|Rodents of Unusual Size |
The scene I wish that was in this montage is the one where they put a map in front of her and show her Germany and explain how we fought Germany and Japan in WWII and she took copious notes.
stars for the word "tazerin'" Her voice work is spot on. Plus she reads all the papers. I MUST see this.
|Jet Bin Fever |
I will never ever ever understand the appeal of Palin outside of rednecks thinking she's hot (for some reason).
What a terrible campaign that was.
about a minute was all it took to sell me on seeing this.
It's funny how Julianne Moore's Palin voice sounds a lot less exaggerated and cartoonish than the actual Palin voice. Like if she actually did an accurate impression nobody would believe it.
I'm just going to assume that the commentary typed all over the frame was actually a decision by the film's director
"The plot features a 2010 interview of the campaign's senior strategist Steve Schmidt (Harrelson), using flashbacks to portray McCain and Palin during their ultimately unsuccessful campaign. The film was well received by critics, with Moore's portrayal of Palin garnering praise. Schmidt praised the film. Palin and McCain described it as false and inaccurate, though neither chose to view it."
"...Palin and McCain described it as false and inaccurate, though neither chose to view it."
I'm always for Ed Harris in anything, But I don't think he can pull off McCain's neck tumor properly.
"I have no idea what they said, but whatever it is, it's not true!"
Looks surprisingly good as a character study. I thought it was kinda funny when Woody Harrelson's character said "you have got to stop saying things to the press that are blatantly untrue, that is not the kind of campaign we are running here". I'm pretty sure campaign staff only care if lies cannot be twisted or hidden.
I started to think about Sarah Palin's behavior and compare it to the standard conservative ethos and relate it also to mainstream liberals. She basically illustrates how very similar and equally feckless conservatives can be when compared to liberals on almost all fronts. Proclaiming issues they won't budge on and strengths of conviction; all the while lying and cheating on the other side, and being willing to sell out their beliefs to look good, get promoted, or whatever. With a good dose of histrionics and self-centered persona. Politics is without a doubt the most cynical game in history.
However liberals generally display a little more humanity, which appeals to more people, but makes their contradictions of it much more offensive. Which seems to me to be why they deserve that more derision for their two-faced antics. And they've probably contributed more cynicism and apathy to the general population than conservatives.
Politics remains, first and foremost, cynical.
Except that, historically, liberals have actually moved the country forward while the right has almost constantly impeded that progress. So, yes, politics is politics and both sides are part of the same beast, but they are not "equal."
There needs to be new words. Democrat, Republican, liberal, and conservative all mean "corporate slave whore" now. Those "liberals" were who moved the country forward did it in spite of their political affiliations, not because of them. A political career has never once made a good person a better person, or a bad person good at all.
Sexy Duck Cop
No no no stop this "corporate slave whore" shit. It's the single most tired, lazy, oversimplified opinion anyone can have about politics.
In a democracy, politicians are paid to represent their constituents. This is their job. To better mobilize themselves politically, citizens organize themselves into interest groups. The purpose of these groups can range from ensuring the elderly have access to medical care to giving billionaires tax breaks. Believe it or not, there is a ton of overlap between the former and the latter. It's not just a clean break between "give parasitic bankers all our money" and "do right by the people."
My political interest extends beyond this election cycle. If Obama is your first president, kudos, in about three more cycles you'll see this is bullshit. If you are actually interested in history, you'll see it's always been bullshit.
It's funny how you compare "conservatives" and "liberals" as if they are equally prevalent in society and in political influence.
I'm probably a "liberal" by most standards, but even I can recognize that I'm grossly outnumbered and my views and ideals are basically not represented at all in our government or mainstream political discourse.
Also, please provide an example of a "liberal" doing this without mentioning Al Gore:
"Proclaiming issues they won't budge on and strengths of conviction; all the while lying and cheating on the other side, and being willing to sell out their beliefs to look good, get promoted, or whatever. With a good dose of histrionics and self-centered persona."
I didn't mean to imply that conservatives and liberals are equally prevalent in society or even the political sphere. In fact I think that there are more liberals than there are conservatives - meaning more people that hold beliefs in line with liberalism, classical or otherwise, although they may not want to be identified as either.
But there's generally a difference between liberals which are members of different classes. Political or powerful liberals tend to be more textbook liberal and use all of the egalitarianism and enlightenment idealism as rhetorical tools but don't really take it seriously. Could I call myself a liberal? I have to remind myself that I'm only liberal to a point, there's a lot I don't agree with, like the globalization stuff, and I think I take equality and liberty etc... pretty seriously.
Which leads me to think there's not a huge margin of difference between conservatives and liberals and I don't think there ever really was. Conservatives and liberals both hold a lot of the same ideas. There's a few social, use-of-force and organization of government issues, but everything else is basically still there. Especially since politics has taken a shift to the right. Social liberalism is quickly becoming the most noticeable difference between the two, if it isn't the only difference.
In my opinion StanleyPain has a point about liberals, but not powerful liberals or political liberals.
I'll cite two others arguably worse than Al Gore: Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton.
I still think the thing people get most hung up on these days is how effective the Southern Strategy has been in derailing liberal progress. Since the Republicans have made race-baiting their number one strategy, they've had the numbers to drag the country to the right just by saying, "do you support [odious ill-conceived right-wing policy], or are you some sort of nigger-lover?" Not that they would use those exact words, of course, but that's the gist of it.
There are times I say the Civil Rights Act was the worst political mistake the Democrats ever made, because that's the only way I can begin to express how powerful the backlash has been. I'm all for the Civil Rights Act, mind you, but it breathed all sorts of unholy new life into the Republicans and stripped the Democrats of the ability to get anything done. Demographics are finally, finally starting to turn it around, and not a moment too soon, with Jim Crow 2.0 being implemented by the Republicans. "Not a huge margin of difference" my ass.
Just a reminder, the ACA would have included a public option except for the GOP and Lieberman (an Independent). I'm pleased we're getting any sort of ACA at all -- regulating the insurance industry is an awfully good start -- but a great many Democrats wanted to provide quite a bit more. And the House version even included a public option, and managed to pass in the House despite the opposition of dumbfucks like Kucinich. I love the little guy, but when you oppose the only chance at reform we're likely to see because it's not as liberal as you like, you're part of the problem as much as the ideologues on the right.
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
I hated her while she was running but now I see her as a very sad example of how anyone spouting the same lines can make it in the GOP.
I love how Moore plays her because you do see her tragic side. She was mentally unstable over her children being attacked, being separated from her family for long periods of time, missing her baby and basically shutting down completely at various points. By the time she quit her job as governor, it is amazing she was able to turn that into some form of rebellion to her few remaining supporters, rather than admit she had a breakdown from the stress this put her under.
She reminds me of a female version of the character in "The Candidate" and I have no doubt that if she had won she would look to her staff and say "Okay. So what do we do now?"
She rose so high based on charisma and no effort towards learning about the world we live in. She is a result and symptom of our current society. Utter failure of education, utter contempt for compromise on the conservative side, and a total lack of understanding about what politicians are actually supposed to do. But let's face it, she is an incredible actress in real life to convince anyone at all she was smart to begin with.
Don't think it's great acting convincing anyone so much as always going along with whatever their team's pep rally coach tells them.
"I see her as a very sad example of how anyone spouting the same lines can make it in the GOP. "
Remember JOE THE PLUMBER?
Sexy Duck Cop
Excellent points ROUS, but I don't think her rapid ascent had as much to do with her charisma and talent so much as a combination of blind luck and good timing. (Much like Hitler.)
Remember, McCain rolled the dice when he picked her by, literally, doing about 15 minutes of research on Google and deciding that he liked her moxie. Once he'd made his selection, she was pretty much locked in as the VP pick, and everything that followed--including the catastrophic backlash--was just a natural consequence of picking a narcissistic, paranoid, ignorant, xenophobic running mate.
At the same time, she was well-positioned to appeal to (and it's okay, we can say this) racist white trash as a counterpoint to the fancy-pants black guy with the lofty cityboy talk. It was cute for a little while. She had a few speeches and got some applause. But it never amounted to anything, and shouldn't be treated like it did. Palin is a niche product, pure and simple.
I hated the captions that popped up in the video but I still find Julianne Moore to be very attractive and her as Palin is insanely hot to me. And Harrelson seems great in this.
This movie is one of the best comedies I've ever seen. Had I known the book was like this, I wouldn't have let every single liberal pundit who draws breath talk me out of reading it by hyping more than a fucking Batman movie. I apologize to the authors of Game Change for hating every moment I saw their fucking faces on MSNBC.
Who is Sarah Palin?
Bush Jr. was a hell of a block head and a great front man for some questionable people, but they chose McCain who had a pinch more aspiration and competence...and Palin who was a pinch too ignorant and insane. -- to fill those shoes.
I realize this is giving people too much credit, but I remember batting around the idea that the Republicans did not want to win this election. Specifically this conspiracy theory would pop up whenever Palin opened her mouth.
I also kept imagining what Malcolm Tucker would be saying to her back stage after every underhanded pitch she tossed to the press...
good movie, actually makes you feel sorry for palin at points. i like the scene where palin's aide has a little private mental freakout as she realizes the full futility of her advice and palin looks at her and is all 'good idea, let's pray'
| Register or login To Post a Comment|