first he emphasized that AMERICA LOVES HOLLYWOOD! No, the outrageous behavior of people like Whoopi Goldberg did not turn off "the people." The problem is, John Kerry wasn't Hollywood enough!
In Michael's view, the Democrats have to "stop running wonks who don't have a story." If the Democrats used Hollywood more, they could hone the stories. Even get Tom Hanks to run.
Who wouldn't vote for Tom Hanks? For Anything! The only tough question from the audience was voiced by an elderly man who asked Michael if his movie hadn't caused a move to Bush as a reaction.
Oh, no, Michael replied. Moore is a multi-faceted charlatan, in my non-scientific view, but statements like those fascinate me. Why does he behave that way?
Several possibilities come to mind: Moore actually believes what he says. Moore is an excellent showman and knows that the more outrageous he is, the more movie tickets and books he will sell and paid speaking engagements he will attract. Moore is simply an angry, hate-filled man.
Remember, we're talking about a man who gleefully observed the following in his newsletter two days before the election: [To President Bush:] I know it’s gotta be rough for you right now. Hey, we’ve all been there. “You’re fired” are two horrible words when put together in that order.
Bin Laden surfacing this weekend to remind the American people of your total and complete failure to capture him was a cruel trick or treat. But there he was. 3,000 people were killed and he’s laughing in your face.
Why did you stop our Special Forces from going after him? Why did you forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11 and tell your terrorism czar to concentrate on Iraq instead? There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie?
Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?) You can read the whole screed on Moore's site. Maybe I'm wrong, but that kind of rhetoric seems just a bit beyond the pale to me in a time of war.
In any case, I think Moore is a complex individual, clearly very bright, and that all three of the theories above are partly true. He's deeply and passionately motivated, with a sort of oddball Leninist worldview. He's as clever (cunning, really) as they come.
And he's angry enough to be willing to make hate-filled statements that cannot stand rigorous examination and that may well not advance his position or his economic prospects. (Face it, as long as he persists in cheerleading for bin Laden and Hussein his core following will remain very small.) Lately he has been showing up on TV, clean-shaven and wearing a coat and tie, with what sound like more moderate views.
I do not think he will fade away; in fact, I think we will see much more of him over the next several years. He will take some of the edges off his positions, ever so slightly, but he'll keep making "hit piece" movies and pushing the envelope whenever he can. first he emphasized that AMERICA LOVES HOLLYWOOD!
No, the outrageous behavior of people like Whoopi Goldberg did not turn off "the people." The problem is, John Kerry wasn't Hollywood enough! In Michael's view, the Democrats have to "stop running wonks who don't have a story.
" If the Democrats used Hollywood more, they could hone the stories.
News RSS