Dude, Where's My Country_ - Michael Moore [89]
• He is against the Bush tax cut. Here is what he says: “I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries. . . . One of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country. So I think that the tax cuts were unfair.”
• He is against Patriot Act II and wants the first one re-examined. Here’s what he said: “One of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty, and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists.”
• He is for gun control. Says Clark: “In general, I have got twenty some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons—they should join the United States Army, we have them.”
• He is for affirmative action. Speaking of the brief he filed with the Supreme Court to support the University of Michigan in its efforts to have affirmative action, he said, “I’m in favor of the principle of affirmative action. . . . What you can’t have is, you can’t have a society in which we’re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination. . . . We saw the benefits of affirmative action in the United States armed forces. It was essential in restoring the integrity and the effectiveness of the armed forces.”
• He is not for sending the troops into Iran or continuing with this axis of evil nonsense. “Number one is that we need to use multilateralism for what it can do,” says Clark. “Multilateralism, if you use it effectively, can put a lot of economic pressure and diplomatic pressure to bear. Number two, I think we need to be very careful about jumping to a military option too quickly, especially in the case of Iran, because we can overturn the government there, perhaps, we could certainly blow up some facilities. But that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.”
• He is pro-environment: “Human beings do affect the environment and all you have to do is fly along the Andes and look at the disappearing glaciers down there and you recognize that there is something called global warming and it’s just getting started as China and India modernize.”
• He favors working with our allies instead of pissing them off: “[This is] an administration which really hasn’t respected our allies. . . . If you really want allies, [you’ve] got to listen to their opinions, you’ve got to take them seriously, you’ve got to work with their issues.”
So, here’s my question to the lame-o Democrats: Why the hell aren’t you running this guy? Is it because he might WIN? Yeah, how bizarre would that be—a winner! Don’t want to try that, do you?
Well, if I were looking for a strategy to beat Bush the deserter, I’d run a friggin’ four-star general against him! Bush wouldn’t stand a chance. This may be the only way to beat Bush, beat him at his own game. Bush’s political strategist, Karl Rove, will try to convince the American people that this is a wartime election—and you don’t change presidents during wartime. That’s what they’re counting on—scaring the American people into four more years of Bush II. If they’ve succeeded in frightening voters into believing that there really is some enemy threat out there, it may not be possible for us to undo that kind of damage. Instead, why don’t we just roll with it and tell the American people, well, yes there is a threat out there—and who would you rather have protecting you: a guy who ran and hid in Omaha, or one of the top generals in the land? Clark has been awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Thanks to the British and the Dutch, he’s also got a couple