Clark for President, by Michael Moore

[Bug]

I've heard Michael Moore rant a few times, and though he seemed smart, he also damaged his credibility with his radical (sometimes whacko) positions. But I think he (mostly) makes sense here.....

 

I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush — by Michael Moore

 

January 14, 2004

 

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

 

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

 

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

 

And he will cream George W. Bush.

 

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

 

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

 

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

 

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

 

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

 

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

 

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

 

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been “positioning himself slightly to Dean’s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

 

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

 

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

 

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

 

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

 

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

 

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

 

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

 

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) – and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

 

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

 

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

 

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

 

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state’s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

 

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

 

Yours,

 

Michael Moore

 

www.michaelmoore.com

 

mmflint@aol.com

 

P.S. To register to vote visit www.yourvotematters.org.

[HRoark]

Wow, an article that proves there is someone scarier for America than Michael Moore. I especially loved how Clark is going to "sock it to the rich..." Way to stifle entrepreneurship. A few lies to dispel: there IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE, Clark WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THESE THINGS BY HIMSELF; he will see the reality that Congress controls the lawmaking and the pursestrings.

 

Moore makes me fucking sick.

 

Roark

[catbirdseat]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

[HRoark]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

[Bug]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

 

Why should my son have to die for Haliburton and Exxon? There is a big difference between "stifeling entrepreneurship" and increasing profits for the richest of the rich.

[catbirdseat]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

Do you make over 1 million dollars? I don't thinks so. Why are you always sticking up for the ultra rich?

[vegetablebelay]

Socialism sucks.

[HRoark]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

 

Why should my son have to die for Haliburton and Exxon? There is a big difference between "stifeling entrepreneurship" and increasing profits for the richest of the rich.

 

Bug;

 

As much as I respect your view, I think this is a slightly skewed simplification. I don't necessarily believe in what we are doing in Iraq, but we're hardly over there fighting a few developer/contractors. We're playing global policeman, just like Ike did in Korea and Kennedy in Viet Nam.

 

What about the other "points"? Or are you voting simply on war (which Congress has more control over than the President, anyway)?

[lummox]

mego. like whatever. i have a hardtime caring about the opinion of anyone with the personal hygeine habits exhibited by michael moore. fat fuker needs to clean up his act. or schtick.

[Distel32]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

 

I love how I still become amazed by views presented on this site. Has respect and dignity for human life escaped the meager minds of some Americans?

[HRoark]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

 

I love how I still become amazed by views presented on this site. Has respect and dignity for human life escaped the meager minds of some Americans?

 

Someone who doesn't think I am smart enough to control my own life and how to protect myself has no respect for me. Also, anyone who holds the belief that because I am successful they are entitled to a larger and larger percentage of what I earn does not believe in the dignity of an individual. Clark and Moore fit this bill perfectly.

 

Roark

[catbirdseat]

This is significant. This may be Distel32's first foray into a political thread.

[minx]

i loathe myself for doing this but i just can't help it

 

i have been interested in Gen. Clarke's candicacy for a while. he seems to have more background for dealing with foreign policy than any of the other dem. candidates.

 

h/e, a michale moore endorsement does nothing to sway me toward him. i think M.M. has latched on to great ideas in the past and then run so far to the left w/his theories that he ruins valid arguments.

 

so what if i don't have a million dollars? does that mean i should be any less interested in policies that affect my bottom line? i consider myself successful despite my lack of a 7 figure income.

 

BUT to distel's comment. There is nothing yet that makes me think charging into Iraq was anything but a personal agenda for Shrub. I'm pleased to see any candidate that understands this.

[HRoark]

This is significant. This may be Distel32's first foray into a political thread.

 

misguided and lame if you ask me. Nothing of quality or substance. I give it a 4.5 out of 10.

[catbirdseat]

A friend of mine made a cogent remark about Clark. She said that with Clark, all we have to go on are his recent statement about what his policies will be. In the case of someone like Kerry we have his long and consistent voting record in Congress with which to judge him.

[Distel32]

This is significant. This may be Distel32's first foray into a political thread.

 

misguided and lame if you ask me. Nothing of quality or substance. I give it a 4.5 out of 10.

 

I never enter political debates on this forum because I don't know most of the people. In person or on the phone, gladly. My comments weren't supposed to knock you off your feet roark. Just stating something I wish I could understand.

[Bug]

Regardless of what you think of Michael Moore, you have to concede he makes some good points.

 

No, I don't. I don't agree with him or "his points"; most of which will cost me more money in taxes and restrictions on my freedom as an American. What is my "fair share" of taxes, catbirdseat? Why, because I am successful and work hard, is the government entitled to such a large share of my life blood?

 

Roark

 

Why should my son have to die for Haliburton and Exxon? There is a big difference between "stifeling entrepreneurship" and increasing profits for the richest of the rich.

 

Bug;

 

As much as I respect your view, I think this is a slightly skewed simplification. I don't necessarily believe in what we are doing in Iraq, but we're hardly over there fighting a few developer/contractors. We're playing global policeman, just like Ike did in Korea and Kennedy in Viet Nam.

 

What about the other "points"? Or are you voting simply on war (which Congress has more control over than the President, anyway)?

Thanks for your respect.

No. I am not voting on the war issue alone. I honestly believe that Bush and Cheney represent a group of ultra rich who see themselves as best qualified to run the world and hold most of the money. The interests of humanity at large are secondary to power even if only because they do not understand the impact their actions as leaders have on the everyday American. If our primary purpose in going into Iraq was to get rid of Saddam, why aren't we in a couple dozen other countries with equally bad human rights issues? It is because of the oil and that translates to money. So you have to ask, "whose money?" We just saw our president pass the bill that allows employers to not pay overtime pay for white collar workers. That includes nurses who are already understaffed and running on fumes. Without extra pay, there will be sacrifices to make for the quality of their childrens day care, family perks to cover mom not home etc. The nursing shortage will get worse. On a broader scale, income will go down at an amount the far exceeds the tax cuts Bush gave us. Once again proving that tax cuts were political and he really doesn't give a f### about the middle class. Why isn't he legislating limits on CEO salaries?

But even if it came down to voting on the sole issue of the war in Iraq, I would vote against Bush. I still do not know who I will vote for and I do not "like" anyone who wants the job. But supporting someone like Clark brings some interesting perspectives into the campaign spectrum.

I will vote against Bush because he took us into Iraq for his reasons, which he admits he had the day he took office, not for the good of the every day American. To me, that is far worse than Clinton lying about a blow job.

Socialism rose out of the ashes of a failed corporate structure that left all power in the hands of the rich. There was no health insurance and no safety net of any kind. Only low wages and unsafe working conditions. I have no doubt that that is where we would end up if the present day ultra-rich were able to control our country for a couple decades. I do not want them to have four more years.

[HRoark]

Socialism rose out of the ashes of a failed corporate structure that left all power in the hands of the rich. There was no health insurance and no safety net of any kind. Only low wages and unsafe working conditions. I have no doubt that that is where we would end up if the present day ultra-rich were able to control our country for a couple decades. I do not want them to have four more years.

And put the power into the hands of a ruling elite whose belief was that they knew better than their constituents what said individuals needed or should have.

[minx]

 

 

i question Gen. Clark's background for dealing with domestic economic issues. Corporations are already shipping plenty of jobs overseas at an alarming rate. This might increase if their taxes were to go up as they would under Gen. Clark's proposition. Fewer jobs is a bad thing of the economy as a whole and the citizens as individuals regardless of their salary.

 

i certainly am not opposed to expanded social programs, particularly universal health care. h/e we need the tax base to support these programs. Stifling job growth won't help improve the available money to fund these programs.

[Bug]

The jobs are on their way overseas no matter who is in office. The jobs will go wherever the lowest paid qualified workers are. Even as an IT analyst, I cannot say this is a bad thing. It simply means that the wealth, or middle class is dispersing through the third world. As a highly educated and creative society, we should be able to stay ahead of the job exodus curve. I also hope we can set some standards, that actually work, for how the balance of power between the classes is handled. Paying taxes without some form of return is fuedalism. Social Security, medicare, medicade are all socialistic programs. So is public transportation and education. They all have their problems but who would really advocate completely eliminating any of them? Health care should not be available only to the rich. If someone is dying of cancer and cannot afford the drugs, right now that person will die. This seems backward to me.

Working out a socialized health care system will be painful and it will always have problems. That's life. But to leave so many people out of the care network is just plain cold.

[stinkyclimber]

Corporations are already shipping plenty of jobs overseas at an alarming rate. This might increase if their taxes were to go up as they would under Gen. Clark's proposition.

 

i certainly am not opposed to expanded social programs, particularly universal health care. h/e we need the tax base to support these programs.

The tax base you are looking for is the one that just left you after Bush's HUGE tax cuts. Even before any of Bush's tax cuts, Americans enjoyed the lowest combined tax rate of any industrialized nation in the world by a HUGE margin. US companies aren't leaving the US because of taxes...they are leaving to find cheaper workers and fewer regulations, both of which are totally unrelated to tax rates.

 

Your social programs suck because your government has no money. And your government has no money because it has slashed taxes. You want social programs?...raise taxes.

 

To think that increased economic growth due to tax cuts will make up for loss of revene from tax cuts is lovely supply-side thinking that everyone else in the world has abandoned. However, if you believe in supply-side economics, then by all means, go ahead and keep believing...just buy more locks for your front door.

[chelle]

The only comments I have seen Bush make about jobs going to foreigners was about illegal immigrants who are domsetic help and agriculture workers. He wants to make their presence here legal since no one in the US really wants many of those jobs. I have not read or heard anything about how Bush is planning to keep the good paying blue and white collar jobs that are going over seas here at home.

 

Minx and Roark - I'm curious what makes you think that you will end up with a smaller bottom line if the rich (individuals and corporations) pay their fair share of taxes.

[To_The_Top]

 

Corporations are already shipping plenty of jobs overseas at an alarming rate. This might increase if their taxes were to go up as they would under Gen. Clark's proposition. Fewer jobs is a bad thing of the economy as a whole and the citizens as individuals regardless of their salary.

One can only guess who really benefits from shipping jobs overseas. Certainly isnt the middle class aka the people the lube the economy.

Follow the money, and yes there will be a scrap here and there for some, but the money that is saved is that to a few.

[arlen]

I like MM because he's great at what he does: articulate raw progressive ideals. And I like Clark because he talks straight. But I'm also thinking about electability, and that means I'll support anybody whose name sounds good with "Breaux."

[Peter_Puget]

Moore's an idiot!

 

Read this , or this , or maybe this , or even better this!

 

PP