Moore lived up to everyone’s (low) expectations of him. What an idiot.
Sam: It might be accurate to say he was booed WHILE exiting, but he didn’t leave BECAUSE of the booing. Be satisified with the fact that there was so much booing in the first place.
Deva: “What did you think of Susan Sarandon’s peace sign? (Sly little thing!) LOL!” I rarely, if ever, agree with S.S., but I thought she had some class with the quickly waved peace sign. M.M. could learn a thing or two from her.
Yeah, she had class, but a peace sign doesn’t communicate what he wanted to communicate (If I could presume to know).
Susan Sarandon’s message was simply “peace”
whereas M.M.'s was, well, all that stuff he said, plus “I’m clever” plus “our president’s dumb” so he really couldn’t have conveyed his message with class.
While not a disciple of his by any means, I still admire the guy for not being afraid.
I booed at home when Eminem was announced as a winner.
Moore seemed to be getting boos for his rudeness (and his inelegant attire perhaps), not for the content. Not “off the stage” either - that’s a fantasy and personal attack from one prone to indulging in fantasies and personal attacks.
Compare the treatment of Adrien Brody, who was getting the band’s shut-up-and-exit-stage-left theme (Moore did not) and managed to get it stopped long enough for this remark (copied from AP):
Similar generic pro-peace and pro-troops sentiments were prevalent throughout the show.
The Academy voters certainly knew what kind of things Moore would say when they picked him to win the Oscar. No crocodile tears now, please.
I just watched CNN show Michael Moore’s speech, and in my book it falls under the “being booed off stage” category. I can’t think of another episode when a public speaker received such a spontaneous and vocal negative reaction from an audience. (I’m excluding those organized efforts to drown out a speaker.)
I am also bothered by the way he appointed himself - in much the same way Al Sharpton does - as the spokesman for the other nominees that he had invited onstage with him. Maybe they had all agreed to Moore’s statements beforehand, but I’ve not heard any evidence that that was the case. If he had not cleared it with each and everyone of them then he is a jackass of the highest order.
From my view of the show, Moore got enormous applause – the biggest yet of the evening – when he was announced as the winner. I think he also had the first standing ovation, started (it appeared) by Scorsese. There can be little doubt that the ovation was meant as an endorsement both of Moore’s politics and of what all had to know would be the speech that would follow.
I also would agree that Moore was not booed “off the stage” if we are to reduce the phrase to something like a literal meaning.
That said, on my TV the air seemed sucked out of the audience when Moore launched into his “we believe in nonfiction” bit. Some, no doubt, were outraged most by the breach of decorum. But the lusty boos communicated a deeper displeasure in some quarters, and they were the sound that resonated for the balance of the diatribe.
Did Moore have the right (or whatever) to say what he wanted? Of course. So did the handful of other celebrities – Brody, Sarandon, Streisand, Cooper – who made their points more elegantly. Listeners can decide whether they think the ends of each approach (including the booing) can justify the means.
In short: No biggie, good theater.
Dare I ask for a cite of this claim (the “90% limosine liberals”)? Or is this more of the usual Lies The Republican Party Tells Me? :rolleyes:
(I personally find it amusing how the resident conservatives keep spinning this whole incident, either by trotting out unsubstantiated claims of the attendees’ politics or by unsubstantiated claims like “booed off the stage”)
Sam: :"…since the only thing preventing this war from ending is the Iraqis belief that they can turn public opinion and get the Americans to withdraw."
Sam, what evidence do you have for such a dubious assertion? Does George Bush–a man who shrugged off the opinions of the majority of Americans, an even greater majority of non-Americans, and millions of protesters worldwide–show signs of hanging his hat on the opinion of Michael Moore? Better still, does Saddam Hussein strike you as someone who sees himself as running a sophisticated public relations campaign?
Thanks to Lissa for the much-needed sense of humor on this matter!
Just a thought here - when somebody is saying something you want to hear / agree with, is the best reaction to try and drown him out, or wait 'till he’s finished, then clap etc?
I admit I heard louder boos towards the end of his statement, but I also hear louder crowds at a sports game when the away team is making a tricky shot. (imperfect analogy, but it sprang to mind)
It’s the dissenters in this case that can easily overpower any speech. Old fact used by agitators throughout history.
I am of course not implying that those that said nothing therefore supported him by default.
And I would have been more surprised, shocked even if a man with Moores reputation (whatever you think of it) Didn’t use the soapbox. I was expecting him to boycott it in the first place. (Please, no ‘hear hear’)
I was disappointed he couldn’t come up with something more eloquent or pithy. :dubious:
(first ever post here - put me out of my misery now)
Maybe so, but here’s pictorial evidence to the contrary (scroll down just a bit.)
What a straight line! Would you care to expand on this point?
Was I the only one who watched Moore leave the stage and think:
“Wow, I wonder when the SDMB debate about this speech will begin?”
I doubt it. 
(Personally I felt it was out of place, but hey, it’s his speech.)
What coalition? Bush and Blair? World opinion is against this war, as anyone who has picked up a newspaper lately should know. You honestly think that American citizens who disagree with the President should stifle their opinions in the hopes that it will shorten the war? Sorry, but that’s absurd. The Iraqi soldiers who have a realistic assessment of the situation are already laying down their weapons. The hardcore supporters of Saddam are not going to change their minds in the face of any perceived slight increase of U.S. determination. If anything, the perception that the entire U.S. citizenry is united against them would increase their resolve. Besides, if we are ostensibly fighting for freedom, but have to give up freedom to win the war, it would be a pretty hollow victory.
Michael Moore was very consistent with his usual antics. I do not agree with him politically, but I thought it was by far the most entertaining aspect of the awards show. What the hell did they expect giving him a microphone? He’s never kept his mouth shut.
Everyone who said what he did was rude or inappropriate is missing the whole boat on this one, folks. The Oscars were the biggest thing besides actual war coverage on the televison worldwide yesterday, and he got his dissident political views aired right after he received the biggest credibility boost a documentary filmmaker can receive - an Academy Award.
I love Michael Moore, even when I disagree with him. Cheers to him, Bowling for Columbine, his Oscar, and his acceptance speech.
Are you seriously disputing that 90% of the crowd in that room is rich? Or that 90% of them are liberals?
C’mon. Its hollywood celebs. They are rich, and they are liberal. Just admit it. I’ll even get the ball rolling: If you wen’t to a gun show, you would most likely run into pickup truck driving republicans.
(Am I the only one who has noticed that rjung’s posts tend to have a subscript thats usually longer than the post thats really small and really hard to read?) 
This reminds me.
According to Drudge this was the lowest rated oscars ever. With last year being the lowest before that. It would seem that regular Americans are caring less and less about what the hollywood celebs have to say.
Your blame reversal is pathetic. The enemy is fighting us because we invaded their country. Any death and suffering inflicted upon our armed forces can be blamed on the Bush administration and nobody else. They’re the ones who ordered our troops to invade Iraq, so the buck stops with them.
The other remarks about the war made at the Oscars were much more palatable, sure… they addressed the war as this passive tragedy, like an earthquake or a hurricane. Moore was the only one with enough balls to say what nobody else would say… the war didn’t just happen… Bush started it. There were other options.
-fh
Well, let’s hope that they’re an isolated example.
Check out the Socialist Worker’s Party, who are very prominent in the UK and Ireland, especially around university campuses. In their eyes, Moore (who does believe in capitalism, though not rampant global capitalism) would be considered conservative, I would be a fascist (I have been accused of such by one of their members), and goodness knows what they’d think of you…! The ones that I’ve met have tended to be total idiots, but there are quite a few of them over here.
If anyone’s interested, here’s an interesting read about what was going on behind the scenes during Moore’s speech.
I didn’t watch the Oscars last night (I cleaned my house and then watched 8 Mile instead. Good movie.), so I can’t comment on his speech or its reaction with any claim to “firsthand” viewing. However, what I’ve seen and read of what Moore said reaffirmed what I’ve thought of him for a long time; Moore is the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, with all the brains and talent that come with that title. Read into that what you will… my own impression is that both Limbaugh and Moore are little more than whores to the media, and will not overlook an opportunity to be controversial.
shrug Overall, I’m glad I skipped the Oscars this year. Tedious show, anyway.
Good for Michael Moore. He was perfectly within his rights to say what he said. Was it rude? Possibly. So what? Was it ineloquent? Probably, he ain’t the smoothest talker in the world. Does that matter – how eloquent are guns and tanks and missiles? How eloquent is war? He has his beliefs, and they are valid. Without having seen the awards show (I’ve just read reports), I would venture to guess that Moore’s speech was the moral high point of the evening.
The only question in my mind about all of this is whether Moore should’ve been at the Oscars to receive an award for “Best Documentary.” While Bowlng for Columbine is a fine and important film it is not a documentary. It is a diatribe well-seasoned with satire, caricature and irony.
I believe “Shame on you” was the right choice of words. Many of us might have preferred stronger invective. But I think it’s better for the rightness of our cause not to use foul language. I was inspired by the powerful speech given at a recent Washington, DC peace rally by Damu Smith, the founder of Black Voices for Peace.
Rickjay has it right. It’s not that he can’t speak his views- he certainly can- it is just that it wasn’t HIS party, and to do what he did, against the specific wishes of those that invited him, is rude.
Note that many made a comment such as “pray for peace” or something along those lines. Oscar let stuff like that thru- that is just some general plea or hope for Peace.