Dear Not a Poet,
Apparently you didn't look at the picture.
If you did look at the picture, you apparently didn't look at Senator McCain's record on torture and human rights. Once it became apparent that it was possible for him to get the nomination, he reversed himself on torture so quickly I got whiplash. The pun was intentional. Considering how strongly he said he was opposed to it beforehand, sleazy might be considered an appropriate word.
As for Michael Moore, I wouldn't defend everything he's said by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, he's not running for the Presidency, is he? And of the statements he's made about the truthfulness of the current President, a high proportion of them were true. Certainly none of them came near the assertions that were made in the presidential primaries in 2004 by folks working for President Bush that Senator McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. Those were sleazy. No only did he have a right to be upset, but the black population of South Carolina had a right to be upset for the use of racial politics as well. I was upset, and I was a Democrat, already steamed at the sleazy things the Swift-boat people were trying to do to John Kerry.
The fact that Senator McCain now has the same people working for him in his current campaign that he condemned as sleazy for their campaign against him in South Carolina in the last election cycle is not to my my mind an example of high nobility.
Michael Moore made some mistaken conclusions about the connection of George W, Bush and the Saudi Government. For what it's worth, Ann Richards corrected him out front in public, saying that any oil man had to have Saudi oil connections if they were going to do their job. Moore has been wrong. He has also been right, and to call him sleazy is not an accusation that Republicans can make with clean hands; especially with the enormous number of lies and distortions this administration and its congressional allies have given voice to over the past eight of so years.
Should you wish to go into those, starting with the lies about the Republican intentions for dealing with Iraq in 2001, we can do so again, but these lies have been documented and discussed in these pages many times over the past year or so. I have never seen you raising any serious objections while this was going on to the documentation that was offered.
I include the discussion about New Orleans and the Federal Response to the 2004 Hurricane.
That you would consider the comments of a social commentator and satirist on the same level as the disasters of Katrina I can only attribute to my own failure to grasp your meaning. Sleaze is Appointing a college buddy named Brownie whose expertise is (maybe) in race horses to lead an organization responsible for disaster relief for the entire country when he has not the slightest clue about anything but looking good in a suit and knowing the best places to eat. Sleaze is pretending he's done a good job when the whole country is watching and seeing that he has not.
I could go on, but I will not.
Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven