Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Dixie Chicks drop controversial lead singer in new album

By: CAITLIN R. KING
Associated Press
01/12/10 11:45 AM EST

NASHVILLE, TENN. — Two members of the Dixie Chicks — minus lead singer Natalie Maines — are preparing to release a new album this year.

Was it political controversy that caused the Dixie Chicks to fade in the music business or simply whatever talent they may have already ran its course?

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre in England. During the introduction to their song “Travelin’ Soldier”, Natalie Maines, a Texas native, said:

‘Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this iolence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.’

Celebs in the music and film industry especially seem to hold some notion that they have some special calling that requires weighing in on public affairs. Granted, music and film have been used many times to make political statements but perhaps those fortunate enough to make a living in these businesses should remember one fact about their personal views. Not everyone agrees with their opinions. Add to that actions have consequences.

Martie Maguire and Emily Robison will be releasing new music in 2010 without lead vocalist Natalie Maines. Lloyd Maines, Natalie’s father, has stated that the trio are “definitely still an entity”. On January 15, it was announced that duo will be known as Court Yard Hounds and will release an album in May with Robison on lead vocals.

After the commentary in 2003 nothing followed until 2006 and now in 2010 two of the three women are starting again without Natalie Maines. Wonder if there are any regrets?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Dixie Chicks or Tricks?

Dixie Chicks: A Bit Naive

About all this news does is etch the stamp of far left liberal on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s forehead. Although she began as a Republican until meeting Bill Clinton, Hillary really has no allegiance to anyone but Hillary. One would hope spooks were apolitical at least as far as party is concerned. A liberal ambassador is not a headline grabber. And a liberal CIA operative is probably not either. But it does seem strange when it comes up in conversation, or the news.

Hillary Rodham Clinton panders for votes in an interesting style. She tries to mimic and be the embodiment of whomever she is courting for votes. From practicing a pathetic immpression of Southern speech to adopting a temporary attachment to civil rights, Hillary Rodham Clinton sells snake oil. But having an endorsement from a controversial pair suggested to have damaged Kerry’s campaign may not be what the flim flam lady ordered.

But it does give this blog another excuse to use the pic of Valerie Plame again. A Dixie Chicks pic is available too. Now if they endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton would that be the kiss of death to her campaign or just bolster the kook fringe?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Valerie Plame Hubby Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary Clinton

By Jackson Simpson
Jul 16, 2007
Many people refer to Valerie Plame’s husband Joe Wilson as a political hack. The left wing activist is a hero to the fringe part of the base and does carry some weight with that slice of the Democratic Party. In what sounds like a job interview Joe Wilson has announced that he is endorsing Hillary Clinton. “I’m delighted to fight the fight with her. … The person who has always reached out to us has been Hillary. … I think Hillary is a fighter. … She is a wonderful individual. … More diplomacy the better. There is no daylight between us on Iran,” he said.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has placed much faith in Bill Clinton to launch her campaign. All the talk of his apparent rock star status among the fringe left may be a chink in the armor. The fringe left is a volatile mixture known to turn on their own on a whim. Perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton’s overconfidence comes from the steadfast support received to date from the far left liberal Democrats. As for Bill’s rock star status, at best it offers the risk of a new contestant on American Idol and at worst it is Milli Vanilli, the Dixie Chicks, Madonna and Cheryl Crow rolled into one.

Some evidence of the chink in the armor or house of cards that is Hillary Rodham Clinton begins to surface. From falling to third place in Iowa, to the downside of snuggling Bill for votes, her ability to stay in the hunt is questionable.

The article below talks about her less than impressive support in New York state.

No love for Hillary Clinton in 14850

Hillary Project, CA -
A well-known Democrat like Hillary, who is one of the most recognizable faces on the planet, should have no problems raising money and getting votes in our …

To those who believe her husband’s support is an ace in the hole, a couple of reports that compare the failed rock star and baggage.

Bill adds charm, baggage to Hillary’s bid

Lawrence Journal World, KS -
Martin Van Buren had Andrew Jackson. William Howard Taft had Theodore Roosevelt. George HW Bush had Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush had his father. …

Bill Brings His Baggage To Hillary’s Campaign

RealClearPolitics, IL - May 19, 2007
By David Shribman. Martin Van Buren had Andrew Jackson. William Howard Taft had Theodore Roosevelt. George HW Bush had Ronald Reagan.

And even the bizarre alliance between Bush 41 and Bill Clinton as strange bedfellows may have its limitations and after all the press starting with charity appeals, a fallout here would make unfortunate headlines for the Clintons.

Political Memo A Candidacy That May Test a Friendship’s Ties

New York Times, NY - May 18, 2007
By PATRICK HEALY. Former President Bill Clinton is speaking today in the presidential swing state of New Hampshire, but he is not speaking on her behalf; …

With Obama in her mirror and closing and losing out in Iowa to third place Edwards, the Clinton ‘mystique’ may hinge entirely on the insufficient support of the fringe left. For if any liberals have a conscience not indicated by their support of skull crushing abortions and the pedophile promoting, religion bashing ACLU, they would be compelled to oppose the long standing corruption of Clintonitis in 2008 and beyond.

This is why Blog @ MoreWhat.com opposes party politics. If your affiliation with party requires voting for a candidate with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s history, that single misguided loyalty supports our position against party politics. To argue that political reality establishes a need for ‘party voting’ equates the behavior with mob mentality. It is the kind of thinking that results in political deals between opposing ideologies that rarely solves anything. An example would be vote trading in Congress. As in I’ll vote for your bill if you vote for mine. Or loading bad bills with even worse amendments and pork to either defeat the measure or get perks for passing it. How can we expect any good out of a legislative body that permits this behavior and works to justify it?

This is the same mentality that allows someone like Hillary Clinton to be a potential candidate after all the evidence to the contrary that it is reasonable. The outcomes that follow the 2008 Presidential election will say more about the American public than any candidate. Do we have the courage to make decisions based on what is right over what may be expedient or self-serving?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

5 Grammys Mark Dixie Chicks’ Comeback

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Dixie Chicks completed a defiant comeback on Sunday night, capturing five Grammy awards after being shunned by the country music establishment over the group’s anti-Bush comments leading up to the Iraq invasion….

Celebrities often defend their outspoken political views as freedom of speech or doing their part for America. The problem with that is their celebrity. It gives them unfair access to publicity and media attention for political purposes that the average American does not have. It resembles a special interest lobby. What is to stop a celebrity from voicing an opinion that may not be their own? This ability, not unlike other forms of special influence, may lead to unintended consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dixie Chicks Win Five Grammy’s from Outside the Beltway 

Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq. 01/10/2007

There seems to be more conflict among people in this country as to an Iraq strategy than there is in Iraq. How’s that for helping out the other side? One of the drawbacks to freedom of speech is that people use it even when it is not in their best interest.

President Bush’s Administration is reminiscent of Lincoln and his difficulties with General McClellan in the Civil War. I will skip some obvious comparisons for the Demoratic party’s sentiments but can ask if anyone else was reminded of 1968.

It is unlikely that war plans have ever been completed without modification. Somewhere I heard someone say that after the first round is fired the battle plans go out the window. What politicians won’t give to us they expect from everyone else based on the words in the critiques. They claim they have the answer in their proposal. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem. They also claim the President’s current plan sends the wrong message. They think we’re doomed to fail. Have they ever considered their own actions may become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I have heard them say support the troops. Have they considered the positive effect of also supporting the mission? Slowly the Democrats opposition will convince me of the Dems suspected belief that utopia can be delivered if we all just talk and give each other a big hug. Let’s see ya try that with a terrorist who has repeatedly announced the fundamentalist mantra of killing all infidels. In case you’re not aware, that applies to anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And the way two distinct Muslim groups are killing each other in Iraq, that probably means everyone else.

Give the Bush Administration a chance to make something turn right about this wrongly initiated war. You might stop to think that some of us hold Congress partially to blame for failing to uncover the flaws as opposed to covering your political butts. And if the holier than thou minority of those voting against the war feel above reproach, forget about it. You were among the entire Congress, both houses, who failed to unearth the hoax. There is no “fool me once” loophole in matters of this importance. You all have a responsibility to see this thing through to a positive conclusion to right the wrongs and honor the sacrafice of others, Iraqis as well as Americans.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Bush, Mexico’s Calderon to work on immigration
Reuters -
… W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon
pledged on Thursday to work together for a comprehensive
solution to curb illegal immigration from Mexico …

If it was not a plot by both Houses of Congress to introduce
HR4437 knowing it would never get through the Senate, then
the fine new Senate of the 110th Congress should be able to
finish strong reform starting in January 2007. Similar to the
fact that Immigration Reform of 1986 was never enforced, in
their grand wisdom, politicians have improved on their deceit
by creating a better strategy. Work together just long enough
to satisfy mutual goals and fool the public in believing you really
give a damn. Like Democrats conceding Presidential 2004
elections by nominating John Kerry when John Edwards wsa a
much more viable candidate. Kerry was a sacrificial lamb and
the only one who did not know it was Kerry. He still doesn’t.

We hope all you smiling Democrats are enjoying your victories.
We hope all you Republicans are understanding your arrogance
that led to this. And we hope you both as well as all of America
is prepared for a continuation of porous borders, unrestricted
immigration and a complete breakdown of national security.

If you haven’t noticed, the resignation of Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and previously mentioned items absolutely elated the
Muslim world. Al-Jazeera and the rest have been celebrating
since November 7th, 2006. Thank you one and all. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Newest First Oldest First
Salon - 9 hours ago
Academy Award-winning director Barbara Kopple talks about
her new Dixie Chicks movie, “Shut Up & Sing,” and why she
hopes their fans will forgive them. …

When you use celebrity status to promote your personal
opinion, have the courage to accept the consequences. Some
of the discussion has centered on freedom of speech. A good
rule of thumb when it comes to freedom of speech is to remember
just because you can does not mean you should. Good intentions
alone do not necessarily make it right. It is rather naive to expect
everyone to agree with you.

The Dixie Chicks Ad NBC Doesn’t Want You To See
Think Progress, DC - 12 hours ago
It’sa sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a
movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted
for exercising their …

Again, accept the consequences of your actions. Just because you
can air your opinion does not mean you can’t pay a price. Freedom of
speech is not free. There is a price. Make sure you want to pay it before
you open your mouth. Question: Is Think Progress, DC a left leaning
entity? Is being pro Dixie Chicks a matter of being left and liking insults
toward the opposition? To disagree is one thing, to casually lob an insult
to the Office of the President is quite another, regardless of who holds
the office.

why I will always love the Dixie Chicks
ProgressiveU.org, CA - Oct 26, 2006
… The Dixie Chicks have always been about taking chances when it
came to their music, but why should it be so dangerous to criticize a
government that has laws …

Criticizing is one thing. Merely insulting is another. It helps to
understand the difference. All of us pay a price for our actions. It may
be helpful for the Dixie Chicks to take note that freedom of speech is
not universally applied. A typical example would be most of their fans
and former fans are not allowed to exercise freedom of speech when they
are working. You are not free to say what you want at work while on the
clock or on the premises. That freedom stops at the door. When self-
employed or operating your own business, that business may suffer due
to your expressed opinions. Why are they so shocked by the reaction?
You have the right to your opinion and others have the right to disagree.
The above link displays content likely from another left leaning .org
who would likely be satisfied with any discontent toward their political
opponent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com