The General's Henchman - Michael Moore Smears Kucinich

[Terwilliger]

I've been a big Moore defender, but this is troubling

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01162004.html

<SNIP>

As Moore explains, "Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated `unequivocal support' for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained)."

After this nasty charge, he goes on to play coy, saying, "What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war."

<snip>

What exactly was that resolution in March '03 that Kucinich abstained on (he voted "present" rather than yes or no)? It called on congressmembers to "express suport and appreciation of the nation for the president and the members of the armed forces who are involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom."

This was not a further authorization for war--something which Kucinich, who had voted against the original war authorization, would certainly have opposed. Rather, as the politically savvy Moore clearly knows, it was a meaningless "feel good" resolution, and a blatant Republican effort to "sandbag" Bush critics in Congress by offering up a "support the troops" resolution that they would find it politically hard not to vote for. The trick was, the resolution didn't just say Congress members supported the troops and their families; it also said they supported the president.

As Kucinich spokesperson David Swanson explains, "Dennis supports the troops, but he doesn't support the president, so he couldn't support the resolution. But he didn't want to vote against support for the troops, so he voted `present.'"

A purist might argue that Kucinich should have simply called the resolution for what it was--a dirty trick designed to silence war critics--and voted against it, which, as Moore correctly notes, a handful of Democrats did in fact do. But given the simplistic way the corporate media reports such matters, and the way Republican opponents could be counted upon to use it in a campaign, it is also understandable why Kucinich chose to simply abstain. (Just look how Moore and Clark are using it now!)

<snip>

.....MORE......

[snoochie]

1. Can't make sense of this

Maybe Moore is just dumber than he seems to be.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. hmm this one quote out of context

If Moore is attacking Kucinich, he must have been paid a *lot* of money.

...
As Moore explains, "Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated `unequivocal support' for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained)."

After this nasty charge, he goes on to play coy, saying, "What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war."

...

Let's cut to just the quotes:

"Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated `unequivocal support' for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained)."

"What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war."

...

Not sure what to make of this either?

[Zinnola]

40. Moore in my opinion

is only an entertainer with opinions not of utter importance than anyone else. I used to like him but politically he seems pretty dense. I would not put much stock into what he says.. we should find out out what Jessica Simpson thinks! :silly:

That is how much importance I place on Michael Moore.

[lewiston]

36. me thinks not

[muchacho]

2. cabal

yes, The old Moore/Clark plot to undermine a candidate with less than 5% support from the rank and file.

Silly rabbit....

[Terwilliger]

4. yep

that's the way it appears

Don't you think so? Else, why would he make the false statement?

[rucky]

12. Because He's Michael Moore

Research & accuracy is not his forte.

[Terwilliger]

15. Well, that's problematic too

If you read "Dude, Where's My Country?", you'll see a book full of quotes and footnotes and endnotes, etc. He backs up just about everything he says. So, it's troubling that he would use such a flagrant distortion in this case.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Terwilliger]

24. So you don't have a problem with Clark supporters lying?

:shrug:

[LoneStarDem]

29. You're misreading it

What you implied was:
-He's a meticilous researcher
-This is factually wrong (Actually it's factually correct; it is contextually wrong, which is the whole point)
-Since these things conflict, there must be some sort of alterior motive

His message? Things taken out of context suck; don't use them.

[mitchum]

72. Like a dog returning to his vomit...

Moore is back to his old habits of fast and loose assertions. The substance of the arguments in "D,WMC?" are a seeming anomaly. His distortion of DK is lowdown.

[Eric J in MN]

97. maybe, but I don't think "Stupid White Men" was well-researched enough

Michael Moore tries to prove how ignorant students at the top colleges are with a survey which concluded that they don't know James Madison was the father of the Constitution.

But many of them selected Thomas Jefferson as the father of the Constitution, which isn't a bad answer either.

Other questions on the poll asked whether a historical event happened between 1780-1800 or between 1800-1820.

The poll didn't really show terrible ignorance.

[Old and In the Way]

48. Wasn't Micheal Moore a Nader supporter in 2000?

Maybe he has finally figured it out...that DK (God bless him), while a great choice to lead us in the House, will not be the Democratic candidate for President.

But we can dream, can't we?

[snoochie]

50. Yes, and his decision this year makes zero sense.

Unless you assume he's giving up principle in favor of winning at all costs.

What we win will be anyone's guess.

[Old and In the Way]

56. Perhaps we will win our country back.

I'm all for principles, but today I'm more interested in getting the strongest candidate that can defeat the Bush jaugernaut.

Sorry, but that isn't Kucinich.

[snoochie]

63. Who is 'we'?

Does anyone remember Clinton's rhetoric during his campaigns? Versus his actions as President?

Sure, 'Democrats' get to take the country back.

But, if that means more 'forget those old jobs we'll get new ones' lies just like we got from Clinton when he signed on to the 'free trade' farce then 'we' don't win.

If his claim to cut the defense budget ends up being like Clinton's claim that he'd get a law like the Fairness Doctrine passed then 'we' don't win.

This is why it's so unimaginably STUPID for Moore to have endorsed someone like Clark. He goes from fighting corporate power to endorsing MIC lobbyists? Bill Moyers or his guest commented last Friday that if a lobbyist had run for office years ago, they would have been laughed out of the room. But now it's defended, even by 'informed' liberals. Welcome to bizarro world.

He should have known how suspicious those who lean away from both parties due to corruption would be of his chosen candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if much of his audience has lost whatever respect they had for him over this.

This was his chance to have a positive effect on democracy, by endorsing the candidate who stands alone as the one with the record of fighting corporate interests and winning. He could have endorsed someone who would actually change the country in the direction Moore has advocated, but he chose not to. He chose to give in to the meme of the day... that being that winning with any candidate is preferable to even RISKING losing.


You seem to have been convinced somehow that there is no way that Kucinich could beat Bush. That's sad.

No matter how stupid you think Americans are. No matter how corrupt the media that misinforms them... there is absofreakinglutely no way this man could possibly lose to GW Bush other than if the chimp stole it again.

He is not 'far left'. He is portrayed that way for a reason.

His advocacy of single-payer, cradle-to-grave, complete health coverage resonates with the vast majority of the public.

He alone maintained what many, many Americans, and the vast majority of people over the world, view as the only principled stance on this war, and this occupation. Every other posturing politician up for the nomination has hedged, hemmed, hawwed, rationalized, and spun themselves blue. It's fooled many. But not all. Not even close.

And you know what? It doesn't matter if Americans agreed with that stance or not. Many know we're no safer now, and many know we're even less safe.

What stands out to most people, though -- and mind you these aren't the type of people that post on political message boards... these are the people who largely dismiss politics nearly automatically as something completely corrupted -- is that he has principles, and the courage to stand up for them. He does not shape his decisions to match whatever is popular with the masses on that day. People actually respect that, you know? Conversely, they disrespect those that have no principles - or those that, even though they have them, lack the backbone to stand up and fight for them.

Principles, and the courage to live by them. Rare in people in general, and nearly impossible to find in a politician / leader. That singular quality, in addition to his popular ideas, of course, what would make him the most formidable opponent to Bush.

Your assertion ('Sorry, but that isn't Kucinich') means nothing to me. Hearing hundreds of people tell me not to bother even talking to them about lying, posturing politicians -- that means something to me.

It's been wonderful being able to tell these people that I'm not talking about someone like that. It's been amazing to experience the same excitement I felt after I discovered Kucinich's platform and record again with them, as they find out that there is a politician in Washington who isn't about saying what people want to hear then doing the 'pragmatic' (self-serving) thing. I'm sad for Mike he won't get to share in that experience.

Sorry... kinda got on a soap box there. :)

[Old and In the Way]

79. Snoochie, answer me this.

Kucinich has had 6-8 months to get his message out, he hasn't made a significant move in the polls to become the Democratic nominee. Even on this board, he's, at best, 4th in the popularity. If he can't excite his own Party or this board, why would you think he'll be accepted by the Indies/uninformed/apolitical middle?

Regardless of how noble and good Dennis's rhetoric is, he is not going to be the nominee. This election will be won by the candidate that can grab more votes from the middle.

By all means keep talking on behalf of Kucinich...personally, I think he has lots of great ideas. I hope lots of the points that you make will be incorporated in the platform. Elections are more than good ideas....if that were the only criteria, we'd have a one party lock on the federal government. Elections have become personality contests; how else to explain Bush's winning close to 50% of the electorate in 2000? You put Kucinich up against Bush and we are toast. Not because his ideas are worse or his abilities are less, but because the people who will decide the election will vote on image not substance.

[snoochie]

92. Because I'm an optimist

:D

Seriously - I think he does generate excitement on this board. I think that excitement is tempered by fear, and I think that fear has been intentionally exacerbated and is being used by those who wish to maintain the status quo. Haven't you noticed how many people say they really love Kucinich's positions / ideas, but just can't support him because 'he just can't win'?

Regarding the general public, I think many of his ideas would resonate with them if they got a chance to hear them. But all they hear / see is the 'vegan / looking for chicks / acts like a new age hippie freak'. You know that most Americans support universal healthcare, right? He could win on that alone! For the apolitical middle, there are many parts of his platform that appeal to people who don't give a damn about politics: end the drug war, free childcare - college (that would ROCK this country's single mom vote!), etc. etc. etc.

I just disagree with you about the votes from the middle. I don't think those people will be flocking to Bush or away from Kucinich, especially once the CAFTA discussions start. And especially after a few more months of our soldiers dying in Iraq.

I understand what you mean about personality contests, but we really are in an unprecedented situation. The president of this country has in the span of three years blown tons of money we don't have, ruined our reputation with the rest of the world, made us less secure than ever before, and put our soldiers in harm's way -- not only this, the very fabric of our military forces are being stretched to the breaking point. I don't see him managing to make his faux-folksy demeanor the same 'issue' it was in 2000.

Additionally, I think the ability to manipulate people is waning. Notice how many are bucking his 'to the moon' ploy. I think the polling organizations and media outlets are playing their usual games, trying to manufacture consent once again, but I think this time they will have a much harder time of it.

I think if Kucinich is the nominee it will be nearly impossible for them to blur the lines. Their only hope will be the hippie peacenik stuff, and I can't see that taking much away from him when his plusses are keeping jobs here and ensuring your kids have healthcare and daycare so you can work at one of those jobs.

Maybe I just give the American public too much credit, but again, I think a lot of the reason I expect it to be harder for the media to screw with the public this time is because we're not coming out of 'eight years of peace and prosperity'; also with Kucinich we're not going to be hearing the 'no difference between the parties' hype anymore. There will be a very clear, very distinct difference, and I think the public, and politicians after he's elected ( :D ), will respond.

[Rich Hunt]

87. exactly

It's like he's forgotten past history (Clinton) hasn't given any thought to the dark cloud around Clark.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if he just painted it as his personal choice, but it was a demand that we all vote for him - a demand made with overconfidence.

I suspect his reasons are personal but not aimed at Kucinich directly.

[Padraig18]

3. Moore saw a cheap shot, and took it.

:puke:

[snoochie]

5. But ...

If it borders on being factually incorrect, how is it a cheap shot?

It seems to me to be more like he's either just desperately reaching for something to complain about re: Kucinich, or he doesn't really understand what he's talking about.

I wonder if he formed that evaluation of the vote on his own, or if one of his assistants did it, or if it came from somewhere else.

Either way, he looks really stupid saying that.

[tinanator]

7. an excellent indicator

of exactly what Kucinich represents to the Clark supporters.
The single biggest threat. :)
How about a few more rounds of "single digit support" before the voters have their say? It's all good, but some things are even gooder!

[Terwilliger]

18. He's looking to woo Kucinich voters

He knows that they'll have to go somewhere when Dennis drops out, and he's trying to undercut Kucinich's anti-war stance because he knows there's no defending Clark.

[LoneStarDem]

8. You're missing the point

There is serious spin coming off the article you cite. Here is the relevant portion of MM's letter:

"Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against a resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll083.xml). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/campaigns/09DEAN.html)? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people."



He is using the Kucinich and Dean example as example of *ridiculous* criticism. He obviously doesn't maintain that it's factual or that he believes it, but that innocuous thing can be spun negatively. He even complements them both in the next lines. And this conspiracy theory ("Clark pulling the strings of his henchman Moore!! Boo!!") is just ludicrous. If one more mountain ends up being made out of a molehill, I'm gonna have to go get me a pair of crampon and an ice axe.

[Bread and Circus]

9. Yeah, I read the MM letter, he didn't seem to intend any disrespect for DK

I have a feeling Clark respects Kucinich on many levels as
well.

So do I.

[OhioStateProgressive]

49. I believe Kucinich will be Clarks running mate

and we will win

[snoochie]

51. Someone explain the 'let them have those jobs' comment

Maybe if there's some rational explanation, I could see your prediction as making any kind of sense at all.

If he meant what it seems like he meant (the same thing Clinton did when he said 'let them have those jobs'), then I can see no way on God's green earth Kucinich would get on board with him.

[OhioStateProgressive]

57. well

actually, I see it for three reasons

Clark is proposing a Federal Department very similar to Dennis's Department of Peace

Clark is willing to cut the Defense budget up to 20%

Dennis is a politician...a man who runs for his first office at 21 and becomes Mayor at 31 isn't about to turn down the VP nomination

[mikehiggins]

64. Are you going to stop those jobs from going overseas?

Maybe you could make it illegal like that scenario in Atlas Shrugged where nobody could leave their jobs for the good of the nation.

Maybe we could arrest any business executive who outsources work to Asia or Latin America.

Maybe we could build a 25 foot wall around this country and keep all our jobs inside.

Or maybe we could recognise the problem and try to find realistic ways to deal with it.

It is a shame that some people interpreted Clark's remarks as favoring outsourcing. All he was doing was recognising that there is no way to stop that process, and that what we have to do is find new jobs to replace those Big Business has sent away.

And with a guy like Clark in the White House, maybe we could find a way to keep those new jobs and new technology here, instead of doing as much as we can to sell them to other nations.

Whenever I hear about outsourcing I'm reminded about that old quote from the Bolsheviks about how the capitalists would sell the Reds the ropes the Reds would hang them with. This isn't quite what they meant but the principle is the same.

It stinks from the head down, like a dead fish on a beach.

[snoochie]

65. There are many ways

You list a few fictional or outright silly ways, but that doesn't change reality. There are many ways to protect American jobs.

You even seem to know it. Because while you said: "All he was doing was recognising that there is no way to stop that process..."

You then went on to say: "with a guy like Clark in the White House, maybe we could find a way to keep those new jobs and new technology here..."

So which is it? Do you believe it's impossible? Or do you believe it's only possible to slow / stop it if we elect Clark?

[mikehiggins]

74. Oh, okay. Fair question. What I mean is this

in so far as present jobs are concerned, whether they are factory jobs or white collar jobs, those particular jobs most likely cannot be saved. There are some things that can be done, of course, but you'd have to have someone else in the White House to do them right now.

You could require, for example, that any material or tools used by the United States military be manufactured--not assembled--here in the United States as a matter of National Security. We cannot rely on Japan, for example, to build fighter jets for our airforce. Pakistan cannot be relied upon to build the weapons our troops use in combat.

That is a huge number right there.

Similarly, you could require that any dataprocessing dealing with US funded mandates be done within the United States, again as a matter of National Security.

You could also require that any technology developed by any firm with financing or grants from the federal government NOT be sold to foriegn companies or nations. And when it is, the people who do so have to go to jail for a long time for treason. National Security? Yeah, again.

What this requires, of course, is a government concerned about the citizens and future of the United States. Since we've gone through decades of government run by professional politicians and have wound up in the state we are in, I'm more than happy to seek out someone who has not made politics his life to address the problems that have somehow come to pass under the control of those who did.

Jobs, health insurance, education. All of these were in trouble before Bush took office. They aren't going to magically get better by going back to the same old, same old represented by the political establishment.

I'm sorry if I haven't answered your question succinctly or clearly. It is a very big topic and a very big problem. Still, I'm convinced we'll have a better chance of dealing with our problems by moving forward with what we've learned from the failures of the past rather than sending good money after bad in a basically fruitless effort to go back to what was. Let's build something newer and better, and this time, do what we have to to keep it.

[Turkw]

105. If you look at the entire answer, he was talking about spending real money

on new technology research, especially renewable energy and eco-friendly technologies (something that really has not been done). He has also stated we need to look at companies and make sure we are not rewarding companies that are sending jobs overseas, and reward companies that are creating jobs here.

When you take his approach as a whole you get a better picture of where he wants to go. Fighting to get jobs back is a loosing proposition, creating NEW jobs with NEW technology, something it will take other countries years to Catch up with us is a better investment. At the same time we need to stop or slow down loosing jobs, as much as we can.

I think he is right, as more and more countries have more and more people who are educated and qualified in IT jobs that we share with them, we will get a shrinking percentage of that job market. As we stay on the cutting edge, we produce more jobs that other countries cannot compete with, then we get IT and other support jobs as a spin off. This lifts the whole economy.

[snoochie]

10. Not good enough

"I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war,..."

This seems to imply that this 'present' vote was somehow either not a stand against the war, or not a good enough display of anti-warness for Moore. Which is rich, considering who he's backing.

I think these two paragraphs from the article also warrant posting:

"As for the notion that people shouldn't examine the past positions of the candidates for the Democratic nomination, this is a recommendation for disaster. Candidates' pasts don't only reveal their political views, they reveal their ability to stand up under pressure, their political connections and liabilities, and their basic character. We ignore that record at our risk.

President Nixon, in 1968, tried to remake himself as a peace candidate, running against Hubert Humphrey. 25,000 more dead Americans and several million dead Indochinese later, we saw just what a man of peace he was. But of course, his past years as a cold warrior should have made it clear to anyone paying attention that his "peace" image was a sham. The same can be said of President Clinton, who ran in 1992 as a champion of minorities, gays and labor, but who then abolished welfare, enlarged the prison-slave system, and passed the NAFTA job destruction treaty. Anyone who examined Clinton's history as governor of Arkansas would have been able to see this was no man of the people."

After sifting the chaff (consider the source), it's clear the author has a very good point.

[w13rd0]

11. Ah, so he's using theories...

...examples of the ridiculous (with links) to emphasize his point. I get it. And so many Clark supporters cricized Dean for doing the same thing regarding the Saudi-S11 statement. Gee, what's up with that?

Oh, and I for one don't think lobbyists protect America, unless you are talking about the America that wants to send its software jobs to India...

[LoneStarDem]

19. Sorry

I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the "Saudi-S11" statement, what was it?


Ok, where is the lobbyist business coming from? I had a long answer to the lobby quote in another thread, but the short answer is that lobbying is value neutral; it's the abuses of lobbying, mainly by large companies that use lobbyist as conduits for funneling money and influence, that are the problem. Environmental groups lobby. Gun control groups lobby. Free Speech Advocates lobby. Labor Unions lobby. And the vast number of them do so, at least in their mind, for the betterment of America.

And the India thing is a cheap shot, thats not what he meant and everyone knows it.

[mikehiggins]

77. Umm, didn't someone mention environmental lobbies?

Things like that?

Maybe Clark has something like Planned Parenthood in mind when he talks about lobbyists, or Greenpeace? Not every lobbyist represents untrammelled evil, you know.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. thanks

the spin in that article was making me dizzy. The rhetoric of the article was way, way, way over the top.

[Terwilliger]

22. Let's look at Moore's motivation

"Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web, let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against a resolution in Congress on March 21 which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war...What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war... They are good people."

What is he saying, anyway?

Firstly, he uses the example of Dennis abstaining that vote as an example of why Kucinich is "unclean" That's quite a stretch, considering Dennis stayed out of that vote altogether.

Secondly, where does "tit-for-tat sniping" come into the picture? It's because HE introduced it.

And Moore seems to want to say that Clark's past activities are not anything anybody should worry about. Well, isn't THAT special.

And he ends the passage with a sop. Well, Clark thinks that Georgie, Dick, Colin, and Donnie are "good people" too.

[snoochie]

25. past activities are not anything anybody should worry about

That's my biggest problem with Moore here.

Not that he's distorting Kucinich's record (which he is, who cares why, he still looks really stupid), but that he's encouraging Americans to ignore that silly stuff about details and records and history, and just vote for a 'winner'.

:wtf:

[LoneStarDem]

27. Alright

Well, beyond the fact that you edited out relevant parts of the quotation, here are some answers.



>Firstly, he uses the example of Dennis abstaining that vote as an >example of why Kucinich is "unclean" That's quite a stretch, >considering Dennis stayed out of that vote altogether.

No, he uses it as an example of a *stupid*, out of context criticism that one could make against Dennis


>Secondly, where does "tit-for-tat sniping" come into the picture? >It's because HE introduced it.

No, it's in the portion you redacted from your quote, the part about the stupid criticisms he's heard around the web. MM is not a stupid man, he's been following the race, maybe even DU or some equivalent. So he knows there is a lot of stupid shit being passed off as arguments on every side. What is he saying? He's saying cut that shit out. That includes the crit of Kucinich and Dean.



>And Moore seems to want to say that Clark's past activities are not >anything anybody should worry about. Well, isn't THAT special.

He's looked into the man, that's his opinion. What more can you ask of a man.

>And he ends the passage with a sop. Well, Clark thinks that Georgie, >Dick, Colin, and Donnie are "good people" too.

See, this is the kind of worthless snipey shit that he is talking about. It's like ending every post with "Dean is unelectable" or "Kucinich use to be anti-choice". It does nothing to advance the debate, it's divisive, and it's cheap. With the quality of candidates we have, we owe it to them to raise the level of debate, at least a little bit.

[diamondsoul]

34. I think Moore did a crappy job

of writing the portion you're discussing. I've sort of stayed out of these discussions because frankly the Clark endorsement really devastated me for personal reasons.

When I read the letter, I took those as pre-emptive strikes against people who might write to criticize Clark, and nowhere does it say the statements he made are false, but they are. People are going to read that and believe Kucinich DID abstain from an IWR vote and I resent the hell out of Moore putting it out there in a way that could (and likely WILL) be misinterpreted.

[1monster]

33. Very enlightening...

It is always interesting to get the full quote as opposed to the edited quote. Quite often, the edited quote seems to say the exact opposite of what the full quote says.

That certainly undermines the the conclusion drawn by the original post...

[KittyWampus]

13. Counterpunch Is The Left's Version Of Fox

The Far Right and The Far Left both are more concerned with manipulating people.

They are less concerned with any cause as they are with accrueing Money, Power and Influence for themselves.

By latching onto certain emotionally laden Issues, Causes and Political Figures, they know people will be less likely to use their criticial faculties.

Therefore, I reject anything that emanates from Counterpunch. Especially since any organization that would have Mitch Cohen linked to it has shown a devastating lack of discrimination.

And regarding this article... Counterpunch is just trying to stir shit up.... for their own benefit. They don't give a damn about Kucinich, his supporters, his Causes, the Resolution, or America.

[Terwilliger]

16. that, sir, is your opinion

And there's very little to suggest that this is not what Moore said. This is what Moore said, and it was a distortion in favor of Clark.

Doesn't that trouble you?

[LoneStarDem]

20. No

No, if anything it was a three-way distortion in favor of ALL the candidates. What he was saying was that all of these crap criticisms (Kosovo, Bush=Moderate, a missed war resolution) only seem like anything because they are taken superficially, without context, and with malice. That's why the very next sentence he denounces this kind of attack. What he is saying is: Focus on the issues at hand, and ignore the lunatic fringe on the internet. Sound advice if you ask me.

[Terwilliger]

23. lunatic fringe?

Who? People asking tough questions are lunatic fringe?

Look, if you want to talk issues, Clark has none. No experience. No issues. No record. I'd like to Moore talk about that.

And let's be clear here...Clark's military record is not some abstract concept for political gristle...it's a clear indicator of where the man actually was and what he was doing. Crap criticism is killing the messenger.

[LoneStarDem]

32. Lets see

No, I absolutely agree that tough questions are necessary. They are vital. But when I say "lunatic fringe", I'm not talking about people who are honestly trying to vett a candidate, who are willing to be open and engage in constructive dialog. I'm talking about people who have an agenda, who take simplistic, out of context criticism and use them in drive-by attacks on a given candidate. It happens to them all. It happens to Clark, it happens to Dean, to Kucinich, Kerry, et al.

Now, as to Clark having "no issues, no experience, no record", you know that isn't true. Besides being Supreme Commander of NATO, Supreme Allied Commander, first in his class West Point, masters in politics/economics/philosophy, etc, he was on the amicus brief for affirmative action at Michigan, testified before Congress in support of Gays in the military, was proactive in addressing spousal abuse at bases under his command, as well as many more things for the "record". He also supported humanitarian intervention in two war-torn countries, at the expense of his own career. He also has the greatest foreign policy and diplomatic experience of any candidate, save perhaps Kerry.

[KittyWampus]

26. It Is Ma'am Not Sir. Counterpunch Took Moore's Words Out Of Context

Taking someone's words out of context to make one's own point is deceitful.

Editing text and taking words out of context is what Extremist Groups & Individuals do to manipulate the gullible and less well informed people.

It is the Method of Operation for the Far Left and Far Right who wish to direct vulnerable people towards their preferred avenue... all the while asking for donations.

All the while using donators and followers to project an image of being Powerful and worthy of consideration by more substantial Parties and People.

Counterpunch is stirring shit up by trying to put a different meaning and intent to Moore's words.

This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read Moore's words and who is able to be even remotely objectiv

[maddezmom]

28. reminds me of what drudge just did w/ Clark's testimony

just sad :(

[corporatewhore]

69. I guess Noam Chomsky = Ann Coulter

because he is a regular columnist for counterpunch.if counterpunch was concerned with making money why wouldnt they accept corporate backing why wouldnt they report the mainstream leftist tripe that would sit well with people and instead report things that question the status qou even if it comes from the left.

[wtmusic]

14. Hardly 'sniping'

Dennis did the right thing and was 100% consistent in his war stance

[dogman]

30. Why is every attack

on Clark engaged by taking his or his supportersmessage out of context? Obviously if the critic can edit the text to fit their slant, they have read the whole passage and make their smear all the more mean spirited and deceptive.

[jpgpenn]

60. They have nothing else to go on

As i'm sure you are aware.

[snoochie]

31. Sort the wheat from the chaff, people

Yes Moore looks silly for using that as a reason to 'snipe' back at people who (legitimately, IMO) expected him to endorse the real progressive in the race.

That aside, if you wish to gain anything useful from this article, you'll have to sort it out from the useless bits.

Yes, it's Counterpunch. However, as many of you have tried (to little avail) to point out to Drudge's detractors, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

It's self-defeating to ignore what statements do have merit in this article, and the relevant parts are these:

"As for the notion that people shouldn't examine the past positions of the candidates for the Democratic nomination, this is a recommendation for disaster. Candidates' pasts don't only reveal their political views, they reveal their ability to stand up under pressure, their political connections and liabilities, and their basic character. We ignore that record at our risk.

President Nixon, in 1968, tried to remake himself as a peace candidate, running against Hubert Humphrey. 25,000 more dead Americans and several million dead Indochinese later, we saw just what a man of peace he was. But of course, his past years as a cold warrior should have made it clear to anyone paying attention that his "peace" image was a sham. The same can be said of President Clinton, who ran in 1992 as a champion of minorities, gays and labor, but who then abolished welfare, enlarged the prison-slave system, and passed the NAFTA job destruction treaty. Anyone who examined Clinton's history as governor of Arkansas would have been able to see this was no man of the people."


Now I'm not saying that Clark is going to lead us into WWIII. However, I am saying that if you do support this man, please do so with your eyes wide open.

History has examples where candidates have remade themselves for presidential bids, as cited here, who after elected have reverted to their actual agenda.

Either way, the lesson here is not to blithely disregard any information. Knowledge is power.

Whatever you think of Clark, the warning this article gives is a necessary one and should be considered carefully by anyone supporting him.

[mzmolly]

35. My honest take. Counterpunch supports Dennis Kucinich, anyone that

doesn't fawn over him is *the enemy*

Michael Moore said Dennis had a chance to vote no on a resolution and he abstained instead. MM thought he should have voted no. MM went on to say it was tit for tat. Counterpunch is angry that MM isn't on the DK bandwagon. Here is the actual quote:

Moore backs up this plea for grace by claiming that Dennis Kucinich --the most consistent and outspoken opponent of the Iraq war of all the Democratic candidates, and the only member of Congress running for the presidency who had the guts to vote against the November war resolution which Bush used as his "Tonkin Gulf" authorization to invade Iraq--is himself a waffler on the issue of the war.

How so?

As Moore explains, "Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated `unequivocal support' for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained)."

After this nasty charge, he goes on to play coy, saying, "What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war."

Counterpunch calls this a *smear*??? A *nasty charge* OK??? I'm sorry but, that's absurd.

On the other hand...

MM is a great film maker, but he lets his emotions rule him. He's wishy washy. He is not a realist when it comes to politics.

This is why I think he supports an *image* in Wes Clark, and not one of the human beings running for President.

Dennis Kucinich *human being* for President (gasp)

[exJW]

70. well, I have seen him walk on water...

...but even so, I believe Clark is still a "human being". ;-)



He is just so freakishly perfect for the situation the country is in right now, that it unnerves some people who ought to be helping him. *double wink*

[mzmolly]

81. The reason he's so *freakishly perfect * is because he's been molded like

play-doh. He's told who to be. He waited until he saw what was working, and tried to make it his own.

I remain un-convinced.

I think he's perfect to Govern Arkansas, then we'll talk about a promotion.

*wink* right back atcha. :hi: :P

[exJW]

86. HorseHocky and poppycock!

If there is anyone in this race who is his own man, Clark is it.

His personality was set (and proven and road tested) long before America came to this crisis, and his personality has not changed.

You may be un-convinced, but I can only reckon that is because of cynicism, not skepticism.

[mzmolly]

90. His personality has been questioned on many an occassion by his

superiors and co-workers. I'm skeptical, not cynical. I started out liking Clark, I remain open minded. I am just not willing to test drive him on the race track.

[in_cog_ni_to]

104. Welcome to Du

exJW! :hi:

[Mairead]

37. I think something must have happened to Moore, though whether

the 'happen' was inside him or outside I've no clue. But for someone with his political record, the most charitable characterisation of his current behavior is 'anomalous'.

[The Magistrate]

39. No Ma'am

There is no great mystery or anomaly about Mr. Moore's stance.

Mr. Moore recognizes that it is essential to the future of our country, and of the progressive left, that the criminals of the '00 Coup be defeated in the up-coming general election. As a person of some political acumen, he recognizes Gen. Clark offers the best chance of success in this endeavor. He is willing to adopt a policy of Popular Front to secure victory over the most reactionary elements of our polity, and recommends this to radicals of all left stripes, in the hope they will see the sense of it, and act similarly. He understands that today, an insistence on "purism" will prove fatal at the polls, and that a further term in office for the usurpers currently occupying same may well prove fatal to the continuance of democratic rule in our country.

[Old and In the Way]

55. Astute comments, as always, Magistrate.

Mr. Moore "gets it".....job #1 must be to derail the junta that is actively destroying our country with their reckless agenda. Once we can safely take back our government, then we can go back to debating policy minutiae and political purism.

I'll happily support any one of our candidates that take the nomination. I'm partial to Kerry, but I'd happily support Clark if he's the nominee. He certainly has the leadership skills and appeal that crosses political parties - I think these are going to be the most important attributes of the next President who'll be faced with the unenviable task of rebuilding this country that Bush and CO. have methodically destroyed.

[jonnyblitz]

83. so if you are against Clark you are a purist?

How much crap are you supposed to swallow from somebody before it is a legitimate disagreement with their stances without being dubbed that? Are we "purists" for not supporting Bush? It's all subjective.This use of "purist" is just a way to shut down dissent and debate with people who won't fall in line.

[The Magistrate]

99. That Depends On The Grounds Of the Objection, Mr. Blitz

And also on the manner of its expression, among other factors. There is also, Sir, the old saw concerning whether or not the shoe fits, that any may apply on their own. As a general rule, the claim that persons who disagree are trying shut down debate by expressing their own view is a bad sign: it indicates a simultaneous pretense of victimhood and presumption of entitlement that sit oddly together in a single voice.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[lurk_no_more]

38. Your title IS really dishonest

No where in what Moore said does it state that what he said was what Clark thought or that Clark directed him to say that. Michael Moor's endorsement of Clark does not mean that everything Moore says is on behalf of General Clark.

Your bias of General Clark is not being masked at all in your apparent defense of Kucinich. Play all the games you want, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when your own statements clearly show a biased attempt to smear another candidate.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[diamondsoul]

52. The first part of the thread title

is the title of the article linked, the second part is the poster's view of Moore's comments, shared by the author of the article. Nothing misleading about it.

[Terwilliger]

76. that's the entire title given on the page

wouldn't want to be inaccurate

[Terwilliger]

75. I believe your rhetoric is against the rules

I attempted no smear. The article is as it says it is...click the link. If you don't like the fact that Moore lied in support of your candidate, I think you might like to tell him not to do that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

41. I think Mike needs to get out of the campaign and back into the studio...

..And do whatever needs to be done to get his "Fahrenheight 911" movie into a nationwide theatrical release by September. That is the best contribution he could make to removing the unelected criminal fraud from the White House.

[George_Bonanza]

42. Moore is an accomplished entertainer, but...

He passed lies for facts in BfC. His political scruples are not very high. But he IS a great entertainer, since appeals to much much more than political elitists.

[corporatewhore]

43. First Mumia's Guilty now clarks a liberal

michael moore is loosing it

[exJW]

71. but Clark IS a liberal.

just turns your world upside down, don't it?

[corporatewhore]

44. what i dont; get is why doesnt michael care about free trade

[snoochie]

47. Desperation

I guess. Win at all costs.

Moore's really all over the place.

Last time, he supports Nader which may have hurt Gore.

This time, he supports the Clintonite candidate, despite having a Naderite one running on the Democratic ticket.

He's an idiot.

[the populist]

78. Because he

doesn't risk losing his farm thanks to Canada, which he seems to love so much, or his job to Mexico, China, and India.

He's a selfish prick, that's what he is.

[Rich Hunt]

89. he keeps his distance from the left

and by extension the global justice people.

[Th1onein]

45. Looks like another Republican "divide and conquer" technique

[blm]

46. Kucinich abstained as a PROTEST. No doubt about it, to me.

.

[JohnKleeb]

68. I think he did the right thing

Like I wuold feel oblieged to support the troops yet I cant support the CO in chief you nkow.

[jpgray]

53. Kucinich did the right thing. (nt)

[FredScuttle]

54. A smear is a smear...

no matter what the candidate's standing in the polls are

Dennis Kucinich has been consistent and vocal in his opposition to the war and I, a Dean supporter, applaud him for doing so.

Moore took a very cheap shot and should apologize to Kucinich. Otherwise, his credibility with me is shot

[diamondsoul]

58. Too late to save his credibility

with me. His sole reason for supporting Clark is that he's pissed off. Not a good reason, in my book. Seems to me Bush got the support he did because people including many Dems were pissed off at Clinton. Nope, I want substance behind the diplomas, medals, uniform and pretty rhetoric.

I'll stick with my Elfin candidate who has plans, heart and integrity.

[corporatewhore]

67. as i said befor he lost me with the Mumia is guilty

[TLM]

59. Clark really seems to bring out the worst in people...

shame to see Moore joining in.

[mikehiggins]

61. Moore AND Clark?

Did you notice Clark standing behind Moore pulling his strings like a puppet master?

Was he whispering in his ear?

Does Moore require marching orders to say what he thinks?

Can you quote one word of Clark's even remotely critical of Dennis K?

Do you consider Dennis so significant a threat to Clark's campaign that he would have to go after him?

According to no less a source than Richard Perle, Clark spent most of his time testifying to Congress in opposition to the war. Why would he have a problem with Dennis, who was the first voice to stand up and be counted in a place where it could hurt him to do so?

Think these things through before forming conclusions.

[corporatewhore]

66. we are disapointed in moore

and alot oof activists for being paralyzed by fear that issues dont matter that much any more and we can suddenly forgive small things like the school of americas free trade and the military industrial complex its like we are missing the forrest for the trees

[Paulie]

62. Here's the TEXT of what Kucinich SAID on this particular VOTE

I posted this in another thread, that died. You tell me what Dennis intent was with this vote (it sickens me that he's being attacked on this.)

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support the brave young men and women who are following orders that have placed them in harm's way. I hope and pray for their safe return. My thoughts and prayers are with them, their families and loved ones in this difficult time.

While I will always support the troops, I cannot support this mission. Last night, the President ordered an unprovoked aggressive attack against Iraq in violation of American traditions of defensive war.

This war is wrong. As a nation we must come together to support the troops, but continue to challenge the policy that has put them at grave risk.

[Terwilliger]

73. The article's so-called "distortion": words taken out of context

Here are the direct words.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:


Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been "positioning himself slightly to Dean's left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against a resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll083.xml).

Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/campaigns/09DEAN.html)?

What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

So Moore LIED in order to smear Kucinich, even though the subject of Moore's smear, Kucinich's so-called "refusal to vote against" this crap secondary resolution, is a TOTAL FABRICATION in terms of Clark's stand, and what Dennis' refusal to vote meant in the political scheme.

Now, if you support lies in support of your candidate, I'll have to reject the idea that your candidate is worthy of anything other than my contempt.

[ClarkGraham2004]

80. Will you vote for a Dem in the '04 election if the nominee isnt Kucinich?

thanks

[Terwilliger]

82. I'm sure there's a thread where that question is relevant

point me to it...I'd love to participate

[ClarkGraham2004]

84. I'm just wondering what your motive is.

I don't really see an endgame here. Are you a Democrat? Who will you vote for in '04?


thanks

[Terwilliger]

93. Umm...Moore lied about Kucinich?

Should there be some other motive?

[Jackson Smith]

106. This has WHAT to do with Clark?

[Rich Hunt]

85. hmmmm

I've been a big Moore defender in the past, too, because I come from a similar background.

He has a lot of class resentment of his own, though - which leads him to take unfair cheap shots at lefties or progressives or whatever you want to call them.

On the one hand, his endorsement at least took the pains to discuss some policy (unlike Madonna - ugh). On the other hand, there's always this sarcasm directed at his readers which betrays some resentment. As much as I hate to say it, I think he's turning into a demagogue. Even in 2000, he didn't tell people how to vote, he just said how he was voting.

Also, Clark kissed his butt on 'politically incorrect'.

I dunno, he's just really illogical and lets his emotions cloud his judgment, I think. That's fine if you want to be a filmmaker, but he apparently wants to be more than that.

Anyway, that was a thoughtful stance for Kucinich to take. I don't understand why he's suddenly attacking an idealist candidate whose background is so much similar to his own. It's not like Kucinich is the one being feted by fashionistas in NY after all. Moore can vote for whomever he wishes, but his logic and tactics stink.

[Tinoire]

88. Now do you understand why I have never been a Michael Moore fan?

I always thought there wa something rummy about him and this is not the first imbecilic thing he's done.

All the rats are coming out of the closet now...

Give me Mike Ruppert anyday. Moore is just an entertainer and not even a very good one.

[Kahuna]

91. And Clark would want Kucinich smeared, why?

:shrug:

If you want to get mad at Mike, leave Clark out of it. Clark is not Moore's keeper.

[Terwilliger]

94. So if somebody supporting Dean does something wrong...

that's not on Dean, right?

Just wanted to clarify that.

[funky_bug]

95. Point well taken

Personally, I like have MM stumping for us, but I do worry that his mouth will bring a certain negativity to the Clark campaign. I rather liked the image of positivity that the general portrayed.

But point duly noted! I will be guarded against similar assumptions I might be tempted to make regarding other candidates.

[Darth_Ole]

96. Michael Moore is a funny guy, and he brings up important issues. BUT:

He is an oppurtunist. He is a Clark person now, which means that everyone else it bad.

And attacks like these are so odd. In 'Dude, Where's my Country?' he says Dean and Kucinich are great on the issues. Particularly Kucinich. Really, if you're going to listen to activists or celebrities, listen to people like Martin Sheen or Al Franken. I'm sure MM's support of Clark is genuine (and I have no problem with that), but going negative against people like Kucinich is troubling.

[Turkw]

108. Absolutely, I'm ABB, the only time I've even "threatened" to vote

other wise was to point out how silly that kind of stance is in my opinion. There are several supporters of other candidates whom I feel fight dirty and am very annoyed with them. But the real enemy is Bush, his cabinet and henchmen, and the industry of lies and hate.

We have to get rid of him. have to have to have to have to have to period exclamation point

[Eric J in MN]

98. Terwilliger - thank you very much for posting this. Moore distorted

Terwilliger - thank you very much for posting this.

Terwilliger - thank you very much for posting this. Michael Moore distorted Kucinich's record.

I don't know whether this is sloppiness by Moore or if Moore intentionally misled people, but this smear is low either way.

[The Magistrate]

100. Mr. Moore, Sir

Illustrated a method of attack, that is commonly employed, and no more: it is simply that he used for that illustration a candidate who's supporters often employ that same method against others that has caused such a dither. Politics, as has been famously said, ain't bean-bag.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[KittyWampus]

101. Wonderful Hatchet Job!

:kick:

[LiberalBushFan]

102. ahhh counterpunch, counterpunch, counterpunch

I really don't trust them... do you have another source with more of what Moore said? Clark shouldn't echo what Moore said, but Moore's just being consistent. He thinks 95% of the Democrats in the Senate and House vote with the Repubs too much. But with that said, I think it was unnecessary for Moore to say that about Kucinich.

But I don't believe I'm getting the full story if counterpunch is my only source.

[arewethereyet]

103. what possible benefit does this bring ?

Clark needs to hand this endorsement back

[adamrsilva]

107. Used to love Moore, but this was awful.

He had to defend himself from his supporters he knew expected him to support the real progressive in the race, so he took a cheap shot at Dennis (and Dean) to make it seem like he's not different than Clark.