Skip to comments.Moore Aims to Oust Bush With 'Op-Ed' Film
Posted on 06/21/2004 6:32:42 AM PDT by ICX
FLINT, Michigan (AP) - Michael Moore's new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" has raised temperatures in Republican circles - and that's intentional.
"I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House," the filmmaker told the host of ABC News'"This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
"It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration," Moore said Sunday. "I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
Moore's film charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear to gain support for the war against Iraq. The Bush administration denies the allegations.
Moore bristled at the notion he is being unpatriotic.
"Everything I do, and this film in particular, says that I love this country," he said. "Every day of my life, everything I do is about trying to make this a better country and trying to give voice to those people out there who don't have a voice."
The film opens nationwide Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
"It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration,"
So this is how the blowhard intends to get around the lies in his films.
How about honest journalism? Given his track record with "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine", Moore has the integrity of a weasel.
I suppose I should apologize in advance to all weasels.
It's an op-ed piece eqivalent to Molly Ivins deliberately editing quotes to make them say the opposite of what the speaker actually said.
Michael Moore is a big fat member of the Taliban.
Saddam gives it two severed thumbs up
Michael Moore loves this country so much that he moved all of his web development and hosting work to Canada!
(PS to ICX - PUNK!
Hey, buddy - only 5 days left until Mike Milbury Shenanigan Day!
I wonder how many more gallons of ink AP is gonna devote to promoting this loser's movie...
Call me crazy, but I love Michael Moore. Really, I love this guy. First off, he is a maker of "documentary" films. These films are supposed to be unbiased and objective by their very nature. Second, Moore is a blatant partisan. He says such outrageous things that he polarizes people. Third, he takes the credibility away from his films by being such a partisan and thus, makes himself a propagandist. Finally, four, I believe by his appearance, arrogance, partisanship, etc. he hurts his cause more than he helps it. Since I don't agree with his cause, I love him from hurting it.
Honestly, F9/11 will play to the exact audience it was targeted to and nobody else. Contrast that to a film like the Passion. Although not a politically motivated film and not a documentary, it is an example of a film appealing to a wide audience, i.e. not just evangelical Christians.
When Lou Dobbs interviewed him and called "Bowling for Columbine" "factually challenged" he then replied that BFC was a "satire".
Don't remind me. Some of my worst experiences as an Islander fan have come on draft day!
Then why do you and your buddies in the liberal media keep calling it a "documentary?"
Yes, sieg bloody heil to you too, Herr Goebbels...I mean Mr. Moore.
Lumpy!!! Good one!
Yeah, and this AP "article" is an op-ed piece, too. If it wasn't actually written for them by Moore's people.
Mark my words...this film will be a huge box office failure...
The only people who will go and see are the left and right coast left wing nut bags...
What would have happend to a movie maker of the time if he had stated he wanted to get rid of FDR over say Omaha Beach, Anzio, Tarawa or even Pearl Harbor ?
Wait a minute. I thought Hollywood was calling it a "documentary".
Here's a face that could sink a thousand ships.
Everyone who wants to see it would never have voted for the President under any circumstances.
The film will change absolutely no one's mind.
It is simply another product Moore is marketing to his fan base. It will be very profitable - he made Bowling for Columbine for $4M and it took in $21M at the box office.
He made Fahrenheit 9/11 for $6M. Assuming that there are about 3-4 million broken glass Bush haters in the US who have $10 to spend he could clear almost $35M on this film.
Quite simply, Michael Moore has found a way to profit by blatantly exploiting the 9/11 atrocity without any serious mainstream criticism.
If all the degenerates who bought tickets to Bowling for Columbine show up for this latest film, it will turn a 500% profit.
P.T. Barnum knew exactly what he was talking about.
By the way...can anyone provide numbers on how "The Day After Tomorrow" fared at the box office?
Let's hope that F911 goes by the same path.
Exactly. Cannot be libel or slander if it is "opinion", yet, he himself threatens to sue for libel or slander if the film is bad mouthed in the press. I suspect his legal team helped him to become aware this is no documentary.
Doesn't he realize that after the next 9/11 he will top the list ?
The First Amendment doesn't protect traitors.
If you annualize this return, seeing that this thing was in production for almost two years, that's a paltry 1.5% profit at best.
That's a flop.
But Moore's movie cost $6M to make and most of its advertising has been for free due to the manufactured "controversy".
If Moore only gets half the attendance his last film had, he will make a profit in excess of 200%.
Both films are left-wing propaganda, but one was made very efficently and one wasn't.
Correction. Last post should have read "in excess of 100%" not "200%".
"...Michael Moore loves this country so much that he moved all of his web development and hosting work to Canada!..."
Isn't he Canadian to begin with?
"Every day of my life, everything I do is about trying to make this a better country and trying to give voice to those people out there who don't have a voice."
That's because the media conglomerates are spear headed by the left agenda and ONLY give massive public forums to their pet puppets such as Micheal Moore.
If Michael Moore is such a good person he should turn over the profits to the familys of 9-11 and the soldiers familys. Otherwise he is just making money off of a national tragedy.
If it is sufficiently anti-Iraq War, it might help move some of the people who see it to vote for Ralph Nader instead of Jean al-Query who actually supported the war, before he didn't support it. That will ultimately HELP President Bush.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences, Mr. Moore.
BUSH IN 30 SECONDS
What we see, year-after-year in politics, is the same old approaches practiced by a small cadre of mostly Washington-based political consultants. And each year the enthusiasm for politics becomes dimmer and dimmer. We want to reverse that trend, by bringing ordinary people and new faces into the political discussion. (Eli Pariser)
With that goal in mind, Pariser decided to bring in ordinary people who would be unlikely to be hired to create normal political TV advertising and through MoveOn.org he created the Bush in 30 Seconds contest. Over 1,000 contestants submitted their own 30-second anti-Bush TV spots, and 110,000 people voted for their favorites online. Fifty-six of the very best spots have been collected here, including Childs Pay, the overall winner that uses dramatic imagery of children in menial labor jobs to show what Bushs trillion dollar deficit is leaving our children with, and If Parents Acted Like Bush, where your dad might drive off to work and leave his child behind. Sometimes funny parodies, sometimes heartbreakingly realistic, these TV spots made by ordinary Americans who are fed up with the current administration will are an inspiration for true patriotism and the perfect antidote to the crazed flag waving of that first weekend in July.
Paying to watch political ads? O-kay.
Think the liberal establishments showing this would offer to show a program of FReeper created/collected campaign ads against Kerry (not that one exists)?
Here's anohter view from the OTHER side. Please take a moment to send Mr. Smith your thoughts:
Scott C. Smith is a writer from Beaverton, Oregon. His column has appeared weekly at the Democratic Underground and other progressive web sites.
In addition to his column, Scott writes for his web site, What's In Scott's Head, at www.scottcsmith.net. </obviously nothing
Moving America Backwards: Censoring Michael Moore
June 19, 2004
By Scott C. Smith
If the group Move America Forward has its way, come June 25th, you will not be able to see Michael Moore's new film, Fahrenheit 9/11.
Why? Well, the main reason seems to be we do not like what Michael Moore has to say about America. And, being freedom-loving Americans, we want to pressure movie theater chains not to screen the film.
Another question that comes to mind is, what the hell is Move America Forward? I know, I hadn't heard of them, either, until recently. As I looked over their web site, the first thought that popped into my mind was: right-wing fascist nut cases. But that's not fair. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I'm not qualified to make judgments on the mental health of Move America Forward's board of directors and staff.
Apparently, Move America Forward was created by the public relations firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers a month ago. The group's web site says they are non-partisan, but a look through the names of the board of directors shows a group lacking anyone who is a Democrat or liberal. Among the members of the board are: Chairman Howard Kaloogian, Republican and former member of the California assembly; Conservative radio talk-show host Melanie Morgan, vice-chairman; and Executive Director Siobhan Guiney, described as "a legislative advocate fighting for the people against liberal corruption." That sounds non-partisan. I'm guessing Move America Forward's definition of non-partisan is something along the lines of "all of us here are conservatives."
Melanie Morgan appeared on the June 16 Crossfire to argue her group's case against Michael Moore's film. Which, by the way, she has not seen. There's nothing like a good old-fashioned boycott based on not knowing anything about the source material.
Questioned by Crossfire co-host James Carville on not seeing the film, Morgan explained, " I haven't seen the film yet. And the reason I haven't seen it yet is because the majority of America has not seen the movie, and the reason why the majority of America hasn't seen the movie is because it's only been screened for a handful of Hollywood liberals and elite media. But I have been able to discern from the footage and from the information that is available by transcript on the Internet what the true intentions of Michael Moore are." In addition to being conservative, Morgan is also, apparently, psychic.
Move America Forward is employing an e-mail campaign to get people to contact the executives at movie chains and urge them not to show the movie. How come conservative groups are so quick to silence voices that speak out against the government? Shouldn't the free market decide the success or failure of Moore's film? Frankly, I do not need "non-partisan" conservatives deciding for me whether or not to see the film.
And what's the compelling reason for the movie theaters not to show the movie? Melanie Morgan explained to James Carville: "What we are doing is trying to make sure that there is an alternative voice to Michael Moore. He has received millions of dollars and free publicity over the last free weeks about this movie, on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, you name it, he's been everywhere But not one single ordinary American has been able to stand up and say, 'Hey, we don't appreciate that crap that is being aimed at our troops because we support our troops, we love our troops, they're friends, families, brothers and sisters, and we're going to be there for them.'"
A pretty amazing analysis based on nothing, since Morgan has not seen the film, but has read articles in newspapers to really zero in on Michael Moore's "true" intentions.
Also, does a movie really need an "alternative voice"? Isn't that voice going to be provided by conservative talk radio, in conservative newspapers, and on conservative web sites, like World Net Daily or Free Republic? Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity combined have millions of listeners. Surely they will offer up that all-important alternative Morgan is complaining about. Also, why wouldn't "ordinary" Americans be able to say they don't like a movie they haven't seen, or will see? You know they're going to show up at the movie theaters with their signs and their rage at the "Bash America" filmmaker, Michael Moore, getting in the way of movie theater patrons who will use the power of their own brains to decide if Moore's message is valid.
And Mike, well, I'll bet he's having a good chuckle over all of this attention, especially since Move America Forward's efforts will result in increased ticket sales. There's nothing like a good, pointless boycott of a film you've never seen to get people into movie theaters to find out what the fuss is all about.
I know I'll be there, joining up with my fellow "Blame America First" liberals, while Michael Moore laughs all the way to the bank. Well, Move America Forward, there's always lots of books to boycott at the local public library if this one doesn't work out.
DUers are planning to register voters at M.Moore showings.
Perhaps we need to do this outside of churches -- on the public sidewalk that is so they won'd yell church/state.