I'd hate to say defintely whether I'd vote for him or not. I'd like to think I have an open enough mind that I'd listen to what he actually has to say before making up my mind.

...so I didn't vote

IF he was serious about it, considering the effort he's put in to Make It Right and what he's helped do with Not On Our Watch project, I would say Pitt is as qualified as anyone to serve in public office. I'd be surprised if he really was interested though.

Sure! It appears any Joe Schmo can be a senator or ever President!

So why not?

I'm with Carrie Sue on this one

Qualifications mean nothing in the United States of Entertainment. People think he's pretty and charming. It got the top bureaucrat elected, so no reason Pitt couldn't charm his way into office somewhere.

As much as I like him, I probably wouldn't vote for him. But it's hard to know because he's not extremely public with his political opinions. I honestly don't think he'll run for office.

"You shouldn't speak until you know what you're talking about. That's why I get uncomfortable with interviews. Reporters ask me what I feel China should do about Tibet. Who cares what I think China should do? I'm a f---ing actor! They hand me a script. I act. I'm here for entertainment. Basically, when you whittle everything away, I'm a grown man who puts on makeup." -Brad Pitt

I have a really hard time with people who want to run for public office to draw attention to their pet causes, whether they are famous or not. Our elected officials have to be knowledgeable about a whole range of issues, not just a select few. If you are only interested in specific issues, you can do a whole lot more good by working with the general public through not-for-profits like Make It Right.

Voting for Brad Pitt isn't something that has been on my mind lately. A good distraction from chaos to think about a hunk running for office but right now we need some extremely bright & talented leaders with proven track records to straigten out the economy and housing mess.

Undecided. If he has good ideas and actionable plans to implement them, then why not.

Qualifications used to matter more to me than they do now. These days that it seems like the most highly qualified people we have (on Wall Street, in the Treasure Dept., etc.) don't even know what they're doing.

Well I don't know anything right now other than he likes to help people which is fantastic but I know nothing about his political ideology on most issues so for now I say no.

If it's his passion hey go for it I just hope that most will be over their swoon over him by the time they get to the polls and vote on the issues.

...and Ronald Reagan was...a former interior decorator? What about Fred Thompson? Why is the idea of an actor running for office that strange or far-fetched?

If he had good ideas, why not. Something tells me he'd be more interested in other stuff, though, like his love of architecture, or making more babies with his hot-@ss girlfriend to really run for office.

Yeah I don't get the criticism of oh you're an actor so you couldn't possibly run for office or know anything about serving constituents. It's just so ridiculous a thought in my opinion.

If Brad Pitt decides to run open your mind and listen to the mans message. If you agree you agree if you don't you don't, it should have absolutely nothing to do with any former line of employment in his life.

Yea I dont think any actors are qualified to be politicians.... though they do kiss a lot of butt, so maybe they are.

If Brad Pitt wants to get involved in local politics and work his way up then that would be the time to ask this question, but when you go from nothing to senator or nothing to president, thats a sad commentary on why we vote the way we do.

Hypno - How can you possibly say it has nothing to do with former line of employment? Would you hire a doctor who never went to med school but was just a waiter who read WebMD?

When anyone hires anyone for ANY position you HAVE to take into account prior experience or else you're just being reckless.

" ...and Ronald Reagan was...a former interior decorator? What about Fred Thompson? Why is the idea of an actor running for office that strange or far-fetched?

If he had good ideas, why not. Something tells me he'd be more interested in other stuff, though, like his love of architecture, or making more babies with his hot-@ss girlfriend to really run for office. "

Exactly. It wouldn't be the first time an actor turned to politics.

Should all politicians be career politicians, should they all be lawyers? Isn't it better than some have been doctors, some have been teachers, athletes or housewives so that in considering legislation a variety of perspectives are represented?

My very favorite politician used to be a doctor . I think it's important that we have politicians from all walks of life so that they can have more diverse knowledge of the world and the people they represent.

Oh its absolutely better to have a varying of professions represented. But I'm saying that you shouldnt go from teacher to Senator. You shouldn't go from actor to President. There should be some steps in between and you should have to build up your resume per se before anyone should consider for such an important position.

Unless of course people are confident in having a waiter who reads WebMD be their doc...

"Hypno - How can you possibly say it has nothing to do with former line of employment? Would you hire a doctor who never went to med school but was just a waiter who read WebMD?"

I could possibly say it because I did...LOL!

You're comparison of hiring a Dr. who has not been educated to be a Dr. is not a good comparison. Dr.'s need a specific skill set of medical facts and learned procedure to perform their job.

A politician simply needs to express his/her political ideology and if you agree with them you vote for them. If you don't agree with them you don't vote for them. It's as simple as that.

Haus, definitely agree.

Hypno, I think a politician needs more than just their opinions and ideology. They have to be able to write/introduce legislation, as well as read and understand existing laws and proposed laws. They also need an understanding of how the legislative process works, otherwise they're going to be nothing more than tools of other politicians. If all they have is their opinions, they won't be much good to their constituents.

hypno - i don't think it is as simple as that. its not only about having the "right" ideas, its about KNOWING how to implement them. KNOWING how to get people to work together to push legislation.

And the only way you know that, like most things, is if you do it and have done it before.

O.K. Mich so they have to be able to write and learn the procedure to introduce legislation as well as read and have the ability to retain what they read and understand rules and procedures of the legislative branch. Honey I could could teach a child that.

This is my point you don't have to have a post graduate degree or 10 to 20 years of experience as a lawyer or economist to know how to do these things.

What you hausfrau/Michelann seem to be fussing about are procedures. Any one can learn procedures what we need to be worried about is their substance and their ideas because trust they will learn the procedures with no problem it is the end result of their political ideology that we will have to live with and that is why IMO it is all that matters

I just disagree. You're simplifying it to procedures, and yes, thats a big part of it, but if you didn't know procedures in any high ranking job you wouldnt get it no matter how much substance you have. Why should politics be any different?

What is it that Joe Biden said? "doesn't lend a hand to learning on the job"?

Hypno, the job is not that simple. The ideology is great, but you have to understand how to apply that to actual issues, and it's not always black and white. There are super complicated existing laws that they have to take into consideration, and it's impossible for even the most intelligent politician to understand every aspect of foreign policy and finance and corporate law, etc. But they still have to vote on those issues. They also have to know how to deal with lobbyists, and their staff, and all the people who donate money to them.

You're making it sound like they're not doing anything more complicated than arguing on CitizenSugar.

First of all it is not difficult to learn how to write a bill. It is not difficult to learn how to introduce that bill. It is not difficult to read and retain what one reads. It is not difficult to learn the rules and procedures of the legislative branch. You guys make it seem like it takes one of the up most exceptional intelligence to perform these tasks and the fact of the matter is it does not.

"First of all it is not difficult to learn how to write a bill."
I absolutely disagree. Most of our current politicans are horrible at it. Writing something that could become a law has to be incredibly specific. You have to take into account the exact language you use because lawyers and judges don't care what you intended, they care what the letter of the law says. You also have to consider every single implication and possible consequence of the bill.

And it is incredibly difficult to read and retain the text of a bill. Those things are incredibly long and technical and often contain subjects the reader doesn't not understand very well. That's why they have so many staff members to read it for them and report back on it.

It is also really tricky to introduce a bill if you don't understand the committee system, or if you don't understand the political ties among the people in the committees.

Just because our current politicians aren't of exceptional intelligence, it doesn't mean the job isn't difficult. They're just all incompetent.

It seems like we're straying from the central point which is that one should HAVE to have to have experience to be considered for this kind of position. People have to have more experience to be considered for positions of much, much less responsibility, why does it make any sense to require no experience for a job of such great responsibility?

I don't think you have to be a genuis to be a politician. But I do think experience should be required, not optional.

If you're don't it right, the job of being a legislator/politician should be incredibly difficult.

Sorry, that should say "if you're doing it right"

procedures are probably the vast majority of what a politician does. also, even with all of brad pitt's money, he still needs to raise more for any sort of election. because of that, he needs to appeal to the vast majority of the base, and not just with his left-leaning fans.

obama didn't get to where he is just because he's charismatic and smart.

he got to where he is since law school. he made smart choices in life and kept a clean life style. he knew who to align himself with and who to oppose. but pitt can still be important, like bono, who raises millions and millions and helps people all over the world.

actors aren't politicians. but some politicians can become actors.

also, I doubt someone like brad pitt would even want to be a politician. there are better things to do in his life than be bogged down by policies and red tape.

“The ideology is great, but you have to understand how to apply that to actual issues, and it's not always black and white.”

I agree that all of the nuances of strong leadership need to be there but that is part of their personality and something we would see clearly or not before we go to the polls and something that should be taken into consideration when we vote as well.

All I'm saying is that you do not need to be super intelligent or have a decade or more under your belt as an attorney, small town politician etc. to be an effective federal legislative representative.

Hypno, I think the problem is that we're talking about two different things. You're talking about the bare minimum, and I'm talking about the ideal.

Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Fred Grandy, Jesse Ventura -they've all managed to make the shift from acting or entertaining in Ventura's case, to politics. I think you're overstating the learning curse and forgetting that they have staffs to fill in the blanks.

Who would be an example of your ideal Mich?

AAWW! and I was having fun too..

Steph, do you even have to ask? Dr. Ron Paul, of course.

Even I knew that, Steph!

The way I see it Mich is that you have better peace of mind if a candidate is seasoned with years of experience and that's fine. I ain't mad at you. I'm just saying they don't have to be to do a great job and that's all there is to it.

Hypno, I think we can agree that years of experience in politics aren't a necessity. I'm more interested in the knowledge, and if you can get that without holding an elected office for a decade, then that's fine by me.

I just didn't realize he had done all the prep work when transitioning into politics.

I'm going to assume you wrote that comment without reading my previous post. Obviously I wasn't around when Ron Paul started his career in politics, so I don't know too much about what prep work he did before being elected. I do know how hard we works now, and I approve.

Haha, not how hard "we" works, should be "how hard he works". Today is not my day for accurate typing.

I'm Mich and I approved this message!

My gut reaction is that I wouldn't vote for him. I would listen to his policies and decide from there. I'm glad he is pitching in and helping in NOLA, and not complaining from Hollywood that the government should be doing more.

Im always more impressed with celebrities who use their power to push a nonpartisan cause versus a candidate or use it for their own political power.

I don't think I would vote for him, because I have the impression that he has fairly liberal political views (though I could be wrong).

The article just says he might run for office, so who know? Maybe he'd run for school board. Or dog catcher!

Sure, why not?

hmm I don't know enough about him to know if he would be good at it, and I might have some prejudice against him but since I don't live in the USA I don't think I'll ever be in position to make this choice

If I had to pick any movie star it would be George
Clooney. I think he is far smarter and more capable.
He actually spends some time in Africa to learn more
about what he is talking about. Brad has usually just
flown in and out, even in New Orleans. If you are on
hand more with any project you get more done and faster.
Even Ben Affleck and Matt Damon seem to be more involved.
No I don't think I would vote for any of them. There
are far more qualified people out there. Look at all the
years that it has been since Karina and not much has been
accomplished. Texas just happened. No one has hardly
mentioned it. Ellen has pushed the MIR all the time but
she hardly even gets mentioned and she collected a lot
for it at the time if happened but I'm not sure that
means that she should be President. I think everybody
is getting a little carried away.