Michael Moore has advice for the Democratic Party

[Abdul Alhazred]

How to blow it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/michael.moore.us.elections.barack.obama) by Michael Moore
The Guardian (UK)

Synopsis: He thinks the Democrats should act like everybody is just like Michael Moore. You know. Like they did in 2004.

[maxpower1227]

Is he still on the "Al Gore won in 2000" nonsense? He's more pathetic than I originally thought.

[Oliver]

Is he still on the "Al Gore won in 2000" nonsense? He's more pathetic than I originally thought.


He actually still talks about nothing else. ;)

[Richard Masters]

How to blow it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/michael.moore.us.elections.barack.obama) by Michael Moore
The Guardian (UK)

Synopsis: He thinks the Democrats should act like everybody is just like Michael Moore. You know. Like they did in 2004.

I'm of the opinion that the Michael Moore card is used exclusively by the right to make Democrats look bad. Or maybe it's just that I associate Moore with Bush's reelection, and Gore and Kerry's failures.

Either way, Obama should neither denounce nor acknowledge Moore.

[Alex Libman]

Al Gore did win in 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Gore as I am anti-Bush (maybe even more so in light of his global warming bull), but to say that Bush honestly won Florida you have to do all sorts of creative statistics about Buchanan being a super-star in just the precincts with the confusing ballots.

And of course the real reason why Bush didn't win in 2000, which you won't hear from the mainstream media - nobody won Florida. The Supremes decided the election, not the votes. If only Florida's electoral votes were invalidated due to voting irregularities, or split evenly based on popular vote, Gore would be president. If there was a full statewide recount or a full re-vote, Gore would be president.

But the two heads of the one ruling party in America like to alternate. That gives them time to relax and make some real money selling favors in the private sector...

[Gurdur]

... But the two heads of the one ruling party in America like to alternate. That gives them time to relax and make some real money selling favors in the private sector...


This part is mere meaningless, silly, poseuring nonsense.

[Brainster]

Al Gore did win in 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Gore as I am anti-Bush (maybe even more so in light of his global warming bull), but to say that Bush honestly won Florida you have to do all sorts of creative statistics about Buchanan being a super-star in just the precincts with the confusing ballots.

What you mean to say is that Al Gore would have won if a bunch of his supporters hadn't been too incompetent to vote?

[Pardalis]

Is Hizbollah still his distributor in the Middle East?

[RandFan]

I'm of the opinion that the Michael Moore card is used exclusively by the right to make Democrats look bad. Or maybe it's just that I associate Moore with Bush's reelection, and Gore and Kerry's failures.

Either way, Obama should neither denounce nor acknowledge Moore.Agreed.

When it comes to elections Moore just doesn't get politics. George Clooney on the other hand gets politics and he knows how best to help a candidate. Don't play into right-wing propaganda. They are very good at it.

[senorpogo]

I liked the sly plug for his book that he slips in near the end.

[Oliver]

Is Hizbollah still his distributor in the Middle East?


:rolleyes:

After all, Goury - Moore still provides more facts than ... well ... the White House, for example. So for Hizbollah to rather distribute Moore than Bush's blabbering, could actually be considered as being more skeptical than ...I don't know... some Canadian peoples hipocriscy or so... :p

[Pardalis]

Makes no sense ^

[Bob Klase]

Trust me, this ain't Sweden. War Hero wins every time.

Bill Clinton vs Bob Dole?

John Kerry vs George Bush?

Factual accuracy continues to elude Moore.

[Bob Klase]

If there was a full statewide recount or a full re-vote, Gore would be president.

Not necessarily true according to CNN (and several other studies done after 2000).

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

[Oliver]

Makes no sense ^


Read again. Slooooowly. :p

[Alex Libman]

This part is mere meaningless, silly, poseuring nonsense.

That describes all politics.


What you mean to say is that Al Gore would have won if a bunch of his supporters hadn't been too incompetent to vote?

Great, now it's the little old ladies' fault...

[marksman]

Great, now it's the little old ladies' fault...

It is. Well, ladies and men. My grandparents were two of those who were pretty sure voted for Buchanan but meant to vote for Gore.

Yes, it's their fault. Or the fault of the Democrat who designed the butterfly ballot.

[Alex Libman]

It's not like there wasn't enough time till Inauguration Day to recount the whole state (in which case Gore wins) or even fix problems and re-vote (in which case Gore wins by an even bigger margin)... But that's all in the past now. Except for some naive people who believe in democracy - this should have been their final straw.

[marksman]

It's not like there wasn't enough time till Inauguration Day to recount the whole state (in which case Gore wins)
Yes, it's too bad that Florida election law -- which was passed decades ago by both parties -- didn't have a better process in place. But asking for ad hoc procedures to have been implemented on the spot is just asking for democracy to be saved by arbitrary government. Democracy foiled itself. It's one of the problems with the system that democracies have to be managed by imperfect humans. It's also a problem from which all political systems suffer.

[Alex Libman]

I'm not saying that Gore would have been a legitimate president either. A majority of 51% or even 99% shouldn't have more legitimacy in imposing their will on others than a minority of 49% or 1%.

There is a point up to which it is tolerable, though, and I wouldn't be ruining my life to fight just a minor tyranny. But this country has passed my threshold in the last decade. Thus my tax resistance and other civil disobedience.

[marksman]

Huh?

[applecorped]

I'm not saying that Gore would have been a legitimate president either. A majority of 51% or even 99% shouldn't have more legitimacy in imposing their will on others than a minority of 49% or 1%.

There is a point up to which it is tolerable, though, and I wouldn't be ruining my life to fight just a minor tyranny. But this country has passed my threshold in the last decade. Thus my tax resistance and other civil disobedience.

Mushrooms?

[KoihimeNakamura]

He doesn't pay tax.

[Bob Blaylock]

Al Gore did win in 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Gore as I am anti-Bush (maybe even more so in light of his global warming bull), but to say that Bush honestly won Florida you have to do all sorts of creative statistics about Buchanan being a super-star in just the precincts with the confusing ballots.

And of course the real reason why Bush didn't win in 2000, which you won't hear from the mainstream media - nobody won Florida. The Supremes decided the election, not the votes. If only Florida's electoral votes were invalidated due to voting irregularities, or split evenly based on popular vote, Gore would be president. If there was a full statewide recount or a full re-vote, Gore would be president.


Bush won Florida. It was very, very, very close, and the Sore/Loserman team pushed very hard for every possible different way of interpreting any ballots that were the least bit ambiguous to tilt the vote in their favor. No matter how they counted them, Bush still came out slightly ahead. If the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and said “Enough!”, they would still be counting ballots today in Florida, and still be trying to find some way to twist them in Gore's favor.

Florida is a “winner-take-all” state. That means that whichever candidate wins the majority in that state gets all of the state's delegates. And that was Bush. That's the rules under which this election was conducted. There is no point in arguing “If only Florida's electoral votes were…split evenly based on popular vote”, any more than there is any point in wishing for Florida to have been denied its rightful say in the Electoral College under the pretense of having its votes “invalidated due to voting irregularities”.

Bush won, fair and square, according to the rules by which this election took place. Many of the more pathetic Gore supporters are still angry because they weren't allowed to change the rules late in the game, in order to change the outcome — or at least that the degree to which they were allowed to tamper with the rules was not sufficient to change the outcome. It's way past time to let this one go.

Those who wish to accuse Bush of “stealing the election” would surely have thought differently if it was Gore who had prevailed under the exact same rules, and it was Bush's supporters who were arguing that the rules should be changed on-the-fly in Bush's favor.

[Undesired Walrus]

Does Mr Moore still think there is something 'fishy' about explosions in the World Trade Centre?

[Oliver]

Does Mr Moore still think there is something 'fishy' about explosions in the World Trade Centre?


He actually still talks about nothing else. :wink:

[Alex Libman]

If the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and said “Enough!”, they would still be counting ballots today in Florida [...]

Look, I don't have a dog in this race - to me Bush and Gore are two heads of the same monster. But in a state-wide recount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount), Gore wins, in spite of all the voting problems that have cost him many times more votes than the margin of victory. And no one could possibly claim that a run-off election, with just the two on the ballot and no Nader, would have resulted in anything but a definitive Gore victory.

Note the publication dates. Bush would have had a very lame presidency if the state-wide recount results had been made clear to the public sooner. Thankfully 9/11 happened just in time... :rolleyes:

[Kestrel]

Bush won Florida. It was very, very, very close, and the Sore/Loserman team pushed very hard for every possible different way of interpreting any ballots that were the least bit ambiguous to tilt the vote in their favor. No matter how they counted them, Bush still came out slightly ahead. If the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in and said “Enough!”, they would still be counting ballots today in Florida, and still be trying to find some way to twist them in Gore's favor.

The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project (http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf) found that if all Florida ballots had been counted using consistent statewide standards, Gore would have won the 2000 election. This was true regardless of what vote counting standard was used.


Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)

Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey, Gore wins by 171 votes

Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore wins by 115 votes.

Any dimples or optical mark, Gore wins by 107 votes.

One corner of chad detached or optical mark, Gore wins by 60 votes.

Recounts are a normal part of the election process. They happen all the time in close elections. The Bush team lied to you in claiming that recounting ballots by hand was somehow cheating.

[marksman]

in a state-wide recount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount), Gore wins, in spite of all the voting problems that have cost him many times more votes than the margin of victory.
Your website says the following:

The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out.

I don't think we can blame Bush or Florida for Gore not requesting a State-wide recount. Democracy is a system of laws and the laws were followed and Bush won. You might not like it. I might not like it. But 'dems da fax.

And no one could possibly claim that a run-off election, with just the two on the ballot and no Nader, would have resulted in anything but a definitive Gore victory.
Who cares? There's no provision for a run-off election. Holding a run-off election would have been extra-constitutional and thus invalid.

You might as well have said "Nobody could dispute that -- if Jesus reappeared on Earth and caused every registered Democrat and nobody else to either ascend physically into Heaven on a golden chariot or be swallowed up by the earth and tossed into Hell -- Bush would have won."

Bush would have had a very lame presidency if the state-wide recount results had been made clear to the public sooner.
Doubtful. Once the inauguration occurred, the presidency was secure and any lameness was only in the minds of those who dwelt on the past instead of focusing on the future.

[Alex Libman]

I don't think we can blame Bush or Florida for Gore not requesting a State-wide recount. Democracy is a system of laws and the laws were followed and Bush won. You might not like it. I might not like it. But 'dems da fax.

Why do you accept that the two candidates were both acting in the interest of winning and results weren't negotiated beforehand? What's your proof? Do you also believe that professional wrestling is real?

[marksman]

Why do you accept that the two candidates were both acting in the interest of winning and results weren't negotiated beforehand?

I don't. I accept that the laws were applied as written. Even if Busha nd Gore conspired to cheat Gore out of the Presidency, I don't have a problem with candidates negotiating an outcome amongst themselves, as long as it's consonant with the pre-established rules. That's how parliamentary systems work. It's how the American system worked too, for most of its history.

[Brainster]

Al Gore did win in 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Gore as I am anti-Bush (maybe even more so in light of his global warming bull), but to say that Bush honestly won Florida you have to do all sorts of creative statistics about Buchanan being a super-star in just the precincts with the confusing ballots.

And of course the real reason why Bush didn't win in 2000, which you won't hear from the mainstream media - nobody won Florida. The Supremes decided the election, not the votes.

False, according to the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B 63):

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

If only Florida's electoral votes were invalidated due to voting irregularities, or split evenly based on popular vote, Gore would be president. If there was a full statewide recount or a full re-vote, Gore would be president.

If wishes were horses....

[Whiplash]

The Democratic Party should have some advice for Micheal Moore.

"STFU. At least for the next few months anyhow".

[jj]

I think an article titled "how to blow it" from one of the least popular, most disagreeable sorts presently visible via media is, well, I'm sorry, it's just too funny for words.

[BPSCG]

George Clooney on the other hand gets politics and he knows how best to help a candidate.
Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.

One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.Doubtless it was Clooney's advice to be "balanced" that led Obama, on news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, to intone, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."
'George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.

‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’
Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043164/How-Clooney-offers-good-friend-Obama-advice-issues-body-language-Iraq.html)

Having George Clooney giving him advice will certainly help Obama rebut the "inexperienced" charge. Maybe President Obama will find a cabinet position for him.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I started dozing about halfway through this thing.

I'm sure someone here will disagree with me, but while Moore unquestionably has talent as a filmmaker, he is a terrible writer. I disagree with his movies but I can see the talent and the humor and respect that. But IMO, his books have been little more than borderline-embarrassing rantings (and I've read three of them).

Doesn't look like this one will be much different.

[Brainster]

Doubtless it was Clooney's advice to be "balanced" that led Obama, on news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, to intone, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."
Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043164/How-Clooney-offers-good-friend-Obama-advice-issues-body-language-Iraq.html)

Having George Clooney giving him advice will certainly help Obama rebut the "inexperienced" charge.

Not to mention deflecting the "celebrity" claim.

[Suddenly]

I started dozing about halfway through this thing.

I'm sure someone here will disagree with me, but while Moore unquestionably has talent as a filmmaker, he is a terrible writer. I disagree with his movies but I can see the talent and the humor and respect that. But IMO, his books have been little more than borderline-embarrassing rantings (and I've read three of them).

Doesn't look like this one will be much different.



When he sticks to blue collar labor class type issues he's not bad. When he strays from that he's cover-your-eyes awful. It is a shame he doesn't stick to his strengths, he is a pretty good voice for the working poor. However, he wants to be some sort of liberal icon and doesn't realize his limited understanding of other issues...

[moon1969]

Didn"t Christopher Hitchens proove that Michael Moore is a liar? Christopher Hitchens exposed Moore as a liar.

[Donal]

Ugh, what a condescending, obnoxious jerk. And he knows nothing about winning an election.

Does he really think the Dems will win without a balanced ticket? Thats the only reason they didn't get blown out of the last two elections. Obama doesn't need another far left running mate to electrify the base. they are the base. They are already electrified. As long as he doesn't take Cheney, the base will support him.

Taking a far left running mate will scare off the moderates.

The whole rant is full of misinformation and crying. Aww, poor little Mikey mad he's not getting a luxury box next to Obama in Denver?

As the party hacks in the past two elections have proven, once they get the candidate's ear, the rest of us might just as well order pizza and stay inside for the next four years.anybody want to field that one?

[dudalb]

I'm not saying that Gore would have been a legitimate president either. A majority of 51% or even 99% shouldn't have more legitimacy in imposing their will on others than a minority of 49% or 1%.

There is a point up to which it is tolerable, though, and I wouldn't be ruining my life to fight just a minor tyranny. But this country has passed my threshold in the last decade. Thus my tax resistance and other civil disobedience.


I don't think you are old enough and/or make enough a year to pay tax.
God, another revolutionary whose revoultionary action consists in posting crap on the Internet.

[Bob Blaylock]

Look, I don't have a dog in this race - to me Bush and Gore are two heads of the same monster. But in a state-wide recount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount), Gore wins, in spite of all the voting problems that have cost him many times more votes than the margin of victory.


That's what the Sore/Loserman team claimed, and that's what they kept on repeatedly trying to prove; and if the courts hadn't put an end to that nonsense, that is what they would still be trying to prove. They weren't successful in the time that they were given to make their case, they wouldn't have been successful if they had kept at it up until now, and they wouldn't have been successful if they had been given a hundred years. It doesn't stop some people from continuing to make this claim, so many years after all attempts at proving it failed.

[dudalb]

Moore's total ignorance of the political realities in the US is astounding, but not surprising. Hard core ideologues always think there is some sort of massive "hidden vote" out there.
Moore's is in the same situation that Oliver Stone is in. A lot of his one time supporters are now finding out how full of crap his films are.
And this appears in the "Guardian". Remember their attempts in 2004 to influence the American elections,and what a laughing stock that proved to be.

[Axiom_Blade]

Moore's is in the same situation that Oliver Stone is in. A lot of his one time supporters are now finding out how full of crap his films are.

We've been over this before. The whole "Moore is a liar" charge is a myth. All of the claims he makes in his films are backed up on his website, with sources. He goes over every film with a fine-tooth comb to make sure everything's accurate.

Now, you can still find fault with his logic, but I've never heard anyone try to do that.


And this appears in the "Guardian". Remember their attempts in 2004 to influence the American elections,and what a laughing stock that proved to be.

No, I don't remember that. What was it like?

[RandFan]

We've been over this before. The whole "Moore is a liar" charge is a myth. All of the claims he makes in his films are backed up on his website, with sources. He goes over every film with a fine-tooth comb to make sure everything's accurate. I'm a fan of Moore and come to his defense when necessary. That said, Moore knows how to effectively use facts and edits for propaganda purposes. He's not the first BTW, cinematic propaganda was effectively used even before the Soviets made an art of it.

Moore has effectively done this on a number of occasions. That's fine. Moore is a partisan and he makes no illusions about that. He's biased and believes that his way is best and therefore he is only interested in not using outright lies to persuade others to his cause.

Most documentaries are to some degree biased even if the documentarian is a social scientist who sets out to uncover and convey the unvarnished truth. It's difficult for humans to escape that which is why science came about in the first place.

Let's be clear, Moore is not a social anthropologist and his "documentaries" and "research" should not be assumed to be scientific. What is Moore's intent? It's to propagate his ideology. Not to find and report the truth regardless of where the chips fall.

Do I think Moore is a prevaricator? No. Do I think Moore is impeccably honest? Don't make me laugh. As Penn Gillette said, we try not to "Michael Moore it". They don't always succeed BTW. At least they don't claim to be making documentaries.

[Travis]

I think the only one who thinks Moore is still relevant is Moore himself.

[Pardalis]

I think the only one who thinks Moore is still relevant is Moore himself.


... and Hizbollah.

[Oliver]

... and Hizbollah.


...and Satan.

[Alex Libman]

... and people who benefit from the false left-right political paradigm, which includes all people who work for the government (directly or indirectly) or receive any sort of financial assistance from it - more than half of the population.

[Skeptic Guy]

Doubtless it was Clooney's advice to be "balanced" that led Obama, on news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, to intone, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."
Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043164/How-Clooney-offers-good-friend-Obama-advice-issues-body-language-Iraq.html)

Having George Clooney giving him advice will certainly help Obama rebut the "inexperienced" charge. Maybe President Obama will find a cabinet position for him.

The problem is that there is no supporting evidence to the claim that Clooney is "advising" Obama on anything. The paper provides no names of those who make the claim. They just throw out the accusation.

But Clooney has issued a strong statement in response to the claims:
"I have never texted or emailed Senator Obama. And I'll offer a million dollars to anyone who could prove otherwise.

[BPSCG]

The problem is that there is no supporting evidence to the claim that Clooney is "advising" Obama on anything. The paper provides no names of those who make the claim. They just throw out the accusation.Well, hell, that's a good enough standard for The New York Times when they want to print a rumor on their front page (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html) that John McCain might be having an affair with a pretty blonde lobbyist.

The difference, of course, is that Mail is just tabloid trash, while the Times is the respected "Newspaper of Record."