President Romney? – A Letter From Michael Moore

Byrnzie

"President Romney" – How to Prevent Those Two Words From Ever Being Spoken ...a letter from Michael Moore

Thursday, September 6th, 2012

Friends,

In two months we Americans will go to the polls once again to decide who the president will be for the next four years. We will not be allowed to vote on those who wield the true power in this country. On November 6th we will not vote for the chairman of ExxonMobil or JPMorgan Chase or Citibank or the Premier of China. That day will come, but not this year.

Now, I know there are a goodly number of you out there who believe there's not a snowball's chance in Kenya that Barack Obama will not be re-elected to the White House. And why would you believe otherwise? After the incredible Democratic convention this week, with the best rock-em-sock-em speeches I've heard from a Democrat's mouth since … since, I don't know when. You can't help but not have a contact high after this past week if you are of the sort who believes in economic justice, peace, and a five-dollar latte. Right now, with the buzz on, you are sitting there thinking that your fellow Americans will turn out in massive numbers, either because they want to continue the Obama era or because they're scared shitless of the barbarians at the gate – or both. You're convinced that the Republicans have blown it with all their talk of the lady parts they want to control even though we now know that they have no idea where those parts are, what they are, or how they work.

Yes, it certainly looks like the voters will reject this obscenely wealthy man called Romney — Romney of Michigan/Massachusetts/New Hampshire/Utah/Zurich/Grand Cayman — this man who will not explain exactly how all his wealth was obtained, where he keeps it, or how much taxes he pays on it. He wants to turn the clock back to the '50s – the 1850s – and he refuses to offer any specific plan about what he'll do about anything. He wants to run the country like a corporation but he can't even control one 82-year-old actor on his own convention stage, a Hollywood legend who, in the matter of ten and a half minutes went from Good (walking onto the stage) to Bad (talking to a chair) and then to Ugly (the chair started … swearing?). It was better than the best cat-flushing-the-toilet video on YouTube and it was a gift to all of us who know that Romney is doomed come November.

Or is he?

Last week, I said on the HuffPost Live webcast that we had all better start practicing how to say "President Romney" because, living in Michigan, I can tell you that there's trouble here on the two peninsulas and it's not just because Romney is a native son or that we like to watch kids from Cranbrook chase down gay kids and chop their hair off. One recent poll here showed Romney leading Obama by four points! How can that be? Didn't Obama save Detroit?

No, he didn't. He saved General Motors and Chrysler. "Detroit" (and Flint and Pontiac and Saginaw) are not defined by the global corporations who suck our towns dry and then split town to make more money elsewhere (except, of course, they continued to design and built crap cars, so eventually they didn't make the money at all). These cities in Michigan are about the people who live here, and in the process of "saving Detroit," Mr. Obama had to fire thousands of these people, and reduce the benefits and pensions of those who were left. There's a lot of pissed off people in Michigan (and Wisconsin and Ohio), people who weren't saved even though the corporation was. I'm just stating a fact, and those of you who don't live here should know this.

The other problem facing us this election (spoiler alert – angry white guys may want to stop reading right now) … is race. We all fear there's probably a good 40% of the country who simply do not want a black man in the Oval Office. In fact, in 2008, Obama lost the white vote. He lost every white age group except young people (18-29). And yet he still won by 10 million votes! The optimistic secret the Obama people know is that only about 70% of the voters in November will be white. So if he can win just 35-40% of them, and then get a massive majority of people of color, he can win re-election. There is no question in my mind that Obama is more popular than Romney and if everyone could vote from their couch like they do for American Idol, Obama would win hands down. As I have said before, we live in a liberal country. The majority of Americans (who do not call themselves "liberal") now support most of the liberal agenda – they're for gay marriage, they're pro-choice, they're anti-war, they believe there's global warming, and they hate Wall Street for what it has done to them and their neighbors. The Republicans know this: that we, the majority, will have sex when we want and with whom we want, will read and watch whatever we want when we want, will use marijuana if we want and if we don't want to then we certainly don't want our friends who do to be throw into prison. We are sick and tired of being poisoned, by chemicals or propaganda, we think the Palestinians have been given a raw deal and we want our friggin' jobs back! The Christian Right (and their Wall Street funders) know this all too well – America has turned, and there's no going back to not loving someone because of the color of their skin or expecting women to cede control of their bodies to a bunch of Neanderthals. So, what's a Rightie to do now that we've turned the joint into Sodom and G? They have to suppress the vote! They have to stop as many liberals from voting as possible. So they've passed many voter suppression laws to make it hard for the poor, the minorities, the disabled and students to vote. They honestly believe they call pull this off – and they just may. The only "positive" thing about this is that their need to have such laws in order to win the election is an admission on the part of the Republicans that they know the U.S. Is a liberal country and that the only way they can now win now is to cheat. Trust me, if they believed that America was a right-wing country they'd be passing laws making it so easy to vote you could do it in the checkout line at Walmart.

But the voting on November 6th will not take place at Walmart or on any potato's couch. It can only happen by going to a polling place – and, not to state the obvious, the side that gets the most people physically out to the polls that day, wins. We know the Republicans are spending tens of millions of dollars to make sure this very thing happens. They have built a colossal get-out-the-vote machine for election day, and the sheer force of their tsunami of hate stands ready to overwhelm us like nothing we've ever seen before. Those of us in the Midwest got a taste of it in 2008. Traditionally Democratic states – all of which voted for Obama – saw our state legislatures and governor seats hijacked by this well-oiled machine. We didn't know what hit us, but these new Republicans wasted no time in dismantling some of the very basic thing we hold dear. Wisconsin fought back – but even that huge grassroots uprising was not enough to stop the governor bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. It was a wake up call, for sure – but have we really woken up?

It's been a great week in Charlotte, and I'm getting ready now to watch Barack Obama give his speech. It's OK for us to take a couple days to high-five each other, but I cannot stress enough to you that unless you and I are doing something every day for the next 60 days to get people out to vote, then there is a chance we will all be saying "President Romney" come January. Don't think it can't happen. Hate, sad to say, at least in America these days, is a far greater motivator than love and feelin' groovy.

For those of us who believe that the history of the Democrats and the Republicans is to do the bidding of the 1% (Obama's #1 private contributor in '08 were the people at Goldman Sachs), and that while the Dems are a kinder/gentler bunch, they are also just as quick to want to take us to war and sell us out to the corporate interests (and, yes, Obamacare is a $$ gift to the insurance companies; only a single-payer system will stop that), this election is a bit of a bitter pill. We were hugely disappointed when President Obama didn't charge out of the gate after his inauguration and undo the damage that had been done (as FDR did in his first hundred days) – and only when Wall Street stopped writing him the big campaign checks this past year did he get his mojo back and start fighting the fight that needs to be fought. He's a good and decent person (when he's not sending in drones to kill Pakistani civilians or prosecuting government whistleblowers), and his election four years ago was a high point of such emotional intensity I just couldn't get over how hopeful I was that this country had changed and we had found our moral footing. Reality set in a few weeks later when he put Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in charge of economic policy and then he changed his mind about closing Gitmo.

OK, so people like me, just once in our lifetime, would like to get our way all the time! Is that too much to ask? Of course, there is a different question that is in the air now — shall we give the country back to the crowd who gave the country to the 1%? I think not. So let's join in with our liberal majority and be fierce and relentless in these next two months. Let's spend this time educating people what we mean when we say things like "single-payer" and "Blackwater." Politics and the fate of the nation (and the world – sorry, world) are on the front burner and those of us who want to wrestle control of our society out of the hands of the few can take healthy advantage of these coming weeks. Don't sit it out. Don't try to convince anyone Obama has magically transformed us – just tell them four years is simply not enough time to undo all the hurt caused by biggest economic crash since the Great Depression and the biggest military blunder/lie in our history.

I'm going to go with my optimistic side here (sorry, cynics, you know I love you) and imagine a Second Term Obama (and a Democratically-controlled Congress) who will go after all the good that our people deserve and put the power of our democracy back in our hands. There's good reason why the Right is terrified of a Second Term Obama because that is exactly what they think he'll do: the real Obama will appear and take us down the road to social justice and tolerance and a leveling of the economic playing field. For once, I'd like to say I agree with the Right – and I sincerely hope their worst nightmare does come true.

Yours,
Michael Moore
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com">MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com</a><!-- e -->
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com

cincybearcat

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

FattyFatCat

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

Damn. Good. Point.

:corn:

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

if you read it in the context of winning the election - then the "problem" is simply what obstacles are preventing a candidate for winning ... so, in the case of Romney ... it is indeed a problem if black people would never vote for a white guy over a black guy ... which is probably why they are trying to prevent certain people from voting ...

pandora

I don't really have a problem with race when it comes to a decision like this,
I see a human positive side.
People trust, like, enjoy, believe in, celebrate people like themselves.
It is not always a negative towards the person not like us but more of an embracing
of those like us.
An understanding of and identifying with. Not for all of course but for some.
This can include race along with many other human factors.
It is not discriminating as there is no hate or bias.

It's just not that black and white

Party line is huge in this election whatever race
but the fact so many votes are being bought with government aid
and more being encouraged every day this is a more huge factor in this election.

Jason P

Did Obama win an election four years ago or did he climb down the White House chimney and claim squatter's rights? There is no way white people would have elected him, right?

:fp:

FattyFatCat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

if you read it in the context of winning the election - then the "problem" is simply what obstacles are preventing a candidate for winning ... so, in the case of Romney ... it is indeed a problem if black people would never vote for a white guy over a black guy ... which is probably why they are trying to prevent certain people from voting ...

ya. Dead people and illegal immigrants.

Only under this admin's Dept of Justice, has upholding the Constitution become an illegal act.

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

We all fear there's probably a good 40% of the country who simply do not want a black man in the Oval Office.

actually Michael, what I fear is this line of thinking. It is a gross assumption that isn't true. now if you said there are 40% of the people who simply do not want a democrat in office I may tend to agree, just as there are about 40% of the country who don't want a republican in charge for any reason...But to say that the reason for not supporting Obama is because of his color is retarded thinking that promotes racial divide.

Don't bother listening to why people don't support Obama, just assume they don't support a black man.

I like Moore. He speaks a lot of truth in everything he does, but why does he have to throw in things that aren't true? that only seem to discredit his other work to many it could have reached? Moore and I don't see eye to eye on fiscal politics, but when he says these things it renders the other 90% of what he wrote meaningless to a lot of people, and that is too bad. He has a lot to say, but his style of presentation makes his words fall on deaf ears. Or should I chalk that up to racial hatred as well?

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

We all fear there's probably a good 40% of the country who simply do not want a black man in the Oval Office.

actually Michael, what I fear is this line of thinking. It is a gross assumption that isn't true. now if you said there are 40% of the people who simply do not want a democrat in office I may tend to agree, just as there are about 40% of the country who don't want a republican in charge for any reason...But to say that the reason for not supporting Obama is because of his color is retarded thinking that promotes racial divide.

Don't bother listening to why people don't support Obama, just assume they don't support a black man.

I like Moore. He speaks a lot of truth in everything he does, but why does he have to throw in things that aren't true? that only seem to discredit his other work to many it could have reached? Moore and I don't see eye to eye on fiscal politics, but when he says these things it renders the other 90% of what he wrote meaningless to a lot of people, and that is too bad. He has a lot to say, but his style of presentation makes his words fall on deaf ears. Or should I chalk that up to racial hatred as well?

... for sure the guy is outrageous ... and that stat is horrible ...

having said that tho (and i've been talking about it for years) ... america is racially divided ... it doesn't mean that many americans are racists just simply that the notion that there is racial harmony in the US is absurd ... i can read bumper stickers and i can tell that there is probably a good reason why if you look at census tract demographics ... you can get some CT's with 98% black and some with 98% white ... so, as absurd as his stat was - looking the opposite way and denying that there are indeed large segments of the population who will not vote for obama cuz he's black or they think he's a muslim is not helping either ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

We all fear there's probably a good 40% of the country who simply do not want a black man in the Oval Office.

actually Michael, what I fear is this line of thinking. It is a gross assumption that isn't true. now if you said there are 40% of the people who simply do not want a democrat in office I may tend to agree, just as there are about 40% of the country who don't want a republican in charge for any reason...But to say that the reason for not supporting Obama is because of his color is retarded thinking that promotes racial divide.

Don't bother listening to why people don't support Obama, just assume they don't support a black man.

I like Moore. He speaks a lot of truth in everything he does, but why does he have to throw in things that aren't true? that only seem to discredit his other work to many it could have reached? Moore and I don't see eye to eye on fiscal politics, but when he says these things it renders the other 90% of what he wrote meaningless to a lot of people, and that is too bad. He has a lot to say, but his style of presentation makes his words fall on deaf ears. Or should I chalk that up to racial hatred as well?

... for sure the guy is outrageous ... and that stat is horrible ...

having said that tho (and i've been talking about it for years) ... america is racially divided ... it doesn't mean that many americans are racists just simply that the notion that there is racial harmony in the US is absurd ... i can read bumper stickers and i can tell that there is probably a good reason why if you look at census tract demographics ... you can get some CT's with 98% black and some with 98% white ... so, as absurd as his stat was - looking the opposite way and denying that there are indeed large segments of the population who will not vote for obama cuz he's black or they think he's a muslim is not helping either ...

There are definitely people who won't vote for him because of his race...there are people that won't vote for Romney because of his race...and as likely voters go, it is probably a negligible amount in both cases and higher in whites because they aren't used to having to vote for someone of a different race for president sadly. Now after Obama, sex is the next thing...and women will get the same treatment except that will cross racial lines.

There is no doubt there are race relation issues in the United States. There has never been racial harmony in the truest sense, although I do believe it gets better year in and year out...

as long as we vote for the lesser of two evils, any single issue we can constantly choose to talk our selves into voting against someone is no different than any other...Race, religion, abortion, gay rights, trade policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, social safety net policy, military and defense policy goals, foreign policy theory, etc...all of these issues taken alone into consideration are dumb to base a vote on... hell half of them taken into consideration drops so much out that should have been in the equation when voting...

know1

Michael Moore is simply an EXTREMELY close-minded individual.

butterjam

Byrnzie wrote:

He's a good and decent person (when he's not sending in drones to kill Pakistani civilians or prosecuting government whistleblowers)

:fp:

Really? Good and decent people kill civilians? Didn't know anyone could pull that off in the same sentence. Do good and decent people also have kill lists?

Also, 18% of Americans will not vote for a Mormon according to a Gallup poll. Which is more credible than the "40% who won't vote for a black" Moore pulled out of his hat.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/ ... 340305045/

EdsonNascimento

know1 wrote:

Michael Moore is simply an EXTREMELY close-minded individual.

Michael Moore is to the left what Rush Limbagh is to the right. It's really that simple. Nothing is too outrageous to try to define their arguments to the stupid amongst us. Neither traffics in any actual real truths. They believe their side is correct and any means to get stupid folks on their side is fair game.

Smart folks just look at them as entertainment. Not real political commentary.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

exactly. I stongly believe, for better or worse, that the ratio of those who voted for Obama because of his race was much higher than those who voted against him for the same reason.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

know1 wrote:

Michael Moore is simply an EXTREMELY close-minded individual.

his criticisms of Obama weren't objective enough for you?

BinauralJam

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I have a honest question...why is it such a problem that 40% (if that number is even true) of white people won't vote for a black man, but it's not the same problem that 96% (if that number is even true) of black people will not vote for a white man over a black man?

It's the same thing no? Both suck.

Not a big fan of Moore's style, as you know, but thanks for the read.

exactly. I stongly believe, for better or worse, that the ratio of those who voted for Obama because of his race was much higher than those who voted against him for the same reason.

Probably True Hugh, but if you were a an American Black Man in 2008, after 8 years of W, would it even matter who the Democrats Nominated? I think even Hilliary would have been a land slide victory of Mcain.

Byrnzie

butterjam wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

He's a good and decent person (when he's not sending in drones to kill Pakistani civilians or prosecuting government whistleblowers)

:fp:

Really? Good and decent people kill civilians? Didn't know anyone could pull that off in the same sentence. Do good and decent people also have kill lists?

Also, 18% of Americans will not vote for a Mormon according to a Gallup poll. Which is more credible than the "40% who won't vote for a black" Moore pulled out of his hat.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/ ... 340305045/

You clearly have a problem appreciating the concept of irony.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

Michael Moore is simply an EXTREMELY close-minded individual.

Yet he has a very strange habit of being right. I mean, he was right about guns, and he was also right about health care, to name just two examples.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

know1 wrote:

Michael Moore is simply an EXTREMELY close-minded individual.

Yet he has a very strange habit of being right. I mean, he was right about guns, and he was also right about health care, to name just two examples.

He was right about that there are lots of guns in the USA .... he must have a very powerful crystal ball.

How was he right about health insurance ... I mean healthcare?

Kathi

thanks for the read. :thumbup:

I thought it was a pretty clear thing with Obama having quite a lead over Romney, but the recent coverage I've been watching seems to suggest otherwise.

butterjam

Byrnzie wrote:

butterjam wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

He's a good and decent person (when he's not sending in drones to kill Pakistani civilians or prosecuting government whistleblowers)

:fp:

Really? Good and decent people kill civilians? Didn't know anyone could pull that off in the same sentence. Do good and decent people also have kill lists?

Also, 18% of Americans will not vote for a Mormon according to a Gallup poll. Which is more credible than the "40% who won't vote for a black" Moore pulled out of his hat.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/ ... 340305045/

You clearly have a problem appreciating the concept of irony.

I understand it quite well actually, but thanks for the insult to my intelligence. So you think Moore doesn't think he's a good and decent person? Have you never seen any interviews in which he goes on about how great a president we have? Sure, he gives Obama some jabs here and there as to maintain an illusion of being "critical", but he still is in love with him.