Originally posted by Grimisyear, he actively supported the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party and their 527 groups actively promoted his film and his bullshit.
Don't see the GOP pimping anything by Jones...
In 2000 at least 3 different GOP presidential candidates, including our president, chose to speak at Bob Jones (Bush, Keyes, Forbes). To me, that is lending a considerable amount of prestige to the institution and implies that there is a group of voters there who are substantial in that party, as I can't imagine that many candidates choosing to waste their time speaking to people who don't fit inside the party.
Does Michael Moore really equate to Bob Jones on the political spectrum? I realize that Moore is a bit of a wacko, but nothing he says really bothers me because I recognize it for what it is: populist self-aggrandization. He likes to hear himself talk and he found out he could make money doing it if only he could find an audience. And the audience he found already believes most of what he says before he says it. I'd equate this to a Bill O'Reiley; punditry, not community leadership. Bob Jones falls more into the "community leader" category.
And while it would be in the Democratic Party's best interest to disavow themselves of someone who calls the President a "liar" when "wrong" would theoretically make a better accusation in the eyes of a moderate conservative (being as how my original point focused on slapping down extremists in order to reach out to moderates), I think we can all agree the Democratic Party doesn't have their ducks in a row or even on the same pond at this point.
But who would it alienate if the Dems told Moore to hit the road? It's arguable that the success of "Farenheit 9/11" and the legitimizing of any weight he carries (HA!) in the politcal arena comes from the Dems getting behind him, not the other way around. He had some coming in, yes, but as long as he was helping out third party candidates, his voice was relatively marginalized. They would lose someone willing to hit most of their talking points for them and someone who might raise significant funds for the party, but he's not taking substantial votes away.
An agitator of Jones' variety in the liberal camp comes more in the form of Al Sharpton, another community leader. Sharpton's race-baiting has gotten plenty of criticism and deserves more, some of which should be coming from the Democratic Pary. But I know why the Dems don't slap him down: he brings votes. That's why pandering happens.
Rebuffing Jones' letter (and the support of a few other nutjobs) would remove an easy target from the Republicans' back and make inroads for moderates and this is a fine time to do it. It's not like Jones is a random nut scrawling with his crayon; they know exactly who he is, what he has to say and where he says it. Pandering to him suggests that he brings votes, true or not, and rebuking him seems to me an incredibly easy step towards "uniting, not dividing."
Originally posted by messenoirWonderful how freedom of speech works, ain't it?
Yes, we're all free to be as stupid as possible, and then call each other on it with, odds are, even stupider words. Then, when somebody says something intelligent, they don't do it in a way that they communicate with the lowest common denominator, and are thus stupid. We as American's don't discuss intelligent notions, just louder ones. Rather than take somebody with a grain of salt, we try to sell ourselves, and those around us, on why we should disagree with them.
Possibly because St. Benedict was the one who came up with the term Opus Dei, which was later taken as a name by the conservative Catholic organization that no doubt backed Ratzinger. As for predecessors, there's also Benedict XIV (mid-18th century)...