Michael Moore's Newest Letter

[Steve from Cleveland]

I mean the guy is a bumbling, self serving idiot from all that I've seen or heard. Yet again I dont; get both sides of the story.

Well, despite the facts that he isn't a very good orator, and that he often comes across as smug, I think you aren't giving him enough credit by calling him an 'idiot.' I contend that you do not get elected President of the USA if you are, as you say, a 'Bumbling idiot.' Nor do you become Governor.

Gosh, a self-serving politician! Well, I never heard of such a thing... C'mon! They're ALL self serving.

Michael moore seems to be just standing up for what he beleives in. Bush has made your country a place that everyone in the world, at least the ones I know, despises.

Do you really want someone like that running your country?? does that make any sense?

Hmmm... So Moore is allowed to stand up for what he believes in; however, Bush is not permitted to do so?!?

Look, Bush did not MAKE our country a place that everyone despises... It was ALREADY a place most people despised anyway... You mean to tell me that there was no anti-American sentiment before Bush was elected? Honestly?

Moreover, I would rather have Bush in command than, say, Kerry, because at least Bush has the balls to MAKE A DECISION, and SEE IT THROUGH... Right or wrong, that's not for me to decide...

Steve

[M.O.B.E]

you can get anything you want at Alice's restuarant

[dJEd]

the american government is fucking garbage and it always will be.

that is all.

[deranger]

StonMtn: I was trying to be as sarcastic as possible, to head off what I believed would be the first few Moore criticisms -- ie he's only writing/saying those things to promote himself, he's an opportunist, he's an Anti-american liberal.

Basically, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments made against the points that Moore touches on. The only thing people who hate Moore can do, is accuse him of being an opportunist, or self-promoting. Never actually engaging in what he's saying, just saying he's wrong because he makes money at it, or furthers his career. Its a very very old technique, don't bother with the specifics, just attack the character.

[jonyak]

I totaly understand what you mean by him standing up for what he beleives in and respect it...

as a leader of the biggest nation on earth should he not be thinking about what other people want? or how to improve things?

but liek I said he could have a long term plan that will go through a period of adjustment and chaos before somethign better comes out.

Also I get the distinct feeling that he is really just a puppet, that there are a few people behind the scenes that make all the real decisions.

Its just to bad that a nation that could improve the world and make alot of things better chooses not to. and yes I know we as canadians are guilty as well.

[dJEd]

if Moore is anti-american why would he waste his time trying to improve things within the shithole? why not let them burn?

lets not forget that Moore has always been Mr. Looks Out for the Little Guy. i think he's just doing what he always has, which is exposing people as big dumb jerks.

as for self-promoting, of course he is. its HIS opinion, he's not going to make movies that are your opinion or President Cowboy's.

anyway, politics piss me off so i'm going to try and stay out of this thread.

[StoneMtn]

Oops! My apologies deranger.

I thought you were serious.

Agreed; all counts.

Edited September 12, 2005 by Guest

[Steve from Cleveland]

as a leader of the biggest nation on earth should he not be thinking about what other people want? or how to improve things?

Ideally, yes. One would hope that a President would use the position to Better the world, not to make it worse. That said, I don't think he intentionally set out to fuck things up...

but like I said he could have a long term plan that will go through a period of adjustment and chaos before somethign better comes out.

I would like to believe that. I used to... I'm not so sure anymore...

Also I get the distinct feeling that he is really just a puppet, that there are a few people behind the scenes that make all the real decisions.

Of course... As I mentioned, HE (himself) does not do MOST of the things his administration is blamed for...

Also, I should note that had I known that Rehnquist was going to die in his term, and GWB would be appointing 2 justices to the Supreme Court, I probably would have agonized over my vote more than I did...

Its just to bad that a nation that could improve the world and make alot of things better chooses not to. and yes I know we as canadians are guilty as well.

Indeed... Also, I should note, that I don't think we should make policy decisions based on what is 'popular' with the rest of the world, necessarily. This is a response to your previous statement about everyone in the world despising the US. Sure I wish popular opinion of my country was more favourable... But I don't think 'public opinion' should dictate our actions by any means...

Steve

Edited September 12, 2005 by Guest

[Hux]

I'm also saying that you're blaming actions that were taken on one party when EVERYTHING you mentioned was passed by congress, which is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. It's easy to point the finger and say "The republicans did it!" when, in actuality, both parties participated. That's kind of what I meant when I said it doesn't matter who's president...

But the motion they were voting on, and the WHOLE DAM WAR was the Republican Party's and the Presidents goal and creation!! every rationale to go in there was from the Republicans, of course they all voted on it, but it was the President's idea. Remember, Saddam was responsible for 9/11? and the ensuing false evidence paraded out by the Republican Administration to prove it? ie. Colin Powell going before the UN talking about mobile chemical weapons trucks in Iraq?.....(which just last week he called a blemish on his career)

Also, I remeber the circumstances of the vote. I'm not 'conveniently' forgetting anything... I'm just pointing out the fact that none of that changes which way a person voted.

So facts don't decide how a person votes? Think of a jury in a court case. Bush put his case against Saddam for an invastion of Iraq, and the Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz - all of 'em) made the case for the war daily in the media, in Congress, everywhere....so Congress is like the Jury, they voted on the resolution to go to war based on the case put forward by Bush et. al. And trust in the institutaion of the Presidency, ie. that this monkey wouldn't use the power of the highest office in the world to LIE, and take the US to war for reasons nothing like what was paraded out.

[Hux]

Also, I should note that had I known that Rehnquist was going to die in his term, and GWB would be appointing 2 justices to the Supreme Court, I probably would have agonized over my vote more than I did...

That is just sad, Supreme Court Vacancies is ALWAYS a HUGE campaign issue - always.

[Steve from Cleveland]

Also, I should note that had I known that Rehnquist was going to die in his term, and GWB would be appointing 2 justices to the Supreme Court, I probably would have agonized over my vote more than I did...

That is just sad, Supreme Court Vacancies is ALWAYS a HUGE campaign issue - always.

Except of course, when it is likely that there won't be any. Not to mention that your average citizen doesn't even know what a Supreme Court Justice is or does... I think you're overestimating what really gets people elected in this country... The general population, as a rule, isn't informed enough to tie their own shoes, let alone decide who to vote for based on the likelihood of a S.C. Nomination... Unfortunatley, most people care more about who has the better haircut than what someone stands for...

And of course as an average American, I'm supposed to predict when the Chief Justice will die... I forgot clairvoyance was one of those 'inalienable' rights...

Edited September 12, 2005 by Guest

[Steve from Cleveland]

So facts don't decide how a person votes? Think of a jury in a court case. Bush put his case against Saddam for an invastion of Iraq, and the Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz - all of 'em) made the case for the war daily in the media, in Congress, everywhere....so Congress is like the Jury, they voted on the resolution to go to war based on the case put forward by Bush et. al.

Alas, it is the duty of the jury to distinguish fact from fantasy and decide beyond a reasonable doubt before casting their vote. I think everyone failed on this one... The jury (congress) should vote on the facts of the case, not on the case put forward by the prosecution (Bush). Why was no one questioning this intelligence before hand? Hindsight's 20/20 as they say...

...And trust in the institutaion of the Presidency, ie. that this monkey wouldn't use the power of the highest office in the world to LIE, and take the US to war for reasons nothing like what was paraded out.

Sheesh... I must've forgotten. No American President has ever LIED before. God forbid a Republican should do it...

And, really, do you think ANYONE in the government (who has access to sensitive material) should be 100% honest all of the time about everything they know? It's never been that way. Never will...

[Hux]

And of course as an average American, I'm supposed to predict when the Chief Justice will die...

No, but most Bush supporters were reminded every Sunday how the possibility existed, and even me, a Canadian, has heard of this being a big issue in the last two US campaigns. So, you missed it somehow, the Supreme Court vacancies were only a suprise to you, and people who were in coma's for a good, oh decade or so.

[Hux]

Why was no one questioning this intelligence before hand? Hindsight's 20/20 as they say...

Dude, where have you been???

Obviously you didn't follow the election campaign very closely, or um....absorbed any um...print or visual media (before or) since.

In all honesty....I haven't read any of these other Moore threads, but you must be just having fun/pulling people's legs here. If you aren't, you sadden me a great deal, and I encourage you to educate yourself - or at least move to a non-swing state.

I'm sure you're a nice guy though, take care of yourself brother.

Hux

[Steve from Cleveland]

And of course as an average American, I'm supposed to predict when the Chief Justice will die...

No, but most Bush supporters were reminded every Sunday how the possibility existed, and even me, a Canadian, has heard of this being a big issue in the last two US campaigns. So, you missed it somehow, the Supreme Court vacancies were only a suprise to you, and people who were in coma's for a good, oh decade or so.

Yep, Me and Terri Schiavo... The ONLY ones who hadn't heard anything about it...

Basically, what I was trying to say was that I anticipated Bush making 1 nomination... That I could live with. I am a bit more worried about him making 2... No more, no less... It's not like I'm totally ignorant of the fact that the president nominates Justices...

[Steve from Cleveland]

Why was no one questioning this intelligence before hand? Hindsight's 20/20 as they say...

Dude, where have you been???

Obviously you didn't follow the election campaign very closely, or um....absorbed any um...print or visual media since.

What I meant by questioning the intelligence beforehand, I meant before they voted to go to war, not before yesterday... Seems to me like they voted pretty quickly. Surely not enough time to thoroughly examine the evidence being presented. It was a vote that was rushed through because of emotion... None of this info about false intelligence was discovered before they voted to go into Iraq... It was an afterthought. And it shouldn't have been. That's all I was saying...

[doug]

the american government is fucking garbage and it always will be.

that is all.

The sad thing is it isnt drastically different than the Canadian govt. What a wonderful world this would be if people could have a true democratic political system, rather than the cloudy so-called democratic system we now have, where citizens are encouraged to believe that their "vote" for 1 party or another makes a difference in how politicians will govern. The truth seems to be that politicians make political decisions based on "party politics" with little or no thoughts/concerns for the "citizens" they are supposed to represent.

[Steve from Cleveland]

One of the most intelligent posts in the thread...

[Velvet]

Michael Moore is to Noam Chomsky as The Celistine Prophecy is to Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenence.

[bald guy in a blanket]

Steve,

I have to ask then...

Why did you vote for GWB?

(I understand if you don't want to answer...I'm just curious) You've given lots of reasons why it wasn't all that bad, but what drew you to him? (I'm scared that you are going to say security.)

I just read this entire thread in one bite...

I happen to believe that both American political parties sound and look alike because they're always playing to the same 10% of the country--the undecided. It's why the republicans call themselves the "party of inclusion" and the Dems all but apologize for being pro-choice. I fully understand why they appear to the average voter to be the same. They have to--they've got their base--they need to get the middle. It just seems that right now the republicans play this game better than the Democrats. (for some reason that is a mystery to me, it just seems harder to belive that a rich guy from the northeast is interested in your family than a rich guy from the northeast is whose family moved to Texas.)

Remember, a politicians first job is getting re-elected.

In reality the agendas are quite different. It's hard to make a credible arguement against this. The parties proceed from completely different assumptions. The republicans believe that the wealthy will contribute to widespread prosperity by building business locally and helping communities and the Dems believe that a community is revitalized by ensuring that the poorest and most marginalized aren't so poor and marginalized that they become an enormous burden for a community to bear.

Republicans---top down

Democrats---bottom up.

If you research their modern policies I think you'll find this to be true.

Both theories seem reasonable (and if you refract both parties' most critisized policies through this prism, they make more sense (Anwar, Iraq, tax cuts to rich/poor, Welfare reform, universal health care etc.)

The problem is this...

The republicans theory has always worked when building a new community (colonization from Mother England to the Mob building of Vegas) but the Democrats theory works when it comes to established communities in need of help(everything from Scandinavia in the Depression to Clinton in the '90's).

I think, and I feel it's pretty obvious, that modern North American communities are crying out for help at the bottom---the Democrats at their root believe this and the Republicans don't.

They are different. You just have to look at the record and not the TV commercials.

cool,

Jef

P.S.-I'm a fan of Mr Moore but I think this recent letter is just mean. But I do believe that he's sincere just mad and frustrated---if he was trying to best serve himself, he wouldn't have written it like he did.

P.P.S.-If I has Karl Rove planning strategy for me I think I could get elected President of the USA --and I'm a Canadian born high school teacher/musician/writer. Does Bush have to be smart? He barely needs a pulse. What he needed to be elected was his affiliations and his smile.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Guest
my perogative

[Vermontdave]

Steve,

I know the politics are very different between Ohio and Vermont, but I still can't wrap my head around the reason for any sentient being to have supported this miserable failure of a human being.

My recent timeline:

2000: Voted for McCain in primary because I knew Gore would get the nomination from the Dems (he did), but I disliked this spoiled failure of a Connecticut robber baron family (Bush) so much, I cast my lot with the Repugs for the primary (McCain won one of his only primaries in Vt.). Nov. 00, I voted Gore.

9/11/01 through about the end of January 02:

I supported this bastard and his minions bacause I thought it was for the common good. I was wrong.

Early 02 to present:

This administration has done more to hurt the collective morale of this country than any other admin in the history of my great country. IMO!

peace

p.s. MM is a blowhard ,but sometimes we need someone to blow hard. The list grows daily.

[Velvet]

"I contend that you do not get elected President of the USA if you are, as you say, a 'Bumbling idiot."

-That is the only argument I've ever heard to prove he's not an idiot. That kinda hints to me that your contention may be incorrect (not to mention VDave's more astute observation).

"Bush did not MAKE our country a place that everyone despises... It was ALREADY a place most people despised anyway..."

-That's where the propoganda shows through. Yes, America has been the bad boy for quite a while, but the thing that everybody outside of America can see (but seems hard to convince Americans of) is that anti-American sentiment is now raging beyond anything the world has ever seen, and yes, Bushco. is to blame.

"I don't think we should make policy decisions based on what is 'popular' with the rest of the world, necessarily."

-Except perhaps international policy...

"I don't think 'public opinion' should dictate our actions by any means..."

-What if that public opinion is "Get the fuck out of my country and leave me and my people to our own business"?

"I think you're overestimating what really gets people elected in this country..."

-You mean touch-screen voting?

"I think everyone failed on this one... The jury (congress) should vote on the facts of the case, not on the case put forward by the prosecution (Bush). Why was no one questioning this intelligence before hand?"

-I don't know about down there, but up here it seemed that every day the chief inspector was saying that there was nothing in Iraq. I'm with you on this point, it's amazing that anybody believed Bushco.! Did you remember how he lied to the people about that in order to sell a war that continues to daily kill and maim your countrymen when you voted last time? I don't mean to be callous, honestly, it's just a bit mindboggling how anybody could support him after that (and a few other things).

"It was a vote that was rushed through because of emotion"

-emotion or agenda?

I hope that someday GWB will have some sort of epiphany and realise the carnage he has helmed.

[deranger]

Read Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" He notates everything, being a good journalist, and the book sheds intersting light on how to steal an election. Keeping people off voter rolls is easy.

[dancingbear]

I don;t profess to know alot about american politics but I, knowing the little that I do, can't imagine any reason why someone would EVER vote for bush. It just doesn;t register anywhere in my brain why someone would vote for him

agreed.

[Steve from Cleveland]

So much to respond to... I'm almost done with work, so if I don't get to all your posts, hang tight...

Steve,

I have to ask then...

Why did you vote for GWB?

(I understand if you don't want to answer...I'm just curious) You've given lots of reasons why it wasn't all that bad, but what drew you to him? (I'm scared that you are going to say security.)

Beacuse Terrorists scare me... KIDDING... Only kidding...

First of all, let me say this... I was raised in a household where my parents were both right-leaning. That has a lot to do with my political outlook. I'm not saying that I vote republican because my folks do, but I am saying that political opinions are, to some extent taught to us. I view this as being similar to religion... If your folks are Catholic, you're pretty much Catholic too. Politics is a bit different, but what I'm trying to say is that we do 'learn' (or are socialized) to favor one side or the other...

I do not vote strictly republican, either... I have voted for Democrats and Independent candidates in various elections for various offices.

I voted for GWB in the 2000 election, because Al Gore is a fucking moron, among other reasons. I tend to vote republican, and when the Democrat candidate is Gore, there's really NOT much incentive to change my mind on that one...

What led me to vote to re-elect him in 2004? Among other things...

I approved of the way he handled himself and the country after 9/11. Ok, he did get a [color:purple]little ummmm.... bloodthirsty and/or misdirected after that. But overall, I think that (at the beginning) he did a good job there...

Tax cuts... I got a check. Money is a pretty good thing to have, and I certainly appreciated getting some back...

In 2004, several factors played into my decision. At this point I should note, that had Howard Dean gotten the nod from the Dems, I would have voted for him... Alas, poor Dean-O was sacrificed in favour of the 'Better' candidate, John Kerry.

Unfortunately, as do most elections, this one came down to the 'lesser of two evils' argument.

Another thing, and I realize that this is a HUGELY unpopular viewpoint; I am really NOT all that upset about the Iraq situation. I know I'm going to hear it on this one. Yes, the justification for invading was misleading. Yes, it was not about 'Liberation' at the beginning. BUT, YES there is the opportunity for good to come of this. I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong of us to be there. What I am saying is that ONCE we comitted, it HAD to be for the long haul. We can't just go in, overthrow a government and then just up and leave. All these 'Bring our troops home NOW' people can fuck right off. That is NOT an option. And I believe that John Kerry would have been MORE focused on bringing the troops home than following through with something that he (admittedly) did not believe in. Bush believed in the reason why we were there. Therefore, he's the man I want in command. Yeah it didn't go smoothly, but I didn't expect it to. I guess it's kind of like cleaning your room(or the garage, whatever) before it REALLY gets clean, it's gonna get pretty darn messy.

Some things DO scare me about him... Namely his religious zeal...

I happen to believe that both American political parties sound and look alike because they're always playing to the same 10% of the country--the undecided. It's why the republicans call themselves the "party of inclusion" and the Dems all but apologize for being pro-choice. I fully understand why they appear to the average voter to be the same. They have to--they've got their base--they need to get the middle. It just seems that right now the republicans play this game better than the Democrats.

In reality the agendas are quite different. It's hard to make a credible arguement against this. The parties proceed from completely different assumptions. The republicans believe that the wealthy will contribute to widespread prosperity by building business locally and helping communities and the Dems believe that a community is revitalized by ensuring that the poorest and most marginalized aren't so poor and marginalized that they become an enormous burden for a community to bear.

Republicans---top down

Democrats---bottom up.

If you research their modern policies I think you'll find this to be true.

An excellent summary of the 2 party system, and differences between. And I agree with your assessment. However, I have some issues with the 'social' aspect to the Dem. approach. This probably is a result of growing up in a republican household. People on welfare STAY on welfare. Because it's easier. Not all of them, but MOST of them. It was not intended to be a WAY OF LIFE, it was intended as a way out of that life.

Dems believe that a community is revitalized by ensuring that the poorest and most marginalized aren't so poor and marginalized that they become an enormous burden for a community to bear.

Sure, now they're just poor, marginalized, AND and enormous burden...

I think, and I feel it's pretty obvious, that modern North American communities are crying out for help at the bottom---the Democrats at their root believe this and the Republicans don't.

They are different. You just have to look at the record and not the TV commercials.

Look, I know that they have different ideologies and whatnot. There are differences... But the bottom line, for me, is that it has become about what's best for the PARTY not what's best for the people. That's my biggest complaint. Nobody looks at the fucking issues, they look at who sponsored the bill. Untill there is actually some progress made on a bipartisan basis, nothing is going to fucking change. No matter what the IDEAS of the guy on top...

S/C

Edited September 14, 2005 by Guest