Michael Moore was the person most hated by the Bush WH,

[G_j]

Last edited Wed Oct 1, 2014, 06:20 AM - Edit history (1)

according to Phil Donahue. Heard on Thom Hartmann's radio show last week. (no link).

[MannyGoldstein]

1. And one of the most hated by some DUers

Seems like the same folks who claim that Greenwald is a lyin' Libertarian, and who accuse dissenters of loving Putin.

Fascinating.

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, we do know that the 'Security Contractors' were bidding on contracts to 'smear

progressives, activists, journalists like Greenwald, who was mentioned specifically as a target. These 'contractors' were soliciting contracts from BOA and The Chamber of Commerce when the whole scheme was exposed by Anonymous.

Michael Moore was a natural target of the Bush WH as soon as he made Fahrenheit 9/11 where he tried to cover everything the Corporate Media refused to cover.

You have to try to understand, they thought they had covered everything when their half dozen Corps bought up the MSM.

MM blew that plan apart when he stepped in and used his talents as a producer of Documentaries to expose everything they were trying to hide.

It's interesting when you read the history of all this, that it is ALWAYS 'the left' who are targeted, even from supposed 'lefties'.

Poor Bush, MM spoiled their 'fun'. But he knew that which is why he had to hire body guards to protect himself and his family.

The smears are easily recognizable. Those who concoct them, we learned, are pretty limited intellectually.

And MM was vindicated when Whistle Blower Wendell Cotter came forward and admitted that millions had been spent by the Private Health Ins corps to try to discredit him.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Uh... um... GREENWALD IS A LIBERTARIAN!!!

And YOU love Putin, Comrade Sabrina!

[sabrina 1]

104. Lol, see what I mean about the smear mongers lack of imagination regarding their talking points

specially prepared for the 'left'? Comrade Manny, I don't know about you, but I was also a Saddam lover AND, get this, an Assad lover!!

They just recycle the old talking points, which you have to admit is very prudent financially, these Security Contractors charge a whole lot of money to come up with 'Saddam/Assad/Putin lover.

It's always the 'left' though. No matter where they talking point 'wmds' are coming from, they are aimed, always, at the 'left'.

[merrily]

87. +1 GREAT post.

[whatchamacallit]

29. It's been mind-blowing to watch them go after Moore, fox news style

Anyone who calls out the president suffers the same fate.

[lame54]

2. What an amazing honor

[Cleita]

3. Just watch Fahrenheit 911 and you'll know why.

Michael totally nails the Bushes and the Saudi royals, who they are in bed with.

[brewens]

83. In "Fahrenheit" I though the scene with "W" was interesting. Seemed more like a slick talking

eastern preppie boy than the down home Texan that was Governor and president. The one where he brags about people going through him to talk to his dad. The thing is that's more what he really was and I've seen other footage that backs that up. I think they trained him to walk and talk like a Texan to put one over on the half-wits that would identify with a "plain spoken man" type. I always thought that might be why he stumbled while speaking. Putting on the act and not screwing up would be difficult.

[reddread]

112. oh definitely, want to see some more pre-dumbya speak?

[valerief]

145. THANKS! Very interesting look at preDimson Bush. nt

[reddread]

147. I find their comments illuminating

taking them as lies, the truth becomes just a little scarier.
had anyone referred to GHWB as "the pope of politics"?
I had never heard that before, and find their mention of it interesting.
got my official "Conspiracy Theorist" badge from poppy's own kids!

[Laf.La.Dem.]

4. Just another reason to like Michael Moore!!

[uponit7771]

5. Others should be slightly jealous

[dhill926]

6. I'm sure he welcomed their hatred….

[hifiguy]

7. He exposed Chimpoleon for exactly what he was

in Farenheit 9/11. He should be proud to be at the top of the Boosh enemies list.

[brooklynite]

9. and how many votes did Farenheit 9/11 shift?

My guess is that alost everyone who went to that movie wasn't going to vote for Bush in the first place.

[Ken Burch]

15. That's because OUR ticket in 2004 SUPPORTED everything Moore's film called out.

Our guys were pro-Patriot Act, pro "Homeland Security uber alles" and pro-war(with the meaningless qualifier of "nuance", whatever the hell THAT ever meant), which meant we had no way of GETTING the voters that film mobilized(most of them backed us anyway, even though we gave them no reason to). Kerry and Edwards didn't CHALLENGE Bush on any foreign policy issue that meant anything-Kerry reduced his pitch to "we'll do the same shit globally, but we'll be nicer about it and I'll bring Peter Yarrow along for the press conference when I announce more bombing in Iraq". We had a massive national swing against the war happening, but our party refused to appeal to that swing, and gained no votes anywhere from anybody who still backed the damn war, because only the right-wing still backed it by then.

We gave the voters no reason to think that defeating Bush and Cheney would actually change anything. When you don't challenge the policies of the status quo, you can't BEAT the people who created it.

The 2004 result proved, forever, that "we can do it better" can NEVER work for Democratic challengers to a Republican president. Which won't stop our party's strategists from doing it over and over, because those "strategists" don't really care if we elect Democratic presidents or not, as they proved in the Eighties when they refused to even try to beat Reagan or Bush the Elder.

[Major Hogwash]

17. You should crucify Kerry a few more times, every chance you get.

It will solidify your credentials with the kool kids.

[Ken Burch]

18. It's not crucifixion to tell the truth.

And actually, I was referring there to the party's overall strategy as much as to Kerry himself.

ALL Kerry had to do to beat Bush was to be the man he was in 1971. Why was that asking too much? When does it ever help us to be the "we can do it better" party?

You can't deny that blurring our differences with Bush on foreign policy was a total disaster in terms of electoral tactics. Nobody who still backed the war in the summer of 2004 was even going to THINK about voting Democratic, because by then no such thing as a "liberal hawk" voter still existed.

[Major Hogwash]

34. Evidently you didn't even hear about Ohio's 2004 presidential election results.

When Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of the State for Ohio, pulled his shenanigans with the election ballot sites in that state in 2004.

Evidently, you also didn't read the great Rolling Stone magazine article written by RFK Jr in June 2006 about the 2004 election that went into detail exposing Blackwell, the Secretary of State in Ohio, and how he helped steal the 2004 election for Bush.

[img][/img]


RFK Jr's full article can be read here --

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

So, no matter what your opinion about Kerry's campaign is, he actually won the 2004 election.
But, he had it stolen from him in Ohio.

I posted quite a bit on Kerry's forum back in 2004.
So, I was really surprised that he had the election stolen from him.

If you take the time to read RFK Jr's article you'll also learn that it was the 1st time in history that the exit polls did NOT match the results of the election itself in 30 states.
That's not even possible.
I talked to several pollsters and mathematicians after the election, and to a man they agreed, the fix was in.

[Ken Burch]

40. I know about Ohio as much as you do. Don't patronize me.

The weirdness about Ohio doesn't vindicate the way the Kerry-Edwards campaign was run, and the obsession of that campaign with keeping its distance from the massive antiwar movement that was growing in all areas of the country.

[Major Hogwash]

41. I highly doubt that.

I have relatives that live in Ohio, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

43. OK, I don't know as much about it as your relatives.

But Ohio isn't really the point.

If we'd had an antiwar, pro-labor, pro-social justice campaign, with a candidate who didn't keep acting like being called "liberal" was the political equivalent of being accused of child sexual abuse, what happened in Ohio, wack as it was, wouldn't have mattered.

[blm]

119. There was no Dem strategy against fixed elections. Gore had 51m and Kerry 59m

And Kerry had to work against Bush and Clinton machines to make every gain he made.

YOUR preferred candidate would NEVER have had any problem with the party's infrastructure that McAuliffe was in charge of from 2001-2005, eh Burch? He would have taken control in summer of 2004 and whipped the entire national infrastructure into a muscled, well-oiled machine by Nov, eh?

[Major Hogwash]

150. "But Ohio isn't really the point."

Ohio was "THE" battleground state in 2004.

You can't have it both ways, Ken.
You can't say "so what about Ohio" and then go on to crucify Kerry for Bush stealing Ohio in 2004.

[Ken Burch]

151. I wasn't "crucifying" Kerry.

pointing out that our party's strategy was a total disaster in 2004 is NOT the same thing as nailing the nominee to a cross.

[merrily]

92. LOL! I have relatives in many places. Never dreamt that made me

an expert on all those places.

Live and learn.

[blm]

115. YOU run a campaign against Bushes and Clintonites and see how you do, Burch.

Especially when the TOP Clintonite was given the job in Jan2001 of controlling the Democratic Party's national infrastructure through Jan2005.

Kerry had to make all his gains on his own working against the teams of Bush2004 and Hillary2008.

You really wonder WHY the Dem party infrastructures in crucial electoral states like Ohio were allowed to grow weaker since 2000 with McAuliffe at the helm?

Your tunnel vision against Kerry is hampering your ability to comprehend.

PS: Anti-corruption Kerry who investigated and uncovered IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drugrunning is the man Bushes, Clintons, and establishment DC were working against, not, anti-war Kerry in 1971.

Let go of your hate and reach towards reason, man.

[Ken Burch]

121. It's not hate, it's disappointment.

Staying in Iraq(and pretending that the "elections" there actually mattered)was going to make it impossible for Kerry to break with the status quo on anything. There was no way to keep the war going AND have more investigations of BCCI at the same time. That's why there was so little enthusiasm for the nomination of Humphrey in '68...progressives knew that if he DID keep us in Vietnam(as he made it sound like he'd do all the way to the end of September)that entanglement would make it impossible for Humphrey to do anything progressive at all on domestic issues.

What Kerry's campaign COULD have done was to reach out to the antiwar movement and say "I'm with you"...rather than to ban antiwar signage at the convention, keep peace activists in the Bushite "free speech zones" miles away, and maintain this pointless halfway stance on Iraq, a stance that wasn't going to win votes from anybody. He could have run a passionate, people-based campaign, with an explicit platform saying that he'd make a clear break(rather than meaningless phrases like "nuance", and rather than nurturing the delusion that anything was still worth staying IN Iraq about-a delusion I hope even you have now let go of).

BTW, Kerry KNEW that the Clinton crowd had the power it did when he decided to run...so what excuse is that? As nominee, he had the power to overrule them and get them out of the way, and he could have stood up to the hawks in the same way he unjustly muscled the doves out of the discussion.

[blm]

125. LOL - rebuild national party infrastructure AND run a presidential campaign at same time.

Yeah - anyone could have worked with McAuliffe and accomplished that easily from August to Nov.

You act as if everything happens in a vacuum, and with a reality that is what you SAY existed at the time and not what actually existed at the time.

Beginning in 2005, Chairman Dean had to work his ass off state by state to strengthen their party infrastructures that had been allowed to deteriorate for years by a Clinton machine uninterested in Dems winning any election from Nov1996 till Hillary2008.

[Ken Burch]

128. He could have dismissed McAuliffe.

And he could have been pushing for infrastructure revitalization from the time he entered the race-it's not like Kerry had no alternative but to accept the conditions the Clintonites had imposed.

If nothing else, once Dean withdrew, Kerry could have started pushing to get Dean people into important positions...they were new, they had innovative ideas, and he had nothing to lose.

It's not as though Kerry had no choice but to defer to the hawks and the hacks. Nominees(and people who have the nomination sewn up months before the convention, as Kerry did)have some agency. They can use their status to make things change within the party.

Wouldn't you at least agree that Kerry's chances would have been significantly improved if he'd been half as tough in dealing with the party insiders as he was in insisting on excluding doves and progressive activists from any real say in the platform?

[blm]

133. LOL - It's Fantasy Island to believe a Titanic could easily turn around

And you seem to forget that Kerry tapped an anti-war figure to be the keynote speaker.

What you are claiming is that Kerry should have started a Civil War in the Dem party less than 4 months before election day.

You are welcome to name the Democrat who had more friends in the corporate media than Clintons, Burch. It certainly wasn't Kerry.

I posted this in Feb2004:


Corporate media fears Kerry presidency.


Is this why Kerry's candidacy was declared dead for months, thereby drying up Kerry's fundraising? Why the media focused on rivals and downplayed the truth about Kerry's support on the ground? Kerry's big Iowa win PROVED the media was lying to us for months.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2003


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission decision may violate laws protecting small businesses; Kerry to file Resolution of Disapproval

Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[Ken Burch]

139. It's EQUALLY fantasy to think the Titanic could somehow have limped into New York Harbor

with the guy who didn't miss the iceberg still on the wheel.

There is no way that Kerry's deference to the Clintons could ever have led to a victory. And if he won by deferring to them in all the ways you think he had to, wouldn't that have made it impossible for him to go after the ghost of BCCI at all? And wouldn't it also have made it impossible for him to get out of Iraq at all? And if Kerry could neither go after BCCI OR get us out of Iraq, wouldn't that have made his presidency doomed to humiliating failure from the start? It's not like anything mattered more than those two issues.

What you've posted above was a case for Kerry deciding NOT to run in 2004...not a justification for how that campaign was managed.

[blm]

144. Why insist BCCI couldn't be re-opened and Iraq war be drawn down simultaneously?

Because you think by saying so your argument sounds more plausible? LOL - It doesn't.

Opening books on BCCI to investigators and historians that included access to withheld documents wouldn't stop drawdown plans for US troops in Iraq.

You also claim Kerry's position was that he would do war better than Bush - it wasn't. The narrative you created in your head did that. Kerry was always reacting to the REALITY that existed AT THE TIME, and began to lay out an exit strategy in summer2004. He also laid out an exit plan in 2005 and brought Feingold on board. Is all of this something you never knew, or chose to ignore because it was in contrast to the narrative hook you chose to hang your hat on, Ken?

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/03/nation/na-kerry3
The Nation | THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Kerry Sketches an Iraq Exit Plan
He calls replacing most U.S. troops with foreign forces within a first term a 'reasonable' goal.
August 03, 2004|Ronald Brownstein | Times Staff Writer

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Within a first term as president, Sen. John F. Kerry thinks he could attract enough international help in Iraq to make it a "reasonable" goal to replace most U.S. troops stationed there with foreign forces, he told The Times in an interview.

"I will engage in the creation of a very different equation, very rapidly," the Democratic presidential nominee said of troop deployment in Iraq.

The interview, conducted Sunday night during Kerry's bus tour through the Midwest, continued the aggressive challenge to President Bush's national security record that the Massachusetts senator and other Democrats offered at the party's national convention last week.

Kerry flatly asserted that he was more qualified to conduct international diplomacy than Bush. He argued that the president was so committed "to rushing to the job of going to war" that Bush failed to sufficiently question the intelligence he received on Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion.
>>>>

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

[blm]

111. LOL - Tell that to the hawkish Clinton wing of the party you claim didn't exist in 2004.

Heck - the Clinton wing of the party was in control of the entire party's national infrastructure till 2005.

[blm]

20. Baloney - You sound like you bought the lazy-minded corporate media's version of 2004.

BTW - Bush 1 NEEDED to lose 1992 because of the expected release of the BCCI Report which would have ended up with certain impeachment. Jackson Stephens and his boy Clinton helped him out then.

Clinton then helped Bush 2 by using his summer 2004, high profile book tour to vigorously defend Bush's military decisions at the very time Kerry was attacking those decisions. Terry McAuliffe worked to help lose 2004 even before that when he refused to strengthen the party infrastructure in crucial states like Ohio and Florida where they were in total collapse since 2000. Hillary2008.

Stop revising history with your corpmedia view - stick to reality.

[Ken Burch]

23. If we were going to keep the Iraq War going, BCCI was meaningless.

I'll agree that the McAuliffe and Clinton did their worst...but Kerry could have overcome that by running as the man he was in '71...the man of peace, courage, and the dream of a better world...instead of being the capitulationist candidate of "nuance&quot which just meant doing whatever Bush or his handlers would have done, but with better manners).

In running on a "we can do it better" program on foreign policy, Kerry gave up on changing anything in the world for the better, AND on challenging corporate power. And he gave up on engaging with the tens of millions who were ready to fight for a real alternative to the status quo.

What mattered was the war and the Patriot Act...compared to those, anything else was trivial. We couldn't HAVE a progressive presidency if the war was kept going...as the last six years have proved.

BCCI was ONLY going to affect Bush the First, it wasn't going to do anything to Dubya or any other Republican. Everyone implicated in BCCI was part of the past and would never be in politics again. BCCI wasn't going to turn the damn world upside down, any more than Watergate did.

It's not possible to be anti-corporate and think that ending the war and repealing the Patriot Act ASAP were less important than BCCI.



We should have embraced Medea Benjamin and the peace movement, not the Beltway hawks.

[blm]

33. Baloney - BCCI is the skeleton key to just about everything that is still going on today.

There would have been no Bush2 possible had BCCI not been deep-sixed by Clinton, along with IranContra's findings and CIA drug running.

And I call total horsesh!t on your view of Kerry's campaign on foreign policy issues. Pure revisionism.

He was tearing into Bush when no one else was after 9-11. He was the only one who went after Bush on Tora Bora and the only IWR vote to follow through on speaking out against a DECISION to invade if weapon inspectors' reports were contrary to what they were being told. He sided with the weapon inspectors and stayed sided with weapon inspectors. ANY president in 2005 was going to be stuck with Iraq as it was, and would be forced to stabilize the region before they could get the troops out and that is what you had a problem with - you wanted the candidate to lie and say that they would withdraw troops immediately. Yeah sure - before the first Iraqi election. Sorry, but, even Dennis Kucinich would have dealt responsibly with the reality and the complicated logistics of withdrawing the troops - despite what you want to believe.

Media were the ones insisting Kerry positions kept changing, but they never did - he was consistent. You are welcome to believe corpmedia. I haven't seen any solid reporting from the political press corps since the early 90s.


Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer
>>>>>
But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

>>>>>>>

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.
Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.
>>>

[reddread]

39. What's a few more pre-conviction pardons, a little MSM play along, a couple of airplane crashes

what a fantasy you are pitching.

[blm]

105. You are proving to be unable to accept the facts in my post.

You are welcome to detail the 'fantasy' you claim is being pitched.

[reddread]

110. impeachment?

not for a few more years.
they HAD everything they needed to impeach that motherfucker on many issues.
they didnt, because the National Security State was and is in charge.
you persist in some of the silliest revisionism, given the clear focus hindsight allows.

[blm]

113. You think Bush1 gave up presidency to Clinton unwillingly? LOL -

You think National Security State preferred Clinton OVER Bush1?

You really haven't a clue what happened in BCCI or what was being added to the BCCI Report that made Jackson Stephens tap Clinton in 1991 to enter the Dem primary that he, Jackson Stephens, would BANKROLL.

Now, why would a close friend and longtime political ally of GHWBush, who also helped Poppy BRING the BCCI bank to the US, suddenly switch political alliance in a presidential campaign to the Democrat Clinton?

Fantasy, eh?

You need to revise history to pretend that BCCI was a nonissue in 1992 to both Bushes and Clintons. You would need to revise history to continue the pretense that BCCI matters are not the root of most everything happening today.

Basically, I think you know you aren't that familiar with the facts of BCCI and are relying on soundbite premises you can toss out in order to avoid addressing the details.

You are welcome to point out the DETAILS you claim are revisionist.

[reddread]

114. not at all

wrong poster you are conflating

[blm]

116. Perhaps you should read the entire exchange - I posted in order of replies

to MY posts.

[reddread]

118. yeah, watching Henry Gonzales on C-SPAN all that time

I have no idea what you are talking about.
you really need to come down to earth with us mortals
and divine reality from your opinion.

[blm]

122. Henry Gonzales was on top of Iraqgate and IranContra links to Iraqgate

that used the BCCI bank. Kerry was the senator that investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI and CIA drug running. Iraqgate was peripheral to Kerry's work, but, not as key as it was to Gonzales' efforts.

Still wondering why you are derisive towards me while you claim it wasn't possible that Bush1 would have faced impeachment over BCCI in 1993?

Why do you claim it as just fantasy? What exactly do you want to assert? Please make your assertion in a straightforward manner and in the context of the 1992-93 timeframe, please.

[Ken Burch]

42. So what if we left before "the first Iraqi election"?

Nobody in Iraq thinks any of those elections really mattered, were of any real value. Nothing would be worse if they hadn't happened. Nothing would be different, in all likelihood.

Those "elections" produced nothing but the rise of al-Maliki...what the hell good was THAT?

They were "demonstration elections" in the Chomsky sense, with no real issues other than the question of whether Shia or Sunni ended up running the place being discussed. All of the "parties" agreed with the Bremer-imposed 15% cap on business taxes and Bremer's corporate-submissive laws on corporate tax rates and business regulation.

And Kerry did nothing to indicate that he'd be OK with releasing Iraq from any of the things Bremer imposed.

BTW, the current situation proves that it's not actually possible to "stabilize the region", other than putting the entire Arab/Muslim world under permanent U.S. military occupation...and even that probably wouldn't work. What's happening now proves we were wrong to ever try to do ANYTHING in that part of the world.

And the unquestioning support Kerry gave to the Patriot Act and ALL of the "Homeland Security" policies means that, other than on maybe choice and some environmental issues, we'd have seen no significant breaks from Bush-Cheney policies on foreign OR domestic policies. he wasn't going to end the war against Cuba, he wasn't going to stop us from imposing more "free trade" on the planet, and he wasn't going to push for labor law reform OR the restoration of any of the previous quarter-century's cuts in social services or an end to the same quarter-century's war against the labor movement...and his embrace of the status quo on all of that was never demanded by the voters, but only by the massive corporate donors who've bought our party and gutted it of its core values at the presidential level.

[blm]

55. That's the problem arguing with you - you didn't pay attention then.

You claim unquestioning support of the Patriot Act, completely forgetful (or perhaps you never knew) that Kerry helped draft the SAFE Act in 2003 to curb the most onerous aspects of the Patriot Act?

And NO president would have begun withdrawing troops immediately from Iraq, especially before its first post-Saddam election. Not Dennis Kucinich, not Ron Paul. Reality has to sneak in somewhere, Burch.

[reddread]

57. 90 days per Kucinich

not close enough to "immediately" perhaps, but I think we all know where Kerry would have led us.

[blm]

103. As president Dennis Kucinich could NOT fulfill 90 days promise logistically,

even if he was desperate to do so. And there is no way ANY president would have begun pullout before the Iraqi election.

It is one thing to claim and another to perform. REALITY. Easy to say anything you want when you know with certainty that you will never be in position to fulfill the promises.

And I say that as the DU member with the longest record of support for Dennis Kucinich. He is practical and realistic militarily based on the reality of the time, not what anyone wished it could be as if everything Bush did prior to Jan20,2005 could be erased and fixed in a few months.

[reddread]

107. adamant assertions are still assertions, ANYTHING is possible, except perhaps Kerry saving us

http://www.talkradionews.com/audio/2003/11/25/following-a-democrat-debate-in-iowa-rep-dennis-kucinich-explains-his-90-day-plan-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq.html#.VCwVKGddWSo

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_War_+_Peace.htm

[blm]

109. In Nov 2003 there was no election in Iraq scheduled.

Stick to reality.

I KNOW Dennis Kucinich's heart and drive to do the right thing. There is no way on earth he would have commanded the generals to pull out in 90 days with no thought to logistics or the Iraqi election. He would have commanded them to stabilize Iraq as much as possible so a pullout plan could be formed as soon as possible. 90 day pullout from Jan20,2005 was IMPOSSIBLE. All your earnest wishing could not have made it possible.

[Ken Burch]

126. Again, why are you still so invested in the "Iraqi election"?

You know perfectly well it was nothing but a "demonstration election" in the Chomsky sense, with no real issues at stake and no solutions to any of Iraq's problems on offer.

[blm]

130. And that could have been easily conveyed to the American public

in 2004, eh, Burch?

Wake up to reality, Burch. You think 95% of the media would have happily reported that the first post Saddam Iraqi election scheduled for 2005 should be of no consequence to the American people who, according to you, wanted US troops pulled out of Iraq immediately by the next president taking office in Jan 2005?

[Ken Burch]

132. ON the stump and in the debates, yes.

Support for the war was cratering in the fall of 2004. The country had already seen through the bullshit by then and the strength of the antiwar movement proved that.

There was no grassroots belief in "the mission" among the American people by then(at least, not outside of the reddest of Red states).

We gained nothing by straddling the fence.

[blm]

135. Sorry - but you're still wrong. Corpmedia was still pushing

polls and memes that painted Bush as strong against terrorism and Clinton was using his HIGH PROFILE book tour in summer2004 to VIGOROUSLY DEFEND Bush's military decisions and leadership.

You refuse to deal with the reality that EXISTED - it wasn't what you convinced yourself.

[Ken Burch]

138. Then he should have told Clinton to pound sand.

He owed Clinton nothing, and deferring to him wasn't gaining him votes anywhere(El Perro Grande couldn't even deliver Arkansas, for Gawd's sakes).

And not challenging "Corpmedia" in one campaign doesn't make it easier to fight them later. If we leave the narrative uncontested, we just lose. It's not like "Corpmedia" was saying "play ball with us now, and we'll let you in later". Kerry did everything Corpmedia demanded, and "Corpmedia" STILL shit on him. So what was the point in not standing up to "Corpmedia" at all?

Toeing the line on Iraq and "national security" was never going to give Kerry the chance to take BCCI down. And you know it.

[blm]

148. Sorry, Ken, but your posts are absurd at this point.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Ken Burch]

124. The "Iraqi election" was a meaningless joke.

Nobody thought it was actually going to establish a viable democracy in Iraq. And all it DID achieve was to prevent the Shiite-Sunni feud from ever being resolved.

Elections aren't everything.

[blm]

136. Prove it with the poll numbers of the American people at the time.

You also seem to forget that UN helped set up that vote. You wanted it all to be portrayed as an inconsequential, joke election by the Dem candidate who also just started a Civil War within the Democratic party? Try engaging the part of your brain that can read a calendar and relies on LOGIC, Ken.

<<In June 2004, the United Nations formed an 8-member central Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI), nominated by notables from around Iraq, to run the election process. CPA orders 92, 96, and 97, issued just before the June 28, 2004 handover of sovereignty to an interim government, provided for voting by proportional representation (closed list). Under that system, voters chose among competing “political entities”: a party, a coalition of parties, or an individual running as an independent. Seats in the National Assembly (and the provincial assemblies) were allocated in proportion to a slate’s showing in the voting. Any entity that obtained at least 1/275 of the vote (about 31,000 votes) obtained a seat. Some criticized this system as precluding the possibility ofdelayedelectionsininsecureareasandlikelytofavorwell-establishedparties.2 Others said this system was the easiest to administer in a short time frame. Under IECI rules, a woman candidate occupied every third position on electoral lists in order to meet the TAL’s goal for at least 25% female membership in the new Assembly.>>

[Ken Burch]

120. Why do you still pretend that the Iraqi "election" meant anything?

All that "election" was about was whether the Iraqi government would be led by Shia or Sunni...a question that never really mattered.

Saying that we shouldn't have left before the Iraqi "election" is like arguing that we couldn't stop bombing Vietnam before the "South Vietnamese" "election".

[blm]

146. Keep telling yourself that. UN was involved at that point.

Now you want to claim that Kerry should have started Civil War in the Dem party less than 4 months before election day, rebuilt entire national Dem party infrastructure in that 4 months, labeled Iraq's first election as inconsequential and sold that to American people, and all as part of his general election campaign for president....by November.

Yeah - I could see that someone like you could have done that.....easily. You would have had the press corps eating out of your hands and the Dem party elite would NOT have been preparing a straitjacket and a legal case for lining up a replacement for the nominee.

[blm]

108. Moore's film relied on Kerry's investigation of IranContra and BCCI - you think

Moore spent years uncovering and exposing IranContra, BCCI, and CIA drug running, risking HIS life and career? That information didn't just land on Moore's desk - someone had to launch the investigations, compile sworn testimony and documents, sue Bush1 WH for access to classified documents.....and that someone was Kerry.

Why do you think so many establishment DC figures, especially the Bushies and Clintonites, were so dug in and working against Kerry to keep him out of the WH?

[sabrina 1]

16. Is that all that matters to you, politics? What all this information has done and continues to do

is to inform the people, who have a RIGHT to know fyi, what their 'leaders' are up to. They have made a concerted effort to prevent this information from getting out, but they just can't stop it. MM was one of the first to start spreading the truth with that film.

And you're wrong about who went to see that film. When I went with a friend, we met a soldier home on leave from Bush's illegal war. We wondered what he had thought of the documentary so my friend asked him. His response was 'If all this is true, we have been LIED TO'. He stated that he intended to go do some research to fact check what he had learned in the movie. We asked him what was his gut feeling about it. He said he believed it. But he wanted to be sure. He had tears in his eyes.

Several people I know who are Republicans, also saw the movie, intending to go just to be able to criticize it. But they too found it extremely disturbing.

The people, when they have access to knowledge are way smarter than the so-called leaders. It will take time before there is enough knowledge out there to begin the necessary changes, but MM deserves much credit for starting that ball rolling and it continues to roll because people want to know who is representing them and HOW.

Polls are showing that both parties are losing members as the people become more informed.

Do you have a problem with that? I think it's long overdue and am encouraged at how the acquisition of all that knowledge is doing something that totally scares those with nefarious intentions for this country, it is UNITING the people. Their tactics were to 'divide and conquer' and it worked, for a while.

But as you should have noticed here that what used to totally distract from the real issues, such as: 'guess what Sarah Palin said today' stuff just isn't getting the same reaction it once did. People are now way more focused on the real issues. THAT is what KNOWLEDGE such as MM has provided, does. THAT is why they spent millions trying to shut him up.

[G_j]

22. & we now have a record for future generations,

a signifigant history lesson, this being one of them:

[brooklynite]

36. The silence included Congressman Bernie Sanders, right?

[dflprincess]

38. Bernie was in the House at the time what was needed was 1 Senator to go along with the challenge

I know Gore had asked that none of them step up but I will never understand why Wellstone, Feingold and or Kennedy (to name a few) went along with his request.

[Ken Burch]

131. I've read somewhere that not-challenging was negotiated with the GOP, and Dems got more seats

on Senate committees in exchange for agreeing not to challenge. There's no real evidence that Dems actually used the extra committee strength for anything that mattered(since the Dem leadership pretty much refused to fight Bush on any major issues between 2001 and 2006, IIRC).

[dflprincess]

152. That's interesting

I've never heard that - but it wouldn't surprise me and makes me even more disgusted.

[RandiFan1290]

52. Still getting it wrong, eh?

[brooklynite]

53. Please explain...

...I'm sure I can take the chastisement.

[merrily]

90. Moore set an example for all kinds of things.

Who knows how many more exposes, stories, etc. he inspired?

No one, including those pretending to know his film had no impact.

[brooklynite]

35. Um, the OP is about whether Michael Moore was hated by the Bush Administration...

That's politics. And my argument that the Bush Administration DIDN'T hate Moore because Moore had no influence on his political prospects stands.

[reddread]

45. on no legs.

[Ken Burch]

141. In other words, he's "stumped".

(sorry, it was there).

[LanternWaste]

99. After this, therefore because of this...

After this, therefore because of this... known also as 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc.'

[MannyGoldstein]

30. It did help to rally dispirited Liberals

Which, in turn, begat a Liberal-talkin' candidate getting elected in 2008, and begat a few actual Liberals in Congress, which have slowed the bipartisan war against the 99% (e.g., fending off Larry Summers, Social Security "strengthening", and the TPP), and will soon beget a Democratic Takeover of our Democratic Party (or the formation of a Liberal third party), which will beget a return of government of, by, and for The People.

It's a process. It takes time. But every bit helps, and Farenheit 9/11 counted a lot.

[merrily]

89. As if you know what the impact of that film was or wasn't.

[Enthusiast]

48. Boosh should be on our enemies list.

[brooklynite]

8. And Phil Donohue would know this, because...

Michael Moore was certainly annoying, but I don't think the Bush Administration gave him a moment's. thought.

[hatrack]

13. Oh? Watch the Colbert stand-up at the WH Correspondents Dinner.

The longer his routine went on, and the more scathing it got, the redder the face of the Littlest President.

And if Colbert can produce that effect in a 20-minute routine, imagine the effect of a two-hour movie calling out Chimpy and his Pirate Clubhouse by name, repeatedly, with footage to match. I find the premise here quite believable.

[rustbeltvoice]

24. Yes.

[Ken Burch]

19. How can anybody on the liberal side be anti-Michael Moore?

The alternative to his approach was to defer to the Right on everything other than minor boutique side issues. 2004 proved that deferring to the Right is a failed strategy for Democratic victory.

[brooklynite]

37. I'm not "anti", I just don't seem him as politically effective or a danger to the Bush Administratio

[sabrina 1]

46. Really? Well, you are not Bush/Cheney. And you must not have been around

when he had the guts to do what our own party and the media refused to do, EXPOSE the lies.

The Bush gang and their followers cared so little about the effect of MM's work that they ignored it?

No, they did not ignore it. They tried to stop the airing of the movie, theaters who planned to show it were threatened with violence, people who intended to go were also threatened with violence.

The effort to stop that documentary from being aired was intense. They tried every way they could think of including having their followers threaten theaters and movie goers if it was released.

When we went we were not sure if the theater might be bombed, as was threatened.

MM himself had to hire body guards for himself and his family due to all the death threats against him.

I can't imagine why you think it did not affect Bush. If you recall, Bush's ratings were really high, sadly, after 9/11. They might have stayed way had people like MM not begun the process of exposing the deception. Little by little his popularity began to fade as others followed MM's example and began to speak out.

If you don't think knowledge is important, then I could see why you are denying the historical impact of that documentary. I told everyone I knew, including Republicans, to watch it. Most did, their certainty that what they had been told was true, was shattered.

How do you feel about a free press rather than the propaganda machine we have right now? Do you think a free press would have an impact this country?

MM was trying to replace the bought and paid for 'news media'. IT was a daunting task, but with the time he had to try to fit in all the lies and deceptions ignored by the media he did a fantastic job. There are a whole lot more people here in this country since that doc. who know a whole lot more than they did about the way this government lies to its people. And that is a good thing for any democracy.

[brooklynite]

54. Funny..I just went down to my local theater to watch it...

...no problem getting it booked. No abrupt power failures, no threats in my email for going to see it.

[reddread]

59. hope you enjoyed my eyeroll

and God Bless America!

[sabrina 1]

106. Lucky you. We were told there were threats against the local theater so it might be wise

not to go. We went anyhow. It's a big country, with more than one movie theater. So you lucked out I guess.

[Ken Burch]

142. The Bushies have been out of office since 2008.

Y'know, it's not like there were other people on our side of these things who were being MORE effective than MM was.

I seriously doubt you've got some exemplar of an inherently superior approach to offer.

[brooklynite]

143. I don't care...

...the point of the OP wasn't to assert that Michael Moore was an effective messager; it was to assert that the Bush Administration cared enough to retaliate in some way. My claim that the Bush Administration cared not a white stands.

[JustAnotherGen]

50. I have to agree

If he was so effective - then why did we have 8 years of the Appointed One instead of four?

[reddread]

60. because you failed to stop it.

[JustAnotherGen]

66. Are you serious?

Get the fuck off my back.

Yeah - I wrote that. I'll gladly take the alert and hide.

[reddread]

67. you can blame Moore, I can blame you

just as valid
and stupid.

[JustAnotherGen]

71. When did I blame Moore?

I know - just as snotty - just as vindictive.

[reddread]

72. "If he was so effective - then why did we have 8 years of the Appointed One instead of four?"

[JustAnotherGen]

76. Again you are being a silly sophomore

If Moore was this big huge political force -

Then he could have stopped it. But he wasn't. He's a documentary film maker. That's it.

He was not a threat to Bush Co.

He simply was not.

[reddread]

81. and they didnt hate him. noooo

is that what you mean?
boy, those murderers were pretty decent after all I guess,
Great Americans.
lets name an airport after them.

[Jackpine Radical]

102. If Audie Murphy was such a big war hero,

why didn't he end WWII at east a year earlier?

[Ken Burch]

134. Because our party ran an incompetent, deferential, defeatist campaign in 2004

Because our ticket obsessed on not appeasing a "center" that didn't actually exist(there wasn't this huge group of people who were neither prowar NOR antiwar on Iraq) and on running away from the term "liberal&quot when running away from the word and acting like the idea of liberalism was inherently shameful and indefensible doesn't work for a party that has to mobilize liberal and, if possible radical voters to have any chance of getting elected).

John Kerry could have been a great president, but he refused to do the one thing that could have got him elected solidly...run as the hero of 1971. Instead, he ran as a comfortable part of the establishment, as an opponent of the liberal/progressive wing of the party(he'd made a disgusting speech at Harvard calling for the party to ditch affirmative action, which would be the same thing as giving up on fighting racism at all), barred antiwar signs from the 2004 convention, barred explicit opposition to the Iraq War and Patriot Act repeal(he introduced a meaningless bill to slightly water down the Patriot Act instead), treated the activist community like lepers and reduced the fall campaign to flag fetishism and bland, empty calls to "duty".

We should have been able to COUNT on winning in 2004, and our party choose to put inoffensiveness ahead of an actual fight to win.

[reddread]

137. resistance is futile. accountability is "off the table"

the New World Order.

[Ken Burch]

140. The poster I'm arguing with in this exchange

Is essentially making the case(whether he realizes it or not)that the Kerry campaign in 2004 was the political equivalent of both the Army unit that burned down the Vietnamese village, and the village itself. His position boils down to "we found that in order to save ourselves, we had to destroy ourselves".

[merrily]

95. That is not close to a fair standard for a film, JG, esp. when we let Kerry off the hook.

[merrily]

94. Apparently, you should have assured the Bush White House about that.

[reddread]

58. theres the rub

nothing liberal about DLC'ers

[grasswire]

10. Dan Rather was the most hated by Bush the elder.

Rather was fearless then.

[merrily]

91. They sure showed him he had something to fear.

[grasswire]

117. yes, much later

that was payback for his aggressive pursuit of truth earlier

[merrily]

123. Payback for his story on Dubya's desertion from the Texas Air whatever.

[grasswire]

127. much, much earlier, Rather went after Bush senior.

1988 when Bush 41 was running for vice president.

Rather and CBS planned to question Bush closely on Iran Contra. Bush was tipped off about the line of questioning, and his advisor Lee Atwater crafted a tough response, to hit bac at Rathger.

[merrily]

129. Lee Atwater was one POS. Everyone who thinks Poppy is so

much better than his spawn should read Lee Atwater's wiki, if they can't see the PBS program that featured him heavily. What a low life!

[QC]

12. Michael Moore is very fat and he lives in a big house!!11!!

OK, that should save the usual suspects from posting the usual right wing attacks on Moore.

[n2doc]

21. Get with the program- He's a known Racist

He dared to criticize the Icon's legacy a few weeks ago. Many outraged Icon Supporters wrote in to call Moore every name in the book.

[QC]

63. Oh yeah! I guess Moore's evil was so devastating

that I blocked it out of my memory from the sheer horror of it all.

[Puglover]

75. Not only a known racist

but a known Racist with a capitol "R". The horror indeed!

[QC]

78. He's fat, too. That makes him even worse! n/t

[merrily]

96. That's so last week. Today, it's that Bush got re-elected, so Moore is

ineffective as well as sucking generally.

I wonder how many logical fallacies someone willing to wade through the bs could find on this thread. Maybe we could make a game out of it.

[Ken Burch]

14. Makes sense.

That's why they had "Guy" of "The Artists formerly known as Guy and Ralna" sing "Let the Eagle Soar" at Dubya's second inaugural(Moore had shown footage of Ashcroft "singing" his song in FAHRENHEIT 9/11). That was clearly done as payback.

[Octafish]

25. Yes, only after Paul Wellstone died.

Until that awful day, he was in the Bush-Cheney-Rove cross-hairs for opposing Iraq war:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0510-04.htm

[reddread]

32. they put Jesse Jackson away on Day One

along with OSHA.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. Eh I think that was actually

Saddam Hussein.

[reddread]

44. why, do you think they felt threatened by Hussein?

[JustAnotherGen]

49. They didn't

They just hated him. And all of those people in Iraq he was the leader of. Far as I can tell - they never ginned up the public murder (hanging) of Moore.

[reddread]

56. why would they hate him?

if it were simply about Saddam, dont you think they would have done the sort of things they have done over the decades to foreign leaders they truly didnt like (do you need a list, we can work backwards from Noriega and his videotape of GHWB), rather than invasions under false pretenses? It looked like strictly petroleum business to me.
And it was no clumsy accident when we BEHEADED the leader of a country that did not threaten us, did not fly planes into the WTC and did not try to purchase Yellow Cake.
There are so many juvenile explanations bandied when the truth seems pretty obvious.
PNAC didnt spring out of thin air, it is American Foreign Policy that represented no shift whatsoever from previous intentions.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. Listen

The OP stated 'most hated'.

I just simply do not believe that Michael Moore was the most hated.

Moore was sooooooooo hated and powerful and a force to be reckoned with . . . that they still did whatever the hell they wanted to!


So compared to Michael Moore - someone the Far Right considers part of "Hollyweird" <---(For the right wing wingnuts trolling the place - that's their language) - yeah - they kind of hated Hussein a LOT more.

Answer the OP with your list - Not me .

OP is the one that needs an education. Seriously - type out your list to them. They need to see it.

[reddread]

68. You best take issue with Phil Donahue, not the OP

anyone in need of recent history lessons is on their own.
obviously, all the OTHER documents indicting the real events surrounding 2000/2001
carry as much weight.
oh, wait, you mean there is nothing that comes close to that movie in our culture
that educates the viewers to essential facts?
let the media do its thing
and lets talk about Moore's wealth and waistband.

[JustAnotherGen]

74. Nope I take issue with the OP for posting it.

He posted it.

You defend it.

You both have to own it.

Own your words.

[reddread]

77. thats not logical

but then theres no law saying you have to be.
I just hope Phil is comfy under the bus, and his wife doesnt join him there.
what would he know about it, anyway, right?

WAIT.
your problem is someone posted a bit of gossipy info about Moore?
an anecdotal comment?
thats the issue?
wow.
I bet you love this tune too

[JustAnotherGen]

84. Ahh - there it is . . .

And nope - I'm not a big fan of those two. It's kind of boring and blah.

Now this is a great song -

[reddread]

88. one for Phil and Mike, tied to the tracks when a bus couldnt be found

[G_j]

79. I'm confused

why would I need an education for quoting Phil Donahue? So you think Phil needs educating? Yea, he's so uneducated when it comes to these things! He needs you to set him straight.

[JustAnotherGen]

82. Your buddy is the one

That seems to be defending Michael Moore as the most hated person by the Bush Administration.

He's coming after me- so I'm just giving it back. It's not about you.

[G_j]

85. you keep mentioning the OP

which I posted. And what's with the 'buddy' stuff?

[reddread]

93. hey now

dont make me go after you next.
wtf was that about?
i have no targets in this forum.
not that i couldnt be one.
pm worthy?
wow.
im so mean and scary.
mean, anyway.

[G_j]

97. lol

just call me confused..

Aside from whatever just happened, I don't see the issue of who they hated the most to be neccessarily based in rational thinking anyway. Just look how paranoid Nixon was with his "enemies list".

[reddread]

98. historical basis?

thats so 20th century.
this is the era of kneejerk media induced mindlessness

[Le Taz Hot]

28. As well as DU's Party Faithful. n/t

[malaise]

31. Some folks here hate him as well

I love him - have all of his documentaries

[reddread]

62. a long list of hated staunch Bush opponents in these parts

Cindy Sheehan, anyone?
talk about spitting on vets gets around here, we know its a canard.
in her case though...

[malaise]

65. Partisans are partisans every where on the planet

It has been hilarious watching folks morph into those they attacked when the other party is in power - and not just in the US. It's the same everywhere.

[reddread]

69. hilarious from another planet maybe

when the biggest assholes in the world steal office and destroy the credibility of our system of justice so they can eliminate the inalienable,
I cant get giggly.

[malaise]

70. In a cynical way it is funny watching them

because only then we know they never had any convictions.

[libodem]

47. My Hero

[RandiFan1290]

51. The trolls swarmed DU when F911 came out.

They were in a frenzy and trashing Mike all over DU. They are the same ones attacking Greenwald today and they are using the same methods.

It is amusing to see how fast they popped into this thread to start their FUD and disinfo.

Go fuck yourselves trolls!

[reddread]

73. yeah, bring up JFK and you get the same routines

[JustAnotherGen]

80. I remember that

I was just a reader at that time.

A lot of people also poo pooed Sicko. But to me - that was the trigger/the wake up call for people who thought they were safe and snug as a bug with their Insurance - not realizing that the business model was designed to NEVER deliver the product the consumer paid for.

[QC]

61. He is much hated by the local Loyalty Brigade, too.

They even use all the traditional right wing attacks on Moore.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[grahamhgreen]

100. AND WE WELCOME THEIR HATRED:

"For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight."

Our Documents: Franklin Roosevelt's Address Announcing the Second New Deal
October 31, 1936

Senator Wagner, Governor Lehman, ladies and gentlemen:

On the eve of a national election, it is well for us to stop for a moment and analyze calmly and without prejudice the effect on our Nation of a victory by either of the major political parties.

The problem of the electorate is far deeper, far more vital than the continuance in the Presidency of any individual. For the greater issue goes beyond units of humanity--it goes to humanity itself.

In 1932 the issue was the restoration of American democracy; and the American people were in a mood to win. They did win. In 1936 the issue is the preservation of their victory. Again they are in a mood to win. Again they will win.

More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: "Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people."

The banners of that crusade still fly in the van of a Nation that is on the march.

It is needless to repeat the details of the program which this Administration has been hammering out on the anvils of experience. No amount of misrepresentation or statistical contortion can conceal or blur or smear that record. Neither the attacks of unscrupulous enemies nor the exaggerations of over-zealous friends will serve to mislead the American people.

What was our hope in 1932? Above all other things the American people wanted peace. They wanted peace of mind instead of gnawing fear.

First, they sought escape from the personal terror which had stalked them for three years. They wanted the peace that comes from security in their homes: safety for their savings, permanence in their jobs, a fair profit from their enterprise.

Next, they wanted peace in the community, the peace that springs from the ability to meet the needs of community life: schools, playgrounds, parks, sanitation, highways--those things which are expected of solvent local government. They sought escape from disintegration and bankruptcy in local and state affairs.

They also sought peace within the Nation: protection of their currency, fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of wild-cat speculation, the safety of their children from kidnappers.

And, finally, they sought peace with other Nations--peace in a world of unrest. The Nation knows that I hate war, and I know that the Nation hates war.

I submit to you a record of peace; and on that record a well-founded expectation for future peace--peace for the individual, peace for the community, peace for the Nation, and peace with the world.

Tonight I call the roll--the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today.

Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance --men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms.

Written on it are the names of those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o'-the-wisp.

Written on it are the names of farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.

Written there in large letters are the names of countless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, "This can be changed. We will change it."

We still lead that army in 1936. They stood with us then because in 1932 they believed. They stand with us today because in 1936 they know. And with them stand millions of new recruits who have come to know.

Their hopes have become our record.

We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House--by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse- it is deceit.

They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit.

They carefully conceal from him the fact that under the federal law, he receives another insurance policy to help him if he loses his job, and that the premium of that policy is paid 100 percent by the employer and not one cent by the worker. They do not tell him that the insurance policy that is bought for him is far more favorable to him than any policy that any private insurance company could afford to issue. That omission is deceit.

They imply to him that he pays all the cost of both forms of insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar put up by him his employer puts up three dollars three for one. And that omission is deceit.

But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen by some future Congress, diverted to some wholly foreign purpose, they attack the integrity and honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that, are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.

The fraudulent nature of this attempt is well shown by the record of votes on the passage of the Social Security Act. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Houses, seventy-seven Republican Representatives voted for it and only eighteen against it and fifteen Republican Senators voted for it and only five against it. Where does this last-minute drive of the Republican leadership leave these Republican Representatives and Senators who helped enact this law?

I am sure the vast majority of law-abiding businessmen who are not parties to this propaganda fully appreciate the extent of the threat to honest business contained in this coercion.

I have expressed indignation at this form of campaigning and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of employers, workers and the general public share that indignation and will show it at the polls on Tuesday next.

Aside from this phase of it, I prefer to remember this campaign not as bitter but only as hard-fought. There should be no bitterness or hate where the sole thought is the welfare of the United States of America. No man can occupy the office of President without realizing that he is President of all the people.

It is because I have sought to think in terms of the whole Nation that I am confident that today, just as four years ago, the people want more than promises.

Our vision for the future contains more than promises.

This is our answer to those who, silent about their own plans, ask us to state our objectives.

Of course we will continue to seek to improve working conditions for the workers of America--to reduce hours over-long, to increase wages that spell starvation, to end the labor of children, to wipe out sweatshops. Of course we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, to abolish dishonorable trade practices. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will continue to work for cheaper electricity in the homes and on the farms of America, for better and cheaper transportation, for low interest rates, for sounder home financing, for better banking, for the regulation of security issues, for reciprocal trade among nations, for the wiping out of slums. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will continue our efforts in behalf of the farmers of America. With their continued cooperation we will do all in our power to end the piling up of huge surpluses which spelled ruinous prices for their crops. We will persist in successful action for better land use, for reforestation, for the conservation of water all the way from its source to the sea, for drought and flood control, for better marketing facilities for farm commodities, for a definite reduction of farm tenancy, for encouragement of farmer cooperatives, for crop insurance and a stable food supply. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed; we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole.

Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless--that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief--to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene.

You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side.

Again -- what of our objectives?

Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. Of course we will continue to protect the consumer against unnecessary price spreads, against the costs that are added by monopoly and speculation. We will continue our successful efforts to increase his purchasing power and to keep it constant.

For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight.

All this--all these objectives--spell peace at home. All our actions, all our ideals, spell also peace with other nations.

Today there is war and rumor of war. We want none of it. But while we guard our shores against threats of war, we will continue to remove the causes of unrest and antagonism at home which might make our people easier victims to those for whom foreign war is profitable. You know well that those who stand to profit by war are not on our side in this campaign.

"Peace on earth, good will toward men"--democracy must cling to that message. For it is my deep conviction that democracy cannot live without that true religion which gives a nation a sense of justice and of moral purpose. Above our political forums, above our market places stand the altars of our faith-altars on which burn the fires of devotion that maintain all that is best in us and all that is best in our Nation.

We have need of that devotion today. It is that which makes it possible for government to persuade those who are mentally prepared to fight each other to go on instead, to work for and to sacrifice for each other. That is why we need to say with the Prophet: "What doth the Lord require of thee -- but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God." That is why the recovery we seek, the recovery we are winning, is more than economic. In it are included justice and love and humility, not for ourselves as individuals alone, but for our Nation.

[Orsino]

101. I guess that Secretary Donohue would know better than anyone. n/t

[samsingh]

149. Michael Moore was the first one to courageously take on the

bush bully regime.

he's a courageous man.