John McCain went after Michael Moore on the opening night of the Republican National Convention, calling the leftist filmmaker "disingenuous." On the one hand, Moore is disingenuous. On the other hand, why elevate Moore's stature by mentioning him? Why? Because it's good politics. Michael Moore is not popular. People rightly view him as a loudmouth propagandist. If this is the type of human being who opposes Bush, McCain made home audiences think, why would I want to make common cause with him?
Michael Moore may owe John McCain for increased book sales and box office receipts that the mention will bring. But Republicans certainly owe Michael Moore for showing up at Madison Square Garden and demonstrating to America who Bush's oppostion is.
So far the GOP is looking like it should get a very significant convention bump. Maybe even 10% or more.
I had to do some shopping this evening near the Garden and the goof balls are out in force. I can't say I saw any actually clever protest signs, they were generally of the "Bush is a terrorist," and "Osama Bush Laden" variety. From what I have gathered the most common means of jeering the delegates has been to call them "fascists" or "white supremacists."
Huh?
I did end up by where MSNBC has set up shop and saw Chris Matthews filming Hardball, that was kinda cool.
wow. I wondered why you are were so quiet for a while. you were positioning yourself for the pep rally.
Michael Moores sucks btw.
Just for the record. McCain admitted to Chris Matthews last night post convention after 11PM, that he did not see F911 just the trailer. Don't you just love it when People have a strong opinion on something they haven't seen.
I have a strong opinion on all snuff films and child porn and I can safely and gladly say that I have never seen any examples of either type of film.
I understand what you are trying to say about criticizing a film one hasn't seen but it is a bit of a misleading point and no cause for immediate dismissal of someone's opinions. The only thing that really matters is whether or not what one says about a film or book or whatever is accurate or not. If McCain mischaracterizes F911 then the fact that he hasn't seen it is clearly relevant. If he characterizes it accurately, if broadly, (as I could do regarding a child porn film, or any porn film) then his opinion is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's without regard to whether or not he has seen the film.
Brian I have an uncle, actually he's not really my uncle, he's an old high school friend of my dad's, with a serious substance abuse problem, who could point you in the direction of the Citizen Kane's in each of the afforementioned genres. Shoot me an email if your interested.
-Hat.
Snuff films are an urban legend! I spent millions of tax dollars in search an authentic one while I was in the White House. No luck!
Brian
If he were commenting,in general, about a specfic type of film or book or type of music you would be right. But to comment on a specific film without seeing it rings very Republican.
"rings very Republican"?
Michael Moore disingenuously produces a film solely to make a buck that is full of lies and leftist propaganda and you're going to condemn McCain for commenting on clips and trailers he saw?
You people only want it one way.
Mr O'B
Did you see the film ?
No one was being condemned. I like John McCain. Just pointing out what occurred. Critizing a film you haven't seen (something you have no knowledge of) seems unfair. Am I wrong?
Yes, you're wrong -- especially when said movie is made by a wanker like Michael Moore.
John Mc Cain just sucks big time! Republicans go to hell!!
