…if Bush is not re-elected?
Sounds like an opinion poll, but okay: The answer is “nothing”. Michael Moore is an equal-opportunity attack dog. He has equal distaste for Republicans and Democrats, and voted for Nader in the last election. He will continue to do what he does best, which is to skewer the ideals and hypocrisy of both political parties.
Um, I would assume that he’ll continue making left-leaning political documentaries, just as he was doing well before Bush (or even Clinton) was elected. According to the IMDB he’s planning to release one on the American healthcare system in 2005. Why do you ask?
Yep; I’d say he’ll keep making films and writing books, just as he did during the Clinton administration. I’m not optimist enough to think that Bush losing is going to bring about an immediate utopia, providing no targets for a muckraking filmmaker.
I dunno what will happen to Moore, but I hope that Yaphet Kotto will finally catch his taxicab.
He will marry Hillary Clinton, and support her campaign for President in a few years. This campaign will end in a landslide victory due, in no small part, to every Republican voter in the USA having their brains explode at the thought of both Hillary and Moore in the White House - leaving little in the way of opposition.
Your question is based upon a false premise.
In order to be re-elected, a president must first be-elected.
He’ll continue to twist the truth.
…and MY opinion is, this one needs to go to IMHO.
samclem GQ moderator
Funny, I don’t recall expressing an opinion. My opinion about samclem remains unchanged, however.
He’ll hail Bush’s defeat as a victory of the Common Man over the Lying Elites, piss off Republicans even further than before, then go on to make his next movie.
The notion that liberal rabble-rousers won’t have anything to say or do if Bush loses in November is a silly one. Al Franken and Air America Radio have an entire Congress full of targets to go after, for heaven’s sake.
I seem to recall people wondering what Limbaugh would do after Clinton was gone.
Well, he’d claim a lot of credit, of course. He’d get it too.
I always get the impression from Moore’s behavior that he’ll burn out in about five years or so. He’s goin’ pretty hot 'n heavy (I swear on my mother’s grave, no pun intended). I anticipate that he’ll spend the latter part of his film career making purely fictional movies, a la Canadian Bacon, instead of the documentaries/satires/whatever he says his movies are these days.
He might actually be good at making the fictional movies (yes, some say he’s already made them, ha ha).
I saw F911 today, and one thing that struck me was that the 9/11 scenes were done very well. There was the blank screen, with just the audio of the planes crashing and screaming, and there was no video for a while. Then he showed the people around the event, dust falling like snow, and debris on the streets, but never the buildings themselves.I thought it was a very effective and powerful technique, with no politics to get in the way. It demonstrated, IMO, strong filmaking skills that could translate well into fiction.
He did TV Nation and The Awful Truth during the Clinton years. He’d be doing much the same during the Kerry years.
I was going to say “pestering large corporations and plutocrats,” but it amounts to basically the same thing.
Considering his career so far has lasted fifteen years and his commercial success is increasing, is there any reason to think Moore’s suddenly going to fade away?
He’s already good at making bad fictional movies like Canadian Bacon.
Perhaps not, but your question required others to express theirs, thus IMHO is the place.