Michael Moore's Commentary on George W. Bush and the Enron Corporation

[Danospano]

George W. in the Garden of Gethsemane

An Open Letter to George W. Bush from Michael Moore
Dear George,

When it's all over in a couple months, and you're packing up your pretzels
and Spot and heading back to Texas, what will be your biggest regret? Not
getting out more often and seeing the sights around Rock Creek Park? Never
once visiting the newly-renovated IKEA in Woodbridge, Virginia? Or buying
your way to the White House with money from a company that committed the
biggest corporate swindle in American history? I got a feeling you didn't
miss much by not spending an entire Saturday afternoon assembling a
Swedish bookcase -- but you should have known that there was no way you
would ever finish your term by hopping into bed with Kenneth Lay.

It's kind of sad when you think about it. Here you were -- the most
popular president ever! -- the recipient of so much good will from your
fellow Americans after September 11, and then you had to go and blow it.
You just couldn't stay away from your old cowpoke friend from Texas,
Kenneth Lay.

Kenny has always been there for you. You needed a way to fly around to all
the primaries and campaign stops in the 2000 election -- so Kenny gave you
his corporate jet. Did you tell the voters when you arrived in each city
that the bird you flew in on was from a billionaire who was secretly
conspiring to give the bird to all his employees and investors? He flew
you around America on the Enron company jet, and for that favor you
touched down on tarmac after tarmac to tell your fellow citizens that you
were "going to restore dignity to the White House, the people's house."
You said this standing in front of an Enron jet!

Man, you loved Lay so much, you not only affectionately referred to him as
"Kenny Boy," you interrupted an important campaign trip in April, 2000, to
fly back to Houston for the Astro's opening day at the new Enron Field --
just so you could watch Kenny Boy Lay throw out the first pitch. How
sentimental!

I mean, you loved this man so intensely that, when you were awarded a set
of keys the Supreme Court had made for you so you could live in the White
House, you invited Kenny Boy to set up shop -- at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue! He interviewed those who would hold high-level Energy Department
positions in your administration.

You not only let Kenny Boy decide who would head the regulatory agency
that oversaw Enron, you let him hand-pick the new chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Harvey Pitt -- a former lawyer for his
accountant, Arthur Andersen! Kenny and the boys at Andersen also worked to
make sure that accounting firms would be exempt from numerous regulations
and would not be held
liable for any "funny bookkeeping" (don't you wish you were this
forward-thinking?).

The rest of Kenny Boy's time was spent next door with his old buddy, Dick
Cheney (Enron and Halliburton, as you'll recall, got the big contracts
from your dad to "rebuild" Kuwait after the Gulf War). Lay and Dick formed
an "energy task force" (Operation Enduring Graft) which put together the
county's new "energy policy." This policy then went on to shut down every
light bulb and juicer in the state of California. And guess who made out
like bandits while "trading" the energy California was in desperate need
of? Kenny Boy and Enron! No wonder Big Dick doesn't want to turn over the
files about those special meetings with Lay!

The only thing that surprises me more than all the Enron henchmen who
ended up in your cabinet and administration is how our lazy media just
rolled over and didn't report it. The list of Enron people on your payroll
is impressive. Lawrence Lindsey, your chief economic advisor? A former
advisor at Enron! Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill? Former CEO of Alcoa,
whose lobbying firm, Vinson and Elkins, was the #3 contributor to the your
campaign! Who is Vinson and Elkins? The law firm representing Enron! Who
is Alcoa? The top polluter in Texas. Timothy White, the Secretary of the
Army? A former vice-chair of Enron Energy! Robert Zoellick, your Federal
Trade Representative? A former advisor at Enron! Karl Rove, your main man
at the White House? He owned a quarter-million dollars of Enron stock.

Then there's the Enron lawyer you have nominated to be a federal judge in
Texas, the Enron lobbyist who is your chair of the Republican Party, the
two Enron officials who now work for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and
the wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm who sits on Enron's board. And
there's the aforementioned Mr. Pitt, the former Arthur Andersen attorney
whose job it is now as SEC head to oversee the stock markets. George, it
never stops!
My fingers are getting tired typing all this up -- and there's lots more.

Don't get me wrong, George -- I do not think you're an evil man. You don't
need any crap from people like me -- heck, you got mother-in-law problems!
Now, I have a very good relationship with my mother-in-law, but then, I
never told her to put $8,000 of her money into a company my administration
knew was going belly-up.

You say you didn't know? Your bag man -- Don Evans, the man who squeezed
all that money for you from Enron as your campaign finance chairman (and
is now collecting his reward as your Commerce Secretary) -- has admitted
that he got calls from Enron begging for help last year because they were
going under. Didn't he tell you this?

Then Paul O'Neill, your Treasury Secretary, admitted that Enron and Kenny
Boy called him, too, for some special favors to save Enron. Didn't he
mention this to you? They claim to have called your chief of staff, Andrew
Card, and he said he didn't bother to inform you. What does your
mother-in-law think about these boys her daughter's husband consorts with?

I love watching the O'Neill and Evans show. What a couple of cut-ups!
They're, like, all proud of themselves for "not doing Enron any favors."
Actually, I think it's more like they didn't do your MOTHER-IN-LAW any
favors. Enron got LOTS of favors. And why not? Kenny Boy has been your
number one financial backer since you ran for governor. No other American
or Saudi has given you more money than Kenny Boy and his gang at Enron.
O'Neill, Evans, Cheney, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham -- ALL of them
gave Lay and Enron special favors from day one. The New York Times last
May was so concerned about how Kenny had the run of the place (1600
Pennsylvania Ave.), they referred to Lay as the "shadow advisor to the
president."

And what advice! Who was it that wanted you to deregulate the energy
industry further? Kenny Boy! Who was it that convinced you to explore the
sick idea of PRIVATIZING our water supply and then allow private
corporations to "trade" it in the future? Kenny Boy! Who was it that
wanted Social Security to be tied to the stock market? Yup, Kenny Boy!
(Imagine, if you will, what would have happened to our precious Social
Security funds had they been invested in Enron stocks as you, George,
suggested be done
during your campaign as yuppies everywhere clucked along in agreement over
that genius idea.)

O'Neill's and Evans's admission that they "did nothing" when Enron told
them of the company's shell game and impending collapse is reason enough
for you and yours to hit the Beltway and never return to that sacred trust
we call Our American Government. They are proud of "doing nothing?" By
doing nothing, millions of Americans have been swindled. Tens of thousands
have lost their jobs. Thousands more have lost their savings and their
retirement. Yet your cabinet secretaries gloat over what a "good job" you
and they did by "doing nothing."

Let me ask you this: If someone was setting a house on fire, and they
called you to help them set it on fire, and you said no you wouldn't help
them -- BUT then you also DIDN'T call 911 and inform the police that
someone was going to burn down a house, do you think you would have
committed a crime?

Of course you would have! You had prior knowledge and then you knowingly
and purposefully HID this information from the authorities and the people
living in the house! You only admitted that you knew a house was going to
be torched when you were confronted by the police. Are you complicit? Yes!
Are you an accessory? Yes! Who would even think of going around boasting,
"Hey, look what a great guy I am -- a friend of mine told me he was going
to commit an act of arson, and then I decided NOT to tell ANYONE about
it!!
WHOO-HOO!!"

Enron and Kenny Boy bought your silence and the silence of your cabinet
members. You yourself didn't have to actually raid the 401(k) accounts of
those poor people in Houston (many of whom probably voted for you every
time your name was on a ballot). All you had to do was remain silent,
change the government regulations that let them get away with it, and
install their hand-picked cronies to sit on the "oversight" boards which
were supposed to be keeping an eye on them.

While doing all this, you told the American people that these rich friends
of yours were not getting any special breaks -- when, in fact, Enron had
already scammed their way out of paying NO taxes in four out of the last
five years. Your economic "stimulus" bill that you got the House to pass
after 9-11 had a section that would give Enron a gift of $250 million of
our tax money. You were pushing this bill in November and December, long
after your administration knew that Enron was raiding the vault and
screwing its workers and investors.

You and your Republican friends are quick to point out that Enron had
their claws into the Democrats as well. Yes, they did, and thank you for
making the case why we not only need an alternative to the current make-up
of the Democratic Party, we need private money removed from our electoral
process ASAP.

But, George, let's be real -- the Democrats only got a pittance from Enron
compared to the millions you and the Republicans received. Democrats just
don't have the killer instinct to do anything right, and they certainly
don't know much about making money the old-fashioned way, one off-shore
tax shelter at a time. I would expect nothing less from a Party that
couldn't even put their candidate in the White House after he had already
won the election.

The Democrats are like a Yugo -- you know it won't last long or work well,
but it will occasionally get the job done. Fat cats know they can buy the
Democrats at discount prices, and so they do. Anyone who tries to deflect
this scandal away from you, George, or away from the Republicans, or away
from the whole dirty way we elect our leaders, is someone who is
desperately trying to cling to what's left of a very crooked system that
has to go and go now.

The saddest part of this whole affair was the day the scandal was revealed
-- and you denied that you even knew your good friend, Kenneth Lay. "Ken
who?" you said. Oh, he's just some businessman from Texas. "Heck, he
backed my opponent for governor, Ann Richards!" was your way of trying to
deflect the truth that was hitting you like a Mack truck. You knew that
he, in fact, endorsed YOU and gave you THREE times the money Ann Richards
ever saw
from him.

I hardly ever talk to the guy, you said. You were like Peter outside the
walls of Herod after they grabbed J.C. from the Garden of Gethsemane.
Three times he denied he knew Jesus, and three times the cock crowed. But
Peter, unlike you, felt shame and wept, and then ran away.

What shame do you feel tonight, George, for the lies you have told? What
shame do you feel using the dead of 9-11 as a cover for your actions,
hoping that our sorrow for those lost souls and our fear of being killed
by terrorists would distract us from what your boys and Kenny Boy were up
to during those horrific weeks in September and October?

It was during those very days, while the rest of us were in shock and
sadness, that the executives at Enron were selling off their stock and
shifting assets to their 900 phony partnerships overseas. Did they notice
the remains of the dead being pulled from the rubble while they were
downloading their millions, or were their eyes glued only to the bottom
third of the TV screen as the stock ticker with the rigged Enron price
crawled across the images of firemen desperate, in tears, to find their
fallen brothers?

The country was behind you when you said you were fighting the evildoers
who did this. In fact, all the while, the real fight your friends at Enron
were conducting was the fight against the clock, to see how fast they
could transfer all the loot to their personal accounts and run away. Those
were the evildoers, George, and you knew it. And because you, by design or
negligence, allowed this to happen, it is time for you to resign. The cock
has crowed for the last time.

At the very least, your mother-in-law deserves better.

Yours,

Michael Moore
American
Son-in-Law
Owner of 7th LARGEST COMPANY IN AMERICA! (revised ranking)
mmflint@aol.com http://www.michaelmoore.com

[bonoman]

Fuck off....

------------------
Running to Stand Still-"you gotta cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice."

"we're not burning out we're burning up...we're the loudest folk band in the world!"-Bono

[This message has been edited by bonoman (edited 02-03-2002).]

[U2live]

you just wonder where the discerning minds are, and Michael Moore, thank God, is one of them, finally. Doesn't anybody ever ask the questions of why Sept. 11 happened in the first place as well? It's like the news people have gone to sleep. Instead of giving Mr. C- GPA credit for a war, how about taking a good look at why this happened in the first place, besides Enron. What kind of a leadership is that has this country be ridiculously vulnerable in the first place? Like Keystone cops. And the airport fiasco is still ridiculous searching 85 yr old women with canes.

[zonelistener]

Thanks Danospano!

That was an awesome read - I love Michael Moore.

[doctorwho]

This was a brilliant article (letter) by Moore. About time he finally showed up! I wasn't all that impressed with his "cross-country" trip articles after Sep. 11th. However, he is perfect in every aspect with this Enron deal.

How odd that when Clinton lies about his sexual practices, the Republicans scream "impeachment!" But when Bush allows a company to literally steal millions of $$ from millions of people, no one notices - not even the Democrats.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by U2live:
you just wonder where the discerning minds are, and Michael Moore, thank God, is one of them, finally.

Mind?

Discerning?

Did you actually read that tripe?

I have, in the past, picked the imbecile's pseudo-arguments apart, which has apparently come to naught. I may yet respond in detail to this shit, but I think I can summarize now:

Michael Moore is an idiot.

And if you agree with him, you are also not that bright.

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

Michael Moore is an idiot.

And if you agree with him, you are also not that bright.

That's nice. Feel better about yourself now?

Thanks for posting the letter, Dano.

[Spiral_Staircase]

You guys can't be serious. This guy is worse than Rush Limbaugh! Whatever valid points he may have are completely lost in the exagerations and partisanship (same goes for Rush, as far as I'm concerned). He's an entertainer, and although he may want you to think he wrote this to wake America up to corruption in the
White House, he wrote this to entertain you.

Originally posted by Danospano:
You needed a way to fly around to all
the primaries and campaign stops in the 2000 election -- so Kenny gave you
his corporate jet. Did you tell the voters when you arrived in each city
that the bird you flew in on was from a billionaire who was secretly
conspiring to give the bird to all his employees and investors?

Gasp! A presidential candidate received campaign contributions from a huge corporation??!! He used a corporate jet??!! We all know there's nothing unique about that. Do people think that Bush knew that "Enron was conspiring to give the bird" to employees and investors? First of all, that's not what the criminals beind this Enron scandal were doing. They were conspiring to stay rich (which is just as bad). I think it's obvious they didn't care at all about employees and investors. You may not think that's a significant fact, but when Moore and Limbaugh say things like that, I completely lose respect for what their saying. They're sensationalize it. Isn't this story sensational enough as is? Secondly, if Bush was in on this conspiracy, why was he telling his mother-in-law to invest in Enron?

Man, you loved Lay so much, you not only affectionately referred to him as
"Kenny Boy," you interrupted an important campaign trip in April, 2000, to
fly back to Houston for the Astro's opening day at the new Enron Field --
just so you could watch Kenny Boy Lay throw out the first pitch.

Yeah, that's real love! Does Mr. Moore want us to think Bush is involved in this scandal because he referred to Ken Lay as Kenny Boy?! If not, why did he feel it necessary to point that out? And is it unusual for a presidential candidate to attend the baseball home-opener in his home town? The scandal of it all!!

I mean, you loved this man so intensely that, when you were awarded a set
of keys the Supreme Court had made for you so you could live in the White
House, you invited Kenny Boy to set up shop -- at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue! He interviewed those who would hold high-level Energy Department
positions in your administration.

Well, if that isn't the definition of "intense love" I don't know what is. Having the CEO of an energy company interview Energy Department employees...that's what love is all about. I work for my state's government, and it is standard operating procedure to use industry constituents when interviewing high-level directors in our agency. This should not be even slightly shocking and I know I don't intensely love the people we've brought in to be part of interviews.

Don't get me wrong, George -- I do not think you're an evil man. You don't
need any crap from people like me -- heck, you got mother-in-law problems!
Now, I have a very good relationship with my mother-in-law, but then, I
never told her to put $8,000 of her money into a company my administration
knew was going belly-up.

Mr. Moore, if you want me to take you seriously, if you want to influence my thinking, give me the facts and stop trying to be cute.

Your bag man -- Don Evans, the man who squeezed all that money for you from Enron as your campaign finance chairman...

Why did Don Evans have to squeeze so much? I thought Enron was gladly paying off the White House? Which is it?

O'Neill's and Evans's admission that they "did nothing" when Enron told
them of the company's shell game and impending collapse is reason enough
for you and yours to hit the Beltway and never return to that sacred trust
we call Our American Government. They are proud of "doing nothing?" By
doing nothing, millions of Americans have been swindled. Tens of thousands
have lost their jobs. Thousands more have lost their savings and their
retirement.

Mr. Moore, please stop with the lies and exaggerations. Enron most certainly did not tell O'Neill and Evans about their "shell game". They told them they were in trouble, I doubt they used the term "impending collapse", but maybe. But they didn't say "we're cooking our books and hiding the truth about our situation so we can destroy peoples lives. Wanna help??" Thousands have lost their jobs, thousands more have lost their savings. No doubt, what Enron did was criminal. It seems an impossible leap to say that what George Bush did was criminal because he accepted donations from and worked with the CEO of a corporation that later did something criminal. Maybe there's other evidence out there, and the GAO should have access to it, but Mr. Moore is just shooting his mouth off at this point.

Let me ask you this: If someone was setting a house on fire, and they
called you to help them set it on fire, and you said no you wouldn't help
them -- BUT then you also DIDN'T call 911 and inform the police that
someone was going to burn down a house, do you think you would have
committed a crime?

That's true, but it's not remotely like the Enron situation. A better example would be this (if you want to stick with the burning house): If someone called you and said they had just set their house on fire, and you said the law didn't allow you to put out fires for people who started them themselves, would you have committed a crime? Initially I would say "no". But if you knew that the building owner (who set the place on fire) was trying to keep the tenants and neighbors from discovering that the house was on fire, and you did nothing about it, then there's a problem. Show me who knew that Enron was cooking the books and did nothing about it, and there's somebody I'll want to go after.

You and your Republican friends are quick to point out that Enron had
their claws into the Democrats as well. Yes, they did, and thank you for
making the case why we not only need an alternative to the current make-up
of the Democratic Party, we need private money removed from our electoral
process ASAP.

Great point! Why not write about this? Oh, it's a real issue, and not nearly as entertaining as Limbaugh-esque, purely partisan attacks based on ridiculous comparisons and conjecture. Right.

But, George, let's be real -- the Democrats only got a pittance from Enron
compared to the millions you and the Republicans received. Democrats just
don't have the killer instinct to do anything right, and they certainly
don't know much about making money the old-fashioned way, one off-shore
tax shelter at a time.

Here we go, back to the Democrat v. Republican. Don't try to act like that's not the issue for you, Mr. Moore, because this kind of stuff makes it obvious.

I would expect nothing less from a Party that couldn't even put their candidate in the White House after he had already
won the election.

This will never end. Check the constitution, Mikey. Whether you like it or not, elections are decided by the electoral college, not popular vote.

The saddest part of this whole affair was the day the scandal was revealed
-- and you denied that you even knew your good friend, Kenneth Lay. "Ken
who?" you said. Oh, he's just some businessman from Texas. "Heck, he
backed my opponent for governor, Ann Richards!" was your way of trying to
deflect the truth that was hitting you like a Mack truck. You knew that
he, in fact, endorsed YOU and gave you THREE times the money Ann Richards
ever saw from him.

I honestly hadn't heard about this before. I can understand why Bush would want to distance himself from a corporate scandal, but I'll agree that's pretty bad.

What shame do you feel using the dead of 9-11 as a cover for your actions,
hoping that our sorrow for those lost souls and our fear of being killed
by terrorists would distract us from what your boys and Kenny Boy were up
to during those horrific weeks in September and October?

Ok, this is sickening. Does he really think that Bush was sitting in the White House in September, thrilled that Americans were killed, because it would draw attention away from his secret plan to rob people's savings and make Enron execs rich? I don't believe if for a second. Can't we stop using the victims of 9/11?

It was during those very days, while the rest of us were in shock and
sadness, that the executives at Enron were selling off their stock and
shifting assets to their 900 phony partnerships overseas. Did they notice
the remains of the dead being pulled from the rubble while they were
downloading their millions, or were their eyes glued only to the bottom
third of the TV screen as the stock ticker with the rigged Enron price
crawled across the images of firemen desperate, in tears, to find their
fallen brothers?

No doubt, those guys are assholes. I just don't see what that has to do with George Bush resigning.

Sorry this was so long, and that 10 people have probably responded in the time it took me to write this. I just find this type of writing (and most of what I've seen from Michael Moore) worthless for anything but entertainment.

-Spiral Suitcase



[This message has been edited by Spiral_Staircase (edited 02-01-2002).]

[U2Bama]

Okay, I know Michael Moore and all of his followers don't like us bringing up Enron's bi-partisan influence, but didn't Clinton host Ken Lay as a White House guest (guest rooms and all) 11 times?

~U2Alabama

[Achtung Bubba]

I think you're right, Bama, but it doesn't fit their theory that Bush is bad, thus it's ignored.

After all, no need to bother with the facts when you have more pressing concerns like villifying President Bush.

[zonelistener]

Much like "Roger and Me" - this is a very entertaining piece. It was a fun read. Somewhat factual....an opinion piece.

Hey, what is Rush up to these days....I haven't heard about him in a while. Does he even still have an radio show? Does anyone actually listen to it?

[zonelistener]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Still the most popular radio talk show host ON EARTH, since you asked.

Roger and Me. Released during the first year of the elder Bush Administration: 1989. Since then, Moore had a TV show for one season, and, well, that's about it.

(Oh, and a music video for Rage Against the Machine, other malcontents feeding on the economic system they loathed; that is, before they fell apart too.)

Mr. Entertainment, Michael Moore.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-01-2002).]

Ha ha, most popular radio show on earth...you forget Howard Stern. Besides, with Clinton gone, does Rush have anything to talk about? Who does he make fun of?

As for Mr. Moore - he had a show for about three years, just on a few different networks (NBC and Fox). He then had a show on Bravo. He also had a best selling book (NYT list) and then a second movie.

Sure, he (Moore) has not been very succesful, but it's entertaining. It is a more intelligent humor than Rush, so it doesn't sell as well. Rush's humor is really made for many levels of intelligence (from a "lack of" on up), allowing it to reach a larger audience and sell better. Cheers to Rush for having more success at the same game.

[This message has been edited by zonelistener (edited 02-01-2002).]

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Actually, I tire from having to repeat myself.

And please don't patronize me.

Well then, Bubba, please don't call people in this forum "not that bright" when they agree with, or enjoy reading, someone you happen to disagree with. That, of course, is patronizing.

[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 02-01-2002).]

[melon]

Great article.

And the conservatives in this forum are right on cue. What do they hate? The fact that he is probably correct.

Bubba, your argument makes you seem not that bright. If you dislike what he has said, the least you could do is state "why," rather than resurrect your post Sept. 11th dismissal of him, which, I might remind you, I found myself disagreeing with the articles as well then. Put aside Moore's continuing flaw--his partisanship--and read his description Enron's association with the Bush (I and II) Administrations.

What he brings up is beyond campaign contributions; if that were the only thing Enron had been "guilty" of, then one could rightfully state that both the Democratic and Republican Parties were guilty. But, when you have an administration full of former Enron executives and claims of Kenneth Lay lobbying and getting public policy that favors Enron, that goes beyond simple campaign contributions.

It then points to the current GAO controversy and the necessity for those energy policy meetings to be set into public record. Perhaps the Bush Administration has done nothing illegal..."unethical" perhaps, but with all this deregulation, perhaps not "illegal." Regardless, an investigation needs to be done into Enron's association with the Bush Administration and the administrations of the past decade or two. If it does nail Clinton, then so be it.

I'm tired of all this deception and lies. I thought we lived in a democratic nation, but I see that's gone out the door with the very abused "national security" claim. It's about time we clean some skeletons out of the government's closet, and, perhaps, I can someday actually "trust" our government. What a novel concept, indeed.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by zonelistener:
Ha ha, most popular radio show on earth...you forget Howard Stern. Besides, with Clinton gone, does Rush have anything to talk about? Who does he make fun of?

As for Mr. Moore - he had a show for about three years, just on a few different networks (NBC and Fox). He then had a show on Bravo. He also had a best selling book (NYT list) and then a second movie.

Sure, he (Moore) has not been very succesful, but it's entertaining. It is a more intelligent humor than Rush, so it doesn't sell as well. Rush's humor is really made for many levels of intelligence (from a "lack of" on up), allowing it to reach a larger audience and sell better. Cheers to Rush for having more success at the same game.

[This message has been edited by zonelistener (edited 02-01-2002).]

No, even factoring in Stern, Imus, Larry King, Paul Harvey, and whoever else you want to mention, Rush is STILL undisputed King of the Radio.

And it's funny you ask, "What does Rush talk about now that Clinton's gone?" It's funny because the same question was asked when the elder Bush left office.

See, Rush Limbaugh's national show started in November, 1988, in the midst of the presidential election. He achieved the unmatched level of success during the Bush Administration, when liberals were out of power and were raving lunatics.

(Speaking of out-of-power raving lunatics, I'll get back to Moore in a moment.)

When Bush lost his campaign for reelection, both the media and Rush's callers asked, "How will Rush remain popular with a Democrat in the White House?" Well, we saw the answer: instead of commenting on liberals who were amusing, but powerless, Rush commented on liberals who were in power and dangerous.

The tide has turned again, and Rush endures.

It comes down to the simple fact that Rush's success is not determined by who wins elections.

As per your explanation (excuse?) on why Moore can't keep a steady job, I first of all don't find him intelligent or humorous, much less both. He's venemous and incoherent.

Second, the idea that Rush essentially panders to the lowest common denominator (even in comparison to Moore) is ridiculous. Between the fact that you think he became popular during the Clinton years and the fact you think he's less popular now, it's clear that you don't simply don't know what you're talking about on the issue of Limbaugh.

Finally, the suggestion that intelligent humor doesn't appeal to the masses just doesn't hold water: Frasier, Seinfeld, Cheers, and M*A*S*H prove otherwise.

In fact, I've heard the comment that the unwashed masses (who generally live in states that went to Bush in 2000) don't understand intelligent humor from ONLY one group - the Garrison Keillor's of the world, the arrogant liberals who can't attract an audience in the competitive marketplace and must live off the government subsidies of NPR, etc.

It strikes me as little more than a combination of arrogant elitism and sour grapes.

On to other replies...

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Well then, Bubba, please don't call people in this forum "not that bright" when they agree with, or enjoy reading, someone you happen to disagree with. That, of course, is patronizing.

[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 02-01-2002).]

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Patronize: to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly.

I'd say your little comment, "That's nice. Feel better about yourself now?" fits the definition quite well.

At the very least, I was being forthright; I honestly believe what I said. I wasn't being sarcastic or jeering. I wasn't being an ass about it.

Now, I may be wrong about Moore fans: they *might* not be idiots. I should remember that some are just very gullible.

There is some room for disagreement, certainly. But Moore is so terribly wrong that I will not just say, "Oh, I guess that's how he sees the world, and maybe he does have good reasons for apparently believing that the United States is the most evil force on Earth."

He is wrong, and you are wrong to agree with him.

On to Melon.

[zonelistener]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
No, even factoring in Stern, Imus, Larry King, Paul Harvey, and whoever else you want to mention, Rush is STILL undisputed King of the Radio....

What do you base this on? Ratings? Advertising revenue? Affiliate distribution? What makes him the "King of the Radio"?

[melon]

Well, I am not about to proclaim any "king" of the radio, but I'll tell you right now that talk radio is dominated by conservatives. Stating that anyone is the "king" of radio isn't much of a compliment, considering talk radio has a very low audience share...the true "king" of radio are Top 40 stations.

But a "king" is a "king," I guess, even if his "kingdom" only has a dozen subjects.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[Achtung Bubba]

A dozen?

How about 20 million a week.

Rush has the highest ratings, the highest revenues, the most stations, and a contract signed last year (I believe) that was RECORD BREAKING.

Last I heard, Rush had 600 stations, and according to the most recent site I could find, Howard Stern has 42.

Given both the benefit of the doubt (Rush losing 100, Sterning gaining 10), Rush still has TEN TIMES AS MANY STATIONS.

No other individual so dominates a medium, even if his program is "talk radio", surely a format relegated to the easily swayed masses that just happen to make this country work.

While I have Melon's attention...

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 02-01-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
Great article.

And the conservatives in this forum are right on cue. What do they hate? The fact that he is probably correct.

Riiiiight.

Bubba, your argument makes you seem not that bright. If you dislike what he has said, the least you could do is state "why," rather than resurrect your post Sept. 11th dismissal of him, which, I might remind you, I found myself disagreeing with the articles as well then. Put aside Moore's continuing flaw--his partisanship--and read his description Enron's association with the Bush (I and II) Administrations.

My argument?

Melon, I'd love to see what forum you're looking at, because you've now gone from bad to worse. As I've asserted time and again, you have this really nasty habit of twisting my arguments into things that simply cannot be implied. NOW, you're finding arguments that I don't make.

I will quote myself, not that ever does ANY good:

"I have, in the past, picked the imbecile's pseudo-arguments apart, which has apparently come to naught. I may yet respond in detail to this shit, but I think I can summarize now:

"Michael Moore is an idiot.

"And if you agree with him, you are also not that bright."

I basically said, I'm not making any arguments, though I may later.

I admitted to not making any arguments. Melon, where the FUCK is "my argument" and how does all this make me seem "not that bright"?

Beyond that, why SHOULD I assert why I think he's horribly mistaken when the knee-jerks can get away with such meaningless responses as, "So true."

If the defenders of Michael Moore, a man who is an extremist on ANYONE'S scale, can defend him without being required to add anything thoughtful to the discussion, then the detractors should have that feedom as well.


That said, Moore's tirade falls apart on many levels:


It seems to me there are four situations involving a politician and the policies he supports, each starting with the premise that he ideologically supports Policy A.

1. Mr. Smith supports A; a group in support of of Policy A contributes to his campaign; he continues to support A.

2. Smith supports A; a pro-A group funds him; he changes his mind and supports B.

3. Smith supports A; a group that supports an alternative B contributes to his campaign; he STILL continues to support A.

4. Smith supports A; a pro-B group funds his campaign; he changes his mind to B.

In (1) and (2), what we have is a group supporting a candidate because he already supports their cause. It's like the NRA supporting an established pro-gun candidate. I believe it is the normal way of politics; groups support candidates that already champion their causes.

In (1), the candidate still supports A, but he would have done so without the funding from the group. The funding didn't affect his behavior; thus, no scandal.

Honestly, (2) seems quite rare, and one certainly can't assert that the group's funding changed his mind. I think it can be safely disregarded here.

In (3) and (4), the candidate supports one thing and the group supports another. It seems clear that they are trying to influence the candidate so that will change his mind at a later date. This is also probably quite frequent, but it's not necessarily cause for alarm.

In (3), the candidate ignores the funding and sticks to his principles. The funding doesn't affect his behavior; again, no scandal.

In (4), I think we have a reason to raise an eyebrow or two. It appears that the groups funding influenced and altered the man's behavior. That's very bad.

Basically, it's only bad if the contributions caused the politician to do something he wouldn't have done without the funding.

The problem is, everything Moore mentioned is either quite speculative or falls under (1) or (3) - NOT (4).

As an example, the suggestion that Enron's chiefs "interviewed" candidates for Administration positions is so speculative that very few others are touching it. Given that there are quite a few who in the mainstream press who desparately want to find a scandal, this seems to indicate there's NONE to find.

An example of (1)? Bush hiring people he personally knows in the oil and energy industries should be expected; presidents hire who they know and can trust, just as Clinton hired lawyer friends. Bush's handling of the energy problems in California, energy policies in general, and tax policy fall clearly under conservative ideaology. Thus, one can't point to Enron and say, "That's why he did it!"

An example of (3): the fact that Bush did NOT help bail Enron out. I believe this is most telling. Here you have an example where Bush could have chosen a big contributor over the principles of the free market, and HE CHOSE HIS PRINCIPLES. Whether you agree with the decision is irrelevant; what matters is that he appears to have chosen his conscience of contributions.

There's no reliable evidence of (4), the only scenario that matters.


Another major complaint is related to the fact that Bush refused to help Enron. Quite a few partisans (Daschle in particular) have been so desparate to find a scandal - ANY SCANDAL - that their accusations are contradictory and illogical.

Bush has Enron ties, so he must have helped Enron, right? Doesn't look that way, so the new argument is, "Well, he just stood there and let it happen! He should have helped the little guy!"

And Moore has followed Daschle's suit, proof that his partisanship comes above his "compelling arguments."

The suggestion that Bush was wrong to do nothing BEGS the question, what, then, should he have done? No president has ever, should ever, or probably will ever announce that a company is collapsing and that its employees should sell its stocks immediately.

K-Mart has been on the brink; Bush did nothing there, so I suppose that's his fault too?

Picture it, Melon: Say Bush makes the announcement that Enron is falling apart and employees and stockholders should sell while they can.

WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO BUY THAT STOCK?

No one.

Bush would make Enron stock immediately worthless. The only thing he COULD have done was somehow convince others to buy up that stock, but you're still stuck with the problem of people having a less valuable portfolio - a problem presidents have never addressed. To use Moore's analogy, to save the people in the house, he would have had to convince others to take their place. The suggestion is absurd.


Finally, my last major complaint is that, as a writer, he's sloppy. The title of the article is "George W. in the Garden of Gethsemane", an allusion to Christ's final prayer before being turned over to the Romans. If he's making the comparison between Bush and Christ, then he's ignoring a REALLY salient part of the story of Gethsemane: Christ was falsely accused.

Beyond that, the "Gethsemane" bit never enters into the article, and the only other reference to the Bible is, "The cock
has crowed for the last time." This is a reference to Peter's betrayal, which doesn't even occur in the garden, and probably has nothing to do with the analogy he was trying to make.

Michael Moore is a hateful, hateful man; his hate makes his arguments unreasonable and his prose unreadable.

That is why I dislike the man and disdain those who find him so profound.