SPUSA's Moore on The Colbert Report

[Mindtoaster]

Moderators feel free to merge with the Fox thread if you feel its neccesarry

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189687/october-28-2008/obama-the-socialist

The interview

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189688/october-28-2008/socialist-candidate-for-president---brian-moore

[KurtFF8]

I was actually going to make a thread about this but couldn't find the clip alone.

Anyway, Moore did a little better than he did on Fox I think, but even then he could have done a better job still. Granted this wasn't the type of interview for him to screw up too bad on, he still could have done better.

[chegitz guevara]

He seemed pretty stiff and forced. I think he was too focused on trying not to screw up that he missed an opportunity to have fun, such as saying the workers needed to seize control of the druthers.

[Pawn Power]

This guy Moore is terribly inarticulate. What a bad voice for socialism.

[Revy]

This guy Moore is terribly inarticulate. What a bad voice for socialism.

I was originally a supporter of Eric Chester. He was previously a Vice Presidential candidate of the SPUSA. He is part of the revolutionary wing of the party and was vilified by the social democratic right-wing (which has since left). He also said in his questionnaire that he had experience with speaking and enjoyed debates. I did not attend the Convention, but the vote was 25 votes in favor of Moore and 20 votes in favor of Chester.

Chegitz said that he would have liked William Pelz to run, but he never expressed any interest or was a candidate.

[Pawn Power]

Well, if he is not a good voice for socialism he is probably an appropriate one, representing the old ailing politics of his stripe of socialism in America.

[Charles Xavier]

Moore looks boozed up.

[chegitz guevara]

The main thing to keep in mind, though, is not whether or not Moore gave the best possible arguments. No one's gonna remember that. What they will remember is that there is a Socialist Party candidate for President.

[BobKKKindle$]

The main thing to keep in mind, though, is not whether or not Moore gave the best possible arguments. No one's gonna remember that. What they will remember is that there is a Socialist Party candidate for President.

People will care about how Moore acted on television. As an example, consider George Galloway's decision to go on Big Brother in the UK, apparently because a major television appearance over several weeks would allow him to speak about his ideas and publicize RESPECT, which had only recently been created at that point out of the anti-war movement, and was in desperate need of popular support. Galloway ended up making a complete fool of himself by agreeing to do a cat imitation which involved him crawling around on all-fours and pretending to drink milk, and as a result he became a laughing-stock and the party lost a great deal of credibility. This was a major embarrassment for the SWP, because we had invested a lot of energy and resources into the project.

[Vendetta]

The main thing to keep in mind, though, is not whether or not Moore gave the best possible arguments. No one's gonna remember that. What they will remember is that there is a Socialist Party candidate for President.

They need to remember that there is a good Socialist Party candidate for President.

[Martin Blank]

I think Moore is getting a lot of static for the simple fact that he is relatively new to this. He's a recent member of the SP and this is the first time he's run for public office ... and I imagine this is the first time he's been tapped to be on camera so much. Given all of that, I think he's done fairly well. I was personally impressed by the fact that he was able to point out that "socialism" is about workers' control of production. I don't think that's been talked about by a Socialist Party presidential candidate since the days of Debs. He may come off like a cold fish in comparison to someone like Colbert or Cavuto -- i.e., professional media faces -- but that's a matter of experience. If he runs again for political office, I expect he'll be better prepared and more "media-friendly".

[chegitz guevara]

People will care about how Moore acted on television. As an example, consider George Galloway's decision to go on Big Brother in the UK, apparently because a major television appearance over several weeks would allow him to speak about his ideas and publicize RESPECT, which had only recently been created at that point out of the anti-war movement, and was in desperate need of popular support. Galloway ended up making a complete fool of himself by agreeing to do a cat imitation which involved him crawling around on all-fours and pretending to drink milk, and as a result he became a laughing-stock and the party lost a great deal of credibility. This was a major embarrassment for the SWP, because we had invested a lot of energy and resources into the project.

Okay, you got me there. On the other hand, Galloway is far more well known than Moore, even in the U.S. He has an image to protect. We don't even have an image. Comrades need to remember that getting on TV is a major victory for American socialists in and of itself. I cannot count the number of times people have told me of their surprise that there is a Socialist Party in the U.S. (let alone dozens of them).

Foreign comrades especially have can't even begin to understand the low level of political culture in America, and I think many American comrades don't really appreciate it fully, as most of them live in areas of greater political activity (like our Northern cities).


I think Moore is getting a lot of static for the simple fact that he is relatively new to this. He's a recent member of the SP and this is the first time he's run for public office ... and I imagine this is the first time he's been tapped to be on camera so much. Given all of that, I think he's done fairly well. I was personally impressed by the fact that he was able to point out that "socialism" is about workers' control of production. I don't think that's been talked about by a Socialist Party presidential candidate since the days of Debs. He may come off like a cold fish in comparison to someone like Colbert or Cavuto -- i.e., professional media faces -- but that's a matter of experience. If he runs again for political office, I expect he'll be better prepared and more "media-friendly".

Moore has actually run for office before. In fact, it was his 2006 run for Senate that led to his campaign manager sitting him down and telling him his positions were socialist. Because Moore couldn't get any media attention for his campaign, he actually traveled to Cuba and held a press conference there. While Moore has been on tv before, it's been in a more relaxed, serious interview situation. He's new to the kind of attack mode in which FOX News engages and Colbert's improv training and comedic intent makes him dangerous for any politician who isn't willing to play the fool.

Honestly I think the biggest problem is Brian was trying to stay on message instead of having fun with Colbert. He should have said something along the lines of, "we don't want to share everyone's druthers, Stephen, just yours."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I was originally a supporter of Eric Chester. He was previously a Vice Presidential candidate of the SPUSA. He is part of the revolutionary wing of the party and was vilified by the social democratic right-wing (which has since left). He also said in his questionnaire that he had experience with speaking and enjoyed debates. I did not attend the Convention, but the vote was 25 votes in favor of Moore and 20 votes in favor of Chester.

Chegitz said that he would have liked William Pelz to run, but he never expressed any interest or was a candidate.

Do you have any videos or audios of Chester?

[chegitz guevara]

Do you have any videos or audios of Chester?

Nope. This is as much as I can find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Chester

Let me tell you a little bit about Eric Chester. Eric is a controversial leader in the SP. He is the subject a lot of character assassination, and the right wing believes he is behind various machinations to take over the party. There is some truth to this. He does behave in a bureaucratic fashion, and uses the rules to defeat his opposition rather than relying on the democratic process.

Chester's understanding of socialism and his political positions are very good. He's a revolutionary and a self-described Luxemburgist. His stances tend to be confrontational, and this can be unnecessarily alienating when dealing with other socialist organizations. For example, he proposed a resolution in at the March NC meeting which took a rather aggressive stance with the Peace and Freedom Party at a time when we were trying to woo their leadership in order to get P&F to nominate Moore and Alexander. His position was correct, but it could have been done without attacking P&F. When we changed the motion to be less confrontational, he wouldn't support it any more.

It's one thing to be confrontational with the bosses, it's another thing to throw down the gauntlet to someone with whom you are trying to work. I cut Chester some slack on this because I believe it is a result of a hit-and-run he suffered while helping a stranger change a flat tire on the freeway. Others have told me his personality changed after that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I cannot count the number of times people have told me of their surprise that there is a Socialist Party in the U.S. (let alone dozens of them).

There is a "Socialist Party of Canada" - it just so happens that:

A) It's run by a bunch of World Socialist scum; and
B) "SPC" doesn't sound as cool an abbreviation as "SPUSA" (the latter being longer).

[chegitz guevara]

You could always found the SPUSA (Canada) ;)


Hmmmm, SP-NAFTA might not be a bad idea.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

really?