I won't have much to say about national politics in my blog. There have been times in my life when I took a great interest in political news and opinions, but no longer. I am quite disillusioned now. Regardless of who is in power, I have seen exactly the same types of sloganeering on the part of both his/their supporters and the opposition, one administration after another. Looking back into history, you see the same thing. For every presidential administration, every congress, etc., there are those on one side who will say or write only fawning praise, and those on the other (e.g. Michael Moore, in the present instance) who will not shrink from leveling any accusation. It happens to leaders from both parties. One thus begins to suspect that it's equally bull-hockey in either case.
I have known, and cared about, people who seriously believe the Michael Moore type of propaganda against whoever is in power; at least, when that person belongs to the "other party." I worked closely with a "moonbat" who wouldn't doubt any evil report about George W. Bush. I have near and dear family members who wouldn't doubt any evil report about Bill Clinton. And I laugh a mirthless laugh of despair, wondering how no one else notices that each man's opponents accuse both men of the same things, and that the difference between them is slight.
Maybe all the accusations are true - the stories that call into question the character and loyalties of Bush, Clinton, and other American leaders, and their methods of taking and holding power. If so, then every one of our leaders in living memory has been monstrously corrupt, and that should alarm all of us. Or maybe it isn't true. The documentation of these men's supposed misdeeds is thick with dropped names of people and organizations, and anecdotal details; but somehow, in spite of all these specifics, the accusations have a certain vagueness and at times preposterousness, giving them the distinct ring of a paranoid raving.
One such raving that I recently read was a magazine article that argued that Wendell Willkie's nomination as the 1940 Republican Presidential candidate was the work of a treasonously corrupt cabal who wanted FDR to win election to a third term. Sure, it's an intriguing thesis, and if there's any truth in it one would justly be outraged about it. However, with stories like this you recognize that it probably isn't entirely true, though it probably isn't entirely untrue. Exactly where it stands on the continuum between "true" and "untrue" can never be established, but the "paranoid raving" aspect is front and center, so I'm not going to get too worked up about it. And that about summarizes my outlook on political polemics in general.