Check out what Michael Moore has just posted on his FB page...

[MADem]

277. It never came out of the closet, or its Barcolounger, or where ever it is hanging, no thanks to MM.

One doesn't bring up a new topic days before an election unless you're looking to pull a shitty "October surprise" not that this was MM's purpose. That said, MM met his goal--he wanted names of left-leaners who are interested in this election. He got what he was after. He's got the names of everyone who "shared" his little graphic.

If he was at all serious about this issue, he could have jump started this discussion MONTHS ago--during primary season. He could have motivated his minions and riled 'em up, and brought the issue to the fore...but he didn't. He could have done what you were unable to do with your discussions amongst a closed-group of like-minded facebook friends. Call your congressman! Email your Senator!!! He could have directed his publicist to get him on every talk show and he could have touted the issue and motivated boatloads of people to call/write/gripe. That's all he would have had to say and hundreds--no, thousands-- of loyal acolytes would have jumped to do his bidding, to say nothing of thousands who don't care for the guy, don't know him, or whatever, but who care about the environment and what's in store for future generations. "Rachel" and "Al" and even "Joe and Mika" would have been forced to discuss the topic if he had started raising Cain over it. He could have made it take off with the very simple power of his celebrity.

He could have elevated the issue. He didn't. He was silent. Until it was way too late.

The "deciders" had nothing to do with the mention of this issue; no one "silenced" MM's plea, he just didn't make it in a timely manner and there was no impetus to focus on this deserving topic as others competed for the attention of the candidates--you just don't post shit on Facebook right before a debate and seriously expect the moderator to see it--but MM knew that; that's not what he wanted at all. He wanted your NAME, and the names of your friends and everyone else and their friends who clicked on that link. He got 'em, too.

The fact that you hope he buys a couple of Senators is rather troubling. Not a terribly small "d" democratic POV. I'd like to see less graft, less corruption, less wheeling, dealing, moneymaking, insider-trading, and lobbyist-influencing bullshit on the Hill--not more. I saw enough of that shit to turn anyone's stomach way back when, and I don't like it any better from a distance.

Al Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" well before 1992, when it was published. He pushed for Kyoto through 97 but got the "hand" from the Senate. So, yes, he WAS a big environmental standard bearer way back in the day, and I was on the Hill during that time, so I remember a lot of his emphasis first-hand.

Here, a brief memory refresher for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/climatechange1

He already had a long and unwavering track record on the environment when he stood for the Presidency (and won, and was denied his due). He didn't run from that at all in his campaign, the environmental piece was quite central to his campaign--this material was lifted straight from his Gore for President website: http://www.4president.us/issues/gore2000/gorelieberman2000environment.htm

Al Gore, notwithstanding his beard and girth and angst and personal issues, is the very same guy at the core of his being that he was in 2000. He was denied his due, and MM helped muddy those waters with his championing of King Ralph. But "later" he claimed to support AG? Yeah, when people turned from him en masse after that Supreme Court shithouse and called him the asshole that he was--he adjusted his POV to assist his own bottom line. I question MM's sincerity, and I just don't find him helpful at all--with friends like MM, who needs enemies? He's a scold who makes money crabbing about problems without offering any real solutions. A professional fault finder with no fixes, that's him. It's something that's easy to do from the sidelines. He does a very good job of it, and gets very rich from it, but I won't look to him for "environmental truths." There are people who have spent a lifetime working in that field who have much more to say, and can contribute more meaningfully to an understanding of the issues, than he might. They not only "get" the problems, they have real solutions to propose.

The man is a living, breathing "missed opportunity" on so many issues. I just don't get the sense he's on anyone's "side" but his own, and I think anyone who believes he is might well be disappointed in him sooner or later. I've had that view for some time, now--and it is all down to his own behavior. This little meaningless stunt just reminded me of how he rolls.