A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 28, 2004Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Death of Civic DialogueI had a very interesting weekend; that is if you are a policy dork like me. My wife and I celebrated our anniversary late by having dinner and staying Friday night at the Watergate Hotel, then on Saturday we got up and walked through Georgetown and caught a mid-day showing of Fahrenheit 9/11. I think we were the only two people in the theatre that had voted for Bush in 2000. I find this set of events sort of ironic. We stayed in the hotel that was the scene of an event that created a culture where politicians no longer talked about their ideas, but rather engage in "the politics of personal destruction," and then saw a film that is playing a major roll in furthering that culture. That is what this is about, right? Moore isn't attempting to present a policy argument. He is making a movie that furthers his point of view by playing on the emotions and fears of the American people. He has said so himself that Fahrenheit 9/11 was released at the present time to have an effect on the election, and what better way to do that than call people names, scare the hell out of the electorate with rhetorical statements, and frame the issue by presenting your political opponents as evil men... This is a common occurrence in the halls of Congress, on television, and in the newspapers. Fahrenheit 9/11 is what anybody with a third grade reading level can guess; a collection of edited interviews, media clips, and documents pieced together in order to present the case that George W. Bush is an evil doer, if you will, who doesn't know what to do unless his aides, Dick Cheney, or his father, tell him. Moore makes the case, without providing hardly any evidence at all, that Bush and his family stole the Florida election and ignored warnings of 9/11 so the son of their close family friends, the Bin Ladens, could kill 3,000 people. And why would the Bush's be behind such an elaborate plot? Moore argues it is so they can justify an all out war on Iraq, a country that poses no threat to the United States, and is full of happy, peace loving, free citizens. THE GOOD: Although I hated most of this film, I would be lying if I said to you there is no value in Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore actually does a pretty good job of bringing light to military recruitment in poor communities, the war itself, prison abuse, and the effect the death of a soldier in Iraq had on his family, and more specifically his patriotic, pro-military mother. If there has been a mistake from day one in Iraq it is the illusion that has been presented that it was going to be easy. I blame this on the administration, and if Moore wins voters over by showing them the realities of war, than George W. Bush has nobody to blame but himself. Like Senator McCain has said several times, this administration should have done a better job of preparing the American people for the consequences that we faced by invading Iraq, and after hearing the testimony of Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, it is also clear that the administration could have done a better job preparing themselves for the reality of the situation. War is ugly and violent, and I think too often we have this picture of the patriotic soldier, without really considering that these are kids whose lives are deeply affected by the decisions our political leaders make. Moore rightly points out that the case to go to war was flawed, and in some cases completely false, and I agree with him that men and women in uniform, and the American public deserve better than that. The President of the United States owes this country a candid discussion on what went wrong with the case to go to war, why we were not better prepared for the consequences, and why the prisoner abuse occurred and what really is being done to make sure it never happens again. Moore also brings light to the fact that several parts of our effort in Iraq are under funded, such as health services and troop levels. I have always believed that this was the case and along with the prison abuse scandal I think this is a strong argument for new leadership within the Defense Department. When it comes right down to it there are consequences in Iraq that Donald Rumsfeld simply was not prepared for, and when we are talking about the lives of troops I think that this is unforgivable. It is for this very reason that to this day I believe the President ought to ask for the Secretary’s resignation. THE BAD: There are some claims in this movie that are just plain ridiculous: (1) The reason Fox News was the first to report that Bush won Florida is because John Ellis (Cousin of Bush) new about the plot instigated by Governor Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Bush himself, and his father, to rig the state. Moore goes on to imply that it was planned before election night. (2) The coalition of countries supporting the war were countries that did not even have weapons or armies. Moore does not mention the British, the Spanish, the Australians, the Japanese, or the South Koreans. (3) All of the time Bush spent in Crawford, Texas was vacation, implying he did no work at all. (4) The reason that Bush sat in a classroom full of kids for minutes on end after hearing of the first plane crashing into the Twin Towers was because he simply did not know what to do... because nobody told him. (5) Bush deleted a name from his military records because it belonged to a friend of his who financed the Bin Laden family in Texas. Could the real reason have been that he was trying to protect the privacy of an individual who is not a public official and would not have his records investigated if they didn't include the President of the United States? (6) The Bin Laden's were flown out of the United States on September 13th to protect the Bush family's business interests. Moore does not mention that it was Richard Clarke, who appears several times in the film, who in fact asked for the order, admitted to it in public testimony, and said he would do it again. (7) No Members of Congress read the Patriot Act, which Moore justifies by preventing the testimony of members who are now critical of the act, but actually voted for it. As someone who has worked on Capitol Hill I think it is possible that there were people who never read the bill, I also am pretty certain that many did or paid high level staff to read it. I have actual evidence of this, but I could not present it to you without talking about people I know on Capitol Hill, which I am not willing to do. (8) Moore, like the ACLU and most liberals, opposes the Patriot Act and says that it was passed by Congress under an umbrella of fear, but also like the ACLU and most liberals he has no evidence of abuses that have occurred since the Act has past or no direct reasoning why any specific section of the Act violates the civil rights of others. In his defense Moore does bring light to the fact that local law enforcement is very under funded, and it is not realistic for local officials to be expected to implement the Act unless this changes. It goes on and on and on... but Moore makes many outlandish claims without providing any hard evidence and only relying on his own assumptions to convince the audience, which is a major weakness of the film. Michael Moore simply is not that knowledgeable about public policy, clearly he has little to no understanding of the process, and he simply is not that credible of a source. The fact that Moore himself is the center focus point of the film, diminishes the validity of his argument. Another major weakness of this film is that it just isn't that shocking. Moore does nothing more than a half-assed job of presenting the same case on the Bush's that whacko leftists have been trying to present since the first Gulf War, but here is my question: If what Moore is saying is reality and the Bush's planned invading Iraq all along, why didn't they go after Saddam Hussein when they had the opportunity in the first Bush presidency? Why wait for over ten years to pull off this elaborate plot? With H.W. Bush's popularity and the success of Desert Storm, they surely could have gotten the political support after freeing Kuwait in the 90's without having to make the case about WMD's and immediate threat. THE UGLY: Moore takes many personality traits of the President and uses them against him to paint the picture that the man is simply a moron and well... evil. I think this is disgusting and says a whole lot about the character of Michael Moore and the movement he represents. This goes beyond policy... These people have a personal disdain for a man that they have never met... It is unexplainable and a little weird. George W. Bush has said some things in humor... He did in fact tell a group of very wealthy people that they were his base, he did make light of the fact that he was doing more vacationing than work in Crawford, and he did discuss terrorism while on a golf course. Most of these instances were in humor from a man that admittedly is at times very awkward and quirky. I am sure if we took clips of the lives of any politician we could use them to portray an evil sinister individual that cares nothing for the average American, but if we listened to their entire statements as reasonable people we would see the true intent behind their words and actions. George W. Bush among other things is a son, a husband, and a father and Moore seems to have no problem with attacking his character based on little evidence to support his outlandish claims. I don't like this type of politicking. I didn't like it when Bush did it to McCain. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it to Clinton. And I didn't like it when the Democrats did it to Newt Gingrich. If anything, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a commentary about the dire state of our political system. It appears we are in a time when people will resort to anything in order to further their cause or win an election. The direct result of this is the widespread apathy that voters have toward politics in general. We are simply killing each other and taking the political system down with us. THE IMPLICATIONS: I hate Michael Moore. Let's just get that out of the way. I put him right up there with Rush Limbaugh. I think it is saddening to see such intelligent and talented individuals resort to the politics of character assassination. They are each an embarrassment to their movement, and the American public would be better off if they simply would just go away. I expected to be offended by Fahrenheit 9/11 and was shocked when I wasn't. The truth is, that although I find Moore repugnant, I know that for every time he represents half truths as fact in regards to President Bush, Rush Limbaugh will be there to challenge John Kerry's patriotism, the RNC will be calling him a rich elitist, and Michelle Malkin will refer to his independent and very intelligent wife as a bitch. Michael Moore is a representation of a political culture that knows no partisan lines, human decency, or the difference between right and wrong. He is simply another pawn in the game, no more and no less. Imagine this: Imagine you are a teenager whose father is President of the United States. Imagine that your family loses a close personal friend who commits suicide. Then imagine that you read in the paper that a radio talk-show host is accusing your mother of being involved in a plot to kill this individual and cover it up by making it look like he killed himself. This is the equivalent to what Rush Limbaugh and people like him did to the Clinton's after the death of Vince Foster. This series of events is no better or worse than what Michael Moore is doing by implying that the Bush family was behind a plot that leads to the deaths of 3,000 Americans. It is sick and disgusting and way past time for someone to stand up against this type of character assassination that is corrupting our political system. In part I blame Bill Clinton and George W. Bush who have subscribed to the theory that the American people should only know what politically benefits the President’s political career. Both these individuals would have been better off as President if they would have simply stated the cold, hard, truth at times instead of resorting to a PR team that employs a smoke and mirror strategy on the American people. In my opinion it is best to admit you are wrong when you are wrong, and you screwed up when you screw up. There is a strong case that if Richard Nixon from day one would have apologized for Watergate, instead of covering it up, and promised it would have never happened again, the American people would have forgave him and moved on. Our political leaders are not, and should not be above the rules we teach our children on how to treat others. WHAT CAN BE DONE? It is not too late. The world is not coming to an end. We can still have our country back. I have no faith George W. Bush will denounce Rush Limbaugh or others who employ the same character assassination tactics. If I vote for Bush it will be because I simply disagree with him less than I do his opponent. I was heartened when then Governor Bush threw right wing whacko Gary Bauer out of the Republican National Convention, but it became clear to me a long time ago that this administration believes too much that it has to keep it's base happy, and rebuking Rush Limbaugh the way that say John McCain went after Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the 2000 primary is more than likely not in the cards. However, there is hope for John Kerry, who is still relatively new to the national scene. Yesterday, the Senator gave a speech at Southern University on the importance of public service. It was a good speech, but like most issues Kerry seemed to get close to greatness, but then when it was staring him in the face he backed down. Kerry could have pointed out that one of the major problems we face in society is that our public servants are often targets of negative attacks that have little to nothing to do with their job or public policy as a whole, and he can lead by denouncing Michael Moore and his movie and be an example by not resorting to the same divisive character assassination tactics that many in both parties have resorted to for years. John Kerry can be the man he was in Iowa when everybody thought he was done. The kind of candidate that runs on his own merit and ideas and tells us why he should be President, not why his opponent shouldn't. He has it in him, I have seen it. In one election the Senator cannot only be voted into the highest office in the land, but if he is willing to risk that very accomplishment he can truly start a discussion on how we treat one another and change the tone of a civic dialogue that is leaving the American people out of their own political process; a civic dialogue that men like Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore obviously care nothing about. Comments
These comments have been coming thick and fast and i am so happy. I cannot watch one of Moore's films and i know this risks devaluating my opinion in the eyes of some - but I cannot respect a man who so obviously profits off tragedy with smirk, not a smile, on his face. Excellent post, Mathew, you pretty much captured the way I think about Moore. It's discouraging that Democrats are embracing him, especially since he will attack them if they get in office. The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend is dangerous. Having said this, I do think people tend to pine for a mythic day of yore when political dialogue was civil and people tried to be fair, etc. I'm not sure there was ever such an era and i doubt you will ever find such an era in a democracy. If you look back to the beginning of the republic, the nastiness that was printed and spread about public officials is just amazing--much worse than today. The difference, of course, is that mass media allows much broader dissemination of this. Moore's movie is probably no more scurrilous than lots of things the people wrote or said about Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc, but a lot more people will be aware of it. As for John Kerry and George Bush, politicians will do what they have to do to get elected. I've often had a fantasy of a Democrat standing up and telling the Hollywood crowd to go to hell, but it's not going to happen because politicians don't alienate their major base of supporters. I suspect politicians tend to think that all is fair in love and war and, well, they did it to me, so I'll do it to you. What bothers me more is the seeming indifference on the part of educated people who seem to think that, well we hate Bush, so more power to Moore, even though they realize it's not fair and more than a bid misleading. I'm not going to see the movie; I already know what I think about the war and I don't need Michael Moore to tell me what to think. I guess a polemic has its place and, if it stirs up debate, it might be useful. But this movie seems to fall in the category of "JFK" where Oliver Stone presented a fantasy as reality. Many people who knew nothing about the JFK controversy probably left the movie with this as their only source of knowledge. That disturbs me and I'm afraid that Moore's movie will have the same effect. (And I was against the war and still think it was a bad idea.) Posted by: MWS at June 28, 2004 05:09 PMMy stepson went to see it over the weekend, and we talked about it for a while the morning after. I half-way expected him, and the other members of my immediate family, to really like the film, as they are fairly staunch Democrats, and fairly anti-Bush. He had a much more nuanced, and I think mature, take on it all. He thought a lot of it was overblown and kind of unrealistic. We talked about the fact that activists tend to take issues where they may have a good point, and push it so many steps farther that it loses all sense of reality, and they end up failing to connect with those of us who were undecided or open-minded about it. The really passionate activists have a strong capacity to do more harm than good to their cause. I haven't seen the movie obviously, but the things I've heard suggest it gets into that conspiratorial or paranoid mode where everything Bush does is based on some unscrupulous ulterior motive. I should also mention, though, that I just saw Michael Moore on The Daily Show, and he was much more open to debate than most of these far-left or far-right types. He said he can never be sure he's right about stuff -- that it's just his opinion -- and he seemed genuinel pleased at the prospect of people debating the stuff they see in his films. I don't think you'll hear that from Ann Coulter, for example, who has a roughly equivalent role on the right. Posted by: William Swann at June 28, 2004 08:22 PMFirst, I admit that I look at polemics with a jaundiced eye, whether I agree with them or not. ButI think it's a little disingenuous for Moore to just say it's his opinion. The question is what responsibility does Moore have to not be irresponsible. It's not a simple point but he is not some guy standing on the corner or even a blogger. He is a filmaker reaching large numbers of people and using modern methods of cinematography. This carries enormous power, whether he wants it or not. There's a long history of this issue about whether the artist has a responsibility not to be irresponsible, but in this case, Moore is not just making a work of art, but a blatantly political work. Movies have a kind of power that the written word doesn't have. It's much harder to dissect and evaluate what's on the screen than on a page. Anybody can have an opinion, but when you present it in a format like this movie-where he has clearly juxtaposed images to create an emotional impact designed to influence viewers in a particular direction--it's more than just an opinion. Having a point of view is one thing, but when you express this in a way that eschews any attempt to be fair and may, in fact, go out of its way to be unfair, I think that raises an issue with the movie's integrity that goes beyond whether it is simply Moore's opinion. Posted by: MWS at June 29, 2004 12:14 PMWhy are you all expecting "fair and balanced" from Moore's film? It's not journalism, it's documentary filmmaking. Those who go to see his film are paying for the privilege of doing so, and are neither forced to pay for it with their taxes nor forced to sit through it against their will. Yes, it's an obviously political work, and Moore has never pretended otherwise. Yes, it is biased and presents only his view of things, which he has freely admitted. The fact of the matter is that there is a market for this type of thing, and Moore has taken advantage of that fact to push his agenda in the same way the Limbaughs, Coulters, and O'Reillys have. It is no less reprehensible when a liberal does it, but nor is it any more so. And Mathew, while I too mourn the passing of civil discourse and wish we could talk about issues openly and honestly rather than engaging in the politics of personal destruction, that only works if both sides play that way. We've reached a stage where winning or maintaing control seems to mean more to both parties than championing their ideals. The politicians we elect now are chosen for their ability to beat the other guy (electability) and the persona they manage to project (presidentiality) rather than their ability to govern... why is there any surprise that the ability to compromise and work toward common goals has been lost. Some may disagree with my view that the right wing took their knives out first, but few would disagree that they have done a far better job of demonizing their enemies and excluding them from the political process rather than working with them. The tactics disgust me no matter which side uses them, but in an age of lazy media, telling the Dems to play nice while sighing and shaking your head, saying nothing can be done about the Republican side is either naive or disingenuous. Posted by: Jeremy at June 29, 2004 12:51 PMLet me get this straight. Michael Moore is furthering the "politics of personal destruction" by making a satirical documentary? How is anything in F9/11 any worse than the daily rants out of right-wing commentators on Fox, MSNBC and hundreds of radio stations nationwide. There's nothing new about political satire -- mocking "the king" in an unflattering way. People like Dick "Go F*ck Yourself" Cheney seem to be much guiltier of lowering the level of discourse. And he's proud of himself. I find your criticism of Moore hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. Posted by: DoryO at June 29, 2004 01:00 PMWilliam, Ann Coulter, or even Rush Limbaugh, have not had near the exposure Michael Moore has had. Don't get me wrong... I find them both disgusting. DoryO, It isn't different, how about reading the entire post first. I happen to think that Cheney's comment although not preferrable is at least honest, which is way more than anything Pat Leahy has ever been. Jeremy, It doesn't matter who started it, althought I disagree that one side can take the blame. The attitude that "if he is going to do it so am I" only means that we all lose. I can imagine that we would ever teach this as the approach of a great leader.... A great leader would risk the election to do what is right, which is exactly what George W. Bush had done in Iraq in my opinion. "I know you are, but what am I," has been Kerry's strategy all along. It is why even after the horrible past 90 days the President has had he can't pull ahead in the polls. It is also why he is destined to only be a man who ran for President. Posted by: Mathew at June 29, 2004 01:55 PMJeremy, This film is not a documentary. Here's the definition: doc·u·men·ta·ry (dky-mnt-r) Will, First, you are using the adjectival definition of "documentary" rather than the noun version. The noun form, probably from the same source you used, would be: "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration." Now you can argue with the interpretation of the word "factual" if you like, by saying that the way Moore presented the information was deceptive, but I have yet to hear the factuality of the information used in the film disputed. Second, I'll tell you what I tell my students when they try to quote the dictionary to prove a point. The meaning of a word depends on the way it is used in society rather than on how a dictionary editor chose to describe it. Only the most naive viewer would believe that a documentary is devoid of editorial content. Every documentary has a point of view, and it's the filmmakers who deny the existance of their own biases that are dangerous. Mathew, [i]Ann Coulter, or even Rush Limbaugh, have not had near the exposure Michael Moore has had.[/i] First, I'd disagree with that. Limbaugh and Coulter are heard far more often than is Moore, who receives attention about once a year when a new film or book comes out, and I have yet to see Moore invited on the shows which pretend to offer "news" but regularly feature Limbaugh or Coulter spouting their views unchallenged. In addition, as has been pointed out with astonishing regularity, these pundits are not above inventing information when it suits their purposes. You have accused more of having a bias, which no one would deny, yet the information he deals with is entirely factual. You are quite right. When both sides play this game, we all lose. The problem is, when only one side plays this game and the media refuse to do their job in reporting what claims lack factual basis, the side that lies the best wins seats in office. The refusal of the media to report the facts behind Whitewater during the Clinton years and their willingness to report any lie about Gore as though it were the truth during campaign 2000 were bad enough, but their refusal to question the false claims which led us into Iraq are far more damaging. When the right wing lies, and the media refuse to make the facts known, don't blame the liberals for fighting back. Me, I'll take Moore's admittedly biased presentation of factual information over the right wing's lies any day of the week. Posted by: Jeremy at June 29, 2004 03:10 PM"First, I admit that I look at polemics with a jaundiced eye, whether I agree with them or not. ButI think it's a little disingenuous for Moore to just say it's his opinion. The question is what responsibility does Moore have to not be irresponsible." I agree. He has complete responsibility to back up the views and opinions he's expressing. The interview I pointed to is an example where his attitude in an interview seems inconsistent with his work as a flimmaker. Let me get this straight. Michael Moore is furthering the "politics of personal destruction" by making a satirical documentary? How is anything in F9/11 any worse than the daily rants out of right-wing commentators on Fox, MSNBC and hundreds of radio stations nationwide. It's not any different. That's the point. Do you object to it when it comes from right-wing commentators? If so, why put up with it on your side? The bottom line is this -- if you make a film (or write a column or give an interview) where you show the typical disregard for facts or logic one finds at either extreme of the spectrum, then you undermine your own cause. The only people you convince are those who already agreed with you -- and the rest of us go "huh?" and look at you kind of funny. Michael More could make an excellent anti-Bush case regarding the Iraq war. I've made that case here on Centerfield many times. But if he tries to make every Bush action part of some nefarious conspiracy, he loses touch with reality, and loses credibility with the open-minded portion of his audience. I mentioned my stepson earlier in this thread. He's a Democrat, and quite strongly anti-Bush. And he didn't believe much of what he saw in this film. Posted by: William Swann at June 29, 2004 04:07 PMI'm curious...there seems to be an overarching theme in the comments that Moore's piece lacks facts. For those of you espousing this theme..could you please provide evidence? Posted by: carla at June 29, 2004 04:34 PMThat is the point Carla, there is no evidence. I watched the movie... There was little to no justification for many of his statements... How can I prove that? Go watch the movie... Posted by: Mathew at June 29, 2004 04:41 PMThere's also a long, very detailed review from a centrist perspective here. He deals with a lot of Moore's supposed facts. Posted by: William Swann at June 29, 2004 05:19 PMJeremy, Points well taken. I still find Michael Moore a stain upon the craft of documentary filmmaking. I agree wholeheartedly that the point of documentaries is not to be objective, but what separates documentaries from other forms is that the facts that you do represent, you represent them accurately. Re-inactments, which are now more common, have blurred the lines, but as a viewer, you are still dependent that what you are seeing isn't made up. You wouldn't call Oliver Stone's JFK a documentary, would you? I haven't seen F911 yet, but the reviews I've read have been consistent with other movies Moore has done, including Bowling for Columbine, which purposefully twists video footage and narration to distort or make up facts that are given to fit his views. I find that significantly different than subjectively picking only footage that supports one's point of view. I enjoy Oliver Stone films, but I know I'm not seeing a documentary when I see one. I put F911 in the same category, because essentially, it's in the same genre. Posted by: Will at June 30, 2004 02:37 AMIt's true that documentaries have a POV. I wouldn't deny that. And I understand a documentarian is trying to persuade people. But I always looked at a documentary (and maybe that's my mistake) as trying to help people understand the issues, not merely push buttons to evince an emotional response. I don't doubt that most of Moore's facts in the movie are true. But being honest (as I perceive it) involves context as well as facts. Using Moore's techniques (i.e., juxtaposing images, such as Bush's reaction after being told of 9/11), one could make anyone in history look like an absolutely despeccable person and still be "factual" and presumably fall within the range of documentary. Now, obviously, Moore has a right to make any kind of movie he wants and he can call it a documentary or just call it Seymour if he wants. But to my mind its disingenuous to say, on the one hand, this is just my opinion and then on the other, that this is a documentary. Even documentaries should have some responsibility to the broader context of truth. Otherwise, its just a political ad. And,yes, the right does the same thing. And will we be complaining when conservatives try to do the same thing to President Kerry as Moore did to Bush? (Of course, there are few conservative filmakers, but I'm sure they can find some.) For that matter, are we going to like it if President Kerry offends Moore and makes a movie about him. Having a right to make a hatchet job doesn't make it right to do so. Let me tell you, the gloves are really off now. Posted by: MWS at June 30, 2004 04:38 PMI do understand how one must feel about war, But So, if world trade is a threat and we're going to war. Which corporations are we going to war for? I think the soldiers deserve to know that much as well as American voters. -m Posted by: Max at July 8, 2004 12:45 PMI will agree there is little to no evidence in the movie to support any of Moore's claims, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any evidence at all. "Dude, Where's My Country?" ISBN 0-446-53223-1, had a similar effort to try to stop it's publishing last year that his movie has had this year. The book made some of the same claims he presented in the movie and includes a section called notes and sources. Whether or not you believe those sources is another matter entirely. Who knows why that information wasn't included in the film? Posted by: Rahsaan at July 10, 2004 12:00 PMAs an Independent Moderate, I am sick and tired of the Big Fat Idoits of Rush and Moore. They spread their garbage on the airwaves and in the media. They screwed Independent Moderate all time, their supporters would bully us areound, they want the Independent Moderates to play dead. I got some news, I AM NOT GOING TO PLAY DEAD WITH THOSE TWO MOORONS AND ONE PERSON WHO I MEET IS PLANING TO MAKE HIS COMMENT KNOW. Its time to stop playing deadits time for a Independent Moderate Rush and Moore. Once we have one, it would put those Big Fat Idoits on the run. Great blog. Posted by: Dish TV at October 11, 2004 07:34 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
