Do you think Michael Moore, et.al. helped or hurt?

[Tyjenks]

I was wondering prior to the election if he was winning people over or just getting those that were leaning towards Kerry already. He and other high profile "celebrities" were out in full force this election and from what I hear and read this was a concerted effort by the DNC to get their base out and, hopefully, the youngsters.

I wonder, with the increased turn out on both sides, if he, and maybe others to a lesser extent, angered and energized the conservatives. They associated these perceived to be extreme leftists as echoing Kerry's beliefs and so they were motivated to keep him out.

I really do not know. Thoughts?

[Bub, Andrew]

It doesn't matter. There was more in F9/11 that was true than was false or misleading and celebrities are going to be idiotic during every election. The fact is Rove's Republican Discrediting machine was equal to the task.

I mean, Rove smeared McCain during the 2000 Primaries. Does anyone honestly believe there's a candidate the Dems could have fielded that wouldn't have been smeared?

[Tyjenks]

Does it not matter if he wants to "help out" the next candidate? If he did hurt the campaign and if Kerry would have actively distanced himself from Moore would it had made a difference? That was the main reason for my question. Not how effective Rove was, but how much damage Moore may have unintentionally done.

[BrewersDroop]

Moore provided a focal point to rally the Republican base. That said, if it hadn't been Moore, they would have found someone else to vilify so I don't know that things would have played out any differently in some parallel universe where Moore didn't exist.

[Enidigm]

Its like all the talking heads blathering on radio about how if the Democratic party doesn't move to the "center" and expell all its out-of-touch "left-wing liberals" it will continue to shed influence... Of course, if they HAD nominated Joe Liberman, they would simply say his position was the same as GW's so why switch?

Dems move to right = validate Repubs.

Dems move to left = validate Repubs on Dems' "values".

Dems do nothing = continue down commie-liberal path.

I live in the dead damn center of conservativism, and ive asked around about peoples political views. Most of them are self-employed, and all they care about is taxes and tax reform; even the social conservativism is secondary, and many are more libertarian than religious. The idea of Democrats as being this Mosely-Brawn kind of minority government agency employee, totally clueless to the real world and not very hard working, is so entrenched i think they would still vote Republican even if we had a total financial collapse.

Lower Taxes >>>>>> Deficit every time, forever. The only people whom really care about the deficit, apparently, are those whom don't care about tax breaks either.

Micheal Moore just adds to the "flaming liberal" vibe. They don't care if he's right or wrong, but if John Kerry is a card carrying liberal, then that means higher taxes, and you can count them out. So as part of the background noise, he was twisted around quite a bit. But honestly i don't think it mattered since straw is cheap and stawmen are everywhere.

[Jason McCullough]

Remember back when no one would dare to criticize Bush for letting Osama get away, was willing to call Iraq the fuckup it is, or mention that Bush went AWOL?

Two people fixed that: Dean and Moore. They didn't win the election, but they helped move the debate.

[Toddy]

Did they? Was it really a debate? Sure seemed like the election night results proved that nobody was listening, or if they were, they remained soundly unconvinced by the likes of Moore, Springsteen, etc. Anyhow, even though I would have voted Kerry had I been living in the US, I also would have thought "Fuck you, Springsteen, I'm voting for Bush" every time I saw him pounding that guitar at one of Kerry's battleground state last stands.

There's just something about the whole "I've got all these rich and famous people on my side, so you should be voting for me" thing that really turns me off. The Dems also have too many celeb spokesmen who have that creepy, know-it-all Al Franken vibe.

[Rollory]

Remember back when no one would dare to criticize Bush for letting Osama get away, was willing to call Iraq the fuckup it is, or mention that Bush went AWOL?

Positively Orwellian there, Jason.

There was no time when the situation you describe existed. People were saying Iraq was a quagmire and a disaster during the first week of the invasion. People were criticizing the Afghan campaign every step of the way; I remember thinking, based on what I was reading in the news a week after Tora Bora that the US had fumbled there and bin Laden had probably gotten away. (by "people", I mean talking heads on TV and people writing front-page articles in major newspapers)

As for going AWOL, since he didn't, there's not much to say about that.

Taking credit for a change that didn't happen is, however, entirely the sort of thing Michael Moore likes to do.

[Jason McCullough]

"People" doing it, yes. Hearing it treated as a serious opinion by the media and politicians both? No.

As for going AWOL, since he didn't, there's not much to say about that.

Oh yes, his mysterious disappearance and equally mysterious discharge was entirely on the up and up.

[Silverlight]

"People" doing it, yes. Hearing it treated as a serious opinion by the media and politicians both? No.

Free speech means that you have the right to speak your mind. It does not mean that you have the right to be free of all reasonable consequences. If Democratic politicians who didn't believe in the war felt that it was politically expedient to support it, so that they didn't get turned out of office, then guess what - that's what a fucking democracy is about.

[extarbags]

"People" doing it, yes. Hearing it treated as a serious opinion by the media and politicians both? No.

Free speech means that you have the right to speak your mind. It does not mean that you have the right to be free of all reasonable consequences. If Democratic politicians who didn't believe in the war felt that it was politically expedient to support it, so that they didn't get turned out of office, then guess what - that's what a fucking democracy is about.

This is quite possibly the least relevant P&R post of all time.

[Jason McCullough]

Um, and he made them talk about it. Which was my point.

Basically, he knows he's radioactive, so he can get that stuff out there, and it suddenly becomes no big deal for Kerry to point out, wow, we fucked the pooch in Iraq.

[Silverlight]

This is quite possibly the least relevant P&R post of all time.
What does that make yours? Or this one, for that matter?

Although you're probably right, now that I look back on it. Damn it, I need pay attention to my editing. Originally there was something to do with Moore in there.

Um, and he made them talk about it. Which was my point.

Basically, he knows he's radioactive, so he can get that stuff out there, and it suddenly becomes no big deal for Kerry to point out, wow, we fucked the pooch in Iraq.

Moore being radioactive convinced Democratic politicians it was okay to start bitching about the war, fine. The problem is that too much of the public hadn't caught up to that view. Moore, in a sense, managed to convert what was essentially an extremist point into a mainstream Democratic point, but I don't think moderates really bought it, which is why I don't think Moore was helpful. Usually it's better to keep your lightning rods well the hell away from you where they can attack all they want without risking the candidate himself, but Moore got right into the center of it.

In effect, Moore single-handedly forced John Kerry to flip-flop on the war, and spend his entire campaign trying to simultaneously satisfy people who wanted to stay the course, and who wanted to cut and run, because Moore vastly empowered the latter group. In the end Kerry wasn't credible on Iraq, because he had to spend all this effort trying to split the difference and simultaneously satisfy the suddenly-vocal anti-war base and the centrist voters who thought we had to stick it out.

[extarbags]

In effect, Moore single-handedly forced John Kerry to flip-flop on the war, and spend his entire campaign trying to simultaneously satisfy people who wanted to stay the course, and who wanted to cut and run, because Moore vastly empowered the latter group. In the end Kerry wasn't credible on Iraq, because he had to spend all this effort trying to split the difference and simultaneously satisfy the suddenly-vocal anti-war base and the centrist voters who thought we had to stick it out.

Strikes me more as a problem with Kerry. Though I actually thought he was doing ok with his war criticism up until he said that, knowing what he now knows, he would vote for it again... what a dick move that was.

I still can't figure out for the life of me how anyone *doesn't* think Iraq is a disaster, though.