Michael Moore vs. George Bush: Tactics-wise

[bob]

These two guys are sort of the spokespeople for the left and right wing enthusiasts of our country, so I wanted to know how the schmoes felt about their tactics in getting their word across.

Bush has the obvious advantage of being the most important man in America (ostensibly, anyway), but I think Moore has been smart in his rebuttal, which has essentially boiled down to propaganda. As sensationalist as Moore's tactics are, he definitely has done more to spread the word on liberalism in the past few years than anyone else, so I think you've got to give him some credit.

However, I think Moore's career will suffer if Kerry is voted into office. I wouldn't put it past him to secretly vote Republican.;)

[JCR]

I don't think Kerry maybe coming in would harm MM's career that much. If F911 takes $40-50 million in the usa on it's $6M budget (and given the hype it's possible it will) moore will have proved his worth to hollywood. And hey if there's no bush there's nobody to threaten disney and others with loss of tax breaks for hiring moore, which should help him!

[bob]

Yes, but at the same time, Moore would lose public enemy no. 1 for future films.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Moore's greatest film was made before anyone could have conceived that George W. Bush would be president. I am of course speaking of "Roger and Me".

If he went back to making movies like that, I think many more people would take him seriously.

[APzombie]

Michael Moore needs Bush in office for his career, simple as that. From my impression, the man could not produce an original political idea, all he knows is how to point the finger and blame.

[Annie Hall]

Tactics wise? They both blow...not to be disrespectful or anything.

I'm reasonably centrist, except when it comes to Dubya and Michael Moore. I tend to agree with democractic ideals more consistantly, but Michael Moore sometimes makes me ashamed to do so. He's so "hardhitting" and so sickening at points that it feels like I'm sitting at a dinner table being yelled at by my Dad because some teacher bullied me at school. "Don't let them fuck with you, just because they have the power doesn't mean that you need to be WALKED ALL OVER"...etc.

Bush, I flat out don't agree with...I don't think he's reasonable in his views, and I don't think he's reasonable in how he puts those views into the world.

Anyway, what needs to happen over the next few months is John Kerry has to become a stronger voice in his party, make himself more of an opponent and less of the "weak good guy" which is how too many people see him.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Annie Hall
Tactics wise? They both blow...not to be disrespectful or anything.

I'm reasonably centrist, except when it comes to Dubya and Michael Moore. I tend to agree with democractic ideals more consistantly, but Michael Moore sometimes makes me ashamed to do so. He's so "hardhitting" and so sickening at points that it feels like I'm sitting at a dinner table being yelled at by my Dad because some teacher bullied me at school. "Don't let them fuck with you, just because they have the power doesn't mean that you need to be WALKED ALL OVER"...etc.

Bush, I flat out don't agree with...I don't think he's reasonable in his views, and I don't think he's reasonable in how he puts those views into the world.

Anyway, what needs to happen over the next few months is John Kerry has to become a stronger voice in his party, make himself more of an opponent and less of the "weak good guy" which is how too many people see him.

Jesus, Annie. Agreed on ALL points.

But you forgot to add that Bush is a proseletyzing right wing nut asshat, and Moore is a bloated, exaggerating douchebag.

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Grebdron


But you forgot to add that Bush is a proseletyzing right wing nut asshat, and Moore is a bloated, exaggerating douchebag.

Welll, yeah, that too ;)

[jeo4]

I have to laugh. This thread is one of the best I've read in weeks. I'm most in agreement with AP Zombie here. Moore needs someone to point attention toward. Bush is more subdued in his style, but no less extreme. I think any leader in office needs to remain objective and not focus on just one set of ideas. In order to lead a nation effectively, past leaders have often put aside partisan politics in favor of looking at all sides and getting as many participants into the process of leading the country toward success. This is not only a problem with the Bush administration, but with Congress and with other presidents as well. There's a right time to be conservative and a wrong time. That may be the principal difference between the success of the Reagan administration and the Bush administration. Reagan knew how to approach the nation and he did it well. Bush tries to emulate Reagan's style, often with rather negative results. I think partisan politics play too much of a role in his views, as they do with Michael Moore.