In politics, knowing what your opposition thinks and says about you and your team is critical. But listening to what they’re saying about their own side can sometimes be even more telling.
In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Michael Moore insists that Barack Obama’s ambitions are much farther left than he lets on. Thus, the President has been deliberately lying to us about everything from healthcare reform to the war on terror. But contrary to the Bush years, when perceived presidential deceit evoked liberal rage and a film to go with it, Moore adoringly approves of what he now sees as a necessary “rope-a-dope strategy” to advance his side’s cause.
The interview, part of a larger round table discussion also including Paul Krugman and David Gergen, asks the “three leading political observers” to analyze and discuss the first six months of the Obama presidency. The most startling perspective Moore provides is in regard to the current health care debate:
I take all of the things that make me nervous about the decisions that Obama has made, and I look and them through that lens – that it’s some kind of master plan. It’s like his continued support of a government-run option for health care. If a true public option is enacted – and Obama knows this – it will eventually bring about a single-payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government plan and make the profits they want to make. At some point most of them will probably have to bow out of the business.
Moore’s frankness even earns praise from the far more temperate David Gergen:
I’m glad to have someone of Michael Moore’s honesty say that the public option on health care is, in fact, designed to be a pathway to a single-payer system. Because the Democrats have essentially said, “That’s not true.”
Moore’s view of Obama on Iraq is similar. While the Fahrenheit 9/11 director demands “more than a truth commission… a serious criminal investigation” into the Bush administration’s supposed “lying to convince Congress to back an invasion of another country that did nothing to us,” he also tells the magazine:
Look, this guy [Barack Obama] is a very good basketball player – he fakes right and goes left. He says he’s going to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq. But I would be shocked if, three years from now, there are 50,000 troops in Iraq. He says these things to keep the wolves away from the door, and it works. The other side seems to buy it. That’s why I admire his craftiness here.
“Same with Afghanistan,” he claims. While adding, “I don’t think there was a reason for the war” because “the Taliban are not an invading force – they are citizens of Afghanistan” and therefore “it is up to the citizens of Afghanistan whether they want to be oppressed,” he makes clear:
When [Obama] said he was going to send in 20,000 new troops, I thought, “He’s again trying to create this illusion so that the opposition will be kept at bay.“
(Remember: When the far left thought “Bush lied”—about WMDs, remember?—they cried for impeachment. But for Obama, it’s just a matter of admirably creating crafty illusions in order to trick his pesky opposition into silence and submission. Consider it liberalism by any means necessary.)
The way Moore sees it, even when it comes to serious national security issues like prosecuting terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, “I think he gets the opposition to shut up by telling them what they want to hear.” Indefinite detention? “’Indefinitely’ for Obama,” he says, “might mean ‘two more months.’”
Overall score from Moore?
I would give him an A if my theory about the rope-a-dope strategy he has employed turns out to be right. If I’m wrong about that, then I’ll have to mark it down to a C-minus. Right now, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Eventually, Gergen confronts the filmmaker about the openness of his “fakes right, moves left” rhetoric and asks, “Isn’t that the same critique the Republicans have been making about the president for some time?” Moore bluntly responds:
Yeah, and nobody will listen to them! I feel sorry for them. They think they know what he’s doing and they try to point it out, but Obama just acts all innocent and says, “No, I’m not doing that.” I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but I’m counting on the fact that Republicans won’t be reading this in Rolling Stone.
Team America’s “giant socialist weasel” counted wrong.
Back in 2004, the idea that “Bush lied” begat plenty of fits, a film, and much more from the far left. But that, of course, was when a Republican was president. Five years later, half-truths and deceit from a liberal Democratic president are not only commendable, it seems, but absolutely vital. Apparently Barack Obama’s real plans are just that unpalatable for the public to swallow.
27 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:45 am
The conclusion that a public option is a direct pathway to single-payer system seems to be a concession to the Democratic argument – that a public option will inevitably lead to lower cost, more user friendly healthcare for most Americans, and that this via normal economic processes will lead to a single payer system.
I can understand why Michael Moore makes that argument … “because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government plan and make the profits they want to make.” He believes that large corporations making large profits from people’s suffering is bad for society.
I don’t understand why conservatives so readily embrace this conclusion … it seems like a rhetorical surrender, perhaps useful as a short-term holding action against any federal healthcare program to assist those who aren’t elderly or destitute … but a long-term loser.
2 DFL // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:49 am
Moore is stating the obvious. Obama will remake America into his leftist vision as best possible. He not only is grabbing as much of the commanding heights of the economy as the system will allow, he plans to dissolve the former demographics of the country and make it a Third World majority, locking in the Democratic Party as America’s ruling party for the 21st Century as firmly as Sweden’s Social Democrats had a stranglehold of that country in the 20th Century.
The biggest clues about Obama’s mentality are these- 1) his left-wing Kenyan father who hated Western civilization; 2) his left-wing American mother who also hated Western Civilization; 3) his memoir “Dreams of My Father” which point to Obama’s obsession with his black racial origins; 4) his twenty year attendance in Jeremiah Wright’s blackcentric church; and 5) his marriage to Michelle Obama, who said in 2008 that the rise of her husband was “the first time I was proud of my country.”
Yes, Obama hates the old America and will do his best to revolutionize it as thoroughly as the French radicals did to France in the 1790s and the British Labour Party did to Britain after World War Two.
3 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:59 am
…..Qualtere now believes everything that Michael Moore says……So Mr Qualtere Michael Moore is always 100% accurate in his opinionating…..have I got that right?
4 sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:42 am
ottovbs: “xenophobia and racial manias”
I’m going to complain to the moderators here and get every one of your personal attack posts DELETED from this blog.
You violate the New Majority policy on posts every day. Go read it:
“comments that are abusive, engage in personal attacks, contain racist, sexist, homophobic or other slurs, express hatred, are off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include any other type of ad hominem attacks (including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise) will be subject to removal.”
This is your final warning.
I’m going to DEMAND that the moderators either delete your posts containing personal attacks, or explain to us why you should not be banned.
I’ve had just about enough of your incivility.
You don’t play well with others.
Go live on MyDD from now on.
5 balconesfault // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:12 am
Come on, Sinz.
Think about what Frum is trying to cultivate here. Not a Republican Party that can just coalesce enough to act as a stopping action to portions of Obama’s agenda … but a Republican Party which can once again be a majority.
Now … which side of this particular argument do you think will advance that ball further? The “Obama is a Western civilization hating black supremicist” (we can skip for now how favoring a public option for healtcare represents hatred of Western civilization, since pretty much all the other western democracies have public healthcare systems) … or someone standing up and saying “enough with the racism and xenophobia”?
I’m pretty sure I know the answer from Frums POV. Good luck with your pleas to the editor. They might be alarmed to read dfl’s post above, knowing how it will play in a broader audience outside the demographics that get all their news from Fox.
6 brutus1791 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:32 am
Mega Dittos Sinz54! I would like to jump in here, as I seem to be tardy to the party and have been AWOL for a bit, because I always listen when my man Mr. Qualtere talks.
I want to map out and make sure that I have Otto’s argument down here, so as not to misconstrue his points. We are all about argument and debate here after all:
ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:59 am
…..Qualtere now believes everything that Michael Moore says……So Mr Qualtere Michael Moore is always 100% accurate in his opinionating…..have I got that right?
Slippery Slope Effect. Now, why is it that because Mike Moore makes a point that is collaberated by several others and happens to be the opinion of many others not suited for daily media outlets, this makes Mr. Qualtere in agreement with Moore “always 100%”. Burke once sniped when referring to a point of Rousseau’s thought in which they were in agreement, that this was “one of his more lucid moments.” That was when insults had class baby! Does this mean Burke and Rousseau see eye to eye “always 100%”? Or perhaps we are being disingenuous Otto?
ottovbvs// Aug 11, 2009 at 8:49 am
…….Keep talking……your xenophobia and racial manias say it all I’m afraid
Ad hominem. While, I do not agree with every (or even most) point that dfl makes, I agree with Sinz that we are just not moving the debate forward by lobbing personal grenades.
Anyone who is suprised that the President is more Left than he puts on should be smacked anyway. The man was appalled because the Warren Court was not “activist enough”, he was a firm believer of Saul Alinsky and carried “Rules for Radicals” around like how we carry the Constitution (well, nerds like me), he has made claims on film that his eventual goal is a single-payer system and this is the best way to accomplish that in the long run, and his Secretary of State has harsher words for a French student for asking (not even, lost in translation) about her husband than she had for Iran killing and maming its own people.
Frankly, Otto’s remarks added nothing. Not even worth bringing attention to. He doesn’t refute Mr. Qualtere, nor the points Mr. Qualtere raises… I don’t even know why he even posted honestly.
*shrug*
Where’s Bill?
7 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:32 am
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:42 am
…….Cool your hysteria….if these statements don’t constitute xenophobia and fail to get under the bar you quote then I don’t know what does…..your own statements are also frequently larded with racial demonization btw which I’ve long found offensive but can’t get too excited about
“comments that are abusive, engage in personal attacks, contain racist, sexist, homophobic or other slurs, express hatred, are off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include any other type of ad hominem attacks (including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise) will be subject to removal.”
” he plans to dissolve the former demographics of the country and make it a Third World majority”
““Dreams of My Father” which point to Obama’s obsession with his black racial origins”
“Yes, Obama hates the old America “
8 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:40 am
brutus1791 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:32 am
“Slippery Slope Effect. ”
…….Just posing a rhetorical question…..you know what that is I suppose ……..So just make sure I have this right you’re confirming that in your opinion Qualtere’s acceptance of Moore’s beliefs is selective……okay…I agree with you what more can I say
9 brutus1791 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:53 am
Otto,
or if we want to get into the real nitty-gritty (dirt band – plug…) we could say that Conservatives and Republicans (differences do exist) have been arguing that President Obama is much further to the left than he has been letting on. That would mean Moore is agreeing with US 100% from here on
10 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:57 am
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:19 am
“But on ObamaCare, the GOP has no hope of winning Hispanics over to their position. Because all those Hispanic immigrants want free generous health care. Their black and Hispanic supporters are salivating at the thought of a $1 trillion public health care program mostly for them! And the Dems accuse us conservatives of greed!”
…………A typical example of the racially pejorative statements that I mentioned
11 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
brutus1791 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:53 am
…….On that narrow issue Moore would certanly be agreeing with conservatives 100% of the time but in the wider sense in which I phrased my rhetorical question he’d only be agreeing with you selectively as you confirmed Qualtere was him…..Casuistry has only limited uses
12 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:12 pm
………Actually….. shock……horror…..I half agree with Moore…….it’s a well known political maneuver to blow trumpets and point your army in one direction while marching it in another…..Ask Disraeli, Bismark, Lloyd George, FDR, De Gaulle or Nixon…..and Obama is nothing if not a masterful politician
13 Obama faking left, heading FAR left! | Conservative Dallas // Aug 11, 2009 at 3:33 pm
[...] post today from Tom Qualtere titled, “Michael Moore: Obama’s Faking Right, Heading Left.“ He is dead on suggesting, “In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Michael Moore [...]
14 More Michael Moore - theBubbler // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:02 pm
[...] only "crafty and smart" if it’s Obama. If it’s Bush, well let’s have criminal trials. Michael Moore: Obama’s Faking Right, Heading Left __________________ I don’t need an [...]
15 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm
More Michael Moore – theBubbler
” If it’s Bush, well let’s have criminal trials. ”
……….I see passing universal healthcare which was always in Obama’s program is the same as launching a pre-emptive war on false pretences in which thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed…..and has cost the country about 800 billion……Equivalency Republican style
16 HumblyRight // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Moore says, “He says these things to keep the wolves away from the door, and it works.”
…………isn’t this a sophisticated way of saying “OBAMA IS A LIAR”.
Moore goes on to say, “The other side seems to buy it.”
………isn’t this a (not so) sophisticated way of saying “PEOPLE ARE STUPID FOR TAKING OBAMA AT HIS WORD”
Moore says, ” “I think he gets the opposition to shut up by telling them what they want to hear.”
…….isn’t this a sophisticated way of saying “OBAMA IS A LIAR”
17 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:41 pm
humblyright // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm
” …………isn’t this a sophisticated way of saying “OBAMA IS A LIAR”.
……..more like shading the truth…..it’s part of the politician’s job description or were you born yesterday…..see GWB and Dick Cheney for similar or much more egregious activity of this sort…….but then I suppose for you lies are in the eyes of the beholder
18 barker13 // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Re: Brutus1791 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:32 am (#6) –
“Where’s Bill?”
(*ROFLMAO*) (*RAISING MY HAND*) (*WAVING MY ARM*)
Here I am, Brutus! Just checked in!
(*CHUCKLE*) (*WINK*)
Seriously… what can I say? Sinz… I TRIED to warn you a long time ago about Otto. (*SHRUG*)
* Hey TOM! Before I get caught up chatting with “the gang” allow me to offer “Good Job” with the contribution.
Hey, Brutus… glad to “see” ya! Welcome back!
Hey… quick (and momentary) change of topic:
I discovered a new booze this weekend: Crown Royal Cask 16
http://inebrio.com/thescotchblog/?p=339
FWIT… I don’t know where the reviewers are getting this $100/bottle nonsense from… I paid $39.99 at Shoprite Liquors of Pearl River, NY on Saturday.
FOLKS… to those of you who love whiskey… you’ve GOT to pick up a bottle of this stuff! It’s out of this world and if you can find it like I did for $39.99 it’s a real bargain – it would make a hell of a gift for the whiskey lover on your list. (And great packaging too!)
BILL
19 Surreal: Obama Says He Has “Not Said That He Is A Single Payer Supporter” « Nice Deb // Aug 11, 2009 at 6:08 pm
[...] Michael Moore is super impressed with Obama’s “rope-a-dope strategy” to advance his side’s causes, and said so in an interview: [...]
20 sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Getting back to the original issue, I have two comments:
1. Michael Moore didn’t explain how he knows how far to the left Barack Obama really is. On the other hand, Reverend Wright, who knew Obama much better than Moore does, said pretty much the same thing.
2. I keep looking and looking in vain on the left-wing blogs and in the statements of prominent liberals to each other to find someone saying that ObamaCare was never intended to lead us to single-payer. So far, I haven’t found any. That’s a line they only feed out to the rest of us.
3. Moore claims that “I would be shocked if, three years from now, there are 50,000 troops in Iraq.” So would I. Heck, I would have been shocked at that if McCain had been elected. Because if Iraq still isn’t stabilized by 2012 (!!!), we may as well give up already.
21 DFL // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:45 am
It is funny how the feinting goes with regards to the health issue. Michael Moore wants single-payer health care as does President Obama yet they are willing to do it in two or three steps. Meanwhile, a pal of Moore’s, Russell Mokhiber of Single-Payer Action, has ambushed Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, among others, for compromising too much on Single-Payer. In the end, with Mokhiber pushing in one direction and Moore the other, Obama can say he is in the center, at least in the center on the left. I am not even sure whether Moore and Mokhiber coordinate this ying and yang or whether it is a natural progression.
22 balconesfault // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:54 am
Again, Sinz. Yes, most progressives and liberals do believe that giving people a public option, which simplifies the process for obtaining insurance, and reduces the cost of most people obtaining insurance, will lead to a government run universal system.
That’s because we don’t believe that private insurance companies have a vested interest in minimizing the amount of money that ends up not being spent on healthcare, but instead is spent on advertising and executive level compensation and bonuses and shareholder profits.
Now, insurance companies might see their survival in the marketplace being tied to reducing those costs, and improving their service, and respond accordingly – preventing domination of the marketplace by a government plan. In which case Moore and other advocates of single payer will have been proven wrong.
But meanwhile, we’ll all be better off. Except for those whose lifestyles have been dependent on the high profit margins of the private insurance system, of course. But the best, most innovative, of the insurers will still do quite well if they adapt to a new player in the marketplace.
23 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:10 am
dfl // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:45 am
“Michael Moore wants single-payer health care as does President Obama yet they are willing to do it in two or three steps. ”
………Actually I don’t think the president wants a single payer system(don’t give me links to speeches years ago) because at the moment it couldn’t be made to work and he’s interested in primarily what will work because that’s what his record will be judged upon……There’s no doubt that with a final bill containing the public option he’d have the theoretical power to put the insurance companies out of business in two years but there’s not the remotest chance he’s going to do it for a host of pragmatic reasons like insurance employment, operational efficiency and the market caps of health insurers which are a sizeable chunk of the S&P and therefore 401k’s…….and of course there’s a lot of feinting that’s how politics works…….because the media plays up the feints most people lose sight of the big picture.
24 sinz54 // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:27 am
balconesfault sez: “Now, insurance companies might see their survival in the marketplace being tied to reducing those costs, and improving their service, and respond accordingly – preventing domination of the marketplace by a government plan.”
That’s impossible–if Congress mandates the premiums and reimbursement rates of the public plan to set so low that private insurers cannot possibly compete. The CBO, in its analysis, assumed that wouldn’t happen–but the Congressional Progressive Caucus is demanding that reimbursement rates be set at only 5% above Medicare rates. That would mean that premiums would be dramatically lower than any private insurer could offer, and they would swiftly leave the market.
Setting reimbursement rates that low would require massive Federal subsidies out of general revenues. So you would have a plan that is massively subsidized with mandated artificially low rates. With private insurers who get no subsidies, unable to match those artificially low rates without going out of business.
Here in Massachusetts where I live, the premiums of the state-subsidized public plan, Network Health Forward, are only $34.00 (yes, just THIRTY-FOUR DOLLARS) per month. If every Mass resident were eligible for it, they would dump the private insurers in a heartbeat–who can resist “nearly free” coverage? The reason that doesn’t happen is that most residents aren’t eligible for that plan because it’s strictly means-tested.
But ObamaCare doesn’t means-test their public plan; even Bill Gates could apply for it.
If Obama were sincere about not leading to single-payer, he would demand that the public option must pay for itself through premiums, without constant injections of Federal subsidies. Democrat Senator Schumer proposed just such a common-sense idea. But that would require giving up on universal coverage–bringing all those poor folks into the plan will make it impossible to pay for itself without charging high premiums (in which case it’s worthless as a competitor to the private insurers).
25 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:52 am
sinz54 // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:27 am
“Here in Massachusetts where I live, the premiums of the state-subsidized public plan, Network Health Forward, are only $34.00 (yes, just THIRTY-FOUR DOLLARS) per month.If every Mass resident were eligible for it, they would dump the private insurers in a heartbeat–who can resist “nearly free” coverage?”
……….So you’re predicting a public option will offer coverage for $34 a month……. is that correct?
26 balconesfault // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:14 am
sinz: “Setting reimbursement rates that low would require massive Federal subsidies out of general revenues.”
What would be being subsidized?
27 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“……….So you’re predicting a public option will offer coverage for $34 a month……. is that correct?”
…….Sinz does his squid act again….squirts the ink and disappears
You must log in to post a comment.