BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

So where do we go now (but nowhere)?

  
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
 
eddie thirteen
19:36 / 04.11.04
Well...

I certainly want Kerry to have won, and it does sound like there could be reason to believe the election was shady. In terms of the challengers, though, I can tell you (as an Ohio voter in a district that is heavily black), the guys who checked to see if I were on the books were black, young, kinda thuggish, and evidently so intimidating to the rather obvious challenger (a well-dressed and nervous white guy who seemed completely incapable of meeting my eyes) that he actually stood OUTSIDE the room where voting took place, pacing and looking at his shoes. I realize that's only one instance, but I think the bases were covered -- they definitely looked like it to me. At least in terms of voter intimidation. In fact, I have heard one story about a challenger who insisted that a black voter produce a driver's license (only necessary if said voter isn't found on the books, in which case he would have cast one of the provisional ballots -- this guy was on the books), became irate when the guys working the polls told him he was out of line, and was eventually carted away by the cops because he was impeding this gentleman's right to vote. So, based on what I actually saw, I would say the challengers were quite ineffective...even if their very presence is disturbing.

Can't speak for the spoiled votes, though.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:32 / 09.11.04
Well, we probably already knew this anyway, but Jeb Bush is not planning on running for President. He seems devoid of any presence or charisma to me (and even I can acknowledge that George W. Bush has some twisted midwest down-home charisma if you're mostly brain-dead)...

Also, hopefully the Dems realize Hillary running in 2008 will hurt them FAR MORE than help them... hell, if it was Hillary vs. McCain or Guiliani, I'd vote McCain or Guiliani, I think, since they're at least moderate and mostly intelligent Republicans with brains and would be much more likely to win than the suicidal Hillary... (and I've never voted for a Rep. Prez candidate in my 33 years)...

---

Gov. Jeb Bush Not Eyeing Presidential Run

Yahoo News
November 9, 2004

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Read his lips: Gov. Jeb Bush really, really isn't interested in succeeding his brother in the White House in 2008.

Bush reiterated Tuesday that he is not going to run for the Senate when Florida has a seat up in 2006, and said he has no designs on the presidency four years from now.

And he is getting awful tired of the question.

"Might you change your mind?" asked a reporter.

"No!" governor said. "Why am I not believable on this subject? This is driving me nuts."

But he dodged a question on whether he might "eventually" run for president. "Eventually, what's that?" Bush asked after a sigh.

The governor's second and final four-year term ends in January 2007.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:34 / 09.11.04
Howard Dean becoming head of the DNC, as is being discussed, is a very good idea. Although I didn't want Dean to be the Prez candidate (the Repub's would have eaten his brand of liberalism alive, and I didn't think Dean carried himself like a President, more like a fiesty Governor), he galvanized Democrats and would be a great organizer, I think...
 
 
grant
18:58 / 09.11.04
Actually, that's really interesting. Jeb's kind of got the rep of being "the smart one," and he's done a good enough job of governing Florida that I think he'd win this state handily. He's a lot more moderate and diplomatic, I think.

Although I still miss Lawton. Sigh.
 
 
FinderWolf
20:13 / 09.11.04
Weird...I never heard anything about Jeb one way or the other, so I assumed he was just a piece of cardboard, so to speak, personality-wise.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:00 / 09.11.04
eddie thirteen- yes, yes, and yes. I, personally, am convinced some really dodgy shit went down. BUT the point is, by fair means or foul, Bush won. There's NOT gonna be a recount, nobody's suddenly gonna say "hey, hang on a minute, the vote was rigged, let's do it again but properly this time".

I'm more interested in what people are going to do with the tools available to them. Not the tools they deserve.

I say this, btw, as a guy in England who's just asking out of curiosity and concern.
 
 
grant
21:20 / 09.11.04
Weird...I never heard anything about Jeb one way or the other, so I assumed he was just a piece of cardboard, so to speak, personality-wise.

He's the one that Bush41 referred to during one campaign when he talked about his "brown grandchildren." Jeb (contrary to what the nickname would lead you to believe) is a fluent Spanish speaker who married a woman from (I think) Colombia.

During his first try for the governorship, he and Lawton had a famous showdown where Jeb charmed the electorate by suddenly switching to Spanish, but Lawton successfully parried by switching to Cracker, saying "The old coon hound walks at midnight!" Which endeared him to the rednecks who normally would have voted conservative.

Things like that are why I love Florida politics.

I gotta wonder if Jeb is looking at the Senate instead of the presidency now.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:02 / 10.11.04
>> During his first try for the governorship, he and Lawton had a famous showdown where Jeb charmed the electorate by suddenly switching to Spanish, but Lawton successfully parried by switching to Cracker, saying "The old coon hound walks at midnight!" Which endeared him to the rednecks who normally would have voted conservative

Um, you're joking, right? (about what Lawton said)
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
14:51 / 10.11.04
"Coon hound" is not a racist remark. I know it sounds like one, but trust me on this. It's a redneck term.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:13 / 10.11.04
Some of my best friends are Republican too - my entire family, my boyfriend's entire family, and a member of our inner circle of friends. And they can't be reached. Not in the way you're hoping. They'll never be convinced that Jesus would give homosexuals equal rights, EVER.

Are you fucking serious?! Never ever?! Never ever ever? Wow! What narrow-minded fools!

Nah, seriously though, you're full of shit.

And they think racial minorities should work hard to earn equal rights, because it's discipline, not compassion, that's at the heart of the Religious Right. They believe higher learning, philosophy, sociology, anthrology - these are all seductions placed in the world by Satan to lure believers away from the fold. Trust me, trust me. I could go on for miles explaining the fundamentalist mindset but I won't, this isn't the place.


Trust you? I wouldn't trust you to give me an accurate description of the weather.

"Republican" does not equal "fundementalist", nor does "Religious Right". And just because you can't reach them (which, frankly, doesn't surprise me in the least) doesn't mean they can't be reached. No one is more narrow-minded than the fella who has decided someone (or even better, millions of someones) is completely beyond reach.

This is no time for this sort of sloppy thinking. Not if you really want to get something constructive done.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:15 / 10.11.04
This line from a news story about the labor unions in the US confronting the post-election reality made me laugh:

>> Before election day, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney called the prospect of a second term for President Bush (news - web sites) "too horrible to think about." Today, he and other shellshocked labor leaders will have no choice.

A labor leader also said the next four years "are not going to be pretty".
 
 
ibis the being
15:38 / 10.11.04
Nah, seriously though, you're full of shit.

Well, hello, attack out of nowhere.

Okay, I'm full of shit - how so? What exactly is your counterargument to what I said other than that I'm a raging moron?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:57 / 10.11.04
The counter is the bottom half of my post.
 
 
grant
17:04 / 10.11.04
Where do we go:

The Slime Mold Strategy, a freethinkers/atheists link I got off one of the religious BBs. IIf you want to meet atheists online, hang out on religious bulletin boards.)

It has already led to the seeding of a new community over here, explicitly for the exchange of ideas & political organization. The emphasis is, thus far, strongly on separation of church & state issues, but it seems loose enough now to act as a viable networking area.

Anyone care to join?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:22 / 10.11.04
Good stuff! I liked his bit on the role of the Joker in a pantheon of gods to remind everyone not to take it all so seriously. A safegaurd against getting the metaphor and message stuck together, I think he put it.

But yeah, Slime Mold. Neat idea. Multiple, isolated pieces, all containing the programmed code.
 
 
eddie thirteen
17:26 / 10.11.04
Hmmmmmmm. The above may actually be a compelling argument for the oft-noted (of late) proposition that confrontational rhetoric won't win anyone over. To wit -- Johnny, I'm aware that you think you've scored big points here, but in fact, all you've done is make yourself appear to be a flaming asshole. Which makes it very difficult to make your position seriously, and will ultimately wind up making an otherwise political debate personal -- which renders it useless. Because, frankly, you could live forever or die right this second, and it would be about the same to me. Now if you have anything useful to contribute in re: why Ibis is wrong, I'd like to hear it. That has value, especially since what you were actually contradicting could be construed as doomsaying; proving Ibis' position false could be extremely heartening to everyone, including Ibis. At present, the only thing you are proving is that you're a fucking idiot, which I think most of us had long since concluded was the case anyhow.
 
 
eddie thirteen
17:42 / 10.11.04
To expand -- while you're certainly right (Johnny) to say that not all conservatives/republicans are charismatic Christians, it is quite clear that the main policy maker in the republican party (that would be Bush) is one, many of his appointees are among their number, and a large number of those people who voted for Bush are as well. I would like to think that the "fiscal conservative/social liberal" breed of republican makes up the majority, and indeed this may be the case, but I have yet to see any evidence for it -- and, if it is the case, then why did so many of these more enlightened republicans STILL vote for George Bush? They may not be the Religious Right, but they're voting like it. Given that we now all have to suffer the consequences of their actions, isn't that the only real point? And if a person as obviously objectionable as Bush wasn't enough to make them vote the other way, what can?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:05 / 10.11.04
Fine. I'll spell it out for you.

Ibis made a few assumptions that were not only incorrect, but insulting to people I care about (and people she cares about, apparently).

If somebody voted for Bush, this does not automatically make them

A. A member of the "Religious Right"

B. A fundementalist

To begin with, the amount of people who believe that Higher Learning, Philosophy, Sociology and (I'm assuming) Anthropology are Of The Devil is very, very small. The stereotype that the "Religious Right" are a group of people caught up in their own religious fervor is insulting to a large group of people seeking moral guidance in troubled times. Misguided as you may think they are, they do not deserve this sort of vilification.

Many of my friends voted for Bush. My parents are also very much Republican. One of them could easily be described as a member of the "Religious Right". As much as I disagree with them, this does not make them fools, nor does it place them beyond the reach of rational discussion. The second Ibis claimed that these people "cannot be reached", that they "will not ever believe Jesus would give equal rights to gays" (which is far from the truth), she not only halted any constructive work but insulted many people I care for.

This sort of thinking does not help anyone. It will not fix anything, it will only further divide us all. There was a time when this idea was common on Barbelith, so I figured you would glean what I was saying from the above posts. I guess I was wrong.

Yes, I voiced my opinion and insulted someone on the board. Yes, this may make me an asshole. And I'm crying a fucking river about you not caring wether I live or die, I assure you. Consider the argument, not the asshole it's coming from.

Besides, if you want the honest truth, I only get so angry at mistakes like these because I'm actually very, very frightened at the prospect of myself falling into the same traps. To me, Barbelith is a place that reinforces the better aspects of ourselves, and to see this sort of narrow-mindedness on a board I occasionally use to regulate my own ideas and positions makes me worried. For myself and for everyone else.

And I couldn't get so angry if I didn't think Ibis was smarter than that. Ask anyone.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:21 / 10.11.04
Eddie: Missed your second post while I was typing--To answer your question

...then why did so many of these more enlightened republicans STILL vote for George Bush?

Good question. My father voted for Bush because he didn't want to change Presidents in the middle of a war, plus he actually doesn't mind his tax plan (while my father is well off, he is certainly not in the top one percent. The tax burden hits him hard, but he doesn't mind shouldering it). My mother, who was raised Southern Baptist, converted to Catholocism when she married my father, but many of her beliefs remain unchanged. And, yes, they are closely aligned with those of George W. Bush. And she thought Kerry was lazy and didn't do much at all with the power he had as a Senator.

They may not be the Religious Right, but they're voting like it. Given that we now all have to suffer the consequences of their actions, isn't that the only real point?

I can see why you would think so, but no. People I've spoken to had many different reasons for voting for Bush besides the primary "American Values" deal. Because they've arrived at the same place taking different roads does not make them the same.

Besides, I've been suffering the consequences of someone else's actions my entire life, and so have you. This is no reason to vilify them.

And if a person as obviously objectionable as Bush wasn't enough to make them vote the other way, what can?

Another good question. Obviously, my mother does not find Bush as objectionable as Kerry, nor did my father. Nor half of America. But I certainly did, and during my attempts to discover why so many people thought that Bush was the better man for the job, I discovered that discussion was still a viable option. These people can still be reached. They're still good people, many of them very intelligent and willing to listen.
 
 
eddie thirteen
18:31 / 10.11.04
Understood. First off, I should say that my not caring about your life or death has less to do with you than it does my own unwillingness to see the thread turn into a place for personal attacks...put a different way, I believe that right now my life, or yours, or Ibis', or whomever's, is secondary to the overall good of the nation, and the world. I realize it sounded like a personal attack, and it probably was -- to cheerfully announce as a counter-argument that someone is "full of shit" is the death of intelligent discourse. To be honest, if we kill it here, I'm not sure where it's likely to survive. And that's not grandiosity, either -- when the most intelligent conversation one can find on the internet is located on what is ostensibly a blog devoted to obscure comic books, the world is in huge fucking trouble. Which it is, clearly.

I am sorry that you felt/feel personally insulted by what Ibis had to say, but unfortunately, your emotions still have not proven her wrong. I would not like to think that a person I loved was in any way evil, insane, unreachable, etc., or any other nasty adjective one may apply here. But when it comes to judgment on a Bush voter, it seems to me we have few options -- that person is either vile (which is to say, they have a clear understanding of what Bush represents and are okay with it), deluded (they have an understanding of what Bush represents based on religious beliefs that do not correspond with consensus reality), misguided (they have what they believe is a clear understanding of what Bush represents, based on the same evidence the rest of us have, but they are in point of fact not right), stupid (their vote represents a Stepford Wives-style falling in line with the perceived standards of their community, unquestioned), or ignorant (their vote represents an understanding that is either incomplete or based on shallow evidence).

NONE of these things are things we want to be true about people we love, and yet one of them must be the case. Therefore, it is unlikely that most people who did not vote for Bush will tell you the thing about Bush voters that you seem to want to hear -- that there was anything right about their decision. Aside from brain damage, it is hard to imagine a scenario that would lead a person to vote for Bush that does make that person seem, at best, horribly reckless. They made the wrong choice, and America will suffer for it. None of us likes to suffer, and it's unlikely that positive thoughts will be directed at the agents of suffering. I am sure the friends and family you are referring to love you, but I am equally sure that through hate or negligence they have committed a hateful act. If you take criticism of these people personally, I'm sorry; but the actions of the Bush administration are AFFECTING a great many people personally, and not positively.

That said, loathing for such people is unlikely to sway hearts or minds...which leads us back to the original question. In your experience, is it any way likely that any of the Bush voters you know can be made to see that they were wrong?
 
 
eddie thirteen
18:33 / 10.11.04
Okay, question answered. Fair enough.
 
 
ibis the being
18:45 / 10.11.04
Okay. Look, I'm not going to get personally insulted by your posts JohnnyO, I know as well as anyone that this topic can be pretty emotional. However, I agree with eddie that broadsiding me with a bunch of insults and dismissive cussing isn't the *best* way to try to engage me in a conversation about the Republicans, the Religious Right, or anything else under the sun.

I think you've just demonstrated why quoting someone out of context can be a misleading yet effective way to tear down her stated position.

The quote you pulled from one of my posts was pretty far upthread, amidst a discussion that was centered at that point on the Religious Right and how some of us were feeling about the implications of their voting for Bush and the gay marriage amendments. So, while I seem to have said that all Republicans are Religious Right and Fundamentalists, because you've detached my words from their context, that's not what I was implying at all. Even so, apologies for any lack of clarity there.

I do know Republicans that are not Fundamentalists - I know a few Catholic Repubs, a couple of non-religious Repubs. I wasn't talking about them. Specifically, I was responding to this post by Cherie -

"Some of my best friends' (families)" are Republican and they're really normal people. I say this because I don't think the Democratic party has to tbe in the minority for the next decade - I think we can reach these people. They have to be shown that, for example, equal rights for minorities is What Jesus Would Do. And probably more important than anything, we have to be ready for anything and ready to resist.

She made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the cliche, "some of my best friends are (black, gay, Republican, whatever," and in my response I repeated her reference, for style's sake more than anything else actually.

You're also selectively quoting me as saying "they can't be reached," leaving out my next sentence, which was "not in the way you're hoping." Surely, they can be reached in some way, they are human beings. But I was arguing that you're not going to take a Liberal Democratic platform, frame it with "What Would Jesus Do," and expect Religious Righties to be converted to the party.

Furthermore, you seem to have deliberately omitted the opening line of my post, when I told Cherie that "I admire[d] the spirit" of her post, which was one of optimism and unity. I'm not going to deny I can tend toward pessimism - although we pessimists like to call it "realism" - nor am I determined to push my negative outlook on others. To echo eddie, if you've got a good argument against my position, I'd love to hear it.

Now, I do disagree that Christian Fundamentalists can be convinced that Jesus would approve of gay marriage, and I do assert that the Religious Right's overall view of poverty is that hard work is the solution, not charity. We can argue that if you'd like, without insulting each other.
 
 
ibis the being
18:50 / 10.11.04
And just for the record, I'm sorry that I insulted your friends and relatives, I can see that because I come from a Fundamentalist background I assume that gives me some sort of license to be harsh in talking about them. The fact of the matter is, I'm very close to my Fundamentalist family, and they're absolutely some of the most loving and passionate people I've ever known. When I sit and think about them it's hard to even understand how some of their religious beliefs can coexist with other aspects of their worldviews.
 
 
vajramukti
19:33 / 10.11.04

I think this is a good opportunity to weigh in on a point I've been trying to get some traction with for a couple days, namely, isn't it possible that this scenario we've been buying into ( morals, fundamentalism, dominionists etal) is partly or entirely manufactured?

It's been illustrated pretty clearly that the viewpoints of those on the right are nowhere near as cut and dried as we'd like them to be, these aren't monsters or irredeemable bigots. at worst these are people who have had hatefull experiences that lead them to hatefull beliefs. at best, they are principled people who have beencynically misled.

I mean now that the election is said and done, we'd like to boil it down to something succinct, but it isn't, and i think we ought to pay attention to who benefits from us not exploring the nuances of this situation. who benefits from a divided electorate? who benefits from grossly oversimplifying the issues at stake here?

people on the defensive will back those who are on their side, generally. so i don't think it suprising at all that post-election the whole gamut of rebulicans have closed ranks around what they have been told are 'the issues'. same as us, really.

but take a deep breath. think about this. some polls appear on major new networks, the media jumps on the bandwagon, we hear some talking heads, and suddenly the issues come into focus?

the exit polls said kerry won. the machines say different. the polls say morals are the issue. other polls say different. the media tells us the christian right are a unified block. the christian right says different. bush says 51% is a mandate. the opposition says different.
exit polls are discredited, voting machines are sacrosanct.
the right says the left is unified block. we know different.

I'm not saying I know the real story, i don't think anyone does at this stage, but the whole thing reeks of misdirection to me. what i do know, is that the only people who benefit from this kind of adversarial confusion are the ones who eke out a 'mandate' from a deeply divided election, and would preffer confusion to hide the real facts.
 
 
lekvar
23:48 / 10.11.04
OK now, everybody kiss and make up.

vajramukti-thanks for bringing up a point I've been trying to make- that if we try to play the "who's most moral" game we're just dancing to the RNC's tune. Democrats (and everybody else) have to define ourselves and the message instead of letting ourselves be defined. We have to find issues other than "Anyone But Bush."

I see the whole "morals and values" debate as being roughly eqivalent to Bush's "mandate," something that the pundits will yell loudly as a menas of framing the debate in '06 and '08. If they succeed, we will lose again.

As to wheter or not fundamentalists can be brought around to the notion that hot man-on-man monogamy (thanks Jon Stewart!) is acceptable, I've had this debate before and been schooled. It says in Leviticus (Old Testament) and Romans (New) that gay sex is a no-no. No, niether of thes is that nonsense with Sodom and Gomorra.

C'mon. They're Fundamentalists. By definition they think that, since it says so in the Bible, the earth was created in six days. You think that they're going to change their minds?
 
 
lekvar
00:13 / 11.11.04
Before the flames start, please note I said "Fundamentalists," not devout, faithful, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, or religious.
 
 
alas
11:43 / 11.11.04
First, a good article on all this is in the NYTimes today by Frank Rich, "On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide"
"There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming
that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in
2004. It is fiction."

Second, and this may sound like a pedantic distinction--but, hey, this Barbelith, home of the pedantic distinction, right?--FUNDAMENTALISTS tend to focus on personal salvation and individual/ group purity; they see the broader culture as hopelessly fallen, and dangerous; full of false prophets. The only true response is to pull away from the broader society, homeschool the children, and disengage from the broader society as much as possible in order to remain pure, to be truly "in the world but not of the world." Therefore, they are rarely directly involved in politics.

EVANGELICALS are the ones who are responsible for Christian rap, Christian rock, Christian versions of popular culture that are trying to change the culture, to get power within the culture so as to reach as many as possible. They are much more likely to be involved in politics--most of the insane politicians like Tom Coburn identify as evangelicals, not fundamentalists. Billy Graham is a fundie turned evangelical who was rejected by many fundamentalists because he cooperated with "less pure" christians and the outside heathen culture.

At least as I understand it, that's the pedantic distinction. However, I think the distinctions are not so neat in real life.
 
 
ibis the being
15:22 / 11.11.04
alas, I'm not so sure it's quite that either/or.

Christian Fundamentalists, as the name implies - believe in sticking to the fundamentals of Christianity. Those include a literal reading of the Bible, a strict interpretation of salvation - through Christ only, and that through Grace, and often basic rituals such as tithing, baptism, and partaking in communion (v. different from Catholic Communion). The defn of fundamentalism you've outlined (alienation from the world) is, I believe, a secular definition that Christians themselves would not necessary agree with. Although some (many?) Fundamentalists may agree that the world or popular culture is totally lost, it's not accurate to say they isolate themselves, since any Believer is expected to feel moved by the Spirit to spread the good news - or evangelize - at least occasionally to others.

"Evangelicals" is sort of a funny term because it's strictly that of outsiders looking in. Put to it, every born-again Christian would agree that they're "evangelical," in the sense that they're saved, and either by example or express intent they share the "good news" (the Gospel) with other people. While "Fundamentalism" has an actual definition of dogma, "Evangelical" is more a perception on the part of observers. When we see Christians who are more overtly or actively spreading the gospel - through music, youth groups, international missions, etc - we call them "evangelicals" because that's what they look like to us.

It's like, when we see Amy Grant doing a Christian rock show, we call her Evangelical, and when we hear Jerry Falwell lecturing people on gay Teletubbies, we call him a Fundamentalist.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:39 / 11.11.04
I suspect Jeb is more forward looking than his brother, he knows he can't pull the Christian vote in as Dubya did to save his arse, so he'd loose. Plus, what state is the country going to be in after 8 years of Shrubya? The Republicans will probably need to throw the next election so a Democrat can start undoing the unpopular fiscal repairwork while they still control Congress and the Courts. Jeb for President in either 2012 or 2016!
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:06 / 11.11.04
That is presuming GW doesn't arrange to have a 3rd term some how. SCARY.

um... not too much to say but I thought you all might enjoy some possibly useful links:
Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results

how we're told the map looks.


how it should look based on population density.


visuals help!
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:11 / 11.11.04
those maps are even more interesting when you look at who's paying taxes and who's benefiting from them.

  • "The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

    US 50 States MapThe report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States."
  
 
FinderWolf
20:13 / 12.11.04
Michael Moore is continuing to work, at least:

--

Moore Fires Up "Fahrenheit" Sequel
Thursday November 11 6:30 PM ET

Michael Moore's planning to keep the heat on the White House.

A week after President George W. Bush was reelected--despite Moore's best efforts--the firebrand filmmaker says he's forging ahead with a sequel to his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

Moore tells Daily Variety that his new project, tentatively titled Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2, will pick up where Fahrenheit left off, addressing what the filmmaker sees as the administration's failures in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information [on election day] and we want to educate and enlighten them," the lefty writer-director told Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

To that end, Moore says his team will begin rolling cameras now to sway voters for the next presidential go-round.

Until then, Moore says, "the official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining--George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again."

Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2 will once again be produced by Miramax honcho Harvey Weinstein through the Fellowship Adventure Group, the company Weinstein set up with brother Bob, Lions Gate Films and IFC Films to distribute the original film after Disney balked.

Neither Moore nor the Fellowship Adventure Group could be reached for comment Thursday.

As for the box-office-bursting Fahrenheit 9/11, the hard-charging documentary got some bad news this week when the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced the film would be frozen out of the Golden Globes. The awards don't have any categories for documentaries. "We're not a musical/comedy or dramatic feature," Moore said.

But he still is hopeful he will add another Oscar to his mantle, joining his 2002 Best Documentary Academy Award for Bowling for Columbine.

This time around, though, he and Weinstein are hoping to persuade Academy voters to make Fahrenheit the first doc in Oscar history to be nominated for Best Picture. The film wasn't submitted in the Best Documentary category because Moore decided to air it on pay-per-view the night before the election, rendering it ineligible under Academy rules.

"I don't know if people want to see me on the stage of the Kodak again," Moore joked in Variety. "However, since my wife [Kathleen] was the producer, if I win--she speaks!"

He's referring to his infamous Oscar speech of two years ago in which he called President Bush "a fictitious president" on the verge of launching what he considered to be a "fictitious war."

Fahrenheit 9/11 has tallied more than $119 million at the domestic box office and nearly $100 million abroad to become the highest grossing documentary ever. The DVD and video versions were released last month and did more than $10 million in first week combined rental and retail revenue, another record for a doc.

Aside from Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2, which should hit theaters in time for the 2008 elections, Moore is finishing up Sicko, an exposé of the health care industry. That film will most likely hit theaters in 2006.
----------------------------------------
 
 
FinderWolf
21:07 / 23.11.04
Everything below is from:

http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org/index.html

TURN YOUR BACK ON BUSH

The election is over. The fight is not.

Bush's election is bad for the US, and even worse for the rest of the world. But elections are only one part of democracy. We need to think strategically about direct action, learn from a rich history of nonviolent activism, and develop new tactics to take on this administration.

Let's start from the start: Inauguration Day.

On January 20th, 2005, we're calling for a new kind of action. The Bush administration has been successful at keeping protesters away from major events in the last few years by closing off areas around events and using questionable legal strategies to outlaw public dissent. We can use these obstacles to develop new tactics. On Inauguration day, we don't need banners, we don't need signs, we don't need puppets, we just need people.

We're calling on people to attend inauguration without protest signs, shirts or stickers. Once through security and at the procession, at a given signal, we'll all turn our backs on Bush's motorcade and continue through his speech and swearing in. A simple, clear and coherent message.
------------------------
 
 
FinderWolf
14:05 / 24.11.04
This seems like a cool protest to me. Anyone in or near DC who can participate?
 
 
FinderWolf
14:56 / 07.01.05
maybe there's some hope for most of America to wake the hell up...

AP Poll: AMERICANS AMBIVALENT ABOUT BUSH

Fri Jan 7, 8:46 AM ET White House - AP
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The American public is deeply ambivalent about President Bush (news - web sites) as he begins his second term and his approval rating is lower than any recent two-term presidents, a troubling sign for his ambitious agenda, an Associated Press poll found.

Bush's approval rating is at 49 percent in the AP poll with 49 percent disapproving. His job approval is in the high 40s in several other recent polls — as low as any job approval rating for a re-elected president at the start of the second term in more than 50 years.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton had job approval ratings near six in 10 just before their inauguration for a second term, according to Gallup polls.

President Nixon's approval was in the 60s right after his 1972 re-election, slid to about 50 percent right before his inauguration and then moved back over 60 percent. President Eisenhower's job approval was in the low 70s just before his second inauguration in 1957.

Bush and Congress are about to tackle ambitious projects — creating private accounts for those in the Social Security (news - web sites) system, overhauling the federal tax code and limiting lawsuit damages. Those tasks will be all the more difficult with the tepid poll ratings for both Bush and Congress.

About four in 10, 41 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing, while 53 percent disapprove, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos Public Affairs.

The nation's sharply partisan split is responsible for Bush's job ratings.

Republicans overwhelmingly approve of Bush's job performance and Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove — a split found to a lesser extent in the congressional numbers.

Only one in six Democrats say they approve of Bush's job performance, the poll found. In January 2002, six in 10 Democrats approved of the job done by Bush, contributing to an overall job approval rating near 80 percent four months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In January of last year, about one-quarter of Democrats approved of the job done by Bush.

Rick Dickinson, a cabinet maker from Charlottesville, Va., and a Democrat, said he liked what he saw from Bush after the terrorist attacks, but those feelings have faded.

"I thought he did generally well after 9/11. He was decisive and he had some great momentum," Dickinson said. "But now I basically disapprove of him. The war troubles me. He picks a plan — regardless of the information — and he goes with it."

Bush has intense support from Republicans, which has kept him on an even keel or above for months. More than nine in 10 Republicans said they approve of Bush's job performance.
People were evenly divided on Bush's handling of the economy. They take a dim view of his handling of Iraq (news - web sites), with 44 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving, according to the poll of 1,001 adults. It was taken Jan. 3-5 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Even on Bush's strongest area, handling foreign policy and the war on terrorism, people were evenly split — with 50 percent approving and 48 percent disapproving.

For much of the last year, the public has been fairly evenly divided on Bush's job approval. He was still able to win about 60 million votes — a record number but just 51 percent of votes cast — at a time most people thought the country was headed down the wrong track.

___
 
  

Page: 12(3)4

 
  
Add Your Reply