PDA

View Full Version : How Michael Moore got Bush elected



McCarrens
11-09-2004, 10:16 AM
Source: http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=46653


GEORGE W. BUSH received more votes in Tuesday’s election than any Presidential contender in the history of the United States, and I would like to believe Michael Moore was partly responsible.

Here, after all, was not simply a film director whose “Fahrenheit 9/11” emitted a vile propagandistic stink, indicating something contemptible in the mindset of its creator, but someone who went trotting about Europe telling the adulatory press that Americans “are possibly the dumbest people on the planet.”

While some Europeans may still be slapping their thighs at such cleverness, it should not be surprising that some Americans may have taken offense. They may have figured, for starters, that they have the mental edge over someone whose anti-Bush film neglected to distinguish facts from malicious fantasy, but there is a much bigger point.

It is that literally millions of the hard-working, responsible, decent citizens of this nation just may have had it up to their eyebrows with those Hollywood types and others who disdain their intelligence, mock their religion, dismiss their values, deprecate their lifestyles and disparage their social contributions.

These citizens may suppose their lives add up to at least as much as the lives of celebrities taking time from their divorce schedules to issue morally superior pronouncements about issues they don’t understand.

They may further suppose they have a better grasp of everyday political truths than the ultra-privileged who don’t have to deal with such problems as how to pay their monthly bills when unexpected expenses leap out of nowhere and grab their wallets.

Yes, yes, celebrities have every right in the world to be active in politics, and even should be: Leave politics to the politicians and democracy will race from the room. And no, no, not every celebrity can be squeezed into some narrowly conceived stereotype; many are thoughtful, respectful and humble, I would guess, and I would also guess that many are as far from debauched as the average denizen of small-town America.

What I would like to stress is that a certain belittling, Hollywood-fostered stereotype of small-town, rural and suburban Americans — and especially the stereotype of religious Southern and Midwestern Americans of a conservative disposition — is itself an absurdity overlooking the strength they lend this country.

These Americans are a mix of many things, of course, and I don’t want to replace one stereotype of small-mindedness and dim-witted intolerance with another that overreaches and is too sweeping; any large grouping will include some number of the stupid and the morally careless, even the downright criminal, along with the brilliant and morally upright, even the downright saintly.

It seems to me, however, a safe, supportable generalization to say that these Americans mainly do a good job of raising their children, that they are mostly productive in their jobs, that they are by and large generous in their giving to charity, that their word is reliable and that they are more often than not kind to those they encounter.

I take particular umbrage at the caricature some paint of the religious. When you listen to someone like the TV comedian Bill Maher ridicule Christianity, for instance, you wonder whether he has any notion at all of tenets residing at the heart of the faith: that we can experience forgiveness if we ourselves first forgive, that we can find redemption even when our lives are in tatters, that nothing less is demanded of us in our dealings with others than sacrificial love. This is the stuff of satire?

Another proposition of the faith is that confession is good for the soul, and I have to confess that I am not in a very forgiving mood. It delights me to suppose that Bush-despising Hollywood lefties may actually have aided his cause in their excessive rhetoric (check out actor Richard Dreyfus’s speeches someday) or their middle class-alienating vulgarities (see comedienne Whoopi Goldberg’s jokes about the President).

I get special joy — I must get over this — in contemplating the hell Michael Moore might go through if he dwelled on the possibility that he contributed to the Bush victory by so unmistakably signaling his elitist attitudes.

Moore's rich. Of course he wanted Bush to win...

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

knuckleboner
11-09-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by McCarrens

GEORGE W. BUSH received more votes in Tuesday’s election than any Presidential contender in the history of the United States,


so did kerry (except for bush). people are using this stat WAY too much.

bush won a definite victory. but the significant thing ISN'T his total vote count. that's a reflection of more people voting. which is why kerry beat reagan's record vote total, despite being the "most liberal senator in the senate..."

bush's REAL accomplishment was being the 1st president since his 1988 to win an election with a majority of the votes cast.

McCarrens
11-09-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
bush's REAL accomplishment was being the 1st president since his 1988 to win an election with a majority of the votes cast.

And to do so in the face of tremendous media adversity makes it that much sweeter...

FORD
11-09-2004, 11:04 AM
The only one who got Junior "elected" was Wally O'Dell.

Loki
11-09-2004, 11:07 AM
saudi oil, hate mongering, and the face of fear all got duya elected. Methinks he is a good pupil! Roll the bones! huzzah huzzah.

McCarrens
11-09-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by FORD
The only one who got Junior "elected" was Wally O'Dell.

No, face reality. The only people that got Bush elected were the American people...

knuckleboner
11-09-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by McCarrens
And to do so in the face of tremendous media adversity makes it that much sweeter...

i'm not quite sure there was that much of an overwhelming media adversity.

i mean, yes, rather and CBS went with originally unsubstantiated reports, later to be shown to be false (hmmm...does that sound familiar?...;))

and the missing explosives were well timed, no doubt.


but how about the swift boat veterans? they got an awful lot of press, themselves.

i think the press was mostly going for ratings. was there a slight bias for kerry? eh, possibly. if there was one, it was more likely for kerry than for bush.

but i really don't think you can characterize the overall media coverage during the campaign as a tremendous obstacle for bush.

aesop
11-09-2004, 12:07 PM
Moore was just the 'spiratual leader' (i.e. rich fuck). He has his minions of helpers, though. Like 'reverened (no caps required) jackson, the dixie dykes, whoopieass goldstank, George Sorrosis, some guy named Kennedy (who also has sorrosis), militant homos, Larry Flynt (who I'm sure all good liberals would allow to babysit their daughters), plastic people in hollywood who couldn't actually spell 'liberal' or Heinz, the uneducated, the lazy, irrelevant washed up rockers like REM, the boss, Bon Jokie and others who need the money to support oxycotton habits and saw Kerry as their gravy train, people who stay at home all day typing moronic posts on forums and watch Jerry Spinger 'Best-Of' DVD's the rest of the day and want free healthcare and abortions...

Well you get the idea.

FORD
11-09-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Loki
saudi oil, hate mongering, and the face of fear all got duya elected. Methinks he is a good pupil! Roll the bones! huzzah huzzah.

You a Rush fan, Loki? And you wouldn't be from the backwoods hills of Kentucky, by any chance?

John Ashcroft
11-09-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
i'm not quite sure there was that much of an overwhelming media adversity.

.....but i really don't think you can characterize the overall media coverage during the campaign as a tremendous obstacle for bush.

THE DEBATE EFFECT

How the Press Covered the Pivotal Period of the 2004 Presidential Campaign

In the closing weeks of the 2004 presidential race, the period dominated by the debates, President George W. Bush has suffered strikingly more negative press coverage than challenger John Kerry, according to a new study released today by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

More than half of all Bush stories studied were decidedly negative in tone (1). By contrast, only a quarter of all Kerry stories were clearly negative.

This is the mirror image of what happened four years ago, when then-Governor Bush benefited from coverage in the closing weeks, particularly from the debates, enjoying twice as many positive stories than his rival Vice President Gore (2). Indeed, the percentage of negative Bush coverage is almost identical to the level of negative Gore coverage four years ago.

In both cases, the penchant of the press to focus on internal campaign matters like tactics, strategy, candidate performance and horse race, seem to be a major factor driving the tone of the coverage. This year the President was battered in the coverage particularly for his performance in the first two debates.

There is a difference this year from 2000, however. Kerry coverage has been markedly less negative-and somewhat more positive--than either candidate received during a similar phase in the 2000 race.

The tactical and performance oriented focus of the press has had another effect as well. The coverage this year has been even less likely than four years ago to describe how campaign events directly affected voters--explaining, for example, the possible implications on citizens of candidate's policy proposal.

The study this year also included a new component, blogs, examining five of the most popular. Because they are such a distinct universe, they are not included in any of the overall figures about topic, tone or the rest. However, the examination of blogs reveals that they are conspicuously similar to the mainstream press in what they covered, the tone of that coverage and even in the angle writers took, findings that seem to challenge the idea that the blogosphere is changing the kind of media messages people have access to. Rather than an entirely new citizen-oriented media, what blogs may be doing, this suggests, is furthering the growth of opinion news, but in an even more one-sided form than the cable talk shows.

These are some of the key conclusions of a major new study of press coverage in newspapers, television and on the Internet during two key weeks ending October.



(1)When calculating Tone, coders must quantify all the pertinent text that is positive for the Dominant Candidate, as well as all pertinent text that is negative for the Dominant Candidate. Additional weight is given to text within the headline of the story. In any case where the ratio between positive:negative equals or exceeds 2:1, the story is coded as positive tone for the Dominant Figure. Likewise, when the ratio between positive:negative equals or exceeds 1:2 the story is coded as negative tone for the Dominant Figure. All other stories are coded as neutral. In this study, stories determined to be straight news accounts were not coded for Tone.

(2) PEJ conducted a similar study in the final weeks of the 2000 campaign. Please see, "The Last Lap: How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign," October 31, 2000, www.journalism.org.

Link:
Journalism.org (http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/default.asp)

knuckleboner
11-11-2004, 12:51 PM
well...how did bush do in the 2000 debates? if i remember correctly, people thought, initially, he'd do really poorly. his performance was actually better than many thought.

in contrast, i think most people agree that bush lost the 2004 debates. he clearly lost the 1st one, and, at best, made the other 2 a draw.


i could argue that the one would've expected a little media bump for bush in 2000 and then kerry in 2004, based on the debates.


however...i'll give you that there might've been a bit of a media bias for kerry. i just don't think the results were, "tremendous."

John Ashcroft
11-11-2004, 12:52 PM
A bit???

DEMON CUNT
11-11-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by McCarrens
No, face reality. The only people that got Bush elected were the American people...

Spew that dis-information, whiteboy!

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/rush-limbaugh/rushy.gif

knuckleboner
11-11-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
A bit???

yep.

like i said, if the media REALLY wanted to back kerry, they wouldn't have given the swift boat vets as much coverage.

i mean, personally, i think from a pure, journalistic standpoint, they got far too much coverage. (and to be fair, so did the bush "AWOL" crap.)

my own opinion is that by and large, the press were out to make stories and get ratings.


though, in the end, were they a little more in the kerry camp, yeah, probably. but not more than a bit...

Nickdfresh
11-11-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by McCarrens
And to do so in the face of tremendous media adversity makes it that much sweeter...

I take serious issue the the "Liberal Media" stuff. How many people does Rush Limbaugh influence with his propagandistic, spurious fact laden show? Fox news and Clear Channel are liberal? Yeah right! Pun intended. The liberal media stuff is a myth, and I'll put Michael Moore's facts up against oxy continan boy any day of the week!

You stupif Moore-lovingbastards -LOL:D

DEMON CUNT
11-11-2004, 06:52 PM
!