Current Political Events: October 2003 Archives

by David Remer - PoliWatch.Org

Is Sen. Miller from Georgia a rose by another name or a horse of a different color? An article in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution provides excerpts from a prepared statement issued by Sen. Miller on Wednesday.

In his statement, Miller stressed, as he has before, that he has no plans to become a Republican. But he said he cannot support any of the nine candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. "The next five years will determine the direction of the world that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live in," he said.

"I do not want to trust that crucial decision to the current Democratic field. So, I plan to vote for George Bush and will help him any way I can. This does not mean I am going to become a Republican. It simply means that in the year 2004, this Democrat will vote for George Bush."

To many, if not most, in the Democratic Party, Sen. Zell Miller's announcement will appear to make him a Republican by another name. But, to those conservative Democrats sometimes formerly referred to as Dixiecrats, Sen. Zell Miller represents their conservative wing of the Democratic Party thus making Sen. Miller a Democrat of a different color from that of centrists and leftists in the party. While Democrats can debate the party traitor vs. party conservative labels, Sen. Miller's announcement underscores the diversity of the Democratic Party which has always been a core strength of the Party. However, the primary purpose of political parties is to promote and extend the core values of the Party's constituency. Sen. Miller has voted with Republicans on a wide range of issues. If Schwarzeneggar remains true to his liberal bent on social issues, he will appear to be Miller's counterpart in the Republican Party.

Which raises the question of whether political parties of the future will have any relevance at all? Should the subdivision of political parties into left, center, and right widen, political parties will begin to look like a tie-dyed shirt where bleeding of affiliation across party lines makes the parties indistinguishable where the Left of the Republican Party reflects the Right of the Democratic Party, and vice versa. Voter apathy, the rise of the Independent voters, and the plethora of third parties all appear to be signs that the basic two party political system is failing to represent an increasing number of American voters.

by David R. Remer PoliWatch.Org

Arnold Schwarzeneggar has been declared the new Governor of California. Preliminary stats indicate that he garnered a huge protest vote based on everything from legislative actions, national economy effects on California, Davis's performance, "puke politics" aimed at the Los Angeles newspaper and many other factors. Arnold has set his goal on body building and turned that venture into a success. He turned his sights on Hollywood, and he became a success. It is possible that now that he has set his sights on political leadership, he will be a success in that venture as well.

The election of Schwarzeneggar however, makes a statement about American politics, however, which is not very flattering. This election demonstrates that big money wins of political office is no guarantee of good governance, as Davis has demonstrated. This election also demonstrates that political experience and knowledge of the political system is not a necessary qualification for office. Equally important, it demonstrates that a person with fame and money are all the qualifications needed to lead Americans in economic, policy and legislative decisions. Governor elect Swarzeneggar has no political experience, no educational credentials in law, economics, or political science. Thus, fame and money and the media PR that that money can buy is all that is needed to win the confidence of the American people to lead them.

This I find a sad statement on the political future for California and the country as a whole. Nonetheless, there is hope that Schwarzeneggar's past success will bode well for his learning to meet the needs of the California people for executive government and leadership.

Posted by David Remer PoliWatch.Org

Former pro-Bush journalist Robert Novak who has been noted for making the case that there is no stopping Bush's reelection, is now asking how he can possibly win? Also, for the first time since the 2000 elections, both houses of Congress may be up for grabs. This is great news for the Green Party which has been making significant inroads at the state level in gaining ballot access through court rulings and grass roots activism. This is also great news for liberals, centrists, and Democrats.

Robert Novak has read the writing on the wall and conceded that he can no longer spin the failed efforts of the Bush administration out of the quagmire it has placed itself in. Novak writes in a recent article entitled, George W. in Trouble:

"Replacing the old mantra that there is no way for Bush to lose, panicky Republicans studying the electoral map wonder whether there is any way that they can win. Dramatic deterioration in the outlook over the last two weeks is reflected in the experience by a Republican businessman in Milwaukee trying to sell $2,000 tickets for Bush's only appearance this year in Wisconsin Oct. 3. In contrast to money flowing easily into the Bush war chest everywhere until now, he encountered stiff resistance. Well-heeled conservative businessmen offered to write a check for $100 or $200, but not $2,000. They gave one reason: Iraq.

...

Another domestic issue is continuing loss of industrial jobs, and that does not ease Republican anxiety. It causes hard analysis of electoral maps that poses difficult questions.... No wonder the arrogance quotient at the White House is diminishing. Reporters regularly on that beat say they have been getting their telephone calls returned the last two weeks."

The above is reported in an article in Mother Jones which goes on to state: "Boston Globe columnist Robert Kuttner noticed the same thing. Commenting on recent GOP Congressional votes, he seconded Novak's analysis:

"Why this shift [in Republican congressional voting patterns]? Suddenly Bush's own reelection is seen as at risk, and Republican legislators are more worried about saving their own seats. They have walked the plank for Bush one time too many.

Until recently Republican control of Congress in the 2004 election was seen as a sure thing. Now, however, it looks as though both chambers are up for grabs, especially if Bush's own reelection is in jeopardy. Congressmen and senators are keen detectors of shifts in voter sentiment since their own survival depends on it. Bush's reversal of fortune is occurring on multiple fronts... Finally, the press has stopped giving Bush a free ride, and 9/11 no longer serves as a mantra to turn aside all challenges... Those days are simply gone. Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing fails like failure."

For more proof that Abraham Lincoln was right saying You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time, go to Mother Jones.

by David R. Remer PoliWatch.Org

NY Times reports: "The Bush administration is seeking more than $600 million from Congress to continue the hunt for conclusive evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons." I thought weapons of mass destruction were now a moot point. What does it matter now whether those weapons are found or not? If they are found now, we will destroy them and spend $600 million tax payer dollars to find them. If they are found later, the new Iraqi government can destroy them at their expense. The only advantage to spending $600 million tax dollars to find them now is to Bush's credibility. The only reason to shore up his credibility on this issue is get reelected.

This appears to be a very unethical way of circumventing the laws prohibiting the President from using tax dollars to reelect himself. But, reelection apparently is more important than using that $600 million dollars for education, prescription drugs, homeland defense, or a host of other needs which the tax payers of this nation have.

And what of this tax windfall for corporations? That will reduce tax revenues, increase the deficit and debt and tax payers will not only pay for the windfall but also for the interest on it for years to come.

Finally, there is this in the current headlines. Bush-Appointed Panel Finds U.S. Image Abroad Is in Peril. How much is this impaled American image going to cost in tax dollars and interest payments to rectify? More hundred's of millions, I am sure. And then it is not certain that our image can be corrected as long as George W. Bush remains in office. This is truly shaping up to be one of the most important presidential elections the American tax payer has faced since the year 2000.