[Peace-discuss] Who Do We Vote For This
Time Around?
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Fri Jan 4 18:58:53 CST 2008
Edwards did well in Iowa -- tied with Clinton, who was supposed to win it. That he didn't do better was not because of anti-war, anti-capitalist sentiments but because he didn't convince people that they were strong enough. He still looks like the rich guy/establishment Democrat. They remember him as Kerry's running mate and a supporter of the war in the Senate. Huckabee, who was even stronger in his attacks on Wall Street, garnered even more support as a result. Iowans said that the three most important issues, in order, were the war, the economy, and healthcare. --CGE
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:06:25 -0600
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore
>To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 9:12 PM, Jenifer Cartwright
> <jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, in corporate-run US of 2008, a prez
> candidate cannot talk like Edwards did and expect
> to get the nomination, win the election, or get
> (most of) that kind of platform implemented if
> s/he did win (plus Congress is corps-friendly, or
> hasn't Moore noticed?
>
> Was the whole article written for the punch line?
> It would have been funnier if Moore had said
> "couch" instead of "sofa."
>
> Jenifer
>
> I'd say that hope springs eternal in Michael Moore's
> bosom, just like the rest of us. He's human and
> fallible. Unfortunately he has a special knack for
> getting the rest of us all stirred up. "Vote for
> Nader!" in 2000. "Don't vote for Nader!" in 2004.
> Moore would like to see the power of the
> corporations reined in just as the rest of us would,
> but I don't think he has any real idea of how to go
> about it. I do, of course, but I'm not a candidate
> or a media celebrity.
>
> Incidentally, it took me a couple of minutes to
> think of what town in Iowa was named after a sofa.
> :-)
>
> John Wason
>
>
>
> Lisa Chason <chason at shout.net> wrote:
>
>
> Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter
> from Michael Moore
> January 2, 2008
> Friends,
> A new year has begun. And before we've had a
> chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we
> find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours
> before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they
> would like to replace the man who now occupies
> three countries and a white house.
> Twice before, we have begun the process to stop
> this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years
> of our lives as Americans will have been lost,
> the world left in upheaval against us... and yet
> now, today, we hope against hope that our moment
> has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful
> force of the Republican Party will somehow be
> halted. But we know that the Democrats are
> experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of
> victory, and if there's a way to blow this
> election, they will find it and do it with
> gusto.
> Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic
> front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of
> candidates, and that none of them are the "slam
> dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are
> wonderful things about each of them. Any one of
> them would be infinitely better than what we
> have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more
> than any other candidate, shares the same
> positions that I have on the issues (although
> the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as
> far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time
> talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to
> losing, with statements like the one he made
> yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw
> their support to Senator Obama as their "second
> choice."
> So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do
> we do?
> Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me
> to do a cover story where I would ask the hard
> questions that no one was asking in one-on-one
> interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and
> Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with
> Michael Moore." The deal was that all three
> candidates had to agree to let me interview them
> or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed.
> Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was
> thus killed.
> Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton,
> not sit down to talk with me? What was she
> afraid of?
> Those of you who are longtime readers of mine
> may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter
> (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love
> for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment
> she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and
> I thought somebody should stand up for her. I
> later met her and she thanked me for referring
> to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I
> supported and contributed to her run for the
> U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart
> person who loves this country, cares deeply
> about kids, and has put up with more crap than
> anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy
> Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling
> sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a
> country where 51% of its citizens are female and
> 64% are either female or people of color.
> And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has
> disappointed me more than the disastrous,
> premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to
> send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking
> about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his
> "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about
> every single OTHER vote she then cast for the
> next four years, backing and funding Bush's
> illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never
> met a request from the White House for war
> authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the
> Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for
> authorization but later came to realize the
> folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued
> to cast numerous votes for the war until last
> March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even
> after 70% of the American public had turned
> against the war. She has steadfastly refused to
> say that she was wrong about any of this, and
> she will not apologize for her culpability in
> America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster.
> All she can bring herself to say is that she was
> "misled" by "faulty intelligence."
> Let's assume that's true. Do you want a
> President who is so easily misled? I wasn't
> "misled," and millions of others who took to the
> streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled"
> either. It was simply amazing that we knew the
> war was wrong when none of us had been briefed
> by the CIA, none of us were national security
> experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons
> inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we
> were being lied to! Let me ask those of you
> reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did
> you figure it out sometime between October of
> 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was
> up to something rotten? Twenty-three other
> senators were smart enough to figure it out and
> vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't
> Senator Clinton?
> I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist
> country we still live in and that one of the
> reasons the public, in the past, would never
> consider a woman as president is because she
> would also be commander in chief. The majority
> of Americans were concerned that a woman would
> not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror
> of horrors!). So, in order to placate that
> mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as
> "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push
> The Button if necessary, and give the generals
> whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what
> has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would
> truly make her a scary first-term president. If
> the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in
> her first years, she knows that in order to get
> re-elected she'd better be ready to go all
> Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our
> direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the
> world makes it in one piece to her second term?
> I have not even touched on her other numerous --
> and horrendous -- votes in the Senate,
> especially those that have made the middle class
> suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first
> bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading
> recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign
> contributions -- from the health care industry).
> I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and
> there is a very good chance that will happen.
> There will be plenty of time to vote for her in
> the general election if all the pollsters are
> correct. But in the primaries and caucuses,
> isn't this the time to vote for the person who
> most reflects the values and politics you hold
> dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for
> someone who so energetically voted over and over
> and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give
> this serious consideration.
> Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to
> do the interview with me...
> Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a
> breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his
> sincerity or his commitment to trying to
> straighten things out in this country. But who
> is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a
> great speech? How much do any of us really know
> about him? I know he was against the war. How do
> I know that? He gave a speech before the war
> started. But since he joined the senate, he has
> voted for the funds for the war, while at the
> same time saying we should get out. He says he's
> for the little guy, but then he votes for a
> corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the
> little guy to file a class action suit when his
> kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy.
> In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a
> bad place. He wants the insurance companies to
> help us develop a new health care plan -- the
> same companies who have created the mess in the
> first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I
> get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans
> will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have
> time to make a good speech about it.
> But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a
> big heart, and that heart is in the right place.
> Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America
> vote for him? We'd like to believe they would.
> We'd like to believe America has changed,
> wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about
> ourselves -- and as we look out the window at
> the guy snowplowing his driveway across the
> street, we want to believe he's changed, too.
> But are we dreaming?
> And then there's John Edwards.
> It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But
> once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try
> -- you find a man who is out to take on the
> wealthy and powerful who have made life so
> miserable for so many. A candidate who says
> things like this: "I absolutely believe to my
> soul that this corporate greed and corporate
> power has an ironclad hold on our democracy."
> Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in
> a while, at least not anyone who is near the top
> of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is
> doing so well in Iowa, even though he has
> nowhere near the stash of cash the other two
> have. He won't take the big checks from the
> corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top
> three candidates in agreeing to limit his
> spending and be publicly funded. He has said,
> point-blank, that he's going after the drug
> companies and the oil companies and anyone else
> who is messing with the American worker. The
> media clearly find him to be a threat, probably
> because he will go after their monopolistic
> power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of
> talk. That's why it's resonating with people in
> Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention
> Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of
> coverage may cost him the first place spot
> tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those
> white guys who's been running things for far too
> long.
> And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator
> Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he
> was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be
> forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary
> and Obama, he refused to promise in a September
> debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq
> by the end of his first term in 2013. But this
> week in Iowa , he changed his mind. He went
> further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd
> have all the troops home in less than a year.
> Edwards is the only one of the three
> front-runners who has a universal health care
> plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all
> other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't
> go as fast as I would like, but he is the only
> one who has correctly pointed out that the
> health insurance companies are the enemy and
> should not have a seat at the table.
> I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is
> simply how I feel in the first week of the
> process to replace George W. Bush. For months
> I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where
> are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that
> Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by
> Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting
> to enter the viper pit again after you already
> won. But getting us to change out our
> incandescent light bulbs for some irritating
> fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world.
> All it's going to do is make us more agitated
> and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we
> haven't really left the office.
> On second thought, would you even be willing to
> utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my
> soul that this corporate greed and corporate
> power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?"
> 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and
> who sees it as the root of all evil -- including
> the root of global warming -- is the President
> who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice
> and peace.
> Yours,
> Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but
> appreciative of any state that has a town named
> after a sofa)
> MMFlint at aol.com
> MichaelMoore.com
>________________
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list