1. This is going to be dangerous. I can't see anyone lining up to see this the way we did for the original Fahrenheit.

I have friends who flat-out blame Moore for Bush's re-election. I think that's a bit extreme but what that does mean is that even people on the left who otherwise agree with him don't want him bringing this all up again when the stakes are so high (again).

Sicko was fantastic, probably his best work, largely because he was able to get out of his own way for the most part (granted, getting out of his own way wasn't a concern when he was making Fahrenheit). Here, it's going to be impossible for that to happen. Between Iraq movie fatigue and Michael Moore fatigue, I don't think this will do the numbers of the first one. Not by a longshot.

That being said, I look forward to seeing this.

Posted at 4:29PM on May 13th 2008 by Alex

2. The last four years clearly vindicate Michael Moore. It shows without a doubt Bush's staggering incompetence at the helm.

Sequel or not...we are stilling living in the nightmare of GWB.

Posted at 4:41PM on May 13th 2008 by Jack

3. Just for you, Jack:

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

Enjoy. Or most likely, don't enjoy.

Posted at 4:55PM on May 13th 2008 by Philip

4. "Or would he overcome the odds, focus the campaign on silly non-issues, and get lucky by having a weak, boring opponent? "

So the sequel is about Barack Obama?

"It's like I was shot out of a cannon. I'm so overexposed that I make Paris Hilton look like a recluse." - Barack Obama

Posted at 4:50PM on May 13th 2008 by Philip

5. This Idiot can't give away his movies. He wastes more and more money showing nothing but hatred. If he would give some of the money He gets from his oil holdings, to help with isues he constantly attacks. He might actualy accomplish somthing for once. A waste of a life.

Posted at 7:09PM on May 13th 2008 by Don

6. I'm sick of your liberal, excuse ridden bullshit. Try and write in an unbiased way sometime, it makes for good reading. What you write just comes across as the opinion of a pissed off child.

Posted at 8:54AM on May 15th 2008 by someone

7. In addition, your facts about Bush's approval ratings being the lowest are incorrect. Of course, you wouldn't know this because you just hear this crap on the radio and TV. No, he's actually tied with the suddenly popular JIMMY CARTER, who's enjoying one hell of an encore as a Bush-basher. Which just goes to show you the average intelligence of the common liberal. Jimmy's approval rating: a whopping 28%. That was in the 70's. In 2008 he's a damn genius.

Because I do so enjoy enlightening the frightened little sheep, allow me to link to the WaPo (Washington Post for you pretend-libs). It's a nice little article supporting my claim. And you certainly can't argue my sources: WaPo makes Rosie O'Donnell look like Reagan by comparison.

For you, Mr. Snider:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/how_unpopular_is_george_bush.html

Posted at 4:08PM on May 15th 2008 by Philip

8. Everyone should read the link Philip provided. It does back up his claims -- and it also shows how hilarious it is when Bush supporters must grasp at straws.

True enough, I misspoke when I said Bush's approval rating is the lowest in history. It's not quite the lowest ever. What I ought to have said -- and Philip's link backs this up -- is that Bush's disapproval rating is the highest in history. That is to say, the percentage of people who disapprove of him -- not just "don't approve" or "don't have an opinion," but actively disapprove -- is the highest since polling began.

So yes, Philip, thanks for pointing that out.

Posted at 4:20PM on May 15th 2008 by Eric D. Snider

9. The link is as hilarious as you suggest, Eric. I never knew that the media would go so far as to invent an entirely separate way of gauging failure, when the first attempt to arrive at a conclusion doesn't agree with preformed ideas about said failure.

On some mathematical level, it doesn't add up. If Bush has a 28% approval rating, wouldn't the converse be a 72% DISapproval rating? Alas, the media fails at even that. If my post represents a mea culpa for Bush, then the simple fact that the media must keep asking till they get the answers they want is the coup de grace.

At any rate, I've enjoyed this little bit of educated exchange. I look forward to more opportunities in the future.

Posted at 6:54PM on May 15th 2008 by Philip

10. "If Bush has a 28% approval rating, wouldn't the converse be a 72% DISapproval rating?"

Not necessarily. There might be, for example, 28 percent who approve of him, 70 percent who say they disapprove of him, and another 2 percent who have no opinion or fall somewhere in between.

I made the same mistake in my original post. I knew I'd read his disapproval rating was the highest ever, and I automatically configured that to mean he must have the lowest approval rating, too. I overlooked the "no opinion/in the middle" responses.

At any rate, what we're debating here is a pretty negligible point: Is Bush THE most despised president ever, or merely ONE OF THE most despised? Either way, it's not exactly a feather in his cap.

Posted at 6:59PM on May 15th 2008 by Eric D. Snider

11. Agreed, Eric. And think: In 30 years, if he's alive, he can pull a Jimmy Carter and make a living bashing sitting Presidents, all the while hoping no one remembers his failures while in office.

Really, it is pathetic. Jimmy Carter, the foreign policy expert? Isn't he the same asshole that spent 400 plus days trying to talk the Iranians into releasing American hostages? The same hostages that Ronald Reagan brought him within a week or so of taking office? Laughable.

Posted at 7:10PM on May 15th 2008 by Philip

12. Mmhmm. Remind me again what Carter has to do with anything? Other than wanting to change the subject from Bush's current failures, I mean.

Misdirection: a classic technique.

Posted at 7:15PM on May 15th 2008 by Eric D. Snider

13. He's tied with Carter in approval rating at the moment, Eric. The same Jimmy Carter the media so lovingly embraces now.

See the alignment? Or is that a bit too complex for you?

Posted at 7:36PM on May 15th 2008 by Philip

14. Here let me explain this in a manner I think you may grasp:

Newspaper: Bush sucks, 28% approval rating, complete and abject failure!

(enter Jimmy Carter stage left)

Jimmy Carter (he of 28% approval rating during his presidency): Blah Blah Blah peanuts.

Newspaper: Jimmy's right. I don't know why Bush doesn't listen to this guy.

(chuckles from educated readers who were around during Jimmy's abject and total failure as President).

So yea Eric, if you're gonna get mouthy about Bush's failure, lets don't sugarcoat the other issues and people he's being held to standard against, i.e. Jimmy Carter.

That's the long way around to make a point but heck, you're worth the effort.

Posted at 7:48PM on May 15th 2008 by Philip