Michael Moore (courtesy United Artists)
Posted on 12/08/2004 12:56:17 AM PST by JohnHuang2
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Michael Moore (courtesy United Artists) |
Reacting to charges that his polarizing activism galvanized Republicans, Moore -- director of the provacative, anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- contended Kerry lost the race simply because he was "not the best candidate."
"For the last month, we've had to listen to a lot of conservative pundits talk about how Democrats need to run away from Hollywood," Moore told reporters before addressing the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
"It's actually the opposite," he said, according to Reuters. "Democrats need to embrace Hollywood because this is where they need to come to learn how to tell a story."
President Bush "had a more compelling story to tell and the Democrats didn't, and that has to change," Moore insisted.
The filmmaker is engaged in a series of public appearances ahead of the Oscar nominations.
His film, considered an Academy Award contender, was a catalyst along with the efforts of other Hollywood liberals that brought millions of new Democrat voters to the polls, he believes.
"What 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and Bruce Springsteen and MoveOn and all the other people that were working during this election, what we did was we prevented a Bush landslide," Moore said. "We're all going to continue to do this in the near future. No one's giving up."
Moore said America "likes to vote for Hollywood," citing Republican movie figures such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former President Ronald Reagan.
"And I think we need to turn to Hollywood, because who wouldn't vote for Tom Hanks or Paul Newman or Robert Redford or Oprah?"
Moore reaffirmed his desire to do a "Fahrenheit 9/11" sequel on Bush's second term, calling Republicans "arrogant" in victory.
"They're going to overreach, they're going to go too far, and I think we want to be there with our cameras to capture that."
Moore wants to make more money off his hollywood friends.
Maybe Moore will take over as the democrat’s campaign manager in 2008?
Funny....when I voted for Bush in November, all I could think of was "take that Hollywood".
Michael Moore=Capitalist No matter how you slice it. He's getting rich off of the Dem's and they don't seem to mind.
Hmmmm...perhaps their involvement made more voters decide for Bush. Moore had postulated on the Jay Leno show that maybe he prevented a Bush landslide. But as the 'polls' set forth the months/weeks before the election that the race was a dead heat with perhaps Kerry gaining momnetum. Maybe, just maybe the involvement of these 'celebrities' (celebrities that only bring their fame to the table) enacted a Rebublican voter upsurge.
Pushing themselves further into the political minority.
Hoover had nothing to do with laissez-faire.The great irony of the FDR pitch was that Hoover set records for exactly the kind of thing that FDR is known for; if FDR had been in Hoover's shoes in 1929-1932 FDR could not have done any more public works spending than Hoover in fact did.
FDR had all kinds of contradictory ideas about curing the Depression, and he tried them all without giving a good idea a chance to work. FDR did however have one great political idea - blame everything on Hoover. It worked.
Very similar to what the Democrats did with Vietnam. In that case, LBJ was in fact the creator of the problem - he escalated to a commitment of 500,000 men, and his doubleminded micromanagement delegitimated the military effort. In historical retrospect nothing Nixon was gonna do was going to redeem that failure of LBJ - but ever afterward, to hear Democrats tell it, Vietnam was Nixon's war.
This scumbag will say anything to justify his existence.
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.