Tuesday October 31 08:15 PM EST Cher to Voters: 'Has Everyone Lost Their Minds?'

By Deborah Wilker

She dislikes politics and says she's not a registered Democrat. But Cher is so panic-stricken at the thought of Texas Gov. George W. Bush leading the free world that she's delayed the London recording sessions for the follow-up to Believe so she can do whatever possible to keep him out of office.

"Has everyone lost their f--king minds? Doesn't anybody remember the illustrious Reagan-Bush years when people had no money and no jobs? What has happened to people's memories? It's like they have Alzheimer's or something."

The ageless Oscar-Grammy winner was on the phone to Wall of Sound from her Malibu, Calif., home Friday to discuss her stark 1994 CD Not Commercial, which she is just now releasing independently on the Internet at cher.com.

Though she wrote it six years ago, the issue-oriented Not Com would seem to fit her mood of the moment. She had much to say about this introspective album B and why it sat on the shelf so long B but she was intent on talking politics first.

"I don't like Bush," she said of George W. "I don't trust him. I don't like his record. He's stupid. He's lazy. Some woman said to me she was voting for him because she liked his dad, and I said, 'Good, because that's what you're getting.' If somebody's claim to fame is that they signed a law so that you can carry a gun to church B oh, give me a break."

That the polls are even close B that there's even a question in voters' minds between Bush and Vice President Al Gore B has flabbergasted the usually unshockable superstar.

"If you're black in this country, if you're a woman in this country, if you are any minority in this country at all, what could possibly possess you to vote Republican? If you think the president is an ass, fine B after four years you can vote him out. But the Supreme Court B that's 30 years! The Jerry Falwells of this world will be right in your back pocket. You won't have one f--king right left."

Long outspoken on equal rights, gay rights, and abortion rights, Cher directed the final segment of HBO's critically acclaimed 1996 abortion trilogy If These Walls Could Talk, in which she also had a pivotal role as a clinic doctor.

"I'm passionate about this because I'm just so scared," she said. "I want people to know what's at stake. I'm so nervous about this election, I was supposed to go to Europe in September to work, but I just can't leave."

Since summer, when she visited the Democratic convention, Cher has appeared at several Democratic fundraisers, including a Gore gala in New Jersey, at least two events for Hillary Rodham Clinton's New York Senate run, and one to raise money for a Clinton presidential library. She has also mulled the issues on CNN and was expected to speak on several radio shows as campaigning grinds down to the wire.

"I'm supposed to go out and talk to people this week and tell them that if you vote for Ralph Nader that's all well and good, but a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

She said she stays in touch with the issues, partly just by talking with people wherever she goes.

"I have been traveling this country for 37 years," she said of her wide-ranging career. "I know what's going on more than many of these [politicians] know. I don't want to see what happened years ago, happen again. The idea of old people eating dog food doesn't appeal to me. Call me old-fashioned. I just don't like it."

-- (Shrubya@gott.go), November 02, 2000

Answers

Last night it was Alec Baldwin on Letterman. Now Cher! The bottom of the barrel approacheth. LOL.

-- (you_got@me.babe), November 02, 2000.

"Has everyone lost their f******g minds? Doesn't anybody remember the illustrious Reagan-Bush years when people had no money and no jobs? What has happened to people's memories? It's like they have Alzheimer's or something."

It sounds like Cher is the one with Alzheimers. Most people had both money and jobs during the Reagan-Bush years.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), November 02, 2000.

Not so butt nugg. The Reagan years just made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Trickle down economics didn't trickle down, it just strangled them to death. Reagan increased the deficit, cut down college financial aid, laid off federal employees, and gave all the extra cream in the barrel to those who were already rich.

-- (shrub corporate puppet@ just like. reagan), November 02, 2000.

Cher? Is she still alive? Can we get Madonna on here next? This is getting to be amusing.

-- David (David@bzn.com), November 02, 2000.

I seem to remember employment during the RR/Bush era and an end to J. Carter's double digit inflation as well as an end to the bungled hostage crisis, and a "war" fought an won without lying to Congress as in Wag the Dog, and Presidents who could be faithful to their country AND their wives...hmmmm, could be Alzheimer's though.....

-- gnat (justagnat@uponthewall.com), November 03, 2000.

People with no life, form their opinions from those in the spotlight. "Claim to fame" mentality. Vote your conscience.

-- (doomerstomer@usa.net), November 03, 2000.

Cher?

Some low talent, over the hill singer who pretends to be an actress doesn't think that you should vote for Bush.

That she doesn't want you to vote for Bush ought to be reason enough.

Cher?

Give me a break

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 03, 2000.

gnat (justagnat@uponthewall.com),

"I seem to remember ... an end to J. Carter's double digit inflation ..."

Well ... there's remembrance, ... and then there's another aspect -- understanding.

Jimmy Carter inherited that inflation from Nixon-Ford, whose efforts to stop it (wage-price controls and WIN buttons) had been remarkably ineffective.

Carter appointed Paul Volcker to chairman of the Federal Reserve Board because Volcker had a new idea of how to stop the inflation: Instead of trying to control the money supply (which is how the FRB operated back then), control interest rates. Of course, it takes a few years for inflation that has built up for over a decade to be tamed.

So during the latter part of the Carter administration the FRB started raising interest rates to stop inflation (Sound familiar? That how they still do it now, because it has worked. But not how they did it before Carter/Volcker.).

Do you remember any of _that_ yet?

No?

Well, I guess it's because Reagan had a great knack for taking credit for his predecessor's efforts in that area. Yes, he did. Great talent there in that Reagan guy. Convinced a lot of people like you that somehow he had done something to stop inflation even though any economist could tell you that the inflation subsided long before anything that Reagan had done could have taken effect (It takes quite a while to change the course of a national economy. Inflation was already dropping when Reagan entered office.)

Yessirree, lots of folks remember that inflation dropped early in the Reagan administration.

But not nearly as many folks understand _WHY_ that happened.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

No Spam Please,

So you agree that the economic prosperity of the Clinton-Gore era, at least the early years, was due to the George H.W. Bush years.

Would you also conclude that if this economy finally takes it on the chin sometime in the next couple of years, that the Clinton-Gore administration is to blame?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 03, 2000.

Nospamplease......you been smokin' Gore's pot again boy? Who re-wrote YOUR history books?

Inflation was double digit and we were in a recession when RR took office. He was in eight years...enough time for his "fiasco" economics to show up yes? Be careful how you answer that one boy, 'cuz we got another "whiz bang" dem in office for eight years who is claiming to have "turned around" an economy all by his lonesome.

Either they're both right or they're both wrong...ya can't have it both ways...oh and by the way,....weren't nothing wrong with the economy (as in double digit inflation) when ol' billy took office....'

nope, lucy, you got some 'splaining to do.....

-- (gnat@uponthewall.com), November 03, 2000.

J (Y2J@home.comm),

>So you agree that the economic prosperity of the Clinton-Gore era, at least the early years, was due to the George H.W. Bush years.

Insofar as that prosperity was a normal part of recovery from the Bush recession, sure. Bush didn't do anything special like change the historic course of Federal Reserve Board policy; Carter did.

I didn't claim Carter was responsible for all of the economic expansion during the Reagan years; just that he was the Prez that took the action that ended inflation. I would agree that the Reagan tax cuts were responsible for boosting the economic expansion in the latter part of the Reagan administration -- a bit too much expansion, which led to the Bush recession. The economic business cycle has not yet been repealed.

And I'm not claiming that Presidents control all the national economy. (If they did, would we ever have a recession?) Just that some actions they can take have some influence.

>Would you also conclude that if this economy finally takes it on the chin sometime in the next couple of years, that the Clinton-Gore administration is to blame?

Not unless there's some cause-effect relationship shown. As I said before, the economic business cycle has not yet been repealed.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

(gnat@uponthewall.com),

Are you old enough to have been an adult capable of understand national economics at the beginning of the Reagan administration? Or are you just depending on books?

>Who re-wrote YOUR history books?

No one. What I wrote is historically accurate. Look it up -- in _reliable_ references, not tomes written by someone with an ax to grind.

>Inflation was double digit and we were in a recession when RR took office.

Yes. As I explained, Carter had appointed Paul Volcker to the FRB, and the FRB had changed its policy, and it took a while for that change in policy to stop inflation. When RR took office, inflation had started coming down, but was still high.

Meanwhile, the higher interest rates triggered a recession -- no one's figured out how to stop inflation without some side effect.

>He was in eight years...enough time for his "fiasco" economics to show up yes?

Yes, Reagan's tax cuts stimulated the economy. So? That doesn't change what I said about Carter.

>Be careful how you answer that one boy, 'cuz we got another "whiz bang" dem in office for eight years who is claiming to have "turned around" an economy all by his lonesome.

Nothing you've written contradicts anything I wrote about what Carter did. I haven't claimed that Clinton has done anything special.

Maybe _you_ should be careful about what you imply.

>Either they're both right or they're both wrong...ya can't have it both ways

Hunh? Both _what_ right or both _what_ wrong? Please write more clearly.

If you meant "both" to be Carter and Clinton -- well if you carefully re-read what I've written, you'll find that I haven't claimed any particular parallel between those two.

If you meant that Carter and Clinton must both be right or both be wrong -- please specify exactly what you're talking about. Clinton did not appoint Paul Volcker, so there's no parallel there.

>oh and by the way,....weren't nothing wrong with the economy (as in double digit inflation) when ol' billy took office....'

You seem to have forgotten (or not read, depending on your age) than inflation _was_ a problem when Carter took office. It may not have reached double digits by that time, but it was definitely on the rise. And I've already explained that changes in economic polcy take time to show results.

>nope, lucy, you got some 'splaining to do.....

Nope. _You_'all's the one that needs to 'splain better what you mean. What I's said is accurate.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

The comparison was obviously between Reagan and Clinton, both of whom served eight years...carter did not...you can't count? WELL, THAT certainly explains alot! I apologize for the Desi/Ricky reference. He may have been Spanish, but he could count..or he would have made a lousy drummmer, which he was not.

Impossible to hold a coherent conversation with you until you come down out of that weed cloud you're in....'later

-- (stupidis@stupiddoes.com), November 03, 2000.

Calm down Cher. Whoever is President won't affect your cushy little party life one bit.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), November 03, 2000.

(stupidis@stupiddoes.com),

>The comparison was obviously between Reagan and Clinton, both of whom served eight years...carter did not...you can't count?

I take it that you're referring to the following portion of an earlier posting by -- (gnat@uponthewall.com):

"'cuz we got another "whiz bang" dem in office for eight years who is claiming to have "turned around" an economy all by his lonesome.

Either they're both right or they're both wrong..."

Note the term "dem" in the first part of that passage. In the context of political discussion, it seems reasonable to interpret that as "Democrat" (which Reagan was not). Setting aside the "whiz bang" adjective for the moment "dem" immediately follows the adjective "another". So, "another dem" would satify the antecedenal needs of "both".

The phrase "in office for eight years" does not appear to override the conclusion that "dem" is relevant to "both". One might refer to Carter being in office for four years, then "another dem", Clinton, being in office for eight years, without invalidating the pairing of the two.

Your theory that Reagan was included in "both" suffers seriously by appearing to be contradicted by the way that the "dem" word is closer to "another" than the "in office for eight years" phrase is. So, alas, I must reject it unless/until you can present more formidable evidence for it.

>WELL, THAT certainly explains alot!

Sorry. I sometimes get wordy.

>I apologize for the Desi/Ricky reference.

Oh, I thought it was a Beatles' LSD reference. Silly me.

>Impossible to hold a coherent conversation with you until you come down out of that weed cloud you're in....

My ex-wife, who was seriously nearsighted, would occasionally exclaim with alarm that there seemed to be smoke in the living room where we sat in our new house. (There was a natural fireplace.) After the first couple of occurrences, I learned that the proper response was to ask her how long it had been since she had last cleaned the lenses of her eyeglasses.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Well, to try to forestall potential confusion among some forum participants, let me explain that in the final part of my preceding posting, the woman who is now (2000) my ex-wife was, at the time of the "smokey eyeglasses" incidents (circa 1989), still married to me.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Just for the record, Cher is a GREAT actress.

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), November 03, 2000.

Yeah Cher IS a good actress and POT DOES help IMPROVE your eyesight.

Hmmmppphhh!!!!!!!!!!!

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), November 03, 2000.

I've always enjoyed Cher as both a singer and an actress. Her politics have never concerned me. Bruce Willis and Arnold Sch...[you know...ARNOLD] are both staunch Republicans. I enjoy their acting, as well, and their politics have never concerned me.

Celebrities have a right to their political opinions, just like everyone else. Some are evangelistic and some are not, just like everyone else.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.

Amen Anita!

-- cin (cin@cin.cin), November 03, 2000.

Cher is a talented woman no doubt,but I watched her last night on a BET interview and she came off with a condescending,righteous attitude like she should tell the masses who to vote for.How evil the conservatives and how we owe everything to the liberals and government.Her tone and arrogance were sickening to me,she has let this "star" crap go to her hollow head.She has been banned from moi's TV.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 03, 2000.

I hear that Cher had a silicone brain implant too.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), November 03, 2000.