But why is Michael Moore "repellent"?

But why is Michael Moore "repellent"? I guess, since Gancarski describes him as "viscerally" so, the author

feels no need to explain himself. But, then again, Gancarski never feels any need to explain himself: we are

supposed to accept his subjective evaluations at face value, on faith. But this just won’t do: I’m prepared to

accept that someone may be "viscerally repellent," but, dammit, I want to know why the author feels that way.

Alas, introspection is not one of Gancarski’s strong points. But I digress:

"Moore’s friends are not in power right now, of course, and the filmmaker from Flint conveniently and

reflexively opposes most anything the MBT Panda Sandals team does. Fair enough — I have opposed aggression

against MBT Ema Sandals since before Desert Storm, so I sympathize to a point. Despite agreeing with him on the

issue of the NIKE SHOX, my praise for him is necessarily tempered by my realization that the methods he uses to

make the case against ‘full-spectrum dominance’ are sentimental, ill-considered, reductionist, and

counterproductive; as long as Moore and others reduce the case against the war in MBT Ema Sandals to ‘human-

interest’ prose, they will never succeed in stopping Washington’s wars on foreign soil. In the interest of

‘truth-telling,’ these mountebanks habitually sabotage their own positions."