On the current political front, I find myself at odds with all the democratic internet activists. I think Saturday's tragedy was actually very shrewd on the part of Daschle. Had we forced a vote, we would have lost. And by forcing our congressmen to take sides, we would have hurt our chances for 2002. So I give Daschle credit for understanding one thing that the online democratic community seems oblivious to; he understands that politics is really about counting votes and twisting arms. When Daschle counted the votes, he knew he would come up short in the House, and he knew he couldn't twist any Republican arms. He also knew that once Cheney became the tie breaker, he wouldn't be able to get anywhere with Lott in the Senate. So he bluffed Lott into thinking he would put the Presidential election into the Congress. Lott was fooled and didn't call Daschle's bluff. Instead, he took a deal that lets Democrats put legislation on the floor of the Senate with a tie vote (i.e.. without Cheney getting a shot at it). I think people are vastly underestimating the significance of that concession. Without the power to bring bills to the floor, the filibuster is literally the only procedural mechanism at Daschle's disposal. It would have meant that for two years, all we could do is say "no." The Republicans never would have been forced to take a position on anything they themselves didn't bring to the floor for a vote.

We are now the minority party. Our best bet going forward, to again become the majority party, is to allow the GOP to hang themselves with their own intolerance. For that reason, nominees like Ashcroft actually help us. Don't forget, Ashcroft is going to have to deal with a huge number of liberal career lawyers in the Justice Department. Those people don't just "go away" because the administration changes. Just like Clinton had to deal with guys like Charles Labella and his leaked memo, Bush and Ashcroft are going to have to face any army of smart lawyers on the inside who voted for Gore. When Ashcroft tries to pull his right wing crap, that place is going to leak like a sieve. So we are far better served with a Justice Department producing scandal after scandal if a freak like Ashcroft is at the helm, instead of some rational moderate. If everything works perfectly, he will be forced to resign in say, June of 2002.

But Congressman and Senators can't run against the attorney general. They have to run against their opponent's record. And the only way to force them to vote against legislation favored by their constituents, but disfavored by their corporate masters, is if you can get that legislation to the floor. Daschle made sure we are going to be able to do that, even if Jesse and Strom manage to survive for two more years. So I think your "insurance policy" argument is bogus. The minute either side manages to get the majority, the power sharing will end. All Daschle is trying to do is to make sure that when it does end, we will come out on top.

In the meantime, I think all this inner directed hostility is damaging, unwarranted, and counter-productive. In two years, people aren't going to remember yesterday's events. But they are going to remember that Bush stole the election, and all of the evil, pro-corporate, anti-democratic, and anti-progressive policies he tried to push through after he had done it. At that point, I have a feeling democrats are going to be looking at Daschle and the bills he brought to the Senate floor for a vote in much the same way we looked at Clinton when he stared down Newt Gingrich in 1995. --Brew, 1/8/01

My, my. Between the market correction and what we might call the "political correction"--all those heretofore irrationally exuberant Democrats watching the air come hissing out of their political bubble--it's nothing but disillusionment to the left of me, disillusionment to the right of me. I haven't waded through this much concentrated bathos since the last time I had 200 freshman blue book exams on modernist poetry to grade in 24 hours. I survived that; I'll survive this.

Being a generally cheerful sort whose modest fortune has been invested in indexed funds and municipal bonds for quite some time, and who deliberately and willingly voted for Nader last November, I'm not exactly ready to belly up to the bar with the latest victims of dotcom-stock-induced poverty and Democratic-party-induced despair and start sobbing into the communal beer. Sorry, my sadder but wiser friends, but I remember much too clearly what pompous, self-important asses you all made of yourselves a few short weeks ago, with your vicious Nader-bashing and your mind-numbing recitation of the party line on this great economic miracle for which we owe permanent fealty to the Democrats Who Will Save Abortion For Us (unless, you failed to mention, the threat to abortion comes in the form of a former Senator nominated for Attorney General). Nader told you that the Democrats were taking you for a ride, but you wouldn't hear it. Now that you've watched what is perhaps the most farcically gruesome image ever to appear on CSPAN--Gore using that gavel for the last time to drum the Black Caucus protesters out of the halls of Congress in which the Republican theft of the election was being ratified--perhaps you can meditate a bit on your recent willingness to demand that Nader and his supporters throw themselves on the grenade to save Gore the Wonder Chicken's sorry hide. Specifically, you might ponder the wise words of that great philosopher Bob Dylan: "How does it feel to be on your own?"

So I'm not ready to join in the general gnashing of teeth and rending of garments--those of us who expected exactly nothing from the Democrats are, after all, having a hard time working up feelings of betrayal. And don't bother with the furious e-mails, either: to quote the Democrats at the most ludicrous moment of all, "your phone calls will never be returned again in this town." You die-hard Nader-bashers heard exactly nothing that the progressives of the Nader campaign were trying to tell you; I'm just returning the favor. Go bug Bob Torricelli (D-Sell Out), that giant of Democratic courage. He deserves it.

I, as it happens, do not. Let us by all means examine some facts. First of all, let us point out that under the barrage of a multi-million dollar campaign specifically launched for the purpose, a good half of Nader supporters did what was demanded of them and abandoned their man to vote for Gore. It's true: compare Nader's poll numbers in August to his actual vote count in November. Having denied Nader his five percent, with the long-term political promise that would have given him, these Cowards for Gore had the satisfaction, such as it was, of seeing Gore win the election. It's true: compare actual votes received by Gore to the cooked books used by the Bush minions in Florida to steal the election.

Gore won; Bush staged a judicial coup; and the Democrats have been standing around bleating "Baa Ram Ewe" like the Fraternal Order of Sheep ever since. The really crashing irony has been the pundocratic attempt to make the following two arguments simultaneously: that the Nader vote cost Gore the election (nice thought, actually, but you'd have to prove that he lost the election first, wouldn't you?) and that Gore lost himself the election by being too "populist." Don't try to get me to explain to you why all these people were voting Nader if Gore was running that hard to the left. I'm still trying to figure out just when, precisely, it became a matter of Democratic strategy to be the first to declare themselves the losers.

What mythical bunch of political virgins are the Democrats trying to woo now by refusing to engage in anything so vulgar as a struggle for simple justice? The answer, of course, is that they're not doing any such thing. For once in their recent history, the Democrats are not pandering to some block of conservative voters. They aren't pandering to any voter. Why should they? You all said, over and over, that you would always vote Democratic, regardless of what they did, as long as the other guy was "worse." Well, children, even the goofballs in the DLC can figure out that the other guy will always be worse. Look around you: there is no shortage of flaming conservatives with presidential ambitions and boatloads of dirty campaign money to spend, and your buddies in the Democratic party are, at the moment, helping to pad the resume of some of them by preparing to confirm their cabinet appointments. Your "lesser of two evils" argument provided carte blanche to the Democratic party to cut loose a bunch of pissed-off Floridians and Jesse Jackson and the Black Caucus and those shrill chicks at NARAL and every other "undignified" constituency and settle down to the business of Business With Bush.

So I couldn't care less what anyone who voted for Gore now thinks. But I do have one useful mental image to keep in mind for all you Naderites out there who might be tempted to second thoughts: a few days ago the New York Times reported, in a piece on Bob Torricelli's revolting performance in the post-election capitulation, that Kate Michelman, head of the National Abortion Rights Action League, was caught at a party for Hillary Clinton practically begging Torricelli to put up some sort of resistance to the Ashcroft nomination. It's a nice picture, isn't it, when you bear in mind that NARAL spent $1.5 million to buy anti-Nader advertising during the campaign? For some strange reason, having spent the money provided to them by countless pro-choice women on defeating a progressive, the loyal co-dependents at NARAL expected a seat at the table of power, not a blow-off at a cocktail party. Wonder what they made of Torricelli's response to the Times reporter:

"'There are consequences to losing elections,' he said. 'Al Gore lost. George Bush will be the 43rd president of the United States, and he has the right to select the cabinet as long as the nominees are capable and of unquestioned integrity. I cannot make an argument that John Ashcroft is not a capable person.' He added, 'I will accept criticism of my loyalty to the Democratic Party from anyone who has recruited more candidates, raised more money or defeated more Republicans.'"

There you have it. The issue is not "loyalty" to the citizens whose rights are being trampled on; it's "loyalty" to the Party. And loyalty is measured not by the stands you take and the good fights you fight, but how much money you raise and how many seats you win--regardless of how those "winning" candidates vote once they take office. Frankly, my dear, they don't give a damn about anything else. If NARAL had any sense and any spine and any money left, the next candidate they'd go after is Bob Torricelli. I'll expect that to happen about the time Amazon.com starts making a profit. They don't call them "bubbles" for nothing. Doris, 1/8

Bush watcher Carolyn writes, "Would it be too terribly cynical of me to assume that the fix was in, that Democratic Senators have sold our democracy in exchange for equal committee seats and equal committee funds" by not protesting the Florida electoral vote at the joint meeting of congress yesterday? You bet, Carolyn, the fix was in big time, as Dick might say.

The Dem senators' relationship to the GOP is like a passive wife's relationship to a drunken husband who regulalrly beats her. When the cops/voters come around and ask what's up, the Dem senators say, "Oh nothing, officer, just a little problem but everything's ok, now. We've come to an agreement." Then the GOP husband turns his back on the discussion and goes back intlo the Senate chambers with a drunken smirk. This is called co-dependence. The Dem senators need help. They need therapy. The voters can give it to them the next time election time rolls around. Actually, the Dems in the House aren't much better, since only the members of the Black Caucus and a few others stood up in revolt against the counting of the Florida votes at the joint session of Congress yesterday.

Ironically, the Dem congressmen appear to believe that they must make nice with the GOP or the voters will punish them in the next election. They still don't get it. How dumb can they get? What does it take for them to get the message? The GOP knows that it doesn't matter what they do, what matters is what they say they do. Haven't they been paying attention to Bush and the other Republicans? What the Dems should have done yesterday is to have protested the Florida vote in the name of bipartisanship. Like the GOP, the Dems can't afford to let one single thing get by. Yet, they refuse to fight about anything, thinking that will somehow change the direction of the GOP or win Dem favor with the voters. What voters? The core Dems who have voted for them are disgusted with such selfish behavior. Few voters agree with what they have done. The only question now is whether to fight them within the Dem party or outside of it. Here are two representative comments, one for leaving the party, one for staying.

"The principles of democracy,civil rights, and even self interest lost out to the principle of not having any principles, or as it's known on Capitol Hill, bipartisan cooperation. On Saturday, Senate Democrats cooperated in a bipartisan fashion with the rigging of the presidential election. Under the mutually beneficial agreement, the Republicans get to steal the presidency, and in return, the Democrats get praise from the media for not objecting to the Republicans stealing the presidency. The only real downside is that this deal requires the Senate Democrats to betray the people who worked for their campaigns, who contributed to their campaigns, and who voted for them. Thankfully, most of these people do not own newspapers or television networks, so no harm done. The only current reason for the Democratic Party to exist is that it is not the Republican Party. It will continue to get my vote because amoral is still better than immoral, although gutless is not better than ruthless," writes David Podvin in Buzzflash.

Those Dems won't get my vote, says P.J. McIlvane, a Long Island housewife. "Be on notice, Daschle and Gephardt: from this day on, I will vigorously and actively oppose any Democrat who supports George W. Bush, his Cabinet nominees and/or his policies. I pledge to use my resources to protest this Illegitimate President in any way, shape or form that I can. I vow to stand alongside my Brothers and Sisters who feel as betrayed as I do by the current Democratic Leadership and most of all, I swear that in the year of our Lord 2002 (if I'm still alive and kicking), I'll vote against any and all Democrats who today stood silent when their voices needed to be heard the loudest." (Buzzflash)

What we find particularly galling is that most of the Dems in both the Senate and the House didn't even show up for the joint session, let alone protest. We consider that an insult to those who voted for Gore and considered the Dem congressmen to be their representatives as the electoral votes were accepted. Cowards. Dem Senators Kerry and Biden now are claiming that no one ever called them to request that they oppose the report of the Florida vote. Liars. For what? For an agreement to split the Senate committees 50-50, with Cheney still getting the deciding vote on each committee? What a laugh. Since that agreement will be in effect for two years, it's really a GOP insurance policy that if one of their ancient members are forced to leave the Senate they still will retain power. Meanwhile, the GOP uses the club of bipartisanship to hold over the heads of the Dems as Ashcroft, Chavez, and Norton come up for confirmation. Then what about Bush's ill-advised policies? Will the Dems back those bills to come as well in the name of bipartisanship? Enogh. Bush Watch has the Dems losing to Nader's no-difference analysis, zero to one. Will the numbers keep adding up to the point where the next Dem presidential nominee will get the votes of bipartisanship independents but lose most of his core voters. At that point, the Dems will be the third party. Is that what they want? --Politex, 1/7/01

On the tape of a July 22, 1971, conversation with Rumsfeld, a counselor to the president, Nixon criticized his vice president, Spiro Agnew, for his conduct and comments on a recent trip to Africa.

The newspaper cited what it said were Agnew's unflattering comparisons between African and American blacks, and remarks that African blacks were smarter. ``It doesn't help,'' Nixon said on tape, according to the Tribune. ``It hurts with the blacks. And it doesn't help with the rednecks because the rednecks don't think any Negroes are any good.''

``Yes,'' Rumsfeld replied. As for the notion that ``black Americans aren't as good as black Africans,'' Nixon said, ``most of them are basically just out of the trees. ... Now, my point is, if we say that, they (opponents) say, `Well, by God.' Well, ah, even the Southerners say, `Well, our niggers is (unintelligible).' Hell, that's the way they talk!'' the president said on the tape.

``That's right,'' Rumsfeld said.

``I can hear 'em,'' Nixon said.

``I know,'' Rumsfeld replied.

``It's like when our black athletes, I mean in the Olympics, are running against the other black athletes, the Southerner may not like the black but he's for that black athlete,'' Nixon said.

``That's right,'' Rumsfeld said.

``Right?'' Nixon asked.

``That's for sure,'' Rumsfeld said.

``Well, enough of that,'' Nixon said.

--St. Petersberg Times, 1/6/01

Saturday, Jan. 6. In today's joint session of Congress, no Democratic Party Senator was willing to co-sign a document with Dem Rep. Deutsch of Florida to the effect that the meeting lacked a quorum, which was the case, thus allowing Congress to accept the votes of the Electoral College indicating Bush had won the election for president. Later, no Democratic Senator was willing to co-sign a document challenging the legitimacy of the Florida electoral vote. During the campaign, Ralph Nader claimed there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and Bush Watch plans to keep score on key issues to determine if he was right. Protesting Congress' acceptance of the Electoral College vote was such an issue, and Nader has been proven right. The most obvious future key issue will be the congressional approval of Bush nominee John Ashcroft. --Politex, Saturday, January 6, 2001, 1:30 p.m.

Note...Go here for our position on Nader.

by Jerry Politex

I drove my silver Audi down Mesa Drive, the spine of Cat Mountain, hung a left at the cat's tail, drove quickly up the hilly, winding 2222 in low gear, took a right onto Balcones Drive, and came to a stop in the rear parking lot of Chez Zee.

Another sunny, warm early spring day in Northwest Austin, Texas. The lunch crowd was pretty much thinned out by now, so I had choices of parking spaces. I got out of the car, the turbines winding down, and stood by the rear entrance to the restaurant, a pretty-good place for not very expensive Southwestern food. I didn't have long to wait.

He came into the parking lot in an old, rattletrap Nissan pickup. Paint worn off in places, rusty, dusty, squeaky. I recognized him from the description the moment he got out. Looked to be in his fifties. Grizzled. Kind of rusty, dusty, and squeaky. A stringbean of a guy with pale white skin, reddish hair, which was short but unkempt. He was wearing a black polo shirt with the tail out. Denim shorts that had shrunk to a tight fit over his bony hips, short enough for the front pockets to stick out of the frayed cuffs. A pair of old, once-white but now gray, paint-spattered tennis sneakers. Austin casual for a yuppie restaurant, ten minutes from the glass buildings of the city's burgeoning silicon gulch , a world of high tech hopes in buildings springing up like overnight mushrooms.

"Name's Wayne," he said with a crooked, good-natured smile, coming across the parking lot with his arm outstreatched like a spear, eager to shake my hand. "Recognized you right away, Politex. Good description."

...click here to continue the novel.

'toons... news... polls... stories... cheney... gore... nader... archives... site map... us... e-mail...
taxes ... education... health... environment... foreign policy... social security... supreme court... other issues...
Nader..... Flynt, CNN, Drudge..... More Flynt, BBC... Daily Headlines Page. 30-50 New Stories Each Day.
Today's Electoral College Map.... '76 DWI.... '96 License.... '96 Statement.... Jury Duty.... Military Records.... AWOL