It’s about time we faced reality. We are fighting a defensive war against the adherents to a religion that decrees our death, a religion that declares genocide on the human race. There are enough adherents to that religion who take these provisions seriously that we’re fighting defense in a religious war against us.

Once we admit that we can start taking measures to discredit that religion’s ideology. Until then we’ll appear to win and continue to lose.

…I remember reading a couple of years ago that Dayton was trying to get more movies shot there.

MobileVideoEngineer on February 4, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Have yet to hear about that from any part of the media over there – have a quote?

I waited, and sure enough, bless my soggy ole soul, The Hat expained Vitter’s vote!

I would like to have TheHat’s indulgence to add this little something:

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/Louisiana_US_Senator_David_Vitter__Devil_Versus_Angel__8221.asp

You, see there are Two vitters. One stood against Hillary and one…Lord forgive my coarseness…well, remember a certain D. C. madam? Yes, indeed.

IlikedAUH2O on February 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM

AUH2O??? From PF? Is that you?…lol.

Add away my friend! Vitter can play both sides of the field cant he? I agree.

For example, look at Summit and Walden. Now picture if Walden had produced Twilight using some of the new HD methods. That’s a massive profit on much lower costs.

That’s assuming that Walden actually owned the HD equipment in your hypothetical. It’s much more likely that they would rent it.

Lord knows I’m not opposed to lower taxes. But incentives should be called what they are. And, when Hollywood asks for a tax break, consider my eyebrows raised. The people who run the motion picture industry are among the most hypocritical limousine liberals on the planet. They want all of us “little people” to pay more taxes even as they demand more for themselves. It stinks.

However now that someone explained Vitter’s reasoning, I believe that this was Voinovich’s reasoning as well. There are quite a few movies that have scenes in Cincinnati, Columbus, and I remember reading a couple of years ago that Dayton was trying to get more movies shot there.

So while I don’t agree with it, I guess I could see Voinovich’s reasoning on this one, especially given the fact that our other senator voted against stripping it out as well.

Update: Below are the yeas and nays. Note the lone Republican who voted to protect the Hollywood subsidy:

Not saying I know his reasoning or necessarily defending him, but movies aren’t only made in Hollywood. Louisiana has film incentives as well and attracts some production, so perhaps that had something to do with it.

Louisiana is becoming a major player in the movie-making industry.
TheHat on February 4, 2009 at 8:19 AM

Last trip I took to New Orleans (March 2008), I watched a film being made in front of some hotel (I believe) on Royal. My best guess is the Hotel Monteleone. They had people in mock Swat gear, actors dressed as police, camera crew, etc. If I wasn’t on my way to present at the Conference Center, I would’ve watched for a while; it seemed pretty cool and they let us hang out on the corner and watch and take pictures, very easy in the handling the public. I always wondered what film that was though.

I would like to have TheHat’s indulgence to add this little something:

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/Louisiana_US_Senator_David_Vitter__Devil_Versus_Angel__8221.asp

You, see there are Two vitters. One stood against Hillary and one…Lord forgive my coarseness…well, remember a certain D. C. madam? Yes, indeed.

Here is why Vitter voted to uphold the subsidy:

Louisiana is becoming a major player in the movie-making industry. We have tax breaks for them in Louisiana already in place at the state level and Vitter, wanting to keep that business here, is voting for more of that. As I write this, there is a movie being shot here in Shreveport/Bossier City.

We have seen unprecedented growth of the movie-industry in this area, and are currently seeing movie studios going up left and right.

So, though I dont agree with his vote on this, I do however completely understand his motive. Basically, he is “bringing home the bacon” with this vote.

I hope that helps you out on why Vitter did this.

sethstorm on February 4, 2009 at 5:50 AM

I am hoping that by 2010 when Voinovich retires that people will realize just how destructive the Democrats have been to Ohio and the Country and will want some Republicans back in office. Of course, this requires the majority of voting Americans to have some intelligence which isn’t very likely.

In my opinion Voinovich is a disgrace to conservatism, and quite frankly I feel that if he is going to vote like a Democrat, what’s the difference between having him or someone who actually admits they are a Democrat.

Thank GOD that douche of a RINO Voinovich is retiring. Not soon enough though.

midir on February 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM

That doesn’t mean Ohio is going to get someone more Republican than him.

You’re going to get another Mike Turner at best, but it’s more likely to be a person of the Strickland & Brown cloth. They speak for the parts of Ohio that have only been able to get exposure in 2006.

It is looking good to see a bit of revenge happening for all the sins of the Ohio GOP.

tommylotto on February 3, 2009 at 10:04 PM

When you water the garden, even the weeds get wet. Sometimes you have to plow the whole thing under and start over.

Although I had to search the list; I wasn’t paying attention and didn’t realize Salazar had moved to a new position. I feel bad about not knowing that.

hawkdriver on February 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Maybe with the fat tax break offered by this proposal good conservatives like yourself could afford to make films that would not otherwise be made. For example, this tax cut will save money for Mel Gibson when he makes “The Passion Part Two, The Resurrection” not just Michael Moore when he makes “Bowling 300 with Obama’s Unicorns”

Aside from that as rich as they all are, why would they even need a tax incentive? Why do they need any help at all? If this bill in any way shape or form is intended to help promote production of movies, it would entail saving a buck somewhere, somehow. Send that buck to the poor guy who can’t afford a movie out with the family and tell Hollywood to sell one of their houses to get up the scratch for production rental whatever costs.