[329] in peace2
Michael Moore on Nader
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laura Doughty)
Mon Jul 31 10:08:19 2000
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:04:05 -0400
Message-Id: <200007311404.KAA20676@mgm.mit.edu>
From: Laura Doughty <laura@mgm.mit.edu>
To: peace-list@MIT.EDU, esamuels@crocker.com, sunflower-napf-owner@egroups.com,
fbp@igc.org, mvoelker@emerald.tufts.edu
>Forwarded from an intelligent observer of American political life.
>Dear friends,
>
>DISCLAIMER: If you are planning to vote for Al Gore in November,
>good for you. Don't let what I'm about to say change your mind,
>because I've been told by all the experts that if you do change your
>mind based on what I'm about to say, George W. Bush might win the
>election and I certainly couldn't live with myself if that
>connoisseur of pharmaceuticals (the kind you snort up your nose or
>the kind you inject on death row) won, in part, because of a letter
>I spit out over the Internet.
>
>So let's review--you like Gore, you vote for Gore. He's a decent
>guy. I met him last year at some benefit, he came up to me, big
>hug--whoa, this veep is no stiff, I thought --and thanked me for
>this and that. He even quoted lines from "The Awful Truth"--whoa,
>scary, I thought, what's he doing watching cable channels above 40
>on the box...not much to do on this veep gig, eh?
>
>I told him I admired what he did when he came home to America as a Vietnam
>Vet and spoke out against the war. That took a lot of courage, I said (his
>dad lost his Senate seat for being an early opponent of the war). So, if Al
>Gore is your man, go for it. In fact, I insist on it, even if you are just
>throwing your vote away.
>
>What I am about to say, though, is not intended for any Al Gore (or George
>W.) voters. If you are one, please click off now.
>
>To Whom It May Concern:
>
>I address this letter to the largest political party in the United
>States--the 55% of you in the voting public who are so disillusioned with
>politics and politicians, so sick and tired of all the broken promises, so
>disgusted with all the b.s. that you have absolutely no intention of voting
>in November.
>
>You know who you are.
>
>AND YOU ARE THE MAJORITY!
>
>You rule. You are the Non-Voters, all 100 million of you!
>
>Until now, you have been the subject of scorn and ridicule. You've
>been called apathetic, lazy, ignorant. Your actions have been viewed
>as unAmerican (I mean, what kind of citizen in the World's Greatest
>Democracy would not exercise his or her most important and cherished
>right--the right to freely choose your leader!).
>
>Well, may I be the first to tell you that, not only are you NOT stupid and
>apathetic, I believe you are smarter than all the rest of us combined. YOU
>figured it out. YOU uncovered the scam. And YOU had the guts to no longer
>participate in a lie. Way to go! In 1996, you helped set the all-time
>American record for lowest turnout ever at a presidential election.
>
>The reason you, the majority, no longer vote in America is because you, the
>majority, realize there is no real choice on the ballot. The "two" parties
>both do the bidding of the wealthy and agree with each other on 90% of the
>issues. They take 90% of their money from people who make over a
>hundred-grand a year, and then enact over 90% of the laws those
contributors
>want passed.
>
>On the ballot this November, you already know there is no
>contest. The independent Cook Political Report in D.C. last week
>announced that, out of 435 House seats up for election in November,
>there are only 47 seats where there is a "true race" between
>opponents--and, of those, only 14 seats have a race that is even
>"close" between the two candidates. 14 out of 435!
>
>"Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent of incumbents running for re-election
>will be returned to Congress in November," according to the Cook Report.
>
>The Non-Voters already understand this. And they are not going to waste one
>iota of their day on November 7 driving to some smelly elementary school
>gymnasium to participate in a Soviet-style election with no friggin' choice
>on the ballot.
>
>So, to you brave voter-resisters, I say congratulations on your act
of civic >disobedience! I joined you this primary season and refused
to go along with >this charade of "choice." Nearly 80% of those of us
of voting age--over 160 >million Americans--staged a sit-in on our
living room couches during this >year's primaries. THAT is the great
untold story of this election year. How >much longer will the
punditocracy be able to get away with dismissing this >massive
no-show as "a sign Americans are content with the booming economy?"
>
>Now that we have made our presence known (you all don't mind me
speaking for >us, do you? Good. In fact, I'll just assume the
currently-vacant mantle of >this majority party and serve as your
leader until you say otherwise...), it >is time to find a way that
says, loudly and clearly, just how mad as hell we >are and how we are
not going to take it anymore. We need to find a way where >our vote
screams "None of the Above!" A chance to act, like that Chinese guy
>in Tieneman Square, standing in front of a moving tank and stopping
it in >its >path.
>
>In November, we should find a way to follow in the footsteps of
>those intelligent Minnesotans who, even thought they could care less
>about professional wrestling (and even less, I'm sure, for Jesse
>"The Body"), proved to the world that they not only have a sense of
>humor, but they know how to stick it to the whole bloody
>system. Think of just how high their level of anger must have been
>against the One-Party-With-Two-Heads monopoly! I mean, state
>government is no joke--somebody's gotta build the roads, run the
>schools, catch the criminals. You don't want to turn the asylum over
>to the chief lunatic but, damn it, that's what the people of
>Minnesota did--just to send a message! Wow. That took some guts.
>
>So, for those of you who weren't going to vote anyway, well...what
>if you actually did? What if you drove down to that stinky gym where
>the little shell game behind the pretend curtains is taking place
>("Pay no attention to the voters behind the curtains!"), walk in,
>sign in, take the ballot they hand you, and toss yourselves inside
>the booth like a political molotov cocktail.
>
>Boom!
>
>"You wanna tell me there's a choice here between two guys who both support
>NAFTA, WTO, the death penalty, the Cuban embargo, increased Pentagon
>spending, sleazy HMOs, greedy hospital chains, 250 million guns in our
>homes,
>more bombing of Iraq, the rich getting richer and the rest of us declaring
>bankruptcy?"
>
>Boom!
>
>Not me.
>
>Boom!
>
>I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
>
>KAAAABOOM!
>
>Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country. We
>may have already lost it. I hope not. But in the last 20 years of
>the Reagan administration, Corporate America has merged and morphed
>itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call
>all the shots. They own Congress. They own us. In order to work for
>them, we have to take urine tests and lie detectors and wear bar
>codes on chains around our necks. In order to keep our jobs we have
>had to give up decent health care, the 8-hour day (and time with our
>kids), the security that we'll even have a job next year, and any
>unwillingness we may have to compete with a 14-year old Indonesian
>girl who gets a dollar a day.
>
>And how frightening (and great) is it that the last place we can
>freely try to inform and communicate with each other is on this very
>Web? Six companies run by six men control the majority of the news
>we now get from newspapers, television, radio and the Internet. One
>out of every two books is bought at a bookstore owned by one of only
>two companies. Is it safe in a "free society" to have the sources of
>our information and mass communication in the hands of just a few
>wealthy men who have a VESTED interest in keeping us as stupid as
>possible--or at least in keeping us thinking like them so that we
>vote for THEIR candidates?
>
>I fear the cement on this new oligarchy of power is quickly drying,
and when >it is finished hardening, we are finished. The democracy,
the one that's >supposed to be of, by, and for the people, will cease
to exist.
>
>We must not let this happen, no matter how cynical and disgusted
>we've become at the whole electoral process. Ralph Nader, to me,
>represents a chance for us to at least temporarily stop the cement
>from drying. We need him in there kicking things up, stirring the
>pot and forcing a real debate about the issues. Whether it's Ralph
>as Candidate or Ralph as President, he may represent our last hope
>to get our country back from the clutches of the powerful few.
>
>I am not writing these words lightly. I am hoping to sound a siren
and rally >the majority who, for good reason, have given up--but
might just have it in >them to find the will for one last fight
against the bastards.
>
>Can Ralph win? Well, stranger things have happened in the past
>decade. C'mon, think about it, not a single one of us ever thought
>we'd see the Berlin Wall come down or Nelson Mandela as President of
>South Africa. After those two things happened, I joined a new school
>of thought that said ANYTHING was possible. Jesse Ventura started
>with 3% in the polls and won. Ross Perot in '92 started with 6% and,
>after proving to everyone that he was certifiably insane, still got
>nearly 20% of the vote.
>
>Ralph already has between 7% and 10% in the polls--before he's done
>any serious campaigning. He's gone from 3% to 8% in my home state of
>Michigan. These are amazing numbers, and the pundits and lobbyists
>and Republicrats are running scared. Hey, you like to watch scared
>Republicrats running? Tell a pollster you're voting for Ralph.
>
>Now, look, before you all send me a lot of mail about how weird
>Ralph is 'cause he doesn't own a car or is a "sell-out" 'cause he's
>got a few million dollars, let me say this: I used to work out of
>his office, and Ralph is definitely one of a kind. In a future
>letter I will write of those experiences but, for now, let's just
>agree that Ralph is at least half as crazy as Jesse Ventura--and
>about a hundred times as smart. I'd say he's also saved about a
>million or so lives, thanks to the consumer and environmental
>legislation he has devoted his life to.
>
>And between Gore, Bush, and himself, he's the only person running who would
>guarantee universal health care for all, the only candidate who would raise
>the minimum wage to a decent level, the only one who would get up each
>morning asking himself the question, "What can I do today to serve all the
>people of this country?"
>
>The list goes on and on. You can read more about what Ralph stands for by
>going to his website (http://www.votenader.org). You'll agree, I'm sure,
>there's lots of common sense there, regardless of what political stripe you
>are.
>
>But remember. If you are even THINKING of voting for Al Gore, vote for Al
>Gore. Ralph Nader does not need a single Gore vote. There are a hundred
>million of us out there who are uncommitted and currently not voting. Right
>now, Gore and Bush are each hoping to win by getting only 40 million votes.
>
>If you are in the Non-Voting majority and want to let 'em all have
>it, if you want to get our country back in our hands...well, if even
>half of you show up and vote November 7 then you won't be held
>responsible for Bush winning the White House.
>
>In fact, you won't be held responsible for putting Gore in the White House,
>either. Rather, you will have made history by putting a true American hero
>at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
>
>And you will have given every company, every boss who's done ya wrong, the
>worst nightmare of their lives.
>
>November 7. Payback Time.
>
>The revenge of the Non-Voters!
>
>So sayeth their unappointed leader,
>yours truly,
>Michael Moore
>mmflint@aol.com
>http://www.theawfultruth.com
>http://www.michaelmoore.com
>
>PS. Come to think of it, Democrats should be on their knees thanking
>Ralph for running. Rather than taking votes from Gore, Ralph's going
>to be the one responsible for turning the House back over to the
>Democrats.
>
>When millions of these Non-Voters enter that booth to vote for
>Ralph, and they come across their local race for Congress, they will
>find no Green Party candidate in most of the 435 Congressional
>districts. So who do you think Ralph's army of Non-Voters will plunk
>down for Congress? The Republican? I don't think so.
>
>The Democrats are only six seats short of regaining control of the
>House. Ralph Nader will be the reason the Democrats get the House
>back for the first time since Newt's Contract on America in 1994.
>
>Democrats should send their checks to:
>Nader 2000, P.O. Box 18002,
>Washington, DC 20035.
>
>(Or, better yet, let's try to elect enough Greens to Congress--a
>dozen or so--and they'll hold the deciding votes because neither the
>Democrats nor the Republicans will have the majority. It'll be a
>friggin' Knesset!)
>
>PPS. If you're still worried this letter might convince a weak-kneed
>Gore voter to flip over to Nader--and thus lead to President George
>W. stacking the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal, well, it's
>all a bunch of hooey. Please read my latest grassroots.com column
>entitled, "I Ain't Fallin for That One Again" at:
>http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
>
>>PLEASE PASS THIS LETTER ON TO
>>YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.
>>PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO
>>REPRINT ANYWHERE.
