Is Michael Moore going to hurt the Democrats this time around?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
MM.com

Look at the map on his front page. From the looks of it, he's not going to confine his work just to politicians, but he's going to go right after the American people who voted for Bush. Which, of course, is going to drive them even further against liberals.

During the previous few years, Moore basically confined himself to exposing politicians, and attacked a few well-known citizens. This would really have the effect of pushing those who agreed with him farther away from politicians, while those who did not agree with him further towards them, with really a net of zero change in the actual voting results. This time around, if he opens on on heartland America, he's going to be upsetting the people themselves. It's one thing to attack someone's politician, it's another to attack them personally.

I think that if Moore doesn't want to shoot himself in the foot, he's going to have to pull himself back. Or, instead of being a semi-respectable film maker with strong views, he's going to get the label 'whackjob' by the majority of people once he goes on the offensive.

I don't know, just my thoughts on the issue.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by Esoterica]




posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I tend to agree with you in some aspects. Moore, I believe, is doing more harm to himself than good by some of the tactics he uses to get his points across and movies out. I heard he was very active in Florida during the voting looking for trouble to film and now with some news of extra votes showing up and some votes not being tabulated I wonder if he'll do something with it.

If he does start attacking/questioning the public about their voted I see him getting into some trouble. He'll need to pull himself back if he questions the wrong indivudual. If you push and push and push someone will push back harder.

Cameron



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Physh1
I tend to agree with you in some aspects. Moore, I believe, is doing more harm to himself than good by some of the tactics he uses to get his points across and movies out. I heard he was very active in Florida during the voting looking for trouble to film and now with some news of extra votes showing up and some votes not being tabulated I wonder if he'll do something with it.

If he does start attacking/questioning the public about their voted I see him getting into some trouble. He'll need to pull himself back if he questions the wrong indivudual. If you push and push and push someone will push back harder.

Cameron


I know several people who wre planning on voting Kerry. However, they were literally bombarded by people telling them to vote for Kerry. They got so fed up that they voted Bush out of spite. Kerry still won the state, but I wonder what effect this had nation-wide, if any.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Yesterday Bill Clinton said: "I don't want the Democratic Party to become Michael Moore's party". That pretty sums up the thoughts of all of those who care for the Democratic Party, who want it to be a driving force in America, with solid plans for a better future. Keep on preaching the "we are not Bush" mantra will the the Democratic party nowhere and fast. And Michael Moore's largely responsible for this: it's OK to uncover scams, connections, etc, but a party aiming to rule the leading country of the world needs a constructive attitude. Just bashing the opponent is seen by many voters as a sign of weakness, a cheap trick to cash on the people's discontent and a way to cover up the lack of ideas. The Democratic Party has ideas, determined people, etc, but they preferred to risk the "we are not Bush" card and failed. I hope they won't repeat the same mistake twice.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Too much blame being put on Moore? I was looking through his site and I noticed this Post op/ed:


All of this takes place against a historical backdrop in which Democrats have struggled to win the presidency since World War II, says historian Rick Shenkman, editor of George Mason University's History News Network. Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter barely squeaked out victories. Bill Clinton had Ross Perot scrambling the equation in 1992 and never won a majority of the vote. Only Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide stands out as a resounding victory, Shenkman said.

"That tells you that this is a conservative country. It's not a country that normally elects Democrats," he said.


Are we a nation that typically wants to elect more conservative presidents and looks for any excuse to do so? Clinton seems to subscribe to this theory. Both of his campaigns reflected this ideology of centrist, moderate thinking. Hopefully this is something the Dems will consider in the next elections.

B.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Bleys, I agree that the US is basically a conservative nation. I wasn't laying the blame for Kerry's defeat squarely of Moore's shoulders, though. I just think that the more extreme you get, you simply keep your followers and push others away, like Al Sharpton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

I actually went to see Jesse when he gave a talk at my university. I left when the Militants (Berets, Camo jackets, combat boots) started filing in en masse, also noticing that myself and my friend were the only two whites there that weren't sporting hemp outfits



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I actually went to see Jesse when he gave a talk at my university. I left when the Militants (Berets, Camo jackets, combat boots) started filing in en masse...

What's wrong with camo? I have a few pairs a BDU pants that I wear around school, they are very comfortable.


Seriously though, I think if you give Moore enough time he will self-destruct. I watched one of his older films and thought that most of what he did was pretty one-sided and taken out of context. It seems to me that he doesnít know where to draw the line, and will continue to push gradually more extreme views until nobody will take him seriously.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
www.michaelmoore.com...

Look at the map on his front page. From the looks of it, he's not going to confine his work just to politicians, but he's going to go right after the American people who voted for Bush. Which, of course, is going to drive them even further against liberals.


"United States of Canada"? "JesusLand?" Wow.
I've seen that picture floating around on the Internet in the last few days, but I'm shocked he'd put it up on his website. Could this picture be considered advocating the dissolution of the United States? Could it be considered sedition?


Originally posted by para
Seriously though, I think if you give Moore enough time he will self-destruct. I watched one of his older films and thought that most of what he did was pretty one-sided and taken out of context. It seems to me that he doesnít know where to draw the line, and will continue to push gradually more extreme views until nobody will take him seriously.


If his website is any indication, he's already in the early stages of self-destructing. Maybe he had a nervous breakdown on Wednesday night? He's starting to sound more like Alex Jones every day...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I may agree with many of the things that Moore says, but I myself am admittedly biased.

However, there are few things more annoying ti me than wealthy celebrities insulting the "masses" (I hate this word, but I can't think of any substitute at the moment). If they're conservative or liberal, it doesn't matter - they're out of touch anyway.

Personally, I like Moore's style of *entertainment*, but I do not like him associated with my political ideology. He is just as an anathema to conservatives as Anne Coulter is to liberals.





top topics
 
0

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum