Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 12, 2007 in Arts & Entertainment, Health, Media, Politics | 43 comments

Moore Blasts Bush Administration Probe Of His Trip To Cuba


It’s controversial filmmaker Michael Moore versus the Bush administration — again.

And it’s Michael Moore getting a Santa Claus stocking full of free and priceless promo publicity to ensure his movie will be a smash at the box office….promo gifted to him by his opponents…again.

At issue is a trip the opinionated documentary maker who liberals love to love and conservatives love to hate made to Cuba. And what better way than to ensure his message gets out than to have the government go after him? But you suspect this is what the Bush administration — which seems to need some advice from people who know how p.r. and modern marketing works — did not have in mind.

But that is what’s happening. The AP:

Filmmaker Michael Moore has asked the Bush administration to call off an investigation of his trip to Cuba to get treatment for ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers for a segment in his upcoming health-care expose, “Sicko.”

Moore, who made the hit documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” assailing President Bush’s handling of Sept. 11, said in a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday that the White House may have opened the investigation for political reasons.

“For five and a half years, the Bush administration has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community,” Moore said in the letter, which he posted on the liberal Web site Daily Kos. “These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care.”

How could Moore say these things? Because by going after him, editors have now been given a great “news peg” for an irresistible story. It focuses attention on Moore’s upcoming flick. Even if the government is doing this a pro forma probe, it is going to be seen in some quarters as retaliation for Moore’s previous films, harsh criticism of President George Bush and the Bush administration, and for his focus on an issue embarrassing since it’s potentially one more chip in the aura the administration has tried to project on its handling of anything surrounding 911.

And because Moore’s previous movies were so popular all over the world, it ensures that any news stories about The Filmmaker Versus The Government That Wants To Shut Him Up (even if that is not what is going on) will get excellent play in newspapers (in many languages). Also: Moore is going to be an increasingly hot guest speaker on college campuses due to this (he can probably increase his already big fees).

It’s clear that Moore understands the publicity windfall here, as does his movie distributor:

Harvey Weinstein, whose Weinstein Co. is releasing “Sicko,” told The Associated Press the movie is a “healing film” that could bring opponents together over the ills of America’s health-care system.

“This time, we didn’t want the fight, because the movie unites both sides,” Weinstein said. “We’ve shown the movie to Republicans. Both sides of the bench love the film. The pharmaceutical industry won’t like the movie. HMOs will try to run us out of town, but that’s not relevant to the situation.

“The whole campaign this time was not to be incendiary. It was, can Michael Moore bring both sides together?”

Note Weinstein’s comment: Republicans who’ve seen it reportedly also like it. True or not, it is no secret that the Bush administration is increasingly isolated from parts of the Republican party. That statement will have credibility in many circles.

Moore’s chances that his new movie will get a nice, big, fat box-office will also likely be helped by a growing firestorm on the talk show right — not surprising since cable and radio talk (on the left and right) largely centers on emotions and anger. Moore has been blasted by Fox News’ John Gibson.

Cuba has had some fun with the issue, too:

Cuba characterized American filmmaker Michael Moore as a victim of censorship and the U.S. trade embargo as it reported Friday on a U.S. Treasury Department probe of his March visit here for his upcoming health-care documentary, “Sicko.”

The Communist Party daily Granma called the 45-year-old U.S. travel and trade sanctions “a criminal action that has cost lives and grave consequences for the inhabitants of the island,” as well as Americans.

The U.S. government‘s targeting of Moore “confirms the imperial philosophy of censorship” by American officials, it added.

Treasury officials in Washington said Friday they would have no comment on the contents of Moore‘s letter, citing a policy against discussing specific investigations. But Treasury spokeswoman AnnMarie Hauser said OFAC issues hundreds of letters each year asking for additional information when possible sanctions violations have occurred.

A comment on the Cleveland Leader website:

The latest Bush Administration mistake is not the biggest or costliest but it once again shows how inept they truly are. With them going after filmmaker Michael Moore they look like fools. Yeah, maybe Moore didn’t obtain the proper paperwork he was suppose to when he and 10 heroes from 9/11 went to Cuba. But putting the spotlight on the movie “Sicko” will only increase the appeal and the publicity of the movie. One of the oldest sayings around is, “There is no such thing as bad publicity” and they should have learned that from Moore’s last film “Fahrenheit 911” which was met with harsh criticism and ended up being the top grossing documentary film of all time, grossing nearly $120 Million dollars….

…..Adding that Moore took with him 10 first responders to Cuba doesn’t help matters. Will the government fine them for going along pn the unauthorized trip to Cuba? That will look really good to the American people. Moore will likely face a fine when the controversy comes to a head. And the money will be well spent as it helped advertise his latest film in a big way.
And, indeed, even if the government does nothing, it has already helped Moore enormously.

A movie about health care — no matter how much it blasts the Bush administration — would be unlikely to get the kind of B.O. (Variety term for “box office”) that some of Moore’s other controversy-sparking films have. Now, a lot of people will now want to see what all the fuss over “Sicko” was about.

If the Bush administration had some p.r. and political sense, it would have let Moore’s movie come out and sink or swim on its own.

But if I had wings I’d be an airplane….

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • CaseyL

    The whole thing is absurd, starting with the embargo on Cuba. What’s the point? Castro is no threat to the world, much less to the US. He’s a dictator, yes, but his despotism is magnitudes less awful than, say, Putin’s. Or Mubarak’s. Or any number of other heads of state the US trades with and maintains ordinary relations with.

    Moore’s getting attention, his movie’s getting attention, the Bush Administration’s criminal deceit and neglect of NYC’s first responders is getting attention – maybe the cruelty and stupidity of the embargo will get some attention, too.

  • superdestroyer

    I saw a picture of Moore the other day and it is obvious that he has had comstic surgery. I wonder if anyone in the media will ask him about how and why he had cosmetic surgery, who paid for it, where it was done, and how he feels about it being something that will never be paid for under a single payer system.

  • Pyst

    super, uhm…..who gives a f…?

    That’s just grasping at straws for something, anything sniping at it’s most right wing retartedness. Sounds like some garbage Limbaugh would utter LOL.

    I’m no fan of Moore, he’s more (no pun) to the left than I can stomach. But he does hit on things that are pretty much obvious to those that pay attention, but not so to the zombies that gulp down cable news like heroin junkies.

    Our medical system is a shambles and the corporate hospitals, and drug companies have got such a racket going they literally can buy politicans as we saw recently….irregardless of the R or D next to the name.

    They are frightened of him possibly riling up the masses that are already angry as hell at big pharma, and corporate hospitals that overcharge, and monopolize the markets. And if he’s going to smack those punks upside the head with this film, I applaud him.

  • kritter

    The main point is the one that Casey L made. What possible threat could Cuba present to us now? It seems like the issue is more about pandering to the Cuban exiles in Florida, than facing reality. Cuba is no longer run by Castro or backed by the USSR. They are more likely to form a partnership with Venezuela than to form ties with us, unless we make the move to reestablish economic and cultural ties. It seems ludicrous to me that we see no problem in trading with Communist China who someday could realitistically could present a threat, yet balk at normalizing relations with our closest neighbor who pointedly does not present a threat. We are making enemies out of the old communist pinko boogeyman, instead of building the diplomatic, cultural and economic bridges that will bring us into the 21st century.

    This is one of the reasons that I view diplomacy of the Bush era as an abject failure. Forget about Michael Moore- he is irrelevant. What does matter is making allies out of old enemies for reasons that no longer matter. Recognizing that in the new world order, it is smarter to make friends out of these people who have so much in common with us. What are we planning- to invade and occupy Cuba when Castro dies? I’m sure that woud be Dick Cheney’s plan.

  • CaseyL hit the nail right on the head.

    This is obviously a publicity stunt by Moore. He wants to draw attention to a pet issue of his, which is his perceived inadequacy of the U.S. health care system, and this is his way of generating publicity for it. However, as CaseyL pointed out, the much bigger picture here is the embargo against Cuba.

    I don’t know how conservatives get away with calling themselve pro free trade when they staunchly support the embargo against Cuba, which is anything BUT free trade. It is a ridiculous policy that harms both the United States and Cuba. We have goods that they want to buy. And they have goods that we want to buy. Allowing a free exchange of goods between the two countries would benefit both of our countries.

    The best way to get countries to abandon Communism and adopt capitalism (or at least a mild version of it) is engage in free trade with those countries. Free trade encourages peace between countries as well as economic freedom within the individual countries. Look at Vietnam. It’s not a freedom paradise, but it is much more free than it was 20 to 30 years ago, and our relations with have only improved after we lifted the embargo against Vietnam during the 1990s.

    If it weren’t for the embargo against Cuba, there’d be no reason for the probe of Moore’s trip to Cuba. And if conservative genuinely believed in free trade as they claim they do, there’d be no embargo in the first place.

  • superdestroyer


    I guess your definition of a shambles is that you have to pay for something yourself. The biggest complaint most people have about their own healthcare is that they have to pay for it. So how is raising taxes massively so that you do not have to pay for insurance going to fix the situation.? If you put the government in charge of healthcare they will limit the availability of medical procedures and limit the drugs your government can prescribe.

    The government is never going to pay for the face lift like Michael Moore received. The government is never going to pay for the VIP Suite like Michael Moore had when he had his face lift. Michael Moore did not go to Cuba, Canada, Englang, France, or any other place with single payer or government controlled healthcare to get his face left. He stayed in the U.S. where he could guarantee to get what he wanted.

  • Somebody

    Oh yeah you have to like Michael Moore.

    He is Rush Limbaugh on the other side. As much as the Left hates Rush, the right hates Michael Moore.

    It took me awhile to realize that these two sorta cancel each other out. But thru it all they are both getting rich off the American Dream.

    Ain’t America great?

  • Somebody


    The embargo has been in place since JFK. Every president has stuck with it, agreed to it and overseen its implimentation.

    Now perhaps if we did not have 20 million ILLEGAL Cubans living in Florida(Exagerated for effect)all screaming at the USA to invade Cuba and to punish Cuba and to do anything to free that country of its evil dictator then perhaps we would have had been able to reestablish some form of trade a long time ago.

    However. Political correctness going out the window here. However. Unless you round up and ship all these ILLEGAL Cubans back to the country so that they do not have undue influence over a subject nothing will become of the trade barrier and nothing will be done.

    Nic there are MANY REPUBLICANS chomping at the bit to help Cubans. We’d love to enter into their ports and show the people what they are missing. Once they taste the joy of freedom they will want more and more. Perhaps one day throwing off the shackles of Communism.

    Until that day…………Don’t blame the Republicans…………Blame the Cubans in Florida. The politicians there fear for their lives and jobs if anything along this line is even mentioned.

  • Davebo

    Now perhaps if we did not have 20 million ILLEGAL Cubans living in Florida

    Wow, so every single person in florida (plus two million more) are all Cubans?

  • George Sorwell

    This whole Kabuki is directed at THE BASE.

    They’ve been told Moore is a traitor and a criminal. Now they have objective proof.

  • kritter

    Yeah, that’s true. Its even better than Jimmy Carter going down there to meet with Castro. The right loves to paint MM as the heart and soul of the left, and this proves that old canard that the left is soft on Communism. Enjoy- a little Mother’s Day present to all of the wingers out there, lol!

  • jjc

    He is Rush Limbaugh on the other side.

    Early Rush, maybe. ’07 Rush is a calcified ideolog, and yet sought after by the highest levels of the GOP establishment, and shunned only by those ready to kiss their political careers good-bye. Establishment Dems distance themselves from Moore, with no consequences.

    Moore supported Nader. Much as I ordinarily hate this aphorism, Enough said.

    As much as the Left hates Rush, the right hates Michael Moore.

    I agree, and I think its a useful indicator of the difference between leftwingers and rightwingers. (By the way, why not the Right?) For all the talk of BDS and liberals Hating America, it’s really the rightwingers who exploit Hate both as an emotion and as an issue.

    The 5-10 per cent or so of Americans that are largely fueled by resentment are almost entirely rightwingers IMO, because right wing politicians appeal to them on a visceral level, and then on top of that right wing political operatives have learned how to push those people’s buttons. It is amongst this crowd that slogans like “cut and run” and “flip flop” and “hate America” are especially effective.

  • kritter

    There are a lot of people on the right who think that if you criticize your country or your president in a time of war, then you must hate America. But,in reality, I don’t even think MM hates America. You can love America and criticize it at the same time. And the best time to be critical is when the lives of American troops are at risk.

    Parents criticize their kids because they love them enough to push them to be better. So why should it be wrong for liberals to do the same?

  • CaseyL

    He is Rush Limbaugh on the other side.


    Moore made a movie about a community devastated by corporate shut-down. Flint is a real place, with real people, who were really hurt by the shut-down.

    Moore made a movie about Columbine, raising issues that we as a country still can’t or won’t grapple with.

    Moore made a movie about 9/11 that, despite the rage it provoked among wingnuts, has still never been factually debunked.

    Moore is a polemicist – but, unlike Limbaugh, he doesn’t peddle lies. Unlike Limbaugh, he’s not on the side of the bullies and bigots. Unlike Limbaugh, he doesn’t go around making fun of sick and helpless people.

    He’s not anything like Limbaugh at all.

  • I agree that Moore & Limbaugh are mirror images of each other and both are idiots.

    But one difference is worth noting: Limbaugh didn’t sit next to a former president at the 2004 Republican convention (as far as I know, he wasn’t even invited to attend — correct me if I’m wrong); Moore did at the Democratic convention (side-by-side with Jimmy Carter, in case you’ve forgotten). I viewed this as an implicit endorsement of Moore and his views by the Democratic party. To say that I was disgusted is an understatement.

    And, yes, I would have been equally disgusted if Limbaugh had had a similar spot at the Republican convention.

  • Pyst

    We rank 16th in the world in healthcare super. The fact that it is becomming more and more unaffordiable for the masses isn’t friggen progress you dolt.

    So you keep chanting USA #1 stuff as we circle the drain in education and healthcare while were #1 in military spending brotha.

    Moronic thought is still moronic thought at the end of the day, and being able to blow up the world doesn’t make your citizenry any better off. The 2 things that make any empire/nation/collective/monarchy/even dictatorship a success is the health of and education of that citizenry, and I got 5000 years of world history on my side….what you got?

  • Somebody

    [edited due to ad hominem]

  • It’s interesting that Marc doesn’t consider the constant appearance of Administration officials and other important Republicans on Limbaugh’s show an endorsement. And Moore doesn’t provide a daily dishing of DNC talking points as is Limbaugh’s function for the Republicans.

  • Jim,

    I never listen to Limbaugh, but I always watch conventions. Which is exactly my point. I’m willing to assume that the overwhelming majority of the people who listen to Limbaugh already agree with him and would never vote for a Democrat. Administration officials who appear on his show our pandering to the Republican base.

    Conventions are different. Do the Democrats (or the Republicans) assume that only party loyalists watch their conventions? I don’t think so. A convention showcases a political party; it is an effort to persuade people — in particular, centrists — to vote for the party. Having Moore sit next to Carter sent a message that really turned me off. And I suspect I wasn’t the only one.

    One of the reasons I voted for Clinton in 1992 was Pat Buchanan’s cultural war speech at the RNC. It’s true that Moore didn’t speak at the 2004 DNC, but seeing him as a guest of honor amounted to much of the same thing.

  • SteveK

    Somebody Says:


    Step away from the kool aid, put down the joint and back away slowly.


    Other than slinging insults do you have an opinion on the point(s) CaseyL raised? Would you care to discuss, dispute or debate ANY of the points or are you content merely attacking those with a different opinion than yours?

    Neither ad hominem nor pejorative can be mistaken (or substituted) for discussion or debate.

  • George Sorwell



    “Conventions are different”–?

    I have feeling you’ll be a somewhat happier man once you stop grasping at straws.

    “Mirror images of each other and both are idiots”–!!!

  • jjc

    I agree that Moore & Limbaugh are mirror images of each other and both are idiots.

    But one difference is worth noting:

    One difference?

    Out of the many mentioned here, you choose one and one only?

    This is the hallmark of someone with an agenda he refuses to acknowledge.

  • Sorwell and jjc,

    Since the two of you clearly believe that you are my intellectual superiors, perhaps you can tell me (a) what straws I’m grasping at, and (2) what my unacknowledged agenda is.

    Mired in my stupidity, I fail to see that there’s no difference between talk shows and political conventions, and I’m unaware of my true agenda.

    Please straighten me out. Tell me why conventions are no more important than talk shows. While informing me of my hidden agenda, have the courtesy of telling me what your agenda is.

  • Somebody

    Moore is a polemicist – but, unlike Limbaugh, he doesn’t peddle lies. Unlike Limbaugh, he’s not on the side of the bullies and bigots. Unlike Limbaugh, he doesn’t go around making fun of sick and helpless people.

    Well he was doing okay until……………….He pretended to pass off Michael Moores Twisted truths, half truths and conspiracy theories as THE TRUTH. Then I had to issue a warning.

    step away from the kool aide, put down the joint and back away slowly.

    Anyone who thinks Michael Moore is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth truly fits into the far left wing nut camp and are rolling their own joint right now as they scream at this post and froth at the mouth at another right winger who JUST DOESNT GET IT.

    Rush Limbaugh insults people for money and fame. He does it because it pays really well. Anne Coulter……..the same.

    Michael Moore is all about making money and doing what he does for the money.

    But Let me ask you one thing. Did Rush Limbaugh threaten with letters politicians who refused to renounce the war? Did Rush Limbaugh write any Republican candidates and tell them that if they did not obey his edicts that he would see them defeated.

    Michael Moore is a dangerous moron. He takes himself 10x more seriously then Rush Limbaugh and actually believes that what he is saying is the truth.

    Michael Moore is entitled to do what he does. I just personally believe he is one of the biggest LIARS on the planet. His lies do pay him well though.

  • George Sorwell


    (a) I do not believe I am your intellectual superior in any way, shape or form. I have disagreed with you quite strongly about the conduct of the war and its continuing value, as both George Sorwell and under my previous pseudonym, BeYourGuest. However, I have also, at least occasionally, acknowledged your intelligence and integrity. (I’d provide links to posts form the old site as evidence, but they no longer work.) But I’ll further acknowledge that you’re not required to remember every single word typed by some occasional commenter to your posts.

    (2) Now I’d like to quote you: “I viewed this as an implicit endorsement of Moore and his views by the Democratic party.” Implicit, Marc? That’s the straw I see you grasping at–that Michael Moore is somehow the poster boy of the Democrats. And I believe your position is explicitly straw-esque coming as it does after your disavowal of Rush Limbaugh, on whose popular radio program Dick Cheney often appears. And as for this idea that conventions are somehow “different”, perhaps you’d like to define what you mean by that. As I see it, conventions come once every four years, while Rush Limbaugh is on the air for several hours every single weekday. Every. Single. Week. Day.

    (iii) I do respect your intelligence and integrity even though I’m often disappointed in the uses you put them to. I mean–Michael Moore? For the love of God, Marc, is that all you got?

  • George,

    Thanks for your reply.

    “Implicit” as opposed to explicit. The endorsement would have been explicit if Moore had been invited to speak, which he wasn’t. By having him sit next to a former president, he and his views were implicitly endorsed.

  • jjc

    Marc, you said that Rush and MM are “mirror images” of each other. This goes well beyond stating that you dislike both, presumably because of their divisiveness.

    For reasons stated above in numerous posts (including Somebody), it’s enough of a stretch to say “mirror image” that I have to wonder what gets you there. Then there’s your dismissal of Rush’s being a mainstream GOP platform as an element in the comparison. “Only rightwingers listen anyway,” you suggest, but still, that’s quite a difference to overlook so you can arrive at “mirror image.”

    My agenda is that I regard the “mirror image” statement as belonging with assertions of liberal media bias as elements in rightwing agitprop. For crying out loud, the GOP doesn’t need to invite Rush to the Convention, surely you know that, when they invite him to the g*****m White House!

    The Cheney-Rush connection effectively, in my view, makes Rush mainstream GOP. MM’s appearance at the Convention does not make him a mainstream Democrat. For those paying attention, this is a huge difference.

    Rightwing agitprop has the effect of providing steady noise and distraction, within which rightwingers can purvey the notion that both sides are full of crazy reckless radicals. I don’t really care what you think of either Rush or MM, but I’d rather not have you playing this rightwing game.

  • Somebody

    The 5-10 per cent or so of Americans that are largely fueled by resentment are almost entirely rightwingers IMO, because right wing politicians appeal to them on a visceral level, and then on top of that right wing political operatives have learned how to push those people’s buttons. It is amongst this crowd that slogans like “cut and run” and “flip flop” and “hate America” are especially effective.

    How quickly the left is trying to bury their hate speechs now that it earned them the majority in congress.

    Have you forgotten.?::::


    To hear you claiming the hate in this country is coming from the right is absolutely astounding. Your quote above goes beyond the imagination. That all the hate is coming from the right.

    Perhaps their is a share of the hate spewing from the right but it certainly is not nor ever has been “ALMOST ENTIRELY RIGHTWINGERS”

  • Somebody

    The huge difference here is that Michael Moore threatens candidates with repercussions if YOU DO NOT DO AS HE SAYS.

    Rush Limbaugh does this?

    Your right. I was being unkind to Rush. Michael Moore is far and away more evil, dangerous and mindless then Rush ever was or might become.

    Michael Moore Takes himself seriously.

    Rush Limbaugh “Coming to you live with half my brain tied behind my back” At least understands that he is entertaining his base. Michael Moore is brainwashing his and if they dont agree he threatens them with letters of condemnation and threatens to have them removed from office.

    Sorry Rush. I don’t know what I was thinking Mirroring you to Michael Moore.

  • George Sorwell


    So, in short, Michael Moore is all you need? And it’s sufficient that the “endorsement” be “implicit”? And Jimmy Carter is a satisfactory carrier of whatever message the Democrats want to encode?

    I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. But, am I getting your argument right?

  • Somebody

    Yeah I hate to chime in here for Marc but I would think that a former Democratic President and a nobel peace prize winner would be something the DNC would want to showcase.

    Face It George, Marc is correct. Sitting Michael Moore beside Jimmy Carter was not an accident. Nothing in the DNC is by accident. There was purpose in their madness and this was to showcase that MM was a part of the party and that his views counted and that those views his views represented counted.

  • George Sorwell


    I’m afraid your reply is a little hard for me to follow: “that his views counted and that those views his views represented counted.” I do understand that you’re a big fan of the Nobel Peace Prize, though!

    I hope Marc will feel free to explain his own position.

  • Somebody

    Jimmy Carter won a PEACE prize. HE brokered PEACE in the Middle east as president.

    Michael Moore is an antiwar Activist who is in favor of PEACE.

    They put the two together to try and mainstream and diminish Michael Moores radical ideas by putting him next to a true Peace Winner. The nuiances were subtle but revealing. MM was offered an olive branch and his movement told that we embrace you “Just shut up.”

    The ploy was obvious. The democrats are embracing Michael Moores views. Michael Moore’s views represent the views of about 15 percent of the party.

    Does it make sense now?

  • George Sorwell


    So, the “ploy” was to satisfy the most extreme 15% of the party, even though doing that would, at the same time, alienate people like you and Marc?

    And that would work because, after seeing him sitting with Carter, the Moore faction would then “just shut up”?

    Is that how it worked?

  • George,

    I don’t know how else to put it than this: seating Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter represented the Democratic party’s legitimization of Moore and his views. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Moore’s views (which I obviously don’t), you should be able to discern this. If you agreed with Moore’s views, wouldn’t you have been very pleased to see him seated next to a former president? Wouldn’t it have been a vindication of your viewpoint?

  • Somebody

    Ill play along.

    Jesse Jackson started running for president after Jimmy Carters Arse whooping. He screached, screamed and demanded that the Black cause be front and center in the democratic party.

    America rejected this and voted Republican for 12 straight years. Finally Bill Clinton showed up and told Jesse Jackson to shut up and he would take care of him and the black cause.

    Jesse did and the Democrats won.

    This is precisely what they told Michael Moore and his element in 2004. Shut up and we will take care of you after we win. They did not win. Michael Moore and the antiwar went on the rampage and they won in 2006.

    But yes. Putting him beside Carter in 2004 was a ploy to embrace silently the extreme antiwar crowd and at the same time trying to get them under control for the election of 2004.

  • George Sorwell

    I think Michael Moore is nothing but a boogeyman–or a straw to be grasped at.

    Maybe I should have just left you to it.

  • kritter

    Marc- Michael Moore is on the fringe of the Democratic Party. He doesn’t have a weekly audience of 10 million that he disseminates GOP propaganda to and thus is far less influential. The presidential conventions are held every 4 years -Rush is on 5 days a week for 3 hours a day. Even if you are correct about the seating, and I have no proof that you are, it doesn’t have the kind of effect that Limbaugh’s show does on public opinion-it was 3 years ago. Limbaugh has propped up this failed administration and its policiesevery day , and in return Bushco have offered him legitemacy in the Republican Party. Limbaugh , Hannity and others on am Talk Radio help to keep the president at 28% approval rating. Otherwise he’d be in the single digits.

  • jjc

    Somebody: How quickly the left is trying to bury their hate speechs now that it earned them the majority in congress. (followed by insults culled from blogs directed at our President)

    More rightwing agitprop. (How come you failed to capitalize the Left?) You seem to have had quite a reaction to the Hate business. Part of the rightwing program.

    Tom Delay, IIRC, wasn’t even at the GOP Convention. I suppose that means the Party had had nothing to do with him all those years.

    Lots of references to MM’s “views.” Which ones specifically are we implying are akin to treason?

    “The Left.” MM’s “views.” “hate speechs.” You fellas are blowin’ smoke.

  • kritter

    Actually, I don’t think Jimmy Carter really represents the views of the Demcratic Party anymore- certainly not on Israel.

  • kritter

    The right thinks Carter is a traitor for his latest book criticizing Israel and for his trips to Cuba, so I guess the DNC sat the two “traitors” together, LOL.

  • Somebody

    JJC where have I implied Michael Moore has committed treason?

    More rightwing agitprop. (How come you failed to capitalize the Left?) You seem to have had quite a reaction to the Hate business. Part of the rightwing program.

    Yes. I have been called a nazi, fascist, hatemongering Neocon about 1 trillion times. I am allergic to the lefts NON hate verbage.

    Wait a minute. Let me que up the outer limits theme song. Oh Im sorry I didnt capitalize Outer Limits. My bad.

  • Somebody

    MoveOn was criticized by several Jewish advocacy groups, among others, when a member-submitted TV ad which compared President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler briefly appeared on the MoveOn website. The ad was part of a MoveOn-sponsored contest during the 2004 presidential election in which people were invited to create and submit political TV ads critical of the Bush administration.

    And the winner was voted on by the organization. This one won. Comparing Bush to Hitler. That is the mentality of

    JJC. you are delusional my friend if you think all the hate is coming only from the right.

    I actually just stumbled upon this when I was doing some research on one of my own blog articles. I thought it appropriate for this post.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :