Joe,

You failed miserably here - have to say my regard for you dropped quite a lot; didn't even finish reading your article about it. When you start by downplaying the known lies of Moore, you're way off on the wrong foot...when you then go on to say that Rush lies as much as Moore, then you're clearly covering up for the fact that you know Moore is lying, but you don't want to admit it...

Sorry you couldn't read it and think less of me but that's what I think and no, I'm not trying not to admit anything. So you think I failed miserably -- but since I gave you folks my honest reaction, you can agree with it or not. I'm not trying to sell anyone -- I was just giving you an HONEST reaction.

It's very interesting how in 21st Century America as soon as people see that you don't agree with them they MUST accuse you of "knowing" something you say is a lie and somehow being involved in an insidious plot to hide real feelings. So I am now involved in a coverup for Michael Moore (he is making a lot of money on this flick so I better email him and demand my payment now).

These days someone simply cannot have a different persepective without it somehow hiding evil intentions (hiding the fact you KNOW the other side is lying). There used to be a time in U.S. history where people could disagree without the other side being evil or disingenuous. But this is the new style...yet there is one tiny thing: I was not trying to hide anything in my post and would have had a lot more friends (and hits) if I had said what people on either side dearly wanted to hear. Sorry. I gave you my HONEST reaction. I read everything I could on the movie, then went to see it for myself so I could make my own decision and I gave you my reaction.

The fact is: there are lots of people who have written reviews on the right and on the left and I do not agree with their reviews. At all.

If you read my review all the way you would have seen my four favorite reviews excerpted and linked --- all of them panned the movie for the same reason I did.

And I firmly believe what I said about Moore and Rush. So you sincerely don't. That's your right. And it's my right to SINCERELY believe the way I do, too...because I happen to believe it and I don't have an ulterior motive for expressing my belief.

All that being said, I most certainly DO believe Moore and Rush are mirror images of each other. The Left hasn't found a counterpart for Limbaugh (Franken sort of fizzled and Howard Stern has a different kind of radio constituency)and they see Moore as it -- hence the Moore mania.

Rush is extremely talented as broadcaster but his content is often inaccurate and shaped to contain just enough to make his point. Moore is extremely talented as a film maker and an editor and his content in the movie is often inaccurate and shaped just enough to make his point.

If you read the end of my review, I mentioned that in the end he makes Bush look WORSE than bin Laden. Clearly, we're not talking about a History Channel documentary here. And I didn't suggest that in my review.

Both Rush and Moore preach to their respective choirs and get their choirs off their butts and both are getting some politically interested non-partisans to enjoy and be influenced by their work. Both make their political points and persuade by their talents; Rush's use of sarcasm, satire and his personality via an audio feed; Moore's use of sarcasm, satire and his personna via carefully selected images, carefully edited to make his political points (often out of context).

To Republicans, Rush is an icon. To Democrats, Moore is the new icon. Republicans had Rush Rooms. Democrats (as the Ellen Goodman article I excerpted which you didn't read because you felt I didn't want to "admit" I "know" Moore is just lying throughout the movie) sit there rooting for the film with a "got and get 'em!" attitude.

I was not outraged by the outbursts of go-get-em-clapping, because I have listened to Rush since he came on the air (when I was on the paper) and my GOP friends had the same attitude about his show re the Clinton administration when he came on. If conservatives can have that attitude, why can't moderates, liberals, green party members and Amway members?

The fact is, neither Rush nor Moore are role models in terms of accuracy or objectivity. They are highly skillful propagandists.

Moore has never seen a Bush adminstration official or family member who was not insidious or masking other motives for policies and actions. Rush has never met a Democrat (except Zell Miller) who might possibly sincerely believe differently and be acting out of conviction, versus being evil or dishonest. Then you have Al Franken and Sean Hannity, the B team on each side.

Moore's movie is rife with inaccuracies. If you read my whole post -- and you can live without reading it since you don't want to -- you'd see what I said at the end. My comments were echoed by several others, but perhaps they were also trying to hide the fact that they know Moore is lying.

The fact is, he did make some points worthy of thought, as does Rush on his show. But I would never EVER tell a high school student to learn about 911, the Iraq War or GWB by watching Moore -- as I would never tell a high school student to EVER learn about current events and issues by using Rush as the prime source of balanced information.

I got emails from people on the right and left mad at me because of what I wrote. But I do indeed contend that Michael Moore is now to the left what Rush Limbaugh is to the right -- and that both of them can be trusted to be just as objective when talking about people with whom they disagree. Moore BIGGEST SINS were the crap about the pipeline, the Saudis leaving the country, etc. all well documented...but if you read the whole thing I was not giving it a rave at all. I could have lied and tried to appeal to Republicans and said "it was totally worthless and boring" but that would not have been honest; I could have lied to appeal to Democrats and said "it was great -- he totally made his case, changed my perspective, and the movie should be required viewing in high schools" and that would have been a lie too.

So, no, I was not hiding anything -- but gave you an honest reaction after I read dozens of posts and articles on the film, then plunked down the money to see it for myself and make my own decision...which is what I gave you.

FOOTNOTE: I also got several emails about what I said about wmd. FYI I was one of those pesky folks who emailing my elected representatives and wrote Prioity Mail letters urging my California politicos to back the war, always quoting the comments of adminstration officials (I did not then have a blog). It was not the justification for the war, but it was indeed a key one made at the time. It is very interesting that I am a SUPPORTER of the war but find my mailbox with absolutely livid emails going full throttle attack because I mentioned that Moore effectively uses news clips to show what officials actually said at the time -- versus what they now claim they said. (Dean's comment on my site was respectful; these other folks see me as working for Sadaam since I dared mention this. Aren't these kinds of personal attacks akin to what people don't like about the Michael Moore'
s flick?).
PS: I will post this on my site's comments as well. As much as I think this subject is interested, life goes on and we move on.

Yeah, to me you call someone intellectually dishonest when they repeat a point that's been debunked, when they've been shown the evidence that it's debunked and they just ignore it like it never happened or change the subject. Calling someone intellectually dishonest for not agreeing, that's something else.

From what I've read, one of the many ways Moore's film is intentionally dishonest is that many of the (carefully edited and out of context) quotes on WMDs came from AFTER the Congress had already authorized the war, and further, carefully edited out everything BESIDES that, to continue the bogus claim that WMDs was "the reason we went to war." Which is, flat-out, factually incorrect, and any honest anti-Bush partisan will admit that. Unfortunately too many refuse to do that, or let it slide, but it's important. It matters. Not just for the purposes of being honest to the record but also because it matters that our troops in the field not be betrayed by lies about why they're there.

I have a very moderate problem with the Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore comparison inasmuch as I have less exposure to Rush these days. 10, 15 years ago I listened to him with some regularity, agreed with him sometimes, disagreed with him often, found him amusing and refreshing radio at the time. Six months of it and I'd had about enough. I think the cutoff point was the day I listened to him rip Bill Clinton to shreds for his inauguration speech. His inauguration speech! The man wasn't in office five minutes yet and he Limbaugh was tearing him to shreds and calling him a liar and worse.

In a sense this was all interesting because at least here were ideas and perspectives completely shut out of both mainstream news and out of our other major cultural institutions, like the universities and schools. So early on Rush was kind of a breath of fresh air. But at this point, the revolution's passed. It passed a long time ago in fact.

In the intervening decade or so I listened to him perhaps a dozen or so times, a few minutes here and there. I have not seen any sources which document what I would clearly call lies--which I would characterize as willfully leaving out information in order to deceive. Not "didn't know" or "missed that" but clearly, and unmistakably, omitting something crucial, taking a quote out of context that he had to know was out of context.

Mind you, I just said I haven't seen it, not that it hasn't happened. Rush long ago became background noise to me. But if someone shows me evidence he's done it? I'll call it a lie, same as Moore's an obvious and unmistakable (and indefensible) liar.

I think the other thing with Limbaugh to me is that I don't know anyone--anyone at all--who takes him seriously, except left-wingers. I do know people who take Moore as gospel.

What's worse is, Moore with his movies claims, or allows others to claim, that he's making documentaries. Now I understand he's backpedaling somewhat on that. Well jesus. If you're telling people it's a comedy, that's one thing, but if you're claiming you're making a documentary, then it's infuriating when you put stuff in that no sane person could call anything but an intentionally edited out-of-context quote, which is a lie by any rational standard.

This more than anything is what so infuriates me. Lying, knowingly willfully lying about such important matters... it's sickening.

If Rush has done that, then I condemn it too. God knows so many on the left were that bad during the '90s. I had hoped, I had prayed--and for a moment I'd actually believed--people would behave better than that after 9/11.

Maybe that's really what has me upset. I've started to suspect it, anyway.

Oops:

If Rush has done that, then I condemn it too. God knows so many on the left were that bad during the '90s.

That should say "so many on the right."

Was invoking the memory of Dan Burton and some others....

Oh by the way Joe, don't take Mark Noonan too seriously. I think he's really just Shep's evil twin. :-)

Dean,

No, not evil twin...more dispeptic second cousin...

Anyways...

My problem with Joe here is that he's trying to do the same thing "moderates" did vis a vis the US and the USSR in days of yore - Michael Moore is quite simply outside the bounds of decent society...his film is on the level of a Nazi propaganda flick; there's a stark difference between a one-sided presentation of facts and a lie made up out of whole cloth...Rush, on the right, gives an entirely unfair and one-sided view of the world...and clearly states time and time again what his position and purpose is; Moore, on the other hand, clothed his film in the aura of a documentary and tried to claim that it was a dispassionate examination of the facts of the case - once the movie had been reviewed, of course, Moore had to change his tune - he's now, apparantly, stated that its a comedy and just his point of view; but this is not how it was marketed.

For Joe to make any comparisons between Moore and Rush is to make comparisons between a Joe McCarthy and Josef Stalin...such comparisons have been made, but only by people with a nefarious agenda. The two are not alike; they are not scorpions in a bottle. What Joe did was lend a patina of legitimacy to Moore - saying to those who like Moore's work that they are no different from the people who like Rush's work; that both men serve the same purpose in society.

Well, a simple question then:

Can no one document cases where Limbaugh intentionally and maliciously edited quotes in order to deceive?

I somehow suspect someone can.

No?

Dean,

That would go some way towards supporting Joe's thesis, but there's another point he can't get past. Rush presents himself as a pundit; Moore presents himself as a creator of documentaries. This is a significant difference in terms of what their audiences expect.

Dean,

Perhaps - but its not too likely; the reason being that the Democrats have had to carefully hide their actual policy proposals and thus are usually being at least partially mendacious in anything they say...you don't really have to chop up their quotes in order to make it seem like they're lying.

Its like John Kerry now furiously backing and filling on his claim that he was warning about terrorism in his 1997 book - never did, of course; and now that someone actually dusted off that worst-seller and read it, Kerry's people are changing the press releases regarding same to say that he was warning about it in committee, etc - something I fully expect to also be debunked in short order.

There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and Josef Stalin (or Josef Geobbels), yet Leftists equate them all the time, or, on such rare occasions as they're not damning McCarthy exclusively as the Great Satan.

The historical record shows otherwise: Geobbels and his National Socialist comrades murdered tens of millions, Stalin and Mao murdered a hundred million if not more. How many people did McCarthy kill or even imprison? He embarrassed a lot of people, and got some people fired, but that was it. And yet _he_ (McCarthy) is the man we must all hate!

I haven't yet seen Moore's movie, and I don't know if I will, but I've read that he shows Saddam's Iraq as some sort of idyllic utopia. That's quite enough for me to brand him a liar. Not mistaken. A liar, a knowingly dishonest apologist for a torturer and murderer. Reminds me of the time when I heard Michael Parenti get on NPR and say that the Poles _invited_ Hitler and Stalin to invade their country!

I listened to Rush Limbaugh for a while in the early 1990s -- like most Rightists, he has an interesting -style_ -- but I soon got tired of his attacks on libertarians and the mere idea of legalizing drugs (which William F. Buckley advocates). I particularly hated him when he denounced the United States Supreme Court for vindicating John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner and my right to privacy. He is, to say the least, inconsistent when it comes to the rights of the individual.

But, whatever my disagreements with Rush Limbaugh, he's certainly not a liar on the level of Michael Moore or Michael Parenti.

Too bad Leonard Peikoff isn't on the air any more. He used to have an excellent show. As somebody once remarked, Peikoff could beat Limbaugh with half his brain tied behind his back. I have some tapes of Peikoff's show. He was always honest and forthright, always told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He was uncompromisingly for _justice_, "give a man what he deserves!" (We don't hear that much any more.) And, of course -- his _style_! Excellent! After listening to those tapes I concluded that Ayn Rand chose a worthy heir to air her philosophy.

Another radio man I like is G. Gordon Liddy. He was, as you may remember, a close friend of President Nixon, Spiro Agnew, and Haldeman and Ehrlichmann. He stood by his president during the Watergate imbroglio, and later wrote an excellent book about that, his autobiography "Will". The _style_ of it all! He is a friend of my good friend Eric Scheie of Classical Values, my favorite blog outside of Dean's World.