Michael Moore, premiering "Captain Mike Across America": "Weenie" Kerry not strong enough candidate

[DeepModem Mom]

AFP: Moore takes parting shot at Bush in rockstar flick

TORONTO (AFP) — Filmmaker Michael Moore on Saturday predicted a landslide victory for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election, but is taking no chances, rallying US liberals in his latest documentary. "The potential for a (Democratic) landslide is enormous. People do not want to vote for the Republicans," he told reporters at the Toronto film festival premiere of his "Captain Mike Across America." But "the Democrats are professionals at screwing things up, so nothing is in the bag," he said. "This film is for my few million fans and for the people who share my (liberal) politics to get fired up and get ready for the next election." "I hope this film gives the choir a song to sing ... because we can't take four more years of the Republicans."

Moore commented that Hilary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war hampers her chances of beating Barack Obama in the upcoming Democratic primaries. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has a good chance of winning the Republican ticket on his "trumped up, phony-baloney record on 9/11," and Michael Bloomberg, still sitting on the sidelines, could be a spoiler, he said.

The follow-up to his hits "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Bowling for Columbine" and "Sicko," shows the Michigan native trying unsuccessfully to drum up support for beleaguered Democratic candidate John Kerry in the run-up to the 2004 election. But, he conceded to reporters in Toronto, "Maybe he wasn't the best candidate."

"The United States is a liberal country," he insisted. "The majority of Americans are liberal. They hate that word and they'll never use it, but if you ask them, 'Do you think women should be paid the same as men; do you think that we need assault weapons laws; do you think the minimum wage should be raised' ... the majority of Americans take a liberal position on every issue, except capital punishment." But voters were simply not presented with a strong-enough Democratic candidate in Kerry, he said. "They don't want to go into a polling booth and vote for a weenie for president."

The documentary follows Moore going from stadium to stadium, filled with adoring fans, in 62 cities in the dying days the 2004 presidential campaign, bashing US President George W. Bush -- who would go on to win the contest -- and his "lies" to justify an "unjust war" in Iraq....

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWIJa95g2gA25yroFnQ7TXq1XhrQ

[blogslut]

1. I would like to see it.

I'm not thrilled with Moore's weenie reference but then, the whole article is oddly righty-slanty for AFP. He got a little snippy with the writer's questions from the way I read it. Towards the end of the article, one can tell he'd had enough of inane "Why are you doing this?" questions.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. It's a curious article. I'm wondering about some of the quotes, too. nt

[blogslut]

3. As my newspaperman Daddy once told me

ALL reporters have an agenda. There is no such thing as a completely objective story. ;)

[Cha]

63. That's right unless you're a

freakin' ro-bot.

[spag68]

4. John Kerry is no weenie

however the thugs and their spin machine were successful in painting a true war hero as weak and a weak coward as being strong. Perception is everything and there is still a chance for it to happen again in 08. Since I live in New York, on Long Island, I shudder at the thought of rudy as pres.

[Cha]

65. Yeah, it's

"IT'S THE CORPORATEWHORE MEDIA, STUPIDAMERICA"

The only way Facistrudy will get in is by Cheat-ing..oh, wait..

[sendero]

76. If you stand there and let them do it..

... you are in fact a weenie.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Interesting choice and order of words

"But voters were simply not presented with a strong-enough Democratic candidate in Kerry, he said. "They don't want to go into a polling booth and vote for a weenie for president."" - Is Michael Moore calling John Kerry a "weenie" or is the writer trying to make it look like he is?

[DeepModem Mom]

6. I thought the article read as if he were calling him that --

It would be helpful to see a transcript or video of these remarks.

[Snotcicles]

37. A perceived weenie maybe, because he didn't combat stuff like swiftboat,strong enough. nt

[Swamp Rat]

57. Well, so much for clear and honest journalism.

If this was an editorial column I wouldn't bat an eye, but since this is not, I find it bothersome.

Don't you?

[bobbolink]

59. Some of us believe not contesting a rigged election certainly qualifies as "WEENIE"

[beachmom]

7. That's strange. What Michael Moore views as a "weenie" was the

only Democrat I know of to actually investigate government corruption and secrecy on as massive a scale (Iran/Contra, CIA drugrunning, BCCI) as John Kerry did. This was the stuff F9/11 dealt with like the Bush tentacles and the Saudis, and so on. Hey Mikey -- who actually investigated that stuff? That weenie he refers to challenged the Alito filibuster and demanded a bill setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq be voted upon in June 2006, when the REAL weenies in the Democratic party bashed him in the press for it. Even Barack Obama voted against the Kerry/Feingold amendment.

I think Moore has a talent for documentary film making, but he's not so good in Democratic electoral politics.

He ought to show Kerry some respect or STFU.

[cali]

13. Then you haven't done enough research

He wasn't the only one.

[beachmom]

24. He wasn't the only one. But he WAS the only one who was willing

to go against the entire Democratic Establishment to get at the truth, and they hate him for it to this day. I am talking of elected Democratic officials in Washington DC (if I may clarify). I know there are others, but Kerry stuck his neck out and never stopped pursuing it. Even the BAE scandal today he has sent in some inquiries to the Justice Dept.

[cali]

30. Wrong.

For pete's sake, Leahy got tossed off the Intelligence Committee for leaking stuff about Iran-Contra

[ProSense]

31. OMG!

Give the man his credit. Kerry was a freshman Senator when he launched his investigation.

Patrick Leahy is one of the best Democrats around, but give Kerry credit where credit is due!

[cali]

32. Sure he gets credit, but not as the only one who

stood up to the BFEE and took risks. That's just silly.

[ProSense]

35. It's not the same thing

a leak and an investigation.

Sen. Leahy admits leak of an Iran quiz report

From: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: July 29, 1987
More results for: Leahy leaked Iran Contra

See more articles from Chicago Sun-Times

WASHINGTON (UPI) Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said Tuesday he unintentionally leaked the Senate Intelligence Committee's draft report on its Iran-contra investigation in January and resigned from the committee as a result.

Leahy's admission was made at a time when members of Congress have been under attack from Reagan administration officials for leaks about national security matters.

However, Leahy said his disclosure of the report did not constitute a breach of national security.

Leahy said he allowed a reporter, whom he did not identify, to look at part of the draft report in ...

link

Kerry began work on his investigation in 1985 and issued his first report in 1986.

[karynnj]

64. Of course he was not the only one

nor did Beachmom say he was. Look at what she said: "Only Democrat I know of to actually investigate government corruption and secrecy on as massive a scale (Iran/Contra, CIA drugrunning, BCCI) as John Kerry did.

Your counter example of Leahy leaking a report is not equivalent to Kerry spending 5 years untangling the tentacles of BCCI's facilitation of drug running and global criminal money flows (including OBL's). That Kerry stayed within the laws while pursuing the Contras - when no one else would do it in 1985 is a PLUS not a negative.

He did do far far more than most other public officials. There are few who came close to what Kerry did. There were JOURNALISTS who did very credible work - but they did not have supeona power or the need to keep 100% to what was provable in a court of law.

Can you give me ONE Senator/Governor/President who did as much?

[EST]

8. I have to admit, painting a war hero like Kerry as a weenie

brings an instant protest from me.
Then I think about it.
Who was it who did almost nothing to counter the publicker sneers and lies, the swiftboat smears, the framing of intelligent, 'open for new information' thought as being a flip-flopper, unable to take a stand?
Who was it who bragged that the election positively would not be stolen and that there were legions of lawyers and observers activated throughout the nation to prevent election fraud, intimidation and assorted horn--swoggling and then folded like a cheap tent in a windstorm?

Who was it who could not restrain himself and went sailboarding, surely knowing the wingnut press would be all over it, adding to the image they'd already created of a foppish, effete, "French looking" momma's boy who promptly took up goose hunting to prove his bona fides?

Now I am fully aware, as a contemporary of John Kerry's, just what an intelligent, fair minded and, as much as a politician can be, honest man he is. I know what a brave man he is, from his young days as an officer to the unpopular stands he took that disclosed the vast corruption in the international financial community, including busting a number of fascists who would gladly have been neo-cons, a decade later.

I am also aware of the number of times he had the opportunity to bust bush's chops and call him out for the conniving, sniveling, cowardly creep he really is, yet, when the future of the US and the world were at stake, he just couldn't bring himself to break some "code" and tell the absolute, unadorned truth about the man we all knew to be the worst thing to befall the executive branch in two hundred years.
The common thought, where I grew up and everywhere I've been, has been, "If you won't fight for yourself, why should I fight for you?"

Yeah, in spite of the wonderful man he I know he is, Kerry came across as a real weenie--not a very good way to attract the support of proud "I made it on my own" American voters.

[ginnyinWI]

9. he should have had the support of more party Dems

Seems to me he was pretty much out there on his own. Richardson publicly announces that he will not be his running mate. And then Carville and others throw barbs his way in the media right before the election. What was that all about? And the media, of course just ate it up. Corporate media didn't want a Kerry administration and have their financial boats rocked.

I don't know that an all out attack on Bush would have done much good. This was before Katrina, and a lot of Indies would have just been turned off by the negativity. Bush still had his teflon suit working for him. So JK stuck to the issues and attacked Bush's policies and incompetence. Over and over. But so many people I talked to personally were too afraid to switch presidents and too lazy to bother to dig deeper into the differences between the two men. And I mean really, palpably afraid. The Bushies saw to that.

[EST]

12. I agree with you.

I started out not particularly wanting Kerry, but, after our primary--on March 17--he WAS the candidate and I got behind him and pushed; even my then five year old grand daughter got into the act, making up and memorizing her own little campaign jingles.
Multiple state election fraud, for which there now exists ample evidence, certainly capped the deal, but how many times it was that I gritted my teeth, listening to a Kerry speech or watching a debate, and kept sending him the etheric message to quit being a nice guy and clean shrubby's clock, but he just wouldn't do it.

Even JFK, himself, has publicly mused that he regretted not coming out "more forcefully" when the shrimpboat vets forsooth smears became prominent. I wonder, sometimes, if John thinks about that seventeen million that he had left in his presidential campaign coffers at the end, the seventeen million which he broadly hinted he was saving for a 2008 run, and regrets not jumping into the fray when we were beating the bushes of an already overextended and tapped-out activist donor herd for the bread to support the Greens' election investigation.

History's timing will not allow of a Kerry presidency, even though the nation needs someone of his countenance and intellect. He was four years too early, or whatever the combo was, and we'll never know.

[beachmom]

25. He couldn't use that money after the convention. That was the problem.

Once Kerry accepted the nomination he had to use public money. Unfortunately Bush did not have his convention until FIVE WEEKS LATER (thank you Terry MacAliffe for screwing that up for us). That was the Swift Boat Period. If Kerry spent gobs of money then, he would have less to spend in the final crunch during the fall. It was a clusterf**k.

He could not have spent that $17 million in August.

[karynnj]

58. Right and had he spent gobs of money in August fighting it

the same people complaining now would be saying that that he wasted money fighting outrageous charges that no one would have believed if he didn't give them credibility by attacking them directly so hard - he would have been called vain and self absorbed - when people needed to hear what he would do against terrorism, Iraq, global warming .... (Remember it was conventional wisdom not to dignify garbage like that - at first, he couldn't know that the media would give it undeserved credibility with he said he said analogies.

[karynnj]

10. Michael Moore's fans' praise has gone to his head.

He is crazy if he thinks that he drummed up much support for Kerry. The people who saw the film and loved it were already extremely anti-Bush. In 2004, a woman's group I am in that is mostly liberal Democrat and Jewish used one day to discuss the movie that we all went to see before the meeting. Even though, from previous discussions this was a group happy to vote for Kerry.

Not one person thought the movie was good. The problem was the rapid fire, snarky portion in the beginning that outlined the Bush family links to the Bin Laden family. To most it did not make the case - it had no backup and the detailed information was not there. To suggest two US Presidents were connected to OBL absolutely turned everyone off.

The anti-Bush anti-war people who loved it - and I admit to laughing at Bush while watching, as my husband did - was already firmly in the group who would vote against Bush. (This did NOT push them towards Kerry - but in 2004, Kerry did get most of these people.) But, it and some of the 527 stuff likely led to the perception, found in polls, that Kerry and Bush were equally guilty of negative attacks. While I think we all KNOW that Rove did have a lot to do with SBVT, Kerry did not have any influence on Michael Moore.

There was no blip towards Kerry when the film came out and was covered on TV - nor was there ANY decline in Bush's approval rating. This would seem to me to say that Moore fired up the partisans against Bush (not towards Kerry), who were already pretty fired up.

Frankly, Moore mistakes bravado and loud angry rants for strength. Kerry has repeated shown true strength in fighting - even when the odds are stacked against him.

[beachmom]

27. Plus I know one scene in F9/11 where Moore was very, very unfair

to one of our troops. It's the part where a soldier says he listens to the song, "Burn, Motherf***er, Burn", then Moore shows destruction right afterwards, implying that our troops listen to that music to go for the kill. Wrong. That scene was an excerpt from a VH1 special about music the troops liked to listen to or perform. The scene with that kid, he talks about ALL kinds of music he likes. He was showing his CDs, and that was only ONE. It was not in the context of killing people. When I figured that out I was really ashamed of Moore for doing that to that kid.

[dailykoff]

11. Sometimes I wonder about this guy.

Fahrenheit 911 was a two-hour advertisement for the official incompetence theory of 911, complete with funny songs and flattering shots of Junior at work and play. And there were no shots of the actual demolitions, just a black screen, to make sure nobody got the wrong idea about what Mikey was suggesting.

[Mass]

14. So, the best way for Moore to make its own propaganda is to slander others?

Does not say a lot of good about the man.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

16. Duh! So, can I call you a weenie, because this is how you come out in this post!

If Moore and you want to carry water for the GOP, fine for you.

If not, may be you should think a little bit before talking. I know it is a difficult concept, but it is a concept you better learn if you want to stop having GOPers elected: support our guys!!

[cgrindley]

39. Kerry isn't running and when he did run, he lost to Bush

Jesus. How do you lose to George Bush AFTER he started a useless war? What kind of fuckup do you have to be to blow what should have been an easy election landslide?

[Mass]

43. In your mind only, unfortunately.

I guess that Lamont had also an easy campaign against Lieberman. This is some of the Lamont supporters seemed to think.

It is always hard to beat an incumbent. Remember, Clinton only did that because of Perot. Carter barely beat Ford as well. If you think it is easy to beat an incumbent, I can probably sell you the Eiffel Tower and the Seine as well!

This does not mean that Kerry and his team could not have done some things better (we all can), but this does not justify Moore's namecalling.

[cgrindley]

69. No, not only in my mind

Jesus. Bush's campaign against Clinton was pathetic. Almost as bad as Kerry's campaign. Why are you trying to change the past? Kerry sucked. He was awful.

[karynnj]

61. Complete lack of knowlege of history

There was no case in our history where a sitting President was rejected. Here, if the election were fairly run, Kerry would have won - in spite of a media very biased against him - possibly because they feared Bush. The country was far more positive on the war then than now and people like General Petreaus lied to the American people on how the war was going.

Bush was at around 50% - not less than 40%, like GHWB or Carter. You need to consider that some of those who disapproved of Bush were the RW conservatives, like Buchanan - who disapproved but were not likely to vote for any Democrat over Bush.

[cgrindley]

68. What are you talking about? Lots of presidents lose re-election bids

EG Harrison, Taft, Hoover, Carter, Bush just as five quick examples.

[karynnj]

72. In a time of war - was what I meant

I messed up in editing it.

[cgrindley]

73. You're calling the war on terror a war?

that's a stretch.

[karynnj]

74. No I am calling the War in Iraq a war

and yes, I am completely aware that it is an occupation - but in 2004, I doubt even 10% would have labeled that way.

[ProSense]

21. And you're not

"a total fucking weenie" for posting a vile comment like this?

[cgrindley]

38. How is it vile? Which point do you disagree with?

You don't think Kissinger deserves to be on trial for War Crimes? You liked My Lai? You think Kerry stood up to the swiftboat fucknards? Which part do you disagree with?

[ProSense]

42. You can figure that out.

Which part of this was original:

American soldiers in the Vietnam war committed war crimes. yes. American involvement in Vietnam should always be a cause of national shame. yes. anyone who died in Vietnam, died in vain, for no reason whatsoever.

You're three decades late putting Kerry's words into his mouth. The ridiculous exercise of "here's what he should have said." As for Kissinger, Kerry wasn't in the Senate then, but he stood up. As for the rest, here are the facts.

[KharmaTrain]

17. This Isn't About The Man...It Was About The Candidate

I admire John Kerry in many ways...for his military service, his standing up against the Vietnam War, his work in the Senate and being on the right side of most important issues of our time. That's Kerry the Man...not Kerry the '04 candidate...who tried to be "above the frey" in that election while he was being slimed and said and did little...creating the "weenie" image. It's not just Kerry, but the people who worked for him...Bob Schrum, Donna Brazille and others who let the lies and slime get piled on Kerry during the campaign with little to hit back on. It was one of the most inept campaigns in my life and all of us have paid a dear price for it...especially Mr. Moore.

[fedupinBushcountry]

18. Lets get something straight

It was the likes of Carville, McAwful, Clinton himself who were working for Kerry but were really against him so Hillary could run in '08. You see they didn't have the balls to put her in there in'04 because they knew damn well she would have failed miserably. I'm sick of all this fucking '04 BS.

It wasn't that he didn't attack back at the slime Swiftboaters it was he didn't spend enough money on doing it, thanks to McAwful putting the convention 5 weeks before the repukes. You know Kerry even mentioned not accepting the nomination at the Dem Convention and waiting so he wouldn't be put in the position he was in August, but the Dem establishment wouldn't allow him to do that.

[KharmaTrain]

19. It Was An Inept Campaign

Kerry's response to the Slimeboater was slow and tepid. We sat for days hoping something would come out to refute these lies and almost nothing came from the campaign...nothing like the Clinton "rapid response" teams. And, yep, he was outspent as the DNC under "McAwful" (and you'll get no argument from me on that name) spent money on nice offices and computers...not on local party building. Kerry, as the head of this campaign, holds the ultimate responsibility as he hired these people.

I was sick for weeks after the '04 election as I saw, on the ground, how that Slimeboat attack solidified a vision of Kerry as being weak and detached. His photo-op going Duck Hunting didn't do much good, either. There were many mis-steps in that campaign that pushed 60 million people to vote FOR the continuing of the crimes and criminals we still endure.

[ProSense]

22. Oh BS!

Michael Moore, Sept 2004:

Kerry supporters and Bush-bashers should not despair. These Republicans have not made a permanent dent in Kerry's armor. The only person who can do that is John Kerry. And by coming out swinging as he did just minutes after Bush finished his speech Thursday night, Kerry proved he knows that the only way to win this fight is to fight — and fight hard.

I think Michael is trying to get attention for his movie.

Kerry did respond to the Swift Liars and he ran a very good campaign despite all the revisionism.

[KharmaTrain]

23. So Why Did 60 Plus Million Vote Against Him?

I saw the shift doing campaign work here in '04. I saw people who were looking for a reason, any reason, NOT to vote for booosh but couldn't vote for Kerry. I saw people who had said in previous canvasses they were leaning Kerry who stopped taking phone calls and answering our polling in the final weeks of the election and the Slimeboat attacks were constantly cited as the reason. So whose revising?

Moore, like many of us, stood by Kerry to the very end. He, like many of us, were bitterly disappointed both by how the campaign was run (especially the lack of contact from the national party on the local levels) and how inept the responses were to the attacks on him and other Democrats that poured from the corporate media during that election.

Again...it was an inept campaign...no revision on the number of people who voted against the man (and many were more against Kerry as they were FOR boooosh)...no revisionism on that front...and something Hillary Clinton better be prepared for if she's the nominee.

[beachmom]

28. Fear. That's why they voted for Bush. The colored threat alerts,

Beslan, the OBL tape. I could go on. I also remember Bush NOT being thought of as incompetent in 2004 by most. Only Katrina exposed his incompetence to a wide enough audience that his polls plummeted from there on out. In 2004 he teetered at about 50% approval rating, which meant it was a very difficult task to unseat him. Kerry came very, very close.

[cgrindley]

41. So Bush won by making drawing pretty pictures and writing catchy slogans?

WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T KERRY THINK OF SUCH AN OBVIOUS FUCKING STRATEGY?

Why? Why? Why?

It's like he wanted to lose the election... why doesn't anyone seem to remember how pathetic he was when he was attacked by the swiftboat people?

[ProSense]

44. Because

you were not his campaign manager? How's that career going? Why don't you remember anything that really happened?

[ProSense]

29. So why did 59 million plus vote for him?

If Kerry's campaign was inept he wouldn't have gotten 9 million more votes than Gore, Bush would have gotten a lot more, and the Bush gang wouldn't have had to resort to cheating voters out of the opportunity to vote and all the other crap they pulled.

[Beelzebud]

50. Anybody But Bush was my excuse...

[ProSense]

52. You voted for Kerry?

Well there you go, you have proven Moore full of shit!

[Beelzebud]

49. When asked if he would send troops to Iraq knowing what he knows now, Kerry responded YES.

That day I knew the election was lost.

He ran a miserable campaign and lost to the worst president ever.

The only revisionism going on is people saying he responded to the swift liars, and ran a strong campaign.

[ProSense]

51. BS!

Provide a link!

Saying it doesn't make it fact!

[Beelzebud]

54. Here are links. I don't have amnesia, I remember things. Even unpleasent things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/index.html

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war/

Hell I remember the day it happened, seeing footage of it on TV. I KNEW the election was lost at that point.

[ProSense]

56. Where does it say Kerry "would send troops to Iraq"?

From the Boston Globe link:

In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.


Then, in his most direct challenge to Bush about the war, Kerry listed four questions for the president, inquiring about prewar intelligence, postwar planning, the lack of efforts to bring other nations into the war as allies, and why Americans were misled about the war.

And unlike Bush, who never mentioned Kerry by name during his New Hampshire campaign stop, the Massachusetts senator said, ''My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

[cgrindley]

70. WTF! it's right there in black and white... why willfully ignore the past?

Kerry's feeble attempt to distinguish between a thing and its synonym is exactly why the moronic WEENIE lost the fucking election. he ran a stupid, braindead and totally emasculated campaign.

[ProSense]

71. You are being loud again,

but your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

[karynnj]

67. That was NOT the question

Kerry NEVER NEVER said he would have gone to war NEVER. He spoke only of the IWR vote and he said he would have used the authization differently - it was clear form the answer that he missed the conditional phrase.

[cgrindley]

40. It was a wretched campaign of Dukakisesque incompetence (nt)

[wisteria]

46. Why where did you get that idea? From the MSM? These elections were entirely different.

Dukakis lost in a very lopsided race. Senator Kerry came within 60,000 votes of unseating a war time president. The 2004 election was filled with disenfranchisement, media manipulation, fraud,fear and lies. Dukakis lost for different reasons-not appearing tough enough on criminals and weak on defense- which is actually a party problem and has been difficult to overcome. Now please, don't use MSM lies to make a point that has no bearing what so ever on each man's merits. Senator Kerry was and possibly now, even more so, tougher than the candidate we have running this time.

[karynnj]

60. Kerry did dispute every attack - the media simply ignored it.

It would not have mattered who the candidate was. Kerry was the sharpest in attacking Bush with attacks that stuck of all the primary candidates. Kerry's attacks in fall 2004, in the debates and outside - took the race from hopeless to very competitive. Michael Moore's movie did NOTHING to shift Bush's approval ratings when it came out - he was speaking to the converted. He may in fact have moved some people in the middle to defend Bush from what they saw as unfair attacks. It was NOT negative that Kerry kept his temper and a presidential appeal - rather than turning into a street fighter. (Also, it traditionally is NOT the Presidential candidate who takes the attack role - largely because it HURTS their chance of being seen as Presidential.)

This is sort of if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

[Cha]

66. They both have done A Lot

FOR our Country but I agree.."weenie" is not respectful of Senator Kerry even though I think he should have done a few things differently in the 2004 race(dlc advisers should have been tossed).

It would have been real nice if Michael would have mentioned the cmWs part in Kerry's "loss"..who knows how much Kerry actually won by?

[ProSense]

20. What utter BS!

"They don't want to go into a polling booth and vote for a weenie for president."

So they went into the voting booth to vote for the non-weenie: Bush?

He can't mean they stayed home, 20 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000.

Where the hell does Moore come off calling John Kerry a weenie?

Which is it Michael: Stolen election or promoting movies?

[bigtree]

26. record numbers of Americans showed up to vote for the man Moore calls a weenie

Isn't his use of that one person's view to show about how Americans felt about Kerry a bit disingenuous? Certainly there were folks who said those things, but, even in his failure to overcome Bush (and Ohio's corruption) Kerry got a record number of votes.

[dailykoff]

33. What a goon.

This guy needs to go back to Michigan and take his half baked fresh-off-FOX ideas with him.

[globalvillage]

34. Way to "rally the liberals"

Trash a great liberal and watch everyone rally around the Dems.
What an asinine thing for Moore to say.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

36. Sometimes I think Moore's commercial success has gone to his head.

I think if as many people had seen Fahrenheit 9/11 as Errol Morris' The Fog of War, the election would've been a landslide.

[wisteria]

45. Moore knows about film making- nothing about Kerry or politics.

I see no reason for him to be saying things like this know. He actually is comparing a tough,intelligent, experienced and much decorated war time hero, to our candidates in 08. I don't think any of them measure up any tougher than Senator Kerry.
Also, he is smart enough to know that other factors contributed to Kerry's loss- disenfranchisement, fraud, fear media manipulation and lies and Democratic mismanagement.
I lost some respect for Moore- he comes off as childish.

[Inuca]

47. He comes off as...

... a cheap self-promoter. To paraphrase him "shame, shame, Mr. Moore".

[Beelzebud]

48. Oh no! Moore said something mean about the man that lost to the worst president ever!

Partisan Democrats: ATTACK!!!

[MH1]

53. No, Moore said something idiotic.

I'm not sure why that's news.

I see you're not a big fan of Democrats anyway.

[Beelzebud]

55. Look around. What have the Dems done lately to make anyone a "fan"?

[Cha]

62. I swear we should use "Progressive" if

Liberal has become a pariah. The opposite of progressive is regressive which is what the pukefucks are.

Kerry was great but it obviously wasn't in the Stars for any Dem to win in 2004. The USA's karma needed a brain-dead fascist robot for sequence.

Sorry Kerry, you would have been Awesome.

[karynnj]

75. Michael Moore should ask himself one thing

In the 1960s and 1970s, we have a window not usaually available into the behind closed doors views of the Nixon administration - a close counterpart to the Bush administration.

Haldeman is heard telling Nixon that he was not concerned with any of the protesters - he called us ugly and said that we turned off America - but Kerry, with his manners, politeness, eloquence and intelligence scared them - enough for Nixon to order his people to destroy him.

Moore's movie delighted the people already against Bush. It may have moved some people in the middle - the question is how many in each direction. Many thought it was unfair - and ended up defending Bush. He was like the 60s protesters, who frightened America.

Kerry was who he always was, gave a great convention speech, had wonderful huge rallies that broke historical records on attendance and he was superb in the debates. Kerry had to prove that he could be seen as a President - that is why it is NEVER the Presidential candidate who takes the attack role. (Though on Iraq, Kerry DID.)

[BlueIris]

77. Never thought I'd be posting this on the Internet again, but Mike? Fuck you.

Just...fuck you. There are so many thing WRONG with those statements.