Daily Kos

View Story | 66 comments

  •  I'm sorry but this line ... (none / 1)

    ... The p[oi]nt is that facts don't really matter is just too Orwellian, too Rovian, too Limbaughian for my taste. That's more or less the argument Richard Perle and Ahmed Chalabi made about WMDs after the fact.

    I agree with you that Moore is an effective satirist who kick-punches his opponents in the most delightful way. The are-you-kidding look from the Congressman who is asked if he'd send his kid to fight in Iraq is worth the whole of F-9/11. If the only issue here was whether Moore is a great satirist who knows how to deflate the powers that be, then you'd get no argument from me.

    But this idea that Moore's presentation of the facts doesn't matter is bogus. They don't matter to those of us in the echo chamber, for sure. But so much of the praise at dKos for the movie has been built around the justifiable notion that it can be a helpful addition to our arsenal for defeating Bush in November. Since swing voters are the key target, and they could go either direction, it's important for us to be able to answer critics who claim Moore interpreted some facts inaccurately.

    If some swing voter at your workplace points out an alleged inaccuracy, and the only response you can make is: it's not about facts, the movie was merely satire - what effect do you think that argument will have on that voter's ballot box behavior?

    "Grab whom you must. Do what you want."

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Jul 18, 2004 at 04:56:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not always articulate in making a point (none / 0)

      But this idea that Moore's presentation of the facts doesn't matter is bogus.

      The Repubs want the debate to be about facts, because is distracts from debate about Bush.  I'm not saying we should concede any factual errors, there are none.  It was you who claimed he was a tad reckless in interpreting some of the facts.  Do you ever see many conservatives admitting that Fox is reckless in interpreting facts.  Noway.  I understand we're talking on a liberal blog and it doesn't really matter, but when talking with conservative friends I don't think we should concede so much.  We should answer critics assertions without compromise, but quickly shift the conversation to Bush.  The more time spent on debating the facts, the less time afforded to focus on Bush's incompetence.  "Why didn't Bush take action after learning of planes crashing into the tower?", "Isn't there a conflict of interest with Bush the presnit and his relationship to Saudis?", "Why aren't we seeing this war footage on the news?", etc, etc.

View Story | 66 comments