Along with the blatant conflict of interest (and almost certainly illegal sign-waving and whatnot) isn't it also blatantly illegal to have a campaign sign within 150 feet of a polling place? Can we play count the violations?

On a side note: Is the rent-a-cop a man or a woman? I'm confused.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media...

Now, the Dem operative who did the shoving, Meehan, has apologized for doing so...wonder if the AP will issue a correction. I won't be holding my breath.

I don't get it. If a reporter "stumbled" while walking near Coakley, why the hell is that a story? This is only a story if the reporter was assaulted by a member of her staff or a supporter, otherwise it's some dude falling down. If the AP believed its own headline it wouldn't have covered the story in the first place.

I disagree (obviously).

Your comparison is invalid. Mortensen is the star of this movie. He is the public face of the film. He is not some nameless assembly line worker (or second assistant to the wardrobe director). I don't know, and I don't care what their politics are, and neither does anyone else.

But Mortensen, as a successful actor, can influence a lot of people due to the podium the media gives him and his ilk, particularly when they are espousing the "correct" political viewpoint. That makes him very different from an assembly line worker or second assistant to the wardrobe director. People listen when he talks, and he has shown that he is more than willing to use that podium, which of course is his right. But, therefore, by paying money to go see his movie, I am making it that much more possible for him to reach a greater audience off the screen.

Again, I never said anything like that.

And you contradict yourself between your first point and your second. By your own admission, the Iraq War or any of Mortensen's leftist rants aren't mentioned in his films. So by viewing them, I wouldn't be exposing myself to them (or avoiding them by not seeing his movies).

The only reason I'm exposed to his politics is because he makes a point of espousing his views in public, in the media, using his prestige as an actor to further his political beliefs, beliefs which happen to run almost totally opposite to mine. His fame as an actor gives him a platform in the media that normal citizens don't have. By avoiding his films, all I'm doing is refusing to give him money and prestige to further his political aims.

I'm done here. All you're doing is twisting whatever I write, or flat out making up something completely new to fit your point.

The majority of comments on this post are an obvious refution of your point. Most conservatives are quite open to opposing viewpoints, and to supporting performers who may espouse those viewpoints.

But as below, you're completely twisting my words. Nowhere did I say that entertainers, or anyone else, is not allowed to express their opinion. What I am saying is that if they choose to do so, they should be prepared for those who disagree with them to "vote with their wallet," so to speak.

Please stop ranting long enough to actually read what I'm writing.

"only people whose politics line up exactly with yours are allowed to have cultural impact?"

No, of course not, and that's nothing like what I said, and you know it. I simply refuse to - and don't think other conservatives should either - voluntarily hand my money to people like Mortensen. I'm not saying their movies shouldn't be made or sold, I just have zero interest in paying to see them. There's enough other culture out there that to waste time or money on Mortensen is just that, a waste.

But you have obviously chosen to twist what I said and put words in my mouth to fit your agenda.

I get your first point, Nick, and I think that could reasoning would apply to a film in which a politically offensive performer or director was part of a larger ensemble (LoTR) or was in a secondary role. But in this instance, Mortensen IS the cast. Yes, Duvall shows up for a bit, and I know the kid plays just as large a role, but the movie will be remembered for Mortensen's performance, and by paying money to go see it, you're contributing to his success, and to his having that much of a larger presence and impact in our culture.

As for your second point, yes, I'll miss out on some entertainment, maybe even some "art." But there's enough quality art and entertainment out there to fill hundreds of lifetimes. I've read the book, I know the story, I'm not missing out on the culural impact. I don't need to fork over good money to enrich this idiot's lifestyle and clout. If you're that worried about missing out on something, at least wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it, or watch it on TV some day.

I agree that he's an excellent actor, with a great presence. One of the few actors working today who can truly convey manliness. But I don't think that talent outweighs his ludicrous politics, about which he is quite outspoken. I could overlook his far-left politics if he wasn't so blatant about them, but as long as he insists on using his fame as a platform from which to shove them down my throat, I will choose to not hand him my money.

Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse on this, but why are you recommending we go see a film, literally giving our money to a man like Viggo Mortensen, not to mention an industry, that has done everything in its power to destroy America as we know it.

Yes, this is a site devoted to movies. But aren't there tons of good movies out there that don't star a person (Mortensen) who is as radical-left as they come, who campaigned for Dennis Kucinich, called for George Bush's impeachment and attended every ANSWER anti-war rally that he could? Couldn't your time and money be better spent?

Skip this one, read the book if you want, and send the $12.50 to Marco Rubio or someone who will use it to help our country, not destroy it.