Will Michael Moore Help Bush Win the Election?

If I were speaking to a group of undecided voters from the Republican side, I would categorically address Moore's talking points and ask the voters if Moore's "shock jock" style is really what they want.

That would be intellectually dishonest though - unless they were under the mistaken belief that Moore was the Democrat's candidate then his views and techniques are as relevent as a leftwinger attacking Ann Coulter's arguments in an attempt to discredit Bush. It's petty and, at least in my eyes, highly unethical. If asked about them then sure you should address it, but really it's more important to critique what Bush and Kerry think (if of course these beliefs are ever actually released).

That would be intellectually dishonest though

It would be intellectually dishonest, in a sense, yes...but please don't tell me intellectual dishonesty doesn't infect Australia's policies.

The issue at hand is, these are serious allegations against Bush -- allegations that, if they were all true, would easily add up to treason, which is significant in the US as it is the only crime that, if convicted, carries an automatic death penalty. The thing is, these allegations appear to be largely fabrications and exaggerations, and they have been crafted with the express purpose of landing a democrat in the White House. Ann Coulter, while right wing, has not been released in theaters nationwide, nor has her information been disseminated in the Bush camp to the degree that Moore's has been spread through the Kerry camp. Unfortunately, this promises to be a rather nasty election from all sides.

Yes I admit the same thing happens in Australia, and we have the same kind of disinformation campaigns as Moore and others create, but I think it's important to seperate the "nastier" elements in politics from the people who, for the moment at least, are on the same side. If we don't think it's important enough to be fairhanded then we deserve people like Moore.

The thing is, these allegations appear to be largely fabrications and exaggerations, and they have been crafted with the express purpose of landing a democrat in the White House.

I have finally seen the film and Moore certainly makes quite a few accusations. I thought that much of the evidence is behind these accusations was circumstantial and some of the conclusions drawn were reaching. But what has made me think that there maybe some truth behind them is that, instead of answering the allegations and producing facts refuting them, the right has almost completely attacked the person making them (i.e. Moore.) When I see that sort of reaction makes me think that they do have something to hide.

Thats because more never accuses anything. He just throws things out there to imply everything. Heres this point, this point and this point. then lets the viewer make the connection. Even though each of those points are either taken out of context, different periods in time, or outright theoretical conjecture.

Thats because more never accuses anything. He just throws things out there to imply everything.

I don't know, there was a couple of pretty straight forward questions during the first half of the film:

Why were the Saudis, including Osama Bin Ladens brother who was in the US to meet with the Carlyle Group (that employes George Bush's father as well as other heavy hitters of the Republican party) the only people allowed to fly planes within the US on Sept 13 2001?
And why were the Saudis, who even at that time had been identified as behind most anti-US terrorism up to that time, allowed to leave the country at the time of the greatest act of terrorism against the US?

Just a couple of the direct questions posed by the film that, to my knowledge have never been answered...sounds fishy to me.

The difference though is that Ann Coulter is not nearly as well known as Moore, and Coulter is not embraced by mainstream Republicans the way Moore is embraced by Democrats.

Madine? Ann Coulter is pretty well known in the mainstream media. The National Review fired her for her ultra conservative views which garnered her a lot of press, her books were best sellers, and Bill Maher makes her a regular guest on his HBO show. She is also a guest commentator on both MSNBC and Fox news.

I am a mainstream Dem and i like Moore's movies, but i also take him with a grain of salt at the same time. He does not represent the beliefs of the Mainstream dems, never has, and never will

At best hes a "docudrama" director. Just my opinion though.

Gerry, your problem is that you just keep your hands in front of your eyes.  People like me have answered these questions over and over and over..

And because you apparently choose not to look around, you don't see the answers.  There's websites such as Moorewatch.com that disect the film line by line.

For instance, NOBODY left the country by air before the airspace opened. Moore lied.  The bin laden family chartered an airplane and left when the airspace was opened just like everyone else.  This has been widely reported in countless places.  I can't believe you would claim that the right hasn't "answered" these.

Similarly, the FBI did interview those Saudi's prior to leaving.   The one who made the final decision to let them leave was Moore's buddy, Richard Clarke.

The whole film is propaganda designed for the weak minded.

"As he presents himself as America's savior" Is this a quote from him? If so I would like to know from where. I don't see him saying this and seems like this is how you have chosen to views his actions/self-representation.

"Michael Moore is so closely tied with the left (and by extension, Kerry), his side is equally appalling." Is Bush as equally appaling as Ann Coulter? That women is something else. I've never read someones writting so obviously misguided and venomous. If your relation of Moore to Kerry is true, isn't it the same for Coulter?

"I don't think this move generated enough ticket sales to say that it fairly influenced more than a fringe minority" I didn't see the movie until a week ago. I was extremely surprised to see that it was still playing in a large screen at the playhouse and all but a handful of seats were filled. Moore wanted the movie to come out on DVD before elections but he is fighting an uphill battle. The reason? It's still making so much money in the theater that the producers refuse to release it.

"I am sure the video release will be timed so that college profs can get this nice bit of propaganda to their students in time for the November election." Is there no such thing as a conservative college Professor? Are you suggesting that people involved in education at the highest levels are either A) part of some organization a la the teamsters that demand they vote Democrat or they get ousted? Those involved in higher education tend to sway democrat based on their personal experiences and views derived from watching world affairs closely? C) some other theory?

" the way it is presented, it leaves people wanting to ask more questions to get to the truth" That is exactly what Moore intended to make happen. He may have his opinion, but he is doing a great job if it makes you want to go ask more questions. Unfortunately, human nature is to ask questions and then single out the evidence which backs your preconcieved conclusion, ignoring that which you find that contradicts it. This isn't a slam on anyone, its just a fact. It's something you find out when you learn to be a teacher of anything (I learned in teaching people to fly helicopters). You get a first hand chance to watch people categorically chase only options that present what they believed in the first place. Then when they exhaust that option and can't "prove" it, they tend to feel as though they have exhausted every option and are unable to see options that are opposed to what they first believed. Interesting part of human nature. We all do it.

It's not in the theaters because Ann Coulter is EXTREMELY negative. Her comments suggesting the Democrats are really "The French Party", comments that plainly state she believes you can divide party lines by the type of car people drive or the type of food they eat (I'm not kidding, go back and read her stuff online!) is why you will never see a movie by her.

The Saudi's did not fly into or out of the United States on Sept. 13th. Any statement that contradicts this fact is a bold-faced lie.

Are you suggesting that [...] Those involved in higher education tend to sway democrat

A recent study (referenced here ) indicates that in the professorial population, democrats outnumber republicans by about 10 to 1.

I agree with that. Exit polls show this too.

To answer your question,Yes I believe his strident mewling will aggravate enough undecided voters to "stay the course" as it were. I cannot speak of politics to one of my sisters because of her blind acceptance of that type of liberal screed. As for Anne Coulter, what can I say but that her book Treason was a poorly written screeching that was like nails on a chalkboard to me. I think her lack of "fame" is better for the Republican party than if she were famous like mm.

"As he presents himself as America's savior" Is this a quote from him? If so I would like to know from where. I don't see him saying this and seems like this is how you have chosen to views his actions/self-representation.

Moore has consistently ridiculed Americans as being stupid in his speeches overseas. The implication here is obviously that Moore's NOT the stupid one, as he's smart enough to point out our alleged stupidity. His presentation of the movies and his attitude portray a consistent, smarmy self righteous tone that make his implications ABUNDANTLY clear.

In short, no Moore didn't explicitly say he was America's saviour. But he also didn't explicitly say that George Bush deliberately allowed the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01. But it is so heavily implied, it would take a rather dense individual to not see what he is saying.

I've never read someones writting so obviously misguided and venomous.

You've obviously never read any of Moore's books, have you?

"I don't think this move generated enough ticket sales to say that it fairly influenced more than a fringe minority" I didn't see the movie until a week ago. I was extremely surprised to see that it was still playing in a large screen at the playhouse and all but a handful of seats were filled. Moore wanted the movie to come out on DVD before elections but he is fighting an uphill battle. The reason? It's still making so much money in the theater that the producers refuse to release it.

OK, once again...at $100 million gross, that equates to about 14 million tickets; $200 million is 28 million tickets, and so on... Many of Moore's followers are seeing the movie multiple times. The math just doesn't work out to a majority of Americans viewing this movie, sorry.

I notice you came in as an anonymous user. Your response was vitriolic and extremely confrontative. I considered deleting your post, but felt that the argumentative nature of your post (as opposed to intelligent, rational argument), pretty much speaks for itself, so I left it as it is.

Is there some reason why an attack on Michael Moore affects you personally? Do we not have the same right and responsibility to investigate the credibility of Moore's arguments as we do to investigate the allegations against Bush? (remember, these allegations are not small allegations; if they were indeed all true, George W. Bush could well be guilty of treason, a capital offense. Do you not grant the president of the United States the same right to being "innocent until proven guilty" that is being afforded Scott Peterson at this very moment? If you do, that is indeed, an anti-American position).

I mostly just read stuff here on JU without replying to anything but I thought I would post on your thread because I found it interesting. As such,.. I don't know how to make myself non-anonymous. I assume I have to create an account or something but does it really matter that much to you to have some other user name that may as well be just as anonymous? Does it make it feel better to have a 'name' to direct your opinion to? You can call Me Jason.

I don't feel I was intentionally confrontational at all. If you have an issue with me asking you questions regarding your post then I have to assume you must have only wanted to present your point of view rather then discuss it. Fair enough, thats what many bloggers want and there is nothign wrong with it. However, since you have chosen to respond back to me, I can only assume you really do want to converse on some level.

So let's talk about what I said exactly.
Did I ever say the majority of American's saw the movie? All I said was that I just went to the movie and was surprised by the large number of people in the theater so late after it released. People re-watching or not, I was surprised. I didn't think it would last that long at all. I also stated that I knew Moore wanted it out on video sooner but that it was held in theaters to make some more money. See this article here --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5511730/ and particularly this quote near the bottom "Moore said he had hoped to have “Fahrenheit 9/11” out on DVD before the November election, but that the film could continue to play in theaters through year’s end and into 2005." I saw a better artical pointing this out awhile back but I don't remember where it was. My apologizies.

I'm not sure how you interpret my original posting to say I think MOST American's have watched it or to even suggest that meant that to say they or I am pro-Moore because of it. Please point me to where I did. PLEASE. I actually walked out thinking the movie was 1)interesting 2) funny 3) very politically slanted to the left 4) obviously took some things out of context. 5) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Despite how I feel about it, how many Americas watch it or are swayed one way or another by it, you have to recognize that a number of sources rate it as the most successful documentary ever. That's just what the news reports, not what "I" am reporting. If you really want, I'll dig up the links but I'm sure you can find it for yourself if you really wanted.

Moving on to some of your questions:
-----Is there some reason why an attack on Michael Moore affects you personally?
What did I say that came across as taking it personally? Was it my comments about Ann Coulter? Please, quote me, pull it directly from my post and show me where I was taking things personally? I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I can't help but wonder if your so galvanized against leftist comments that you too easily lash out against anything that "might" be percieved as criticism.

---Do we not have the same right and responsibility to investigate the credibility of Moore's arguments as we do to investigate the allegations against Bush?
Absolutely. And I have the right to do the same about your allegations as well. But to the point: your original post was op-ed. There are no factual representations nor any refrences to other factual representations. Things are not fact because you say so. You must provide refrences or some other factual evidence. Without it, your piece is op-ed. That's not a problem by any means. I only asked you for clarification on the opinions you did give and for pointers to examples of your claims against Moore. How is this being so vitriolic and extremely confrontative? Are your readers not permited to challenge your assertions?

----Do you not grant the president of the United States the same right to being "innocent until proven guilty" that is being afforded Scott Peterson at this very moment?
What single thing did I say Bush did wrongly? What single comment about validity or justification of representations in the movie did I put in my reply? I never said a thing! I never said Moore was right. I never said Bush was wrong. The only thing remotely 'leftist' I said was against Ann Coulter. How in the name of God does that show support for Moore or any other leftist thinking? Please, explain it to me. Or maybe you can explain it to me where else in my reply I showed my leftist Moore loving tendency.

Regarding Moore as the saviour. I have never read any of his comments that would suggest it. I really don't care about his writtings enough to go and read them. Interesting or not, I see him as being very politically biased and I just don't have enough interest to go out and spend time reading his stuff. As such, I don't support or refute his writtings because I have no idea what they are. When I asked for pointers to where he said things like this, it's because I really want to know, not because I am suggesting they don't exist. I wish you would have pointed to some of the writtings online you refer to because it's difficult to measure the weight of your argument without it. (that in mind, I'll post some of my favourite Ann Coulter stuff I found below).

I think a person anywhere in the world can be very smart but "people" collectively do stupid things. Thats not an American thing, thats not a French thing. I think its just a human thing. People often do stupid stuff in groups, including myself. I can think of more then one embarrasing memory from my days. Does it make me seem aloof or arrogant because of my belief or view on this? I wonder if you think so because that seems like what your saying about Moore. It's one thing to say "people" can be stupid and do stupid things. It's another to so "those people do stupid things unlike me". Again, I have not read Moore saying this but would be interested to see where he did. It certainly puts him in a negative light if does indeed draw a clear distinction between himself and the stupid people. However, I still assert that pointing out stupidity doesn't necessarily mean you are saying you are better then them, especially when those comments are made about societies.

I would hope you have the interest to reply to each of my questions and not just the ones you pick and choose based on where you feel capable of answering strongly from your position. However, based on your earlier comments, I'll just have to sit and wait to see if simply just delete my whole post, although, I hope you actually reply.



------My Ann Coulter favs-----
From her DNC speach
"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling. "

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

OK, first as to the ann acoulter favs...I'm not going to respond to that; we agree on her, ok? lol

Second, as to the anonymous posting, we've had several that have been little more than snipes. Frankly, most of your argument is well presented even if we do not agree. I think you would be an asset as a blogger on here, and wouldn't mind seeing you toss your opinions into the fray. Now, onto the rest. My original gut reaction had a lot to do with the "misguided and venomous" comment. The rest I could easily place into the "agree to disagree" category.

Yes, this is an op/ed piece. I never represent my views as anything but. Even some of the most well presented "facts" presented to the exclusion of one side of the story, turn out to be op/ed.

The chief problems I have with Moore are his intense disrespect of the American public, and his penchant for intellectual dishonesty. As to the former, he has made repeated comments about the stupidity of Americans (not "some" Americans, not "the American right (or left)", but "Americans. These quotes can be easily found, in context, on most of the better news websites.

As to the latter, he used a whole lot of half truths in the making of this film. Again, there are many well documented sites that categorically address the half truths and untruths of Moore's statement. My personal favorite is spinsanity.com, as they are balanced in their attack on both the right and the left (as a libertarian, I don't clearly fall into either category).

I'm not sure how you interpret my original posting to say I think MOST American's have watched it or to even suggest that meant that to say they or I am pro-Moore because of it. Please point me to where I did. PLEASE

You are right. You did not say this. You did, however, challenge my assertion that I didn't think it generated enough ticket sales to fairly say that it influenced more than a fringe minority already in Moore's camp. I, too, was well impressed by the ticket numbers until I met people who were compelled to see it five, six, seven times to "vote with their pocketbook". This is certainly their right, as it is their money; however, it leads me to question the actual numbers this movie is reaching.

What did I say that came across as taking it personally? Was it my comments about Ann Coulter? Please, quote me, pull it directly from my post and show me where I was taking things personally? I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I can't help but wonder if your so galvanized against leftist comments that you too easily lash out against anything that "might" be percieved as criticism.

It was the aforementioned comment about "misguided and venomous". I truly didn't feel it was misguided and venomous. Slanted, yes, but that's the nature of an op/ed piece.(again, we can agree on Coulter...lol).

How is this being so vitriolic and extremely confrontative? Are your readers not permited to challenge your assertions?

I apologize for the "vitriolic and extremely confrontative" comment. It was a gut reaction to the aforementioned.

OK, it's getting late, I will continue this discussion tomorrow. Hope the responses I have already given clear things up a bit.

Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter.

You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com
What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations.

Have you seen the film?
If you haven't, you can't speak about it.
& you said a small minority saw the film? It's the highest grossing documentary EVER! Over $150 million in the US alone. THat's a BLOCKBUSTER in the entertainment business.

Also- I forgot to add, if you go to MM's site, he has MULTIPLE links, many government websites, to back up each & every line in the film.

Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter. You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations. Have you seen the film? If you haven't, you can't speak about it. & you said a small minority saw the film? It's the highest grossing documentary EVER! Over $150 million in the US alone. THat's a BLOCKBUSTER in the entertainment business.

You don't know jack from shit, Gideon is a Libertarian (like myself now) he hate's both Bush and Kerry. Check out moorelies.com Anonymous boy.
Half-truths and fast editing shall never equal the truth, and Fahrenhype 9/11 is being done as a rebuttal to Mikey's movie, which I will see both on Oct. 5th.

Anyways WHY in the HELL did you start up an old dead issue, damn can't you see the dates.

I shall shake the tree of supposed truth and may some day decide to become a truth teller in documentaries, but OH WAIT PEOPLE DON'T REALLY LIKE THE TRUTH.

Like Heart Disease is the NUMBER ONE cause of death in America, and you not pleading to Mikey to eat right and exercise, bringing his weight to a healthy level (I know he would still be chunky because he has a husky build) is just like you signing his death warrant.

Save the man, than save those who are dieing right now in the US, than save those who are dieing elsewhere, than save the planet, or try to do all at once and fail miserably.

This topic was dead and it should have stayed that way, if you wanted to make a point you should have started a new article PERIOD.

-GX

GX: I think I get what you're trying to say to anonymous here . . .



Am I reading you correctly?

Damn right Texas Wahine!