At yesterday’s FDL Member town hall webinar, I asked Michael Moore who he thought would make a good third party presidential candidate. His answer — Matt Damon:
JANE HAMSHER: Michael, have you actually had conversations with Matt Damon about this?
MICHAEL MOORE: No, but I think that he’s been very courageous in not caring about who he offends by saying the things that need to be said here, and if you want to win, the Republicans have certainly shown the way — that when you run someone who is popular, you win. Sometimes even when you run an actor, you win. And I guess I only throw his name out there because I’d like us to start thinking that way. I don’t really want to spend a whole lot of time running symbolic campaigns. Because there are a whole host of things we need to do, and Jane you have certainly mentioned a couple of things that you are going to have in your next thing here in September that are really critical, in terms of instant runoff voting and proportional voting, these are really important — things that need to be instituted to make this more democratic.
But I think these two parties are very weak right now. Dan mentioned 1856 there with the Republicans, and 4 or 5 years later there was a Republican in the White House. These times occur very rarely when a political party is so weak that it literally can be killed off. And I think both parties are in that position right now. And I think that a group of people, if we had some real national leadership, and a real commitment to grassroots organizing, to form a new Democratic Party…and call ourselves the New Democrats, in fact that’s the name of a party up in Canada that occasionally does quite well up there….or call ourselves ourselves the Roosevelt Party. Come up with something that would really be catchy.
Listen I throw these ideas out there, because I recognize the country I live in. Living in Michigan now, the main topic of conversation this week was the last episode of the Bachelorette, and why did Ashley pick J.P. over Ben. That’s the country I live in, and they all vote. And I’d like to communicate with them. I know that they’re upset. And I know they don’t like these wars and they’re desperate for jobs. Living in Michigan, we’re living in a depression right now. There really couldn’t be a better time to organize, to run a viable candidate. And to really say the Democratic party has not served us well, so we’re going to Democrats 2.0. We’re brining it into the 21st century, we’re going to be called the New Democrats, or the Roosevelts, or the whatever you come up with, and we’re going to run people who are going to win.





25 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
i believe,i was the first to suggest MD months ago
How about Bourne Again Democrats ; )
HAHA!!
ROFLMAO
Matt at his best
http://www.history.com/shows/the-people-speak
This is a different scenario from what we were hearing yesterday, so thanks very much for the transcript, Jane. I had the impression yesterday that Michael had not left a former adhesion to the lesser of two evils, and it is clear from what you have reported that he has. I apologize for going off the handle.
Bourne Anew Party
fuk the Dim Dems
Well played.
You should definitely listen to the whole thing. I don’t think anyone right now can reasonably say they know the best path forward, and the conversation yesterday reflected that. People were entertaining different ideas at different points in the conversation.
Michael was right when he said that it’s the conversation that needs to be happening. I’m sure Dan’s idea has all sorts of flaws. So does every other idea I’ve heard. This one just attempts to address some of the big problems that cripple many of them. Whether it does that well enough to make it viable I can’t say. But rigid status-quo thinking is not sufficient right now to address the enormous problems we’re facing, so I applaud Dan’s willingness to try.
You know I vaguely remember that.
Another thing I observed; Dan has a long arc-of-thought.
So if people don’t pay attention to the whole development of an idea that he propounds, one ends up with a shortened sound bite of something he didn’t mean, and ultimately, didn’t say.
You’re absolutely right. You have to be willing to follow him for a while to get to the point, and it’s not because he meanders, it’s because he structures his argument and presentation over a long arc.
Thanks ; ) In my next life, I would like to be a comedian ; )
Just called you.
I really wish there was a way we could find out if Matt Damon would consider running.
ive heard him speak of his love for Zinn,he is cleancut,married,talented,BLUE BOSTON BOY…to me he was definately a contender after saying he might run for the Senate….i like Matt
That really is good.
breaking
MURDOCH BOMBSHELL—DOJ looking at RICO Statutes
Edited on Mon Aug-08-11 04:19 PM by kpete
Well-sourced information coming out of the Department of Justice and the FBI suggests a debate is going on that could result in the recently launched investigations of News Corp. falling under the RICO statutes.
RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, establishes a way to prosecute the leaders of organizations—and strike at the organizations themselves—for crimes company leaders may not have directly committed, but which were otherwise countenanced by the organization. Any two of a series of crimes that can be proven to have occurred within a 10-year period by members of the organization can establish a pattern of racketeering and result in draconian remedies. In 1990, following the indictment of Michael Milken for insider trading, Drexel Burnham Lambert, the firm that employed him, collapsed in the face of a RICO investigation.
Among the areas that the FBI is said to be looking at in its investigation of News Corp. are charges that one of its subsidiaries, News America Marketing, illegally hacked the computer system of a competitor, Floorgraphics, and then, using the information it had gleaned, tried to extort it into selling out to News Corp.; allegations that relationships the New York Post has maintained with New York City police officers may have involved exchanges of favors and possibly money for information; and accusations that Fox chief Roger Ailes sought to have an executive in the company, the book publisher Judith Regan, lie to investigators about details of her relationship with New York police commissioner Bernie Kerik in order to protect the political interests of Rudy Giuliani, then a presidential prospect
too bad they are justLOOKING
The most important aspect of this endorsement is Michael’s readiness to chuck Obama overboard. Remember, Michael was a pretty dogged Obamabot long after the rest of us saw O as a Repub in sheep’s clothing. Michael’s defection represents a large chunk of the Democratic veal pen Temple crashing to earth.
Well I wish Mike Moore and Matt Damon would find 298 of their rich Hollywood friends and fund third party efforts to the tune of 300 million dollars. That would be enough to challenge the two parties. I’m guessing they could probably fund that themselves but I understand that rich people get other people to spend their money. Plus, its only a million each. I also think that’s what you would need to fund a viable third party run that could actually win. I prefer Michael to Matt because I think Mr. Moore is more politically engaged and I also think a charismatic Hollywood person could win the White House.
Then again, there’s always my 5/25 plan, just need 35 millionaires to fund that for about 10 years.
http://fivetwentyfiveplan.blogspot.com/2010/03/progressives-should-support-seius-third.html
Or if Mike Moore could blow his nose on 45 grand he’s welcome to indirectly support the Cheri Honkala campaign.
http://www.indiegogo.com/The-Lets-Create-Viable-Third-Party-Runs-Campaign-1
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com
Just for the record: I don’t think Matt Damon will run for president. You’re asking someone to sacrifice a successful Hollywood career to become president. No one is that good…but he could fund a successful third party movement. Just need 300 Hollywood multimillionaires to do that. You don’t need to win the presidency. You need 5 senators willing to use even the old fashioned filibuster as a tool…those senators aren’t being recruited by the dems. I would look for union organizers, national guild attorneys, badass black defense attorneys, or fighters. Something that we don’t have now…Oh, it would be nice if they were to sign a pledge not to work for the usual assortment of evil lobbyists after their term of service ends.
Absolutely.
More Michael Moore bashing. I guess he has been cursed with fame and fortune. But shall we refrain from “bot” calling. We had a Democratic candidate with a liberating message. That candidate and that message was replaced with Phony Wars and Financial Terrorism.
Obama neutralized and neutered the Democratic Party from being democratic. This is classic destabilization of democratic institutions by espionage, assassinations and torture. The R’s have been similarly hijacked by PNAC and Goldman Sachs, although they may claim it is consensual rape.
We can imagine if the mandate of 2008 had been implemented, ending Dee Cee Oil wars, no Big Debt Deal and so on. But there would still be the Gulf Oil Pollution and Fukushima. But do not blame Michael Moore. There are plenty of other targets.
No. Not me. Not since Dukakis. I’m not going to capitulate with the likes of a Ben Nelson. I’m not going to pretend that there isn’t a vote nullifying effect of superdelegates.
It was a joke.
OMG — Jane, did you see this???
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/aug/09/michael-moore-matt-damon-us-president
It’s currently on the front page at The Guardian. You rock!