Boycotts?

Apparently, the actor Jeff Daniels was on Frank Beckmann's local radio show this week.  Talk, naturally, turned to the new HBO show on which Daniels stars.  I haven't seen the show and don't plan on it--largely because I don't watch much television (other than Nick Jr!).

Questions finally focused on the show's one-sided attacks on conservatives and Republicans (although, nowadays, the two aren't necessarily synonymous).  Daniels, who claims to be a moderate, said the show targest the Tea Partiers, "that's where the craziness is coming from...."  Whoa!  Wait just a minute!  To his credit (and I think Beckmann is a very good host, better than any of the locals and at least the equal of most if not all the national hosts), Beckmann challenged this accusation.  Isn't it crazy what the federal gov't is doing, its spending, intrusions, unilateral grabs and usurpations of power, etc.?  What about the Occupiers?  Aren't they "crazy?"  Beckmann exposed Daniels for what is seems to really be--a typical Hollywood-type.  I thought better of him, what with some of his projects. 

I do part with Beckmann on his assertion in today's column in the Det News.  He is critical of callers who said they would boycott Daniels' movies, television shows, play, etc.  Why be critical of those poeple?  Beckmann asserts that they "confirm" Daniels' view/"complaint" against the "crazies," I guess.  Boycotts, he holds, represents "unwillingness to acknowledge that reasonable people can differe in political philosophy" and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue.  Au contraire, mon frere!
Nope.  Boycotts are legitimate.  Dialogue can still be open.  Why would anyone want to watch such a television show, for instance, that denigrates their own political views?  Why would anyone want to boost ratings, hence, advertising dollars for such a show?  No, No, No!  The HBO folks can run any shows they want to run--I just don't have to support them, philosophically or, indirectly, financially.

And who is it that rarely engages in dialogue?  Who regularly calls names?  (An example:  A left-leaning guy I know once called Beckmann "a bigot."  I asked why he would make that claim.  What evidence do you have?  His evidence?  "He just is....")  Who constantly points out the flaws, even the most minor ones, while ignoring or rationalizing their own?  C'mon, that guy Akin, McCotter, et al deserve everything coming their ways.  But how have the Kennedies, Clintons, and more been given free passes?  Not to excuse Akin, but wasn't Clinton's behavior much worse than Akin's words, dumb as they were?