That's almost as good as his criticism about the NY Times as well as the rest of the elites and "intellectuals" during the last campaign.

Nice to hear. I just watched Farenheit 9/11 and Farenhype 9/11. Calling Moore a Slime Ball does disservice to slime balls.

Farenheit 9/11 was for the most part incoherant. The number of lies that he passes on is just amazing. Worse of all is his use, or more appropriately, his exploitation of soldiers, injured and Dead for his own purposes. That is beyond despicable. Farenhype 9/11 had an injured soldier that was in Moore's film unwillingly speak out. And a mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, whose funeral Moore shows speaks out about on Moore's abuse of a soldier who was proud to serve his country.

I hope I never meet that fat bastard. I'll have a hard time no eviserating him.

I suspect that mike moore has peaked. If democrats don't want to remain a minority party, they need less of guys like mike moore. While he can turn out a lot of democrats, he really can turnout a lot of republicans, basically because he scares the crap out of them

that's awesome!! i heart 41.

I am still waiting for the poll that asks people if Farenheit 9/11 changed their mind to vote against bush.

if such a poll exists, and it shows that michael moore had no effect on getting democrats some votes, then i can agree with the democrat michael moore haters.

on top of that, michael moore and his slacker tour, how many youngsters voted for democrats after that.

again no poll.

furthermore. if your a democrat and you hate moore, you are misguided.

you should be hating the daily propagandists, such as sean hannity, rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly.

michael moore makes one movie every couple of years. his message is not nearly shoved down our throats as much as the guys the talk radio freaks' message.

wether or not moore deserved a seat next to carter is debateable. wether or not moore deserves democrat support in some respect should not be. he campagned and did his part.

just like any one of us would have.

I think 41 is standing up for his victorious President, not for his embattled son, when he finally comes down on Michael Moore. I think that is a distinction worth making, as he didn't publicly say anything about Moore until well after the election was over.

Politically, 41 was soft, and it is clear than the spine 43 was bequeathed came from maternal DNA. Dad’s rant was little more than a little boy shouting at a vanquished foe, granted this particular foe isn’t intelligent enough to know he’s been soundly beaten.

While I agree with his assessment of Moore being a new pariah on the Left, as is his due for his disingenuous propaganda, I must wonder if Bush 41 would have been as vocal if Moore’s “Fiberal” party had won the election. Somehow I think not.

Bush 41 should be proud of his son, but attacking Moore now, when it doesn’t matter, is simply beating a corpulent, dead horse.

I find your judgment on the matter bizarrely angry.

I'm not really angry at 41, though I was disappointed in him as a leader in his time. No, I was merely underwhelmed by his timing. I just don't see the sense in relishing in Moore's apparent defeat "at this juncture."

Would it not have been much more helpful if he'd commented on Moore's lies after the release of the film, or during the election cycle?

Moore is disgraced, and I personally couldn't be happier. But 41's time to speak was then, not now.

I believe he has spoken about him before, prior to the election. You read too much into his motivations, IMO.

If 41 properly ripped Moore prior to the election, then mea culpa. But this is the first I've heard of 41 going on the warpath, and if it is his first open commentary, then I submit it comes far too late, both politically and personally.

I think 41 has been measured in his public remarks out of respect for the fact that his son is the sitting President. That's too bad because I'd like to hear more from him - he's a "straight shooter" as my grandfather would say.

Conversely, I think the fact his father was president also hinders W to a certain extent, and I believe the main reason you rarely hear any mention of the fact that Sadam Hussein once attempted to assassinate a sitting President of the United States (41) is actually because he is W's father, and any such mention of this would give only Mo Dowd and her ilk another chance to roll out their theories about "revenge" or "Oedipal desires" on the part of the son to show up his father. Had Clinton been the target of the assassination plot I'm sure it would have been mentioned much more often.

CY: Look, I also prefer 43 to 41, but you have the latter wrong. His son and the campaign very seldom responded to moonbat/DNC under-handed attacks, and I think that put them above the fray. A President at war does not deign to answer the likes of Michael Moore, and his daddy no doubt was following the policy of the campaign.

Do you recall how 41 kicked Dan Rather's @ss? On the air? No milquetoast was/is he.

Honestly, I missed the Rather affair, as at that point in my life I was far more interested in coeds than politics. A reader on my blog found several examples of 41 bashing Moore pre-election, and I'm roasting a crow as we speak.

Actually not too bad with lemon-pepper...

I think you are right to glorify bush 1 as a much better president than bush 2.

especially on foreign policy. it was in 41's memoir that he said invading iraq was a bad idea.

unfortunately 43 didn't read his dad's book instead he was too busy reading Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost to the Highest," as "a way for me on a daily basis to be in the word."

I think 41 would have kept a lot of people from dying. He was also less arrogant when it came to fiscal policy.

raise taxes people, its gonna have to happen.

I'm glad he said something, but it looks pretty weak to me. Calling Moore a slimeball, sure, that will gain my respect any day. But the story about wanting to say something to Carter and not saying it ... it just makes him look like a wimp. I wanna see the gloves come off.