Flipper and the whale?

This Kerry Flipper film (linked by Glenn Reynolds and discussed below by Varius) is quite remarkable. The guy's flip-flopping is even more blatant than I realized.

The website supplying the video also links to this gem of a comment about 9/11 by Michael Moore:

Three thousand Americans were killed. There's 290 million Americans, all right? The chance of - of any of us dying in a terrorist incident is very, very, very small.

OK, for the sake of argument let's give Moore the benefit of the doubt here.

9/11 was a mere statistical trifle of little concern to any of us.

So why subject the entire country to an elaborate, highly polarizing piece of propaganda devoted to blaming Bush for it?

The only answer I can come up with is that he really must think Americans are as stupid as he says they are.

Will Kerry disavow Michael Moore?

If he has any sense at all, he will. At least one columnist has speculated that this situation presents an ideal Sister Souljah moment:

A clever Kerry move would be to turn Michael Moore into his Sister Souljah. In his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton criticized black rapper Sister Souljah for talk about killing white people. Repudiating an extremist who would normally back one's candidacy was a brilliant tactic. Likewise, Kerry could give Moore a light spanking for his simple-minded sermons on the evils of war.

But he shouldn't leave any marks on Moore's rear. The filmmaker does have followers, and their votes will be helpful. The Democrats have little choice but to let the Nader Traitors join their parade but preferably in the back, and with bags over their heads.

That Jimmy Carter/Michael Moore photo was bad enough for the Democrats. Middle America remembers....

Kerry has an opportunity here.

If he doesn't take it, he'll be sorry.

(Howard Dean missed a similar opportunity.)

MORE: Not surprisingly, Fahrenheit 9/11 is having a devastating effect on the morale of our troops:

Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, is making the rounds here at U.S. bases in Kuwait. Some soldiers have received it already and are passing is around. The impact is devastating.

Here we are, soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, just days from finally returning home after over a year serving in Iraq, and Moore's film is shocking and crushing soldiers, making them feel ashamed. Moore has abused the First Amendment and is hurting us worse than the enemy has.

There are the young and impressionable soldiers, like those who joined the Army right out of high school. They aren't familiar w/ the college-type political debate environment, and they haven't been schooled in the full range of issues involved. They are vulnerable to being hurt by a vicious film like Moore's.

(Via Andrew Sullivan.) Read the rest. And remember that Moore is being hailed as a hero by the Democratic Party.

I didn't think things would ever get this bad. I always thought of Michael Moore as fringe.

Bush is lucky I am not working for Kerry, because I feel quite strongly that if he slammed Michael Moore -- hard -- right now, he'd draw some boos at the convention.

And win in November.

posted by Eric on 07.28.04 at 05:08 PM










Comments

How many people in "Middle America" have seen a photo of Carter with Michael Moore? Have you ever met anyone who said, "I'm not voting for John Kerry because I saw a photo of Carter and Michael Moore!!!"? I haven't. I can't stand Michael Moore, to be honest with you, but if he were such a horrific polarizing figure among swing voters, his movie would not have made over $100 million in the US.

All of this stuff about how awful Kerry is and how terrible his wife doesn't really point out exactly why he would be a bad President, or why anyone would ever want to support George Bush. Would you rather Kerry hang out with Rick Santorum, or Jerry Falwell (who is supposedly going to give the RNC invocation - this from a man who blamed 9/11 on gays, feminists, and the ACLU)? I'm not voting for Kerry because I am a flaming liberal. I'm voting for Kerry because I am a moderate who no longer recognizes any shred of decency or value in the Theocon Party.

The Sista Souljah gimmick only worked once, and that was an election which would have been won by Clinton anyway, thanks to Perot. "Middle America" does not base it's vote on Michael Moore. He is a kook who has a fervent following. This is like saying that Bush should disavow Pat Robertson if he wants to win.

James   ·  July 29, 2004 6:03 AM

I don't consider myself a moderate, but a libertarian who believes the country is at war, and that too may people want to wish it away. Much as I abhor Falwell, I see little moral equivalency between him and Moore. Assuming the worst case scenario (either man getting his way), with Falwell in charge I'd have to put up with Biblical restrictions on sexual morality and nonsensical restrictions on science, and I'd have to look at the Ten Commandments everywhere. Plus, no legal abortions, illegal porn, gay bars closed, and probably, morality police!

Under Michael Moore, United States sovereignty would cease to exist, they'd take away my guns so I couldn't defend myself, and redistribute my money so I'd have nothing to defend.

Which means that if I were forced to vote for Moore or Falwell, much as I'd rather shoot those who placed me in such a position, I'd probably vote for Falwell. Yecch! (What an ugly thought.)

I will say this for Falwell, though. Unlike Moore, he repudiated his anti-American remarks. I think if Bush were to disavow that crowd, his numbers would go up, because moderates don't like what they perceive to be the televangelist snake oil crowd. (I say this despite the fact that sales of the "Left Behind" book series have topped 50 million copies.)

A Michael Moore backlash strikes me as inevitable. The man is a Marxist who hates this country, wants us disarmed, and favors our enemies in war. Kerry hobnobbing with him will hurt him far more than Bush hobnobbing with Falwell.

Just as I wouldn't say it about the Republicans, neither am I saying that the Democrats have no shred of decency or value; only that Kerry has a chance to add a few shreds. (I don't think he will, though.)

I don't think middle Americans are stupid; they know Moore's views are being mainstreamed by the Democrats (and those who don't yet know it will learn before November).

Eric Scheie   ·  July 29, 2004 7:40 AM

Hmmm.... Falwell or Moore? I value sex more than money, so while I oppose Moore's "progressive" taxes, I oppose Falwell's censorship and "sodomy" laws more. On the other hand, if Falwell let me keep my gun, I could shoot him and his "morality" police. Also, Moore would surrender us to the Muslims, who would do all the same things Falwell wants to do, just in uglier costumes. So, it's a draw.

Falwell is still anti-American. He wasn't sorry he said it, he was just sorry he got caught saying it. I condemn him. Bush should repudiate Pat Robertson, and Santorum, too, not to win an election, but because that would be the right thing to do.

Falwell, Robertson, Santorum, Bork, etc., are my enemies, deadlier than anybody on the Left precisely because of what they do right, i.e., they invoke God rather than equality, absolute morality or tradition rather than nihilism. In so doing, they are stronger than the Left and therefore more formidable foes to my freedom.

I'm weird. My preferred allies are those of the Right, and so are my preferred enemies. Those on the Right tend to have better _style_ even when I hate their guts.

I have, I think, decided on my course of action for this election. I was thinking of voting for Michael Baradnik (sp.?), the Libertarian candidate, but that doesn't look like a realistic alternative when the stakes are this high, don't know. It's either Bush or Kerry who will end in up in the White House.

I will vote for Bush rather than Kerry because he is the stronger of the two, he would be a better Commander in Chief, not be so likely to give the UN a veto over our defense. We are at War for our very survival, and we must act accordingly.

But, since Bush reprehensibly caved in to the Enemy within, Falwell, Robertson, Santorum, etc., I must make it clear that I am voting for him _in spite of_ that. I will hope his victory is a narrow one so as to deny him the "mandate" he craves. I will vote for Democrats for Congress so as to check and balance him and produce as much gridlock as possible.

Gridlock is good. I want to see both parties obstruct each other's legislation, and especially each other's judicial appointments, as much as possible. The government governs best that governs least.

Are you seriously blaming Micheal Moore for troop morale? Maybe it has something to do with being under orders to commit terrorism. That would spoil my morale for sure.

You anti-Moore people are pathetic. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

SixFootPole   ·  July 30, 2004 12:17 AM
"My preferred allies are those of the Right, and so are my preferred enemies. Those on the Right tend to have better _style_ even when I hate their guts." - Steve Malcolm Anderson

Damn, Steve! Will you marry me? ;)

You summed up in one sentence, eloquently, what I've been trying to say in all these Left vs Right "Why would a Libertarian support Conservatives?" debates for the past year.

Nicely done. Take one get-outta-jail-free card from petty cash. You won't pay for drinks in any bar I'm in if you show up there.

I agree with you that Badnarik's not an option. His refusal to realise that there are causes for war that a libertarian can suport and prosecute finally lost me from the Libertarian Party. [But not from the philosophy]

"Are you seriously blaming Micheal Moore for troop morale?" - SixFootPole

Ayup. That we are. Based on the troops own testimony, we're stringing Mikey up.

Ironbear   ·  July 30, 2004 2:10 AM

I do blame Moore for the ill will he's deliberately created with his numerous lies.

Six Foot Pole made an interesting double assertion that "the truth hurts...."

Lies can hurt as much as the truth, but hurting someone with a lie and then claiming the truth hurts does not transform a lie into the truth. (There is also an underlying assumption that those who disagree with the above comment -- "you anti-Moore people" -- are in fact hurt. Yet I see nothing to support that claim.)

Likewise, the assertion that people who disagree are "pathetic," while that may be intended to hurt those who disagree, it does not show they are pathetic, and it does nothing to advance the argument. Calling someone "pathetic" because that person disagrees with you is an attempt to inject shame where it does not belong.

It's something I try not to do, even when tempted.

Eric Scheie   ·  July 30, 2004 8:16 AM

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits