Moore, Miller and political meaninglessness

[ulysses]

In 2000, Michael Moore supports a certain set of progressive political goals and, to a large extent, Ralph Nader for president. Thus follows several years of "Michael Moore is a sucky and dangerous leftist" posts.

In 2004, Michael Moore supports the same set of progressive political goals but doesn't support Ralph Nader for president and releases a damning and popular film on George W. Bush. He is hailed as a prodigal hero.

***

In 2000, Zell Miller begins a Senate career during which he will champion every major Bush initiative while remaining a Democrat. He is hailed as a centrist Democratic hero.

In 2003, Zell Miller, espousing the same set of goals that he has since his elevation to the Senate, endorses George W. Bush for president. Thus follows denunciations of Miller as a traitor and someone who is not a Democrat, often from the same folks who lionized him only months before as the ideal centrist.

***

Thoughts?

[grytpype]

1. Hmmm... makes you think, don't it?

[billbuckhead]

2. Parties matter in America's politcal duopoly

In 2000, Miller was for Gore and Moore was for Nadir, now they've switched and we're all wiser.

[ulysses]

6. yes, and issues don't.

Welcome to my point.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

3. Hmmm.... 2000 AD

Isn't that a calmer time before WTC & Pentagon & Flight 93 and Homeland Security?

Sometimes a barking dog is just a nuisance, but if it gets off it's leash, it's time to call the Pound.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

4. Who hailed Zell as a "centrist democratic hero?"

Are you talking about here on DU? Because I've never read a single nice thing about Zell Miller on this forum... do you have a citation to someone hailing him as a hero?

Second, I don't think that Moore has been universally criticized here. While there have been some who have been willing to take him to task for his support of Nader in 2000, there have also been many who have praised him, when he came out with each of his two excellent books and his excellent film, "Bowling for Columbine."

And, I don't think it's inconsistent to be pissed at Moore 2000 and love Moore 2004, if one takes the position that the guy has obviously learned from his mistake.

EDIT: And also what the poster said upthread about 2000 being a different time. It really was! While many of us knew Bush was bad news, I would venture to say that nobody really knew HOW bad he would be...

[ulysses]

8. you haven't been around long.

I'm not going to do the research for you. It's all in the archives.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

9. I've been here a very long time...

despite my low post count. And those very same archives will no doubt tell you what other posters are telling you - that Zell had some good things going for him in 2000...i.e. his nominating speech, etc. So, your point is shot to hell because Zell 2000 was not a carbon copy of Zell 2004. Therefore, the different attitude is justifiable. Regarding Mr. Moore, he himself may not have changed, but the world and the political reality certainly has, so again the different attitude is again justifiable.

[ulysses]

12. nope, sorry.

Zell 2000 is no different from Zell 2004 except his endorsement. (edit: his nominating speech was 1996, not 2000.) He espouses the same conservative goals, which was sort of my point with the thread.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

14. I was wondering when you were going to get around to

explaining your point. But somehow I feel unsatisfied...perhaps this is because you haven't explained it very well. It's almost as if you have no point at all. "Political Meaninglessness" indeed.

Zell 2000 is VERY different from Zell 2004 because of who is in the White House. Sure, we'd bitch about him under a President Gore (and we'll bitch about him under President Kerry too!) but it's VERY EASY to see the source of the different attitudes towards these people that you claim to have observed between 00 and 04. You seem to want to ascribe some sort of nefarious double-standard or lack of integrity to DU... but your examples are thoroughly unconvincing.

[ulysses]

17. I'm terribly sorry

that you feel unsatisfied.

Zell 2000 is VERY different from Zell 2004 because of who is in the White House.

Which says what, exactly, about Zell?

and we'll bitch about him under President Kerry too!

Actually, we won't. He's retiring.

but it's VERY EASY to see the source of the different attitudes towards these people that you claim to have observed between 00 and 04

The change-in-the-presidency thing? Assuming that you're correct, again, what does that say about Our Boy Zell?

You seem to want to ascribe some sort of nefarious double-standard or lack of integrity to DU

Not at all! Just to certain DU centrists. :D

[Taylor Mason Powell]

21. I'll try to make it clearer...

It doesn't say anything about Zell. But I'm not trying to say anything about Zell. You were making a point about DU (or, certain centrists here), and I was pointing out that a person's opinion of him in 2000 could logically and quite predictably be different than in 2004, because of intervening events and circumstances. You seem to think there's something wrong with that. I don't.

Just because those intervening events and circumstances don't reflect any change on Zell's part, I just don't see how that's such a big deal. He was conservative then, and some people here (note: not all!) chose to overlook it because we had peace and prosperity, we needed all the Ds in the Senate that we could, and he had a D by his name, he had given a great speech nominating Clinton...etc. He's still conservative now, and we excoriate him because he's a servant of the most evil regime in American history. Imagine if the Bush administration came in and started governing from the center. Would there be as much Zell bashing? I would bet not. It's the circumstances that make him such a dickweed.

Would it be nice if everyone always judged every elected official only by his or her positions on the issues? Sure, I guess. But you seem to be making some sort of accusation here, and assuming I get what you're saying (which I'm not entirely sure I do), I don't think it's warranted. Or, if it is warranted, Miller and Moore aren't very good examples...

[ulysses]

23. yeah, I think you missed it.

More simply put - we don't require, in general, any particular stance of political figures any more, but rather political affiliation.

He's still conservative now, and we excoriate him because he's a servant of the most evil regime in American history.

And some of us excoriated him for serving the most evil regime in American history well before he endorsed Bush. Many who do now didn't then. Again, my point.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

18. And another thing...

So what's wrong with thinking Moore was a twit in 2000 and thinking he's a hero in 2004? What's wrong with thinking Zell was an okay guy in 2000 and thinking he's the antichrist in 2004? Are we not allowed to change our minds in 4 years? Are we not allowed to let changing circumstances influence our opinions? Or is it that because their belief systems haven't changed, then our opinions of them are not allowed to change?

[ulysses]

19. nothing at all wrong with it. you be you.

I just find it interesting that the fact that candidate alliance means everything while actual positions mean next to nothing.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

22. Wellllllllll.....

I see your point. But I don't agree with the broad statement that "candidate alliance means everything while actual positions mean next to nothing." Look at how many people on this board are trashing Kerry every single day for his positions on Iraq!!

I would also say that if candidate alliance takes so much precedence over issues, then this is because 2004 is an election like no other we've ever seen. Really, the future of America depends on Kerry being elected. "The issues" really are secondary this time around... I hate that it has come to that, but I really believe that it has.

Without Bush gone, nobody's position on any issue is going to mean squat.

[ulysses]

24. yeah, sure.

Look at how many people on this board are trashing Kerry every single day for his positions on Iraq!!

And not a damn one of them a centrist either...or did I miss someone?

"The issues" really are secondary this time around... I hate that it has come to that, but I really believe that it has.

You'll pardon my skepticism about you being all torn up and shit about the state of things.

Without Bush gone, nobody's position on any issue is going to mean squat.

I'd like to believe that things will become meaningful again once Bush is gone, but...well, I just don't.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

25. That's really uncalled for.

"You'll pardon my skepticism about you being all torn up and shit about the state of things."

Consider yourself lucky that I haven't yet figured out how to make that middle finger emoticon, or you'd be getting some bird flipped in your direction!

Look, I'm sorry you have a problem with centrists, or with political reality, or with people changing their minds, or not hewing to your particular brand of ideological purity, or whatever it is, exactly, that you're griping about on this thread...

But to suggest that anyone who isn't as ram-rod inflexible as you are is somehow not sufficiently peeved about the state of affairs in this country (and by implication, not One of The Good Guys) is just plain sad and wrong. I'm sure you must think I'm one of those evil centrists, but I'm not. I only appear that way from where you're standing - waaaay waaaay waaaaay off to the left.

So where does that leave us? In the same place DU has always been. Ultra-leftists painting "centrists" as enablers of the enemy, and so-called "centrists" peeved at ultra-leftists for lacking pragmatism and enabling those who would distract from the ultimate goal of defeating Bush.

Frankly, I don't see the point in any of this center-left bickering, and I regret having been drawn into this thread. What a waste of time!

[mitchtv]

10. I haven't hailed Miller yet,

Moore is the same, a lot of people like Bill Maher have repented for wasting their votes. I think we are allowed to embrace them, aren't we?I'm hoping for the 'sorry I voted for Arnold' crowd to come foward.

[Cheswick2.0]

26. nobodyhailed Zell as a hero of any type

U is overstating his case.

[bushwakker]

5. Miller shifted radically

This man gave a terrific nominating speech for Clinton at 1992 convention. The person who currently calls himself Zell Miller is a very different individual.

[kikiek]

7. As Bush would say..things changed after 911. And personally

I never "hailed" Miller as a hero or saw him as a centrist. Also I was and still am a fan of Michael Moore.And he is still labeled a nut. Of course everyone who exposes this administration is. Moore has some wonderful crazy friends such as Franken, Gore, Dean to name a few.

[ulysses]

11. what changed?

Seriously. The statement that "everything changed on 9/11" gets bandied about a lot, but what actually changed?

[dangr]

13. only american eyes to the real world we live in

the lack of internationalism by the everyday people in the country was changed by 9/11, but not much more.
OH--except the political theivery by the administration during the time of fearfulness fostered by the attacks and bolstered by Bushco

[kikiek]

27. Despite the way he got into office people were still sleeping.

After watching the administrations response to 911 people started waking up. And of course we became divided. No longer are we going to give people like Miller the benefit of the doubt and kind of brush it off. Many former Nader voters won't take the chance this time in the election. Rightly so of course. We have changed in so many ways.

[JI7]

15. i don't know anyone at anytime who hailed zell as a centrist democratic

hero.

although some of his votes on bills such as including gays, lesbians, bisexuals to be protected in the hate crimes law surprised me. he voted FOR it.

[Eloriel]

16. Who the hell hailed Zell as a centrist Dem? The rabid right?

I never saw that.

[ulysses]

20. if by "rabid right"

you mean Al From and Friends, then yes. ;-)

[Cheswick2.0]

28. I heard MMoore on MoveOn/org tonight

He said that he and a few others left the Nader bus in October of 2000 when they realized that Nader had lied to them when he promised not to campaign in swing states. He said Nader was driven by his own personal animosity towards Gore.

Moore is doing something honest and powerful. Everyone is entitled to grow in judgement. MM certainly seems to have done that.

[jpgray]

29. People weren't paying attention before Bush

Nader wasn't as despised as he is today, for example. Though if you were paying attention, he is the same hypocrite today as four years ago. I never had a problem with Nader running, and I never had a problem with Michael Moore's films or political positions. I do have a problem with Ralph's portfolio, and I would present Michael's arguments differently at times than he chooses to.

As for Zell, he was never of much account, but he has changed a great deal in a few years--witness his comments on Kerry previously and his comments now. He was never close to my ideals, but he was better than he is currently.

[Tatiana]

30. You're oversimplifying things.

Moore has the same progressive beliefs, yes, but his "political goals" this time around are different. His goal in 2000 was to get Ralph Nader elected. His goal now is to prevent Bush from attaining a second term.

As for Zell Miller, no one has called him a centrist Democratic hero in the new millenium. However, it is a fact that Zell Miller (yes, ZELL) was a pretty progessive Democrat. He was a pretty decent Democratic governor, initiating food programs for the needy, and making sure that every single pre-kindergarten child had access to a preschool program. Zell changed. Why? I think the allure of power from the right side of the aisle. He was on top of the world when he nominated Bill Clinton. I think he had high hopes of being a "mover and shaker" in the Democratic party and those hopes were not realized. He became bitter at being marginalized.

Let's not paint with a broad brush.

[Zomby Woof]

31. missing Carlos again? ;-)

What you say is true of a handful of people, but I think most of us on here:

1. Always liked Moore (I've been a fan since "Roger & Me").

2. Always despised Miller (I have ever since his smarmy speech at the '92 Dem convention - always been a wingnut who would have been more at home with the Dixiecrats of Thurmond's heyday).

3. Blame SCOTUS, Jeb, Kathleen Harris, and a compliant media with the election theft - not Nader.

Otherwise, I must have the right people on ignore, because I haven't read the kinds of posts you're referring to, but I don't doubt your word.