If some country--say the USA--was faced with the choice, hypothetically speaking, of electing as its leader a multi-millionaire businessman warhawk funded primarily by giant government-bailout-backed financial conglomerates that changes positions on issues like he changes clothes, a multimillionaire lawyer responsible for miring the country in more wars than any other leader in the last century yet had never held a job not funded by taxpayers, or a veteran and formal medical doctor who spent much of his life offering free health care to underprivileged people, had since spent his years standing up to special interests for the good of the people, often against the wishes of his own party, for the cause of peace and liberty on a partial salary, whose record was so impeccably consistent that lobbyists wouldn't even bother visiting his office, who opposed ever tax increase, bailout, and corporate subsidy ever proposed during his tenure, and who refuses to accept a higher salary as leader than that of the average citizen.....
Which do you think they would choose, and which would they label "unelectable"?
No comments:
Post a Comment