Goldberg and Guthrie

The reaction to this movie on the National Review has been hilarious.

Byron York makes some sort of attempt a point here. Apparently, the success of the movie is not real, because MoveOn has been trying to get its members to go see it.

The evidence for this is pretty solid:

Last week, MoveOn set a goal of persuading 100,000 members to take the pledge to see Fahrenheit 9/11 as early as possible. In fact, according to MoveOn, 116,649 MoveOn members signed up. While that number seems like a relatively small part of the movie's total audience, [MoveOn's Eli] Pariser says MoveOn's influence is far larger than the official number suggests. "When I went to Waterville, Maine and asked how many people from MoveOn were there, probably three-quarters of the people there said yes," Pariser told Variety on Monday.

I mean, when the actual numbers tell us that MoveOn couldn't have contributed that much to the total, but a show of hands in one theatre in Maine suggests differently... well, I'm convinced.

I wonder if we should think of The Passion's success as similarly tainted, given that every evangelical church in the country was likely telling its members they would go to hell if they didn't see it.

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

It's the third site that comes up on a Google search for John Kerry. I just started reading it - but it's pretty funny and captures my feelings well. Probably the best URL ever, though.

I did not like the first ten minutes of the movie. Moore rehashes the 2000 Florida debacle, which seems intended to reminds us throughout the movie that the legitimacy of Bush's Presidency is in question. Moore blames, at least through innuendo, many people for Bush's 2000 "victory": Katherine Harris, James Baker, Al Gore himself (for not breaking Senate rules during the certification process), the entire U.S. Senate, Jeb Bush, George H.W. Bush, every conservative on the Supreme Court, Foxnews and more!

This all may be true; but there is a much more simple way to determine why it is that Bush was elected President in 2000. Let's look at the final, certified popular vote totals from Florida in 2000:

Bush: 2,912,790

Gore: 2,912,253

Nader: 97,488.

Now, I'm no expert in political analysis, but is there another possible reason - one not mentioned in Fahrenheit 9/11 - that Bush was somehow able to win in Florida? Could some other person in some small way have helped to change the outcome of the race?

Of course, we know Michael Moore himself is in no way to blame. He has just produced a documentary that argues, in essence, that George W. Bush is the worst man in the world. In fact, (and I'm surprised I haven't seen conservatives harping on this), he explicitly compares Bush to Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, we can assume that when he offered commentary on the 2000 Election, he encouraged voters in Florida to do what it took to defeat Bush. Oh, wait.

From a 2000 interview with Michael Moore:

Number one, Bush is not going to win. I truly believe that, because the people of this country are not that stupid. He's behind 52 to 38 (percent) right now and every week he goes lower and lower. He's going to continue to sink like a stone...

Secondly, Gore doesn't own these people. He has to earn their vote, and I personally believe that a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush. It might be a kinder, gentler version of it, but still it's a vote for one of the two people running who are sponsored by big business...

George W. Bush is not going to appoint justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade. He hasn't done it in Texas, and that's the only track record we have to look at. He's appointed moderate justices who have upheld Texas abortion laws. He's not a right-wing ideologue, he's a politician, and he'll do whatever he has to do to get elected. He reads the poll numbers, and two-thirds of the American public is pro-choice. It is part of our American culture, it will never go away.

I guess my point is that it's easy enough to blame the Court, Foxnews and the like, but the simple fact is that the Republicans controlled Congress and the Supreme court and the election, literally, came down to around 100 votes. The Democrats weren't going to win. And the reason the election was this close was because people like Michael Moore and Guthrie were telling other people that there was no difference between Bush and Gore; that the only way to take our country back was to vote for Ralph Nader, consequences be damned. Of course, only one of those two people had a popular web site at the time. Only one of them was a respected figure in the progressive community. Only one of them likely had the ability to convince a few hundred people in Florida to vote for Ralph Nader.

Of course, Moore spends half of his movie arguing that the war in Iraq is an immoral sin. That's why I suspect that he will lend his support to the Presidential candidate who opposed the war. Oh, wait, no such candidate exists. Maybe he was right the first time...

I saw it last night - by myself at the 11:00 showing at the Oak Street theatre. That was sort of depressing. I liked it more than I thought I would, and will have some comments on it throughout the week. (That should bring up our "refresh" count.)

Let me just say now that you should really go see this movie.

Per Kos, the FCC may ban television ads for Michael Moore's film.

This is probably fair, and is exactly what liberal deserve for supporting stupid campaign finance laws.

Still, is this really a smart move, politically, for Bush to allow this? I think not.

Sully has a post on this today, which I think is for the most part right on. Bush's record is actually good on AIDS - but when he gives a speech on AIDS and talks about AIDS in the United States, he doesn't mention the one group most affected: gay men. Then, he argues that AIDS can be prevented with his ABC approach - abstain, be faithful in marriage and (much to Bush's credit) when appropriate use condoms.

Fine. So why does Bush oppose marriage rights for the one group most affected by AIDS in this country?

(This is exactly the point Sullivan makes - I really added nothing to the blogosphere with this post.)

GOLDBERG ADDENDUM: I wrote this in the comments, but it was really too long for that, so I'm putting it here:

ABC is basically a prevention method used in Africa and other nations where AIDS is a heterosexual epidemic. In the U.S., where it did threaten to become a heterosexual epidemic, it did not (for whatever reason). However, new subcultures, like the (predominately African-American male) subculture of the "DL") still mean that it HIV could yet become a widespread heterosexual problem here.

As for the homosexual AIDS crisis in America, I believe (but am not sure), that transmission rates dropped greatly in the 1990s, but have either leveled off or are back on the uptick. ABC is clearly not a wise prophylactic prescription for the U.S. gay community, as the "A" and the "B" aren't really options. The key is (and this word is lame but I'll use it anyway) awareness that the crisis has not gone away, condom use, and requiring prospective partners to be tested before any intercourse.

As a worldwide problem, however, AIDS in America is not a big deal, and most efforts should be made towards Sub-Saharan Africa and certain parts of Asia/Indian subcontinent. This is especially true for pharmaceutical assistance, esp. drugs like AZT that can dramatically reduce mother-child transmission, which is a HUGE problem in Africa. Other public/private/NGO partnerships are needed to get drugs to the third world. AIDS in America just pales in comparison to these problems.

UPDATE: EDITed, thanks to Goldberg's cousin, to change effected to affected.

Read it today. I ask once again, how can you even argue that the New York Times has a liberal bias, let alone accept it as the gospel truth as so many do?

Lest you think I was exaggerating, or perhaps misreading the last post: here's a Cornerite who clearly and explicitly blames Democrats and the New York Times for the latest atrocity. I post it because this is the type of post The Corner sometimes takes down.

MEMO TO DEMOCRATS, THE NEW YORK TIMES, & CO. [Andy McCarthy]
Every time you parade the Abu Ghraib photos, every time you parrot the patently ridiculous pretension by these repulsive murderers that decapitations are motivated by what those photos depict -- rather than by a belief system that exudes hatred and murder -- you are guaranteeing that there will be more Daniel Pearls, Nick Bergs and, now, Paul Johnsons. You are telling these monsters that they get a free ride: They get to kill, which they would do anyway, and they get to have you tell the world that the proximate cause of the killing is the U.S. government rather than militant Islam. Scorecard: al Qaeda - win, win; America: lose, lose; Americans: die, die.

There are two possible story lines here: choice (a) Paul Johnson was viciously beheaded today, becoming just the latest of thousands of victims slaughtered by a menace that cannot be managed, need not be culturally understood, and must be totally eradicated; or choice (b) Paul Johnson died today; an Arabic website, upon first breaking the news, explained that his death was retaliation for the scandalous abuse of Iraqi prisoners by occupying U.S. forces in Baghdad, where the Bush administration is alleged to have employed harsh interrogation tactics -- in violation of the Geneva Conventions -- in order to press for intelligence about weapons of mass destruction which have yet to be found.

Anybody have the slightest doubt which choice we'll be reading and seeing?

What can I say in response to this? What sort of person would write this - blaming fellow Americans for the worst sort of atrocity? Why would any sane person claim that our enemy doesn't have to be understood?

I truly think and hope and pray that this is not the typical response of conservatives - to blame coverage of the US-Iraqi torture scandal - and Democrats in general - for this outrage. (Of course, the actual torturers remains blameless.) But outside of Andrew Sullivan I have seen little conservative outrage over the torture scandal; I have seen plenty of outrage over the outrage. Can someone point me to some? (This is a serious question - just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.) Or do most supporters of Bush's foreign policy in general agree that we (Democrats, I guess) are over reacting - even if you don't take it to the insane level that Mr. McCarthy does? Is there an instinct in Bush supporters to blame the left for this? I don't know.

I just think it's sad that our discourse has fallen to the point where a semi-respectable publication is offering up the opinion that a horrific beheading by insane religious radicals is the fault of Democrats and the left. This is really an awful, hurtful and offensive thing to say.

The response from the Corner.

My reaction isn't particuarly special or unique, is it? How could it be? I am livid and repulsed again--photos are circulating again of an American beheaded, his detached head is resting on his body. I am reminded again, in this terrible way that every American is at war right now. George Bush didn't make that choice. The bad guys did. And they will keep killing us. Second guessing the liberation of Iraq isn't going to save American lives, only resolve, clarity, courage, and sacrifice will.

I actually didn't need a reminder that we are at war with Al Qaeda - I can still remember the time that they flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. What this has to with the war in Iraq, I'm not sure. Katherine Lopez's first reaction to this horrible picture is to immediately defend the war in Iraq and attack the war's opponents. Well guess what? This wasn't their fault. It wasn't anyone's fault, except the "people" who did this.

(Also, second guessing the liberation of Iraq would save American lives if the critics were correct, this war has nothing or little to do with the war on terrorism, and getting us to leave as soon as possible and avoid engaging in a similar war would refocus the military's efforts on the war on terror.)

The pictures of the latest American hostage to be beheaded are on Drudge. I won't link to them, but I suppose we should look at them, since we should know the level of insanity and evil that exists in the mind of Al Qeada. I might post more on this later, but I'm just sort of sick right now.

Jesus Fucking Christ. I don't know why I let this get me so fucking mad every time I think about it - BUT AL GORE CREATED THE FUCKING INTERNET. In fact, he probably deserves a monument or something in his honor, as the man who made the transfer of massive amounts of information accessible to people around the world. When he said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet," the press should have said, "holy shit, he's right. Governor Bush, have you done anything in your life that demonstrated such amazing wisdom and foresight, anything at all that compares to Al Gore's making the internet a possibility?" (Possible answer - he was smart enough to destroy his National Guard records in the 1970s.)

Fuck people. Fuck the press. Fuck myself for believing during 2000 that Al Gore said he invented the internet. Fuck Republicans for distorting a quote about a man to the point where they are simply lying - but most of all fuck the press and the Democrats who let them get away with it. While were at it, fuck Al Gore for not stepping up as soon as this scandal broke, and not demanding that the press acknowledge the role he played in creating the internet. And fuck the stupid Electoral College system for keeping Gore out of the White House.

This rant was inspired by this Daily Howler, especially this part from a James Brosnan article (which the Howler has rehashed over and over again - but which fucking idiots still don't seem to understand):

BROSNAN: In 1973, Kahn and Vinton Cerf, a Stanford researcher, sketched out a design for the Internet. Cerf would later design the Internet protocol TCP (Transmission Control Program).
Gore, who chaired the Senate Commerce science subcommittee, passed the legislation that created five super-computer centers in 1986. That in turn led to National Science Foundation grant money to link the centers to other universities through NSFNET.

Doug Van Howeling, who ran NSFNET and who now heads the University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development, said Gore tracked the advances. "He would invite a leading scientist and just spend a good part of the day talking to him," said Van Howeling.

In 1990, Gore made speeches about taking the Internet beyond scientific research [i.e., to make it what it is now].

"If we had the information superhighways we need, a schoolchild could plug into the Library of Congress every afternoon and explore a universe of knowledge jumping from one subject to another, according to the curiosity of the moment," said Gore. [This was a novel idea at the time.]

In 1991, Gore helped pass legislation to create a high-speed National Research and Education Network, but it took two other developments to make the Internet what it is today...

Is this so hard to understand? Maybe we should put Al Gore on the dime - he basically changed the whole world, and the whole way we interact with information.

BTW, Sully's been great on the torture issue - see his blog generally.

I'm on a pro-Sullivan kick lately. I really feel bad for the guy - he genuinely believes in the conservative ideals of low taxes and small government, and is very supportive of the war in Iraq and Bush's approach to the war on terror. He doesn't approve of the fact that the only party that supports these ideals also uses and inflames bigotry against homosexuals in order to maintain its power. I think he spends a lot of time blinding himself to this fact - or desperately trying to convince himself that this really isn't a big deal. That's why so many of his posts are absurd. But I find his honesty about that conflict enlightening - I would imagine that any decent human being who shares his conservative ideals must have similar feelings.

Will any Republican have the courage to launch a campaign against that wing of their party? Some may say this would be cutting off your nose to spite your face (or something like that); I would compare it to cutting off your gangrene infested hand to stop the infection form poisoning the entire body. But that's just me.

UPDATE: God, I watch Foxnews too much. Do you see the stupid error in what I just wrote? I equate the Iraq war and "Bush's approach to the war on terror," and possibly insinuate that they should be analyzed together. But, in fact, they are not the same. Bush's approach to the war on terror is exactly what any President - Republican or Democrat - would have done. His war in Iraq was something else.

My point really was that Sullivan, obviously, believes the war in Iraq. And he does think it's part of the war on terror. But that doesn't mean that we should analyze them together, because it's just not.

...the Howler is good today. I've only read half of it, yet am so confident of its brilliance that I am linking to it now.

I wonder what Cleveland fans will throw on the field this time.

Go Reds.

"You don’t live in Cleveland, you live in Cincinnati."

Sam Wyche, in a still very underrated moment in NFL history.

After a few days of arguing that Reagan was the most popular President, Jonah Goldberg now has a rambling and incoherent response to the cold, hard fact that Clinton was more popular. On one hand, Goldberg argues, Reagan's unpopularity is proof that he was a bold leader. On the other hand, Reagan was more popular than Clinton. My favorite point:

Third, the fact that Clinton's numbers were so high is a testament to the fact that Clinton desired to be popular more than he desired to be effective.

In other words, if something is true about Reagan, it is because was everything good and wonderful in the world. Clinton, however, was a godless commie bastard.

UPDATE: Pandagon, unsuprisingly, does a much better job at what I have attempted to do.

Of course, conservatives are using the death of a beloved President to attack Bill Clinton. I wish I had time to post all of the absurd garbage being written right now - such as the oft repeated statement that when he left office Reagan was the most popular President ever. This is true, unless you look at every statistic used to measure a President's popularity and compare it with Bill Clinton when he left office, in which case Bill Clinton could be argued to be the most popular President when he left office.

Also, Bill O'Reilly has a column honoring our former President which, appropriately, begins with a stirring tribute to the heroism of Bill O'Reilly.

Sully writes:

WRONG AGAIN: Here's Clinton's apparently subtle description of George W. Bush: "If you go back and read what (Bush) said in the campaign, he's just doing what he'd said he'd do. You've got to give him credit for that." Huh? Isn't it the most remarkable fact about this president that he will be remembered primarily as a radical interventionist in foreign policy, while he campaigned in favor of moderate, realist isolationism? And wasn't he supposed to be a "uniter, not a divider," reaching out to the socially moderate center? Yet he has governed domestically as a member of the hard-core Christian right and polarized the country more deeply than even under Clinton. Sorry, Bill. Try another back-handed compliment.

I'm not so sure about this. Yes, Bush campaigned against nation building, and has now engaged in it, but as Sullivan himself endlessly points out, September 11 changed everything. As for social issues, why in God's name did any of us (including myself) think that Bush was not going to govern from the Christian right? He asked for their vote. He announced that he would appoint the judges they like. He announced that he was, in fact, a born again Christian. His party has many members who are openly hostile to gays and lesbians - and he said nothing to renounce them. We were supposed to ignore all this, because he said he was a "uniter, not a divider"? Wrong. He did exactly what he said he would. His rhetoric was softer; in fact, many of us took cues from his rhetoric and believed that he would break his promises to his base. But he kept his word - and, as Bill Clinton points out, that's the problem.

Read this post on Talkingpointsmemo, and read the Post article it links to.

I know many of our readers, a literate bunch, have already read this article (from last Sunday). Some haven't. Remember, when you read it, that this is not an opinion piece - it is a news story/news analysis. And, remember, as The Daily Howler points out, that it is still full of lies about Al Gore and Democrats in general. Yet, despite all of this, the point of the article is clear: the Bush campaign is running more negative, untruthful ads than any campaign in history.

Congratulations, Republicans. You must be really proud of him. I am glad that you brought a sense of decency and honor back to the White House after Clinton sullied it with his blow jobs. It would really be awful if the world looked at our leader as a liar; if the President taught our children that at certain times it was OK to lie. That would be really terrible.