Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:42 PM ET, 04/26/2010

Political statement: Janine Turner, tea partier?

By Liz Kelly

One in a new occasional series of portraits of celebrities with vocal political views.

Maybe it would be easier to take Janine Turner and her new Constituting America campaign seriously if almost every page of the campaign's official Web site didn't carry the same photo of the "Friday Night Lights"/"Northern Exposure" actress doing her best Loni Anderson impression.

As reported in last week's Reliable Source, the jarringly blond Turner recently launched the non-profit Constituting America to "educate and inform America's youth and her citizens about the importance of the U.S. Constitution" (the actress/activist has a 12-year-old daughter). Turner is coming from a distinct -- and unpopular in Hollywood -- point of view, one that aligns her closely with the ever-strengthening tea party movement spurred into vocal action by Fox News's Glenn Beck. Not a huge surprise given the fact that she campaigned for Sarah Palin in the 2008 election.

In the midst of her new foundation's "90 in 90" campaign, which asks kids to read both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers in 90 days, Turner appeared on FoxNews last week to talk about the Tea Party and her take on the constitutionality of the current administration:

Turner was also quoted by the National Review Online about her motivation for the project:


"I'm afraid that our government seems to be infringing on too many areas of our life."

And, in an op-ed written last July for FoxNews.com, Turner hinted at her stance on -- among other things -- gun rights. Or, rather, how she thought the founding fathers would feel about the current state of the union:

"By letting Congress bankrupt your country, you most assuredly will lose your freedom, your free will. By letting Congress take away your right to own a gun, you will let a dictator seize your country and your home, because he will encounter no resistance."

What's your take? Do you agree/disagree with Turner's views? Should celebrities stay out of the political fray? Share your thoughts below...

By Liz Kelly  | April 26, 2010; 12:42 PM ET
Categories:  Political Statement  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Weekend box office: 'Dragon' wins. Really.
Next: Bret Michaels still in ICU; celeb pals send best wishes

Comments

Uh oh. Here come the many people out there with nothing else better do than Google "Sarah Palin" in hopes of unleashing their way-out-of-proportion venom. (Let's hope I'm wrong.)

As for Turner herself, hey it's a free country. But if she wants to be taken seriously, someone should let her know that lighthouse white is not a good hair color.

Posted by: td_in_baltimore | April 26, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused as to what she thinks the current administration has done to limit her ability to own a firearm seeing as no legislation has passed or is on the docket that would do so.

She was much cuter as a brunette.

Posted by: chibbs2000 | April 26, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: jezebel3 | April 26, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she can restore her brunetteness to play Sarah Palin in the (inevitable) bio-pic?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | April 26, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Oops, forgot to complete that thought:

Maybe she can restore her brunetteness to play Sarah Palin in the (inevitable) bio-pic, because of all her experience on "Northern Exposure"? Janine, you're not in Cicely any more.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | April 26, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"One in a new occasional series of portraits of celebrities with vocal political views."

Hopefully this will be the one AND only portrait...blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: jezebel3 | April 26, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we can set up a Janine Turner/Janean Garafolo debate.

Posted by: reddragon1 | April 26, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Maybe she can recruit her former co-star John Corbett to the cause. I think they share some of the same views.

Posted by: wadejg | April 26, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Has Janine used up all her Northern Exposure royalties so she can no longer afford a stylist? That hair is a nightmare.

Anyone else used to watch General Hospital in the 80s? Janine Turner played Demi Moore's younger sister. She wore a blonde wig and was mistaken by Luke for his missing wife Laura, who had been kidnapped by Elizabeth Taylor as part of some evil Cassidine family plot. I stopped watching once I graduated high school so not sure if Luke ever found the real Laura.

Posted by: newengland1 | April 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

wadejg
Maybe she can recruit her former co-star John Corbett to the cause. I think they share some of the same views.

In your dreams, Fleishman!

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | April 26, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I think that Janine Turner's Northern Exposure is all I wish to see. 15 years ago, I would have been happy to see her Southern Exposure.

Perhaps she and her daughter can make a joint appearance in G. Gordon Liddy's Stacked and Packed Calendar.

http://www.stackedandpacked.com

I don't know if the web site is suitable for work. I'm not going to attempt to go there, for fear of upsetting the Net Nanny.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | April 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm just too damn distracted by her hair. She was so pretty as a brunette.

It's not like I take any actor or actress' political opinions seriously anyway. They are blessed with public awareness for playing someone other than themselves, so I don't understand why they think their opinion matters.

Posted by: Chasmosaur1 | April 26, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"In Palinworld, Palin, By Definition, Speaks The Truth."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/a-halfterm-former-governor-with-a-tv-show-ctd-1.html

"Add Palin to the mix and you have a whole new machine in American politics - one with the capacity, as much as Obama's, to upend the established order. Beltway types roll their eyes. But she's not Obama, they say. She doesn't know anything, polarizes too many people, has lied constantly and still may have dozens of skeletons in her unvetted closets. To which the answer must be: where the fu ck have you been this past year?
She is the biggest political power after Obama in this country. And, unless the full truth emerges with such force it cracks even the FNC/RNC sealed universe, she will run against him in 2012.

Posted by: aview1 | April 26, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Well td they're slipping, it took 'em 2 hours to find the posting, but they did finally show up!

Posted by: wadejg | April 26, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

What country are these people talking about? Last I checked people can still own guns, in some states they can openly carry them in your local Starbucks. Why is it when it comes to taking away their guns, its infringing on THEIR rights, but its ok to infringe on the rights of women (abortion) and gays (marriage, military and in the case of Virginia, everything.

Posted by: milesdy | April 26, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Gawd, doesn't she know how tacky white-blonde hair is with dark eyebrows? But she's from Republic of Texas, so I'm sure she very stylish . . . .

Posted by: jvlem | April 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Wow- looks and sounds like she has been drinking way too much. And I agree w/a previous poster that hair is crazy white-blond and clearly she has teased the heck out of it and sprayed a can of Aqua- Net to get that hold.

Also Janine may want to get informed. She seems to be identifying the Federalist Papers as law. While the Constitution is law, the Federalist Papers were written in great detail to explain the Constitution. It is kind of a reverse cliff notes that gave more detail to convince hold-out states to adopt the Constitution.

Posted by: plamar1031 | April 26, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

someone needs to tell the righties that the federalist papers have nothing to do with what is constitutional.
They're various people's opinions of what should happen. That's it.

Posted by: newagent99 | April 26, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least she reads. That's where she and Palin differ --

So when Alec Baldwin is criticizing Bush, it's "why should we listen to celebrities," but when it's a wash up like Janine Turner criticizing Obama, she's on every show Fox has to offer...

Honestly, I don't get how they didn't notice when W. and Cheney were spending all that money. How come it wasn't "despotic" then? Because they were in the right party?

Posted by: msame | April 26, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

It's Janine Turner from Texas. Happy to join the blog!
I actually believe that the United States Constitution crosses all party lines just like being an American crosses all hair color lines.
I like being blond. It's my mid-life renewal.
And I do not define myself as a celebrity but as a citizen. Come read the Constitution and the Federalist with us on my site. As I heard someone say recently, "America is like an eagle - it takes a left wing and a right wing to fly," oh - and I do not drink.

Posted by: wethepeople917 | April 26, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Msame wrote -

"So when Alec Baldwin is criticizing Bush, it's "why should we listen to celebrities," but when it's a wash up like Janine Turner criticizing Obama, she's on every show Fox has to offer"

"Honestly, I don't get how they didn't notice when W. and Cheney were spending all that money. How come it wasn't "despotic" then? Because they were in the right party?"

That's right, compare Ms. Turner's drive to educate the American People on the foundations of the Republic vs. Alec Baldwin, the intellectual Titan who wished for the stoning death of Republican Congressman Henry Hyde and his Family. The "compassionate" Left strikes again.

Regarding Mcsame's second quoted paragraph -

Plenty of Republicans opposed President Bush's spending, just as they opposed his pro Amnesty stance. Don't make the typical Liberal Straw Man argument to make your case. Bush never had a super majority in the Senate like Obama had, and during the last two years of the Bush Presidency the Democrats controlled both Houses. Funny how a booming 2006 economy started to go South the moment Pelosi and Reid got ahold of the purse strings in January of 2007.

In his first year in office, Obama spends four times as much as was spent in Bush's entire Presidency, so why do you support his out of control spending while you criticise Bush for his spending? Hypocrite, the definition of Liberalism.

Posted by: Antiobamunist | April 26, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

It's Janine Turner from Texas. Happy to join the blog!
[...snip...]

Posted by: wethepeople917 | April 26, 2010 7:50 PM
============================================

Loved your DVD commentary on "Dr T and the Women".

Posted by: Ted_Striker | April 27, 2010 5:01 AM | Report abuse

She's entitled to her opinion, but maybe the drugs she took for her 'dry eye' problem has the side effect of making her a crazy wingnut. Maybe she's shooting to be the next Anita Bryant.

Posted by: Pupster | April 27, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

"In his first year in office, Obama spends four times as much as was spent in Bush's entire Presidency, so why do you support his out of control spending while you criticise Bush for his spending? Hypocrite, the definition of Liberalism." --antiobamunist

Don't know where you got those numbers (the internet can be a wild and woolly place -- don't believe everything you read) but that's wrong. Bush doubled our national debt during his 8 years, from just over 5 trillion to almost 11 trillion. His yearly deficit numbers were doctored because he left the costs of the 2 wars off-budget. In fact, Bush inherited a budget surplus from Clinton, which he spent immediately by giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich in 2001. (look it up)

Most of Obama's first and second year deficits were inherited -- the two Bush tax cuts, the 2 wars and the bailout and stimulus to deal with the economic collapse that happened on Bush's watch. Please get your facts straight.

Posted by: Pupster | April 27, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

She's trying... i cut the ones who try some slack - and if she's willing to sit down and engage in meaningful dialog rather than an echochamber - great... but if she were, i think she'd have dropped several of her somewhat dubious ideas. Celebs are just as willing victims of Dunning–Kruger as non-celebs -- in this case it's just another internet soapbox (no worse than Courtney Love's Twitter)

Posted by: quintiliusvarus | April 27, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

What on earth is going on with that hair? First, does she not realize that we all know (and liked) her as a brunette? And secondly that the cut and style of that make her look like a bimbo? I'm a little more concerned about the message that this hair sends to her 12 year old daughter than anything she has to say about the government. Clearly, her judgment is impaired.

Posted by: auntiemare | April 27, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I'm loving the comments here so much I have nothing unique to add, so will just say: "YEAH!!!"

Oh, and my dream of Sarah Idiot Palin's 15 minutes being up seems to be nothing more than a pipe dream at this point. :-(

Posted by: Californian11 | April 27, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Pupster - Quit using the "inherited" Obama excuse. The first two Obama Budgets alone add over Three Trillion to the Debt. It took Bush eight years to add Five Trillion to the Debt, most of that due to the aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks which of course are never mentioned. Blame Bush for spending too much, but the Congressional Democrats at the time wanted to spend even more. Obama voted yes to every spending bill while a Senator and then acts like he had nothing to do with it.
BTW - I was no fan of the Bush spending, but he only had a GOP Congress for three years out of his eight year tenure. The House passes the Budget and Bush never used his Veto. Bush was and is a RINO, and he proved it throughout his Presidency.
The effects of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid spending spree will leave the Country with a projected Twenty Trillion Dollar (PLUS) Debt by the end of Obama's second term, if there is one. When the inflationary trend hits increasing interest rates, we will paying an amount equal to the current Medicare Budget just to service the National Debt which will increase the overall Debt far beyond Twenty Billion. Of course, that aspect is never mentioned. The budgetary effects after Obama is gone will be impossible to sustain, with unfunded Liabilities as far as the eye can see. Obama poured gasoline on the existing Budget bonfire and it is now an Inferno.
Blaming Deficits on the Bush era Tax Rate Cuts is ridiculous. The Tax Rate cuts were for all Taxpayers and resulted in an increase in Income Tax Revenues, with the Evil Rich paying more of the overall Taxes than ever before. The Clinton "surplus" evaporated when the Tech Bubble burst, and the responsibility for any "Clinton" surplus was due the Republican led Congress in place at the time.
The GOP under Bush made the mistake of acting like Democrats, which was their undoing. All Politicians suck, but the current crop of Congressional Democrats have broken the mold.
Now we find out that Obama's HHS Secretary purposely hid information before the Obamacare Vote that showed that Health Care Costs will increase under the Unconstitutional Obamacare mandate.
I wonder where the Media and the weak kneed Republicans are when such blatant LIES and DECEIT are committed by the Transparent Obama Administration. Well, I know the Media is busy kissing Obama's rear end, but the current crop of Republicans are gutless if they can't stand up to the Socialist Democrats running the Nation into the ground.
The Washington Post ridicules the Tea Party participants, AKA Taxpayers, while the D.C. Politburo rapes and pillages for the Liberal Utopia vision of the greater good.
Well, I'm outnumbered here, but it has been fun.

Posted by: Antiobamunist | April 27, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Antiobamunist revisionist history, conveniently twisting facts to your delusions. Bush only had GOP congress for 3 years? Uh, Dems took Congress back in 2006 -- Bush passed all his budget busting bills by then. Two tax cuts, 1 porky farm bill, 2 wars, Prescription Drug Bill without paying for any of it, then he ran the economy off the cliff for the next administration to clean up. The first tax cut absolutely turned a surplus to a deficit, costing over a trillion dollars (unfunded).

"Inherited" is not an excuse; it's the truth. Bush left the greatest economic debacle since the Great Depression for whomever won to fix. That's what's been going on the past year and a half. Haven't you been paying attention? TARP (pushed by ex-Goldman Sachs CEO and Bush Treasury sec Hank Paulson), the stimulus, the jobs bill, unemployment benefits, the home tax credit, etc -- all those have been reactions to Bush's bad management. The only big program that you can really attribute to Obama is the health reform bill, and at least they tried to pay for it.

I'm really embarrassed for you and all those who are so obsessed with defending the 'deficits don't matter' administration that you purposely deny reality. At some point, Obama will be open to criticism for initiatives of his own making, but his first year plus has been devoted to cleaning up someone else's mess and continuing another administration's foolhardy wars. Until you can acknowledge that, you nor other Tea Partiers (where were you during Bush's terms?) are not worth taking seriously.

Posted by: Pupster | April 28, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

"I'm confused as to what she thinks the current administration has done to limit her ability to own a firearm seeing as no legislation has passed or is on the docket that would do so."

Actually, there has been one gun law signed by Obama. It actually expanded gun rights so that our fellow nutjobs can carry a loaded weapon into national parks. But we all know that this is just a ruse; Obama's just trying to confuse the opposition by signing laws they agree with. Tyranny!

I also love the discussion about deficits and how they're unconstitutional. First of all, they're not and the Supreme Court has never ruled they are. Second of all, where were all these deficit hawks during the George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan administrations when they ran up huge deficits? Why are deficits only a problem and only unconstitutional when a Democrat is in the White House? The hypocrisy is almost unbelievable.

Posted by: chadborman | April 29, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Hi - it's Cathy Gillespie, Janine Turner's Co-Chair for Constituting America! Sorry I am late adding my thoughts. Janine Turner is an inspiration to me because she puts God, her family, and her country as the top priorities in her life. She is a tireless advocate for single mothers and many other worthwhile causes. There is so much good that needs to be done in the world. I applaud Janine, who uses her God-given talents to lift people up, inspire them, and work to make the world a better place. I have never heard Janine say a negative word about anyone, a quality I try hard to emulate, with varying degrees of success! Her friendship is a blessing to me.

I would love to see us get the anger out of politics, on both sides, and have political discussions based on policy and issues, and not personal attcks.

As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist #1:
"For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives."

Not much has changed in 222 years, but we can always hope!

Cathy Gillespie

Posted by: CathyGillespie | April 30, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company