is Michael Moore a Left Wing Limpbaugh?

someone on jumptheshark.com called him that

seriously..... I really don't think so. He is a decent man.

For one thing, he's funny. And he's not vituperative or bombastic. And while Moore sometimes diverges from the truth, Limbaugh sets land speed records for how many lies he can cram into a 4-hour show.

The RW thinks of all the dirt the left "might do" and then does it, and then claims the left is about to do what they did.

Moore might do what what Rush does - hell, I might do what Rush does - but so far we have both have tried to avoid lies - and even spins - and just tell the truth.

As Truman said (paraphrased) - just tell the truth about the GOP and they think you are blasting them.

Moore sometimes exaggerates to make a point, but I like the guy and his work.

I think Moore has a good heart, but he goes overboard sometimes. I lost some respect for him with 'Bowling for Columbine' - too many distortions and errors.

:eyes:


guess those distortions cost him the oscar too? :eyes:

I'd LOVE to get a list of the distortions in that film...I certainly didn't find any...

pp23

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

google and you can get many more links

...I'm disappointed in Michael Moore. He's got good name recognition, could probably get funding for just about any project, but a lot of the tricks he pulls leave him open to be cannon fodder for right-wing media, who can then take it as a pass to go and dismiss the entire issue he raises. I am looking forward to his next film, but I really hope he's putting in the effort to make it bulletproof.

New nickname for He Who Spreads Conservative Spin, or typo?

Moore pushed so hard for Nader at a time when we needed every vote that we could. Nader got like 90000 votes in FL, and Moore helped him with that. If even half of those went to Gore, then it would have been FU SCOTUS and FU BUSH!

Instead, Moore gave a big FU GORE!

Feel free to add a "It didn't take long for the Moore bashers to come out" comment on the line below:

______________________________________________________________________


For you Moore lovers, I will change my view of that A-Hole if you can give me satisfactory answers to the following:

1. What is the difference between Bill Bradley and Ralph Nader? Please give significant differences on the platforms these two were pushing. I don't doubt there may have been small disagrements between the two on issues like farm aid, and aid to Bangladesh, but I am asking for BIG differences on issues that people vote on.

2. Why couldn't Moore have pushed for change within the democratic party? Why did he have to go outside of it? I think it is because he could get more spotlight oustside of the party. He could have backed Bill Bradley, he could have motivated Wellstone or some other very liberal rep to run, but he didn't.

knowledgable does.

As for the second, I think he is dead on. I believe he has a forum and felt he should use it to draw attention to the flaws that we seem to overlook in the Democratic Party.

We are undefined and do have "fuzzy" borders. We are afraid to stand up for our old traditions.

We have allowed the Republican turn to the right to pull us into a stance known as "centrist" but in reality it is moderate republican.

I will not leave the Democratic Party but I do believe that we need to dig in our heels and pull like hell and with all our strength toward the left. I believe that the Republican growth has resulted from our fear of defining ourselves.

I also believe that we are doing the new generations in this country a disservice by not introducing a real opposing view into the fabric of their daily lives.

I believe he has a forum and felt he should use it to draw attention to the flaws that we seem to overlook in the Democratic Party.

snip

We have allowed the Republican turn to the right to pull us into a stance known as "centrist" but in reality it is moderate republican.
These are good points. But to me they do not justify his actions to move outside the party. If Moore wants to change something about teh DEM party doesn't it make more sense to try it from the inside rather than the outside? If he wants DEMS to move left, shouldn't he address Dems and not address Greens.

also believe that we are doing the new generations in this country a disservice by not introducing a real opposing view into the )

If you want to expose people to opposing views they first need to hear your voice, and for that you need an audience. More people will watch the Dem primary, convention and the Pres election (no Greens allowed as of now) than the Green primary (if they have one) and convention.

So once again, I think it would have been smarter to move for change within the party, not outside it. Maybe Moore wasn't smart enough to think of that, or maybe moving the party left wasn't his real goal.

Either way, he and some others now paint him as a hero for the left for standing up to George Bush...I call him a culprit.

I think that sometimes one would like to teach a lesson with a smack in the kisser but only a baseball bat in the head will do.

His rhetoric has raised the ire and conscience of many sleeping souls. I think that is good.

He may stay outside the party (sad) but if we learn from what he had to say and work within the party, some of his converted will see that we are trying and that there is a way to work from inside.

The burden is on us, not him.

1) Nader is for changing oligarchies etc. Nader was speaking the truth about their not being much of difference between the Dem party (machinery) and the GOP. Otherwise there would not be a Green party!

2) We see what happens when people try to change the Dem party machinery - look at what the DLC is trying to do to Dean.

By the way, Tim Robbins also voted Nader. And so did I. And I am glad Gore chose not to run this time. Yeah, Dumbya has been a pain in the butt, but the Dem party needed the wake up call. Please stop blaming everyone and their brother for election 2000. Yes it was stolen, blame dumbya if you want, but if the Dem party moves much further to the right we'll be running nine Liebermans next election, and Dumbya will still run the show!!

Al Gore would be in the White House right now.

Self-promoting bastard.

Nader would not have made a difference. And really, what we now know about Dumbya, if him and his henchmen wanted that election, what Nader, Moore, and anything else were just minor annoyances..

Excellant name for a band!

1. What do you mean by (machinery)? I need that defined before I can respond; I am not sure how to interpret that and thus your answer

2. I disagree. Maybe Moore felt this way and he may be right. But the DLC is being very ineffictive at hurting Dean. I think they are helping them. But your answer is a good one, because things may have been different when the Pres was a DLC guy as opposed to now.


As for your final comments, you can vote for whomever you want. I like democracy. But if you are unhappy with the movement to the right within the DEm party, I submit you will be more effective moving it to the left from within the party as opposed to outside of it.

And what was wrong with Bill Bradley anyway for the Greens? They could have voted for him in the primary, and had he not won, voted for Nader in the Pres election.

Dem machinery = DLC and to some extent DNC

As for changing the party from within - ask Bill Bradley how that worked out, or even Nader - I doubt Nader went from Dem (which he still is) to Green in under 10 seconds. The Dem party has been moving right (they claim center) for over a decade - where does that leave true liberals? By the way, I am NOT a Green - I voted for Nader because Gore was an idiot. I would have voted for McCain - anybody but Bush or Gore. They both were useless as tits on a bull to me.

As for the Greens, the Greens are tryingto build a formidable 3rd party, why would they want to support the Dem party. we dems supposedly pride ourselves on democracy - why was Nader locked out of the debates - they even made him leave the building when he had a ticket for the audience. I expect stuff like that from the GOP, but the Dems were just as bad on the debate issue.

I too saw little difference between Bradley and Nader. I supported Bradley.

Perhaps Moore felt that the best way to motivate the Democratic Party to change was to make it seek the votes of left by running left wing candidates rather than assuming that the left has no place to go. As long as they think that they have a lock on our votes why should they change?

I voted for Gore but was sorely tempted to vote Green in '00 for the same reason.

If the Dems foist yet another "centrist" on us this time, I will follow Moore's example in '04.

Blaming the loss in '00 on the Greens rather than on the Dems shift to the right and a badly run campaign is ridiculous. Would Gore have won with the Green votes? Probably, but he didn't seek them. Instead, he went after the conservative vote and didn't get them.

Why not blame the DLC/DNC for still trying make us believe, after the losses in '00 and '02, that the party can win by becoming more Republican?

Michael Moore genuinely feels for the common man. Rush only feels for himself.

Rush is totally manufactured. He was a nowhere man going by Jeff Christie and failing miserably (collecting unemployment after losing several jobs...probably doesn't mention THAT on his show). Then a radio exec decided the station needed a rightwing hate talker for all the pissed off white guys out there who need to blame everyone else for their lousy jobs, lousy relationships, lousy kids, and lousy health. Rush was born. He's smart enough to know what they want. He's a whore. He could switch to leftwing tomorrow if the money was right. But Moore is genuine. Agree with him or not, he's honest. As for his support of Nader, well, that's just Moore being honest, again. Yes, Nader hurt Gore. And I resent Nader's part in our suffering the Bush administration, which is so amazingly destructive to our country. But the people who support Nader have that right; their points about the Democratic Party need to be considered. I just wish supporting Nader didn't come as such a horrible price to us all.

but he is a good and honest man

he just falls short of perfection





go figure

nt

Moore isn't a 'hate head' and he isn't sponsored/paid by corporatists.

Might I add that Nader didn't cost Gore the election it was the US Supreme Court 5!

Gore was Elected! *Bush was Selected!

Limbaugh really doesn't care about things like Clinton's sex life or late-term abortion or conservative ideology. Like Benny Hinn or one of those televangelists who worship at the altar of Visa and Mastercard, Limbaugh's only country is American Express.

nt

so that the wingers won't be able to show that he is fibbing or making-up stuff. I don't know for myself- I have only seen Michael on TV interviews and have not viewed his programs.

Because Moore is so much more brilliant than limpballs.

Limbaugh, on the other hand, is a cowardly POS. ("Ditto" his listeners.)

They couldn't be more different.

He did try to back out of showing up with Nader in Florida, because he realized it was a tight race, but he kept his word which he had given months before. I think Moore explained this in his book, Stupid White Men. If not there, he addressed this in an interview.

We need more people willing to keep their word, not less.

Limbaugh is a polemicist, he uses his battery of insults to incite and bludgeon the lowest common demononator.

Neither are above using ridicule, though satirists, like Moore are usually more subtle and articulate about it, hence their appeal through history, and the immoratlity of their words~


"Two things only it (the public) anxiously desires -- bread and circus games."~ Juvenal circa 166 AD

If the left is the party that can unseat bush, He's attacking THEM (and had his hand in W's installment - the way most media whores did)