Has Michael Moore taken over the Democrat party

(1/6) > >>

It appears that Mr. Moore apparently had a hand in Barbara Boxer agreeing to sign the objection to the Ohio Certification.  Now I find this not only sad, but very scarry.   Does a disgruntled, over weight film maker, who has never held a public office in his life, actually have this kind of influence over U.S. Senators?  First the Democrats give him the seat of honor at their convention, which is traditionally reserved for ex-presidents (Bush 41 got that seat at the RNC) or highly distinguished indivuals in that political party.  Then this happens. 

Although I find Michael Moore to be a revolting and disgusting human being, I don't deny him his right to free speech.  But when he actually has the influence of US Senators and is able to hold up Congress for hours and delay the certification of the electon, something is wrong.  So I ask this, has Michael Moore taken the Democratic party over from Bill Clinton?  I especially want to hear the oppinions of the Democrats on this board.


Christian mosh pit go mosh:
Currently McAuliffe runs the party. Soon someone else will, but I've never heard Moore mentioned for DNC chairman. So the answer to the question is obviously no.

Al From and Bob Shrum. We need leaner meaner politicos.

I don't know, but I will say that I am quite disappointed in Barbara Boxer for doing what she did.  She can say what she likes about her reasons for doing what she did; the reality of the situation is that it'll only further sharpen the hatred that each side holds for the other.

The Clintons run alot of the Democratic Party like fundraising and candidate selection, but I doubt Michael Moore controls much more than 10% of its constituents that think like him.  Much less than, say, Rev. Falwell, Rev. Dobson, or Pat Robertson controls 1/3rd of the GOP that's referred to as the "Religious Right".


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page