Extreme Liberal's Blog

Where Liberalism Is Alive and Well!

With Friends Like Michael Moore, Who Needs Enemies?

Michael Moore is often dead on with his critiques of Republicans and many times with Democrats as well, but just like with his films, he often makes the facts fit whatever narrative he is trying to push.

Like many others in the “firebagger brigade”, since the election of President Obama, he spends most of his time criticizing Democrats. Personally, I’m sick of his whiny “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately” shtick and based on the actions he takes every election cycle, he doesn’t seem very concerned about electing liberals to office. If he were, he would be more careful about what comes out of his pie hole. In fact, I see his shtick as very harmful to liberal politicians.

There was a clip flying around the internet the other day in which Michael Moore imparts his wisdom to us on politics and tells us why the 2010 elections favored the Republicans. For those of you who are aware of reality, it’s maddening to watch. It is a perfect example of the type of hyperbole that Moore employs and how he will say whatever he needs to — in order to push his narrative and thus his brand. Roll tape:

For those of you who can’t watch clips online, here is my rush transcript of his idiotic, uninformed rant.

“The only reason Obama won was because of 18 to 29 year olds. That’s why he won, I hope you understand that he lost the entire white vote. You do know that, right? 57% of whites voted for McCain, white men. 53% of white women voted for McCain. He lost the white vote but became president of the United States. How did that happen? Because he got an overwhelmingly…number of, an overwhelming number of votes from the one white demographic, and only one that he won, 18 to 29 year olds. (applause) They came out in record numbers and put him over the top, along with…Ann Richards told me a story a long time ago, it’s not a story, it’s just a fact. Where she said to me, do you realize that since Harry Truman, no Democrat other than Lyndon Johnson in ’64 has won the White House with, by winning the white male vote. They all have lost the white…Clinton lost it both times, Carter lost it, Obama lost it and yet there’s so much the Democrats are trying to appeal to the crazy white guy. Forget about him, he’s got a party. I mean, don’t forget about him, I mean, I mean, I’m not a self hating white guy, I’m just saying, so don’t forget about me. But, I’m just saying that, that, that we need to think about this.

So young people didn’t come out in 2010, they stayed home. You know, I’m at these things around the country, people are going, how come these young people didn’t come out, why didn’t they come out, if they were so excited in ’08. Well it’s because they are young people, cuz they don’t suffer fools, cuz they don’t take bullshit. You promise them something, you better do it or they’re gonna call you on it. They don’t like hypocrites, they don’t like somebody that doesn’t follow through, they’re like DAD, YOU SAID YOU’D STOP THE WAR, DAD, YOU SAID YOU’D CLOSE GUANTANAMO THE FIRST DAY, DAD…I’M NOT VOTING. And you know, god I’m glad we aren’t that way, we’ve learned to…garbled talk…they’re not like that. We need young people and their rebellion and their ability to not go along with BS. And their not going to go along with President Obama’s BS. He let them down, they stayed home. He wants to keep letting them down for the next year, they’ll stay home. Lots of people will stay home.

Obama’s problem, you know, isn’t according to Rahm Emmanual calling us all f-ing retards, right? Right, remember that? You know, his problem isn’t the Michael Moores, we’re all going to vote for Obama, that’s not the problem. The problem is that we’re not going to be able to bring 10 people with us to the polls. Who we gonna look in the eye and say, hey yeah, the last 3 years, whoa yeah. You know, and we’re not goin to be able to tell too many people. You know it was really Bush’s fault, Bush left this mess…yeah, yeah, thats all true, it’s all true. But we elected him to start cleaning up the mess…”

There is so much wrong with what Michael Moore said. He is the king of hyperbole. And whenever he gets called out on it, he acts all humble and pulls out his, “I’m just a high school graduate” and implies that he’s just speaking for the common man. It’s almost an excuse for getting so many facts wrong, he should either take a minute and Google it or keep his wisdom to himself.

It Sucks To Lose An Election You Weren’t In

The first and most obvious thing that comes to my mind after watching that clip is that PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT IN 2010. I really shouldn’t have to tell people that, but with all the blame being heaped on President Obama for an election he wasn’t even in, I feel it’s necessary to remind people. If Moore wants to shift the blame away from a congress that has poll ratings lower than serial killers, he ought to at least acknowledge that he is casting blame on a man who wasn’t even on the ballot.

And regardless of how the pundits want to spin things, all politics are local. If you have a representative who is doing a good job, do you vote him/her out because of what a national politician has done. No fucking way. So the entire premise that a president, whether Democrat or Republican, has a major impact on midterm elections is just pundits pushing agendas. And then trying to tie turnout to a president who isn’t on the ballot takes it even further into unreality.

If you look at the above statement, it isn’t hard to see that Michael Moore completely ignores and marginalizes black voters — making it all about what part of the white vote candidate Obama got. What does this statement say to you,  “The only reason Obama won was because of the 18 – 29 year olds. That’s why he won, I hope you understand that he lost the entire white vote, 57% of whites voted for McCain, white men. 53% of white women voted for McCain….an overwhelming number of votes from the one white demographic, and only one that he won, 18 to 29 year olds.

He begins with the gross exaggeration that “he lost the entire white vote”, which is obviously just over-the-top rhetoric because he contradicts himself in the next sentence. Moore frequently says stuff and then takes it back or says he didn’t mean it. You know a lot of people think before they say shit, you might want to give that a try Mike. He has made a career out of exaggerations and misrepresentations, just watch one of his movies.

He then goes on to say the only reason Obama won was because of that group of white 18 – 29 year olds, which is complete horseshit for several reasons. Every vote counts and to make a claim that just one part of the electorate is wholly responsible for a candidate winning is, well, just fucking stupid. It’s playing games with statistics and molding them to fit some bizarre narrative.

If you watched the video, you can see how he emphasizes “the one white demographic, and only one that he won, 18 to 29 year olds.” That statement , very oddly, elicited applause from the crowd. I imagined Moore was channeling his inner Joan Walsh on that one. And of course, it was those white kids that “put him over the top”, not the millions of others from many races who also turned out in record numbers.

Here is an interesting fact about the 18 – 29 year old voters in 2008 that doesn’t factor into Moore’s equation.

Blacks ages 18 to 29 increased their voter turnout rate by 8.7 percentage points, from 49.5% in 2004 to 58.2% in 2008, according to an analysis by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University, The voter turnout rate among young black eligible voters was higher than that of young eligible voters of any other racial and ethnic group in 2008. This, too, was a first.

Rich White Guys Know Best

I’m left wondering why Moore separates out the white voters from the black voters and why he emphasized it so much in his speech? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense, as far as I can tell. And I’m left wondering why he told the Ann Richards story about how every Democratic president since Truman, with the exception of Lyndon Johnson, won without getting the majority of the white vote. I guess the point he was clumsily trying to make was that he thinks that President Obama is trying to appeal to “crazy white guys.” Maybe it was just a setup so he could go all self-deprecating, another part of his shtick that is growing old.

Notice the gesture he does when he says “I’m not a self hating white guy, I’m just saying, so don’t forget about me.” He does a “little ole me” gesture as he clutches his throat with both hands. He’s just your average Joe — flying around in a private jet on his book tour and “Occupy co-opting”, living in his upper west side New York apartment or his Lake Michigan beach front home in my great state of Michigan. Poor, poor “Millionaire Mike.”

That line of reasoning dovetails with a recent, racially insensitive comment he made on The View, where he repeated that oh so funny joke of Bill Maher’s — the one where he says he voted for the black guy, but got the white guy. He has a history of dealing with racial issues in a very privileged, paternal way. I’ve heard him say many times that he is “disappointed” in Obama and every time I hear it, it comes off as very condescending, arrogant and from a place of privilege. I found a fascinating essay that explores his treatment of race in the film Bowling for Columbine that helped shed some light on what I perceive to be Moore’s issue. Go read the whole piece, it’s pretty deep but a great read.

Michael Moore’s self-location within the subject of race, and within the film itself, as safely and ironically removed from either the operation of racism or its effects takes two primary forms. The first consists of the ironic humorist who finds images demonstrating the perpetuation of racism entertainingly stupid. The second consists of the paternal authority who both comforts and speaks for people of color. Moore’s medium, film, and his agenda to understand the culture and people of the United States all but require him to grant speaking subjectivity to US residents of color within his film, but he constructs himself and other white men as the subjects who can best interpret, understand, and describe the country, and the function of racism, to his viewers.

That passage speaks volumes to me about Michael Moore’s attitude towards our first black president. I think it applies equally to many of the white progressives who continually talk down to President Obama, many who can’t even seem to call him President. It is especially frustrating to hear the white progressive punditry lecture him about politics. It makes me want to say, well as soon as you get elected President of the United States, you come talk to me. Until then, Shut The Fuck Up!

Occupying The Minds Of Young Voters

The next section of his rant infuses many falsehoods together into one pile of steaming shit. He claims that the reason young people didn’t turn out in 2010 is because “they don’t suffer fools”, which considering what he says immediately afterwards, is basically calling President Obama a fool. He goes on to say “they don’t take bullshit”, but then starts into a caricature of a young person as a whiny kid, “Dad, you said they’d stop the war. Dad, you said you’d close Guantanamo on the first day…I’m not voting.” Let me remind you again that President Obama was not on the ballot. Making a direct correlation between voter turnout and someone who wasn’t on the ballot, like I said, is fucking stupid. I know people make connections between the mood in the country and all that, but if there is a connection, it is a tenuous one at best. Making such bold proclamations from an indirect correlation, reveals a different agenda to me. Why else would he go to such extremes to pin voter turnout on a president in an off presidential year. Midterm elections always have much lower turnout and it’s a “fools” game to try to blame it on any one reason.

The idea that a midterm election is always a referendum on the sitting president is, in my opinion, one manufactured by the media and perpetuated by the likes of Michael Moore. I know people love to cite exit polls as proof, but once again, he was not on the ballot, so any opinions from exit polls are completely independent of why they showed up to the polls. Many times. it’s the referendums and local issues that get people to show up in midterm elections. If President Obama had been on the ballot, I know that the results would have been much different. The discontent on the left in 2010 was as much about the helplessness of trying to govern with the “Party of No” thwarting him at every turn, as it was about the President. I’ve had many times where I thought, what’s the use, Republicans and conservadems will just squash anything he tries. I’m sure glad President Obama keeps pressing forward, he’s one tenacious dude.

Another gem in Moore’s pile of shit was his reference to closing Guantanamo on the first day. The reality is that President Obama did issue an order to close Gitmo on his first full day as President. The bigger reality that always seems to get missed by the whiny, arrogant, Professional Left is that congress appropriates money and after Obama fought for months to get Guantanamo closed, the boneheads in congress, including Democratic boneheads, made it impossible. They killed the bill that would fund the closure. Do you EVER hear any of the Professional Left place blame on anyone other than President Obama — the guy who tried like hell to close it. Please share in the comments if you did.

And of course, on the line about ending the wars — combat operations in Iraq have been over since August of 2010 and as we learned recently, they will all be out by the end of the year — just as President Obama promised. And the timetable for getting out of Afghanistan may happen ahead of schedule. The other promise candidate Obama made of weakening Al Qaeda has been overwhelmingly successful. And no, I don’t like the idea of increased drone attacks and the innocent people who have been killed and injured. But living in reality, I never expected that cleaning up after Bush and Cheney’s mess was going to be easy. Anyone who thinks that, is deluding themselves and needs to accept that we live in a pretty violent, shitty world. When I think about all the innocent people who are dying in hundreds of countries every day, including our own, it makes me want to curl up in the fetal position.

What Was That Nixon Era Term That Starts With Rat and Ends With Ucker?

The next part of Michael Moore’s uninformed and counterproductive rant points to the reason why Michael Moore is much more of a friend to Republicans than Democrats. (emphasis mine)

We need young people and their rebellion and their ability to not go along with BS. And their not going to go along with President Obama’s BS. He let them down, they stayed home. He wants to keep letting them down for the next year, they’ll stay home. Lots of people will stay home.

That statement is based on the premise that young people stayed home in 2010 solely because of President Obama, not because they always do, or because the entire mood of the electorate was down after 2 years of Republican and conservadem hell, not because maybe the angry, white, racist Tea Party was mobilized against the man being portrayed as a Kenyan, Muslim intent on destroying America….nah, it was all because President Obama “disappointed” the kids. Didn’t do what they wanted and they threw a temper tantrum on the kitchen floor and screamed, “I’m not voting.”

But the signal it sends to anyone watching is that they would be justified in staying home. Michael Moore, in effect, is giving them permission to stay home and planting that seed which will later be fertilized with more horseshit that is surely to come out of Michael Moore’s white, privileged pie hole.

And if Moore hadn’t spewed enough crap to this point, he then takes it even further with this misrepresentation of reality, which I think elicited a “what the fuck is he talking about” response from the audience, based on Moore’s reaction to the audience.

Obama’s problem, you know, isn’t according to Rahm Emanuel calling us all f-ing retards, right? Right, remember that?

The one and only Angry Black Lady explains exactly why this statement is such an exaggeration of what was actually said. Just one more example of the Professional Left searching for reasons to whine.

Rahm Emanuel made his famous “fucking retarded” comment, and the Professional Left got itself in an uproar, even though any sensible reading of Emanuel’s comments could not possibly lead to the conclusion that he was referring to a couple of bloggers as being “fucking retarded,” or that he was referencing liberals as a whole as “fucking retarded.”

The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.

“F—ing retarded,” Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.

So while, Emanuel did use the term “fucking retarded” and yes, using the term “retarded” is ableist and offensive, all the Professional Left could think about were their huwt feewings and the crumpled tissues soaked with tears of disappointment, even though they had to misrepresent the context in which the statement was made in order to include themselves among the hippies that Emanuel had so brutally punched.

So the statement Michael Moore attributes to Rahm Emanuel was aimed at the idea of running ads against conservative democrats, he was not calling anyone that name, let alone Michael Moore or as Moore tries to exaggerate further “calling us all f-ing retards, right?.” What would be Moore’s reason for outright lying about what Rahm Emanuel said and aiming it at his audience?

Dissemble Much?

So after all that bullshit, lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations and extreme hyperbole….what comes out of his mouth?

You know, his problem isn’t the Michael Moore’s, we’re all going to vote for Obama, that’s not the problem. The problem is that we’re not going to be able to bring 10 people with us to the polls. Who we gonna look in the eye and say, hey yeah, the last 3 years, whoa yeah. You know, and we’re not goin to be able to tell too many people. You know it was really Bush’s fault, Bush left this mess…yeah, yeah, that’s all true, it’s all true. But we elected him to start cleaning up the mess…”

So what he’s really saying is, of course I’m going to vote for him, but in the mean time, I’m going to trash him and give all the moderates and independents a reason not to vote. Is he a masochist who longs for Republican rule again.  If he is really going to vote for President Obama, he should be telling everyone who will listen that fact. He should be dragging a hundred people to the polls, if he really thinks that Republicans are scum and that President Obama is worthy of his vote.

I’m sure you noticed what was missing from his idiotic dialogue, any recognition that the Republican Party had anything to do with the last 3 years. There is no mention of their unprecedented obstruction, no mention of their being taken over by the Tea Party, no mention of even the conservadems and Joe Lieberman, who have been a constant pain in President Obama’s ass. The one thing he trots out is the idea that Bush is to blame, which with the help of the media has been turned around and used against the President. The media helped put a statute of limitations on how long someone can be blamed for fucking up an entire country over the course of 8 years. It was less than 3 months. So the one thing Moore trots out that could be considered context, is a talking point that actually works against the president. Thanks for nothing, Mike!

Michael Moore clearly lives in an alternate reality where the consequences of voting or not voting have no relevance. He isn’t going to hurt at all if Republicans get control of the White House again. He isn’t going to have his right to an abortion taken away when the next president chooses our next Supreme Court justices. He isn’t going to suffer from malnourishment when the government takes away his food stamps. He isn’t going to suffer one bit and in fact, will probably make millions of dollars off a snarky, poorly sourced “documentary” that takes advantage of those suffering people — because he helped elect President Perry or Romney. With friends like Michael Moore, who the fuck needs enemies.

Cross-posted at Angry Black Lady Chronicles

About these ads

November 4, 2011 - Posted by | 2012 Election, Democratic Party, Media, MSM, Politics, President Barack Obama, Professional Left, Supreme Court, Tea Party |

34 Comments »

  1. Great post!! im daowens44 by the way ;-)

    Comment by dannie22annie22 | November 4, 2011 | Reply

  2. OMG! An incredible, piece. You covered it all. I was only able to watch for about a minute. The man is an egomaniac. I imagine he was not very well liked as a kid and now compensates in wanting constant attention.

    Comment by Dorothy Rissman | November 4, 2011 | Reply

  3. Well done.
    For Moore, is all about Moore. Been that way from the start, with “Roger and me”.

    Comment by hockley | November 4, 2011 | Reply

  4. Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler was on MSNBC’s Hardball today saying that his teabaggers don’t like Mitt Romney but will still vote for him as the most important thing is to prevent President Obama having a second term. [Note: the reich will NOT stay at home on election day like some whiny Democrats but will still vote even if they have to hold their noses].

    When Romney’s flip-flopping was brought up, Meckler began promoting Obama’s “flip-flopping” on Guantanamo sounding almost word-for-word like Michael Moore. Thankfully David Corn got a word in edgewise and called out Meckler by giving facts that it was Republicans who blocked Obama on Gitmo from the start.

    I am getting tired of Chris Matthews all over TV promoting his new tome on JFK and keeps calling out Obama to be “more like John Kennedy” or he won’t be re-elected. Also, highlighted on Matthew’s show today is that according to a USA Today poll, Obama will lose the electoral college votes in most all the prime swing states 13 months from now! Funny how Obama is already “losing” to an UN-named opponent.

    Comment by grantinhouston | November 4, 2011 | Reply

    • What does Mathews mean about wanting Obama to be more like JFK? Does he want him to cheat on his wife like JFK did or does he mean governing? The problem with that analysis is that JFK was assassinated before he could get a lot of meaningful things done. Sure he could hand crisis fairly well like Russia for example but its a dumb comparison to make.

      Comment by jeff | November 4, 2011 | Reply

      • Some folks at DU are getting tired of Matthews, too? What benefit does our party get by slamming one of our own? Oh, maybe it will sell some books, earn Tweety a few extra bucks:

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433×810557

        I was a YAF college Republican in 1960 so Kennedy was never much of a hero of mine and therefore I never saw him through rose-colored martyrdom glasses. The whole Kennedy family were supporters of Sen. Joe McCarthy who engaged in anti-communist witch-hunts. I never thought JFK in reality was all that successful, failing at the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose to remove Castro from Cuba. Then JFK dangerously pushed Khrushchev to the brink by having Jupiter IRBMs installed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 – more than 100 US-built missiles having the capability to strike Moscow with nuclear warheads. Thankfully JFK won the game of “bluff” with Khrushchev, getting the Soviets to abandon their Cuban missile silos by signing a pact that the USA would never invade Cuba and that we would remove our missiles from Turkey. Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall during JFK’s administration. After a meeting with Khrushchev at the Vienna Summit, Kennedy was bullied by the Soviet Premier. British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said, “For the first time in his life, Kennedy met a man who was impervious to his charm.”

        JFK was a hawk in Vietnam, believing in the “Domino Theory” that Communism was on the march in Asia. He sent in 1000 American military advisers to help train the army of the Ngo Dinh Diem dictatorship. When Diem became an embarrassment, JFK and our CIA saw to it that Diem was assassinated only 3 weeks before Kennedy’s assassination. Charles De Gaulle warned Kennedy that Vietnam and warfare in Vietnam would trap America in a “bottomless military and political swamp” but JFK ignored the French leader, also the advice of John Kenneth Galbraith who repeatedly warned about not getting involved in SE Asia. In April 1963, Kennedy expressed his assessment of the situation in Vietnam to advisers: “We don’t have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at any point. But I can’t give up that territory to the Communists and get the American people to re-elect me”

        Kennedy was a dreamer and that may have been his biggest contribution to my generation. He gave us HOPE! I did support RFK in 1968, not so much that I liked him as he had been underhanded as Attorney General, but because he was the anti-war candidate. I was never a big Ted Kennedy fan until his last “sober” years. I didn’t like his underhanded tactics opposing President Jimmy Carter thus helping to give us Ronald Reagan. I could never condone his behavior at Chappaquiddick either but later realized he was a sick alcoholic at the time….and a Kennedy.

        Comment by grantinhouston | November 4, 2011 | Reply

  5. holy moly this is gold. tweetin it. thx!

    Comment by a4alice | November 4, 2011 | Reply

  6. THANK YOU. EPIC WIN.

    This post finally gave me the FUCKITALL to write THIS:

    http://theobamadiary.com/a-word-from-tally/

    share. enjoy. whatev.

    Comment by Tally | November 4, 2011 | Reply

    • Tally, that piece was an epic win of it’s own. Well done, lady. Very well done.

      Comment by Eclectablog | November 6, 2011 | Reply

      • Thanks babe! ❤

        Feel free to send, tweet, FB, cross post, beat people over the head with it – whatever.

        Comment by Tally | November 6, 2011 | Reply

    • Excellent piece Tally. And thanks for your kind words.

      Comment by ExtremeLiberal | November 6, 2011 | Reply

      • Thank YOU!!!

        I’ve been meaning to write that for a month. Thanks for giving me the kick in the ass I needed. :)

        Comment by Tally | November 6, 2011 | Reply

  7. I think you have over stated your case. Perhaps Michael Moore sometimes does do the same, but your overall impression of Mr Moore in this article is just way off base.. You come across here as a racist and perhaps you have blinders on when you attempt to analyze Obama. Try ro get rid of your anger first and then write something that is more convincing.

    Comment by John R. Huff Jr. | November 4, 2011 | Reply

    • Racist? uhmmmm wat? Did you read the whole thing?

      You really ought to see to that wind burn.

      Comment by Tally | November 5, 2011 | Reply

    • I actually think I was understating, if anything. Have you seen any of Moore’s recent appearances on the old TV? The original draft of this post was a wee bit different. We’re putting people on notice…they can’t keep going around spewing falsehoods and expect us to sit back and watch. Game M-Fing on, they say shit, we’re going call em out.

      Comment by ExtremeLiberal | November 5, 2011 | Reply

    • John R Huff Jr…you don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe it is you who has on “the blinders”? Could that be..hmmmm? Just maybe perhaps? That’s what I’m thinkin’.

      Comment by Cha | November 5, 2011 | Reply

    • @Huff: Racist? Seriously? Do you just whip that accusation out when someone criticizes a person you like?

      Comment by Eclectablog | November 6, 2011 | Reply

  8. I see that John R. Huff, Jr. needs to go to the sidebar to see the award winning film (from several prestigious black film festivals) that our blog host here created about the black experience in America. It was narrated by Cicely Tyson and will be broadcast on PBS this coming February as part of Black History Month. For John R. Huff to call someone he doesn’t even know, a “racist” just because one doesn’t “kiss the ring” of Michael Moore, is absurd. Teabaggers like Limbaugh and Coulter have recently called “liberals” racists because someone (most probably a REPUBLICAN) is revealing the fraud that is Herman Cain. Nice try, John R. Huff, to similarly try to discredit Jim here on HIS blog.

    http://www.upfromthebottoms.com/

    Comment by grantinhouston | November 5, 2011 | Reply

  9. I see some people are mixed up as to what this post means. These are the right-leaners of course – the Mark Mecklers. He doesn’t know what, ‘to flip-flop means,’ but he offers up a “perfect example” (his words) “He (Obama) said he was going to close Guantanamo as soon as he was POTUS; he didn’t do it.” That’s not a flip flop. Not even close.

    I’ve tried for four years now to tell republicans (not all, some 99 percenters of republican lunch carrying workers are squared away) I’ve tried to tell them that common sense knows no boundaries, has no preferences; does not discriminate, crosses all lines,languages and cultures – common sense is like, music, smiles and laughter. Like, nodding your head for yes and shaking it for no. Common sense stops you from diving into empty swimming pools. But, many righties just don’t understand it (a mental block, it seems) but then those repubs who do get it are bullies; ready to push and shove rather than agree with common sense. This article on friends and enemies and Michael Moore should be required reading for the 2012 POTUS election. It is full of common sense!

    Comment by lennilenape | November 5, 2011 | Reply

  10. I think Michal Moore has sold out, been bought out. He’s a millionaire. And, like most of them he NEEDS more – kinda like Rush’s drug habit – just gotta have it. The Republican politicians knows he has a big following and this would be the right time to buy him, and use him. He could be their next Sarah Palin and Herman Cain – dumb as posts but talk like hell. Talking the way he does in that video “clip,” he has already rolled over onto his belly. Will he come out with another clip showing democratic support if he hasn’t?

    Comment by lennilenape | November 5, 2011 | Reply

  11. Michael Moore graduated from high school? He’s more accomplished than I thought.

    Comment by Hershell Bryant (@Hershell_Bryant) | November 5, 2011 | Reply

  12. I like Michael Moore, and I’ve been critical of President Obama at my blog, “What’s the Diehl?” I think this piece is compelling and provocative and I’m glad I stumbled upon it but I don’t quite get the anger you have at Moore. It’s a good thing to have prominent people holding the president’s feet to the fire, and I don’t think Moore’s misstatements are intentional (e.g. Emanuel’s “fucking retard,” comment) or that his modus operandi is to deliberately twist the truth to fit his agenda, as you assert. I also think the repeated references to Moore’s economic status are cheap shots; because he’s got cash in the bank, he can’t give a shit about starving, homeless people anymore, except to the extent that doing so sells his next book or film? That’s beyond cynical. Not everyone who’s critical of POTUS is a racist or a whiny member of the professional left intent on helping to defeat a guy who’s just thwarted at every turn by an evil GOP. Surely you can make your points without the marginalizing, labeling and name-calling (which I admit to doing a lot at my blog as well).

    I could enumerate the many reasons why the president has disappointed me or reference his ties to Wall Street or the pledges on which he’s reneged but I won’t. Suffice it to say that you’re a hell of a writer and I admire your passion. I just don’t share your disdain for Michael Moore or anyone else who challenges President Obama to keep his promises.

    Comment by Patrick Diehl | November 5, 2011 | Reply

    • Thanks for stopping by. If we are going to have prominent people holding anyone’s feet to the fire, I want them to be more prominent than Michael Moore. This isn’t the only thing he’s said recently that was loaded with uninformed (lies) statements. He has bought into a lot of the same manufactured memes and outrage that many others in the Professional Left have, who seem intent on focusing solely on how President Obama has “disappointed” them and then they exaggerate or embellish reality to give themselves even more reasons to be disappointed. This isn’t the only instance of Michael Moore saying stuff that isn’t true, playing to his populist audience and furthering false memes.

      The references to his money, well if you are going to represent yourself as “everyman” and speak for the working class, like he always attempts, then he is going to take a little heat about his lifestyle. Flying a private jet to Occupy protests kind of opens you up to criticism. They aren’t cheap shots either. And when did I say that he doesn’t care about starving and homeless, please don’t put ideas in my mouth. I chose my words pretty carefully, not perfectly, but pretty carefully.

      I’m angry because I’ve seen this type of crap from him for way too long. And even though he isn’t directly responsible, he helped create the environment that allowed for the Supreme Court to pick George W. Bush as president.

      I think President Obama has done an incredible job. I’m not disappointed in him AT ALL. I’m disappointed in our system, the Republican Party of No, the conservadems who watered down everything in the first two years when we almost had 60 votes to break a filibuster, I’m disappointed in the left media for abandoning this President, some before he was even sworn in, I’m disappointed in the cable news networks that seem to be competing for Tea Party viewers now in the model of Fox news and I’m disappointed that people like Michael Moore, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Adam Green and the rest of the bunch have decided that because their vision of what President Obama was supposed to be hasn’t been delivered on a silver platter, they are going to pick apart everything he does and not give him credit for a goddamn thing.

      I’m disappointed in Michael Moore. Obviously.

      Comment by ExtremeLiberal | November 5, 2011 | Reply

      • Glen Greenwald was never part of the left. He’s endorsed by Cato institute which is funded by the Koch brothers. This should tell you why Glen doesn’t like the president as he’s a libertarian.

        Comment by jeff | November 6, 2011 | Reply

    • Holding President Obama’s feet to the fire is a noble and worthy thing to do IF YOU USE FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. What EL has pointed out so well here is that Moore is using a skewed version of history to the feet holding and that’s disingenuous at best and harmful to the cause at worst.

      The part of this essay that stood out most for me was discussion about Moore creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by giving on-the-fence liberals plenty of justification not to vote for the President in 2012 (based on half-truths and misstatements) and then blaming the President for it. That’s harmful to the progressive cause and he should be held accountable for it.

      I have been a Michael Moore fan from the very first. I’ve always been proud that he is from Michigan and that he is a voice for blue collared, Middle Class Everyman and Everywoman. But, lately, he has crossed over into saying things and doing things that are provocative without actually helping the cause. I have big problems with that and he’s lost an enormous amount of credibility with. And not just because he’s criticizing President Obama.

      Comment by Eclectablog | November 6, 2011 | Reply

  13. Watching the Sunday morning talk shows, one can come away being depressed. Emphasized today was that the Gallup/USA Today poll of this past week shows that over 2/3 of Americans don”t feel better off that “four years ago”. However not asked in the poll, is how many feel they are at the SAME level as four years ago? The poll question had either/or wording. What would be wrong with having a steady standard of living? After all things cannot keep getting better in a finite world.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110824/Gallup-Daily-US-Economic-Outlook.aspx

    Looking at consumer spending, the stock markets, employment, the economy seems to be moving slowly in a POSITIVE direction. But then the MSM needs controversy like a vampire needs blood. The poll citing “enthusiasm” to turn out to vote, nationally, Republicans were ahead 56% to 48% over Democrats. In the swing states, the GOP was ahead in the enthusiasm race 59% to 48%. Whiny liberals from the “professional left” do nothing to increase voter turnout by Democrats.

    Much talk this morning was about Bill Clinton’s new book, “Back to Work” with “talking head” emphasis on Clinton finding some faults with the Obama administration, mostly on style and framing. From some of the reviews I had read, this was not the most important part of Clinton’s tome…but leave it to the talking heads to try to stir up controversy. Chris Matthews, pimping his JFK book on Meet the Press, said there are more “Clinton people out there than Obama people now”. Obama has been more progressive than Clinton. Don’t “progressives” remember or in their own way making Clinton like a deified “Reagan” of the left. Matthews then grinned that of course the Clintons won’t oppose the president. Then why bring it up?

    Comment by grantinhouston | November 6, 2011 | Reply

    • I read the polls myself and have been finding Gallup seems to be backing republicans but that comes as no surprise as they ask people whether they think the media is liberal or conservative and more people say liberal. Big surprise eh? BUT what Gallup does not do is word the questions properly as they seem to be stuck with wordings that the average citizen doesn’t know. Another thing that they could have done is gone through all the coverage to see how much of the media is actually conservative vs liberal. Gallup like most polls are afraid to do this sort of thing.

      Comment by jeff | November 6, 2011 | Reply

      • Americans are made to believe that “life always gets better”, their house ” will always gain value”, that their “kids will have it better than they have had it”. So if one is only asked whether they have it better today than four years ago, and there is no answer choice that it has stayed the same, then based upon the assumptions outlined above, it is either better or worse.

        The gap between the net worth of Americans age 65 and older and those under age 35 is now the widest ever, a 10:1 ratio:

        http://www.chron.com/default/article/US-wealth-gap-between-young-and-old-is-widest-ever-2255432.php

        Comment by grantinhouston | November 7, 2011 | Reply

  14. Couple of things I agree with one of Grant’s early comments for all the talk about how the tea bag wing of the Republican Party hates Mittens, they will vote for him because he ain’t the black guy in the race so they idea they won’t vote for Romney is bullshit. As for Michael Moore I’m getting pissed I usually play it like Norway I stay neutral even though I disagree with his views over the 2000 election I still thought he was doing a good thing during the Bush-era.

    But now dude is sounding like all Obama has done is cave on every single thing and not give the President credit for one thing in the face of roadblocks the far right and some in his own party put up. He sent me a direct message on Twitter like a month ago and I wished I could go beyond 140 to tell him yeah I would had like a public option in the health care bill or banking regulations been more tougher but you gotta understand President Obama can only sign or veto bills. If he wanted a health care bill with a public option and stronger rules he and his followers should keep the House Democratic and keep up the Democratic majority in the senate with more left leaning Democratic senators that would make Bill Nelson, Joe Lieberman and other blue dog Democratic senators voters not that important.

    I never understood this mindset of we’re going to force the Democrats to do things we want by enabling Republican electoral victories. And that tactic have always shown the opposite impact Democrats don’t move more to the left they move either to the center or in Bill Nelson’s case to the right.

    As for polls I took a class in that and polls were on few things 1. how they word the question? 2.How many people were asked? And where do you ask? Sure the racists that always make up that 25-30% are ready to vote but do they really represent the real voting public? I can tell ya this if the election was held today Republicans here in Michigan and Ohio would be in a world of hurt. And the only time I take polls numbers seriously is when they go against the media created narratives. If the anti-union bill goes down and if the Democrats in Kentucky do well the media won’t pay attention to them because they go against the OH NOES PBO is in trouble narrative.

    Comment by Johnny C an | November 7, 2011 | Reply

  15. This make me not want to vote in the next election…

    Comment by Meh, Jon. | November 8, 2011 | Reply

    • Remember a NOT VOTE is a really a vote for a Republican if you are a Democrat.

      Comment by grantinhouston | November 8, 2011 | Reply

      • YES. You cannot get a pass, or not take responsibility. That needs to be tweeted nonstop from now until election day.

        Comment by Tally | November 8, 2011 | Reply

  16. Ten U.S. DEMOCRATIC congressmen and 3 senators are saying they will not support Barack Obama’s re-election. One of the latest is Rep. Henry Cuellar of Laredo, a Hispanic who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, was appointed Sec. of State by Rick Perry when George W. Bush resigned, handing over his seat to the then Lt. Governor Perry. Cuellar was a strong supporter for Hillary Clinton in the Hispanic community entertaining the Clintons on their campaigns among the Texas Hispanic communities.

    http://reddogreport.com/2011/11/many-democrats-refuse-to-endorse-obama/

    Cuellar is known as a “blue dog” representing a mostly Hispanic district where he got 56% of the vote in the 2010 election. A majority are also Roman Catholic, so share many views held by the Christian right. From a Politico “Obama is so doomed” article:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68266.html

    Why don’t “blue dogs” just “GO HOME” and officially join the Republican Party?

    Comment by grantinhouston | November 16, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 152 other followers

%d bloggers like this: