[BlueSky]

Another Michael Moore letter. I've linked to an off-site version for those who don't want to sully their browser by going to his site.

To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:


Partial quote:

To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:

On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?

How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

That's right. Horse shows.

I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.

I think he raises a few legitimate questions. What do you think?*

*Besides the fact that he's raises more than his share of cheeseburgers. We know.

[kd]

The Malodorous Michigan Manatee of Mendacity.

[RAILhead]

You people still listen to that goon?

[Sky Captain]

Moore has absolutely no credibility anymore.
He twists the truth and fills in missing spaces with lies.
A bloviating fat bastard. Nothing more.
Bowling for COlumbine was bad but Fareiheit was a worse distortion.
"Documentaries" my ass. Political feedbags for the left.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Moore has absolutely no credibility anymore.
He twists the truth and fills in missing spaces with lies.
A bloviating fat bastard. Nothing more.
Bowling for COlumbine was bad but Fareiheit was a worse distortion.
"Documentaries" my ass. Political feedbags for the left.

Whatever. I too have a problem with some of his tactics, i.e., I thought the bit with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine was crap. But I think the letter is straightforward and poses some good questions, and I think the letter itself should be addressed.

If he's a chronic liar, as you're implying, it would follow that the questions he asks are bullshît.

So...where's the bullshît in that letter?

[Busemann]

Another Michael Moore thread?

*Cue stupid pics and personal bashing*

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Moore has absolutely no credibility anymore.
He twists the truth and fills in missing spaces with lies.
A bloviating fat bastard. Nothing more.
Bowling for COlumbine was bad but Fareiheit was a worse distortion.
"Documentaries" my ass. Political feedbags for the left.

blah blah blah.. knee jerk, another knee jerk. We've heard this before.

Instead of another thread crumbling into the character of Michael Moore and whether he should be allowed to exist, how about we actually talk about what he is *saying* for once?

[kd]

I honestly think that anybody who could read what Moore writes without seeing what a load of horse manure it is, is probably not going to be swayed by argument.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Instead of another thread crumbling into the character of Michael Moore and whether he should be allowed to exist, how about we actually talk about what he is *saying* for once?

I think folks would be more inclined to do that if that were HIS chosen method of operation.

[besson3c]

3 knee jerk reactions in this thread and counting...

[chabig]

Originally Posted by besson3c

blah blah blah.. knee jerk, another knee jerk. We've heard this before.

Instead of another thread crumbling into the character of Michael Moore and whether he should be allowed to exist, how about we actually talk about what he is *saying* for once?

Why don't we actually talk what Sky Captain is saying?

[chabig]

You know what? I just went to MM's site and actually read what he wrote. It proved to me that the replies you characterized as "knee jerk" were right on. There is nothing new in MM's writings. This letter is just more of the same--no facts--just a lot of leading questions and accusations. Same ol', same ol'.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Moore has absolutely no credibility anymore.
He twists the truth and fills in missing spaces with lies.
A bloviating fat bastard. Nothing more.
Bowling for COlumbine was bad but Fareiheit was a worse distortion.
"Documentaries" my ass. Political feedbags for the left.

Which relates to Katrina and this essay in which way? What lies?

[von Wrangell]

This thread is fun.

Why don't you MM-Bashers™ just answer the questions he (MM) posed? Don't like the answers?

[NYCFarmboy]

lol, Republicans love Michael Moore more than Democrats.

.... Roger & Me was HILARIOUS. I love the rabbit farmers. lol

[vinster]

Why aren't some of the people who voted for GW answering his questions, or at least thinking about the consequences of putting him back in office, rather than just attacking Moore's credibility?

Why, because this is how many loyal Republicans argue. Just dismiss the question and chalk it up to liberal whining.

For all the bad things happening as a result of Bush's tenure, at least a second term will cement his place in history as America's worst President of all time.

Regards,

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Why don't you MM-Bashers™ just answer the questions he (MM) posed? Don't like the answers?

OK... I'll answer this one:

My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?

The US ain't the laughing stock of the World. Not by a long shot. Perhaps Mr Moore should get himself a passport and actually go ask folks what they think instead of guessing?

[Pendergast]

Why is the Right apologizing for Bush's failures?

[kd]

You assume that everybody who detests Moore is part of the Right, and a Bush voter? I am neither.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Why is the Right apologizing for Bush's failures?

Linky

But the dim view of Brown's qualifications by senators seems to have emerged only in hindsight. Members of both parties seemed little troubled by his background at 2002 Senate hearings that led to his confirmation as deputy FEMA chief.

Indeed, Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who led those hearings, called Brown's long-ago stint as assistant city manager in Edmond, Okla., a "particularly useful experience"

I won't apologize for Brown's appointment, but lets not pretend Bush is the only one to blame. The VERY people who are bashing him now confirmed him in 2002. I guess hindsight is 20/20 huh.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Linky



I won't apologize for Brown's appointment, but lets not pretend Bush is the only one to blame. The VERY people who are bashing him now confirmed him in 2002. I guess hindsight is 20/20 huh.

Yeah, sure. Indeed.

But let's go back to Bush shall we? Brown is little fish.

[rambo47]

Answer MM's questions? Why even listen? He's so "last-year". With zero credibility and a proven track record of gross exagerations there is really no point to him. Click. <the sound of the chanel being changed>

[spauldingg]

What ever happened to the right wing rallying cry of "The President should be able to appoint anyone he wants to" from during the whole filibuster issue? Now that he has been proven to have appointed an imbecile, it's all the Dems fault.

Regarding Mr. Moore: He asks questions, good questions. The problem is he tries to answer them. Sometimes correctly, sometimes not. But thank God someone is asking the questions. (Kinda like Ken Starr during the dreaded Clinton admin )

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by chabig

Why don't we actually talk what Sky Captain is saying?

Because we've done this a zillion times. We get it, you guys don't like Michael Moore or his writings. I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd much prefer to talk about what he said rather than about him.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

This thread is fun.

Why don't you MM-Bashers™ just answer the questions he (MM) posed? Don't like the answers?

Because we still have a few questions from 2004 that have never been answered...like how did John Kerry manage to get himself shipped out of Vietnam in just 3 months when everyone had to serve for a year? Why wouldn't he release his military records? The list goes on...

There is no point in answering Mr. Moore's "questions" because they are not meant to be answered. They are meant to be spears aimed at his political opposition.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by kd

You assume that everybody who detests Moore is part of the Right, and a Bush voter? I am neither.

I don't care. With that type of argument:

I honestly think that anybody who could read what Moore writes without seeing what a load of horse manure it is, is probably not going to be swayed by argument.

you disqualified yourself from a constructive discussion.

The thread is about questions asked by Moore. Not Moore himself. If anything he writes is horse manure, I hope we shall never hear those very words he wrote from your mouth, right?

That would be disgusting, you see?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by chabig

You know what? I just went to MM's site and actually read what he wrote. It proved to me that the replies you characterized as "knee jerk" were right on. There is nothing new in MM's writings. This letter is just more of the same--no facts--just a lot of leading questions and accusations. Same ol', same ol'.

Okay, let's discuss them... shoot.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy

OK... I'll answer this one:



The US ain't the laughing stock of the World. Not by a long shot. Perhaps Mr Moore should get himself a passport and actually go ask folks what they think instead of guessing?

We can't discuss this point, it can't be proven. How about we discuss the meat of what Moore is saying rather than the fat he is fond of throwing in there?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by chabig

Because we still have a few questions from 2004 that have never been answered...like how did John Kerry manage to get himself shipped out of Vietnam in just 3 months when everyone had to serve for a year? Why wouldn't he release his military records? The list goes on...

Why not start your own thread? Let's have some structured fun here!

There is no point in answering Mr. Moore's "questions" because they are not meant to be answered. They are meant to be spears aimed at his political opposition.

Ah?

Problem with democracy? Don't like dissent? Dreaming of a "Right Only World"?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Linky



I won't apologize for Brown's appointment, but lets not pretend Bush is the only one to blame. The VERY people who are bashing him now confirmed him in 2002. I guess hindsight is 20/20 huh.

This is more of the usual "okay, we're to blame, but the other guy is too! How about we talk about the other guy for a while!"

Bush controlled the White House in 2002, and if the Democrats were to have complained about this appointment, maybe they would have been labeled as whiners. Perhaps they were picking their best strategic fights?

Whatever, the point remains, the Republicans are at least partially to blame.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by rambo47

Answer MM's questions? Why even listen? He's so "last-year". With zero credibility and a proven track record of gross exagerations there is really no point to him. Click. <the sound of the chanel being changed>

Then skip to the next thread. If we are going to talk about what he said, let's do so.

[besson3c]

I'll attempt to set the tone by responding to what Moore is saying:


Obviously, the Bush administration either wasn't taking this appointment seriously, or they honestly thought he was more qualified than he was and made a mistake. Shame on Brown for taking the job we wasn't capable of handling.

If the former is the case, both the Right and Left are to blame for not taking this appointment seriously. With security at the focus of the administration, and so much work put into restructuring and creating the DHS and whatnot, I'm surprised that they didn't also gut FEMA and make it more bulletproof.

E.M.T.s and Paramedics in many states are not paid well. I've never understood why this is. Perhaps in addition to making FEMA as strong as it can be with the resources available, we should also try to improve the capabilities and strength of local and state rescue responders.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Okay, let's discuss them... shoot.

I'm simply not interested in discussing his letter. It's not meant for discussion, but for attack.

But before I sign off on this thread I will show good faith by responding to the first of Mr. Moore's "questions".

"How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?"

Whether he ran horse shows is irrelevant to whether he can effectively serve as FEMA director. You want to know a secret--not one man who ever served as President of the United States ever served as President before he was elected! I know you're shocked, but it's true. You don't have to hold a job before you're qualified for the job. That is just ridiculous. John Kerry never held public office before he ran for Senate. So what! It's irrelevant!

The rest of MM's questions are no better.

I'm outa here.

Chris

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by chabig

I'm simply not interested in discussing his letter. It's not meant for discussion, but for attack.

But before I sign off on this thread I will show good faith by responding to the first of Mr. Moore's "questions".

"How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?"

Whether he ran horse shows is irrelevant to whether he can effectively serve as FEMA director. You want to know a secret--not one man who ever served as President of the United States ever served as President before he was elected! I know you're shocked, but it's true. You don't have to hold a job before you're qualified for the job. That is just ridiculous. John Kerry never held public office before he ran for Senate. So what! It's irrelevant!

That's the defense? You don't think some experience in something *remotely related* and/or useful to the job would have been nice? This position wasn't some stepping stone job, this was the big leagues. Don't you think there were others that would have been more qualified to handle the position?

[kd]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I don't care. With that type of argument:
... you disqualified yourself from a constructive discussion.

It wasn't an argument, Pendergast, it was a statement of opinion. Work on your reading comprehension. But I'm not surprised to hear somebody of your ilk wanting to silence those who don't agree with you -- it's pretty typical. You tolerant, constructive types are always wanting everybody else to shut up.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

The thread is about questions asked by Moore. Not Moore himself.

Work on your reading comprehension, Pendergast. The statement you quoted was about the content of the writings linked to by the OP, not about Manatee of Mendacity.

[porieux]

...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kd

It wasn't an argument, Pendergast, it was a statement of opinion. Work on your reading comprehension. But I'm not surprised to hear somebody of your ilk wanting to silence those who don't agree with you -- it's pretty typical. You tolerant, constructive types are always wanting everybody else to shut up.

Yeah, being tolerant and constructive is a bad thing...

How about some substance here? Tell us what you think, and why.

[kd]

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's the defense? You don't think some experience in something *remotely related* and/or useful to the job would have been nice? This position wasn't some stepping stone job, this was the big leagues. Don't you think there were others that would have been more qualified to handle the position?

With claims having been made that Brown's resume is bogus, I can't comment on his qualifications. To do that, I'd have to know what his qualifications, if any, really are. So I'll just make some side remarks.

I'm not convinced that it's commonly understood what the FEMA director's qualifications need to be. Do people really know what FEMA's role is in disaster situations? Or is there just a common set of uninformed assumptions? (This is not aimed at anybody in particular; I'm wondering about the level of understanding of the general public. And I don't claim any expertise about it either.)

My uninformed impression is that FEMA's main role historically has been to come in 2-4 days after a disaster and start writing checks, while boots-on-the-ground stuff is handled mainly by local and state responders. Perhaps the useful skill needed by FEMA directors is to be a good administrator or budget maven.

Also, I have the impression that political appointees assigned as heads of agencies are not necessarily expected to be subject-matter experts, but are there as administrators and enforcers of presidential policy. Subject-matter expertise would be supplied by the career staff.

[besson3c]

Comon knee-jerkers. I'm dying here. Throw a dying man some substance, please!


Hint: MM isn't a horrible person because you disagree with him. He is practicing his first amendment rights and strengthening our democracy by having semi-intelligent dissenting opinions. I usually don't agree with his form myself, but can we get past that and actually discuss something with some meat, like what he is actually saying? Everytime somebody brings up MM, there is always a couple of pages debating his character and whether he is worth the time... gets very boring.

If you don't want to have this discussion, is it fair game to slam Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Carlson Tucker, Hannity & Combes, Rush Limbaugh, anybody else on the right with inflammatory view points?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kd

With claims having been made that Brown's resume is bogus, I can't comment on his qualifications. To do that, I'd have to know what his qualifications, if any, really are. So I'll just make some side remarks.

I'm not convinced that it's commonly understood what the FEMA director's qualifications need to be. Do people really know what FEMA's role is in disaster situations? Or is there just a common set of uninformed assumptions? (This is not aimed at anybody in particular; I'm wondering about the level of understanding of the general public. And I don't claim any expertise about it either.)

My uninformed impression is that FEMA's main role historically has been to come in 2-4 days after a disaster and start writing checks, while boots-on-the-ground stuff is handled mainly by local and state responders. Perhaps the useful skill needed by FEMA directors is to be a good administrator or budget maven.

Also, I have the impression that political appointees assigned as heads of agencies are not necessarily expected to be subject-matter experts, but are there as administrators and enforcers of presidential policy. Subject-matter expertise would be supplied by the career staff.

FEMA's tagline on their website:

Agency of the US government tasked with Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness, Response & Recovery planning.

[kd]

Originally Posted by besson3c

FEMA's tagline on their website:

Yes, but what do they actually DO? In past disasters, the only mention I've heard of FEMA's contribution is of them writing checks. If they weren't primarily in the paper-pushing business, but were expected to actually make a difference in real-world disaster response, they'd need a lot more employees than they have.

[kd]

Found some information on FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/library/fff02.shtm

An interesting section: Some things FEMA DOES NOT do:

Physically rescue people or serve as "first-responders" in a disaster – that is the responsibility of local and state police, fire and emergency personnel.

Building dams or levees or activating sand-bagging activities – generally the responsibility of local/state officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Taking "charge" of recovery effort -- FEMA works jointly with state and local officials.

Running temporary shelters or disaster feeding stations – generally the responsibility of such organizations at the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army.

Making weather predictions, fly into hurricanes or predict when rivers will surpass flood stage – generally the responsibility of the National Weather Service.

Ordering evacuations of communities due to natural disaster – generally the responsibility of state and local officials.

Setting building standards or setting zoning regulations – generally the responsibility of local and state official, with suggestions from FEMA.

Calling out the National Guard – generally a state responsibility.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kd

Found some information on FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/library/fff02.shtm

An interesting section: Some things FEMA DOES NOT do:

Physically rescue people or serve as "first-responders" in a disaster – that is the responsibility of local and state police, fire and emergency personnel.

Building dams or levees or activating sand-bagging activities – generally the responsibility of local/state officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Taking "charge" of recovery effort -- FEMA works jointly with state and local officials.

Running temporary shelters or disaster feeding stations – generally the responsibility of such organizations at the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army.

Making weather predictions, fly into hurricanes or predict when rivers will surpass flood stage – generally the responsibility of the National Weather Service.

Ordering evacuations of communities due to natural disaster – generally the responsibility of state and local officials.

Setting building standards or setting zoning regulations – generally the responsibility of local and state official, with suggestions from FEMA.

Calling out the National Guard – generally a state responsibility.

See, isn't a productive conversation like this far more fun than just slamming somebody?

Fun, safe, happy, and you won't get AIDS! What could be better?

[kd]

Originally Posted by besson3c

... can we get past that and actually discuss something with some meat, like what he is actually saying?

The bio at FEMA's web site says that "Previously, Mr. Brown served as FEMA's Deputy Director and the agency's General Counsel. Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Brown served on the President's Consequence Management Principal's Committee, which acted as the White House's policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, the President asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan. In August 2002, President Bush appointed him to the Transition Planning Office for the new Department of Homeland Security, serving as the transition leader for the EP&R Division."

Now consider the first point in Moore's polemic: "How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows? That's right. Horse shows."

Now, is anybody here claiming that this is worthy of discussion? That it is intellectually honest, or fair, or accurate, or approximately accurate? Let's face it, "what he is actually saying" is in fact NOT "something with some meat".

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by kd

Found some information on FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/library/fff02.shtm

An interesting section: Some things FEMA DOES NOT do:

Physically rescue people or serve as "first-responders" in a disaster – that is the responsibility of local and state police, fire and emergency personnel.

Building dams or levees or activating sand-bagging activities – generally the responsibility of local/state officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Taking "charge" of recovery effort -- FEMA works jointly with state and local officials.

Running temporary shelters or disaster feeding stations – generally the responsibility of such organizations at the American Red Cross or the Salvation Army.

Making weather predictions, fly into hurricanes or predict when rivers will surpass flood stage – generally the responsibility of the National Weather Service.

Ordering evacuations of communities due to natural disaster – generally the responsibility of state and local officials.

Setting building standards or setting zoning regulations – generally the responsibility of local and state official, with suggestions from FEMA.

Calling out the National Guard – generally a state responsibility.

I wish this would have been a damn sticky about 11 days ago…

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kd

The bio at FEMA's web site says that "Previously, Mr. Brown served as FEMA's Deputy Director and the agency's General Counsel. Shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Mr. Brown served on the President's Consequence Management Principal's Committee, which acted as the White House's policy coordination group for the federal domestic response to the attacks. Later, the President asked him to head the Consequence Management Working Group to identify and resolve key issues regarding the federal response plan. In August 2002, President Bush appointed him to the Transition Planning Office for the new Department of Homeland Security, serving as the transition leader for the EP&R Division."

Now consider the first point in Moore's polemic: "How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows? That's right. Horse shows."

Now, is anybody here claiming that this is worthy of discussion? That it is intellectually honest, or fair, or accurate, or approximately accurate? Let's face it, "what he is actually saying" is in fact NOT "something with some meat".

His form, as usual, is poor and too offensive/defensive (maybe he feels that more subtle intellectual arguments are less effective - people seem to react more to more poignant "sledgehammer over the head" types of experiences/sentiments?)

I don't think his administrative experience necessarily makes him qualified for the job though, especially if he's never handled an actual emergency. Plenty of people can push paper around.

I'm not saying he's never handled an emergency, I frankly don't know either way. However, I think this is still a reasonable conversation to have (even if I don't agree with how Moore has brought it up), and I don't think that what you have posted completely discredits what Moore has said (although, obviously it suggests that Moore is exagerating).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So in a nutshell, Moore was wrong about Brown’s Bio, wrong about who had any problem confirming him, and wrong about the role of FEMA to begin with. Yet none of that kept him from writing another of his “Dear Americans, let me brow beat you with an inane question based on a dishonest premise, because I doubt you can look up the facts any better than I can” letters.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So in a nutshell, Moore was wrong about Brown’s Bio, wrong about who had any problem confirming him, and wrong about the role of FEMA to begin with. Yet none of that kept him from writing another of his “Dear Americans, let me brow beat you with an inane question based on a dishonest premise, because I doubt you can look up the facts any better than I can” letters.

This is what people did with F911, they found some details that they believed to be false, and discredited the entire movie based on these perceived flaws.

The main point here is that Moore thinks that Brown wasn't qualified. Based on the fact that Brown was relieved from his duties, it appears as if he was right and is now gloating.

It seems like the gloating is really what you guys take an issue with.

[kd]

Originally Posted by besson3c

His form, as usual, is poor and too offensive/defensive (maybe he feels that more subtle intellectual arguments are less effective - people seem to react more to more poignant "sledgehammer over the head" types of experiences/sentiments?)

To me, he comes across as a rabble-rouser/demagogue. I think that if there are substantive issues to be discussed, it can be done far more productively by leaving Moore out of the equation.

I don't think his administrative experience necessarily makes him qualified for the job though, especially if he's never handled an actual emergency. Plenty of people can push paper around.

I think he's presided over some previous, lesser hurricane events since his appointment, though that doesn't speak to whether he was qualified at the time of his appointment. I really don't have an opinion on whether or not he is up to the task; the public discourse is so tainted, and he's so obviously a scapegoat, that it's impossible for me to know. However, he clearly didn't have what it takes to handle the politics of the situation.

I'm not saying he's never handled an emergency, I frankly don't know either way.

His FEMA bio says "Under Secretary Brown has led Homeland Security’s response to more than 164 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies, including the 2003 Columbia Shuttle disaster and the California wildfires in 2003. In 2004, Mr. Brown led FEMA’s thousands of dedicated disaster workers during the most active hurricane season in over 100 years, as FEMA delivered aid more quickly and more efficiently than ever before." Some typical bio puffery there, but apparently he has been doing on a regular basis whatever it is that FEMA does, without attracting serious criticism until now.

However, I think this is still a reasonable conversation to have (even if I don't agree with how Moore has brought it up), and I don't think that what you have posted completely discredits what Moore has said (although, obviously it suggests that Moore is exagerating).

I just don't think that Moore contributes anything useful to the discussion. He's ranting and mud-slinging, obfuscating rather than enlightening. If anybody really wanted to know whether or not Brown was qualified or performed acceptably, Moore's letter wouldn't be a useful source of information.

For example, I could point out that Clinton appointed as regional FEMA director a former rodeo clown (true, I believe). That wouldn't be any more germane than the point Moore makes about race horses, though the shared connection to horses is interesting.

Having said all that, I think that most people think it's just as well to see Brown out of the picture, if only because he failed at the one indispensable task of every political appointee: to avoid becoming a liability. Thus he has few defenders of any political stripe.

[besson3c]

kd: fair enough... you make good points.

I'd much rather have a conversation like this than simply slam Moore's character and credentials. It's boring and counter-productive. He needs to exist, although perhaps he needs to polish off his rough edges.