|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Michael Moore's Commentary on George W. Bush and the Enron Corporation
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 12:37 PM
|
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).] |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
The Fly
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: wrapped around Bono's little finger
Posts: 196
Local Time: 07:37 PM
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Thanks Danospano!
That was an awesome read - I love Michael Moore. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 11:37 AM
|
This was a brilliant article (letter) by Moore. About time he finally showed up!
![]() 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 01:37 PM
|
Quote:
Thanks for posting the letter, Dano. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||||||||||||
War Child
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 684
Local Time: 01:37 PM
|
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. Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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).] |
|||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
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? |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Quote:
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).] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 01:37 PM
|
Quote:
[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 02-01-2002).] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:37 PM
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Quote:
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... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 03:37 PM
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
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).] |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | ||
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 02:37 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|