As far as ideologies go, MM is not a fringe-leftist. His politics are not ultra-left.

And I am saying that no, MM IS a fringe-leftists. His politics ARE ultra-left.  I'm really surprised you think he's a mainstream liberal. Have you read any of his books? The only thing that keeps him from being completely out there is that he is (obviously) a capitalist. 

Again, I'm finding more good takes here than I like to admit.

Dr. Miller: I was with you through most of what you said, though I lost you with the traitor comment. Do you really think so? Why?

T.B.: I could not agree with you more, especially on the bit about Mr. Kennedy's participation in No Kid and then, like some (not all) liberals, he absolved himself of its creation. Certainly there are a lot of issues out there to debate, but I wish the two damned parties would get it together to correct this horrendous mistake.

Whoman: I agree with you comcerning your discussion of the debates. The Republican tactic to put Kerry's record as proof of his wiffle-waffling was Bush's priority. And though Kerry's record is pretty bare (though there's some good work hidden in his record, too) wiffle-waffling is not really a reasonable label. I know we want politicians who stick to their morals, but do we want elected officials who are incapable of backing down from a poor decision?

Draginol: Man, I wish we could get it together on this one. I feel like we were close, for a little while. What if we discuss what we mean by "mainstream liberal"? I hope you don't really think I'm grouping MM into this category. I consider myself a mainstream liberal, and I would agree MM falls left of my own ideology. But ultra-left seems like an unfair label.

Hmm. Okay: how about this:

Here's a generic continuum (I'm finding tons of uses for this word, today) of political ideology:

[-(1)REVOLUTIONARISM--(2)COMMUNISM--(3)SOCIALISM--(4)LIBERALISM--(5)MODERN MAINSTREAM LIBERALISM--(6)L-BALANCED-R--(7)MODERATE--(8)CONSERVATIVE--(9)RIGHT-WING/ MINIMALIST GOVERNMENT--(10)FASCISM--(11)REACTIONARISM

We may have a slightly different perspective on this, but we're probably fairly close. I'd be willing to look at another model. But where would you classify the "fringe left"? Where would you place the following: T. Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, MM, GWBush, McCain, and A. Coultier? Why? Maybe this is the place to start.

TBT

Reply #37 By: TaBooTenente - 11/21/2004 1:55:23 AM Again, I'm finding more good takes here than I like to admit. Dr. Miller: I was with you through most of what you said, though I lost you with the traitor comment. Do you really think so? Why?

Why? Because as an active member of the US armed forces he held secret and unauthorized meetings with N Vietnamese officals. This is of his own admitting. And by all rights he is in the wrong with both the constitution and the "uniform code of military justice. According to the UCMJ what he did is considered treason!Check the link, it explains it better. Link

Your statement about Bush's plan is patently FALSE.

I watched several Bush speeches on CNN as they ran them in their entirety. Platitudes and distortions of Kerry was all I saw.

In addition, Kerry's "plan" was mostly adding 22 million to Medicaid (about 80%+ of the unisured he claimed he would insure).

"Bush continued to misrepresent Kerry's health-care proposal in a series of ads and mailings, telling voters that Kerry would take health-care decisions out of the hands of doctors and have "bureaucrats in Washington" making them instead.

Actually, 97% of those who now have health insurance would keep the coverage they have under Kerry's plan, according to a neutral, authoritative study by the Lewin Group. Kerry's very expensive plan would also extend coverage to as many as 27 million persons who currently lack insurance, largely by expanding current forms of Medicaid coverage to children and workers farther up the income scale. Even the conservative, pro-Bush Wall Street Journal editorial page stated that Kerry wasn't seeking to impose the sort of health-care program proposed by the Clintons in 1993, exactly contrary to the picture Bush attempts to paint." That's from factcheck.org

Link

More from factcheck.org
"The ad claims Kerry's health care plan puts "Washington bureaucrats in control. . . Big government in charge. Not you. Not your doctor."

That's grossly misleading. In fact, 97% of Americans who now have health insurance will simply keep the plan they have now, according to projections by the independent, politically neutral health-care research firm The Lewin Group .

And The Lewin Group's vice president, John Sheils, disputes the Bush ad's claim:

Sheils: I don’t see how, in Kerry’s plan, decisions on medical procedures would be made in Washington under any circumstances, under any proposal.

Another health-care financing expert, economist Jeff Lemieux of Centrists.org , calls the claims in the Bush ad "way out of bounds."

Lemieux: There is an increased government involvement in providing health insurance through the expansion of Medicaid. But interfering between doctors and patients? There is nothing in (Kerry's) reforms that would come close to making that happen - It is just way out of bounds."

In an earlier assessment of the Kerry plan, the nonpartisan Centrists.org found Kerry’s health proposal to be "similar in many ways to a blueprint offered in July by Senate Republican leader Bill Frist," and concluded that Kerry’s proposal tries to achieve “liberal goals" mostly through "conservative means.”

And in fact, a conservative health-care expert, Robert E. Moffit of the Heritage Foundation, calls the claim in the Bush ad oversimplified "bumper-sticker health policy." Moffitt notes that Kerry's plan would expand existing government programs, mainly Medicaid, to cover more children and low-income workers than at present. He said, "In those government programs, as with private managed care programs, your doctor will be under the same restrictions he is under today. In that respect, Kerry is making no changes in the doctor-patient relationship."


Link

Dr. Miller: I've bookmarked your link and I promise I will explore.

Whoman: Yours, too.

TBT

Certainly there are a lot of issues out there to debate, but I wish the two damned parties would get it together to correct this horrendous mistake.

There are a half dozen or more bills already proposed to fix the NCLB (they were introduced prior to the election) so something is being done. If I was betting on it though, my guess is it (whichever bill makes it) won't fix it completely, there will likely be another round of fixes after this one.

We may have a slightly different perspective on this, but we're probably fairly close. I'd be willing to look at another model. But where would you classify the "fringe left"? Where would you place the following: T. Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, MM, GWBush, McCain, and A. Coultier? Why? Maybe this is the place to start

I think we are as well. Perhaps this is a matter of what the word "fringe" means. I would characterize "fringe" in the context of American politics, not using the world as a frame of reference. Let's put this in terms of a Gaussian statistical distribution. As such, the middle (plus or minus one sigma) would be 68% of the political spectrum, the left would be the 13.5% (from minus one sigma to minus two sigma) on the left and the right the 13.5% on the right. This accounts for 95% of the political viewpoints taken on the whole, leaving 2.5% on the "fringe" left and 2.5% on the "fringe" right.

Using the Senate as a model, 2.5 Senators could be considered fringe left and 2.5 fringe right. I think it's fair to characterize Kerry and Kennedy as those two on the fringe left (though arguments could be made for others, had Wellstone not passed he'd be a candidate as would Boxer and Mikulski). I'm willing to assume Gore's Brown Shirt speech is an aberration, based on his voting when he was in the Senate, he would likely be part of the 68% middle, McCain belongs here as well.

I also think it's fair to place GW in the middle for a number of reasons. As part of the right (13.5% or the fringe right 2.5%) he would not have supported a NCLB type of government program, he would not have supported as much spending as he has, he would not support Civil Unions, etc. All it takes to substantiate this placement is a look at the country/congress support within the context and time frame of when these issues were/are on the table (Example: 87 Senators voted FOR NCLB, i.e. 13 or 13% either voted aginst it or didn't vote, somewhere around 55% support Civil Unions and somewhere around 65% are against Gay marriage depending on what polls you look at). Obviously, what comprises the "middle" on specific issues will change some from issue to issue (which is why it is difficult to categorize people) however, when an individual is in the super minority most of the time (that 13 to 16 %) it is fair to "label" them as left or right and when they are in the 2 to 3% most of the time it is fair to label them "fringe".

MM it seems to me (as indicated by his world view and support for Nader in 2000 - about 2.7% voting for) is fair to be called "fringe" as is Pat Buchanan (even more so as indicated by the .4% in 2000) and Anne Coulter.

Actually, 97% of those who now have health insurance would keep the coverage they have under Kerry's plan

I certainly don't need factcheck to tell me what I already know, or interpret for me what I researched for myself. As a matter of fact I wrote them regarding their MISLEADING analysis on the Kerry plan, with substantiation from the actual reports, and they chose NOT to correct it. It is spin, plain and simple. The debate is not over some campaign ad.

Read the reports. In fact, the Lewin Groups report (which I have and have read a number of times) does NOT substantiate this, it in fact says THEY CAN NOT ESTIMATE it accurately due to the vagueness of the Kerry plan.

From the Lewin Group report:

The Kerry plan would “allow every American access to the same health plan members of Congress get today.” A new pool would be added to the current FEHBP to cover “small and large businesses, as well as individuals and families who need affordable health insurance.”
The CHP would participate in the premium rebate program. However, the Kerry plan provides little information on how this would be done, which makes it impossible to estimate its effects accurately.

Fact check is full of BS on this one.

db: so your take is bush's take? kerry's plan is worse than bush's plan? bush just wants to privatise, right?

db: so your take is bush's take? kerry's plan is worse than bush's plan? bush just wants to privatise, right?

I'm guessing this was to me?

My biggest objection to the Kerry plan was the increase in Medicaid (an entitlement program) of about 70% (adding an additional 21 million to Medicaid, around 30 million are currently on it) and it's price tag (estimated to be around 553 Billion over 10 years). There were other things I didn't like either, but this was the show stopper. I don't like big government programs, so to me, Kerry's plan was worse. Big government programs means non-discretionary spending and I think we already have too much of it, then again, I don't like paying taxes either.

Bush's plan does a number of things, but the bulk of it is through tax credits to individuals and employers. One of the significant pieces is something called an HSA (Health Savings Account). An HSA is used in conjunction with a high deductible health plan (in actuality the term High Deductible is sort of a misnomer, many current plans have just as high a deductible as the new ones, there are specific design features in the plans that qualify them for use with an HSA). An HSA health plan has significantly LOWER premiums (ex: current plan $300/mo, HSA compatible plan $100/mo). Money is put into an HSA pre-tax and the account is used for qualified medical expenses (which is pretty broad). All funds in the HSA roll over year to year. At retirement age (when Medicare Part A nd Part B kick in), money in the HSA is yours. It can serve as a way to keep from throwing money at insurance companies you'll never see again and instead keep it in your pocket, in the event you have a catastrophic illness, all you pay is the deductible (in most instances, some of the HSA compatible plans don't pay 100% of cost, but neither do most current plans, mine pays 100%).

Other parts of the plan are Medicaid outreach (funds to enroll people that are eligible currently but for some reason not enrolled), Malpractice reform, Patient Bill of Rights, AHP's (Association Health Plans), Health Information Technology funds (electronic claims, payment and records, supposed to reduce admin costs).

TB: It's a good plan for healthy middle- and -upper class families who probably will continue to be offered high-end health plans through employers anyway. Low income and single-parent families, unemployed individuals without job skills, and developmentally-disabled individuals will get an ever-worsening end of the stick. I ran the adult foster care system for developmentally-disabled individuals in my county--it's already a disaster: underfunded; devastated mental health and crisis facilities; unadvocated individuals who are unable to access what care they are currently entitled to. This in turn leads to a broken, glutted court system and an undifferentiated jailing system. In Oregon, after the failure of measures, the MH block of Human Services received a 75% cut in funding. County mental wards around the state had to turn loose DD patients with nowhere to go. Some died, some are now in jail, and some, thank god, have been pigeon-holed into funded slots that they do not qualify for in order to save their lives.

The several HSA proposals would be the tolling of the bell for many.

TB Please don't think I peeing all over myself with love for Kerry's non-proposals. His lack of innovation to meet the crisis sorely disappointed me, and it took me a long while of deciphering his promises to come to the conclusion that he must have been praying that one of his future advisors would birth a brilliant idea.

Still, Bush's proposals are going to widen a continually widening gap, I think, and many people, not me, by the way, will suffer.

Thank you for bringing all this info with you to the discussion, none of which I have easily accessible. Not only do I appreciate it, but it helps me come to grips with the fact that everyone is looking for an answer, making me feel slightly, if not completely, better.

TBT

Dear Little_Whip:

Two days ago I was certain we were enemies of the soul; then I spent some time reviewing some of your posts and found you to be a courteous, often thoughtful poster.

Right now, though, I'm ready to throw you through the window.

I just signed in this morning, and there's an anonymous post listed, but the message is not there. I have no idea whether or not your response was directed here, or to an earlier message. Nevertheless, your caustic attitude remains posted to my article, so I must respond:

Conservatives: If you care at all about unifying the political divide, if you are honestly concerned about the level of partisanship, you need to understand this: it may be arrogance, it may be tunnel vision, but Democrats do not understand why people voted for George Bush. And we are in disarray. We do not know what to do. Yes: it is arrogance, plain and simple; but that does not make it any easier to correct our position. Liberals: If we still believe in our position, if we still believe that a crucial element of morality in this country is eroding, then we need a new voice. Consider this: John Kerry, like every other liberal (not necessarily party Democrats), wrote off the entire south, along with the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma.... We wrote them off, as in, did not try to pick up those votes. Why? If you believe the answer is something other than arrogance, let me know. When a conservative says thay he/she is sick of the label "religious right-wing", or "Rube from Hicksville" or "Redneck" or "Ignorant" or whatever the hell, what do we immediately think as a response?

I hope you've noticed that this is a quote from my original article, Little_Whip. Anyone paying the slightest attention to the world during and after the election should have developed an awareness that people have been throwing labels around. My article was intended to show how these things not only get out of hand, but create a polar, political divide.

Thats a very dangerous attitude to have, but one expressed by many Kerry supporters who readily admitted it. It therefore turned into an anti-Bush movement rather than a true effort to elect a president you felt could actually do a better job. Im sure the Germans who put Hitler in power felt the same, things had gotten so bad in their country that they felt ANYTHING or ANYBODY would be preferable to the status quo.

I'm sure you recognize your own quote, Little_Whip. Your reference to the NAZI regime is not only as absurd, offensive and hyperbolic as liberals comparing Bush to Hitler, but it also demonstrates little regard for the content of this article. What you are suggesting, with this analogy, is (a)Americans with an anti-Bush attitude are as desperate and demolished as post-WWI Germany, and are capable of supporting a NAZI perspective; (b)these Americans feel the same way as the "Germans who put Hitler in power", ie. the inner circle of the third reich who designed the final solution, the sytematic destruction of 6+million Jews and other "inferior" composite (any debate over this issue will be removed from my chain); and (c) that believing GWB to represent a terrible trend in American philosophy is the same as saying Jews are a terrible trend in German philosophy.

For the sake of conversation, and for the sake of preserving respect for each other, let's suggest that you intended to be absurd, hyperbolic, and offensive, in a manner you may feel liberals have directed toward Bush and his supporters during the campaigning. If so, you certainly would have a point. Comparing Bush to Hitler and his supporters to NAZIs equally absurd, hyperbolic, and offensive, and for an ideology that currently holds the arrogant assurance that we know what we're talking about, is not only disappointing but reprehensible. That, of course, brings me back to what I wrote originally, about removing labels rather than perpetuating them, Little_Whip

Now let me, er, quote you quoting me, and rebutting, so to speak:

--Fahreinheit 9/11: I really like MM, you know why? Because he always takes it back to Flint. I think he really cares, has a big heart. I hate to tell you this, but he isnt even FROM Flint...thats just another one of his big fat lies. From my response to another mikey fan on a diferent thread... "Even the mans personal history is a fabrication. HES NOT EVEN FROM FLINT, MICHIGAN. His speakers bureau describes him as "born in Flint, his web site calls him a "Flint native" and his production company's website informs us that " Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan, where his father and most of his relatives worked in the automobile factories..." Asked to describe the source of his 'empathy for the worker" Moore told People magazine " I think its just a function of growing up in Flint, Michigan," These claims are reflected in almost every biography, Moore is described as " a Flint native," " the man from Flint," or as hailing from his "hometown of Flint." In fact. Moore was born and raised in DAVISON, Michigan, and attended Davison High School. While Davison is near Flint, proximity doesnt translate to similarity between the two towns.

Where did you grow up? Have you grown up in Flint? Do you live near Flint? Have you ever been there? I grew up in Wisconsin, but I have driven through Flint several times.

Repeat: I've driven through Flint [only driven] several times. Flint is a disaster, and it's not the worst in the country by a long shot. I've never spent a lot of time thinking about Davison, though, nor do I feel any specific sympathy for the residents there, though I'm sure they're fine people. FLINT IS A DISASTER. I'm not sure political leaning should affect how you feel about what the world has done to Flint, Michigan. Michael Moore grew up intimately with the results of devastated Flint, Michigan, and whenever MM brings his material back to Flint, I feel he is at his best: sympathetic, and trying to bring a level of consciousness to a type of living that we ignore like hell, whenever we're given the slightest chance.

Finally:

And to answer the question....when did i get mad at the left enough to get out and vote against them? About the 4000th time i had been called a moron, an idiot, a hick, a nazi....etc....by some barely literate %$#@stick that couldnt even spell.

Sorry for editing, but if anyone needs a crib, scroll up a bit and bing! decoding provided. I guess I hear your frustration. I believe you, I agree with you, and I am ashamed that not only other liberals drove you here, but myself, too. Embarrassingly, the arrogance isn't theirs, it's mine, too. I also have not understood the perspective that allows someone to, say, watch a MM film without coming away with a LITTLE sympathy, and SOME belief that MM is doing something he feels is good, and worthwhile. Nevetheless, I see not only that he is offensive, polarizing, and very hyperbolic (perhaps even negligent) in many of the analogies he draws in his weak, unprofessional journalism.

But I'm sure, since you obviously feel this way, that you know EXACTLY how MM feels, and how liberals with a prediliection for arrogant, ironic, incendiary statements feel they are justified. Your statement makes me feel better. Liberals don't have a monopoly on arrogant mislabeling and misinterpretation, do we?

TBT.

I just wanted to say I think in the wake of the election it's the liberals, if anyone, who are making the effort to bridge the divide. The Bushies seem as nasty in victory as they were during the election. Just my personal opinion.



Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins

Reply #49 By: David St. Hubbins (Anonymous) - 11/22/2004 11:47:02 AM I just wanted to say I think in the wake of the election it's the liberals, if anyone, who are making the effort to bridge the divide. The Bushies seem as nasty in victory as they were during the election. Just my personal opinion. Kindest Regards, David St. Hubbins

Your opinion has been dually noted and subsequently iqnored!

Reply #48 By: TaBooTenente - 11/22/2004 11:31:58 AM Dear Little_Whip:

--Fahreinheit 9/11: I really like MM, you know why? Because he always takes it back to Flint. I think he really cares, has a big heart. I hate to tell you this, but he isnt even FROM Flint...thats just another one of his big fat lies. From my response to another mikey fan on a diferent thread... "Even the mans personal history is a fabrication. HES NOT EVEN FROM FLINT, MICHIGAN. His speakers bureau describes him as "born in Flint, his web site calls him a "Flint native" and his production company's website informs us that " Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan, where his father and most of his relatives worked in the automobile factories..." Asked to describe the source of his 'empathy for the worker" Moore told People magazine " I think its just a function of growing up in Flint, Michigan," These claims are reflected in almost every biography, Moore is described as " a Flint native," " the man from Flint," or as hailing from his "hometown of Flint." In fact. Moore was born and raised in DAVISON, Michigan, and attended Davison High School. While Davison is near Flint, proximity doesnt translate to similarity between the two towns. Where did you grow up? Have you grown up in Flint? Do you live near Flint? Have you ever been there? I grew up in Wisconsin, but I have driven through Flint several times. Repeat: I've driven through Flint [only driven] several times. Flint is a disaster, and it's not the worst in the country by a long shot. I've never spent a lot of time thinking about Davison, though, nor do I feel any specific sympathy for the residents there, though I'm sure they're fine people. FLINT IS A DISASTER. I'm not sure political leaning should affect how you feel about what the world has done to Flint, Michigan. Michael Moore grew up intimately with the results of devastated Flint, Michigan, and whenever MM brings his material back to Flint, I feel he is at his best: sympathetic, and trying to bring a level of consciousness to a type of living that we ignore like hell, whenever we're given the slightest chance.

You seem to be missing the main point of this section. That being that Michael Moore once AGAIN lied through his teeth!

Your opinion has been dually noted and subsequently iqnored!

Can you ever write a sentence without USING CAPS or *screaming* or exclamation points!!!!!! ? I've never seen you do it, not once. You must be a sad angry man.

I don't like your attitude, and would appreciate you not resonding to my posts by leaving pointless drivel like this. Notice the respectful tone I use; contrast it with your angry, venomous approach.

And learn how to cut and paste properly, your posts are always a mess. Thanks.

Kindest Regards,
David St. Hubbins