I don't quite know what to say...

Pelosi, Clinton in WWE smackdown

Is this an insult to the dignity of congressional representatives or a appropriate way to engage young people in politics?

At first I thought they were wrestling...

But they are simply trying to communicate. It is perfectly legit to reach out to different audiences. We all know that the Democrats need the "Smackdown demographic"...

Not too sure what to say either, but that's because I'm too busy laughing.....

I'm not sure if they are going to be talking or wrestling though. If it's the later, heck, I'd pay money to see that! My cash is on Hillary to win!

In all seriousness though, I really don't have a problem with it. If they think this is a good way to reach young people and encourage them to look into the issues and become informed, more power to them. I'm not sure how successful that will be, but I don't know anything at all about this WWE so what the heck. Give it a shot.

I'm with Amlord on this one. It reminds me of Bill playing his sax and trying to seem hip for the MTV crowd. Democrats are definitely better about trying novel methods for reaching demographics who often don't vote - but try though they might, it certainly doesn't seem to often work. I think Republicans reach part of that demographic through polemics like Rush, while Democrats try and do it through various aspects of pop culture. It's sad, but we all know who's ahead in that game.

If this is the case that these Democrats are going to be using a wrestling to reach out to an audience, then I fully expect to see those who were critical of football as a violent venue (in the indecency threads about Janet Jackson a few months back) being critical of wrestling in the same manner. As well as admonish those involved for using such a violent venue.

That's completely beside the point. The question for debate is not "is wrestling an stupid sport" (I would say it is), nor is it "what would you do in their shoes" (I wouldn't do it). The question is, "Is this an insult to the dignity of congressional representatives or a appropriate way to engage young people in politics?" I would say it is appropriate in the context of the question. Using football would be, too. It may surprise you to hear this sleeper, but I am actually able to separate those things out for a debate. Heck, the question didn't even ask if we supported it or not, just whether it was appropriate.

As an aside, your response shows me you may have misunderstood the point being made in those other threads. There, it was about the context - we get upset when our children see a breast, yet ironically, it is in the middle of this very violent spectacle. I have absolutely no problem with people who choose to play football, nor with those who choose to watch it. It's all about context.

Oh, and, uh, you do know that professional wrestling isn't real, right?

But do children and teens?

I don't think it is besides the point at all. These are politicians using a venue of violence to get out their message. Where is your outrage? I thought you were for non-violence? If you truly are a man of non-violence you would be condemning these politicians for associating themselves with wrestling, would you not?

A quote from a different thread:



If you are going to be critical of football, why are you not critical of wrestling?

I, like Aquilla, will sit back and laugh...

I don't believe that it demans the stature of our representatives or the legislative branch. It's about time our government got more contemporary. The way to engage our youth is not to show committee meetings on C-SPAN. At least this might get a few of them jolted into thinking about things larger than "The Rock" or anything like that. Dignity of the representatives?--You are talking about the legislative body that saw the savage beating of Charles Sumner at the hands of Preston Brooks!! Politics is merely a "show" and it fits just perfectly with the WWE. Though I must admit, I'd like to see Tom DeLay begging for mercy under a vicious figure-four leg-lock slapped on him by Daschle...

Is this an insult to the dignity of congressional representatives or a appropriate way to engage young people in politics?







When I think about circumventing the spirit of immigration laws to court the Hispanic vote and possibly compromise national security, going it alone with Sharon to court the Jewish vote, breaking with conservative ideology by browbeating so-called activist judges with an amendment threat to rouse your religious base into a righteous clamor, sicking your armchair warrior dogs on a veteran's voting record, and possibly currying the favor of Saudis to effect the election to your advantage, I conclude "dignity" is out of the question this election year.

Don't get upset because Bush stopped at Nascar.

I ask politely that you refrain from presuming how I live up to my own principles.

I answered the question the first time, but since you apparently didn't quite catch it, I'll do it again, a little slower, and more simply.

1. I am a man of non-violence. I espouse nonviolent ideals, just like the ones Mr. Christ tought.

2. Football and wrestling are violent sports, but there is a clear difference between warfare and violent sports. My condemnation of football (that's how you seem to have seen it, anyway) was only in the context of a comparative look at the question being raised. That is to say, why raise Cain about a breast, in the middle of a celebration of pain? In fact, I have nothing against football, nor against those who watch it. These are people who are choosing to play a game in which they pound the snot out of each other. I may not see the appeal, but that's an entirely different subject. This goes for wrestling as well.

3. The question here is, is this appropriate? In an absolute sense, I think it is not. But I was approaching the question from a political sense. I would not do it, but it seems like an appropriate way for Democrats (of whose party I am not a member) to appeal to a particular demographic. You see, Sleeper, it is possible to put aside one's absolute values for the sake of answering a particular question which does not bear upon them. As an example, if someone were to ask, would it have been a better strategy, militarily, to just flatten Fallujah with a bomb, or to use ground troops, then I could actually answer the question, even though I am nonviolent and against all war. The reason is (I can't believe I have to spell this out!) that many people are capable of answering questions as they are posed, rather than turning them into some other question which was not posed.

You are a supporter of our current war, correct? Should I perhaps, find a post where you show support of diplomacy in regards to a particular question, and then derail the topic by insisting you are only allowed to call for a force of arms, because of your war support? I should hope I would be laughed at.

Um, as I explained in my last post.

If you still don't understand the difference, I suggest you start a new thread to debate it. This has gotten far enough from the track of debate, and for that, I apologize to those debating the actual question as it was posed.

Pertaining to the debate question: Is this an insult to the dignity of congressional representatives or a appropriate way to engage young people in politics?

Yes it is an insult to the dignity of congressional representatives, and it is very unappropriate way to engage young people to politics, by using the violent forum of WWE wrestling.

I am just wondering why you are not admonishing these 3 Democrats for using such a violent forum to discuss politics.

And yes I love the fact that Mike keep all postss archived.

I can't speak on behalf of others, but I distinctly remember watching wresting when I was about eight or nine(i.e.-1984ish) Yes, I knew it was "fake" and that it is nothing more than a bruising soap opera for men. McMahon changed the name of the WWF to the WWE("E" for entertainment) and the industry has been very open about admitting that the stuff that they do is not real.

A little context might be important here--Why isn't there the same amount of anger over 600 lost lives in a country that was less than pressing for us to invade?

What's so bad about the WWE? Is it any worse than NASCAR? Well, NASCAR does involve real crashes and death. I suppose that makes it a more dignified place to stump for votes. It is real. The deaths are real.

But is this an insult to the dignity etc.? Seems that some important topics will be discussed. That's dignified, isn't it?

Is using an entertainment venue an appropriate way to engage young people in politics? Maybe. Maybe these wrestlers actually have minds and can express political opinions and stances. Remember Jesse the Body? Agree with him or not, he did get into a governorship.

Now many NASCAR drivers went on to politics? I can't think of any.

Why would it be an insult to the dignity of congressional representatives to try to reach out to our nation's youth and get them interested in politics? Clinton, Pelosi, and Daschle aren't planning on stripping down and wrestling with each other. They are trying to engage people within their own environment, a place where they will be more receptive to the message. That's not a bad tactic.

Okay, I guess I should give my two cents. I was really considering placing this thread in casual conversation (the giggle-factor is a bit high, anyone get the title joke? ) After all the article didn't explicitly say they wouldn't wrestle...
Just sayin'

...but it dawned on me that there might be serious reason for concern. Not related to the violence (frankly, its not one of my pet issues) but because of the dignity.

Why dignity you may (have already) ask? This thing reminded me, and the writers of the piece. Of that pathetic "Rock the Vote" incident.

Have any of you ever smoke marijuana? The myriad idiotic answers...
Who would you rather party with? The myriad idiotic answerers...

It...was...Horrible!

I suspect this may be a repeat, and I wonder if our leaders know when to quit scrounging for votes.

It's also an insult to the youth. As a person of eighteen years of age, I thinks it's darned embarrassing that those wishing to engage us in politics go to MTV and the WWE. Bill Clinton went to schools and colleges, give us a break!

Why? Is there not a large portion of people within your age group who are interested in MTV and the WWE? What about the number of people within your age group who don't vote? It makes sense to target them...to try to stimulate some interest in the future of our country, especially when we live in an age where pop-cultural icons are more respected than politicians.

Well, I still don't really have a problem with it if the Democrats want to align themselves with the WWE and by doing that lend tacit endorsement to it. After all, they are both phony. I also don't have a problem with President Bush associating himself with NASCAR and what goes along with that. Heck, the Whitehouse even has an Ask the Whitehouse interview with Michael Waltrip on their website.

Reaching a demographic and speaking about issues with people should have no negative impact on the dignity of anyone. Who cares if they are talking to people in a wrestling ring, at a racetrack, at the superbowl, or anywhere else? If we can get them to at least talk about issues and spark some feeling and promote involvement or private citizens in the government, then I don't give a rat's behind where they are talking from.

I wish every single person in this country would seriously think about candidates and proposals, do research on each, and cast an educated vote. Even if you and I don't agree on the right person or proposal, at least you have exercised the most basic rights of a free society, and that (to me) is more important than any single issue. If talking from the middle of a WWE ring to a group of people gets more citizens involved in the process, more power to them!

Bush does Nascar, Dems do Wrestling, I don't see a difference here. As politicians you can be arrogant and think that TV spots and blogs will move the mountain to Mohammed, or you can move to the mountain. This is not a new thing. Especially before the days of TV and Radio, that is how they got the message out. They went to where the people were. In this case its an entertainment source. Back then it was state fairs and the like. The difference???

Doc

Hey....especially if it's MUD WRESTLING...I think it is entirely appropriate for Clinton, Pelosi, and Daschle to participate! All parties are appealing to our youth and other demographic groups not sought after by conventional campaigning. After all, look at what the world of wrestling did for Jessie Ventura and the people of Minnesota?

Personally, I detest boxing and wrestling and never watch either sport, but different strokes for different folks. Have at it and ENJOY Democrats!

O.K., so wrestling ranks up there in the demographics with mud-bog racing and people who collect Ernest movies. Isn't criticism of this venue kind of elitist? I mean really-isn't it kind of sad that we would expect Hillary to give a speech at a four star hotel about "democracy" and not see the irony of it all? Isn't this the true meaning of taking the message to the people in a Jacksonian sense?

The CHRISTOPHER says "OH Hell No Wrestling!" Don't lower yourself to this level!
think of the kiddies. What kind of message are you sending them.
What's next--Republicans

Whats wrong with wrasslin? People all over the world and all throughout history have loved a good freakshow.
Bearded ladies and goat boy. Ever see Jim Rose's Circus
http://www.ambient.ca/jimrose/


Whats wrong with a little fun. Its like Kung Fu movies and Rockabilly. Serves no real purpose but its hellafun.
"But Master I am tired of stirring the noodles. When will you teach me the secrets of the Shaolin masters?"
"Oh no its Master Tengi and the Evil Nine"

Oh but when they whore themselves out to politicians.
Sellouts.
Whatever happened to purity and a love of the game. Women in bra and Panty matches
Flat overpriced beer and cheese slopped nachos
Cause Christopher said so!
Americana folks, pure and simple
Its gonna be a SLOBBERKNOCKER!

But now we are gonna let hilary vamp around stage
Oh Vince say it aint so! Am I to be left with only NPR and there series on the rapidly dwindling supply of Peruvian Goat Whisperers and Survivor?
The fun of tossin a cheeseburgers among a group of homeless whinos on a saturday night just won't seem the same.
Oh where is the sanity?
Where are the purists, the True beleivers?
Who will buy all the barstolls with authentic mass produced pinstriping laid over a swath of Candy Apple red sparkling vinyl?
Where will i find scores of women who proudly show why the wonder bra was invented and the cruelty of gravity?
John 3:16 a.m BLEEAAAUUUGGHHHCH! oh god I'm dying, Oh god please never again!

For SHAME sirs, for SHAME!!



post Edited to add vomiting noise

O.K., a little context here. During the early years of this nation, political parties literally held parties to turn out the vote. Cheap beer gushed out to anyone and everyone who could pull the lever. Andrew Jackson's inauguration saw rural people with mud on their shoes stand on satin chairs watching speeches as fights, glass, and figurines were destroyed in the revelry. Flash forward to today--and we are worreid about a bunch of big guys acting??? I don't really beleieve the "not for the children" argument either. Heck, it was a virtual sport in this nation to watch executions publicly.

Are politicians capable of feeling insulted? Hmm. I think whatever gets young people interested in voting is good. I don't care much for professional wrestling, but it obviously has a HUGE audience, and it would be short-sighted not to tap into it. I think if they actually wrestled, it would be freakin' hilarious!!

But, it looks like Brazil has a much more original incentive (of course, it would appeal to an older demographic):

Popular venues such as wrestling matches, NASCAR races, as well as other events would be a better way for politicians to really getto know the people. How many people are for continuing the facade of "getting to know the voters" at $300.00 a plate dinners and evenings with the president if you bundle donations if you raise over $1,000? Does anyone think this current system is any better?