Skip to comments.VANITY: Why isn't the Left attacking 2016? (More than it is already...)
Posted on 09/06/2012 7:52:45 AM PDT by WileyC
It goes without saying that the Left absolutely hates Dinesh's blockbuster, 2016. And those who do mention it, do so with a vitriol they once only reserved for the Bush clan. The real question is why aren't all of them jumping on the bashwagon?
The only plausible explanation is that they realize that any publicity can only help the movie... and the movie's narrative. Unlike individuals, who can have their reputations and popularity tarnished by repeated attacks, this bit of cinema only shines brighter the more attention they draw to it. By keeping the tone scholarly and conversational, D'Souza effectively prevents quotes or snippets from being taken out of context and used in attacks.
Given that it is relatively immune to anything except 'foaming at the mouth' attacks, and even those assaults would only drive more people to the theater, liberals are hoping to ignore it to death. Unfortunately for them, the Uncertain Middle (the ones who watch both CNN and FOX) might be intrigued by what they are hearing and pony up their $9-$16 to see it firsthand.
I'd tell them to save their money but I want the theaters to continue to fill up for awhile longer. The reason I say this is that I strongly suspect he will push this to DVD and possibly to even free distribution sometime before November.
P.S. A relative asked my fourteen year-old daughter what movie she wanted to see, she picked 2016. I'm so proud of her! (This is the vanity portion of my post, ha!)
Because it would open the subject of Obama’s murky past to further public debate, which is the LAST thing he wants.
D’Souza is on record as hoping that the Left WOULD attack his film as a means of sparking this discussion.
I’ll tell you something about this movie that surprised me. I live in Chicago, in a neighborhood that has become trendy and full of liberals in the last ten years or so. Right next to my house is a arthouse-type movie theatre that usually plays all the hot new independent and foreign films that appeal to this demographic. They have had all the Michael Moore documentaries, first run. Last week, I noticed that they were now playing 2016.
I’m not sure how to explain that, except maybe they are hurting for business and willing to try anything. Otherwise, I can only imagine that enough liberals want to see the movie that they demanded it be shown.
It IS curious, isn’t it.
I was thinking that if the facts presented in the book/movie are untrue, that the author could be sued for libel, yet there is no lawsuit.
In 2008, there was a successful blackout on any discussion of Obama’s ties to Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers (which our “champion” McCain went along with), so clearly the Libs think that they can do the same thing if they ignore 2016.
Because attacking it keeps it in the news.
And, for decades, it worked!
Now that the bold Obama agenda is playing out, and the disastrous consequences of their arrogant extra-constitutional policies are being seen and felt, that tactic won't work as well.
Technology has outstripped their ability to censor.
In the back of their confused, fragile little minds they can hear their mommies saying "just ignore it, it will go away"...
Saw this Unofficial announcement: 2016: Obama’s America added the US DVD release date of October 16, 2012
There's a 3-D version?
Going to see a movie without popcorn and a drink is unheard-of in my household. =)
This movie is right out of their playbook, and they know the more you complain about it, the more people see it.
Actually very smart to ignore it. Michael Moore LOVES IT when conservatives make jokes about him....more cash.
And, I'd guess that the Left doesn't want to open up this particular can of worms. Engaging in a debate would be a bad move for them.
D’Souza brilliantly took religion and nationality off the table as topics and focused solely on Obama’s life experience.
One can’t argue who was their mother, father or mentors...
I haven’t seen it, but a friend told me he thought 2016 did not go far enough against Obama. Thoughts?
Why are they not attacking this movie? Because they are letting GOP pundits do so. In two weeks, in the Washington Examiner - a free paper from the Washington Times - two GOP pundits have lambasted it, one referring to the author as the rights Michael Moore. Once again, we eat our own.
Why isn’t the Left attacking 2016? (More than it is already...)
Because its true.
Americans need to believe what Obama is saying - the Dreams from his Father - a man he met only once - demonstrate his hate for the US in a way that cannot be mistaken.
Most of what is in the movie we have seen over the past four years - put together in this format it is powerful and frightening.
By not being a rabid Michael Moore - D’Souza created a though provoking movie that would be very helpful in not reelecting Obama.
At the end the audience which was 3/4 full at the first showing stood and applauded!
Having read "The Roots of Obama's Rage" before seeing the movie, I think it's important to do both: see the movie and read the book. The movie is 89 minutes long which suggests to me they were aiming for 90 minutes max - and that's just not long enough. There are several loose ends in the movie (such as Obama's attitude toward the space program) that might flash past a viewer that hasn't read the book.
On the other side, the visuals are so powerful that it makes the movie a "must see" if you can.
,,,,,, simply put ,,,, it would just create more people to be curious and perhaps want to see it . Don’t say anything and maybe it will go away .
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM SYNDROM .
I saw the movie and was disappointed and frustrated. The background music overpowered the narrative and made it hard to understand for long segments. Much of the time the narration was a mere mumble under the music out of which I could pick a few words. One would think that a video editor on a PC could have rebalanced the sound easily enough.
The movie ran the risk of getting one tiny thing incorrect, the media would have trumped it up to discredit the entire thing. The media could not find anything, or anything to spin; apparently.
Remember the Clinton era Whitehouse security manager who wrote a book? He apparently made minor factual errors and the whole expose’ was effectively discredited.
This was my reaction too when I first saw the film. There is so much that he has done in office. The 900 executive orders that take over the role of Congress, the grabs of power hidden in the legislation he has rammed through, there’s so much. Some of it not simple enough for a movie, maybe that’s why.
Although I didn’t watch it (don’t have HBO) I noticed that DSouza was on Bill Maher last night.
I’ll never understand why any conservative would accept an invitation to Maher’s show.