Van Halen Jumps on McCain

Filed in National by on August 30, 2008

Van Halen to McCain: No You Can’t

John McCain used a Van Halen song during his big speech earlier today and the band wants to make one thing clear — they’re not running with McCain.

Van Halen management tells us the band had no idea McCain was planning on using “Right Now” during his big entrance in Ohio telling us, “Permission was not sought or granted nor would it have been given.”

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. From The Deep End » Blog Archive » A Friendly Suggestion | October 16, 2008
  1. JohnnyX says:

    Damn right, just like when Springsteen gave Reagan the big F-U for trying to corrupt “Born in the U.S.A.” into some sort of cold war anthem.

  2. Not Brian says:

    Yeah… I am not exactly going to defend Van Halen’s artistic integrity (as they have none – I hope we can all agree on that), but I find it hilarious when the Republicans go and use songs from bands who obviously would never be OK with it…

    Jackson Browne is suing McCain through a Brit court for using ‘Running on Empty’ in his campaign.

    Melloncamp sued too.

    Republicans – you can have Toby Keith, but if you co-opt a Neil Young or RATM song I swear I will go on a rampage!

  3. DPN says:

    I thought he wanted to play “Hot for Teacher”

  4. Joe Cass says:

    To use a Sammy Haggar VH is too funny. I remember the video for “Right Now” and the message was not in line with the conservative brand.

  5. anon says:

    How come these republicans believe they can just pick a song and play it without violating copyrights. They have no ability to discern what is lawful and what is not.

    Next they will be using the Dixie Chicks!

  6. Paul says:

    New York, NY, April 17, 2008:

    #2 We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.

    # 3 We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
    Legal? Binding?
    Discriminatory? – to withhold permission on philosophical grounds.
    Is that like refusing service?
    I see what they want, but is it legal?
    If it is for sale, should not it be for sale to everyone?

  7. Paul says:

    If it is for sale, should not it be for sale to everyone?

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Why should it be? (and the issue is licensing, not sale of works)

    If I license my song to you to sell your potato chips, you aren’t going to be too happy if I license it to someone else selling other potato chips, or diet pills or anything else for that matter.

    If you come to me to license a song to sell your steaks and I’m a vegan, why should I have to license my work to you?

  9. Paul says:

    I’m thinking Discrimination.
    When is it OK, Not OK. For who, when?
    Does the Author of every song under licensing agreements, maintain a list of what they allow and disallow? I can not find such a list.
    Are political rallies exempt? Might it be covered by freedom of speech? Not for profit?

  10. cassandra_m says:


    You own a published song. You get to say who it gets licensed to and where it gets played. The songwriter still owns the material. They should not be forced to license their material where they don’t want it used.

    Political rallies are technically not exempt but campaigns (especially those under the media radar) fail to properly license songs all of the time. Bruce Springsteen famously got Reagan to stop using Born in the USA at Reagan events.

  11. mike w. says:

    Cassandra – Are you going to apply the same scrutiny to every song ever used at an Obama event?

    I doubt it.

  12. From where I sit... says:

    Those singing (live or recorded) ‘for Obama-Biden’ will be doing from the goodness of their respective hearts.

    Surely, you saw Stevie Man signing from his heart the over evening. You can bet he did it for free (and make a $$$$ doation to boot!).

  13. jason330 says:

    Mike it is the bands policing McCain… because they don’t like him….and don’t want him to win…so they say, “stop using that song.”

    Get it?

  14. Brubaker says:

    She named her kid after the group:

    Trig Paxson Van Palin

    Kinda funny they picked a Van Hagar song.

    ROTH rules. A–hole, but rules just the same.

  15. Chris says:

    If the venue in which he is giving the rally or speech has a blanket ASCAP license, the bands can’t do jack about it. Part of affliating your song with ASCAP opens it up. You can’t prevent a venue from playing it anymore than you can decide which radio station plays it.

    If he is in a venue that does not have an ASCAP license then they can say something about it.

    As for using it in campaign commercials, then the band will probably have say in that too since it requires a special license.

    But for a blanket licensed venue the band’s only recourse is to pull the song from the catalog for everyone.

  16. cassandra m says:

    Well, yes they can. The blanket ASCAP only covers a traditional performance of the song (via recording or in limited live uses). It does not cover the song’s use for endorsement purposes.

  17. i’m not going to lie and say that for a while I thought it was


  18. Damage says:

    Sad that morons are applauding Van Halen and others for whining when one of their songs that they have sold the rights to already is played somewhere that they don’t like. If they want to control their songs, control them. But they didn’t, they sold the rights so they could rake in cash. STFU.

    You same morons would be up in arms if I decided that in my private business I didn’t feel like serving people I thought were objectionable. In fact, you’ve whined enough about that to have anti-discrimination laws made to prevent just that. This is precisely the same thing.

    The liberal brain. smallest among hominids with very low synapse density.

  19. hardly the same actually.

    Van Halen doesn’t want thier PRODUCT being used by someone they don’t agree with. They are perfectly within their rights to do so.

    If NIKE doesn’t want someone to use their product they could do the same thing.

  20. Small Brained Liberal says:

    It’s remarkable when someone can’t tell the difference between discrimination on the basis of race and an artist not wanting their work used to support (and imply the artist’s support) for a political candidate they don’t agree with. I wish I could be as smart as those clever conservatives.

  21. Yosemite says:

    Van Hagar can complain all they want.

    It’s like a hooker getting pregnant and claiming she didn’t endorse the conception.

    Walk away with your fat bellies, Eddie, Alex, Sammy, and Michael!

  22. SHIMA says: