How can they justify supporting the two candidates that receive more corporate donations than any Republican candidate? They forgot that there is a catch to their so-called "progressive" agenda; the still active participation of Senator Mike Gravel.

::::::::

I received an e-mail from Move-On that absolutely floored me. The reason that I mention it is because the substance of the communication was so presumptuous as to be insulting to me personally. The e-mail masqueraded as a “ballot” that would have me vote for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, and the “winner” would then be the nominee that Move-On would then “endorse”.

It is presumptuous first of all because Move-On is supposedly an “issue driven political action group”. When I signed up to get their e-mail alerts, I was under the impression that they were not a political party and that they would not oppose or endorse any political candidates. I must have misunderstood. The timing of this so called “ballot” couldn’t be more fortuitous for the two Democrats that they are proposing to “endorse”. It is only one day after John Edwards ended his campaign, or in his own words “suspended” it. Is this a coincidence? I doubt it; there are no coincidences in politics. This was a cold and calculated move on the part of Move-On.

There is another element of this strategy that does not sit well with me. We have heard from Move-On for quite some time about the role that corporations play in American politics. The fact is that corporate donations to politicians that support multi-national industries; the same ones that are out-sourcing jobs to nations with cheap labor and thereby breaking the backs of the Unions, are part and parcel of what is helping to destroy the economic structure of our country. Move-On has been part of the movement to stop corporate controlled politicians from sending American jobs overseas. Taken directly from the Move-On website, this sentence describes what Move-On stands for; “But in contrast to most PACs, which funnel industry contributions to candidates in exchange for access, MoveOn.org Political Action brings hundreds of thousands of small donors together to elect candidates who will represent the American people”.

Is this what Move-On is doing now? A few days ago, one of the most outspoken critics of corporate lobbyists and corporations, John Edwards left the race. Why did Move-On, one day later distribute this “ballot” to its members? How can they justify supporting the two candidates that receive more corporate donations than any Republican candidate? They might have pulled this stunt off without anyone discovering the truth, but they forgot that there is a catch to their so-called “progressive” agenda; the still active participation of Senator Mike Gravel. It is unthinkable to ask Progressives to support either Hillary Clinton (the benefactor of the largest corporate donations) or Barack Obama who is 2nd only to Clinton in the following areas;

Commercial Banks

Health Professions including HMO’s and Nursing Homes,

Pharmaceutical Industry

Obama Comes in at;

5th-Insurance Industry (Clinton 4th)

7th Oil and Gas Industries (Clinton 3rd)

3rd Securities and Investments (Clinton 1st)

3rd Hedge Fund Industry (Clinton 1st)

4th Real Estate (Clinton 1st)

Let me ask this question to all of the Progressives that may be reading this; Is this the kind of candidate that will bring change to the Middle Class? I would like to know what kind of change it is that Move-On expects these two candidates to bring to us? Is this the kind of alliance that gives credence to the old maxim that “Politics makes for strange bedfellows?” In my opinion, Move-On has made a fatal error. If this were a computer problem, we would all be looking at “the blue screen of death”. If I was back in the Army and we were in a war-zone, I would be calling for artillery strikes around our position and be trying to raise every helicopter in the area for a “dust-off” to get us the hell out of there.

What exactly is happening here? Have we already determined that we are going to become a corporacracy? Have the American people become so politically naïve that we are going to willingly deliver this nation and all the promise that it once held to multi-national corporations without a fight? Is this what Eisenhower was talking about when he warned us about the “Military Industrial Complex?” In fact, this is the same thing that Senator Mike Gravel told us about in the very first Democratic debate that everyone laughed at. It isn’t as funny now that Move-On, the largest coalition of so-called Progressives asks us to choose which corporate-controlled candidate we would rather have them support!

I am reminded of what Dorothy said to Todo when she woke up after the tornado. “We’re not in Kansas anymore” she said. Well I believe that we are not in, or anywhere near Progressive America either, no matter what Move-On would have you believe.

The only thing that even comes close to any type of hope is that Senator Mike Gravel hasn’t tucked his tail between his legs and wandered off to greener pastures with the rest of the Democrats that have left the race. Maybe with a little luck and a lot of work, we can still change the outcome. It’s doubtful, but still possible. Goodbye Move-On, it’s been real and it’s been nice, but it hasn’t been real nice. Hello again Mike, stick around, we’re going to get reacquainted.

That’s the way I see it.

Authors Website: https://wordpress.com/view/timothyvgattoonline.wordpress.com

Authors Bio:

Tim Gatto is Ret. US Army and has been writing against the Duopoly for the last decade. He has two books on Amazon, Kimchee Days or Stoned Colds Warriors and Complicity to Contempt.