Michael Moore Won’t Slit His Wrists Anytime Soon

[Admin]

In My Opinion by Trevor Bothwell

If you haven’t yet heard, Michael Moore has offered his humble entreaty to fellow lefties in the wake of last week’s Republican electoral sweep. Or so it seems.

In a column titled, “17 Reasons Not to Slit Your Wrists,” Moore encourages liberals to remain optimistic about their future. However, what purports to be an expression of moral victory in defeat reads more like a catalog of justifications to continue pumping out anti-Bush documentaries.

In other words, I have little doubt that Michael Moore hates President Bush or that he voted for John Kerry; but I have even less doubt that the charlatan is positively giddy at the potential of raking in millions more at Bush’s expense for the next four years.

I’ll spare the reader the banality of challenging Moore’s every statement in his commentary. After all, I kind of have a rule not to take the man seriously. And if I felt like compiling a list, I’d just compose my own “17 Reasons” conservatives can keep their own razors sheathed. A little sample: “1.) John Kerry lost; 2.) John Kerry lost; 3.) John Kerry lost…” You get the idea.

I’ll concede that Moore’s column arguably is meant to be humorous (which, if you agree, doesn’t exactly bolster claims that he’s torn up over Bush’s victory). For example, see reason number 9: “Gays, thanks to the ballot measures passed on [Election Day], cannot get married in 11 new states. Thank God. Just think of all those wedding gifts we won't have to buy now.” Or number 12: “Admit it: We like the Bush twins and we don't want them to go away.”

But where Moore attempts to be taken seriously he fails tremendously. He claims, “Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.” Moore obviously is unfamiliar with the story behind “Dewey Defeats Truman” in 1948. [emphasis original]

And despite the fact that young voter turnout didn’t even come close to living up to the media hype, Moore states, “The only age group in which the majority voted for Kerry was young adults (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%), proving once again that your parents are always wrong and you should never listen to them.”

We’ll disregard that positive message to kids for the time being. Apparently, Michael Moore is the only person in the country who’s actually surprised young voters preferred Kerry to Bush. Considering liberals try so hard to get young people to the polls precisely because they tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, wiser souls might be concerned that Kerry could only top Bush by 10 points in this demographic.

It would be entertaining to casually dismiss Michael Moore’s opinions if his antics weren’t so devastatingly harmful to Coalition lives overseas. To be sure, through his propagandistic displays of anti-Americanism across the globe, Moore bears no shortage of responsibility for fomenting the hatred that encourages our enemies to attack and kill American troops (which, I add, tends to cause the collateral damage that can injure Iraqi children, whose hospital photos he loves to slap on the home page of his website).

If in all their corny “self-introspection” bewildered Democrats really want to know why they were dumped like a broke prom date last week, they need look no further than Moore’s final and “most [important]” comment, which is that, “…over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed ‘The #1 Liberal in the Senate.’” (A title the Kerry camp denied constantly, you’ll recall.)

Indeed. Democrats decided early on in 2004 to go hard left. And when they made Michael Moore their poster boy for the party by giving him a seat next to Jimmy Carter at their convention, they neatly framed for all “ordinary” Americans a snapshot of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party: The fusion of today’s current vulgarity and contempt for American traditions and values, and yesterday’s misery and despair personified by timidity in the face of foreign threats.

The irony here is that in their conniving ambitions to simply win at any cost, Democrats are mesmerized by a man who exploits and benefits financially from their shared hatred for George W. Bush. But they obviously can’t understand that it’s Moore’s arrogance, vitriol, and incessant dishonesty that Americans consequently associate with their party.

There truly are “Two Americas” today, but the concept has precious little to do with one’s income level. We are divided by two ideologies at war with one another: One is present in conservatives who believe in the inherent good of America, where economic, spiritual, and moral freedoms are valued; the other is personified by clove cigarette-huffing, appletini-sipping liberals who believe that America is inherently flawed, and therefore value the ascension of the state as a means to impose elitist politically correct limitations on everyone else.

Thankfully, we know which ideology currently prevails across the country. But so does Michael Moore, who must right now be rejoicing not only because he knows he can torment America for the foreseeable future, but also because Democrats are still too ignorant to realize the platform they provide for his success is also the principal cause of their demise.


CORRECTION: In my previous column, “The liberal art of public education,” I cited a report by WABC news that stated Shiba Pillai-Diaz, a middle school teacher at Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, N.J., was ordered out of her school by her principal for hanging a photo of President and Mrs. Bush on a bulletin board next to other U.S. presidents. The South Brunswick Public Schools denies this, claiming that Ms. Pillai-Diaz left her school voluntarily.

Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report, and he is also a Townhall.com book reviewer. He can be contacted at bothwell@therightreport.com.

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Well written, well analyzed, and I hope the Democrats just keep on going left.

[czygvtwkr]

He was probably happy that Bush won, he would probably be happy if there were another mass school shooting.

[rraley]

Originally Posted by Admin

But where Moore attempts to be taken seriously he fails tremendously. He claims, “Bush's victory was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.” Moore obviously is unfamiliar with the story behind "Dewey Defeats Truman"in 1948.

Well, according to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential elections, Harry Truman won 49.55% of the popular vote in 1948 to Thomas Dewey's 45.07%, which beats President Bush's 3 point victory. Furthermore, Truman swamped Dewey in the Electoral College 303-189. So, Bush's reelection was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since 1916. That headline by the Republican Chicago Tribune ran because early results in New England and the Northeast showed Dewey winning and because the staff of the paper wanted to make an early call. In other words, the story behind that headline is bad journalism, not excessive closeness.

Indeed. Democrats decided early on in 2004 to go hard left

Doesn't this comment just prove Moore's assertion that it is amazing that Kerry received so many votes? Maybe that is something that Democrats can take hope in. I still believe, however, that the Democratic Party should moderate on key social issues and discuss "values" more often.

Look I think that it was a mistake to concede so much to Mike Moore in this election and I believe that that was partly the reason that my party lost in this election. But I still wish that the Republicans on the forums would try to look past these radical elements in the party and look to more moderate elements like Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Evan Byah. Those are Democrats that know where we as a nation and party should go.

[Penn]

Originally Posted by rraley

Well, according to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential elections, Harry Truman won 49.55% of the popular vote in 1948 to Thomas Dewey's 45.07%, which beats President Bush's 3 point victory. Furthermore, Truman swamped Dewey in the Electoral College 303-189. So, Bush's reelection was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since 1916. That headline by the Republican Chicago Tribune ran because early results in New England and the Northeast showed Dewey winning and because the staff of the paper wanted to make an early call. In other words, the story behind that headline is bad journalism, not excessive closeness.


Doesn't this comment just prove Moore's assertion that it is amazing that Kerry received so many votes? Maybe that is something that Democrats can take hope in. I still believe, however, that the Democratic Party should moderate on key social issues and discuss "values" more often.

Look I think that it was a mistake to concede so much to Mike Moore in this election and I believe that that was partly the reason that my party lost in this election. But I still wish that the Republicans on the forums would try to look past these radical elements in the party and look to more moderate elements like Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Evan Byah. Those are Democrats that know where we as a nation and party should go.

Noble words. However are these voices being heard and acknowledged?

I wonder, because when I saw John Kerry at a fund raiser, where Whoopi Goldberg uttered her profanities at our president, where others tore at president Bushs' integrity and manhood, John Kerry said something to the effect that "These are my people", so I, in fact, saw something quite different than moderation.

Now, as in a post I inserted a few days ago, people like Nancy Pelosi are very obviously promoting a more God-like Democratic party, and it is so patently facetious, I remember thinking: "If you believe people like her, you'll surely have no qualms about taking what the wolf said in "Little Red Riding Hood" for the truth."

[2ndAmendment (Premo)]

Originally Posted by rraley

I still believe, however, that the Democratic Party should moderate on key social issues and discuss "values" more often.

Look I think that it was a mistake to concede so much to Mike Moore in this election and I believe that that was partly the reason that my party lost in this election. But I still wish that the Republicans on the forums would try to look past these radical elements in the party and look to more moderate elements like Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Evan Byah. Those are Democrats that know where we as a nation and party should go.

Democrats can discuss values all they want; that does not mean the people doing the discussing have any, or at least ones that match the values of the people that voted for Bush. Being an alter boy does not make you a Christian; it just means you went to church and lit some candles. Homosexual behavior and rights do not resonate with many people. Many people think killing a baby is murder; the jury did in the Peterson case. Staging a hunting trip is not the same as endorsing the Second Amendment. And the Democratic leadership will certainly not win any votes by their current tack of saying that the people that voted for Bush are just not as intelligent or talented as those that voted for Kerry.

I will agree that Lieberman and Byah are moderates for Democrats, but Clinton was not a moderate in practice. He just managed to fool a lot of people.

[Penn]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendment

I will agree that Lieberman and Byah are moderates for Democrats, but Clinton was not a moderate in practice. He just managed to fool a lot of people.

This reminds me of an article I read, maybe in 1997, or so: It centered on the likeablilty of then-president Bill Clinton. Seems that even his main detractors couldn't help liking and admiring him, given enough time.

It might have been Sen. Trent Lott that they quoted, although, I don't remember the exact verbiage he used.

It was something to the effect that after standing around talking to this man for, oh maybe a half hour, you were surprized to find yourself nodding vigorously, smiling with him, and generally hitching your horse to the same post that his was tied up at!

An impolite term for a man like this would be: Snake Charmer.

[itsbob (Premo)]

Widsh he would.. fat worthless bastURD

[Penn]

"The irony here is that in their conniving ambitions to simply win at any cost, Democrats are mesmerized by a man who exploits and benefits financially from their shared hatred for George W. Bush. But they obviously can’t understand that it’s Moore’s arrogance, vitriol, and incessant dishonesty that Americans consequently associate with their party."

_________________________________________________________________

The ironic thing here is that the Democratic party still does not realize this fact; for if they did, we would be seeing them distance themselves from this type of culture.

It did not work for them sufficiently to regain the Oval Office, but they still can't get by the lure of the Hollywood crowd, the money tossed their way, and the noteriety that comes when they're seen with high-profile stars. (Or so they seem to think).

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by rraley

So, Bush's reelection was the NARROWEST win for a sitting president since 1916.

Keyword being missed here is not "narrow" but "win".

We have had in my lifetime, three sitting Presidents DEFEATED, one *VERY* narrowly, and another President so unpopular he didn't even choose to run for re-election. I'm not sure analyzing or taking comfort in a "narrow" win because he is a "sitting" President is useful at all - for one thing, liberals really thought this would a be a slam-dunk; for another, it's beginning to border on baseball-type statistics - you know, the really dumb kind they spew out between batters.

There were *supposed* to be legions of Bush-defectors - NEW voters to vote for Kerry - legions of young voters to vote for Kerry. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was such a big hit, it MUST have meant a surefire win. SOOO many liberals decided since Kerry won ALL the debates he was a shoo-in. And after all, Bush was a moron presiding over a faltering economy in an unpopular war.

Analyze it all you want - to me, it proves that if you shake the trees and rocks and squeeze every last drop of votes for Kerry and you *STILL* lose - you need to change your message, or resign yourself to permanent underdog status, because the majority of the country ain't with ya.