Porn superstar Jenna Jameson backs Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

But first things first. This is post #12,000 at The Reaction.

That's a lot of posts. I've done a lot of them, but we wouldn't be anywhere near here without contributions of all the other writers I've brought on board here. I cannot thank them enough. I may have my name up there, but I'm proud to call this a team effort.

We've come a long way since my first post on March 29, 2005, but I'd like to think we still offer "a reaction to all the nonsense out there that passes for intelligent discourse."

The thing is, most of the nonsense, in U.S. politics at least, is Republican, and little of what Republicans say passes for intelligent anything.

**********

And on that note, let us turn to the other matter at hand, Jenna Jameson's endorsement of Mitt Romney:

Porn star Jenna Jameson chose a familiar stage to make her endorsement for the 2012 presidential election Thursday night. At a San Francisco strip club, the former adult actress and stage performer said she was ready for a Romney presidency.

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

Jameson isn't really a Republican, or at least doesn't appear to be. (She supported Hillary in '08, for example.) And, even if people will ignorantly dismiss her given her past career, she's actually a very smart woman, as her successful business career and extremely personal and entertaining biography, How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale, show.

And so I can't help but think there's something intentionally ironic in her endorsement of Romney, a conservative who isn't exactly open to -- oh, how shall I put it? -- public expressions of sexuality of the kind that made Ms. Jameson rich and famous.

As well, her words don't exactly make for a ringing endorsement: "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office." In other words: "Vote for Romney because he'll help rich people like himself."

Surely Ms. Jameson knows that Romney is vulnerable in large part because he is, as we often put it here, a privileged rich douchebag with a plutocratic sense of entitlement. Saying Romney is the best choice because you're rich and he'll help the rich is the sort of endorsement you might find at, say, The Onion.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm giving Ms. Jameson too much credit. Maybe she really does want him to win because she's rich and he's rich and that's all that matters. But what would that say about her? Does she really support someone who finds pretty much everything she is and everything she's about -- and I don't mean pornography, I mean freedom of expression, freedom of sexuality, and the freedom to make one's own decisions about how one should lead one's life -- utterly contemptuous? Does she really support a party that for all intents and purposes hates her just because it's the party of the rich at the expense of everyone else? Is that really what she's about?

As Ron Jeremy once said, "Sex is simple, love is painful." And politics? Well, sometimes it makes no sense at all.