Posted on 06/30/2008 1:23:31 PM PDT by lormand
Making its debut at the Los Angeles Film Festival this week, “Boogie Man” tells the life story of Lee Atwater, the late, legendary GOP operative who changed the course of modern political campaigning by emphasizing attack ads, wedge issues and, occasionally, outright chicanery. You won’t find the documentary at the local multiplex, and you might even have to sniff around to find it a month or two from now — it’s been sold overseas, but at press time, a domestic distributor had not emerged for the low-budget indie.
George H.W. Bush once said that Atwater — a music fan whose tastes ran toward B.B. King and Percy Sledge — knew how to give Democrats the blues. But after seeing the documentary with a conservative crowd, including longtime Republican political consultant Mike Murphy, it seemed to us that the movie would make the GOP mad, as well. At Monday night’s festival showing in L.A., some in the crowd groaned and hissed, angry at how the film used Democrats of dubious distinction to make its anti-GOP points and how it tarnished Republicans as racists.
Calling it “a pejorative, liberal cartoon,” Murphy gave the film two thumbs way down. The consultant, who knew Atwater back in the day and has since gone on to advise prominent Republicans such as John McCain, Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the documentary was guilty of “a greater assault on the truth than anything Lee Atwater was accused of.” (Variety’s review notes, “The man Democrats loved to hate receives a docu-portrait Republicans might chafe at.” Meanwhile, liberal film blogger Jeffrey Wells called it “the sharpest and fairest portrait of smear politics and Republican culture since ‘So Goes the Nation,’” last year’s doc about the 2004 election.)
Atwater’s name might not be too familiar to folks who began their political education after the launch of MSNBC, but his spirit certainly lives on. Just last Sunday, New York Times columnist David Brooks excoriated Barack Obama for his decision to reject public financing, writing that Obama explained his reversal in a videotaped plea “so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding.”
Whether you believe Atwater was monumentally important or merely a historical footnote, the subject matter of “Boogie Man” poses a great challenge to movie distributors hoping to reach wide audiences. Made with foundation grants and edited on a laptop computer for well under $100,000, the film has no narrator and uses rarely seen news footage as well as original interviews with Atwater’s family, foes and friends. And, oh, the stories they tell: tales of Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis, push polling and Tom Turnipseed, a young George W. Bush and an even younger Karl Rove.
Several conservatives in the crowd found fault with director Stefan Forbes’ choice of Atwater attackers, from Clintonista Terry McAuliffe, who pontificates about morality in the back seat of a chauffeured vehicle, to several strongly biased liberal writers. “What impressed was the director’s deft use of Joe Conason, Terry McAuliffe and Eric Alterman as objective voices to drive the narrative,” sniffed Drudge Report contributor Andrew Breitbart, founder of the news website Breitbart.com...
The GOP need 1000 Lee Atwaters. Rush Limbaugh can't be relied to run the party, someone inside has to grow a pair.
Huh...I thought this was a thread about a proctologist in Atwater, IL with Repub clients.
I have read that is was Atwater who advised Bush 41 regarding conservatives and raising taxes "where are they going to go?"
That kicked opened the door for 8 years of Clinton as President.
The socialists hated Atwater because he was better at their own tactics than they were.
I would really like to see this movie because I knew Lee Atwater. I know it's biased, but that doesn't bother me because Democrats always smear Republican operatives who outsmart them over and over.
Atwater clearly understood that you can’t play pattycake with liberals. While they’re smiling at you, giving you a pat on the back their other hand has a dagger.
Attack ads work if they are also truthful; so what is the problem. In fact, a candidate has a duty to inform the public about the negatives of his opponent.
Are you saying that if Lee Atwater were alive today that there would have never been a 12 year GOP rule of Congress?
Today's GOP spokes-wimp will allow 9 lies to be told about his candidate, just as long as they stay on point for issue #10. From where I am from, you didn't let someone hit you 9/10 times, you swung back after the first blow.
The damage is done already. The democRATs have defined the GOP because of the weak and non-existing "leadership" at the RNC.
Since Atwater, the GOP has been virtually in defense, 24/7. In a just and fair world, they would be on offense instead.
Of course. Why in the world is my tax money spent on sedition? Cut 'em off, now.
If Lee Atwater were still alive, there might not have been GOP control of Congress starting with 1995... because Atwater wouldn’t have allowed Clinton to win the WH in ‘92.
If the Republican Party was on defense they would not have won two Presidential elections and 12 years of Congress control. You Purists spout crap with no facts what so ever, bunch of any and bitter losers.
Lee Atwater lives on in Roger Stone
Purist?
Perhaps you should consider the GOPs incremental drift to the center during the past 12 years. If you haven't noticed, then you are the opposite of a purist, you may be a party hack.
I will always hold my ideology first before any party. Those who hold their party before their ideology are called losers.
Facts?
We went from Atwater to Scott McClellan.
Prediction: It will get worse.
-- UofL at Lafayette, College Republican President 95'-96'
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.