Fahrenheit 9/11

[RedShoes]

Love him or hate him, Michael Moore's new film has already caused quite a stir, and will be released in the US June 25th.

The trailer can be seen at http://www.michaelmoore.com

Check it out

[BlueChair]

Let's hope this film makes people realize what a dimwit Bush is.

[wehitandrun]

But even more so.... let's hope the term 'dimwit' is used to prove the point.

[El Vez]

Let's hope this film makes people realize what a dimwit Bush is.

The fact that George W. Bush is no Werner Von Braun is not the key to turning voters away from him in November. Even Bush's staunchest supporters are not blind to the fact that he is not a man with an enormous intellect. If anything, Bush and his handlers have been very successful in playing this as a strength. There is a sizable block of voters in the U.S. who are decidedly anti-intellectual and Bush appeals to them. He has somehow made people forget that he comes from as privileged an upbringing as you could possibly imagine. He learned this after losing his first public office election in the 1970's. His opponent was able to out-christian and out-poor boy him. He hasn't allowed this to happen since.

I will even go so far as to say that many of those who plan to vote for Bush are also aware that he is little more than a figurehead, a public face for agendas being pursued by Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like. I leave Ashcroft off that list because his head appears to be inching towards the chopping block.

What needs to be focused on is the man's credibility. By that I mean that if you can convince people that Bush has deliberately misrepresented his administration's policies and actions then you might be able to persuade voters to put someone else in the Oval Office. The normal, everyday people who continue to side with Bush do so largely because they think that, even if Bush makes mistakes, he does so with the best of intentions and that those intentions reflect his core beliefs.

Discrediting Bush and making it stick is a daunting proposition. Should be easy. It isn't. Someone like Michael Moore has no real chance of doing it. He has way to much baggage to be taken seriously by pretty much anyone who isn't already in the choir. His movie will spark some debate but I doubt very seriously that we'll see much in the way of a conversion. Now, if Fox News were to blast the administration with the same unrelenting fervor that they normally reserve for George Clooney's fundraising abilities or Jesse Jackson's latest diatribe THEN you would see some serious damage.

The mismanagement of Iraq is an important issue to focus on, obviously, but even this is an uphill battle as far as persuading Middle America to vote for Kerry over Bush. Most of the people who were disgusted by the prison abuse scandal were already against the war anyway. I'm not saying this didn't create a certain amount of backlash but I don't think it was the turning of the tide either.

The far right has started to go on the offensive about the abuse scandal lately. Some, like Limbaugh, view the abuse as little more than college type "pranks" while others go so far as to suggest that this sort of treatment is necessary to soften prisoners for interrogation. That little or no substanitive information came out of these prisoners as a result is of little consequence to this voter block. There is a certain level of disconnect that people are capable of and we are seeing it with this war. A lot of Americans don't really care about the welfare of anyone in Iraq so it is hard to galvanize them into seeing Bush as someone who must not be allowed a second term by using the war as your main argument.

I like Michael Moore but his film isn't likely to change too many minds on Bush. Like I said a couple of paragraphs ago, most of the left-leaning artists, politicians and talking heads are already damaged goods when it comes to those who don't already agree with them. That may be true of Bush and his camp as well but, unfortunately, it looks like they're holding all the cards while Kerry struggles to find a resonant message.

[alexv]

I agree wholeheartedly with El Vez, with one caveat: the fact that large numbers of americans will not be put off by Bush's "dimwittedness" is not just due to innate anti-intellectualism, but is also due to the lessons of history.

It is a fact that some of our least "successful" presidents have been the most intelligent and intellectually rigorous. As examples you have the presidencies of Nixon, Wilson, Carter, and Johnson in the 20th century alone, each of whom got into more trouble than they bargained for, and were ultimately unsuccessful in pushing through their programs precisely because they were bent on micromanaging the presidency. These men had some of the highest IQs of any of our presidents, were extremely hard-working, and highly sophisticated. These qualities got them nothing but trouble.

By contrast, admitted intellectual lightweights such as F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and to a lesser degree Truman were able to push through their agendas without burning too many brain cells. The reality is that the presidency does not require great intellect; what is more important is to possess keen political instincts, to be confident and self-possessed, and to have core political beliefs that you then follow through on (a little luck helps).

Clinton presents a striking example of an exception to this pattern. He was in my view the one president who was both intelligent and sophisticated, but also possessed an extraordinarily positive personality and superior political instincts, and had it not been for his sexual escapades I dare say he would have been the exception to the pattern, and would have shown that a top intellect could succeed as president (by success I mean, by the way, the ability to push your program forward, not whether the program is ultimately a good thing).

If the Democrats want to defeat Bush they better lay off the stupid angle and focus on his doctrinaire policies which have nothing to do with his intellect or lack thereof.

[clairequilty]

I'm gonna skip the movie.

I'm waiting for the Sit Com.

I've heard David Schwimmer has signed on to play Karl Rove.

[clairequilty]

El Vez, as a Republican I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis.

And as soon as I finish looking up all those bigg werds you used, I'm gonna offer a strong and viamint counterpoint.

[BlueChair]

El Vez, as a Republican I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis.

And as soon as I finish looking up all those bigg werds you used, I'm gonna offer a strong and viamint counterpoint.

This is what confuses me. This black and white issue of "I'm a Republican!" or "I'm a Democrat!" needs to stop. It's clear that Bush has screwed up as a president, big time. Just cause you're a Republican doesn't mean you have to blindly accept his actions, or vote for the guy, or worse, use him as a security blanket just because he was president during 9/11.

That's why I like John McCain. He may be Republican, but he's not afraid to question the actions of the Bush administration.

[El Vez]

El Vez, as a Republican I wholeheartedly disagree with your analysis.

And as soon as I finish looking up all those bigg werds you used, I'm gonna offer a strong and viamint counterpoint.

This is what confuses me. This black and white issue of "I'm a Republican!" or "I'm a Democrat!" needs to stop. It's clear that Bush has screwed up as a president, big time. Just cause you're a Republican doesn't mean you have to blindly accept his actions, or vote for the guy, or worse, use him as a security blanket just because he was president during 9/11.

That's why I like John McCain. He may be Republican, but he's not afraid to question the actions of the Bush administration.

It's a damn shame you can't vote in November.