Michael Moore favors John Edwards for president
[Mandatory CYA statement - As an active-duty soldier, I am not allowed to make any endorsements or disparaging remarks about any elected government official, or those running for state and national offices. Nor am I allowed to make similar remarks about any particular political parties.]
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get down to business.
Michael Moore (who isn’t running for any political office) is a big, fat, bloated, unkempt, socialist, Halliburton-bashing-but-still-owns-their-stock, directorial hack. And, he’s kinda sorta endorsing John Edwards for president. I’ll report, you decide if that’s a good thing or not.
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 favor the candidate who says,] “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.
Category :
Tags :
Similar Posts:
- Obama used Blackwater for his own security?
- 60% of Democrats say campaigning should continue
- Iranian speed boats play paddy-cake with the U.S. Navy
- You stay classy, Randi!
- Hillary in the White House during blue dress incident?
- Missing Slick Willie
- Another post about liberals exposing themselves
- Supporting the troops means two different things to liberals and conservatives
- John Edwards not a closet homosexual!
- You say you want a revolution…
Leave a Reply