Why I'm Not Now and Have Never Been the Democrats' "Rush Limbaugh" ...by Michael Moore

[Wetzelbill]

Why I'm Not Now and Have Never Been the Democrats' "Rush Limbaugh" ...by Michael Moore

I have watched with mild amusement this week the self-immolation of the Republican Party as it bows before the altar of Rush Limbaugh, begging for mercy, pleading for forgiveness, breathlessly seeking guidance and wisdom from The Oracle.

President Obama and the Democratic Party have wasted no time in pointing out to the American people this marriage from hell, tying Rush like a rock around the collective Republican neck and hoping for its quick descent to the netherworld of irrelevance.

But some commentators (Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, Chuck Todd of NBC News, etc.) have likened this to "what Republicans tried to do to the Democrats with Michael Moore." Perhaps. But there is one central difference: What I have believed in, and what I have stood for in these past eight years -- an end to the war, establishing universal health care, closing Guantanamo and banning torture, making the rich pay more tax and aggressively going after the corporate chiefs on Wall Street -- these are all things which the MAJORITY of Americans believe in, too. That's why in November the majority voted for the guy I voted for. The majority of Americans rejected the ideology of Rush and embraced the same issues I have raised consistently in my movies and books.

How did this happen? Considering how, for the past eight years, the Republican machine thought they could somehow smear and damage the Democrats if they said it was "the party of Michael Moore," it appears that the American public heard them loud and clear and decided that, 'hey, if you say Michael Moore is connected to the Democrats, then the Democrats must be OK!'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/why-im-not-now-and-have-n_b_172410.html

[monmouth]

1. Another outstanding difference; Michael Moore loves his American

co-patriots, Rush loves himself...

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. And Michael Moore actually gets off his chair and does actual research.

And as the other poster said, Moore actually cares about EVERYONE in America, and about the WHOLE country, not just the small parts that look just like him.

[nichomachus]

3. Oh -- and he tells the truth

The biggest difference between Limbaugh and Moore is in whom they attack. It used to be a saying among journalists, back when we were the good guys, that our job was to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." That's pretty much how I judge people in public life today.

This is what Moore does -- he stands up for the little people against the powerful. Limbaugh does just the opposite -- he makes fun of little people, except for his own coterie of mouth-breathing knuckle draggers. And he sucks up to the rich and powerful.

[sledgehammer]

20. And he's willing to debate...

When Gupta made that pathetic report, he went one-on-one (well, via Larry King) with Gupta.

He's got facts, and he's not shy to use 'em. Rush can only talk at CPAC and in a radio station where no one disagrees with him.

Michael Moore is an American hero. He brings up the challenges of the poor and the middle class. Rush wants to make sure the billionaires do even better.

[Canuckistanian]

4. "The days of using my name as a pejorative are now over. "

Indeed.

Good article, thanks for posting.

[harun]

5. Moore was/is on the side of truth, a good side to be on.

[90-percent]

6. Mike

I loved Mike since Roger and Me.

I wish he'd do more films like Canadian Bacon. That was a sweet and very humorous movie. Good actors, too. And he did have two shows on network prime time, too. TV Nation and something else......

But his activist stuff is spot on and he does speak for the voiceless.

I wish he would take better care of his health. He's in as bad a shape as I am!

-90% Jimmy

[semillama]

10. "We have ways of making you say the letter 'O'" -n/t

[Touchdown]

30. Awful Truth. I got the whole series on DVD

Alas, it didn't last long.

[gratuitous]

7. I wonder if Rush will challenge Michael to a debate?

Oooh listen! Crickets!

[crikkett]

21. Here I am!

And my bet is that Rush will *not* challenge Moore to a debate unless it's a setup.

[Old and In the Way]

8. It's no wonder that Mike is hated by the right.

His documentaries negate the billions they've spent on their propagandist messaging. His movie "Sicko" might be one of the most important films of our generation.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Michael Moore is our Tony Blankley.

George Soros is our Rush Limbaugh.

[NashVegas]

11. Peter Jennings to Wes Clark In 1984

JENNINGS: At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush—he’s saying he’d like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a “deserter.” Now, that’s a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn’t contradict him, and whether or not you think it would’ve been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.

Wow! Jennings felt he knew “the facts.” Clark said he wasn’t so sure:

CLARK: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this. I don’t know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I’ve never looked at it. I’ve seen this charge bandied about a lot. But to me it wasn’t material. This election is going to be about the future, Peter. And what we have to do is pull this country together…

But Clark’s high-minded host wasn’t buying such smack. Once again, he referred to “the facts:”

JENNINGS: Let me ask you something you mentioned, then, because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you’ve had a chance to look at the facts. Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?

CLARK: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that’s Michael Moore’s opinion. He’s entitled to say that. I’ve seen—he’s not the only person who’s said that. I’ve not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it’s not relevant to me and why I’m in this campaign.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012304.shtml

As we can all see, there's a huge difference between Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh: Limbaugh has been left alone to do corporate media's bidding, while Michael Moore and anyone associated with him are attacked by the same media.

[suede1]

19. 1984?

[gratuitous]

24. I think it was 2004, not 1984

But even more significant to me is the fact that Peter Jennings continually asked Wes Clark about what Michael Moore had said. It seems to me that if Jennings was really, truly interested in an answer to the burning question in his mind about whether or not George W. Bush could be fairly characterized as a deserter, Jennings could have asked Michael Moore about it. Unless, of course, Jennings wasn't really interested in the facts, but only in feeding woof tickets to the reactionaries for their next bitchfest.

[Wetzelbill]

25. Or how about as a journalist he

maybe looks into the matter himself... oh wait Dan Rather did and look what happened to him.

[NashVegas]

26. Yeah, Thanks

My mind has been very, very elsewhere.

I didn't see it come up in later interviews, but I saw it at the debate and Jennings was attempting to use it to show Wes Clark as being off his rocker or something, IMO. "You don't agree with Michael Moore, do you? He's a pinko commie who says horrible things about our president. Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh ..."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. Michael Moore actually has the talent to put together well crafted movie documentaries...

...requiring months and months of research, filming and hard work and effort.

Rush Limbaugh--the champion of "hard work ethic"--sits in front of a microphone at his own house for 3 hours a day and says whatever is on his drug addled mind without any respect to substantiating facts or supporting basis.

So yeah, I wouldn't compare them either.

[pipi_k]

13. Another difference, among many

is that I don't care who it was who had the illness...Michael Moore would NOT have mocked a person's illness like Rush Limbaugh did to Michael J Fox.

How the fucked up followers of Rush Limbaugh could even for one moment think it was OK, or amusing, or whatever (since some of them claim he's not really a leader, just more of an "entertainer") is beyond me.

If there was ever an example of Just Plain Nasty, that's it.

Michael Moore might not look like he came straight from the pages of GQ, but he's got more class in his right asscheek than Limbaugh has in his entire body.

[Muttocracy]

28. You're right, Rush is a nasty bully - going after Fox, Kennedy. Moore is not a bully. nt

[Occam Bandage]

14. I generally agree with his statement, but I find his tone slightly too defensive.

The comparison is purely intended on a political level. Moore, like Limbaugh, is beloved by the party base. The Republicans attempted to turn Moore into a boogeyman to scare moderates off from voting for Dems. Dems are attempting to turn Rush into a boogeyman to scare moderates off from voting for Republicans. It is true that Dems are far more likely to be successful in this than Republicans were, due to the differing natures of the two men, but Moore's response seems a bit defensive.

[azul]

15. Dear Michael Moore, Please make a documentary on the MSM

hype and BS. You are its lightning rod, so ground yourself back onto this Electro monster and give it the business it deserves, amplified for effect.

[sledgehammer]

16. The repugs are nothing but woRUSHipers!!! n/t

[dem629]

17. That title belongs to Olbermann.

I'm always suspicious of commentators who do not have guests who disagree with them.

Rachel Maddow has guests who disagree with her. Even Hannity does (though he shouts over them and doesn't let them complete their thoughts, so he's not as brave as Maddow).

But Olbermann? No. He and Limbaugh don't engage in face-to-face debate. Why is that?

[suede1]

18. It's way past time for the left to stand up for Michael Moore! The bastards attacked the messenger

with Moore, and good people shouldn't let them get away with it.

[Initech]

22. Coming up next on Sean Hannity - "Is Michael Moore the Rush Limbaugh of the GOP"?

:banghead:

[suede1]

23. Oh, and K&R

[Wetzelbill]

27. kick

[donheld]

29. When has any Democrat ever apologized to Michael Moore the way

Every and all repuglicans apologize to Rush.

[90-percent]

31. Dan Rather

Has Dan finally had his day in court?

My take on this is that Dan got copies which were factually accurate, but had been proven to have originated in MS word, which did not exist in the time of AWOL's awol-ling.

A brilliant and Machiavellian move by whoever created AND PLANTED it to be sure.

What about all the new facts and implications and info a TRIAL would bring to the public?

Did I miss the whole thing or what?

Hey, how about Michael producing a movie about Rather's MSM blackballing?

-90% Jimmy