Michael Moore endorses Clark
I've done a number of posts on the hypocrisy of General Wesley Clark. Now one of his supporters has a hypocrisy problem of his own. Michael Moore, movie maker and noted extreme leftist has endorsed Clark. As Slate notes, at: http://slate.msn.com/id/2094210/ , the Michel Moore movie "bowling for Columbine" has harsh criticism of the US actions in the balkens in the late 90s. These actions were led by General Wesley Clark. Michael Moore has just endorsed Clark. Apparently, Moore says that 'well thats all in the past' or words to that effect. I doubt whether Moore actually believes that so either he was pretending to critize the Balken efforts back then or he is lying now. This is an interesting case also because Moore's endorsement of Clark probably hurts Clark more than it helps him.
Monday, January 12, 2004
More on Wesley Clark
A Slate reporter has been following General Clark in New Hampshire.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093825/
Apparently, Clark continues to say things that seem crazy, for example that President Bush didn't try to get Osama Bin Laden. It seems impossible to imagine that Clark really believes in such things. This makes it an open and shut case of hypocrisy. I was trying to think well of Clark but he is preventing me from doing this. Arrrgh.
A Slate reporter has been following General Clark in New Hampshire.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093825/
Apparently, Clark continues to say things that seem crazy, for example that President Bush didn't try to get Osama Bin Laden. It seems impossible to imagine that Clark really believes in such things. This makes it an open and shut case of hypocrisy. I was trying to think well of Clark but he is preventing me from doing this. Arrrgh.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
More on Governor Dean's changing Relationship with God
A New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/campaigns/04DEAN.html
Gives a cynical view of Governor Dean's new relationship with God. The article doesn't come out and accuse Dean of faking an interest in religion but implies it. One amusing note was that Dean was asked his favorite book of the New Testament, answered "Job" and it took an hour before he realized (no doubt one of his aides helped him) that Job isn't in the NT. By the end of the article it is obvious that when Dean says, "Religion is a big part of my life" he doesn't mean it. So the hypocrisy charge that I dismissed a few days ago is reinstated.
A New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/campaigns/04DEAN.html
Gives a cynical view of Governor Dean's new relationship with God. The article doesn't come out and accuse Dean of faking an interest in religion but implies it. One amusing note was that Dean was asked his favorite book of the New Testament, answered "Job" and it took an hour before he realized (no doubt one of his aides helped him) that Job isn't in the NT. By the end of the article it is obvious that when Dean says, "Religion is a big part of my life" he doesn't mean it. So the hypocrisy charge that I dismissed a few days ago is reinstated.
Friday, January 02, 2004
Howard Dean's Relationship with God
It now is well known that Former Governor Howard Dean quit one Christian denomination and joined another because of a problem with his old Church's position on a bike path. It is also well known that he doesn't attend church services. It is also well known that he has said he doesn't want to let the Republicans talk about Guns, God and Gays in the south. The New Republic had an article basically saying that his position would lead to electoral defeat in the south. A few days later, Dean said he believes in God and would talk about God when he campaigned in the south. Is this hypocrisy.
What specifically is the hypocrisy? Does Dean not believe in God while saying he believes in God? or more likely, does Dean think southerners who believe in God aren't very bright but avoids saying this to avoid offending them? I think the latter is more likely and if so, it is a case of hypocrisy by silence which is not formally hypocrisy the way I defined it.
The Washington Post style section today has a story from a reporter following the Dean campaign in S Carolina at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48313-2004Jan1.html
The story mentions the religion issue. The story also indicates that Dean is not 'resonating' in S Carolina and he is not bible thumping either. So even if it were hypocrisy it would be minimal and minimally important.
It now is well known that Former Governor Howard Dean quit one Christian denomination and joined another because of a problem with his old Church's position on a bike path. It is also well known that he doesn't attend church services. It is also well known that he has said he doesn't want to let the Republicans talk about Guns, God and Gays in the south. The New Republic had an article basically saying that his position would lead to electoral defeat in the south. A few days later, Dean said he believes in God and would talk about God when he campaigned in the south. Is this hypocrisy.
What specifically is the hypocrisy? Does Dean not believe in God while saying he believes in God? or more likely, does Dean think southerners who believe in God aren't very bright but avoids saying this to avoid offending them? I think the latter is more likely and if so, it is a case of hypocrisy by silence which is not formally hypocrisy the way I defined it.
The Washington Post style section today has a story from a reporter following the Dean campaign in S Carolina at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48313-2004Jan1.html
The story mentions the religion issue. The story also indicates that Dean is not 'resonating' in S Carolina and he is not bible thumping either. So even if it were hypocrisy it would be minimal and minimally important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)