Michael Moore's Democratic Party

RightWingNews ^ | July 2, 2004 | John Hawkins

[Tom D.]

Michael Moore's Democratic Party

by John Hawkins

"(U)nhinged and creepy lunacy is spreading like a virus through the left and not just on the fringes. Snapping them out of it is nearly impossible. Reminding them of 9/11 doesn't help, it's already an irrelevant historical event to them that no longer has anything to do with what we're doing today. They will generally admit that Saddam Hussein is dangerous, but their words have the hollow ring of a mental patient telling a doctor that, 'I really don't think I'm Jesus anymore so can you please take the straitjacket off?' They're so paranoid that Conservatives can never get through to them. In fact, just mentioning this editorial to them will probably cause them to start screaming, "police state, police state, police state" while they start looking for the brown shirts who they believe are about to haul them away to a FEMA internment camp." -- John Hawkins

Little did I know back in October of 2002, when I wrote that, how thoroughly that "unhinged and creepy lunacy" would permeate the ranks of the Democratic Party. Back then, for the most part, I was talking about left-wing columnists and forums. But today, the Democratic elite, Congressmen, Senators, even John Kerry, the Democrat's candidate for President, are drifting deeper into the fever swamps of the left.

If you want evidence of this, you need look no further than the reaction to Michael Moore. Moore's books sell like wildfire and his latest film, "Faherenheit 9/11," spent a week at the top of the box office. Without question, Moore is talented, witty, and funny. He's also a conspiracy nut who not only believes that we went to war with Afghanistan for oil, but that the US government is deliberately letting Osama Bin Laden run free. He has also claimed that there is no "terrorist threat in this country," that Americans "are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," and he has also compared the insurgents in Iraq, you know the ones that are sawing people's heads off, to the Minutemen from the Revolutionary War. In short, Michael Moore is an America hating whack-job.

You'd think prominent Democrats wouldn't want anything to do with Michael Moore, but au contraire, Moore is the belle of the Democratic ball!

During the Democratic primaries, Moore appeared on stage with one time front runner Wesley Clark, who was later mentioned bythe press as a possible running mate for John Kerry.

Guests for an opening night screening of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" last week included Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Montana Sen. Max Baucus, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, & Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe. Afterwards, McAuliffe raved about the movie, replied in the affirmative when asked if it "was essentially fair and factually based," and seemed to sign on to Moore's bizarre claim that we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 in order to put in an oil pipeline.

So if all of the creme de la creme of the Democratic Party are willing to appear with Michael Moore and endorse his movies, is it not fair for us to wonder if they endorse his other views? For example, does Charles Rangle believe that the people who decapitated Paul Johnson are comparable to the Minutemen who helped free this country from the British? Is it possible that Tom Daschle believes Americans are quite possibly the stupidest people on the planet as Moore does? Could Tom Harkin think we're allowing Osama Bin Laden to run free? Maybe they believe those things or maybe they don't, but in any case, they certainly don't mind associating with and endorsing someone who has put forth those ideas. What does that say about them?

Furthermore, what does the fact that John Kerry has chosen to link to the Democratic Underground from his website say about him? For those of you who are unfamiliar with the "DU," it's a left-wing website with very popular forums that is often quoted from by conservative bloggers and radio hosts because it's such a cesspool of lunacy. If you're looking for people who think Americans are just as bad as Al-Qaeda, the US Gov't had Nick Berg killed, or just a little America trashing, there's no better place on the internet to go than the Democratic Underground. Yet, the man who wants to be our next President feels that's an appropriate web page to endorse via a link on his own site. How bizarre is that?

Moreover, examples of distinguished Democrats who're expressing these sorts of sentiments or cozying up to people who do have become common. MoveOn.org, a powerful member of the "shadow Democratic Party" that has spent more than 17 million dollars on ads this campaign cycle, chose to post a web-ad on their front page that claimed Bush was another Hitler.

Congressman James Moran in effect said that "leaders of the Jewish community" were controlling whether or not we went to war in Iraq.

Washington Rep. Jim McDermott said the Bush administration knew where Saddam Hussein was, but waited until a political opportune time to capture him.

Then there's Al Gore, who in his most recent public speech said, "The (Bush) Administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for undermining support for our troops."

That's right, the man who used to be the Vice President of the United States apparently views people who send emails to newspapers because they're concerned about the troops as the moral equivalent of the street thugs who savagely beat and murdered Hitler's political adversaries. It simply boggles the mind.

If the Democratic Party wants to treat the conspiracy theorists, America haters, and people who think Bush is another Hitler like one of their valued constituency groups, so be it, it's a free country. But, if you roll around in the slop enough times with a bunch of pigs, at some point people have to start wondering if you're doing it because you actually like the dirt and the smell. How many more trips to the pigpen can voters tolerate before start to seriously question whether the Democratic elite in Washington can't be trusted to lead because they're too far out of the mainstream?

[Tom D.]

"How many more trips to the pigpen can voters tolerate before start to seriously question whether the Democratic elite in Washington can't be trusted to lead because they're too far out of the mainstream?"

I kept thinking the same thing in 1992 and 1996. I had no idea that Gore would find over 30% of voters who were dumb enough to vote for him. I cannot conceive of any rational person who would consider Kerry. Unfortunately it appears that I am out of touch with reality because Clinton won twice, Gore got more people to vote for him than did Bush, and it looks like Kerry is going to give Bush a run. I honestly believe that if Saddam somehow made it to the top of the Democratic ticket, he would get 45% of the popular vote. I cannot understand it.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Here's the current count of theaters showing f7-11. 1552. That's what leftists consider banned? Censorship? OK libs, fill them up.

[Jaysun]

The Democraps rely on the fact that most people are grossly misinformed. Most people that vote for Democrats don't know what they're getting. They still have a vision of JFK, not Marx. Once exposed, they'll become extinct.

[anniegetyourgun]

It's not your daddy's Dem party anymore....and hasn't been for at least 2 decades now. The moderates of the D party are standing in the back of the room, and about to be hauled out by the party bouncers. I think they've realized all they can hang on to now is the rabid wing of their party. And to do that, one has to be foaming at the mouth like Dean, Gore, Moore, Streisand, et al....

[swilhelm73]

Well, personally I doubt Gore got more living Americans to cast a legitimate vote for him then Bush.

Not to disagree with your point as a whole, but still.

[Defendingliberty]

Bush and the Saudis bought all the movies theaters, they are using them to store all the oil that we stoled from Iraq.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

Unfortunately, the state of the Democrat party is no joke. It betokens a sickening plunge into political extremism. This means that elections are no longer about lower or higher taxes or other policy differences, but simply whether the country will actually survive if a Democrat is elected. That's very scary.

[anniegetyourgun]

I realize it is rather frightening...and I feel that sense of impending doom myself when I think of 2008. Yes, I think GWB will be re-elected. Call it a hunch though...I figure this country will then elect Hillary (or someone else of equal danger) in 2008. (We have clear history that the electorate was willing to elect the other Clinton....twice.)I think the lib/dems will take over at that point because society will have been so dumbed down as to be incapable of discerning on such matters as taxes and policy, but instead, only on their emotional responses. When that happens (and we aren't far off), we will get the government we deserve.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

Sadly, I agree with you completely. However, God has protected this country before and perhaps will again.

[angkor]

I cannot understand it.

If you listen to the regular and inarticulate sentiments of "outrage" and paranoia being voiced by the Rats calling into C-SPAN, you'd understand.

The hardcore Rat believer lives in a world of seething emotions and disconnected irrational beliefs. 2 + 2 = 3, or it would be if we wanted to make a better world.

[Tom D.]

When I was in the 10th grade, my history teacher made certain that we read John Locke and Adam Smith. I have never heard or read a cogent argument refuting the ideas of either of these men.

Certainly the Republicans are not perfect proxies for Locke and Smith, and I regret it; however, the modern Democratic Party is certainly opposed to most of what Locke and Smith espoused.

Your suggestion that I would suppress your message is repugnant. My 10th grade teacher also saw to it that we were well versed in Voltaire.

[omniscient]

society will have been so dumbed down as to be incapable of discerning on such matters as taxes and policy, but instead, only on their emotional responses

I fear that you may be absolutely correct. As Rush said today, "What the Democratic Party has become is an everyday Wellstone memorial." Moore's movie is of course, utter BS and already has been easily exposed as totally fraudulent. But what it does for Dems is make them feel good, by feeding their pathological need to blame and hate Bush, while sparing them the inconvenience and hard work of having to think logically.

[twgiles]

"Without question, Moore is talented, witty, and funny."

*raises hand* I call b-llsh-t.

[anniegetyourgun]

I join you in that prayer.

[Erik Latranyi]

But what it (Moore's Film) does for Dems is make them feel good, by feeding their pathological need to blame and hate Bush, while sparing them the inconvenience and hard work of having to think logically.

The most salient point is that the Dem candidate does not make them feel good. It takes a fabrication like Moore's film to raise their spirits.

And that is why we are going to prevail.

[Pietro]

"I honestly believe that if Saddam somehow made it to the top of the Democratic ticket, he would get 45% of the popular vote. I cannot understand it."

As ridiculus as that sounds I don't doubt it for a minute. That's what we're up against.

[NH Liberty]

"I honestly believe that if Saddam somehow made it to the top of the Democratic ticket, he would get 45% of the popular vote. I cannot understand it."

Agreed! It's because of the positive way the media leftists cover Democrats. If Saddam were heading up the Democrat ticket, there is no doubt that they would find ways to manipulate the public into believing that he's nothing more than a "disenfranchised" pussycat who continues to be a victim of the "Right Wing Attack Machine."

[TigersEye]

Here's how the Dims plan to win the election.

US lawmakers request UN observers for November 2 presidential election

[jcb8199]

Great article!

[TonyRo76]

if you roll around in the slop enough times with a bunch of pigs, at some point people have to start wondering if you're doing it because you actually like the dirt and the smell.

What a perfect analogy to wrap up an article on Michael Moore.

[TonyRo76]

Bush and the Saudis bought all the movies theaters, they are using them to store all the oil that we stoled from Iraq.

Yes, and the proceeds are all going to Halliburton and being funneled to Israel...it's a conspiracy!...LOL!!!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Democraps rely on the fact that most people are grossly misinformed. Most people that vote for Democrats don't know what they're getting. They still have a vision of JFK, not Marx. Once exposed, they'll become extinct.

The posture of the conservative is,

• "We are all in this together, rich and poor, influential and anonymous.
• We all need equal protection under the law more than we need anything else.
• We all can take care of ourselves and each other, on average about as well as that can be done.
• It is governments that we have to watch out for - foreign governments first of all, but also our own government.

The posture of the liberal is,

• The majority of you are in this together but the rich and powerful are against you.
• You need us because you aren't rich and powerful.
• You need us to tell you (objectively, of course) which of you are victims and who are the exploiters.
• Trust us, and trust the government when we say it is doing good.

It is natural for journalists to downplay fear of abusive government because journalists take for granted their influential position WRT the government.

It is natural for journalists to to promote fear of what they influence the least - the independent individual who has the self-respect to not go into the fetal position at the thought of risk (from competition or security threat).

And it is natural for journalists to cooperate in maximizing the influence of journalism as a whole, rather than engaging in flame wars among themselves as truly independent thinkers would. That is just as natural as collusion in restraint of trade in any other line of business. But of course journalists, never considering the possibility the public interest requires that they should be subject to competition like the rest of the economy, herd together and call their joint product objective journalism^TM.

Since it would be quite impossible to be objective without being wise, the claim of objectivity (or the insinuation of it, if the perpetrator merely attacks a reporter as "not a journalist, not objective") is the claim of wisdom. And a claim of wisdom is arrogance which brooks no dissent - a posture which would collapse instantly if the perpetrators of it did not enjoy a virtual monopoly on propaganda power.

A very large portion of the propaganda power of journalism derives from broadcast journalism. And broadcasting (the licensed monopoly transmission of radio/TV signals in a given area at a given frequency band) is "regulated" (if that's the word) by a government agency.

The undemocratic FCC operates in a way which would be quite obviously a contradiction of the First Amendment in the absence of the rationale that these licensed monopolies are "necessary" to enable communication. But the truth is, of course, that the enabling technology/infrastructure of "cable radio" - the telephone - existed from the foundation of the FCC; in the 21st century everyone and his brother now has a radio transmitter (cell phone) which can communicate with any other cell phone and thus, in principle, with all (cell or landline) phones. So the truth is that the "necessity" of broadcast licensing is a mere historical artifact, if that.

The actual effect of FCC licensing of powerful centralized broadcast transmissions is to provide a few people/institutions with great addresses through which "the masses" are able to receive what can only be justified as wisdom from on high. Wisdom which cannot, obviously, sail openly under that arrogant banner but must nonetheless have a brand name which means exactly that. The chosen brand for this "wisdom" is objective journalism^TM.

The liberal will protest that that critique means that broadcast journalism, being government-sponsored, must inevitably be conservative. That is true - but "conservative" in a different sense than Americans use the term WRT politics. Government-sponsored journalism is conservative of the influence of centralized journalism in American politics. And journalism is superficiality (due to deadline pressure), unrepresentativeness ("Man Bites Dog" rather than "Dog Bites Man") and negativity (because we can't ignore "Is Your Drinking Water Safe?" headlines).

Journalism is superficial, unrepresentative, and negative - and, in its claim of objectivity, arrogant. Government-sponsored broadcast journalism maximizes the political influence of journalism which is commercially competitive but, although not officially censored (leaving aside McCain-Feingold and any restoration of the Fairness Doctrine) not ideologically competitive.

What is conservative of the influence of objective journalism^TM on our politics is politically anticonservative - it is in fact corrosive of our traditional respect for the written Constitution generally and the Bill of Rights in particular.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[randog]

bump for later read.

[epow]

Is it possible that Tom Daschle believes Americans are quite possibly the stupidest people on the planet as Moore does?

Well the people of SD have re-elected him several times, so who could blame him if he thinks Americans are exceptionally stupid? At least the majority of SD voters appear to fall somewhere between the IQ level of moron and imbecile.

And what about states such as MA, NY, NJ, or CA? It's sheer lunacy run amok in those states. And don't forget that Americans elected Clinton twice to the highest office in the land, and according to some polls would have elected him a 3rd time if he had been eligible to run.

Yeah I think that based on their voting patterns, a good case could be made that about 1/2 of all Americans are some of the dumbest people on the planet.

[ken5050]

I'd take issue with ONE part of the excellent article..the first sentence...It's NOT a virus..the radicale left is a cancer in the Dem party...this disctinction is important because the ONLY was you can cure cancer is to CUT it out..excise the tumor..and as long a Billa d Hilla re around..that ain't gonna happen..

[prion]

I cannot understand it.

A substantial number of people will vote Democrat no matter who's on the ticket, because they know the Democrats will give them stuff for free. What they can't wrap their heads around is that it's a net loss, even if you aren't rich: they take far more than they hand out. They have to. The bureaucracy eats most of what it collects.

Like you, I totally called the 2000 race wrong. I thought it was going to be landslide, Bush. The outcome scared the bejesus out of me.

[PLOM...NOT!]

Moore's movie is of course, utter BS and already has been easily exposed as totally fraudulent..

And yet our local newsrag (the Green Bay Press Gazette) gave it a 3 1/2 stars out of 4 review. What a bunch of idiots!

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm still not convinced it isn't systemic, ken....

[tractorman]

Michael Moore = The CARBurator

[STFrancis]

ping to read later

[randog]

The Democraps rely on the fact that most people are grossly misinformed. Most people that vote for Democrats don't know what they're getting. They still have a vision of JFK, not Marx. Once exposed, they'll become extinct.

My thoughts exactly. Most people don't even know who the VP of the US is let alone Jim McDermott, Terry McAwful, et.al. I was talking with a co-worker about how unhinged Al Gore had become, and he had no idea even though he stays pretty current on events. I did take the time to educate him, though, and that's what it's going to take--education. If the dems keep it up the lunacy will seep into the public consciousness in due time.

[Mamzelle]

re: If the dems keep it up the lunacy will seep into the public consciousness in due time.)))

As for what people forget, we forgot that it was Waco Wesley who sent the tanks that pushed the walls of the Branch Davidian compound over on women and children. Not a word about that during his campaign. It's the Waco Wesleys I'm most frightened of--they are rattling their cages, and the locks are weakening.

As for Gore, he'd be our president if it weren't for a little boy named Elian.

On the edge of a knife...

[buffyt]

During the 1996 campaign my sister the angry commie asked me "Do you WANT dirty water? Do you WANT dirty air?" etc.
She seemed to believe all the crapola about Republicans WANTING to dirty everything up. I reminded her that WE live here too. My mother believed the crapola about Republicans wishing to take away ALL welfare and SS from all elderly disabled people. I wonder if they have noticed yet that Republicans didn't trash the enviroment OR kill granny?????

[weegee]

Maybe you could consider creating a "Wild Eye For That Kerry Guy" tv-parody graphic...

[anniegetyourgun]

See what I mean?

[Jaysun]

Thanks for a great post. I'm going to your links now.

[ashtanga]

You know, I try to figure out what motivates the Birkenstockers, too, and it seems to be more than a mental derangement. It's almost as if there is some sort of mass hallucination at play. It is really an amazing phenomenon, and one that need psychoanalysis. Well, Freud is part of the problem with the Left, so scratch that.