Heal the world. Make it a better place. Doop doop dooby dooby doo.

November 1, 2004 4:53 PM

Michael Moore's final election message. Good luck everyone*.
* asterisk
posted by Pretty_Generic (55 comments total)

Some decent talking points amidst the I'm-Michael-Moore rhetoric.

Thanks, P_G!

Moore is, for all his faults, someone who cares deeply about the country and he wants to right a terrible wrong. I'm glad he's on our side.
posted by fenriq at 5:06 PM on November 1, 2004

Then why did he blow up Team America headquarters? Huh?
posted by Krrrlson at 5:11 PM on November 1, 2004

I can't stand the rhetoric of heathens who hate this country. Michael Moore should move back to Canada.
posted by Mach3avelli at 5:12 PM on November 1, 2004

Pets or meat?

To me, Michael Moore is the left-wing Bill O'Reilly, although admittedly with a far better sense of humor.

I am generally opposed to boorish, bloviating know-it-alls with an inflated sense of their own importance and a volume dial that only has two settings--"bluster" and "whine". Even when we happen to agree on something.

Having said that, I did like the thing on "TV Nation" when Moore went to huge corporations and challenged the CEOs to demonstrate familiarity with the products. That was funny.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:14 PM on November 1, 2004

I'm surprised he had time to get this out so soon after writing Bin Laden's talking points.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:20 PM on November 1, 2004

Ha! Kwanstar didn't even read it, and he wound up making an ass of himself by repeating Moore's own self deprecating joke!
posted by mr_roboto at 5:25 PM on November 1, 2004

Ha!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:27 PM on November 1, 2004

Ha! Kwanstar didn't even read it, and he wound up making an ass of himself by repeating Moore's own self deprecating joke!

Huh, that explains it. I was surprised Kwantsar had time to get that out so soon after reading Michael Moore's talking points. <dimbulb/>
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:32 PM on November 1, 2004

Ha! again : >

I can't believe he's repeating the #1 liberal in the Senate nonsense--that was a right-wing poll run a while ago, and is not accurate.
posted by amberglow at 5:33 PM on November 1, 2004

hee hee!
i'd just like to point out that i'm not Kwantsar.
posted by quonsar at 5:33 PM on November 1, 2004

National Journal is a "right-wing poll" ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:41 PM on November 1, 2004

a right-wing site, with shoddy analysis--how's that?
posted by amberglow at 5:47 PM on November 1, 2004

and i thought it was from Opinion Journal--is it really from Nat'l Journal? link us.
posted by amberglow at 5:48 PM on November 1, 2004

Clarification of the "most liberal senator" claim.

National Journal is actually pretty reliably neutral, I think.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2004

ah, never mind: here it is: Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong.

posted by amberglow at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2004

amber: National Journal is a nonpartisan source with pretty solid analyses, ordinarily. What is your feeling it's "right-wing"?
posted by dhoyt at 5:55 PM on November 1, 2004

I read it, thanks.

I didn't know that the presence of a self-deprecating statement triggers an automatic moratorium on posts similar to the one I made.

But, then, it looks to me like Moore is aggrandizing, rather than deprecating himself. It reads to me like he's proud to be feeding lines to OBL (but that's probably the dim bulb talking, no?).

I better split; I don't want to be the guy who has to eat the biscuit.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:55 PM on November 1, 2004

i'd just like to point out that i'm not Kwantsar.
posted by quonsar at 5:33 PM PST on November 1

And I thank you for not being kwantsar.

I loved that Moore pointed out how 6 "documentaries" were made trashing him and only 1 trashing Kerry. Can we once again point out the right wing's misplaced priorities?
posted by nofundy at 5:58 PM on November 1, 2004

I have to say, Moore actually sounded reflective and sweet.

But isn't Britain an older democracy, you know, after that little interregnum thang in the 17th Century? Something tells me that there are others.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:58 PM on November 1, 2004

i thought it was from Opinion Journal, where Novak is.
posted by amberglow at 6:02 PM on November 1, 2004

New Zealand?

New Zealand in 1893 became the first country to give women the vote, having given its indigenous people representation in Parliament 23 years earlier.

"And when we first established our Parliament in 1854, we had a remarkably generous franchise," he said.

"Indeed we moved to universal franchise well ahead of other countries.

"It is not known by many that, in the United Kingdom, they didn't have universal male and female franchise until the 1950 general election."

posted by Blue Stone at 6:08 PM on November 1, 2004

But isn't Britain an older democracy

Umm no... remember that was the whole 'King' guy we revolted against...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:08 PM on November 1, 2004

Umm no... remember that was the whole 'King' guy we revolted against...

"Parliamentary democracy", not "republic".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:10 PM on November 1, 2004

To republicans and conservatives: Kerry isn't so bad. He's not too liberal at all really - look, even these conservative dudes have endorsed him!

To lefties: Kerry is the NUMBR #1 LIBERAL in the KNOWN UNIVERSE! He's so liberal that he regularly disobeys the law of gravity!

To Nader voters: You guys suck. Get with the winning team, fools.

To the non-Swing States: Vote anyway, it'll make Kerry feel good!

To non-voters: Voting is cool, man! Seriously, try it! It'll BLOW YOUR MIND!

To first-time voters: Congratulations on signing up! Make sure you read the ballot carefully, so you don't accidentally vote for Nader. And remember, you can't vote for more than one person!

To African-Americans: THEY do not want you to vote, but me and my army are on your side! Vote for Kerry already, 'cause George ain't got no SOUL!

To George W.: Why, WHY do you hate America?

To Kerry: My spirit overflows with love, a love that cannot be contained. I must tell the world, for in you I have found the undying flame that will alight the spirit of the world with Justice and Freedom, and spread the supreme peace of a happy child playing with a cute little puppy to the farthest corners of the Earth. Please, I beg thee, win this election and put the World back on its Natural and True course through the Heavens.

I would like to state for the record that I am neither Kwanstar nor Michael Moore.
posted by sfenders at 6:23 PM on November 1, 2004

I went to school with a guy with Nosak.

I might be quonsar.
posted by jmgorman at 6:45 PM on November 1, 2004

Is Nosak fatal?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:48 PM on November 1, 2004

Nah, you just can't have kids.
posted by kenko at 6:51 PM on November 1, 2004

China slams Bush on eve of poll
posted by orelius at 6:58 PM on November 1, 2004

I am not sfenders, and I endorse this message.
posted by wobh at 6:59 PM on November 1, 2004

I'm quonsar, and so is my wife.
posted by eriko at 7:02 PM on November 1, 2004

China slams Bush on eve of poll

One more reason to vote for Bush!
posted by gyc at 7:07 PM on November 1, 2004

yeah, because they, like, don't like him, so we should let him rule with force and stuff.

troll
posted by jmgorman at 7:32 PM on November 1, 2004

But isn't Britain an older democracy

Umm no... remember that was the whole 'King' guy we revolted against...
Origins of Parliament:
Following the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, the role of parliament was enhanced by the events of 1688-89 (the 'Glorious Revolution') and the passage of the Bill of Rights which established the authority of Parliament over the King, and enshrined in law the principle of freedom of speech in parliamentary debates.

The colonies rebelled against Britain, whose 'sovereign' was already well under the way to being a figurehead. It's a convention that the monarch signs every bill - and that the monarch has very little choice about that. The last time the Sovereign refused to 'give Royal Assent' was in 1708 - long before King George III.

In other news, it may be startling to many that the USA is one of few nations whose citizens lack a constitutional right to vote.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:43 PM on November 1, 2004

One more reason to vote for Bush!

The list keeps getting longer! Belgium, Russia, Osama bin Laden, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Mongolia, South Korea, Ralph Nader, Zanzibar, France, my highschool history teacher, John Zorn, Iceland, Spain, Norway, and John Dillinger also do not like Bush. Clearly, we have no choice but to vote for him.
posted by sfenders at 7:50 PM on November 1, 2004

don't forget poland
posted by jmgorman at 7:51 PM on November 1, 2004

Thanks a lot china

I am also not Kwanster.
posted by drezdn at 10:55 PM on November 1, 2004

Gee sfenders, just what we need, yet another paraphrasing of someone else's political position. That' never wrong.
posted by krisjohn at 11:23 PM on November 1, 2004

"Both history and practices of 'the myth of empires' have demonstrated that the pre-emptive strategy will bring the Bush administration an outcome that it is most unwilling to see, that is, absolute insecurity of the 'American Empire' and its demise because of expansion it cannot cope with," Qian said."

Ouch.
posted by sophist at 11:27 PM on November 1, 2004

"President Kerry had better bring the troops home right away"

Wtf? Is that a typo?
posted by abcde at 11:44 PM on November 1, 2004

what ever happened to that kwantsar guy?
posted by Satapher at 3:01 AM on November 2, 2004

It is not known by many that, in the United Kingdom, they didn't have universal male and female franchise until the 1950 general election

Not true. It was 1928.

'Universal' is a misleading term anyway. No country has true universal suffrage, where 100% of the population is entitled to vote.
posted by Summer at 3:58 AM on November 2, 2004

I've always found Michael's rants about Bush hollow, since his support of Ralph Nader in 2000 helped put GWB in office.
posted by darren at 6:43 AM on November 2, 2004

I disagree, Darren. I wouldn't say that I'm a Moore fan (haven't seen F911 or read his books but have followed his TV shows), but I think it's perfectly reasonable of him to have supported Nader in 2000, then think "oh shit, why did I do that?" and do his best to bring down Bush.
posted by drezdn at 8:06 AM on November 2, 2004

Plus Kerry is more liberal than Gore, so the party line is less depressingly thin, which leaves less justification for the third party protest vote.
posted by abcde at 8:52 AM on November 2, 2004

I'm quonsar, and so is my wife.

quonsar is having a three-way?
posted by caution live frogs at 9:12 AM on November 2, 2004

Gotta love that American democracy...
I've never even queued to vote in the UK.
Nor had to ask for time off work to vote.
Nor been challenged on my right to do so.
Nor been convinced that a winner was a fraud.
Nor have the Registrar of an Electoral Commission be an elected partisan.
Nor had to wait 5 weeks to know who won.
Nor needed to trust a billion dollar corporation headed by a partisan CEO to 'count' my votes.

I'll fully understand if that sounds to you guys like sniping. I think it probably is, tho it's also partly a reaction to the idea that America is the world's greatest democracy. If it is, how come it's so hard to vote?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:39 AM on November 2, 2004

Rot in hell, Michael Moore.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:41 AM on November 2, 2004

you believed the bs and hype about us, dash--we've always been messed-up, and big talkers. The one good thing is that we try to make it a little better all the time, and are still trying (and sometimes winning). It's like a never-ending trial-and-error thing, i guess. I can't imagine a time when everything is actually going well enough--for everyone here--to ever stop trying.

aw, Paris is pissed about Pres. Kerry--how cute!
posted by amberglow at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2004

Thank you, dash_slot. I've been wondering the same thing myself lately, why we consider ourselves a democracy when the voting procedure is so ripe with inadequacies.
posted by adampsyche at 10:58 AM on November 2, 2004

Paris isn't supposed to be in the blue until at least tomorrow, and possibly for several months after tomorrow (during the various legal wranglings that suspend the election results).

I praise all that is precious that I'm not Kwantsar.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:05 AM on November 2, 2004

You know what amberglow: that's probably it. At one time, I thopught America was different - better, even, than the UK, in many ways. I am far from sure of that nowadays - not just because your system is fallible. All systems are. But it ain't even improved of late - delays at precincts are deliberate. They haven't been fixed.

Quonsar's been fixed, why can't elections?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:42 AM on November 2, 2004

how come it's so hard to vote?

With apologies to the late Douglas Adams, America is big - really big - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to America.

Seriously, you're underestimating how much there is to this. We're not just voting on the President/Vice President. This morning I just voted on:

1) Eight initiatives/referenda (five state, three county),
2) President/Vice President,
3) Senator,
4) Congressional Representative,
5) Eleven Washington state offices (Governor, Lt. Gov, etc.)
6) Three justices and judges.

The exact things being voted on vary from state to state, and within each state, from county to county. Sometimes there may also be city or school district elections on the ballot. There are fifty states. Washington has 39 counties. This is less than half the number of counties in my native state of Ohio, which has 88 counties. More than 200 million registered voters, over 100 million of whom typically vote in major elections such as this one.

There are rarely enough volunteers. Just finding enough convenient locations for people to vote is a logistical challenge -- never mind where these people are going to park their cars while they're voting. (Many voting locations are in schools. While school is in session.) Individual states and counties are in charge of administering elections and they choose the method of balloting and counting -- there is no national standard for this. (And there can't be, now; it would cost far too much to replace all the equipment.) Even the margin of error is not consistent across the country because of the differences in equipment.

Basically, imagine what it would be like if everyone in the EU was asked to vote on twenty-five different offices and/or issues on a single day, with the individual member nations of the EU administering their elections all differently from their neighbors. Then double the number of nations involved. (Don't double the population, just the number of countries.)

That's not to say things can't be made a good deal better and more efficient. But we muddle through.
posted by kindall at 2:36 PM on November 2, 2004

with the individual member nations of the EU administering their elections all differently from their neighbors

I guess we wouldn't do it like that. You know, knowing Europe an' all that, it would be centrally organised. Which, in this case, might be a good thing. (",)
posted by dash_slot- at 5:54 PM on November 2, 2004

knowing Europe an' all that, it would be centrally organised

Yeah, well, 200 years ago American states didn't trust each other to do that -- and neither did most European countries, really.
posted by kindall at 9:08 PM on November 2, 2004

It is not known by many that, in the United Kingdom, they didn't have universal male and female franchise until the 1950 general election

Not true. It was 1928.

It is a little-known fact that the property qualification in Northern Ireland was not abolished until relatively recently (about a generation ago) - mentioned in CAIN's piece on the Civil Rights movement, and also here.

The idea that democracy is a peculiarly American idea, that it belongs to any one people, and that America or any other country is the 'first and greatest' is simply false, and very damaging, like many forms of jingoistic myth-making.
You're nothing special. None of us are.

(Nor is this confined to Americans - France, for example, to some extent shares in the myth of a country build on unique ideals).
posted by plep at 12:46 AM on November 3, 2004