"Rock Against Bush" For Sale at Fat Wreck Chords

An Article on the Album and Tour

On April 20th Fat Wreck Chords released "Rock Against Bush Vol. I". The album features anti-Bush songs by such popular punk rock bands as Sum 41, NOFX, The Alkaline Trio, and Anti-Flag. The album has 26 songs, 17 of which have not been released previously. If you have not heard of it before, I will tell you that its release has been highly anticipated. The idea is that ,along with the album and the tour, many young voters will be motivated to vote against Bush.

The Question: Could this album actually help Kerry or Nader? Is it not dangerous to our country (even if you agree with the message) for today's youth to receive political advice from admitted alcoholics and drug addicts. Wouldn't it be a shame if a young man or woman voted against a president just because they were told to by a rock star? Yes, some people are that easily manipulated. To those of you against Bush, is the vote all that matters in the end?

My Answer:
Personally, I think that it is very bad for America to have a bunch of rock stars, who most of which wake up daily with a hang over, become this involved in politics. Yes I know it is their right, but their is something wrong with it. Most of the song's lyrics go no deeper than "Bush is a moron who craves war" or "The economy sucks" (outdated argument ). This is surface politics. While informed citizens laugh at the bands' lack of credibility, young rock/punk rock fans hang on every word. I think before young voters buy this album and become anti-Bush they should listen to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, or one of the many other outspoken democrat's professional reasons for disliking our president. As a republican, I do not respect most of those opinions but I still think they are more valuable to voters than Good Charlotte's or Sum 41's opinions.

The scary thing is that the album, along with the tour, could actually be beneficial to John Kerry. I know people, who will be eligible to vote next year, that are against Bush solely because of Incubus' song "Megalomaniac". That is ridiculous. The words to the song are "You're no Jesus, yeah you're no Elvis" and so forth. Rock stars have a powerful influence and I'm afraid young people will jump on the "I hate Bush because I don't like war" bandwagon. To me an uninformed vote for something right is something wrong, and in this case I happen to believe the album's message is far from right.

I think its sad that some people choose political parties and pick candidates to vote for, solely based on one simple idea... especially when its someone elses idea. This is why it really annoys me to meet a republican who chooses to vote for Bush just because his pastor said in church Bush is the only godly/religious/moral candidate. The several political opinions I've heard from the pulpit go no deeper than "Bush favored the partial birth abortion ban" or "Bush is against any form of gay marriage or civil union". These (three) preachers completely ignored the deeper points of the issue - like the medical facts of partial birth abortions and the reasons why it might not be a good idea to have a government based on the religion of the people currently in power. But, nevertheless, I can count at least ten people who have told me they are voting for Bush solely because their preacher told them he was the only candidate a real christian could vote for (one preacher even told his congregation it would be a sin to vote for any pro-choice, pro-civil union candidate!). I really think it is very bad for America that there are preachers out there who wake up, look in the mirror and think they are not sinners despite their three divorces, and get so involved with politics.

The scary thing is these preachers statements could actually be beneficial to Bush! I think before anyone in these congregations goes to church, they should listen to the informed people who choose to support Bush and go against Kerry - like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Scott McClellan, etc. As a democrat, I don't respect most of those opinions or understand most of Scott McClellan says... But I do think its a better source for the voting public than their local preacher. Religious leaders can have a powerful influence on their flock, so I'm afraid people will jump on the "I love Bush and hate all liberals" bandwagon, just because their preacher mentioned it at church.

...



To answer the question more directly - yes, this ablum might be able to Kerry - it might actually get some people who are against Bush to vote, where they might not have otherwise. I bet many of the people buying this album were either a-against Bush to begin with or b-heard the anti-Bush message already, so the album won't be any deciding factor. However, if an album can motivate anyone to actually vote, instead of just say they are for or against a candidate - then I think its a very good thing.



I think its dangerous for our country to have as president and vice-president two men who have admitted to drinking excessively in the past, but couldn't admit any problem. I think its dangerous to have a government where the Bible is recklessly referenced and occasionally quoted for political gain. I think its dangerous to have a president that is unable to admit any mistake. At least Clinton admitted once to making a mistake and even said I'm sorry.

Personal character of the person doesn't always matter. It seems to matter less and less when it comes to politics. I really don't like most democrat candidates because they remind me of the proverbial used car salesman. I do, however, like the message so continue to listen.

Besides, a rock song is not advice. Its entertainment. Fortunately, most people in the country understand this. I can even listen to my dad's country music without throwing his radio out the freaking window because deep down I'm a country girl and enjoy the beat. I pretty much ignore the pro-Bush message in many of them. (Dixie chicks were such a shock because they are a country band). I can't stand Britney Spears and always change the station, not because she supports Bush simply because he's the president - but because most of her songs make my skin crawl.



Yes - but I think its a shame if anyone does anything just because someone else told them to. But I didn't hear objections when a country star (if anyone can remember the name of the guy I'm talking about, please tell me!) puts out an album glorifying the war, praising Bush, and advocating drinking and frequenting bars.



Yes - the vote is all that matters, because some people are easily manipulated - manipulated by pop music, zealous preachers, dumb political ads and even repeated lies that are systematically refuted, but sound more catchy than the truth. So, there is no way to make these people less... well, stupid - so in the end, only the result of the vote matters. Lets hope the vote actually gets counted this time. And I wager that really, the final results are all that matter to pro-Bush folks too - since, afterall they are pro-Bush despite the last vote and the reason he ended up in office.

Yes that's a very good point. Both are instances in which someone basically abuses their voice to sway people they influence. Using religion to influence zombie christian voters is exactly the same as using music to influence young impressionable voters. Both are in a position do say "Do as I say" and skip the more appropriate "Hear what I have to say, then decide for yourself."

Bush and Cheney were never alcoholics. They drank, drank underage, they got drunk, Bush drove, but they were never alcoholics. There is a difference between alcoholism and recreational drinking...but I'm getting off topic .

Is it not dangerous to our country (even if you agree with the message) for today's youth to receive political advice from admitted alcoholics and drug addicts.

Ad hominem much? Yes, let's not allow anyone who's ever had a personal problem to give advice to anyone else, because that's extremely hypocritical. There is nothing "dangerous" about it.

Btw, what do you think about Governor Shwartzenegger? Seems like he wasn't exactly a sterling character in his youth... do you think it's dangerous for him to govern California because of it?

Wouldn't it be a shame if a young man or woman voted against a president just because they were told to by a rock star?

You are acting like the kids who listen to this message start with an open mind, and then the music sways them to want to vote against Bush. That's ridiculous. These kids already have a dislike of Bush, and it just so happens the bands they listen to do as well... well then what would make more sense than those bands writing songs that identify with their audience?

There are many people, not just teens, who would vote for one person or against another simply because of what someone else tells them. That's always a shame. However, you can't make a person make their own decisions and force them to form their own opinions.

To those of you against Bush, is the vote all that matters in the end?

Tommy, there is no liberal conspiracy to join forces with musicians to bring an anti-Bush message to the teenaged crowd to brainwash them into voting pro-Kerry. Birds of a feather flock together. People who don't like Bush may want to listen to anti-Bush music, or make it. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that. You are making an issue out of nothing.

The word "had" is past tense. I have respect for people that have recovered from problems and moved on in with their life. I am talking about a large percentage of these people "Rocking Against Bush" CURRENTLY with alcohol or drug problems giving advice to people voting for the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. No, I choose not to listen to them, and I am not being hypocritical.
Shwartzenegger had some problems IN HIS YOUTH. He became a very intelligent, successful businessman. He went from someone who's advice should not matter to someone whose advice should matter.

Past problems with drugs and alcohol are very different then ongoing ones. However, the main issue isn't even substance abuse. I would be surprised these people had any credible political opinions between all of them. It is not right for these people to be looked at as political geniuses by their fans.


As far as young voters already having a dislike for Bush and the bands just relating to them. That's absurd. Someone like you, who is obviously active in the music scene (NIN avatar), should know how much a rock star can sway a young person who idolizes them. When all these bands started hating Bush the impressionable fans went with them. I know what I am talking about. I am a part of the punk scene. "Billy Joe from Green Day hates Bush so I do too" IS happening as sad as that is.

Many people who would vote for someone just because they are told to - YES I agree with that. That is the whole topic of the debate. Is it good for America to have a bunch of easily impressionable, uninformed people running around voting for one candidate or the other because they were instructed to do so? Even if it is for YOUR political cause?

I never claimed there was a liberal conspiracy. This is not about me being irritated that people are being swayed to vote against Bush. It is about me being irritated that people are being swayed by uninformed morons with guitars with more voice then knowledge to vote ANY way. It's funny how you jumped to conspiracy.

An issue out of nothing?
No no no. There is something seriously wrong when people's votes are this easily influenced. People voting for Kerry because Sum 41 said Bush is a moron IS an issue. People voting for Bush because the preacher says it is the favorable choice in God's eyes IS an issue.

It sounds to me you have the same problem with the uninformed, ignorant masses as our founding fathers - hence the electoral college. I'll admit I get really annoyed with people who vote for someone because they are told too. Of course, having graduated college two years ago, I haven't been to a concert in a while - so I'm closer to the mindless army forming in the churches near me (which of course vote opposite my liberal leanings). I think the root problem - mindless voters - is as serious issue, so we can agree there

But I don't really see the preachers or the rockstars being the cause. Not every rockstar is stupid - unfortunately, being a druggie, alcoholic, party freak does not mean the person is ignorant and uninformed (though, I think intelligent folks should be able to party without all the paraphenalia). There are some songs out there that make good points.

The root cause goes back to basic education - a lot of people don't really understand the political process. They don't understand how much is done at a local level, how much power the president actually has over certain issues. Then the media doesn't seem so interested in making fair and balanced reports - but what ever seems most provocative. So, its hard to follow a local election and find out what the local candidates believe - the advent of the internet helps - but even then you have to know who the people running are to find their sites. Its also hard to find media reports about actual facts on a lot of nitty gritty issues like taxes, health care, etc. All we get is the rhetoric from the candidates. Then, they focus a lot on the "human interest" issues like civil unions, abortions, etc - issues that don't require as much in depth fact reporting since most people think they know what its about.

So, when your a young person concerned more with grades and finding the next party than tax schemes or any kind of marriage - your not likely to go looking too far for your information. Or if your a little older, and you spend most of your time working to feed kids and get them to their next dance lession, your not likely to go looking too far for your information.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is - but I know its not by trying to keep rockstars from telling their political opinion - esp since making something taboo makes kids just want to listen to it and follow it even more.



I think your statement is absurd. I was really into the alternative/punk scene, esp in its beginnings when I was a kid. I loved Nirvana - but I didn't run out and kill my self when Cobain died. THere were some teens that did. I even had a friend who killed himself a year later and in his note he mentioned Cobain finally made him realize suicide was okay. Obviously he had some serious psychological problems that he would commit suicide once a rockstar made it okay. Most of the teens who go way too far in following a rockstar have some sort of psych pathology going on. There were a small number of my general group who were the hardcore fans - the ones that survived high school went on to be groupies and a few made it to roadie (they are techies now I guess). But the vast majority of us survived our teenage years, went to college or tech school, and all but me are now contributing members of society. Most of us may have looked like our favorite musician - but we didn't think or act certain ways because the musician did - we thought and acted certain ways and then found the music meshed with our style. I could have fallen into a different group... if my tastes and personality had been different, I might have been a follower of the more bubblegum pop or more into rap. I liked the music I liked because it spoke to what I was feeling already.

Additionally, I tend to think that most of those kids who are actually at voting age are a little less likely to mindlessly follow a rockstar - because a lot of liberal ideas in kids probably arise out rebellion against more conservative parents - but when they hit 18 and leave the nest and see a little more of the world, they'll probably be less inclined to do something because their parents don't like it.

Now, three slightly unrelated points:
1. By the republican definition of youth (Bush's youthful indescretions in his thirties/early forties and Schwarzeneggars youth which apparently lasted until about five years ago) then most of these rock stars on the album with all the drug/alcohol problems are still in their youth - and therefore it shouldn't really matter should it?

2.

From my medical training - if someone has been arrested for alcohol, if they drink underage - its problem drinking. If they get annoyed for people asking about it or feel guilty about it or have eye-openers - its problem drinking that has become alcoholism. Since Bush and Cheney neither one like to talk about their past problems (get really annoyed at the press) and try to cover it up (from guilt?) and have several characteristics of problem behavior from drinking -then they are just unadmitted alcoholics!

3.And is Billie Joe even an american citizen? But I've had a crush on him since I was 14, so if he's against Bush, then I'm definitely voting for Kerry

rebelkate, you make some very good points, but I am wondering, as I too listen to country music (because of my wife) where you are hearing all of these pro-Bush messages in song? I've heard plenty of rock lyrics that mention Bush by name, and of course, disparage him, but I have yet to hear a song that praises Bush by name. Country, almost by definition has been very pro-armed forces, pro-America, etc....But you're not equating that with being pro-Bush are you?

I guess most of what I was preferring to was one particular album my dad owns that he really likes. Next time I go home I'm going to figure out what the guys name is so I can post it. I don't even know if its "mainstream" country since I don't listen to any country radio. There are quite a few pro-armed forces, pro-america songs which are fine (some of the armed forces songs go a little far, but its music, its supposed to engage the listener). There is a subtext though when some of the singers are outspoken pro-Bush. I personally think its just fine - its freedom of speech, and its our beautiful democracy at work. So I was just bringing up the country to show not every musician is against Bush. Also, I haven't listened to the rock against bush album yet, so I don't really know about them referring to Bush by name or the context. As in a lot of music, often the lyrics say one thing, but the rumors and subtext only known by those "in the know" are a little different. Puff the magic dragon much??

The Question: Could this album actually help Kerry or Nader? Is it not dangerous to our country (even if you agree with the message) for today's youth to receive political advice from admitted alcoholics and drug addicts. Wouldn't it be a shame if a young man or woman voted against a president just because they were told to by a rock star? Yes, some people are that easily manipulated. To those of you against Bush, is the vote all that matters in the end?

I don't know if it will help Kerry, but if it does, I'm happy.

Isn't Bush an admitted drug addict and alcoholic? What is the difference when Bush says "vote for me"? Yes, it's very dangerous.

Most people vote for someone because someone else told them that was the best choice. Example, uh-oh, another admitted drug adicit, Rush Limbaugh. And yes, it is a sham, I mean a shame.

To those of us that are against Bush, no the vote is ALL that matters.

No good points are made on this particular item. This is just a bunch of bands wanting to regain their punk credibility by fighting for a cause. If you listen to the CD the main argument is "War Sucks". I am not going to say that all rock stars are morons because Fat Mike, the person who organized the album, runs a very successful record label. However, I AM going to say that the songs on this album are moronic and that all the arguments are very shallow. It is not that I disagree with the message, it is that the whole album is filled with personal attacks on Bush's intelligence and other surface politics. There are NO intriguing points made on this CD yet people will be persuaded because of it. If they really wanted to have some political credibility with this album they should have had famous politicians have meaningful monologues on it about the Bush Administration.



I never said I wanted them silenced, I am just asking if people think it is ridiculous how people with such little political knowledge can make an such a huge potential impact on young voters.



The thing about punk rock is...young people do become involved with it to rebel against there parents. Once they become involved they strive to be more hardcore then anyone else. They want to see who is the biggest punk. When the punk scene is going in an Anti-Bush direction people who strive to have punk credibility go with it.

Don't tell me anything about punk being about non-conforming and if the crowd is going against Bush and so forth...



I am not talking about the difference between ages of past drug/alcohol users, I am talking about the difference between ongoing drug/alcohol problems and past ones.




They don't talk about there past problems because it is irrelevant to anything they do. They should not be expected to explain all the bad choices they made. All that matters is that they are past it and Americans voted for them to run this country.



Bush is not an admitted past drug addict OR alcoholic. He did have a DUI and he has done cocaine but he has never had a problem with addiction. In the end the only thing that matters is that he has cleaned up his act and is going straight now.



The difference is people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are seeking to be informed about conservative political issues. People who listen to Rush are making an effort to make informed decisions. Rush Limbaugh describes in detail why he believes what he believes. He does not exploit his fans by yelling "Kerry is Dumb" into a microphone a few times and selling or giving it to young voters.

Yes Rush Limbaugh was recently addicted to drugs. I'll admit that it is slightly hypocritical that I have a great deal of respect for him. I know there is no finite line between a political commentator addicted to pain killers and a rock star drinking himself stupid every night, but there is a line somewhere. You can't possibly compare the political competence of Rush Limbaugh and The Ataris (or one of the many, many other bands on the album).

Although I have taken the time to answer a lot of drug addiction debates, I have to say that once again it is not the issue. The issue is uninformed musicians (listen to the album if you think they are informed) creating more uninformed zombie voters.

C'mon Tommy! Stupid people are everywhere. They are influeneced by idiots of all stripes from "punk" to the Faux News channel. Bunch of chirping little rally monkeys that hop around spouting whatever soundbyte they heard 20 seconds ago from the hive mind they suscribe to. Doesn't matter if they go "OI" or "Dittos" doesn't matter the source, they are people who have given up independant thought for Cream of Mental Pap. Ask any of them to defend their veiws beyond the implanted brain dump and the best you'll get is people screaming at you and calling you names in their best shrill kindergarten voice of rage.



Seriously! you actually beleive that? wow!

In terms of advocating a particular candidate, the fact that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict is irrelevant. The fact that George Bush is an alcoholic (there's no past tense with this disease) is irrelevant. Similarly, the fact that some of the musicians on this album may drink or do drugs is irrelevant. As was pointed out early on, this is a straw man - and a case of attacking the messenger rather than the message. It is the right of anyone with any sort of platform to advocate or criticize any candidate - and it is the right of any voter to be influenced by whomever or whatever they choose.

The fact that our Commander-in-Chief is an alcoholic should be relevant, though - but that is the stuff of another debate (and has already been discussed in these forums).

To me, it is of far more serious concern that certain candidates are being supported by interests which have the power to sway elections through massive campaign contributions, excessive lobbying, PACs, and election fraud - especially as many of them have agendae which are diametrically opposed to the interests of the American people. I don't believe the same can be said of Sum 41.

If, Tommy, you are genuinely opposed to the "uninformed vote", you are advocating reducing our electorate by 99% or more. A case could be made for this, but it would mean scrapping our entire electoral system (and a good deal of our Constitution) altogether and starting over. I doubt you'll get many takers.

I don't agree with the groups activities or life styles that are showing the ads.

But what is the difference in this situation. The present adminstration led by a Christian gives us 30 second ads that are more lies than the truth. For example the one about Kerrys voting record on gasoline taxes and taxes on American people.

Now we have a Un-Christian( I assume, or I may be wrong) that is running a ad telling what they believe is the truth.

Now which group is the worst? A Christian who is supposed to know better(some may say hypocrite) or the other group who may or may not claim to be a Christian.

Now think about that for a while before you answer. Also we already know who the most compassionate person is.

And Tommy , I am not voting Republican but I would defend you right to use it as your signature.

The more I think about it, the better I think this Rock against Bush album is... if I had money, I would buy myself a copy But really, here's is a way to advertise for a certain political position (not for a particular candidate true, but definitely against one) and make money doing it! And considering that really dumb Bush ad (the one done like an old movie about gasoline prices), I think this album actually brings the political discourse to a higher level of intelligence! Its really too bad we've gotten to the point the president assumes the entire voting public is stupid and needs to be talked to like a child. I'm not sure if thats because the voting public really has gotten stupid, or if its just our politicians (unfortunately, Bush is not the only candidate who has run really condescending ads in the past years).

rebelkate, is Toby Keith the country artist you're thinking about with the pro-war "put a boot up your *another word for donkey*/it's the American way" guy? That's my guess. My mom loves him, I wish he'd go back to his corner and sit in timeout.

And to TommyGriswold, I know a person who is voting for Bush just because he's a Republican, and she votes Republican because she loves elephants and that is their mascot. Who is this person? My grandmother, and she's completely nuts; the reason I no longer want anything to do with the Republican party. So I don't quite think the herd mindset fits only just those who fit in with the "neo-punk" and "alternative" genres.
Also, if you listen to older Incubus albums, they have some great lyrics. I suggest New Skin, Idiot Box, Make Yourself, Consequence, basically anything on S.C.I.E.N.C.E. and Make Yourself albums. Great stuff.
But we do agree I believe in a general dislike of Good Charlotte and Sum 41 (how did they ever make it big? They are completely horrid) and the fans of said bands.

As has been stated already, what this is boils down to uninformed voters blindly casting votes for who some personality icon has taken a stance either for or against. But to say that it is only happening in this one arena or amongst this demographic is totally absurd.

As far as I can tell, the complaint aginst this Album consists of:

-The people singing the songs are all druggies; and
-The arguments are one sided and not very informative.

So, in order:

1) Nice assumption. It is not unreasonable to assume that alcohol and drug use are more common among the music industry than the average population, thats quite true. It IS an assumption to assume all the musitians on the Album are druggies and alcoholics. If we could determine thet ONE of the bands was in fact clean, would that suddenly make that one song on the album more legitimate than the others? What does alcohol have to do with political awareness?

Go back three decades, and look and see who the most influential pop music songwiters were, and what their songs were about. The 1970s was an era of almost ENTIRELY political music, and yes, a LOT of it written by people who enjoyed having their minds chemically altered. Did that somehow negate the value of their message?

Tell you what, from now on if anyone wants to speak on politics at ALL in ANY venue, lets run a full background check on them to see if maybe they did weed in University, because if they DID then OBVIOUSLY they cannot have anything valuable to say about modern politics.

To quote Dennis Miller, I would be TERRIFIED to have a political leader who had never once in his life been high or drunk at all.

2) Seen any political ads lately? Either national or regional? In canada we get an assortment of US channels, mostly from New York and the Northern states. Political ads in the US are one of the reasons Canadians are a bit unsure about the US, your political ads for local races generally consist of:

"My name is Bob Smith. You should vote for me because I will lower taxes, increase funding to the police force, and because my opponent is a cannibalistic satanic pederast who has hates jews and flowers and murders kittens by drowning them in bleach for fun. Voite Smith!!!"

How much more 'one sided' are these songs then your average political TV ad? How much less 'informative' are they then the spin doctored half-truths you see on TV leading up to an election? And the songs are just entertainment, these ads pretend to have some legitimacy!

Leave them alone, they are free speech, they are a person giving voice to their politics in whatever means they have available to them. What's wrong with that?

actually, oner of the bands IS clean. according to justin sane, lead man of anti-flag, they are all "straight-edgers". they don't use drugs or alcohol. they don't even smoke cigerettes. in fact the term straight edger comes from the fact they (not anti-flag, straight edgers) would slash people smoking, drinking or doing drugs with a straight edge razor (the kind that folds up) and no, anti-flag doesn't straight edge people. but while they don't use drugs or drink themselves, they're not against others making their own choices. as justin says "I really feel like people have to do what they want to do."

source:
http://www.ink19.com/issues_F/99_12/ink_sp..._antiflag.shtml

so I guess that makes The School Of Assassins more legitimate than the others (BTW I'm an anti-flag fan)

now, tommy seems to not ever have heard ANY anti-flag if he calls them, their politics and their message "shallow" so I'll share a website with a few of their songs on it A-F records: anti-flag oh, and when you open those audio files, a page with the lyrics pops up. read them.

and griswold, I notice you're not attacking music that is pro-bush/government. could it be you just don't like people having opinions different than yours? would you be saying the same things if an album came out entitled irock against kerry/ rock for bush? I somehow doubt it?

This album could sway some younger voters away from voting for Bush, especially if the fans perceive the GOP as a bunch of self-righteous blowhards who want to dictate everyone else's lifestyle and use laws to do it.

It's not surprising that a lot of bands that were against the war on Iraq would also oppose Gee Dubya Bush, either.

(As far as Bush being an alcoholic or not, it was in The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller where I read a quotation that back in the 1980's Bush Jr. announced that he had quit drinking for good. If it was problem enough for Bush to recognize it and make the announcement, it was a real problem. Problem drinker or alcoholic: you choose the term you prefer.)

Yes, it would be a shame for anyone to vote for someone just because they were told to, but as it has been mentioned before, it happens all the time. Those who watch Pat Robertson (of legendary fundamentalistic righteousness) and listen to Rush Limbaugh (of legendary back pain and the need for narcotics) will likely vote the way they say. Those who listen approvingly to Pundits "from the Left" James Carville and Paul Begala will probably vote the way they say. We hope that more gray matter is used for deliberation in each case, but there are no guarantees.

My brother works in a factory, and he has told me about an acquaintance who told him that he was going to vote for Gore but he saw the election returns and decided to vote for the winner instead. Stupidity is ubiquitous, and it is exploited by both sides. On this board have been comparisons of Kerry to Lurch and Herman Munster, and someone actually said they would not want to vote for a President who looked like that. For the Dems: many of us compare Bush to a "smirking chimp." It's incredibly immature, and I hope that we are not really judging the candidates by their looks. It is not a beauty contest. (What's more--there will be no Mr. Congeniality category in this campaign! )

Currently the GOP is on this righteousness and patriotism kick where those who oppose their leaders are portrayed as unpatriotic, godless ingrates who are going to usher in the reign of Antichrist or something.

I happen to agree with the poster who said, what difference does it make if rockers sing against Bush while Bush "approve[s]" of messages against Kerry that are deliberately misleading?

Points of information: Kerry is a Catholic Christian who served his country and believes in a strong defense. He is pro-Choice, but that's a far stretch from being the Antichrist. He's from the same Skull and Bones Society as Bush (which is not a plus). His cuts on defense spending were in the 1980's about the time when Bush's dad was President and he wanted the cuts, too.

Kerry's taxes on gasoline were a part of working down the deficit. I guess there is no reason worthy enough to raise taxes on gasoline, but it is perfectly all right to have your Saudi friends keep the cost of gasoline up until right around election time. Is there a double standard here?

Spending $87 billion dollars sounded capricious, to say the least, to Senator Kerry. And the troops had already been deployed to Iraq, many of them without body armor. Was that Kerry's fault or the fault of those in charge?

Yet Kerry gets the unearned reputation of not being willing to provide the troops with body armor, even though it was the poor planning of Bush and those beneath him that subjected the troops to this danger in the first place.

But put Bush in front of a flag and tout the fact that his preemptive invasion of Iraq was successful and that he's just a swell guy. That must mean that the other guy is the direct opposite, as Vermillioin humorously posted. Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are folks, like these rockers, who see right through it.

(As an aside: If "flip-flopping" is the worst thing that the GOPers can say about Kerry, that's not so bad. But it does not bode well for future female Presidential candidates, for we are also known for the ability to change our minds! )

Would it hurt young voters to base their decisions on rock n' rollers who are on drugs and alcohol? Remember, even Republicans have done pot-remember the Bork "legalize pot" sign that did him in during his nomination? We are electing a president, not a pope. I don't like this kind of music personally, but I think it's great that artists are banding together for a cause. In this age of voter apathy and listlessness, how can this be such a bad deal?

Yes. If it suddenly became "cool" to be against the Bush administration, republicans could have a really serious problem on there hands.


Personally, I don't see how being an alcoholic or drug addict should somehow limit your ability to sway others politically. How far out are there comments, anyway? I believe that if these "addicts" are motivated enough to actually get into politics, they must have some fundamental disagreements with the direction of this country. Legitimate points will be made.


Call me cynical, but how does this differ from normal politics? Some people make up there opinions because of they're favorite talk show host, others because of negative attack ads. Why can't rock stars get into the game as well?


Yep. In American politics, you can't have it any other way.

I was going to read the entire thread before speaking but I got antsy. Forgive me. I have been against Bush since he was the governor of Texas so this album was not a deciding factor for my affiliation and I have strongly believed in voting anyway.
I am 19 and have listened to the entire album over and over and have watched the companion DVD about as many times and for the most part find it to my liking. As far as it being "dangerous," I would have to disagree. The first thing this CD does is make America's youth turn from their average apathy. So many teenagers are "punks" for style and shock value and have no concern for politics. Once they see their favorite bands that usually sing about relationships, societal manipulation, and conformity (Sum 41, The Offspring, The Get Up Kids, The Ataris, New Found Glory, and Less Than Jake are not known to be political per se) affiliate themselves with a political movement denouncing war, corporate deceit, environmental blight, Dubya, and the such, they are introduced to the sincere activist/anti-authoritarian culture that rock is so kin to and has such deeps roots in. Anyone smart enough to make out the metaphorical and rhetorical lyrics eloquently put forth in this compilation is usually smart enough to think for themself anyway. There are plenty of kids just old enought to vote that will listen to this just for the Epoxies' synth in "Need More Time" or The Offspring's guitar intro in "Baghdad". For those that do actually listen, if anything, this album replaces the opiate sludge that the record industry churns out to young, impresionable minds, with constructive dissent. To address the title of this thread, politics and rock have gone hand in hand since rock was defined. I would go so far as too say that rock only exists because of issues such as the ones brought up in the Rock Against Bush Comp. It is a prime example of awareness, collaboration between bands of seperate records labels, and the true punk/rock spirit relived in an age where history repeats itself and prefab, lip-synching, apathetic sterotypes win out. God Bless the Dixie Chicks and long live freedom of expression.

Wow! Great first post, Psamtik!

I agree with the idea that the spirit of punk/rock is very political.



That's kind of how I feel about talk show hosts and most of the corporate media.



If it stops the destruction (for more info see many other threads, not trying to start a bash here) -- yup.

The Question: Could this album actually help Kerry or Nader? Is it not dangerous to our country (even if you agree with the message) for today's youth to receive political advice from admitted alcoholics and drug addicts. Wouldn't it be a shame if a young man or woman voted against a president just because they were told to by a rock star? Yes, some people are that easily manipulated. To those of you against Bush, is the vote all that matters in the end?

Every citizen of this country has a right to vote and express their opinion on the candidates, regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof, or even whether or not they are “admitted alcoholics and drug addicts”. I think that’s a non-issue.

Anything that gets young people interested and involved in the political process can’t be a bad thing. Creating Rockthevote was a brilliant move. There is a HUGE group of potential voters who generally don’t bother to get out there and make their voice heard (in 2000, 32% of eligible voters 18-24 actually voted). The decisions made in this election will have a profound impact on this age group. There are rumblings that a mandatory draft may be put into place as early as 2005…and there won’t be any college deferments this time around. I think it’s great that something is making young people sit up and pay attention, and yes, get angry. If that’s what it takes to change the political face of this country, I’m all for it-and I’m an old fart.

There is a great history of anti-war and political views in music. It’s not just young people, either. No radio station in LA would play John Mellencamp’s “To Washington” (though Jim Ladd played it every chance he got) because of corporate radio censorship, even though it’s fairly innocuous…

Rock on!!!



Edited to add:
I almost blew soda out my nose when I read that!

The Question: Could this album actually help Kerry or Nader? Is it not dangerous to our country (even if you agree with the message) for today's youth to receive political advice from admitted alcoholics and drug addicts. Wouldn't it be a shame if a young man or woman voted against a president just because they were told to by a rock star? Yes, some people are that easily manipulated. To those of you against Bush, is the vote all that matters in the end?

Whoa, nice loaded question there TommyGriswold.

Is it not dangerous to our country (even if you agree with the message) for today's youth to receive political advice from admitted alcoholics and drug addicts.

First, to assume that all of these bands are alcoholics and druggies is exagerating and falling prey to stereotypes. Secondly, why does that matter? Afterall the president himself allegedly was an alcoholic, even had a DUI and there are also unproven allegations of cocaine use. While that can't really be proved, I'm inclined to believe the allegations are true or there probably would have defamation of character or slander/libel suits handed out.

Anything that gets the younger age groups out there to vote is a good thing, I don't care what it is. In the 2000 election only 32% of those 18-24 voted, the lowest turnout in history. Politics is something that many of the teenagers and twenty somethings out there really don't care about these days and that needs to change. The result is that politicians don't care what we think.

Could this album actually help Kerry or Nader?
Probably, because Bush doesn't care about that demographic at all. Democratic, Green, Independent candidates, etc have traditionally been more oriented towards the younger generations simply due to their progressive nature.

So yes, these young adults probably would vote Kerry or Nader because they actually have their interests at heart. If Bush wants in on this demographic, he had better start factoring America's youth into his decisions a little bit.

You think it is bad for citizens to become involved in politics?!? Even if I don't agree with someones message or their chosen path in life, I always thought it was in the best interest of society for as many people as possible to be involved in the political process.




Credibility comes from the people, not from the speakers. It is earned by politicians and artists by their actions, bestowed upon them from the population. Laugh if you wish, but these artists have far more credibility than you think, even if you and the other 'informed citizens' don't recognize it.




I don't. I think they should look at Bush's record, his values, and his actions to decide whether he is a candidate that they like. You are recommending that people listen to other politicians to make their decision, and I see that as just as bad as, if not worse than, listening to the message of a band. A politician slamming Bush in public is most often doing so for personal gain and out of support for their own party and best interests. These bands appear to dislike the path Bush is taking us on so much that they have come together to make this album. And with a $6 price tag, I don't think they're doing it for the money!



Sure it's possible, and that's the goal of the album.



Not exactly. It's dangerous for anyone to blindly support and accept political advice from anyone, but that doesn't mean that this is what's happening. You assume that most, if not all, people listening to this album are sheep without the ability to think for themselves. Some are, some aren't. This is true across all race, economic, age, gender, sexuality, nationality, (etc., etc.) lines. Just because someone puts out an album and people buy it and listen to it doesn't mean those same people are going to run out and do what the album says. Some will, some won't.



Yes. And I'm sure that Bush supporters are only concerned with the vote also. That's politics.


BTW, thanks for bringing this topic up. I didn't know about this album until I saw your post, and thanks to seeing it here I was able to purchase it for $8 (including shipping) from the Fat Wreck Chords website!

Great response Cubejockey. I can't help but feel that this thread is similar to those in the past who played records backwards and who think that Ozzy Ozbourne records have led to young people committing suicide. What proof is there that they drink or do drugs? Why does it matter in the first place? Who is really going to base their vote due to the influence of their favorite band? What person over the age of 18 likes these bands? I've seen the advertisement for this album in Mother Jones recently-I'm seriously thinking of buying it just for the heck of it.

I have to reply to some of what I'm reading in this thread. Having listened to this album, read the lyrics, and watched the DVD, I am amused and bewildered by some of what is being said about it. It's like hearing someone say "Germany is underdeveloped because they used to be Nazi," or something like that. First off, this album might help Kerry but will NOT help Nader considering the Franco Un-American music video on the DVD by NOFX (Fontman Fat Mike, hence Fat Wreck Chords) makes fun of his 2000 vote for Nader and shows falling Nader heads with Bush reaching out to eat them. Secondly, the artists on this album are NOT admitted alcoholics and druggies. In fact, I would be very surprised if a lot the bands do ANY drugs at all. That is a ridiculous stereotype that sounds as bad as saying "that Rocking and Rolling is of the devil." Take it to a different web forum, we at least try to mask our ignorance here. Lastly, the lyrics are not surface politics. Look at this excerpt:

To the World - Strike Anywhere

...we fight to balance our minds
petty powers pushing profits over our lifetimes
world leaders mortaging our lives with words
I don't need to be reminded of whom you really serve.

Brothers in spirit, sisters in rage,
will we live out or lives in this concrete cage?
another hearbeat lost another police murder
buried in the public eyes on the back page.
(Too many) heartbeats lost in the new world order
while we're standing alone with our backs to the maze

I pledge allegiance to the world
nothing more, nothing less than my humanity...

Does that look simplistic to you? Does that look like the anthem of a menace to society? Does that look like ignorance and hate? I didn't think so.