TFM ON THE MICHAEL MOORE PLEDGE
I really like Michael Moore. Over the years he's done outstanding work, and I'm looking forward to seeing his new film, a gun-related documentary called "Bowling for Columbine".
But currently on his website, he has a pledge-petition up, which reads:
Take the pledge and let the Democrats in Congress hear you.
"I pledge to never vote again for any Democratic candidate for public office who has voted in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq."
We call on the Democrats in Congress to oppose a war on Iraq, to vote "No" to Bush's war cries. We pledge to never again vote for any Democratic member of Congress who supports George W. Bush's war against Iraq. To the Democrats in Congress, we give you fair warning: You are either with us, or you are fired.
This really appeals to my well-developed idealistic side, but I have some real problems here. First of all, I don't think Michael Moore is voting Democratic anymore anyway. But that's beside the point.
So every Democrat in congress who votes in favor of a resolution for war in Iraq, no matter what type of resolution it is, has committed grounds for outright job termination in Moore's eyes. That's too black-and-white for me by a longshot. Suppose the Senate Democrats "show some backbone" (as His Royal Smirk put it) and lobby hard for a war resolution that has a strong deference to the terms of the UN and their deal with Iraq on weapons inspectors. Such a resolution would render America a more responsible and integrated member of the world community. And it would be the most ideal resolution that the Democrats could hope to have passed in congress in the eyes of those who don't want a bullshit unilateral oil-war...
...But perhaps according to Moore's pledge, would such a resolution be favoring war? I'd say probably. My point is that a black-and-white view of the current situation is simply counterproductive, and that the situation requires a more nuanced understanding on the part of the American people. Mr Smirk and Cheneyplasty have not done anything to grow a nuanced understanding of the Iraq situation among the American people, rather attempting to cultivate fear ("he gassed his own people!" "we found a lot, A LOT of uranium in Turkey!") to make a case for war.
Moore does have one thing exactly right: Where in the hell are the Democrats to start pointing this out? The Bushies have created something of a vacuum of understanding, which Democratic congressional leaders could fill. The current Iraq-narrative is a tragic-comedy of fear, smoke and mirrors. In that light, Moore's "office of homeland security"'s color-coded alert system is on level three, "Spineless".
However, Moore shouldn't necessarily shouldn't attack Gephardt the way that he did:
The Democrats in Congress are yellow. Dick Gephardt gave away the House, striking a ridiculous deal with Bush.
If Gephardt had fought with all his might to slow the rush to war in the House, no matter how much in lockstep the Dems in there would be, he would have lost anyway due to the zombie-esque GOP majority in that chamber. While I think Gephardt could surely do a lot more on a rhetorical level, he didn't have a chance of getting his wishes turned into legislation.
(in other "where are the Democrats?" news, read today's Friedman)
And by the way, guess who's the one Democrat who's made the most anti-war noise in the last several weeks, Michael? That's right, Albert Gore Jr. If he were president right now, we wouldn't even be talking about going to war with Iraq! So by that logic, in states like Missouri, West Virginia, New Hampshire and above all Florida, a vote for Nader ended up being a vote for an oil-war in Iraq! TFM cynically wonders if that has anything to do with Nader's investment in the Fidelity Magellan Fund, which has millions of shares in Raytheon, General Dynamics, Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Sunoco, Occidental, Texaco, Chevron, and... Halliburton.
Not likely, I'm sure, hehe. But the point remains, the Iraq situation, where it stands at present, is not simple and black&white, and thus we shouldn't simply call for the firing of someone who votes for one certain piece of legislation, no matter how nuanced and conditional that resolution may end up being.
Bush recently complained about some suggested Democratic ideas in a potential Iraq resolution as having the effect of "tying my hands". With that in mind, TFM has a suggested augmentation to Michael Moore's pledge. Let's not pledge to threaten Democrats for something we aren't showing any worldy perspective on. Let's pledge to tie Bush's hands! (:
I really like Michael Moore. Over the years he's done outstanding work, and I'm looking forward to seeing his new film, a gun-related documentary called "Bowling for Columbine".
But currently on his website, he has a pledge-petition up, which reads:
"I pledge to never vote again for any Democratic candidate for public office who has voted in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq."
We call on the Democrats in Congress to oppose a war on Iraq, to vote "No" to Bush's war cries. We pledge to never again vote for any Democratic member of Congress who supports George W. Bush's war against Iraq. To the Democrats in Congress, we give you fair warning: You are either with us, or you are fired.
This really appeals to my well-developed idealistic side, but I have some real problems here. First of all, I don't think Michael Moore is voting Democratic anymore anyway. But that's beside the point.
So every Democrat in congress who votes in favor of a resolution for war in Iraq, no matter what type of resolution it is, has committed grounds for outright job termination in Moore's eyes. That's too black-and-white for me by a longshot. Suppose the Senate Democrats "show some backbone" (as His Royal Smirk put it) and lobby hard for a war resolution that has a strong deference to the terms of the UN and their deal with Iraq on weapons inspectors. Such a resolution would render America a more responsible and integrated member of the world community. And it would be the most ideal resolution that the Democrats could hope to have passed in congress in the eyes of those who don't want a bullshit unilateral oil-war...
...But perhaps according to Moore's pledge, would such a resolution be favoring war? I'd say probably. My point is that a black-and-white view of the current situation is simply counterproductive, and that the situation requires a more nuanced understanding on the part of the American people. Mr Smirk and Cheneyplasty have not done anything to grow a nuanced understanding of the Iraq situation among the American people, rather attempting to cultivate fear ("he gassed his own people!" "we found a lot, A LOT of uranium in Turkey!") to make a case for war.
Moore does have one thing exactly right: Where in the hell are the Democrats to start pointing this out? The Bushies have created something of a vacuum of understanding, which Democratic congressional leaders could fill. The current Iraq-narrative is a tragic-comedy of fear, smoke and mirrors. In that light, Moore's "office of homeland security"'s color-coded alert system is on level three, "Spineless".
However, Moore shouldn't necessarily shouldn't attack Gephardt the way that he did:
If Gephardt had fought with all his might to slow the rush to war in the House, no matter how much in lockstep the Dems in there would be, he would have lost anyway due to the zombie-esque GOP majority in that chamber. While I think Gephardt could surely do a lot more on a rhetorical level, he didn't have a chance of getting his wishes turned into legislation.
(in other "where are the Democrats?" news, read today's Friedman)
And by the way, guess who's the one Democrat who's made the most anti-war noise in the last several weeks, Michael? That's right, Albert Gore Jr. If he were president right now, we wouldn't even be talking about going to war with Iraq! So by that logic, in states like Missouri, West Virginia, New Hampshire and above all Florida, a vote for Nader ended up being a vote for an oil-war in Iraq! TFM cynically wonders if that has anything to do with Nader's investment in the Fidelity Magellan Fund, which has millions of shares in Raytheon, General Dynamics, Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Sunoco, Occidental, Texaco, Chevron, and... Halliburton.
Not likely, I'm sure, hehe. But the point remains, the Iraq situation, where it stands at present, is not simple and black&white, and thus we shouldn't simply call for the firing of someone who votes for one certain piece of legislation, no matter how nuanced and conditional that resolution may end up being.
Bush recently complained about some suggested Democratic ideas in a potential Iraq resolution as having the effect of "tying my hands". With that in mind, TFM has a suggested augmentation to Michael Moore's pledge. Let's not pledge to threaten Democrats for something we aren't showing any worldy perspective on. Let's pledge to tie Bush's hands! (:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home