Is Michael Moore even FOLLOWING politics these days?

Michael Moore has tentatively endorsed John Edwards, on the basis of Edwards' health care plan. Moore seems to be under the impression that this plan differs measurably from the ones offered by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It doesn't. (Arguably, Hillary's is the most left-leaning plan of the three, although that argument is considered thoughtcrime in progressiveland.)

As you know, I am an Edwards supporter myself. But that doesn't mean I am going to tolerate Moore's lies about Hillary:

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more

Horsefeathers.

Scroll down and you will see the post in which I talk about her voting record in detail, as Moore does not. The only legislation he mentions is the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Moore swinishly neglects to tell us that both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted in favor of it (to the discredit of both). Not only that. A worse version of the same bill was passed in 2000. Edwards voted for it; Bill Clinton vetoed it.

Fortunately, both Edwards and Hillary now see the error of supporting that legislation. As I document, Hillary Clinton's voting record received a 100% score from the ADA. She has compiled one of the most liberal voting records of any current Senator -- more liberal than that of John Edwards.

Moore's disconnect from reality forces me to ask: Is Michael Moore even following politics these days?

Here's the part of Moore's letter that hit me the hardest:

For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won.

Disgusting! Moore himself was one of the vipers, back in 2000.

Where is Al Gore? He sure ain't in the White House, thanks in part to Moore's efforts to drum up votes for Nader back in 2000. Time to print two numbers I will never tire of repeating:

Number of people who voted for "purist" candidate Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000: 97,421

"Official" difference between the Bush vote and the Gore vote in 2000: 537.

Before proceeding, let me issue fair warning: Do not even try to foist on me the obnoxious, oft-heard lie that the Nader factor was insignificant in Florida because the Republicans controlled the voting machines. The last person who tried to sell me that falsehood was none other than Cynthia McKinney -- yes, we corresponded -- and I let her have it with both figurative barrels. She didn't have a comeback. What could she say? The facts simply do not support that position.

I probably know more about election rigging than you do, dear reader, so don't think you can take me to school. 97,000 is a lot of votes, certainly a lot more than 537. If the Republicans possessed a magic machine which could conjure up any numbers they wished, then why did they allow such a close race? Why did the Supreme Court stop the count? Why did vote caging exist at all?

(This is no longer a matter of debate, at least not on this blog. Any commenter trying to sell the cowardly canard that the Nader factor played no role in Gore's Florida loss will find his words excised on sight.)

Okay, back to Moore.

His current attitude toward Al Gore -- who would have been a great president -- stands in sharp contrast to the words he wrote to Gore in 2000:

Let's get one thing straight -- we didn't leave you, YOU left us. You and your "New Democrats" abandoned the poor, the working class, and the middle class. Your support for NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of people -- your very supporters -- their jobs. In my hometown of Flint, 32,000 GM jobs have been lost since you and Clinton took office.

And how is Flint doing now? Last time I looked, you could buy a house there for a few thousand dollars. How is the American economy doing now, compared to its status during the Clinton years? Is the dollar stronger or weaker? Are jobs more or less secure? Is the budget balanced? How much are we paying the Chinese to take treasury bills they no longer really want?

Another Moore letter from 2000:

If you want all the dirty money out of our elections, you HAVE to vote for Nader because he is the only one -- not Bush, not Gore -- who would eliminate it entirely. If you think the minimum wage should go up more than 50 cents an hour in the next year, then you HAVE to vote for Ralph Nader as he is only one who would raise it to a real living wage.

Yep, Al Gore was a "corporatist" taking tainted money. Sound familiar? This is the same crappy canard all Moore-ish progressives now apply to Hillary.

For a final assessment of Moore's political acumen, check out this final letter from 2000:

Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the Democrats.

When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.

My god. What can one say about this prediction, which was laughable even on the date of issuance? What an idiot!

If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed Gore voter to flip over to Nader -- and thus lead to President George W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's all a bunch of hooey.

Let's have those numbers again: 97,000 vs. 537. If Nader had not run, would those 97,000 people have voted for the Republican? I don't think so. (And most of them would not have stayed home on election day.) Now let's look up the numbers of civilians killed in Iraq. Actually, we don't have hard numbers, but some estimates reach as high as 700,000 casualties. Proud of all the blood on your hands, Mr. Moore?

To recap: Moore would have us believe that Hillary Clinton -- who is not even the candidate I favor! -- has a less progressive voting record than Edwards does. Not true. And Moore would have us believe that the health care plans offered by Edwards and Clinton differ appreciably. Again: Not true. Paul Krugman -- who has actually read the plans -- considers them substantially similar.

I'll ask the question again. Is Moore even following politics these days?