Posted on 11/07/2004 8:10:19 AM PST by aculeus
Michael Ledeen thinks the Guardian lost it by having a bunch of ferners try to influence our campaign.
You could argue that the French and Old Europe lost it for Kerry because he tied his star to them -- now how dumb was that? -- and we're still pissed at them for deserting us.
You could argue that bin Laden lost it for Kerry by showing up again. Yes, you'd think that this only made Kerry's point about letting OBL slip out of our fingers. But never underestimate our prideful anger.
But I say instead that Michael Moore lost it for Kerry. He lost it by starting the mudslinging over military service when he accused Bush of being a deserter; this opened the door for the Swiftie mudmen and cut short the ability to condemn them for it.
He lost it by making unfair attacks on Bush (when he could have made fair attacks), helping Bush to rally his fans around him.
But mainly, Moore lost the race for Kerry and the Democrats by turning them, by association, into a bunch of rabid seething fringie liberal loonies, all angry and extreme and too quick to forget what the real war is and who the real enemy is.
The right-wing is usually the side that is portrayed as fringie and rabid and extreme and, Lord knows, many of them are.
But Moore made the left seem just as extreme if not more so.
He demanded that we should all be as angry as he is. But what if we don't want to be angry at our own side?
He demanded that we see conspiracies everywhere but where they exist: in the Islamofascist world.
He lowered the level of discourse to this: hyperbole, hype, lies by omission, and attack as a substitute for fact and discussion.
And that make it harder for Kerry to complain when the other side did likewise to him.
Bush did a better job of maintaining a thin wall of separation between him and the 527 nutjobs on his side. I don't say that the wall was real, but the appearance of it was just real enough. Kerry did a bad job of separating himself from Moore; he didn't try. So to many, Moore's mud became Kerry's mud.
There were thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of voters who were looking for an alternative to Bush, a reasonable, open, safe alternative. Moore made the Democrats look not like an alternative but the attackers.
And Moore -- and Howard Dean and Air America and others -- pushed Kerry and the Democrats into the position of being the anti-war party at a time when we are at war. That led to one flip-flop too many. Big mistake.
Moore was brilliant at creating a media frenzy. The media bought his hype and helped him make a fortune on his little flick. They made the mistake of thinking that each ticket bought to see that flick was worth many times more votes. No, the people who went to see F9/11 weren't all buying Moore's gospel. They were buying the hype. And that's all Moore was selling: Hype. He wasn't doing it for the good of the country. He was doing it for the good of Michael Moore.
But who wants to vote for the party of seethers and demeaners? Who wants to join the angry people and think that's going to improve life? Who feels welcome in the company of disapprove snots? That is the party of Michael Moore.
The moral to the story: Don't listen to Michael Moore. He led you astray, Democrats.
And Republicans: Just as I am tell Democrats not to believe that most of you are rabid religious nuts, you'd be unwise to think that most Democrats are rabid Michael Moore nuts; that would be just as wrong.
"you'd be unwise to think that most Democrats are rabid Michael Moore nuts; that would be just as wrong."
Hmm,,,I"ll believe THAT when I see a surge in the outcry from the "non nut Dems" AGAINST Michael Moore, MOveon.org and their ilk. Until I see that,,,I have to believe the left is as extreme as Moore represents.
Then why did a good portion of the democrat establishment in DC show up to the movie premier?
The picture of Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter didn't help either. Oh, what a sorry sight.
RIGHT!! You beat me to a similar post!
There are some Democrats out there who were turned off by the rabid Michael Moore and company nuts.
I am one of them. I am an NYC Dem who voted for Bush - first time I've voted Republican in a presidential election.
The hate-filled Bush-bashing rhetoric of my own party and Move.On Org drove me straight into the arms of GW Bush. I know of at least 20 other NYC Dems who voted for him for the same reason I did.
Unfortunately for the Dems, and fortunate for us, he's only one of a long list.
Welcome aboard. I switched parties in 1993 (after voting against Clinton both in the primary and the general election).
The Rats will turn on Moore soon, just as they have Kerry et al. It's just a matter of time. They are blaming gays, anti-war, pro abortion left wingers for the loss instead of their flamingly incorrect outlook on americans in general.
"Bush did a better job of maintaining a thin wall of separation between him and the 527 nutjobs on his side. I don't say that the wall was real, but the appearance of it was just real enough. Kerry did a bad job of separating himself from Moore; he didn't try. So to many, Moore's mud became Kerry's mud."
In fact Kerry seemed to embrace a lot of what Moore portrayed. He didn't try to distance himself and eventually it appeared to be part of his campaign. Bush definitely knew how to do it. While he said he admired Kerry's war record he didn't agree with him on the issues, it made it harder to tie the 527 ads to Bush. A little bit of rebuttal works wonders compared to no rebuttal at all.
Agreed. My almost 70-year old Dad who has voted Democrat all his life took one look at Michael Moore (and after reading "high Crimes and Misdemeanors") waited two hours to vote for W.
The day after the election we were on the phone in the morning waiting for Kerry to concede and my Dad said, rather nastily, "Where is that fat pig Michael Moore NOW?"
I was kinda shocked at his tone, but we all sure did earn it.
I'll bet Jimmy went home and had himself disinfected...
Could the author please remind me of which political side trashes cites when the WTO comes to town?
This clown is so blind: the lefties have been the violent, wacko side of the political spectrum since at least the 1960s (the Weather Underground wasn't full of College Republicans).
I think that every high school class has one, and every university class has scads, of people like Moore. They spread their too-clever-by-half rhetoric to an audience that never critically analyzes the major league holes in most of what they say. So rather than investigate an issue that could use investigation, they pander to their own egos. Or in the case of Moore, their ego and pocketbook.
"Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter didn't help either."
My first thought as well.
No Jarvis, John Forbes Kerry opened the door. He opened it thirty years ago, and he nailed it open.
Jarvis is a decent blogger but he has a liberal-derangement tumor in his little brain. He did not vote for Bush. The point of the article above seems to be that there is a B.O. style moral equivalence between the left and the right?
What. Ever.
Yeah...?
Question, then: just who was that obese, smelly guy lolling about next to a former President of the U.S., during the last Dem National Convention...?
If believing that the Constitution for the United States of America means exactly what it says, and not some "living document" that is a tool for activist judges to use in order to legislate from the bench, then by all means call me a "fringie, rabid, right-wing extremist
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.