I don't contest the underlying opinion that it would be preferable for people to get information from nonpartisan and more academic sources, but there's also a reality to running and winning elections, unfortunately. Candidates are like products these days so they employ good marketing & advertising strategies in a similar way. Our celebrity-obsessed culture responds positively to celebrity endorsement, so campaigns and lobbyists employ them as effectively as they can. For every Chuck Norris there's a George Clooney, for every Charlton Heston (RIP) there's a Susan Sarandon.

Regarding the reelection issue, that points to the very real truth that all politics are local and constituents remain satisfied with representatives that deliver. Having a celebrity as your representative doesn't hurt when you're trying to bring attention to an issue affecting your area or support for a bill that benefits your district. Democracy in action.

Oh, I totally agree - I'm not disputing the utility of the celebrity endorsement, I'm saying that often the celebrity statement is ill-informed at best and intentionally misleading at worse (see: Baldwin, Alex).

Put another way: utility doesn't make right, and there's nothing wrong with an informed individual being upset that an ill-informed individual gets increased say that they may or may not deserve, depending on your world view.

Again, I agree with the concept, but I would posit that an overwhelming number of voters don't have any clue about their representative's actions, efficacy or "deliverables."

Actually, this kind of feels like selection bias - because you understand these things, you're assuming others do too. However, I think name recognition is likely only important in and of itself, and most people don't ever think "Hey, John Elway would bring increased attention to my shoddy highway funding!"

This makes sense, but didn't seem to me to be what was originally being expressed. And I understand being upset, but not at the celebrities.

Well, as awkwardly as I may have expressed it, that was exactly my point.

At least two people understood what I was getting at - I'll take that kind of comprehension over a message board post any day.

Actually, I think I was attempting (poorly, obviously) to cynically point at why celebrities are successful and strategically, why it's smart to use them. Campaigns are run to the lowest common denominator, knowing that people don't bother to read the paper, watch the actual news, read up on issues. They try to get the most signs in yards and bumper stickers on cars because if they manage to get a voter in the booth, they know that if they actually recognize a name, they're more likely to mark that name. Even better if they can get a great soundbite (whether true or not) they can make resonate and stick in their mind.

So if a cause or candidate can get a John Cusack ad on youtube or during an episode of "Entertainment Tonight", that cause or candidate is much more likely to catch and keep a viewer/voter's attention than an ad that just has words, texts, random images. People relate to, and listen to, sometimes unfortunately, celebrities. And as to what the celebs actually say, besides the occasional off-the-cuff remarks in People or during an awards show, they are carefully scripted by the cause or campaign they're stomping for. So what they're saying in those ads is very representative of the issue because the words are put in their mouths. The causes just need celebrities that "lean" the right way and agree enough to make their words sound sincere and appealing.

So yes, while I may understand the context behind some of this, the point I'm trying (and again, probably failing) to make, is that the tactic is probably most effective for people that DON'T know the context or assume anything beyond what they see on the surface. It's much easier to be cynical about a celebrity "endorsement" when you can see the party/cause machinations behind it. Most people just don't put that much thought or effort into it. And campaigns/causes count on that.

And everyone wants to be associated with the most popular kid in class, right? So, sure, voters want the celebrity to win their district (as long as he or she is not a complete tool). It's not rocket science to know that if you put "Gopher" from "The Love Boat" in DC, then your little area in Iowa will likely get more attention and have more pull than if you elect Ted the Hardware Store Owner. Cynical? Sure. Unfortunate state of affairs in our democracy, pretty much.

And I did go off on the all-GOP examples of elected celebrities, which was probably an unfair assumption that your initial reaction against the John Cusack thing was also the tie to the liberal organization. It seems when people rail against celebrities with "causes" it's usually the more outspoken liberals (e.g., the Susan Sarandon call-out in a post above). I was trying to head off the "damn liberal celebrities" argument at the pass with a showing that the GOP is just as celebrity-rich. In fact, GOP celebrities have been more successful in actually winning elected office, from what I can tell. I will be watching Al Franken's race in MN with interest.

You're correct in this - my initial reaction had nothing to do with the party or group affiliation. If Adam Sandler (a Republican) were to go out today and do something similar, I would have the same reaction.

Respectfully, not buying what you're saying is not always a comprehension issue.

Obviously - what I meant by "comprehension" is that things don't always come out clearly over the message board, and my original posts may not have been entirely clear, so I'm glad that at least a couple of people understood my point.

I understand not everyone agrees with my point of view - I was simply giving my opinion.

This I agree with completely, and was exactly the point I was trying to make as well.

Are you insinuating that he's lying or recanting when he agrees with what I posted? This is really awkwardly phrased.