I was flipping through Rolling Stone earlier today, and there’s a short article from Michael Moore about “how the Democrats can still lose the election.” Some were good advice, some seemed a bit too much attuned to his personal politics.
Then I got to the last one: “Denounce me.” It warned Obama not to denounce him or anything he says, lest he alienate the “millions” of people who agree with him.
What the hell? Since when has Moore become THE representative of everyone who agrees with him? Since when was rejecting him necessarily rejecting his message, or rejecting everyone who agrees with him, for that matter? Even if it was, since when is his fanbase sufficient to include on a list of ways the Dems can lose the Presidency? Oh, and did I mention that the item also included Kerry’s “denunciation” of Farenheit 911, thus neatly implying, taken in context of the entire article, that Kerry lost because he didn’t join arm in arm with Moore?
I can’t say I haven’t agreed with the man on occasion, but that item just strikes me as one huge self-congratulatory wank.
His ego is certainly the dominant member of that couple. Michael himself just wears the ballgag and chaps and leash and is covered in cigarette burns from being his ego’s human ashtray.
Based on the first paragraph of Leaper’s post, I thought Moore was going to suggest that Obama denounce him, in order to convince swing voters that Obama is really a responsible middle-of-the-road guy (sort of a “Sister Souljah” moment).
Thinking that’s an effective campaign tactic would take quite a bit of ego, but not as much as actually believing that anti-Mooreism would cost Obama a slew of votes.
Ah, here we go. (Sorry for not having the quotes in the first place; I hadn’t realized that what I read was an older issue, and thus already on the Web. Otherwise I would’ve bothered looking.)
Someone please tell me I’m crazy for having interpreted his words the way I did. Because I’d hate to think that this dude is actually as self-inflated and pompous as he seemed to me when I first read this…
I’m not quite so sure - isn’t this about how everything in politics (especially in the US, it seems) has to be black or white - right or left?
For instance, in the context of the Kerry quote, it seems Kerry couldn’t even admit seeing one of his films (because, presumably, seeing something automatically makes you believe its message). It’s only a mild leap of logic to think that denouncing an author on the grounds you don’t believe his entire message is likely to make you appear to completely agree with his (the author’s) opponents - something which most certainly would alienate a number of voters.
Don’t know for sure, but that’s certainly a way of reading it from my perspective of reading the GD forum most days…!
(bolding mine)
Count me as a contrarian, but I see this as a literal statement of fact, not any kind of ego maneuver. There are many people who take Michael Moore’s positions very seriously, and they’re just crazy enough to swing to Nader if they don’t get some massaging from Obama. Hell, just look at the Hillary supporters threatening to vote against their own interests if Obama doesn’t make a show of pretending to pander to their failed candidate.
It doesn’t seem egotistical to point out that your fan base is a bunch of wackos who will vote against their own interests, IMO. In fact I’d be embarrassed.
I’m not sure I’d go that far, but it is true that the general public polls quite a bit more liberal than either party. Many more are for changes to health care, ending the war, taxing the rich, and stopping torture than either party is willing to say.
So, if taken in a broader context, if Moore means that denouncing him is stepping further away from the liberal positions held by the majority of Americans and that tacking “to the center” - which in this day and age means going from kinda conservative to more conservative -will lose voters I think he’s correct.
I don’t know, I kind of interpreted it as him saying…
“That poor bastard Kerry really is a flip-flopper. He’ll lie about whether or not he watched my movie just because it might anger a few people that wouldn’t vote for him anyway. He’s got no spine, he’s fucked.”
The rest of it though was pure egomania. “I am Michael Moore. King of the Democrats! ROOOOOAAAAARRRRRRR” Because Michael Moore howls at the moon sometimes.
Look at it this way: the worst you can say about Michael Moore is that he’s the Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity of the left. I don’t agree, but he’s a lot closer to those guys than he is to a Savage or Coulter.
How often do you see Republicans denouncing Rush or Hannity? Not very often. They’ll break each other’s necks to fellate Hannity, and GWB himself appeared on Rush’s show a few months back to congratulate him on his show’s anniversary. They know that even if those guys say inflammatory things or even outright lies, they’re on the same side as a lot of their voters.
And yet these guys have vastly greater influence, put out vastly more questionalble material, and are vastly more mean-spirited. Moore delivers his rhetoric with a sigh rather than a snarl.
Moore became the Right’s whipping boy because he’s all they had (later they switched to Cindy Sheehan). It’s part of the Rovian strategy of going after the enemy’s strengths. Focus enough attention on him and he bcomes the standard-bearer of the entire Left, and the credibility of the Democratic party sinks along with his.
If more people heard how terrible Michael Moore is than saw Farenheit 911, it can be made to backfire.