You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 945

PLAYS: 2067

I interviewed Michael Moore for a few minutes in between his media stops about his new movie called Capitalism, A Love Story which I reviewed here. As we discussed his film, the topic of conservatism, hate speech and FOX News came up and I asked him if he would consider going back on FOX News again. His responses were interesting and I think FOX News will go scrambling to book him after they hear what Michael had to say. I also think Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck will not be happy campers.

Amato: Would you ever go back on FOX again?

Moore: Yes,I would go back on FOX again. I would not go on Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck because they use far too much hate speech and calls for violence and I cannot participate with anyone that goes down that road.
I stayed off because somebody at the studio told me that whenever I go on their ratings go up and I'm not interested in helping them sell products and make money for themselves and having said that I'm ready to tee up (garbled audio, but I think he said Hannity) Hannity I think pretty soon.

Amato: That would get huge ratings and it's also really enjoyable to see you kick them around because you know the type of Democrat that go on most of the time that are just so weak and that's the way they like them so that they can serve them up and kick them around.

Moore: Then I will make a point during this tour to try and go on one of their shows and give them something-something...

Amato: Do it for the blogosphere! (laughs)

Moore: Do it for the blogosphere. This one's for you!

The attacks on President Obama by FOX News programs have been profoundly upsetting and as much as I object at times to lefties that go on FOX, I have to say that it would be very enjoyable to see Michael smack down Roger Ailes crew. Do you think Michael will go on Hannity since he won't do they Beck or O'Reilly? Sheppard Smith might be a good choice. And you can be sure that O'Reilly will whine about this. The reason I asked the question is because I've seen Moore duke it out with Bill O'Reilly before and they were very good segments to watch.

John Amato: This is John Amato from Crooks and Liars and I am joined by the great movie maker Michael Moore and he has a new movie out "Capitalism: A Love Story." Hey Michael, thanks for joining me.

Michael Moore: Thanks for having me here.

John Amato: I just want to say one thing here before we get going. How about those Lions?

Michael Moore: [laughing] It's been two years, and if they had to beat somebody it might as well have been the Washington Redskins. But I feel sorry for the Redskins as it’s going to be a trivia answer for the next few decades.

Continue reading »

One of the things I've learned from my many years in journalism (and yes, even my short stint as a political staffer) is that when legislation is first proposed, people throw a bunch of crap on the wall and duke it out over the details. You know why they say it's like watching sausage being made? Because it's stomach-churning.

Several bloggers linked to this. They're taking the article in good faith and assume it's accurate in its conclusions (that the public option has been gutted and the idea of "reform" amounts to a bait and switch), and I just don't believe that.

The author doesn't even seem to understand how legislation is made. It's kind of like judging the way a finished room will look by painting a stripe on the wall: It's not the whole picture.

The bills are usually weakened at this point in the process - but they're fixed later in committee. One of the reasons it still works like this is so politicians can say, "I voted against that!" if part of a bill becomes controversial in his or her district. (Remember the thing with Kerry, where he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I was against it"? He's right. All politicians do it.) Some of the same politicians who are screaming on the teevee against this will be a lot more reasonable once the cameras aren't running. The final committee work is what counts.

So really, the sky isn't falling. I would tell you if I thought it was. I mean, I'm not exactly known as Obama's biggest booster, am I?

I'd rather ward off the attacks from the insurance companies and the Blue Dogs instead. It's no secret that I think single payer is the best solution - but I'm not going to try to poison this compromise bill to prove a point.

The next best thing to single payer is structural change that really makes people understand and support the concept that health care can and should be accessible to everyone. This bill will do that, and we can improve from there.

I'm actually shocked to find the more I look at the long-term strategy here, the more I like it. The fact is, it will be a lot more politically difficult for members of Congress to vote against those future incremental improvements than to vote against the entire plan now. Once it's in place, and constituents start calling their elected officials with complaints about flaws in the bill, they're going to have to fix those problems - or at the very least, not get in the way of the solution.

Remember: Social Security only covered about half of the people when it first passed. It took almost 10 years to get there, but you couldn't take it away now. The voters would be furious.

We won't get there overnight, but this bill will at least be a decent start.