RELATED: American I-Dull: Mitt Romney Sings America The Beautiful For Florida Crowd

Mrs. Obama began by regaling Jay with tales of President Obama serenading her with soulful tunes from the likes of Rev. Al Green, Marvin Gaye, and Stevie Wonder, adding that to the Obama children, “Anything we do is highly embarrassing. They want us to be very quiet.”

RELATED: President Obama Takes Apollo Crowd To Church With Al Green’s ‘Let’s Stay Together’

Leno asked if she had heard Romney’s version of America The Beautiful. “I saw it in the green room,” Mrs. Obama replied with a laugh. “It’s a beautiful…song.”

The word “song” was largely drowned out by the crowd cheering, so it sounded like she called the Governor’s singing “beautiful,” but either way, it was a valiant attempt at diplomacy.

“And it is America’s song,” she continued, “and it’s a song that’s mean to be sung by every American.”

“That is right,” Leno agreed. “Regardless of political — that’s right.”

From NBC:

I agree with that sentiment. I’d rather hear a fair-to-middling rendition of America The Beautiful than a dead-perfect version of many other songs. In fact, I’m going to make a confession that no liberal should ever make, just to show that musical appreciation isn’t all about politics, or even about talent. One of my all-time guilty pleasures, and not in an ironic way, is former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft‘s self-penned “Let The Eagle Soar,” best known from Michael Moore‘s Fahrenheit 911.

My fellow liberals may choose to laugh at the cheesy boombox backing music, or Ashcroft’s quavering church vibrato, but I love every cheesy second of it, and will loudly sing along to it at any opportunity. Now, if I can admit that, surely there are conservatives who can bring themselves to allow that President Obama does a wicked good Al Green. From there, who knows?

If you haven’t feasted on this aural buffet, prepare for takeoff! Here’s Let The Eagle Soar:

RELATED: Joe Scarborough: Gingrich Is A ‘Danger To America’ Who Would Destroy The GOP

On Meet the Press today, Joe Scarborough argued that Gingrich’s candidacy was not sustainable, and in the long run he would eventually fizzle again and lose to Mitt Romney. Scarborough has a well-documented disdain of Newt Gingrich and his ability to become the next president, so his criticisms are nothing new. But today he went so far as to compare the conservative Gingrich to one of the conservatives’ favorite punching bags.

Katty Kay saw last night’s Gingrich victory as good news for the Obama campaign, because of how vulnerable he is on a number of issues and how “the ads against [him] write themselves.” However, she also noted that Gingrich’s attacks on Romney seemed to be borne of the same anti-business sentiments fueling Occupy Wall Street. Scarborough jumped in, finding it unbelievable that “Gingrich is adopting the language of Michael Moore.” He argued that Gingrich’s line of attack did not make him a good conservative alternative to Romney.

Kay suggested that rather than focusing on Romney’s flip-flops, Gingrich and his fellow candidates have been more focused on Romney’s wealth. Scarborough had a slightly different take.

“They’re not focusing on Mitt Romney’s money, they’re focusing on Mitt Romney’s tongue. He can’t answer a question that he knows is coming.”

RELATED: Joe Scarborough Destroys Newt Gingrich’s ‘Conservative Principles’

Later on in the program, when the discussion turned to Rick Santorum, Scarborough brought up the evangelical support Santorum has, and the efforts of many evangelicals to make a stronger line of attack against Gingrich.

“The bottom line is, I’m sorry, Newt is not sustainable. Nobody that’s known him since ’95 thinks he’s sustainable, last night was not about Newt, it was a primal scream by some South Carolina voters against the Republican establishment.”

Watch both segments below, courtesy of NBC:

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh Destroys Newt Gingrich For Promoting ‘Left-Wing Social Engineering’

“There’s no way you can try to dress that up,” Limbaugh fumed. “I don’t understand it. Well, politically I understand it, but that’s just absurd. It’s sad. ‘Cause I really, really, really like Rick Perry! I really do. I had such hopes! I did. I’ll tell you, I did, but all of this talk about “corporate raiders,” and as I listen to politicians start talking about capitalism, lights are going off in my head. “Maybe they don’t really know what it is. Maybe they’re under some misconception about what capitalism is, because this characterization of it? A distinction with venture capitalism and vulture capitalism? This bite from Perry doesn’t compute.”

Limbaugh thought that type of rhetoric was more akin to something Oliver Stone or Michael Moore would say.

“They popularized this, this is the way Fidel Castro thinks, or says he thinks!” Limbaugh added. “You know, today more than at any time in recent history, capitalism — which is nothing more than economic liberty; that’s all it is — capitalism, economic liberty, is being assaulted on every front. The current occupant of the White House is a sworn enemy of capitalism. It’s abundantly clear that Obama intends to run for reelection by running against capitalism. He’s already on that path.”

Watch Limbaugh compare Perry to the former Cuban leader below:

(h/t Daily Rushbo)

RELATED: Thom Hartmann Torches Politifact For Nominating ‘Mediscare’ As ‘Lie Of The Year’

The status of Politifact as an organization with weight in the American political sphere is a bit of a mystery, other than that they have, on many occasions, accurately diagnosed dishonesty in political statements. Many people on the left (our own Tommy Christopher among them) care very much about what Politifact has to say, possibly because Politifact has gone after right-wing targets for most of its past (and, frankly, with Sarah Palin on the loose, who could blame them?) and possibly because the idea of a “neutral fact-checking body” (read: Percy Weasley do-gooder types that self-appoint as arbiters of fairness and justice when no one really asked for their help) is much more amendable to the side of the aisle that can count “legends” of “journalism” like Dan Rather on their team. For many on the right– particularly the more authentic classical liberal wing of the American right– dismissing Politifact is a lot like dismissing the United Nations or Media Matters. Conventional anti-authoritarian wisdom dictates that any entity alleging impartiality and wisdom is likely very partisan and very unwise.

With the caveat that Politifact’s opinion on what are or are not the year’s biggest lies should not be particularly weighty compared to any other website, I humbly submit a list of lies that were more shameless, more indelible, or had a bigger impact on this year’s national discourse than the claim that Republicans wanted to end Medicare– whether or not that claim was true, I will leave to others. Whether or not it is true, these five topics are significantly more worthy of year-end conversation, not to mention yet more warnings that keeping one’s eye on the political ball often means taking the focus away from strict policy.

RELATED: Politifact Editor Lies While Unveiling ‘Lie Of The Year’ That Republicans Voted To End Medicare

5. Martin Bashir: Sarah Palin’s Bus Tour’s Use Of The American Flag Is Illegal

Since his arrival at MSNBC, Martin Bashir began to take on the right with some rather unconventional means– things like having to show his green card on air or taking on hard-hitting rivals one-on-one even if not always coming out on top in said scuffles. This shot he took at Sarah Palin, however, was gratuitous, rather comical, and wrong. Bashir argued that Palin’s liberal use of American flag imagery on her “One Nation” bus– the one carrying her on the One Nation Bus Tour– was illegal. That was, of course, not true, though some did argue that her exploitation of the American flag was distasteful. But even that was a far cry from calling Palin a criminal for wearing her nation’s flag on her sleeve bus.

4. Michael Moore: I Am Not In The 1%

This one is not strictly political, as Michael Moore is not a public official. But given the impact and significance of the Occupy Wall Street movement– they did, after all, make Time “Person of the Year” status– the fact that their most vocal celebrity supporter could not admit that he was working in solidarity with the 99% movement without being a member (at least until Piers Morgan pressed him, and he posted a clarification on his website later on) was a fairly damaging moment for both the Occupiers and Moore’s beloved status among them. It was the sort of moment that proved precisely why Occupy seems to prefer not to have any official spokespeople.

NEXT PAGE: Jon Stewart, Jon Kyl, And The Twitpic That Halted A Nation

That appeared to be the gist of a segment today on The Five. Any frequent viewer of the show could have guessed that any report they would do on Alec Baldwin getting removed from an airplane was going to be little more than insults. However, this thing seemed to get away from them and turn pretty childish pretty quickly.

Look, we get it. Conservatives don’t like Alec Baldwin. And, yes, he appears to have acted like a right ass. But do we really need to spend five whole minutes (literally!) on what is little more than a celebrity gossip story?

If I had to pinpoint the exact moment when this segment jumped the shark, I’d go with the part where they start accusing Baldwin of being prejudiced against Catholics.

Seriously? Did no one on the show decide to check out the actor’s bio and find out that he was, y’know, raised Roman Catholic? No? No one did?

Ok, that’s fine, let’s keep talking about how the actor would probably hate Kimberly Guilfoyle because she’s a good Catholic girl. That makes sense.

Don’t worry though. Just when viewers might have feared that they were stuck in some kind of time loop and the Baldwin talk would never end, they moved on to other pressing matters: the fact that Michael Moore has crappy fashion sense and Mika Brzezinski is a jerk on a channel no one watches. Informative stuff.

We understand this is an opinion-based show that needs to come up with content every day, but can we not fully convert into middle school-aged mean girls? It’s not particularly entertaining.

Of course, you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. After all, I’m probably just racist against people who work in the media.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

RELATED: Michael Moore Refuses To Admit He Is Part Of The 1% To Piers Morgan

Morgan noted that the issue “became a big thing” last time Moore was on the show, and “you looked like you were wriggling a bit.” Moore explained that any wriggling had to do with the portrayal of himself on the right. “I think Republicans and right-wingers blow me up into this mythical scary character,” one that used his money to influence politics heavily. Morgan asked him directly, however, how much money he believed his movies grossed, to which Moore replied, $500,000,000. “You’ve either got the worst agent,” Morgan responded, “or you must’ve made millions.”

RELATED: Michael Moore: UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident ‘Resonates’ With The World Like Tiananmen Square

“It’s true!” Moore responded, arguing that “Bowling for Columbine not only did I not make money, I didn’t make a paycheck.” Morgan didn’t let him get away with that, however, and insisted that Moore had “made millions of dollars,” to which finally Moore responded, “yes, for three or four good years… in those years, I would be in the 1%. Most years, no.” He also took the moment to explain that the antagonism towards the 1% was not universal or based on how much money one had, but on the lack of compassion to the less well-off. “Anybody who does well, who wants to raise their taxes and make sure those suffering now, are making a better life.”

The segment via CNN below:

The common critique of the GOP debates thus far has been that they’ve been too similar to the sorts of competitive reality shows that get great ratings, but are panned by critics. Like a Jersey Shore marathon, the debates thus far have been long on style and production polish, and short on substance.

RELATED: Ezra Klein Mocks Trump As Debate Moderator; Suggests Top Chef Quickfire Challenge With Tom Colicchio

Take, for example, the recent CNBC hosted debate that focused on economic issues. The answers to how to best solve a complicated and troubled global economy provided by the candidates were the sort of oversimplified platitudes and banalities that seem to best exemplify why we were in such economic trouble to begin with. Thirty-second soundbites do not good policy make.

But! The debates have been wonderfully entertaining. The current slate of GOP candidates features really compelling characters, and they have fueled great news narratives and conflicts, lest we forget the gaffes, that have made the debate season a gripping viewer experience, even if the oversimplified answers most often provided the candidates seem to fall far short of the mark. (Note, this is not a comment on the GOP policies per se, but rather, the process itself.) While the debates are a fun, if disposable, package of bubble-gum infotainment, there should at least be the artifice of seriousness. This is why the inclusion of Donald Trump is all sorts of wrong.

The GOP has something of an image problem right now. With gaffes galore, and the frontrunner status having about as much meaning as a Klout score, Trump is the last thing that the Republican party needs. Of all the candidates who have come and gone, led and fallen, none became more of a joke than Trump, and his newly cast role of presidential debate moderator is just as laughable as asking Michael Moore to moderate a democratic debate. Most importantly, if the media wants moderators to be taken seriously moving forward, this “debate” should be called what it is: a performance, not unlike other Trump Productions like the Miss America Pageant, Celebrity Apprentice, and any other dopey example you can think of.

RELATED: Tamron Hall To Trump: Could Your Debate Look ‘Like An Episode Of The Apprentice?’

Trump is nothing but a showman, a P.T. Barnum for the reality television age who knows how to package aspirational messaging to the masses of not-yet-actualized millionaires that buy his books, and somehow connect to his paper-thin rhetoric. Put simply, Trump’s messaging is bad for America — whether it be his casual description of his good relationship with “the blacks,” or his quixotic and divisive quest for President Obama’s birth certificate — Trump has consistently been on the wrong side of what most reasonable people call good judgment. And yet, the GOP presidential candidates are now asked to cede to him the authority of moderating a debate on which of them would ostensibly lead our country out of its current woes? I call bullshit.

And so should any GOP candidate who calls themselves a serious candidate. Jon Hunstman appears to be leading the pack on this, telling Business Insider via email “Lol. We look forward to watching Mitt and Newt suck-up to The Donald with a big bowl of popcorn.”

Candidates who take their candidacies for president seriously should follow suit, and this should be a litmus test to demonstrate who is willing to admit that the charade of politics evidenced by a Trump-moderated debate is exactly the problem that the United States faces, and who wants to be the next political Snooki.

Also? Harrumph.

What I found remarkable about my last report on this subject is that hardly any right-wing blogs picked up on it, despite the fact that it clearly made a prominent liberal look like an utter moron. Based on nothing whatsoever, Moore accused the President of ordering a nationwide crackdown of Occupy protests, tweeting his followers, “Dozens of Occupys across US raided this weekend-& now NYC- Planned & coordinated by the Dept. of Homeland Security? Did O give green light?”

He then went on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where they rapturously shared the delusion like a couple of tone-deaf American Idol wannabes. What righty blogger wouldn’t want to point and laugh at that?

The answer, of course, is that Moore’s delusion has the dual benefit of attacking Barack Obama, and of distracting people from serious issues surrounding the Occupy protests, like the casual use of “less than lethal” force on peaceful protesters. At best, Moore is wasting a lot of people’s time with this. At worst, he’s feeding dangerous delusions.

At about 3 o’clock this morning, Moore renewed the attack, tweeting this to his followers:

This double tap of OccupyLA & OccupyPhilly by our new militarized police force I’M SURE has NOT been coordinated by anyone in DC. No way!

This is the kind of logic-proof statement that makes people ignore everything you say, and frankly, marginalizes the people Moore is supposed to be lending his support to. There are already plenty of other people eager to fill that job.

The idea of a federal crackdown on the Occupy protests has created a minor schism among liberals, with the sane ones pointing and laughing at the likes of Moore and Naomi Wolf.

I have no problem with people questioning authority, or being skeptical of the “official story,” but you can’t just replace the official story with whatever you can pull out of your ass.

Paranoia is common at either extreme of the political spectrum, so it’s not surprising that Michael Moore has an audience for this insanity. What is surprising is that, in a movement of supposedly free thinkers, few have risen to call him out on it.

RELATED: Awesomely Random Fox and Friends Panel Decides President Obama Can Keep Nobel Peace Prize

O’Connor began the list by chomping on a turkey leg (sadly, he could not share transcontinentally with host Clayton Morris and going after Occupy Wall Street, who nabbed the number five spot. “Only these precious little dirtbags can make Wall Street bankers look sympathetic,” he noted, while making the predictable Michael Moore/Butterball joke (he apologized– just couldn’t resist).

Rounding out the list were Warren Buffett‘s secretary, the Supercommittee (whom he noted must’ve been named by someone who “called Zima a ‘super beverage’”), and Rep. Nancy Pelosi– for which he needed a bit of that Wild Turkey to stand her actions.

The number one spot? That went to, as O’Connor put it, “the Congressional member whose member we’ll always remember,” for lying and endangering the careers of many while being an embarrassing predator.

The segment via Fox News below:

RELATED: UC Davis Police Pepper Spray Student Occupy Protestors, University Investigating Incident

Moore’s first statement on air was an apology to Wheatley for what had happened to him. “Campus police have turned into armies that have been militarized,” he argued, noting the small size of the protest group– eleven students– and declaring, “the images have resonated around the world in the same way the lone man standing in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square resonated.” “It is an iconic movement in Occupy Wall Street history,” he continued, “people will remember months and year from now that UC Davis was the moment Occupy Wall Street went to college campuses.”

O’Donnell turned then after the break back to Wheatley to discuss the leadership of his college, and what he hoped to see happen in the future. Wheatley called for the resignation of Chancellor Linda Katehi and for “everyone in this system [to be] democratically elected” such that they could be held accountable to the students paying tuition. Moore agreed, adding that the decision to attack the students was “absolutely disgusting and appalling,” particularly as the police had “not arrested a single banker, a single loan shark, a single health care executive… people who stole the futures of young people like Kase, people who have rigged the system of student loans.”

RELATED: Michael Moore Goes The Full Wingnut On President Obama Over Occupy ‘Crackdown’

As for comments from Republicans against the protesters– particularly Newt Gingrich‘s demand at last Saturday’s Republican debate that the protesters “take a bath”– Moore joked, “they were literally bathing them– with pepper spray!”

The interview with Moore and Wheatley via MSNBC below:

Quan’s remarks to the BBC have led to angst over a possible “coordinated effort” among the cities that raided Occupy encampments at the beginning of the week, but some have taken things a step further, and speculated that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI participated in/directed the effort. Michael Moore went even deeper into the rabbit hole early Tuesday morning, tweeting his followers, “Dozens of Occupys across US raided this weekend-& now NYC- Planned & coordinated by the Dept. of Homeland Security? Did O give green light?”

RELATED: Did Oakland Mayor Jean Quan Admit Cities Coordinated To Bust Occupy Protests?

At the time Moore made the accusation, there was absolutely no evidence to support it. Hours later, he tweeted a link to a report that cited an unnamed “Justice official” saying that “while local police agencies had received tactical and planning advice from national agencies, the ultimate decision on how each jurisdiction handles the Occupy protests ultimately rests with local law enforcement.”

That’s some thin gruel to accuse the President, or anyone at the federal level, of “greenlighting” a crackdown, but it gets thinner. Some liberal blogs have attacked the credibility of the report based on the thin sourcing, and the fact that it comes from Examiner.com, a citizen journalism endeavor owned by conservative Phil Anschutz.

On its face, though, the report is of dubious credibility. The vague, weird attribution (“one Justice official…who spoke on background to me late Monday evening”) bear the fingerprints of an inexperienced leaker and leakee. I’m not saying the reporter made it up (I’m positive he didn’t, and he’s obviously working hard on the story), but the attribution telegraphs a low-level, no-authority source.

Moore then proceeded to urge his Twitter followers to spam President Obama (“Dear @BarackObama We luv ya but pls detail any #ows discussions btwn cities& HomelandSecurity&FBI// RT til he answers http://j.mp/ssseb9“), and Mayors Bloomberg and Quan, to explain this non-existent connection. To be clear, I’m all for holding those in authority accountable, but not for things that are made-up. Even if you buy the Examiner‘s source, he’s not even alleging federal coordination.

Moore didn’t stop at a couple of tweets, though. He appeared on Tuesday night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann to continue his completely groundless attack. Moore told Olbermann, “this is not some coincidence. This was planned. And I think that the question really has to be asked of the federal government, and of the Obama administration — why?”

“Why? Why are you participating in this,” Moore continued,  ”against a non-violent, mass movement of people who are upset at what Wall Street and the banks have done to their lives?”

Olbermann then added his own wheel-within-wheels, saying, “Conveniently, the President can’t be asked that question, because he was en route to Australia.”

The whole thing is so tin-foil ridiculous, I think Olbermann might’ve picked up Reynolds Wrap™ as a sponsor. Moore even cited the similarity of police tactics in the various cities as evidence of the conspiracy, as if police normally display such Kama Sutra-like diversity in dealing with protesters.

What’s truly mystifying, though, is Michael Moore’s desperation to attack President Obama. There are many liberals who are critical of the President (myself included), but it’s rare that a liberal outpaces the most rabid of right-wing fabricators to do so.

NEXT: Moore’s Attack Part Of A Pattern

As the two both had interviews on The Last Word, this interaction between the face of corporate corruption and one of the most prominent faces of anti-capitalism in America came face-to-face thanks to the magic of Lawrence O’Donnell, and both parties had nothing but positive things to report. Moore appeared thrilled to see a story of redemption such as Abramoff’s, explaining that the crimes going on behind the scenes are best understood by those committing them, and that someone so deeply involved in creating the problem is now working to fight it by exposing the infection is wonderful news. “He is 100% revealing everything and encouraging the American people to stop people like him,” Moore argued, “that’s a very powerful thing to do.”

RELATED: Michael Moore Grabs ‘Punk’ Reporter, Growls ‘You Lie!’ Over Wealth Questions

Moore explained that the interaction was short and consisted in a handshake and Moore leaning in and saying “God bless you for coming clean and making amends and saying what needs to be said… there’s no more powerful person to say it than you, Jack, because you were there.” Moore did describe Abramoff as “a bit of a broken man,” but working to repair himself as a victim of the system. Abramoff, meanwhile, noted that Moore was “gracious” and seemed pleased to receive such a warm reception.

With America as polarized as the media loves to claim it is, such a display of unity between an decades-old and newly reformed anti-corporatists may be heralded as a sign of peace in our time being a viable possibility, at least for those on the left. The right may be a little more suspicious of this more-civil-than-expected union.

The segment via MSNBC below:

The confrontation made for much better video than the previous one, and Moore initially handled the reporter’s questions well, admitting, ““I do very well,” and adding, “Because I do well, I want taxes raised on people who do well, including mine.”

When Cassimy pressed Moore about his specific net worth, however, Moore became visibly angry. He told the reporter, “I don’t have $50 million,” and Cassimy gave Moore an opening, saying, “That’s what it’s rumored you are worth.”

“Well, really” Moore said, “Is that what you do is sell rumors?”

“We’re asking you for the truth,” Cassimy replied.

Moore then put his hand on the reporter’s shoulder, shaking him as he said, “You’re just punk media is all you are.”

“You lie,” he continued, a slight growl in his voice. “You lie to people. Stop lying to people. Stop lying.”

Mr. Cassimy left himself open for Moore’s criticism by citing “rumors,” rather than “reports,” but Michael Moore really ought to do better at engaging this question. He’s got compelling answers, and even though the premise itself is silly, confronting it head on is a surer way to gain converts than scenes like this, which make it appear as though critics of Moore’s wealth have got his number.

There are lots of mega-bucks celebrities who have shown up to support the Occupy protests, and recent polls show that most millionaires support raising taxes on millionaires. You can, apparently, be rich and believe in fairness, simultaneously. Moore can, and does, also argue that he takes his earnings and puts them back into making more films. His wealth, then, is a tool to combat wealth inequality.

(h/t CBS-4)

Maddow asked the filmmaker whether there has been some “splitting” within the movement, pointing to the Oakland violence occurring during the wee hours of the morning.

Well, yes and no. Everyone I’ve spoken to is committed one hundred percent to non-violence, that this is the only way that this is going to work. In fact, we don’t need violence because we’re not in the minority here. This is the majority; this is a majority movement. If this country is of, by and for the people, if it’s run by the will of the majority, there’s no need for violence because the majority have already said “We’re sick and tired of this and we expect some changes.”

I think in Oakland there’s a very specific… In terms of violence there, Oakland has a long history of police abuse, of how the black community has been treated. They’ve just had one of the worst… I mean, literally, it’s almost in the DNA of how Oakland is structured in terms of their City Hall and their police. And it doesn’t seem to matter who the mayor is, they just can’t deal with this basic problem. So I think that has a lot to do with it.

But you’re also going to have groups that come in wanting to co-opt this movement, whether it’s slick politicians that want the endorsement of what they think is a “liberal Tea Party,” or anarchists and others who don’t like the non-violence approach and want some form of violence.

So, about that last paragraph.. Ever think you’d see Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly basically say the same thing on the same night?

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly: The OWS Movement Has Been Hijacked By Extremists, More Violence Is On The Way

Have a look, via MSNBC:

The premise of South Park‘s parody was that the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition was punishing the school for scoring the lowest percentage in health and fitness in the entire country. “One fourth grader at this school scored so low with a terrifying body fat score, and high blood pressure and the cholesterol levels of a 70-year-old man that it actually brought your entire school’s average down to the lowest in the country,” said an official during a student assembly. “However, the presidential fitness program never wants to single out one child because then that child might feel bad, and so as far as we’re concerned you’re all a bunch of fat [bleep] pigs!”

Unsurprisingly, Cartman was the fat student responsible for bringing down the average, and as such, represented the 1 percent, pissing off the other 99 percent i.e. the rest of the school. Cartman was frustrated by the other student’s criticism, “Don’t you get it, Mom? People voted for Obama, and now that everything sucks they have to blame me!”

In response to Cartman dragging down the rest of the school’s average, two South Park students, Butters and Jimmy, decided to “Occupy Red Robin” creating a media feeding frenzy with police and press making up the majority of the crowd. Even Michael Moore dropped in to give his two-cents. “I look out at the faces of you protesters and I see the future of America! We are the 99%!!! Yeah!”

Watch South Park’s parody of Occupy Wall Street below:

(h/t Daily Caller, watch the full episode here.)

From Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard:

An Occupy Portland participant asked Moore if the richest 400 people in the country could “give back” $1 million each. The hypocritical flimmaker repeated the question saying it was a good idea.

A reporter for the Oregon based website Daylight Disinfectant shouted out, “How about a million of your 50 million?”

Moore ignored this and instead continued speaking to the crowd.

After Moore finished his speech, the reporter and his cameraman followed the schlockumentarian asking versions of the same question.

“Aren’t you part of the one percent?”

When Moore still ignored him, the reporter said, “$50 million Michael Moore. Here he comes.”

Despite this, crowd members could be heard shouting, “Michael, we love you.”

The reporter then asked, “Hey Michael, you flying the corporate jet back? Huh, your own private jet?”

If you watch the clip, though, it’s pretty clear Moore likely didn’t hear the first question, and after that, the guy was basically just heckling him. Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment doesn’t require you to speak to someone who’s haranguing you.

The Daylight Disinfectant blogger (“What the Liberal Media of the Willamette won’t tell you about happenings in The People’s Republic of Portlandia”) says on his YouTube page that an Occupy Portland “media representative” blocked his shot, although by that time, Moore was already just a dot on the horizon, and he also says he was “shoved in the stomach.”

Here’s the clip, via YouTube:

When I first saw the clip, I was all ready to get on the guy’s case for doing it all wrong, for venting his frustration at Moore instead of actually trying to get him to engage. Then I remembered this scene, in which BP villain Tony Hayward fled a press conference, trailed by a crush of reporters, refusing to answer questions. Hayward’s silence wasn’t really surprising, but the palpable frustration of the press was compelling, capped off by a zinger by ABC News’ Jake Tapper.

It’s likely that no matter how the Daylight Disinfectant blogger phrased his question, he wasn’t going to get an answer from Moore, and when that became clear, he got in some shots at Moore. He ended up with a reasonably compelling piece of video that superficially resembles many clips from Moore’s films, which often involve high-profile people ducking him.

The thread that he’s pulling on, though, is silly on several levels. There are lots of mega-bucks celebrities who have shown up to support the Occupy protests, and recent polls show that most millionaires support raising taxes on millionaires. You can, apparently, be rich and believe in fairness, simultaneously. Moore can, and does, also argue that he takes his earnings and puts them back into making more films. His wealth, then, is a tool to combat wealth inequality.

This blogger would have been much better served asking Moore about his use of non-union workers on his Capitalism: A Love Story, an issue that might have even resonated with the crowd.

In a post entitled “Life Among the 1%,” Moore told the story of how he happened upon his millions when he sold his independent documentary film, Roger & Me, to Time Warner. Having sold it for three million dollars, he narrates, he spent much of that money on giving back to his community and paying taxes, not before paying his debts, helping his family, and buying some property. Stocks, he maintained, were an evil “casino, and so he abstained from investing there: “I believed the concept of making money off your money had created a greedy, lazy class who didn’t produce any product, just misery and fear among the populace.” None of this is news, though the fact that the 22nd anniversary of selling Roger & Me is only a few weeks away is pretty astonishing.

RELATED: Michael Moore Refuses To Admit He Is Part Of The 1% To Piers Morgan

The meat and potatoes of the piece comes further below, however, where Moore explains how his success has nothing to do with capitalism, and how he could so vehemently pursue the interests of a class to which he has not belonged in decades:

I do very well — and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drives conservatives bonkers. “You’re rich because of capitalism!” they scream at me. Um, no. Didn’t you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. Some years I earn a boatload of cash. Other years, like last year, I don’t have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less. “How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!” It’s like asking: “You’ve never had sex with another man — how can you be for gay marriage?!” [...]

Exactly — [Kanye West]‘s down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Honesty suits Moore well. While “um, no” doesn’t quite explain how capitalism isn’t directly responsible for Moore’s success– try filming the equivalent of Roger & Me about the exploitation of manual laborers in China– his position is far better represented by the idea that, having come from a modest background, he has not forgotten the plight of those around which he grew up, and that plight directs his cause. Nothing hurts a cause more than those being courted having their intelligence insulted the way most Americans felt with Moore flat-out lied and said he wasn’t part of “the 1%,” and nothing quite helps it like a frank explanation of where the ideas fueling it come from that treats said audience like adults.

There is an additional fascinating element to his explanation: Moore admits religion plays a role in the way he understands politics in a way Americans are only accustomed to seeing on their right. A statement like “the Bible says I should do XYZ” is a surefire way to sink a political career in many parts of the country; no informed American likes collusion of church and state. Liberals, particularly, shirk away from shameless declarations of faith. It’s a smart move on Moore’s part, though, of course, one that comes with several reservations. For one, if the Bible is the launchpad for Moore’s belief system, how does he explain the near 100 million deaths and “disappearances” socialism/communism have caused around the world? We need not even go that far– how does Moore explain the fact that Marxists governments universally ban the practice of religion by their subjects? Whatever happened to “religion is the opiate of the masses?”

RELATED: Michael Moore Warns: OWS Is Not Concerned With Candidates Or Voting To Make Change

Needless to say, this statement gets Moore nowhere with most Americans who understand the way capitalism functions and are grateful for having been born in the best of all known political systems. But it does bestow upon Moore– an easy figure to revile, possibly intentionally– a humanity and clarity of thought that has been woefully absent since he became one of the recognizable leaders of the Occupy movement. The PR gods certainly smile upon Moore’s somewhat sulky admission that being rich is nothing to be ashamed of. It gets better from here.

*Let’s not kid ourselves here. Addendum: the term “communist” is not in any way meant as an ad hominem attack, but merely an accurate representation of Moore’s beliefs as he has articulated them. From the website of the Communist Party, USA:

The Communist Party stands for the interests of the American working class and the American people. It stands for our interests in both the present and the future. Solidarity with workers of other countries is also part of our work. We work in coalition with the labor movement, the peace movement, the student movement, organizations fighting for equality and social justice, the environmental movement, immigrants rights groups and the health care for all campaign.

But to win a better life for working families, we believe that we must go further. We believe that the American people can replace capitalism with a system that puts people before profit – socialism.

We call for nationalization of the banks, railroads, and industries like steel and auto. Everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job or get unemployment payments until she/he can find a job. We say put the unemployed to work at union wages on massive public works programs to rebuild our cities, provide affordable housing for the homeless, build mass transit, and clean up the environment!

These views appear consistent with ideals that Moore has repeatedly expressed in the past. They are not inherently evil or anti-American, and to insinuate as such is an insult to many patriotic Americans who identify with communist values.

Moore expressed hope that the sheer numbers of the movement would outweigh the influence of several hundred billionaires with more combined wealth than half of the country. However, what Cooper wanted to know was whether Occupy Wall Street would take the same steps the Tea Party did and actually become a potent political force in upcoming elections.

“This movement is so beyond just, hey, let’s get behind this candidate, get them elected to office. Those days are over. You know, we’ve all worked for candidates. We’ve all voted. We’ve all participated. And what have we gotten out of it? We’ve all written to our Congressmen and women, please pass House bill number 3428. What did we get? Where are we? We’re in the worst shape we have been in this country that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. And, and so, this movement is not right now concerned with candidates or specific bills in Congress.”

Moore also responded to Peter Schiff‘s comments that big government was more to blame than capitalism for the financial crisis, explaining that “the congressmen and the senators are the employees of Wall Street.”

Watch the video below, courtesy of CNN:

RELATED: Michael Moore Refuses To Admit He Is Part Of The 1% To Piers Morgan
:

He did not come into office like I had hoped that he would, to do what Franklin Roosevelt did his first few months, where he came in and said, you know, “I’m in charge. This is the way we’re doing things. If you don’t like it, throw me out of office” and then he set about doing what he had to do.

Barack Obama came in and said, “What can I do to help you?”

He did add, however, that Obama and his administration do seem to be going on the offensive now in the last leg of his (First?) term. Interviewer Richard Bacon then asked Moore whether he feels Obama had initially approached his presidency with a sense of “naïveté.”

“Well, it was either that,” Moore answered, “or he actually believed in a lot of what they believe in.”

“That just may be the sad, sad part about Barack Obama,” he later added. “Not that he’s too timid or that he’s too compromising, but that he actually believes in a lot of what they believe in.” The “they” in question being, of course, his cohorts and supporters on Wall Street.

Have a look, courtesy of the BBC:

h/t BBC News

RELATED: Michael Moore To Lawrence O’Donnell: Wall Street Occupiers Want ‘A Perp Walk’

The inquiry came from Twitter, where one user asked why Moore appeared so disgusted by capitalism despite benefiting greatly from capitalism. “I’m here talking against my own interests– what’s wrong with me?” he joked, but didn’t really answer the question, other than to claim that “for a documentary filmmaker, I do very well.” When Morgan pushed him to explain how “very well” did not translate to elite levels of wealth, he merely said he felt “blessed,” given his high school education level, and claimed that “they made a huge mistake, putting me on TV.”

Moore continued to bash the wealthy, distancing himself from “a system that is unfair to working people” and concluding of the people that funded his first film, “I hope they rue the day.” He did not give any numbers to explain how his lifestyle did not conform with theirs.

The segment via CNN below:

RELATED: Michael Moore On Occupy Wall Street: We’re The Majority, ‘Never Forget That’

O’Donnell and Moore initially began discussing the matter of the clean-up; Zuccotti Park is private property, after all, and its corporate owner is none too happy with the mess the makeshift protest settlement has made in their land. That said, the Mayor had said the protesters would be allowed to stay indefinitely, which Moore attributed to fear. “Mayor Bloomberg… realized that they would be giving this protest the best headlines of the month if they were to [kick the protesters out],” Moore explained, quoting a protester that had described the Mayor as “afraid of YouTube.” “They did the right thing because they have no other choice,” he concluded.

RELATED: Reporting On Occupy Wall Street: Still Trying To Figure Out What They’re Doing

As for the protesters’ plans, Moore, who identifies as one, told O’Donnell “we are there until we get justice,” which is a lofty if not difficult to define goal. For Moore, the concrete manifestation of such a goal would be a “perp walk” for the bankers that tanked the economy and “flushed the American dream down the toilet,” and the silencing of voices that blamed the lower classes for the bailout (Herman Cain got his fair share of time in this segment).

The interview via MSNBC below:

It’s an instant joke-killer, as the monotone human microphone has some trouble with cadence and timing. Zizek’s story about the red ink, for instance, elicited some chuckles that seemed to be more out of respect than anything (the laughs came after the human microphone repeated the punchline, not when Zizek–clearly within earshot of the front line of video-takers and repeaters–first uttered the line). And Zizek hasn’t been the only one having to deal with the microphone’s quirks. Michael Moore dropped a couple quick jokes in his rallying cry, and they were wholly lost in translation:

Also, the human microphone seems to malfunction just a little bit when the speakers doing a mic check ask participants to repeat the “no drugs or alcohol” mantra:

NPR’s Richard Kim nailed the nuances of the human microphone, saying that it’s agonizingly slow, but still a pretty important part of the movement. It still has its kinks, however, including a speaker’s inability to make deep points.
 

The overall effect can be hypnotic, comic or exhilarating—often all at once…. The human mic is not so good for getting across complex points about, say, how the Federal Reserve’s practice of quantitative easing is inadequate to address the current shortage of global aggregate demand, so speakers tend to express their ideas in straightforward narrative or moral language.

 
As the Occupy [Your City Name here] movement moves across the country, there will surely be cities that have much more lax standards on actual microphones and bullhorns. But so far, in cities like, for instance, Atlanta, the human microphone seems to be sticking.

Videos of human microphone will eventually go viral when some speaker decides to toy with it and starts telling jokes, just for the sake of hearing them repeated by the lifeless voice–like the early text-to-speech computer programs. Until then, however, the human microphone will remain a widely-overlooked element of these protests: a necessary tool that still has a few bugs in the mainframe.

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly And Sean Hannity Send Film Crews To Occupy Wall Street Protests

To Coulter, the protests on Wall Street were far too familiar: “all of those quotes,” she told Bolling, referring to comments by protesters that had played before her, “could have been said in 1789 France before the Revolution… this is always the beginning of totalitarianism.” These revolts, she continued, were favorable to Democrats– “the Democratic Party love mob uprisings, it’s their rise to power.” He also had some words for celebrities getting involved in the affair, particularly Barr and Moore for their comments. Barr, who called for “beheading” the rich, got something of a pass from Coulter for being a “comedienne, so I assume that was a joke,” but she did note that the vague guillotine reference was no coincidence. As for Moore, who claimed that “capitalism destroyed my town,” Coulter noted that Moore wasn’t even from Flint, Michigan, but “an affluent suburb nearby,” so his rally against the rich sounded hollow to her and Bolling both.

The segment via Fox Business below:

Moore kicked things off by giving a synopsis of what the protest is not about:

We’re not down here to support Senate bill 2567. We’re beyond that. They had their chance a long time ago to try and fix this. They didn’t fix it because they’re in the pocket of these people down here on Wall Street. So this is not about supporting some piece of legislation or “let’s get behind some politician.”

“It’s not about ‘policy wonkness’ or ‘Beltway bullshit,’” he continued, to the delighted soundless clapping of those around him. He also noted that he cannot believe he lives in a country where people on Wall Street haven’t had to face a single arrest while 100 peaceful protesters are arrested.

“Well, you live in a country where that kind of thing has to be protested and is being protested,” offered O’Donnell. He then turned the conversation over to a question he’d received on Twitter — a question that many have had since the protest’s inception: “I wonder if mmoore could articulate some specific, tangible goals 4 this protest, as I’ve yet 2 hear any & really would like to.” Indeed, @leenie909!

Moore said that this protest is unlike others because “there’s no membership form, there’s no one person who comes in here and says ‘Now this is our agenda and this is the way it ought to be!”

He also added that there were a whole variety of Americans participating (even “Ron Paul people”), and that they had strength in numbers:

This is our country. We’re the majority. The majority. We’re the majority. Never forget that, that the people who work for a living in this country, we are the people. Not the people up here who are taking people’s pensions and their bank accounts and ruining it and destroying their lives. They are not running this country anymore. They think they are, but that’s gonna come to an end right now.

Have a look at the video, via MSNBC. And please take note of the “Fox News camera person” behind Moore:

Upon exiting the 2/3 at Wall Street, I was expecting to be swept up in a crowd of people marching down that corporate alleyway, playing music and chanting, “We shall overcome.” Or, at the very least, see some of New York’s Finest pepper-spraying protesters while men in $5,000 suits stood back and watched. Instead, I saw the typical throng of tourists gawking at the Fed, taking pictures of the George Washington Statue and lining up to pose with the New York Stock Exchange in the background. I also saw steel barricades, which obviously meant protest.

I continued to follow the barriers along Broad Street, and saw a real-life protest. Only this wasn’t the Occupy Wall Street protest. It was the Airline Pilot’s Association union protesting lack of progress on collective bargaining agreement between them and their employers, mainly Continental and United. The two companies merged last year and apparently haven’t made any movement. The pilots were organized, marching in uniforms and in shifts, carrying signs that read, “What’s a pilot worth? Depends on your perspective,” with an image of the famous Hudson River landing plane, and “Management is destroying our airline.”

As one NYPD officer told me, “These guys…these guys are pros. What they do, they should protest. They’re (employers) are taking away their benefits, making them work ‘til they’re 70. Who wants to work ‘til they’re 70?”

After seeing the pilots’ professional protest, I made my way to Zuccotti Park, which sits in the shadow of the under-construction World Trade Center. It could easily be misinterpreted as a pre-Phish show parking lot. Cardboard signs, guys playing guitar, girls holding their fingers up for the international symbol for peace. There’s somewhat of a Shakedown Street with Halal carts, fresh fruit stands, smoothie hut and a bread stand. Oh, and a typical New York souvenir stand. There are sleeping bags and mattresses, couches and tables, even a little legal corner where people can go get free legal advice. Though, while I was there, there were no attorneys in the “legal center.”

At the top of the park, I found Robert Daros, from Florida, sitting in a chair behind a table with a sign that said, “info.” Originally from Florida, he saw a poster in a café and wanted to participate. So he quit his job and came to the park. He, like everyone else who is taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests, is still trying to figure out how to successfully organize.

As of now, it’s a haphazard process, as there’s no leadership, no message. Nothing but a group of a few hundred people – and of that group, I saw about 10 to 15 actually take charge of something – trying to figure out what they’re doing.

“All decisions we make as a group are decided in a purely democratic process, which is extremely cumbersome and slow moving,” said Daros. “There are no elected officials. There are people to take responsibility, like myself. No one told me to come sit here. I just sat. Some people take into their own hands to distribute fliers. But no is telling them to do so. And no one is essential organizing anything.”

Leia Doran, who has been at Zuccotti Park, for the past two days, echoed that sentiment. She explained that the messaging is still a process and it’s still being refined as the collective group is trying to figure out what to ask for.

“I’m here because I want to see the people responsible for the financial crisis to be investigated and tried,” she told me, as we stood about 20 feet away from the afternoon’s General Assembly.

While there is a lack of organization in regards to leadership and messaging, they have at least figured out how to organize their day. In several spots throughout the park there are boards that give an hour-by-hour agenda. They hold these General Assemblies several times during the day to try to figure out what it is they are doing. As with other assemblies, there is division between members: some want elected leaders, some don’t.

Jesse Levy doesn’t want elected leaders representing the groups. “We need to prioritize consensus,” he said.

Doran explained that “the majority opinion here is that there should be no leadership, as people take offense to others being in charge.”

Besides selecting people to represent the group, the biggest problem is that there has yet to be a cohesive message. Their objections are not directed against any particular part of the political or economic system, however, it seems two broad themes are rising to the top: accountability for corporate and political malfeasance and limit the relationship companies can have with politicians. The protests appear to function as a way to highlight that the system is a production of the wealthy, and it’s time for reform.

Doran, for example, wants to prosecute those responsible for the financial collapse, but also to have lobbying reforms and campaign finance reforms.

Levy wants for state reforms to make new laws regarding the relationships between corporations and politicians.

Rob Daros sums up this multi-issue, lack of message problem. “We aren’t one organization. We’re trying to become one, and I feel we are, because there are a lot of us, and a lot of different people here, are the collective voice, the collective conscious, of the nation. Essentially there are too many demands for us to have one demand. Very vaguely, I would say you could take down corporate influence out of the government so we are better represented and that our country doesn’t do anything that is so terrible.”

In addition to these internal hurdles, denizens of Zuccotti Park face external challenges. As of now, they have no official legal team to help advise on large matters such as arrests, or small matters like securing places for signage or even having amplification. During the General Assembly, they use a ‘human microphone.’ To start speaking, a presenter will say “mic check” three times, and each time the audience will respond with “mic check.” Following that, the speaker launches into what he or she has to say, pausing after ever few words so the larger audience can repeat, and amplify, the speaker’s message. A bit tiresome, yes, but somewhat effective, as one can stand at the other end of the park and make out what’s being said.

Since there is no amplification, they also use hand signals during the general assembly to indicate their approval, disapproval or even point of process. Don’t be confused when you see jazz-hands, it means they approve; fingers pointing down is disapproval, and co-opting Phil Jackson’s Triangle Sign, they use it to indicate it’s a point of process.

Over the coming days, should this group of disaffected citizens determine leadership and a message, we may see this group get larger. With Susan Sarandon popping by today and Michael Moore, yesterday, along with Noam Chomsky’s support, celebrity activists are bringing media with them. Bloggers and journalists are starting to migrate downtown. There were about a dozen journalists with notepads, many more with video and still cameras, and at least one foreign crew from Hong Kong – two girls, one camera – patrolling the park.

People participating in Occupy Wall Street told me they are staying there for the long haul. They have food, water and sleeping bags on mattresses. The only thing I didn’t see was a portopotty. But as the protesters planned for their “Closing Bell March,” even the NYPD were in good spirits today. Many of them are working in 12-hour shifts, and are enjoying it, as it’s overtime pay.

The goal, as it currently stands, is to set up camp on and around Wall Street for two whole months and repeat one simple demand… to be decided by those participating. Music and culture website Death and Taxes, bemoaning the lack of mainstream media attention being given to the protests, summarizes its general goals thusly: “The Occupy Wall Street protesters, on the other hand, have ideas and are intent on highlighting the mechanisms at work within the perpetual boom/bust cycle that is the American economy and democracy. One of their main messages would appeal to many hundreds of million of viewers: That the wealthiest 1% of Americans own 40% of this country’s wealth and that the other 99% of fighting for the scraps.”

The movement currently boasts its own website and Facebook page to facilitate other like-minded protests all over the world.

Moore told Olbermann that he has high hopes that more and more people will join in:

This is really the very first, down on Wall Street in the Financial District, the very first attempt since the crash of ’08, to take a real stand and it’s been powerful. And I gotta believe that even though it may number in the hundreds right now, this is gonna grow. Not only on Wall Street, but in communities all over America.

He then encouraged Americans who find themselves far from New York to consider protesting at local bank branches using “possibly even civil disobedience.” He also reserved some harsh words for the big banks themselves:

They think they’re going to get away with this. These people who stole the pension funds of the American public, who stole their money, who stole the future of our kids and grandkids, they think… They’re kleptomaniacs and they think they’re going to get away with it. They have taken our democracy and formed it into a “kleptocracy.”

Moore then quoted New York mayor Michael Bloomberg as saying that there will be “rioting in the street” if things don’t change and more jobs aren’t provided soon.

Olbermann followed up with a question: “The pretext of the left-wing media,” he said, “exists to amass the kind of right-wing media belligerence — I wouldn’t use the term bias, but it’s belligerently right wing. Assuming that’s not going to change, what do the protesters in this group…what do they need to change, modify, improve to make the system bend to their will?”

One of several suggestions Moore had was for those who have been foreclosed on to remain in their homes since, given the way individual mortgages were split and bundled into derivatives, “nobody really owns your mortgage.”

Have a look at the segment, from Current TV:

John Avlon argued that Bennett’s comments were offensive, saying the only people responsible for 9/11 were Osama bin Laden and the hijackers, and to suggest otherwise is “bullshit.” Moore said he was not offended by Bennett’s statements, and actually agreed with the sentiment behind them. He compared U.S. foreign policy to a pitbull owner who hits his dog repeatedly and is then surprised when the pitbull bites him.

Former congresswoman Jane Harman defended Bennett’s right to free speech, but insisted that people who were directly affected by the 9/11 attacks would be understandably upset by his statements. Maher thought the debate in this country over the issue needed to become “an adult discussion,” and was quick to explain that remarks like Bennett’s have nothing to do with the individual victims of 9/11.

“Nobody is saying that those specific people who died had it coming. No one is saying that. That’s how it becomes interpreted. What we’re saying is that the United States has almost half a million troops in over 150 countries around the world. That is an empire. If you want to have an empire, and this country by its acquiescence of that fact certainly does, if you want to have that big a footprint, yes, there is going to be some kind of blowback.”

Moore focused on the “hate speech” thrown at Bennett from right-wing radio and recalled the blowback from his now-infamous comments about the Iraq War at the Oscars. He almost got into a shouting match with Avlon over the particular motives of the individual terrorists who attacked the U.S. ten year ago.

Then Maher brought singer/activist Tom Morello onto the panel to offer up his thoughts on the subject. He went back to the free speech issue, specifically citing all the songs that were banned from being played on the radio in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, including the complete expulsion of any songs from Rage Against the Machine (Morello’s band).

Then, like Moore, Maher recalled his own 9/11 controversy, and asked aloud how he got fired for his comments when Howard Stern‘s “let’s drop a bomb on a Muslim country” remark resulted in very little outrage.

Watch the video here, courtesy of HBO:

According to his blog, Moore was urging a “nonviolent rumble of citizen participation,” although it’s unclear whether he made such a disclaimer during his remarks.

While Moore posted video of a different portion of his Thursday night Bunker Hill appearance, the only account of his “rumble” remarks currently available is from Moore’s own web page:

So last night, I just couldn’t take it, folks. I turned away from this Dickensian “alms for the poor” scene and screamed “Enough!” I asked how many in the audience had come from the “other” sections of Boston to be here tonight. About half the crowd raised its hand. I then asked them to please put as much as they could afford into those envelopes and I would match it, dollar for dollar. By the end of the night I think we raised about ten grand for the Bunker Hill Community College Student Emergency fund (and with my match, it became a total of $20,000).

And then I asked all who were in the arena to make a pledge with me to reject this vision of America that has been thrust upon us. Reject it, fight it, fix it — and to fix it, it will require a rumble. But hey, I was in south Boston, and if there’s anyone who knows how to rumble …! What I asked for was a nonviolent rumble of citizen participation.

The crowd spontaneously got up and clapped and shouted. I asked them if they would raise a ruckus in the months to come. The crowd shouted yes. And I believe they will. Here comes trouble? Ha! The kleptocracy had better brace themselves. It won’t be long before they wish that had been just a cute title on an overpriced book.

Several things about Moore’s remark caught my eye. First of all, it’s just the kind of thing that people seize upon these days to feign outrage about violent political metaphors, a point that both sides have been missing ever since the shooting tragedy in Tucson opened up a dialog on the subject in January.

It also serves as a neat bookend to Andrew Breitbart‘s Friday remarks about “fir(ing) the first shot” because conservatives “have the guns.”

Although highly unlikely, the juxtaposition makes it look almost like Breitbart was trying to top Moore. What odds do you give on Michael Moore with a bike chain, vs. Andrew Breitbart and his squad of secret commandos?

The location of Moore’s book tour stop is also rather amusing. He was speaking in the Charlestown section of Boston, the setting for the Ben Affleck-directed heist flick The Town. You may recall that House Republicans used a scene from The Town to butch up during the debt ceiling debate. Come to think of it, the way that worked out, maybe the White House ought to schedule a screening of Reindeer Games, pronto.

Elsewhere in his Q&A, Moore drew a laugh from the audience when he said that Republicans “are Americans, too,” and re-dubbed the Tea Party the “Tea-tanic.”

Here’s the clip, from Michael Moore’s Youtube channel:

(h/t)

Moore has done quite well for himself as a commercially viable and polemical filmmaker, and his provocative style was on full view on the day time coffee klatsch. Moore first clarified some recent comments that he had made critical of Obama, saying that he was far more disappointed in the GOP. Host Barbara Walters then asked Moore about his position that bin Laden had possibly been executed and that the American “lost something” in the way he died. Moore restated that idea, proclaiming that the right thing to do was bring him home and put him on trial, which predictably, set off the fireworks. Provocateur!

Watch the clip below, courtesy of ABC: