Mikey Moore supports Gen. Clark

[BTox]

So much for the General's chances...

moore supports clark (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040115/en_afp/us_vote_clark_film_040115172036)

[WildCat]

Clark doesn't have a chance now that Carol Mosely-Braun and her 3 supporters have endorsed Dean.

[Elektrix]

Right BTox...... whatever you say.

Btw, Moore's complete letter is on his site at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

-Elektrix

[shuize]

Originally posted by WildCat
Clark doesn't have a chance now that Carol Mosely-Braun and her 3 supporters have endorsed Dean.

What? Carol Mosely-Braun's out?

Say it ain't so!

I thought she was for real this time ....

[Cain]

Yet, not even two years ago Clark was raising money for Republicans. He's a douchebag, and the primary reason for Moore's endorsement is that Clark defended him awhile ago on television. The man from Flint instantly became smitten with the General's "courage".

Moore the leftist has thrown support to Republican-lite.

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by Cain
Yet, not even two years ago Clark was raising money for Republicans. He's a douchebag, and the primary reason for Moore's endorsement is that Clark defended him awhile ago on television. The man from Flint instantly became smitten with the General's "courage".

Moore the leftist has thrown support to Republican-lite.

Excuse me Cain, but why do you put "courage" in quotes? Are you implying that he is a coward? Are you ignoring his military career? Do you consider yourself brave next to him?

What exactly makes you refer to him as a "douchebag"?

And what in the world makes him Republican-lite?

Regarding him raising money for Republicans.... two years ago he spoke at both Republican AND Democratic fundraisers...... it is ridiculous to ignore one and not the other. It is true he is new to the Democratic party in terms of officially being a member of it (although he did of course vote for both Clinton and Gore), but most of his life he had been serving in the military, and most people in Arkansas also are genuinely undeclared and not affiliated with a particular party. The important thing is the years of service to the country.

But I guess in your eyes that makes him a "coward".

-Elektrix

[shemp]

Originally posted by shuize


What? Carol Mosely-Braun's out?



She's a lesbian?

[Cain]

I apologize if the above was misleading. It's not my intention to imply he's a coward. By "courage" -- or maybe I should say "'courage'" -- I meant Clark's defense of Moore on television.

As for Clark being Republican-lite, I think that's evident given his recent and past history. He's notably waffled several times since announcing his bid for the Presidency, and there's ample reason to assume his tax and healthcare proposals lack sincerity.

The most compelling reason for supporting Clark is that he's "electable"; he has the best chance (currently) to defeat Bush in the general election. That gives him ample room to lurch to the right (and any of the others -- Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards -- will do the same).

I'm not really too interested in Democratic politics. It's just that Moore is an icon of the Left, and his endorsement is out of step with the left-liberal community.

[sol4590]

Originally posted by Cain
I'm not really too interested in Democratic politics. It's just that Moore is an icon of the Left, and his endorsement is out of step with the left-liberal community.

Could it be, maybe, that US politics is a little more complicated than a simple duopoly between the "left" and the "right". Perhaps Moore is casting his support for someone with whom he agrees, without the need to subscribe to a certain side's dogma.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by BTox
So much for the General's chances...

moore supports clark (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040115/en_afp/us_vote_clark_film_040115172036)

I think that Clark is astute enough to take the support offered by Moore without getting so close to Moore that the Republicans will start calling Clark a LIBERAL!

After all, getting support from people you may not like that much is part of getting elected.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by sol4590


Could it be, maybe, that US politics is a little more complicated than a simple duopoly between the "left" and the "right". Perhaps Moore is casting his support for someone with whom he agrees, without the need to subscribe to a certain side's dogma.

I was thinking along these lines. Plus, we are dealing with the left, and as I'm sure Cain is aware, the left prides itself on openness, so to somehow paint Clark as "tainted" for having past contacts with the right seems a very "unleft" thing to do, it would seem.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Cain
As for Clark being Republican-lite, I think that's evident given his recent and past history. He's notably waffled several times since announcing his bid for the Presidency[...]
People don't complain when a politician is out there flipping pancakes, so why do people get upset as soon as a politician starts waffling?

[Cain]

Originally posted by sol4590


Could it be, maybe, that US politics is a little more complicated than a simple duopoly between the "left" and the "right". Perhaps Moore is casting his support for someone with whom he agrees, without the need to subscribe to a certain side's dogma.

As I argued in a previous thread, Democrat and Republican -- often mistaken as left and right -- are generally the different ways business expresses itself in the political system. Are big corporations that donate to both parties beyond either side's dogma? If you want to argue that Clark's centrist candidacy demonstrates a willingess to thoughtfully consider the issues -- well, I think that's f*cking insane, but fine.

R: I think the earth rotates east to west.
L: No, it's definitely west to east.
Clark: Hey guys, clam down. Maybe it's a little bit of both.

Michael Moore, as a progressive who supported the Nader campaign, has options closer to his beliefs (or at least the ones he has expressed in the past). I'm thinking of Kucinich in particular.

Suddenly writes:

I was thinking along these lines. Plus, we are dealing with the left, and as I'm sure Cain is aware, the left prides itself on openness, so to somehow paint Clark as "tainted" for having past contacts with the right seems a very "unleft" thing to do, it would seem.

The Left is extremely sectarian and divided. It has always been that way. If you mean by including a broad culture of movements from labor, enviornment, gay rights, women's rights, minorities and so on, yes, many points of views can be considered "Left" or fall under the broad umbrella. I'm still not sure how that logically translates into Moore's support for Clark.

The theme this year is "anybody but Bush." So Bush is painted as the embodiment of all evil, and we have to choose the Democratic candidate. Bush is just so bad!

Well, I'd never on my life vote for Clark or Dean or Lieberman or Edwards or Kerry. In fact, according to economists and political scientists, voting is an irrational waste of time -- unless, I suppose, you live in Florida.

I'll just continue to post on this board and behave like an elitist *sshole.

[Hexxenhammer]

Sometimes you support the man even when you don't agree with all their opinions. I was all ready to vote for McCain despite having more politically in common with Gore. But Bush hijacked all his issues and smeared him unfairly in South Carolina, so Gore it was for me.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Cain
As for Clark being Republican-lite, I think that's evident given his recent and past history. He's notably waffled several times since announcing his bid for the Presidency, and there's ample reason to assume his tax and healthcare proposals lack sincerity.

The most compelling reason for supporting Clark is that he's "electable"; he has the best chance (currently) to defeat Bush in the general election. That gives him ample room to lurch to the right (and any of the others -- Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards -- will do the same).

I'm not really too interested in Democratic politics. It's just that Moore is an icon of the Left, and his endorsement is out of step with the left-liberal community.

One of the things I liked about Clinton was his centrist stances. Clark is clearly following in Clinton's mold. I like what I have seen so far. As with any candidate, I don't agree with all of it or think he's perfect.

I question whether Dean is electable. I think Clark might be. Perhaps Moore sees this angle too. Clark clearly benefits from comparisons with Clinton, and when you are anti-Bush...

[svero]

Originally posted by Cain

Michael Moore, as a progressive who supported the Nader campaign, has options closer to his beliefs (or at least the ones he has expressed in the past). I'm thinking of Kucinich in particular.


There's no question that Kucinich is a closer match for Moore than Clark, and I think Moore would support him IF he felt Kucinich had a good chance, but I suspect that Moore simply feels Clark is the best chance the dems have at beating bush, and that Clark, while not perfect in many respects, is a better alternative than the unthinkable prospect (from Moore's POV) of Bush being reelected. I know Moore has said he regrets supporting Nader, not because he doesn't like what Nader stands for but because it may have helped Bush win the election. I think the decision to support Clark is mostly a practical one.

But anyway... even if Clark is republican lite I don't really equate the Bush administration with republican "values". There are no parties anyway. It's all a farce. The rupublicans pretty much == the democrats. The only thing that really matters is who is financing the candidate. Both republicans and Dems are the same in that respect. Someone like Kucinich can be more liberal left because he's financed primarily by labor. But, my guess is that if you ask the typical voter why they say they support the republicans they'll blather something about smaller govt and less taxes. Sounds good to me! Unfortunately that has nothing to do with Bush.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I think that Clark is astute enough to take the support offered by Moore without getting so close to Moore that the Republicans will start calling Clark a LIBERAL!

After all, getting support from people you may not like that much is part of getting elected.

I think you've got it backward - sounds more likely to me Moore picked Clark simply because it DOESN'T fit Moore's usual MO. It generates talk value and publicity for Moore, not for Clark. He probably dreams of water cooler conversations across the country, where people will wonder what Mike Moore knows that the rest of the world doesn't.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I was thinking along these lines. Plus, we are dealing with the left, and as I'm sure Cain is aware, the left prides itself on openness, so to somehow paint Clark as "tainted" for having past contacts with the right seems a very "unleft" thing to do, it would seem.

Welcome to the stark contrast between PC theory and PC application.