Following the Hollywood leading man’s attendance at back-to-back fundraisers for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in California, one of which came at a cost of $353,400 per couple to sit with both he and his wife, actor George Clooney pilloried the excessive amount of money overwhelming our political framework during an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd.
Asked by the Meet the Press host if the cost to take part in a fundraiser this costly could be accurately described as “obscene,” Clooney responded:
“It is an obscene amount of money. The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely.”
Clooney continued to rail against GOP front-runner Donald Trump, discrimination against the LGBTQ community, the Citizens United ruling, and criticized Charles and David Koch; he later clarified his role as a fundraiser for Clinton was to amass money for Democratic congressional candidates to re-take the senate from the GOP.
Why is George Clooney appearing on Meet the Press?
While many Hollywood leftists may pay tribute to Clooney for his financial support for Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, a Sunday morning talk show becomes significantly less informative and certainly less meaningful in the absence of veritable political actors such as members of either chamber of Congress, the president himself or members of his cabinet or administration.
By allowing low-information, stand-ins for knowledge such as Clooney access to an audience to promote his agenda, the purpose of Sunday morning talk shows to permit the audience a general understanding or clarification of events of the day or week is utterly frustrated.
While it is entirely the prerogative of network and cable executives to invite guests or at least grant the privilege to select visitors for interviews to hosts, lowering the bar and rolling out the welcome mat to an increasing number of players recognized for their presence on the big screen or on the cover of weekly tabloids blurs the distinction between hard news and Hollywood buzz.
To be fair, Clooney is not a solo violinist in making the rounds on news programs: MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, for example, has hosted left-wing gadfly Susan Sarandon on All In and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has hosted Bruce Willis to espouse his conservative views.
This interview does, however, grant an opportunity to correct some of Mr. Clooney’s glaring errors during his visit with Chuck Todd. Posturing himself as a white knight crusading against the malevolent influence of corporate donations, Mr. Clooney is either woefully uninformed or deliberately obscured the fact Citizens United did indeed uphold disclosure requirements, the very opposite of the “dark money” he coyly referred to when assailing the legal case which he vowed to overturn.
While liberals such as Clooney tend to disparage the concept of a corporation as an individual with the right to enjoy political expression as designated in Citizens United, Clooney is, once again, wholly ignorant or ignores the fact corporate America has a long, rich history of donating relatively equal amounts to candidates on both sides of the political monolith, contradicting his hint corporate funds are directed exclusively at the GOP.
It is, however, Clooney’s remarks about energy moguls David and Charles Koch which are patently disingenuous and blatantly false.
Suggesting the Koch brothers are at the center of a sinister plot to engineer American democracy with their fortune, Clooney ignores the handiwork of billionaire hedge-fund lord Tom Steyer, who has used his untold fortune to gain access to the American political framework.
In Clooney’s myopic worldview, the Koch brothers manipulate and corrupt the political structure and the benevolent Steyer cooperates with the network. Clooney’s unique demonization of the Koch brothers while making no mention of Steyer exposes the Hollywood hero’s hypocrisy.
Democrats and Clooney insist billionaire left-wing donors such as Steyer should remain above the threshold of criticism because the Koch brothers are greedy mercenaries endeavoring for further enrichment while Steyer is a civic-minded, incorruptible paladin crusading for a cleaner earth.
In refusing to implicate Steyer and the remaining cast of left-wing billionaires’ influence interfering with the American political structure reveals Clooney not to be the dispassionate seeker of truth and justice he regally positions himself as, but uncovers him to be a fiercely-partisan plodder representing the left’s interest in Hollywood unaware a majority of the uber-wealthy are among the most generous donors to left-wing causes and the Democrats.
In contrast to Clooney’s Weltanschauung, the Koch brothers have every right to be heard and Steyer’s political activity is no less grounded in political ideology than the Koch’s. Arguments offered by Clooney signaling Citizens United underwrote an advantage to an evil clique of conservative businesspersons are risible. Should Citizens United be reversed, as is Clooney’s wish, free political expression would be smothered and Curious George would double his fundraising efforts on behalf of the left.
In Clooney’s eyes, he is not searching for a “bad guy,” but a specific “bad guy.”
Piously claiming he would like to remain outside the political fundraising racket, unknown to Clooney, he is actually involved knee deep in the anti-American conspiracy he decries. His presence on Meet the Press is a blinding example of the powerful sway Hollywood holds over the political consciousness, to the detriment of news seekers.
A guardian of truth and a gatekeeper of justice Clooney is not.
A Hollywood hustler and tireless climate crusader, before Clooney condemns others on how they spend their money, he may want to adjust his own personal behavior: Endlessly bemoaning carbon emissions, Clooney is notorious for his jet-setting ways and frequently burns greenhouse gasses by the barrel for global excursions few can afford.
Perhaps the next time Clooney hops off to Europe to seek better medical care than the ObamaCare mess he championed, he could re-consider his views and convince himself a free exchange of ideas is precisely what makes America great.
[opensecrets.org] [New York Times] [CBS News] [eonline.com ] [Photo courtesy RT News]