|
Edited on Sat Feb-21-04 07:07 PM by jeter
I am 29-years-old. I remember Ronald Reagan well. The first election I ever followed was the 1984 election between Reagan and Mondale.
I remember the 1988 election even better. By then I was already a hard-core Democrat and was devestated when Bush won that election by smear and attack. I must admit, that poisoned me to the Bush family. I never forgave Bush Senior and grew to despise the junior Bush even before I knew anything about him.
1992 was the first time I voted. I voted proudly. I voted Democrat. I voted for the Big Dog himself, Bill Clinton. When he beat Bush, I can't tell you how happy I was. The first time in my life a Democrat was President (yes, I was alive during Carter but was too young to know anything about politics). Things were going to change. The economy would get better. Health Care would be provided to all.
Clinton stumbled in the beginning. He was pretty undisciplined and didn't seem to have a grasp on what was going on. But he had some successes too in his first two years: he passed laws like the 'Family Medical Leave Act' which provided parents with the insurance that they would not lose their jobs in the event of a family illness. He passed his tax plan. Which rolled back Reagan's regressive and completely stupid tax plans that almost bankrupted us. He even got Free Trade through. I know many of you didn't agree with this. But I supported it then and now. Things were coming back. Good times were coming back. People were treated with dignity and respect again.
Then in 1994, the Republicans took over Congress. Democrats went into bunker mode. We had to prevent them from putting the Contract With America into place. We did the best we could under the circumstances. But in 1996, we won again. This time with a Republican Congress. Newt Gingrich had told the American people that the Republicans and Democrats worked well together. The people believed him. That was a mistake.
From 1997 to 2001, America's long nightmare began. Having lost to Clinton in 1996, they decided that the only way to stop him was to kill him with scandal after scandal. The first of these began in the summer of 1997. When Congress began hearings on Campaign finance law irregularities. You remember: funding from China. The coffees. Lincolns bedroom. But as it turned out, the GOP had far worse skeletons in their closet and the matter was dropped.
Then came Ken Starr. He had been appointed earlier. But had found nothing. In 1996, he was actually contemplating leaving the Special Prosecutors Office and becoming the President of Pepperdine University in California. But under pressure by right-wing crazies he stayed on. Problem was, the Whitewater investigation had gone cold. There was NOTHING to "get" Clinton on. I remember reading a report in 1997, where Starr said he "would look into Clinton's women." This was before any testimony had been given in the Paula Jones Case. Before Monica Lewinsky. At the time, it was seen as a desperate attempt by the right-wing to smear the President.
Then Clinton gave his enemies a giant present. As we all know, before Clinton was scheduled to testify before the Paula Jones case - lawyers had been tipped off, by Linda Tripp, of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton lied about that relationship. The GOP had him cornered. Apparently they don't mind lying about the size of the budget deficit, the state of the economy, the reasons to go to war - by lying about sex is the cardinal sin of Republicans.
As we now know in explicit detail. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had a relationship. For this indiscretion, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. He survived the trial in the Senate, but his Presidency was over. After 8 years in office, many Democrats were let down by the promises that were never realized.
Then came the election of 2000. This is where Nader fits in. Democrats still smarting about the previous eight years wanted change. There was something about Al Gore that people just didn't like. They weren't sure where he stood on the issues. What his true convictions were. The Republicans seemed energized by George W. Bush. He outpolled Gore and had a long-list of family connections that could counter the Democrats in Washington. We were behind.
But us Democrats, we rallied. After the 2000 convention - Gore surged in the polls. Putting him in the lead. But Gore's poor performance in the debates turned the election into a toss up. Nader played an important role at this juncture. Although he only polled 2%, it was enough to swing the balance to Bush.
But Nader, whose supporters were mostly young or older ultra liberals - would go one record saying that:
a) Some of the best Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans.
b) he believed there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
c) He thought the democrats were a bunch of whiners.
d) a Bush Presidency wouldn't be so bad.
He didn't win any Democratic cross over votes. But 2000 was the closest election in history. Al Gore won the popular vote. But Nader's 20,000 votes in Flordia; and 8,000 votes in New Hampshire were enough to give Bush the victory in those states by very narrow margins. George W. Bush won the electoral college with 271 votes. Only 1 more than needed.
The consensus after this election was that Bush had to make good on his claim to be a "uniter, not a divider." But the GOP - who incidently (and not really reported) had to be the luckiest party in the world in 2000. Not only did George W. Bush not win the plurality of the vote. But the Republicans in the House also lost the generic vote against the Democrats: 51% to 48%, but lost 1 seat. Not enough for Democrats to take over control. The Dems did better in the Senate, picking up 4 seats. But still that only created a 50-50 tie. With the tie-breaking vote going to Dick Cheney, the vice President. Even though the Democrats won more votes for President, for the House of Representatives, the United Senates than did the Republicans. The Democrats were shut out in all three.
So did Bush try to ease Democratic frustration or feelings of being cheated? No. He passed the most regressive tax cut in US history. He continued plans to privatize education, health and social security. These plans created a rallying effect for Dems. In the summer of 2001, we got our first break since 1992 - when Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican caucus in the Senate and sat as an independant. That created a Democratic plurality. 50-49-1. Now with some power, Bush's best laid plans would certainly be shelved. But only weeks later, 2 airplanes hit the World Trade Center and one hit the Pentagon. The public rallied behind Bush. And Bush, and his neo-conservative supporters, sought to take full advantage.
Initially, his plans recieved universal support. Getting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and removing the Taliban government which supported them. But then in January 2002, Bush expanded the war on terrorism to include "the axis of evil." Many rank-and-file Democrats saw right through this. They saw it for what it was - an attempt by the Bush Administration to use the anger and fear of September 11th to get a war they had always wanted. A war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It is no coincidence that many senior officials in the foriegn policy wing of this administration were veteran policy makers of the first Bush Administration. And thereby architechs of this first Gulf War. Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, has since admitted that plans were being drawn up as early as January 2001 - eight months before September 11th - to go to war against Iraq. Democrats smelled a rat.
What little resistance existed in the Congress were silenced in the 2002 midterms. Although the Republicans didn't win a huge victory - they did pick up a couple of seats in the House and Senate. Enough to claim victory and take back the Senate. Once again, the Democrats were on the outside looking in. This was made worse, by the tactics employed by Republicans. Attacking war heroes like Max Clellan - who had lost three of his four limbs in Vietnam - for being soft on national security, because he disagreed with the Administrations plans on Homeland Security. This was made worse by the fact that three or four Democratic Senators could consistently be counted on to break ranks with the Dems and support the President on any given issue - no matter how crazy or conservative it was. This was the low ebb for Democrats.
Some Democrats and left-leaners decided to fight back. They opposed the war in Iraq. Many took to the streets. Wrote letters. Called in to shows. A handful of Democrats began speaking out. Men like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and others. But Democrats in the Senate, remembering how much bad press they got for opposing the first Gulf War in 1991 - decided to go along with the President. The President had told them that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq and could/would be used against the United States. So in March of 2003, the war began. Nothing we could do about it. Again, the Democrats were shut out.
Then later that year Bush introduced a Medicare Reform Bill. He had promised bi-partisan support. But only used it as a cover. The bulk of the law went to handouts for big insurance companies. It also privatized parts of Medicare. Seniors, who got any of the prescription drug benefit, got very little. The initial bill sponsored by Edward Kennedy, a 42-year veteran of the Senate, was bi-partisan. But it was gutted in the Republican House of Representatives - after Tom Delay, the Republican House Leader called for an unprecedented 3 hour delay in the vote. Enough time to pressure, and some say bribe, various GOP members to support the gutted version of the bill. When the two versions went to conference, the gutted bill won. Enough Senate Democrats, dazed and confused by this turn of events voted for the bill for passage. The President signed it without even considering the ramifications.
You couple this with the Energy Bill, secret Energy meetings led by the Vice President, bills like "Clean Air Act" which allows pollution, "Clean River Act" which allows arsenic in the water, "Health Forest Act" which allows the indiscriminate cutting of our forests. The support of tax credits for sending manufacturing jobs overseas. The subsequent loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs. Then you will get a picture of what the Bush Administration has been like.
Now in the beginning of 2004, for the first time, Democrats have the lead. The goings on of the Bush Administration is beginning to catch up with them. John Kerry and John Edwards both lead George W. Bush in the polls.
But here comes Ralph Nader again. I do not remember Ralph Nader saying anything during the Bush Presidency. I don't remember him campaigning against any piece of legislation. I don't remember him speaking out as vigerously against the war as even some Democrats did. But again he is running a campaign, not so much against the Republicans, whom have created such turmoil in this country, but against the Democrats who are beginning to find their second wind.
If Nader succeeds and gives yet another election to Bush what will become of us?
Both Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandara Day O'Connor are rumored to be retiring from the court next year. Rehnquist is an ultra-conservative, so Bush's appointment of another ultra-conservative will only offset. But O'Connor is the only reason that Roe vs. Wade wasn't overturned in 1991 in the Casey decision.
Also, the oldest member of the Supreme Court - Justice Stevens is 86 years old. He is also a liberal. Ruth Nader Ginsburg is also a liberal and is not in good health.
How would you like to see all these justices replaced by George W. Bush - who has already said that he would appoint judges that were like: Scalia and Thomas. Two of the most conservative Justices in US history.
Who is to say what will happen to the economy, now that Bush wants to classify jobs at McDonalds and Burger King as manufacturing jobs and wants to make his tax cuts permanent.
Or what will happen with the "war against terrorism?" Will we attack - yet another country?
These are the issues that Nader seems to neglect. He is the first to attack the Democrats, and I agree they have not been perfect, but fails to realize the consequences of his actions.
I for one will just exit politics all together. I mean how can I stay in and fight when the cards are so stacked against us. Maybe that's what the Republicans want. Democrats to feel so cheated and disenfranchised that we split. Nader adds fuel to that. This isn't about promoting a cause. This is about Ralph Nader's ego. For that, he will gladly give Bush another election - even if he didn't earn it. Bush has already shown that losing the popular vote doesn't bother him. But we'll lose. The country will lose. And an entire generation will feel cheated. Will feel that our best years were thrown away. Given to the Republicans because of the ego of one man. Cynicism will follow.
I fear for the future.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
