It's possible to agree with Moore in theory and still find his tactics sloppy and ineffective...
- Stephanie Zacharek
Mark Ames addressed this envious sniffling about Moore's tone, tactics, personal body-mass index, etc., more than five years ago. And look who he singled out for whining about Moore's ineffectiveness and self-promotion!
This is pretty much the range of Left-intellectual criticism: hate him because he's fat, aggressive, or, if you have to admit he's good, then qualify that with lies about his ineffectiveness, which is exactly what he isn't.This is the other false argument: those on the genuinely ineffective-Left argue that
[...] And on and on it goes. Salon.com, which every day devotes its site to finely-nuanced attacks on the Bush Administration, reveals its own Peyronies-Syndrome-penis envy in Stephanie Zacharik's article "9/11: Nay!" The first part of her argument is dedicated to defending left-wing critics of Michael Moore using a less-than-Animal House argument which goes something like: "They say if you criticize Michael Moore, you're not really a Leftist." By bringing this up, she thinks she's neutralized the argument in-advance of her attack, which is qualified by a double-qualifier: "Although he has stated that his aim is to force the election's outcome by calling attention to the Bush administration's web of duplicity and deceit, Moore, ever the self-promoter, is the real star of 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' I agree with probably 95 percent of
's politics...But even though I'm part of the choir Moore is preaching to, I can't help blanching at his approach...preaching to the choir just isn't good enough." Moore
Oh, so what is salon.com doing? Whispering calmly in the back of the choir, hoping no one's really listening so as not to get in trouble?
is ineffective, "preaching to the choir," even though the evidence -- a record-breaking documentary at the box-office -- conspires against this hopeful claim. Moore