BRATTLEBORO — I write to urge U.S. Representative Peter Welch to endorse Bernie Sanders for president.
It is disturbing to me that Sen. Leahy and Gov. Shumlin have endorsed Hillary Clinton, the pro-war, pro-GMO, pro-1-percent candidate, against the candidate of the 99 percent.
I am disturbed because of Clinton's obvious faithlessness; I hate to see them associated with it, and I would dislike even more to see Welch joining them.
On militancy, Sanders has said: “Our response must begin with [...] the reflection that failed policy decisions of the past - rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Ábenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies that do not work [and] do not make us safer.” We don't often hear such broad, useful, and truthful historical references in politics.
In contrast, Clinton propagates endless war: “It is time to [...] intensify and broaden our efforts to smash [ISIS] in Iraq and Syria. That starts with [...] more allied planes, more strikes, and a broader target set.” No history here, because our misguided wars are what gave rise to ISIS in the first place.
Clinton has also recommended a no-fly zone in Syria, which would put us in direct military opposition with Russia. I can't think of a worse direction for our foreign policy.
Sanders' rhetoric concerning wealth inequality and banking is basically sincere if more than a bit wishful, and he knows it. Clinton, on the other hand, gives lip service to public interest while the Clinton Global Initiative promotes Monsanto; and Jerry Crawford, her top campaign advisor, is a former Monsanto lobbyist.
Add to this the vibrancy of Sanders' distinctly left-wing candidacy and potential left-wing support for Clinton is bound to be tepid, while it is well known she energizes conservative voters who might have stayed home.
Thus, recently The Hill reported Sanders polling much stronger than Clinton against Republican opponents. Sanders is simply the more favorable candidate.
And it is obvious which of them would be better economically. Every major economic indicator besides the stock market is down now. This is because Americans have no money to spend due to export of jobs and because our elite culture refuses to fund badly needed infrastructure refurbishment and sustainable-energy conversion.
Privatization is also a factor, where public institutions are transferred to private corporations, which then reduce employment in search of profits, causing quality of service to plummet. Think “automated customer service.”
The only people who don't suffer from all of this are the one percent who comprise Clinton's true constituency, and a Clinton presidency would merely give us more.
Where does your heart lie, Mr. Welch? Do you really want to give your neighbors and fellow Americans more bank bailouts, perpetuating financial ills, austerity (proven to not work anywhere), war and more war (which is actually not economically helpful), stress, debt, sickness, and more stress?
That is what you would give to us by endorsing Clinton!
Please don't do that; please show us that you, like the vast majority of your constituents, simply cannot stomach any more corporate deceit and corruption!
Mr. Welch, please endorse Bernie Sanders for president now. Readers, please contact Mr. Welch to add your voices.