America-ain't-she-a-grand-country" stories - but that is what makes us civilized I guess - differing views. ;-)”

Where does that say anywhere that I am “against” any of those ideas? (if anything my language was more sarcastic about the liberal ideas!!!). Talk about misinterpreting what a person has written! LOL!!!!!!!!!

If you argue that those are propaganda, why can't any of these movies with liberal messages also be considered as propaganda? Just because the current administration is Republican?

I *never* said *those* ideas were propaganda – I said the material contained in the Pentagon’s version of what happened with Pt. Lynch was “propaganda” because it was never verified by disinterested parties and done to further the Bush
Administration’s war efforts. (look up propaganda in the dictionary, no wait – I’ll do it for you – “Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.”) Pretty well fits *that* story. And yes, liberals can disseminate propaganda.

It seems to me that films "that carry messages" demonstrate the difference of opinion in America. People have the option of whether or not they want to view it or accept the message.

I fully agree. I never said that NBC *shouldn’t* make the Jessica Lynch movie, just that it shouldn’t be presented entirely as “fact” – it’s tainted too heavily with a “propaganda aspect”.

In the case of the Jessica Lynch movie, I can't see a network like NBC, which produces pure smut, like "Coupling", ever decide to promote "propaganda" favoring the conservative cause.

I can’t comment on “Coupling” – I have never seen it. But smut is a subjective thing IMO.

As for liberals in Hollywood "catching up" to the power held by Hollywood conservatives in the 1940s and 1950s, that is simply a childish way to look at it. Writers and directors who held radical ideas back then were unheard because most American moviegoers did not want to listen to the ideas they preached. Therefore, they were unsuccessful in finding a great deal of work.

I’m looking at history in *simply a childish way*, am I???? (tisk, tisk no need to resort to being insulting – it’s a sure sign of a weak argument!) I was trying to be a bit droll (I thought you’d be able to catch that – apparently not ;-( ).

Time for a little history lesson, I see. :-) Please read something on the Hollywood Blacklist before too long (or I am afraid I just won’t be able to have any more amiable chats about this topic with you – you have to have *some* knowledge base in order to discuss things). The writers and directors were not just “unsuccessful” at “finding a great deal work” because American moviegoers didn’t like their ideas (that statement is too comical to almost repeat) – they were *jailed* and *banned* from even attempting to work (many had to flee the country to make a living to support their families). The “House of Un-American Activities Committee” (HUAC for short) was formed in 1936, but really got rolling in 1947 under the leadership of Chairman J. Parrnell Thomas when they “interviewed” 41 “friendly wittnesses” who named 19 writers and directors who were accused of holding “left wing views”. Included in this group were 10 who refused to name more names - respected writers like Ring Lardner Jr. (who later went on to write “The Cincinnati Kid” and M*A*S*H), Dalton Trumbo (who wrote the scripts for “Kitty Foyle”, “Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo” before the blacklist (really subversive, eh??) and who won two Oscars writing under assumed names for the scripts for “Roman Holiday” (1953) and “The Brave One” (1956) and later wrote “Spartacus” in 1960, screenwriter Albert Maltz (who worked on the script of “Casablanca” and later wrote “The Robe” without any credit due to the blacklist), Adrian Scott (who wrote for television under various assumed names episodes of “Lassie”, “Ironside” and “The Bold Ones” - I always thought that dog was a commie!!!) and six others who were found to be in contempt of Congress and sentenced from 6 to 12 months in prison. Some left the country rather than be jailed for their personal views while others served their time behind bars. Eventually more names were dredged up and over 350 actors were barred from working in the entertainment industry as a result of someone mentioning their name in the committee rooms *or* simply because they refused to name others – including Leonard Bernstein, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, John Garfield, Dashiell Hammett, Lillian Hellman, Burl Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorthy Parker, Pete Seeger, Orson Welles, Paul Robeson and Jeff Corey. These people weren’t merely inconvenienced – conservative studio chiefs, afraid of a government backlash against the industry, refused them the right to gainful employment. Years later, after HUAC was discredited (even most conservatives were eventually embarrassed by the witch hunt which was widened by McCarthy et al. in 1950 to the absurd point that Eisenhower finally ordered Nixon to deliver a thinly veiled attack on McCarthy on March 4, 1954 and McCarthy was officially censured by the Senate by leading politicians on both sides - the vote was 62 for censure to 22 against), many of those writers, musicians and directors drifted back to Hollywood in the 1960’s but the damage was done. Lives were destroyed, careers damaged, good people dragged through the mud on hearsay evidence and the industry was cowed and frightened. These were talented, productive people who were giants in their field – so we all suffered as a result of their misery during those years (either being unable to work or having to leave the U.S. to work). If you think these facts have led me to a “childish” way of looking at things then so be it. But I (respectfully) must conclude that your opinions are based on some very historically erroneous beliefs and a narrowly focused viewpoint, then.

My reason for referring you to the "Hall of Halfwits" was not to demonstrate how stupid I think most liberal actors are, but to show you that they are, indeed, making their opinions known. They are not being silenced by the "conservative media", like most liberals claim they are.

As for the Jessica Lynch movie, I guess I misunderstood you when you called it "completely propaganda-based material". Was I way off base for assuming you felt it was a form of propaganda? I would definitely agree that networks taint many made-for-TV-movies, based on actual events, with fiction. Look at the upcoming "Reagans" movie by CBS. The writers have already admitted to making up dialogue that Reagan says, in this Barbra Streisand-produced film starring James Brolin.

About your statement saying, "it is really just a matter of balancing things out I think now," I am inclined to disagree. Instead of "childish", maybe I should have said "absurd". I realize the Communist "witch-hunts" were horrible for people in the industry at the time and many of their careers were unjustly ruined, forcing them to abandon their creative talents. You are obviously well-informed in this area, so I am not going to argue about anything that happened in the past. I was merely trying to say that it is ridiculous to think that the liberal takeover in Hollywood today is due to actors, writers, diretors, etc. trying to "balance things out." Half of Hollywood probably has no clue about the severity the witch-hunts caused for many people. Do you think the reason Jennifer Aniston is liberal is because Hollywood was taken over by the conservatives in the 1940s and 1950s? All I was saying is that Hollywood's liberalism is most likely not a result of seeking revenge on the conservative politicians who sought to find Communists in the business back then.

Boy! You really like to put words into other people’s mouths don’t you? I didn’t need referring to a site to prove that liberals are being heard. I never said they weren’t. I said that they haven’t been vocal enough in their criticism of the Bush Administration IMO (as a result of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terrorism). I said “muted” in *their* criticisms, not that they were being “muzzled” (there is a big difference). I am heartened that it is beginning to change recently (mainly since those “Weapons of Mass Distraction, oops I meant Destruction haven’t been found anywhere) – more are speaking out, but it isn’t enough as far as I am concerned. Democracy depends on a free exchange of ideas and all viewpoints should be welcomed, but some (too many in my book) felt a *self-imposed* pressure to remain quiet about their criticisms of the current regime because they felt they might be accused of being “disloyal” (even on non-war related issues). This of course is nonsense (you can be a perfectly good citizen and still be highly critical of a government)… but there you go.

As for your question about my feelings about the Jessica Lynch story and its connection to “propaganda” – I am not going to be redundant -you will just have to re-read my remarks – they are quite *clear* and I stand by what I said previously.

I’m glad that you realize that the witch-hunts of the McCarthy era were “horrible” (but I would never have guessed that by your original simplistic remarks). And there you go again misinterpreting what I have said to the point that it twists the entire meaning of my remarks. I never said that the liberalism in Hollywood today is a *result* of what happened in the past! I *said* (a bit facetiously I will admit) that in the greater scheme of things it was my personal observation that sometimes the pendulum swings one way and sometimes it swings the other (meaning that the shifts between liberal and conservative philosophies seems to “balance” out in the end) – or in even more simpler terms (so there is little room hopefully for any more misinterpretation) it’s never only *one* way in a democracy over the long haul (or is *that* too an absurd idea!?!?!). It has *nothing* to do with individuals (and I never suggested it did!) and their current commitment to liberal ideas. Although I think that many of the liberal thinkers in Hollywood are likely more knowledgeable about American history than you give them credit for (don’t you learn this stuff in your schools?? I’m not even a citizen of the U.S. and *I* learned about it, for crying out loud!), I never suggested that individual actors, directors and other creative types were seeking “revenge” for past wrongs on the part of conservatives (what a *strange* term to use on your part ?!?) when they become involved nowadys in political issues. LOL!!!

BTW – to bring this whole discussion back around to something “Frasier” related – did you know that David Hyde Pierce participated in SAG’s 50th Anniversary of the Blacklist - “Hollywood Remembers the Blacklist: The 50th Anniversary Remembrance,”? There was also a special issue of the SAG journal about the Blacklist and I think there was an audio or video of that remembrance as well (but I can’t seem to confirm this). Here is a link to a site that reprints the commemorative issue of the “National Screen Actor” -

http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archiv...c_blacklist.htm

and another about the programme that SAG (and 3 other guilds) put on –

http://www.wga.org/pr/1097/blacklist1.html

OK, we've gotten a bit sidetracked from the original topic of this forum. Somehow we started talking about Kelsey Grammer being a Republican and are now into Hollywood blacklisting. Apparently, I've been misinterpretating everything you've been saying.

how do you think completely propaganda-based material like the upcoming special "Saving Jessica Lynch" gets made if it isn't conservative "mover and shakers" behind such "projects"!

I *never* said *those* ideas were propaganda – I said the material contained in the Pentagon’s version of what happened with Pt. Lynch was “propaganda”

I'm so sorry I didn't see your reference to the Pentagon's version in the first post. Forgive me for thinking you were referring to the movie as propaganda because of conservative people in the business. What was I thinking?

If you think *you* are irritated at hearing liberal actors whine about the Bush administration doings in Iraq (which I personally think has been far too muted and much too late - but that is another beef of mine that I won't go into at the moment ;-) )


I said that they haven’t been vocal enough in their criticism of the Bush Administration IMO (as a result of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terrorism). I said “muted” in *their* criticisms, not that they were being “muzzled” (there is a big difference).

Gee, I must have missed that one specific detail about actors not being vocal against the Bush Administration "as a result of 9/11 and the ensuing war on terrorism" in the first post, as well. And by "muted", are you saying actors have been quiet or unheard about their views? Because that certainly is not true.

And as for the whole "balancing out" argument, I will write that off as a big misinterpretation on my part, because you obviously didn't mean what I originally thought you meant.

I guess this debate proves that maybe politics and pop culture do not mix well and the opinions of actors should be taken no more seriously than those of the ordinary American citizen. Like before, let's just agree to disagree on some of these issues and move on.

George J. wrote:
OK, we've gotten a bit sidetracked from the original topic of this forum. Somehow we started talking about Kelsey Grammer being a Republican and are now into Hollywood blacklisting. Apparently, I've been misinterpretating everything you've been saying.


Pretty much. ;-)

As for being sidetracked I don't mind, but others might, so that is why I tried to bring it back around to a "Frasier" aspect with the mention of DHP's efforts in the SAG’s 50th Anniversary of the Blacklist - “Hollywood Remembers the Blacklist: The 50th Anniversary Remembrance,”. :-))

BTW - what did you think of the episode this past Tuesday? I thought it was excellent and I can't wait for the conclusion next week! :-))

Yeah, I was really impressed by how Maris was incorporated into the show again. There was a rumor going around before this season that the writers were considering finding an actress to play her. Do you think that would be a good thing or would it be better to keep her a mystery like they did with Norm's wife on "Cheers"?

I am one of the few that wouldn't have minded if they decided to show her, but OTOH I'm not heartbroken that they kept her under wraps. The writers have done an excellent job so far, as far as I am concerned, so I'll trust them for the rest of the journey. ;-))