Why ???
Why does Hollywood hate Bush/Republicans ??
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Recount (2008) Discussion > Why ???
For the obvious reason that they (the Bush/Rove/Rice et.al. Republicans) are loathsome, despicable criminals - clearly proven by their theft of U.S. dempocracy in the 2000 Presidential election, their utter contempt for the Constitution and their total disregard of international law in Iraq
shareMaybe everyone has forgotten about Kennedy stealing his election?
How about the KKK being started by a group of democrats?
Or how about the civil war coming from Democrats in the south not wanting to give up their slaves?
Fair enough, both parties have black marks on them but don't try to skew facts to make yourself sound better.
Partisan politics don't work either, and saying someone is good/bad just because they align themselves with a particular party isn't fair and is actually quite dangerous. Let bygones be bygones.
And don't forget who was re-elected in '04 as well.
[deleted]
Hate? I think the Republicans come off pretty well in "Recount." They, at least, seem capable of playing hardball. The Democrats in the movie largely come across as clueless (Warren Christopher), idiotic (Joe Lieberman) losers. Even when they won, they lost!
The historical record isn't unclear on the question of the voting intent of the people of Florida. Even forgetting the 20,000 (overwhelmingly Democratic) disenfranchised poor and African-American voters, even overlooking the tens of thousands of "Jews for Buchanan," by virtually any vote projection, the statewide recount stopped by the Supreme Court would have resulted in a Gore victory. That's the level of the Democrats' November-December 2000 incompetence: by a margin of tens of thousands of votes, the people of Florida intended to vote for Gore. It didn't matter. And in the end, they weren't let down by Katherine Harris or the Supreme Court, but by the sheer high-minded ineptitude of the Democratic establishment.
[deleted]
An intellectual cannot win a redneck state even if it is his home state.
shareAll Art, Design and Culture will always been left leaning. Art will always and has always been liberal.
Hollywood is a town of artists. Makes sense.
In my opinion it's the people that stand for the party that others hate. And I wouldn't assume that it's only hollywood that feels this way... The fact that a man with so little to offer could be voted into a position of unbelievable power is ridiculous, and possibly says quite a bit about the people that voted for the republican party in the 2000 election (not to mention re-electing him? WTF) . I cannot comprehend how a man that has destroyed families, lives and the reputation of an entire country (and notably has a peanut sized brain) could still be admired and loved.
And to vaughan_1986, with the whole kkk thing?? Political party values change, if you didn't realize... Does John Howard mean anything to you? He was the bald little prime minister of Australia? The one that didn't listen to the majority of Australians and sent troops out anyway? Who raised taxes and brought in new ones because he could? Who did nothing for the "underdog" but still found a little extra change in his pockets for his CEO friends????? The party he stood for began as a party every man would want to vote for, that would give every man an equal opportunity... But somehow that idealism got lost along the way and we ended up with the greedy little hobbit for 10 years...
George W. Bush influenced Howard to join a war that he had no reason to fight. Bush went to war and ruined countless lives so he could enlarge his ego. And not once did he admit that he made the wrong decision; That he had no right to inflict horrible things on people all over the world because they got in the way of HIS war on whatever he thought was a good idea at the time. The whole thing is a disgrace...
So one question... why would you support Bush after the mess he left behind??
This is a bit of a silly thread isn't it? The film was, after all, fairly well balanced.
Hollywood is generally liberal, of course, but there are plenty of exceptions - Schwartzenegger, Reagan, Bruce Willis etc.
JFK didn't "steal" the 1960 election. He won by miles in the electoral college, beating Nixon by 26 states to 22 states.
And it's not just Hollywood who hates Bush. These days everyone does.
Why is your country split up in Republicans and Democrats. I thaught that were more than two kinds of people in the USA. And the civil war has long time ended.
shareOf course there are more political opinions in America. However, most people tend to fit into one of the parties and attempt to use it to sway it from the inside toward their political aims. Its a bit more complicated but that is the core of it.
Now I just have to laugh at the right wing posters here. You guys are really nuts. You keep on saying "liberals just hate Bush." But you never use your brains to ask why. Nobody on the left simply decided they hated the guy, you really show how ignorant and naive you are when you debase a group of people like this. We have our reasons and logic, honesty, history and morality bear us out as being correct in many of our valid criticisms.
The vast great difference between American liberals is that we tend to enjoy fact and logic to support our claims rather than blind allegiance to what somebody else tells us to believe. We believe the world is gray and not black and white like the more simple minded folks on the right. Take any example, this movie included, and from the left you will hear cogent justification for positions. On the right you will hear a mix of pathetic attacks on patriotism or the playing of the Jesus card.
"How about the KKK being started by a group of democrats?
Or how about the civil war coming from Democrats in the south not wanting to give up their slaves?"
Hey! How about the Democrats actually cleaning up their God damn house with the civil rights movement, as opposed to the Republican response of welcoming the old Dixiecrats into the fold with open arms? (Remember how Jerry Falwell started his career? It wasn't by talking about abortion, gay rights or evolution. He began as a white supremacist preacher).
Why I support the Democrats and not the Republicans has a lot to do with ideology, a lot to do with who's more in touch with reality, but beyond that, the ethics of the two parties and their modus operati just isn't the same anymore. To take two examples, the civil rights movement and Roe v. Wade; the Democrats take stands based on what they believe in. In both cases they knew these stands would cost them voters (the civil rights movement lost them the South which until that point had been their biggest and most reliable constituency, Roe v. Wade and the Democrats' decision to uphold it lost them small-town values voters who became the Reagan Democrats). In both cases they did it anyway, even though politically there was no conceivable gain.
I can't fail to respect that, especially when contrasted with the Republican approach. After the civil rights movement Nixon (and later Reagan, who began his 1980 campaign with a states' rights speech in a Mississippi town made famous by the murder of several civil rights workers years before) did everything they could to appeal to the old racists, and be damned to their racial equality/Abe Lincoln roots. They did the same after Roe v. Wade by whipping up values voters into a frenzy over abortion. But in both cases, the Republicans never delivered on their promises; they've never tried to overturn Roe, they just use it time and time again to propel themselves to the polls and ignore the values voters when they're in power.
The record seems pretty clear, at least to me. Democrats take stands for what they believe in and deliver whenever it's possible, even if it's going to bite them in the ass politically (and it usually does). Sometimes I agree with these stands (Civil Rights Act), and sometimes I don't (Roe v. Wade). But whatever I may think of the Democratic position, I can rest absolutely assured that the Republicans will do nothing to reverse it - that would imply taking a political risk for no gain of their own. They'll simply take my vote and laugh all the way to the White House, then ignore me when they're there.
We de facto have two pro-choice parties; the only difference is that one of them will admit it, the other will not. And it's the same on every issue, except ones related to tax cuts, privatization of social security or guaranteeing the rights of corporations - in other words, except when the GOP has to deliver for their financial backers. I do agree with the Democrats more often than with the Republicans, but more importantly, I can be assured that the Democrats will try to stand for these things; that's just not the case with the GOP.
Denny Crane.
For specifics on the Bush administration, you'd have to start with Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, it did not have to be the absolute madhouse that it is now - and it probably wouldn't have been if he'd handled it in any competent way. But he insisted on sending only 138,000 troops in to secure the country, then disbanded the Iraqi army and allowed death squads to run amok for four years. (The whole "surge" thing? It didn't happen until *after* he cleaned house at the Pentagon following the 2006 midterm elections. He had to lose both houses of Congress before he'd admit that anything had gone wrong).
Then there's the small matter of reconstruction. For all we hear about how much the U.S. is "sacrificing" on Iraq and Afghanistan, next to no money was actually spent on it. And the so-called "liberal" media is only now beginning to talk about that - before, it pretty much relied on information from the Bush White House and its empty talk about how much was being done to rebuild the country. (Seven and a half years later President Karzai has become a hated symbol of corruption, the government's authority doesn't extend beyond Kabul and the Tali have successfully reconstituted their forces in Pakistan).
Torture - what was the argument again? Right, that it works - except it doesn't. The Republicans started bellowing last month about the fact that torture had worked with those two al-Qaeda masterminds we'd had in custody, and probably saved millions of lives in the process. Except that one of the FBI interrogators who'd worked on the case then came out and said that the information had actually been extracted through non-coercive means before the torture had been OK'd (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090424/us_time/08599189367900). So I disagree with the Bush-era argument that torture works, primarily because it doesn't.
Warrantless wiretapping - under Bush's authority, the NSA was granted special powers to wiretap *without a warrant*, and why? Because in the climate of a war replete with "ticking bomb scenarios" (which to my knowledge hasn't actually happened yet), the NSA needs to be able to move quickly, without waiting. Sounds reasonable, right? Except that according to the standards agreed upon earlier in the administration, the NSA didn't have to request a warrant from the FISA court until seventy-two hours *after* they'd already begun the wiretap. So Bush's new system did nothing to improve efficiency; all it did was remove any accountability.
Economics. As a dual citizen, I've had a chance to experience the health care system in the U.S. as well as the health care system in France, which is similar to the ones the Democrats want to implement. Virtually nothing the Republicans tell their constituents about the health care systems of Europe is true. Service is cheaper AND fast AND as efficient or more. (I had the entertainment/satisfaction in college of making a friend who, having been born and raised by a conservative family in the Deep South, spent a year studying abroad in the U.K. and came back after extensive dental treatment by the NHS to essentially say "They [the Republicans] lied to me!!!") So yeah, I don't really have a problem with universal health care. Why? Because it works.
You want me to stop disliking the Republican Party? Fine - make it a party founded on solid democratic principles and some deference to reality. Is it really that much to ask? The Democrats can do it, why not the GOP?
Denny Crane.
Not to be glib, but if you don't know already; you weren't really paying attention for the last eight years.
shareThe real question is...
Why doesn't everyone??