Bands Gather to Stump Against Bush

39 minutes ago

By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - In an unprecedented series of concerts in nine swing states, more than 20 musical acts — including Bruce Springsteen (news), Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks (news - web sites) — will perform fund-raising concerts one month before the Nov. 2 election in an effort to unseat President Bush (news - web sites).

The shows, which will begin Oct. 1 in Pennsylvania, will take an unusual approach: as many as six concerts on a single day in cities across the states expected to decide the November presidential race. Other stops on the tour are North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the key state in 2000, Florida.

"We're trying to put forward a group of progressive ideals and change the administration in the White House," Springsteen told The Associated Press in the most overtly political statements of his 30-year career. "That's the success or failure, very clear cut and very simple."

The artists of different generations and genres will tour under the name "Vote For Change," with shows Oct. 1-8. But the money generated will go to America Coming Together, which promises on its Web site to "derail the right-wing Republican agenda by defeating George W. Bush."

The anticipated millions of dollars will be spent in the swing states before the presidential election, said ACT president Ellen Malcolm.

The shows will be presented by MoveOn Pac, the electoral arm of the liberal interest group MoveOn.org, with an official announcement expected Wednesday.

There was no immediate word on prices for tickets, which were going on sale for all shows Aug. 21. The shows will pair artists, such as Springsteen and or the Dixie Chicks and James Taylor (news). There will be 34 shows in 28 cities.

Natalie Maines, of the Dixie Chicks, who memorably told a London audience last year that she was ashamed to share her home state of Texas with Bush, echoed a Springsteen comment that this was the most important election of their lives.

"A change is in order," Maines said. "There's never been a political climate like this, which is so the polar opposite of me as a person and what I believe in."

The idea was hatched by several of the acts' managers, and quickly expanded. "Once we started talking to each other, ideas started percolating and other artists started reaching out to us," said Jon Landau, Springsteen's manager.

Other artists participating in the shows ******* hip-hoppers Jurassic 5, John Mellencamp (news), Bonnie Raitt (news), Jackson Browne (news), Babyface, Bright Eyes and the Dave Matthews Band. Most have a history of social activism, from Browne's anti-nuclear concerts to Mellencamp's Farm Aid shows. Pearl Jam front man Vedder was a Ralph Nader (news - web sites) backer in 2000.

"At some point, you can't sit still," said Vedder, a harsh critic of the Iraq (news - web sites) war. "You can't spend your life, when people are getting killed, without asking serious questions about why."

Springsteen said he didn't fear any backlash over going public with his personal politics.

"It's a pretty clear-cut decision in November," said Springsteen, whose songs have provided a backdrop for some Kerry events. "We're chipping in our two cents. That's all we're trying to do."

I've read of more celebrities / musicians who dislike Bush than those that support him but this still caught me by surprise.

i usually roll my eyes at this sort of stuff, but then i hypothisize realistically what bands or artist would gather in support of bush and I just laugh. toby keith, anyone? :D

Originally posted by Debaser
i usually roll my eyes at this sort of stuff, but then i hypothisize realistically what bands or artist would gather in support of bush and I just laugh. toby keith, anyone? :D

lee greenwood!

Gavin Rossdale's gonna be pissed.

Originally posted by wangcomputers
Gavin Rossdale's gonna be pissed. http://forums.netphoria.org/wwwboard/icons/icon14.gif

what's interesting about this is the reality that these celebrities have just as much right to voice their opinion publicly and support a candidate as a celebrity who becomes president (regean).

good for them for taking an interest in voting and issues and doing something about what they believe.

Originally posted by homechicago
what's interesting about this is the reality that these celebrities have just as much right to voice their opinion publicly and support a candidate as a celebrity who becomes president (regean).

good for them for taking an interest in voting and issues and doing something about what they believe.

But they've always had that right. This is nothing new. What they don't have the right to do is to do things like this and remain popular if their fanbase rejects it. All these anti-Bush celebrities act like they're being wronged when they get bad press because of stunts like this, and they cry censorship. If they think they can come out and take a heavily partisan stance like this and not alienate half their fanbase (or more), then more power to them. but if their record sales or radio play take a hit, they better not complain.

Originally posted by pale blue eyes
I've read of more celebrities / musicians who dislike Bush than those that support him but this still caught me by surprise. Celebrities and musicians are rarely if ever right wing. It's bad for their image, the press tends to mock them (Heston, Selleck) and it's easier to sing about saving plants and birdies and overthrowing government than it is lowered taxes and free trade.

And I must say these celebrities don't appear very versed or educated if they actually believe - like many seem to - that Kerry['s foreign policy will be any different than Bush's.

It speaks volumes that all North Carolina gets is a show by Pearl Jam in Asheville (kinda neat, if hippie-esque, college town).

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
it's easier to sing about saving plants and birdies and overthrowing government than it is lowered taxes and free trade.


LOL. and this has been scientifically proven?


by the way, its the dems that want to lower middle class taxes and it was the bushies that only lowered taxes for the rich. by the way, its the bushies that play both sides of the free trade game, by talking about free trade, but at the same time impose steel tariffs on imports and support laws that will not allow equivalent and cheaper prescription drugs come in from canada to protect american drug corporations.

i have that feeling again...

Originally posted by Debaser


LOL. and this has been scientifically proven?

Quick, give me your top 3 right-wing protest songs.

Originally posted by Debaser

by the way, its the dems that want to lower middle class taxes and it was the bushies that only lowered taxes for the rich. Without taking this too far off topic, my taxes got lower, and so did everyone elses. Bush lowered taxes across the board. Now of course the rich did get a cut as well, but Bush's cuts didn't even go as far as to return the percentage of tax based on income back to the pre-Clinton era.

Originally posted by Corganist


Quick, give me your top 3 right-wing protest songs.

1. i don't listen to country music.

2. people who support the people in power need not protest.

Originally posted by Debaser

people who support the people in power need not protest. So then the left has never been in power?

To steer things back on topic: Springsteen wrote an op-ed for the Times. It's linked off their main site if you're interested.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
To steer things back on topic: Springsteen wrote an op-ed for the Times. It's linked off their main site if you're interested. Why does anyone care what Bruce Springsteen feels about politics?

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Why does anyone care what Bruce Springsteen feels about politics?

Because he's The Boss?

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Why does anyone care what Bruce Springsteen feels about politics?

wait, wait, I got it. Because he wrote Born to Run. That sounds better.

Originally posted by Ugly


wait, wait, I got it. Because he wrote Born to Run. That sounds better. Good point. That is the state song of New Jersey.

Nothing like phrases like "suicide machines" and "we've got to get out while we're young" to instill state pride.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Why does anyone care what Bruce Springsteen feels about politics?

For the same reason that anybody gives a shit what you think about politics. I don't have to care about Bruce's politics any more than I have to care about yours.

On a related note, I only figured out yesterday that Silvio on the Sopranos is Bruce's guitarist.

Originally posted by Jason Smith


For the same reason that anybody gives a shit what you think about politics. I don't have to care about Bruce's politics any more than I have to care about yours.

Then why does Bruce get to write an op-ed in the Times, and the rest of are stuck here posting at Netphoria?

Originally posted by Jason Smith


For the same reason that anybody gives a shit what you think about politics. I don't have to care about Bruce's politics any more than I have to care about yours.

On a related note, I only figured out yesterday that Silvio on the Sopranos is Bruce's guitarist. His drummer is Conan O'Brien's band leader.

In any event, I'm not writing an op-ed article for the Times. Bruce is.

Originally posted by Corganist


Then why does Bruce get to write an op-ed in the Times, and the rest of are stuck here posting at Netphoria?


Cause no one ever heard of our sorry asses.

Originally posted by Corganist


Then why does Bruce get to write an op-ed in the Times, and the rest of are stuck here posting at Netphoria?

Because those are the breaks.

I'm more concerned with why David Brooks gets to write a column for the Times. He's such a know nothing hack.

Originally posted by Future Boy
Cause no one ever heard of our sorry asses.
I've heard of Bruce Springsteen, but that doesn't make me even the least bit curious about what he'd have to say in an op-ed piece. I've only heard of him because he's a musician. I'm sure there are lots of nobodies out there who have a lot more relevant things to say than him. What makes his political opinions more worthy of a broad public forum than theirs?

Originally posted by Corganist

I've heard of Bruce Springsteen, but that doesn't make me even the least bit curious about what he'd have to say in an op-ed piece. I've only heard of him because he's a musician. I'm sure there are lots of nobodies out there who have a lot more relevant things to say than him. What makes his political opinions more worthy of a broad public forum than theirs?

My point exactly. Why does anybody care about William Safire, Paul Krugman, David Brooks or Maureen Dowd? Why are they given the opportunity to spout their opinions and not us?

Thus the rise of the blog my friend. Thus the rise of the blog.

Originally posted by Corganist

I've heard of Bruce Springsteen, but that doesn't make me even the least bit curious about what he'd have to say in an op-ed piece. I've only heard of him because he's a musician. I'm sure there are lots of nobodies out there who have a lot more relevant things to say than him. What makes his political opinions more worthy of a broad public forum than theirs?


Name recognition = sales = money

Not everyone will care, but they'll probably be a bunch of Springsteen fans that will buy that normally wouldn't.

Originally posted by Future Boy



Name recognition = sales = money

Not everyone will care, but they'll probably be a bunch of Springsteen fans that will buy that normally wouldn't.

By the time your average Springsteen fan finds out about his column, they won't be able to buy the actual paper copy of the edition it was in and will look it up (for free) on the web.

Uh, they gave Springsteen op-ed space to explain this "bands against Bush" thing. It's newsworthy. It's not like it's more than a 500-word one-off.

If you want to get pissed, get pissed about how they're giving Barbara Ehrenreich space so that Krugman (I think it's Krugman) can finish his book.

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
Uh, they gave Springsteen op-ed space to explain this "bands against Bush" thing. It's newsworthy. It's not like it's more than a 500-word one-off.

If you want to get pissed, get pissed about how they're giving Barbara Ehrenreich space so that Krugman (I think it's Krugman) can finish his book.

Whoa partner!

Tom Friedman is finishing his book. Big difference.

Originally posted by Jason Smith


By the time your average Springsteen fan finds out about his column, they won't be able to buy the actual paper copy of the edition it was in and will look it up (for free) on the web.

Look, it's a simple idea ok. Get a celebrity, and ask them to write a column, sales might go up. There really is no downside. Hell, it doesnt even have to sell, just get people talking about your magazine or what not. It will definately garner more attention than their regular columnists, or something written by some unknown schlub. Then again I dont seem to know the Springsteen fan base as well as you seem to.

Originally posted by Jason Smith


Whoa partner!

Tom Friedman is finishing his book. Big difference.

yeah Friedman is super -jew.

Originally posted by wangcomputers
Gavin Rossdale's gonna be pissed.

:rofl:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
It speaks volumes that all North Carolina gets is a show by Pearl Jam in Asheville (kinda neat, if hippie-esque, college town).

Pearl Jam is playing the Rodeo grounds that are like half a mile from my house, if I stand outside I will probably be able to hear them from my back yard.

i think these musicians have an amazingly over-inflated perspective on their political influence (in how people vote). They don't so much change hearts as affirm prejudice and bias against Bush.

Big Deal.

they do, on the other hand, have a great affect on consciousness...though Im not sure if that in itself has ever swayed any Presidential election since the 60's one way or the other.