Not that I'm the only one who noticed, cf. Rich in PA,
...You know the bailout is bullshit--you said it yourself a week or two ago. ...
, and missliberties,
Um...... Mr. Moore
weren't you opposed to the auto bailout. That is what I recall you saying on TV.
Am I mistaken here, or have you had a change of heart.
You could have been a proponent of the bailout. Instead you ignorantly were against it. ...
Maybe people need a ranty rant against the Saxby Shelbys of the Senate, but a little consistency doesn't hurt. And it doesn't hurt for a diarist to stay around in his own diary, cf. Moore's epochally Hollywoody admission,
I would comment more, but I’m making a movie!
(more on Moore below)
So was he right in his earlier, anti-bailout diary (cf. my diary on the topic, Refuting ridiculous rant of Michael "Mitt" Moore vs. bailout, in which I support Ron Gettelfinger and oppose Moore--and my position is supported by Kossacks in the poll, 63-53 as of this moment), or is he correct in his current, apparently pro-bailout diary? I.e., though he was against it before he was for it, which one of his two antithetical stances is correct? Your choice.