Andrew Malcolm strikes again
March 12, 2009 11:12 am ET by Jamison Foser
Is there any major-newspaper reporter who is more consistently wrong than Andrew Malcolm?
Here's filmmaker Michael Moore, on criticism of Rush Limbaugh:
President Obama and the Democratic Party have wasted no time in pointing out to the American people this marriage from hell, tying Rush like a rock around the collective Republican neck and hoping for its quick descent to the netherworld of irrelevance.
But some commentators (Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, Chuck Todd of NBC News, etc.) have likened this to "what Republicans tried to do to the Democrats with Michael Moore." Perhaps. But there is one central difference: What I have believed in, and what I have stood for in these past eight years -- an end to the war, establishing universal health care, closing Guantanamo and banning torture, making the rich pay more taxes and aggressively going after the corporate chiefs on Wall Street -- these are all things which the majority of Americans believe in too. That's why in November the majority voted for the guy I voted for. The majority of Americans rejected the ideology of Rush and embraced the same issues I have raised consistently in my movies and books.
And here's LA Times reporter (and former Laura Bush press secretary) Andrew Malcolm, describing Moore's comments:
Moore lists numerous ways that Republican strategists went after him in past years -- books, ads, funny photos, and how he was booed off the Oscar stage even in liberal Hollywood for his early opposition to the Iraq war, Guantanamo, torture and other things.
Did that help Democratic Sen. Kerry not get elected in 2004? "Perhaps," Moore admits.
Now, if you read what Moore wrote, you'll notice that Malcolm is simply not telling the truth. Moore's "perhaps" was not an admission that Republican attacks on him helped to defeat John Kerry; not even close. Moore said "perhaps" there is some similarity between what Democrats are currently doing and what Republicans tried to do to him; he is not saying Republicans were successful. Malcolm simply made that up, and ripped Moore's comment out of context in order to hide the fabrication.
In fact, Moore said the GOP's attacks on him backfired (that is, Moore said the opposite of what Malcolm says he said):
The result of this was one colossal backfire. The more they attacked me, the more the public decided to check out who this "devil" was and what he was saying. And -- oops! -- more than a few people liked what they saw.
...
Yes, the more the Right went after me, the more people got to hear what I was saying -- and eventually the majority, for some strange reason, ended up agreeing with me -- not Rush Limbaugh -- and elected Barack Obama as president of the United States, a man who promised to end the war, bring about universal health care, close Guantanamo, stop torture, tax the rich, and rein in the abusive masters of Wall Street.
...
In the end it all proved to be a big strategic mistake on their part. Thanks to the Republican attacks on me, average Joes and Janes started to listen to what I had to say.
...
Obama and the Democrats going after Rush is a good thing and will not do for him what the Republican attack plan did for me -- namely, the majority of Americans will never be sympathetic to him because they simply don't agree with him.
The days of using my name as a pejorative are now over. The right wing turned me into an accidental spokesperson for the liberal, majority agenda. Thank you, Republican Party. You helped us elect one of the most liberal senators to the presidency of the United States. We couldn't have done it without you.
Now, maybe you disagree with Michael Moore; maybe you think the Republicans attacks on him did help George W. Bush win in 2004. That doesn't change the fact that Michael Moore simply did not say what Andrew Malcolm says he said.
Malcolm made it up.
I'm not crazy about Michael Moore. My own opinion is that his heavy handed, sarcastic (arrogant) style turns off moderates who might be convinced if he'd just STOP five minutes sooner. BUT... it IS absurd how Rush (and co...) demonize him. And he's dead right about the backfiring of the branding:
1) They demonize Moore. People check him out and find out they basically agree with his position. (Even if they still think he's a jerk.)
2) They've demonized LIBERALS and have branded Obama a LIBERAL. Well... four years from now if/when Obama is strongly relelected the same number of people will start to realize that "LIBERAL" aint so bad a brad label after all. (Indeed "CONSERVATIVE" is fast becoming a bad word in many circles in the same way.)
3) They'll end up doing the same thing to "Socialism." As in... SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. If they keep calling what Obama is doing THAT, people will eventually realize that it's not so bad, and maybe even be inclined toward ACTUAL solcialized medicine.
You see, these right-wing tactis of demonizing the opposition only work if your ideas really are better. (Otherwise your lias and propagande efforts will fail. The truth will out.) And if the ideas ARE better then the school-yard bully tactics aren't needed anyway. Just give [the opposition] a chance, and when they fail they'll take the party, the brand and the label with them. The Conservatives, Neo-Cons, Republicans, etc... HAD their chance. What did they do? The grabbed a TON of cash and made fun of their opponents while they destoryed the American economy and made a mochery of our COnstitution. Eventually people found out and weren't to happy. The then gave the other side a chance. We'll see how it works out, but the Domocrats aren't they ones trying to CONVINCE the majority of America what it is they want. They KNOW what is wanted and what is needed. Now all they have to do is deliver, and they will have their long term (nothing's permanent) majority.
Michael Moore was (maybe still is) at a position where he could have pulled a number of moderates to more progressive causes. Instead, he went out of hand, and the GOP masterfully played him as an example of a gosh darn librul.