Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Michael Moore (still) backs Wesley Clark

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Vegetable Man



Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 145
Location: In yellow shoes...

Post Post subject: Michael Moore (still) backs Wesley Clark Reply with quote

From the Michael Moore website/mailing list:

Wednesday, January 14th, 2004
I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush — by Michael Moore

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.
Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:15 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
George HK



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 12
Location: Moominsville.

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how he didn't try to justify the war crimes committed in Kosovo and his only mention of is was "he bombed kosovo" in relation to email he expected to get from us.

Wesley Clark is a war criminal and should be treated as such.

You can't say "oh he's done lots of good things and believes all these great things" after his war criminal activities. It just doesn't wash.

Michael Moore is backing a war criminal and he should be reminded of that at every opportunity.
Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:19 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 2
Location: Cambs, UK

Post Post subject: Q: But is he the only one to stop the current war criminal ? Reply with quote

or is there another [more] credible alternative?
Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:20 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
finn mccool



Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Helsinki

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Regardless of whether he's right about Clark or not, I think he has adopted the right strategy. The primary objective should be to not let Bush get re-elected. Before the last election I was completely certain that it wouldn't make much of a difference which candidate would win, but having seen the damage done during the last three years in the world, and in the US, I have to conclude that I was wrong. The Bush term has been much worse than I thought it could be. Is it unrealistic to hope that a democrat president would put a stop to the insane space plans? What *can* we expect from a democrat president? Any thoughts?

Moore just chose the non-republican canditate most likely to defeat Bush. One can debate the moral value of the choice he has made but his assessment of the situation seems to be correct. I just hate to see him try to defend Clark's past like that, though. His rhetoric goes like this: "He has a good chance to win and look, he isn't *that* bad! He's actually quite anti-war! See, he's not that bad, really!" He felt forced to make the choice on pragmatic grounds and has resolved the resulting cognitive dissonance by trying to see Clark in as good a light as at all possible. So, to him, Clark is actually the anti-war candidate.
Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:53 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
finn mccool



Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Helsinki

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

January 16, 2004
The General's Henchman
Michael Moore Smears Kucinich

By DAVE LINDORFF

Film producer and journalist Michael Moore, who has decided to endorse and actively campaign for retired Gen. Wesley Clark for the Democratic presidential nomination, has crossed the line in attacking at least one of Clark's rivals.

Moore, in emails to supporters, and on his website (www.michaelmoore.com), asks forbearance on the part of those who have been pointing out Clark's negatives, notably his role in the bombing of civilian targets in Serbia during the NATO Kosovo campaign, his dangerous order (disobeyed fortunately by a British commander) to have NATO troops confront Russian troops at the Pristina airbase where they had landed a contingent without NATO permission, and his record of supporting Republicans in the past.

Moore backs up this plea for grace by claiming that Dennis Kucinich --the most consistent and outspoken opponent of the Iraq war of all the Democratic candidates, and the only member of Congress running for the presidency who had the guts to vote against the November war resolution which Bush used as his "Tonkin Gulf" authorization to invade Iraq--is himself a waffler on the issue of the war.

How so?

As Moore explains, "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)."

After this nasty charge, he goes on to play coy, saying, "What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war."

But putting aside for the moment whether it makes sense--in the interest of ousting Bush--not to look too hard into the pasts of the various candidates for the Democratic nomination, as Moore is urging us to refrain from doing, let's look at the truth of this particular libel against Kucinich.

What exactly was that resolution in March '03 that Kucinich abstained on (he voted "present" rather than yes or no)? It called on congressmembers to "express suport and appreciation of the nation for the president and the members of the armed forces who are involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom."

This was not a further authorization for war--something which Kucinich, who had voted against the original war authorization, would certainly have opposed. Rather, as the politically savvy Moore clearly knows, it was a meaningless "feel good" resolution, and a blatant Republican effort to "sandbag" Bush critics in Congress by offering up a "support the troops" resolution that they would find it politically hard not to vote for. The trick was, the resolution didn't just say Congress members supported the troops and their families; it also said they supported the president.

As Kucinich spokesperson David Swanson explains, "Dennis supports the troops, but he doesn't support the president, so he couldn't support the resolution. But he didn't want to vote against support for the troops, so he voted `present.'"

A purist might argue that Kucinich should have simply called the resolution for what it was--a dirty trick designed to silence war critics--and voted against it, which, as Moore correctly notes, a handful of Democrats did in fact do. But given the simplistic way the corporate media reports such matters, and the way Republican opponents could be counted upon to use it in a campaign, it is also understandable why Kucinich chose to simply abstain. (Just look how Moore and Clark are using it now!)

Moore is in fact shamelessly playing the Republicans' game by trying to paint this decision by Kucinich as a waffle on the war. He and Gen. Clark shouldn't be stooping to this kind of misrepresentation in order to win the nomination. In any event, such an effort, if it is designed to win over Kucinich supporters to the general's cause, is going to backfire.

As for the notion that people shouldn't examine the past positions of the candidates for the Democratic nomination, this is a recommendation for disaster. Candidates' pasts don't only reveal their political views, they reveal their ability to stand up under pressure, their political connections and liabilities, and their basic character. We ignore that record at our risk.

President Nixon, in 1968, tried to remake himself as a peace candidate, running against Hubert Humphrey. 25,000 more dead Americans and several million dead Indochinese later, we saw just what a man of peace he was. But of course, his past years as a cold warrior should have made it clear to anyone paying attention that his "peace" image was a sham. The same can be said of President Clinton, who ran in 1992 as a champion of minorities, gays and labor, but who then abolished welfare, enlarged the prison-slave system, and passed the NAFTA job destruction treaty. Anyone who examined Clinton's history as governor of Arkansas would have been able to see this was no man of the people.

Furthermore, we need to know the past actions of the candidates, because it's guaranteed that if there is anything embarrassing in their records, and they win the nomination, we can be certain that Bush's campaign will dig it up and use it to the hilt in the general election.

No, Moore is wrong to suggest that we voters stop looking into the candidates' pasts, though it's obvious in Gen. Clark's case why he'd be saying that.
That said, what should not be happening is that those pasts be misrepresented, as Moore is doing in Kucinich's case.

http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff01162004.html
Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:49 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
finn mccool



Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Helsinki

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Moore defends his choice on the Democracy Now! show:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/1622230

 


Last edited by finn mccool on Thu Apr 01, 2004 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:13 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tomarse



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 26
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post Post subject: Michael Moore morphs into.... Reply with quote

OMG, I swear, 10 minutes from the end, he turns into David Brent.
The thing with first rate polemicists, which Moore surely is, is that they make third rate apologists.

How can he seriously claim that Clark is anti-war after he ran the bombing of Yugoslavia and tried to start WW3. This is a prime example of why the yanks won't face up to their own crimes against humanity. Because those who commit them are the most emminently electable, even to a hardcore lefty like Moore.

Personally, I think that Clark would be the only candidate for president who would be WORSE than Bush.
_________________
If you're not XXXX, you're a guinness.
Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:48 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker