Hasty Pudding

and

At Least a Quid for a Quo Pro

I've been inundated with sad letters and complaints from those supporting Senator Kerry. They all complain about George W Bush. They all want me to do something to make sure the Senator gets elected next November. They all want money, something I sorely need for myself.

The only letter that didn't even mention Sen Kerry was Dr Howard Dean's, who just begged for his cause, "Democracy for America." Of course, outside DFA, Dr Dean is pumping for Sen Kerry.

All of this is irritating, but I ignore it. The real problem is Senator Kerry, his party and his supporters need to re-think a few things ...

Is the Enemy of my Enemy my Friend?

I do not doubt George W Bush must be removed from office. He should never have been elected. In this, most of Senator Kerry's supporters agree.

According to this week's Washington Post/ABC poll, fully 55% of those supporting Sen Kerry do so in rejection of George W Bush. Sen Kerry is the "Anybody But Bush" candidate. This suggests the election is still about George W Bush, and little else. This and other polls reveal that Sen Kerry has little positive support. Like fmr California Governor Gray Davis, Kerry is just a gray and furry seat warmer.

Several more polls were released the last few days, all indicating the same thing: leaving out Ralph Nader, Sen Kerry is slightly ahead of Pres Bush. When Nader is thrown into the mix, Kerry and Bush are tied. Could this election end up in the House?

Not much has changed in the polls during the last month or two, except that more of the undecided have decided. Kerry is showing more strength, and Bush more weakness, mostly on account of Iraq. It is just the other way around when it comes to the economy. However, it is not Kerry's proposals that charm people; it is the failure of Bush's policies that turns them off.

Democrats are in danger of running an entirely negative campaign against George W Bush, without considering the positives of their case. This is exactly what California Democrats did in 2002 by backing Gov Davis' re-election, with truly catastrophic results. If Kerry is elected, will we have a repeat performance?

[In today's NYT, the "Governator" let it be known he will play a BIG part in the Republican convention. Schwarzenegger's election ruined the California Democratic party, a fact disguised by most Californians' energetic rejection of George W Bush. Just wait 'til the election is over ...]

Persecuting Nader

California's Democrat and Republican party joined in fighting Campaign Finance Reform, as well as almost every other attempt to reform this State's politics and elections. It is certain they do not want any independent choices or thoughts in elections. It is just the two parties; that's it. They are for "sort-of" democracy, as it was in Mexico for 70 years.

To insure that result, Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered the State for their careerist partisans. Anyone who, like me, is unapproved will need help from both gods and devils to get on the ballot, much less get elected.

In the spirit of their exclusive clubs and their neighbors, Arizona Democrats have sued the Nader Campaign and the State to prevent his name from appearing on the November ballot. I suppose they'll do the same in California. After all, they are for Democrat-cy. The Republicans say they have nothing whatever to do with Nader, and stand aside while the Democrats butcher him.

I'm not at all religious, but the whole thing reminds me of those films about Jesus' trial, where Pontius Pilate washes his hands ... [Or, is it "out, out damned spot"?]

Despite anti-Nader efforts and his low ballot profile, the WaPo/ABC poll indicates Nader gets 5-10% of the vote. While it had been thought the West (Left) Coast was a Nader stronghold, WaPo/ABC identify New England and New York as the strongest Nader territory with about 10% of the vote. The West Coast gives him only 5-8%. It is pretty clear a higher profile Nader would do very well indeed, perhaps as well as Ross Perot in 1992.

All I want for Christmas is ...

None of this had to happen.

Just as Dr Dean thought, Iraq is the issue which will unseat Bush, or nothing will. Who was the best candidate for that purpose? Dr Dean, of course. So, who is the Democrat's candidate ... Sen Kerry???

Today's CNN/TIME poll shows that only 44% of the voters believe the Iraq war was justified. A 54%majority think the war wasn't justified, and wasn't worth it. The same 44% who believe the war was justified also believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the World Trade Center attack (9-11).

The same CNN/TIME poll shows 47% now approve the way Bush is handling the economy. The poll's net result: Bush 49, Kerry 48 - with or without Nader.

Kerry could be way ahead. He could have picked up the Nader vote. All he had to do was say the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that he was sorry for having voted for it. But, no, he made it clear he wasn't sorry, wouldn't apologize, and approved the Administration's goals. He just didn't agree with George W Bush's methods. Result: now he's in there with arch-enemy George W Bush on the wrong side of the people's opinion.

Kerry Who?

I repeat my previous question to Democrats: Who is it you are trying to elect?

Senator Kerry's candidacy represents one of the most under-reported "bait and switch" efforts in modern political history. Democrats rejected "Bush Lite" in the early going. Kerry stood aside, looking like he wasn't "Bush Lite", while actually saying nothing. Now that the other candidates have killed each other, we discover Kerry, the victor, is exactly what we didn't want.

Clever, but maybe too clever by half. Genghis Khan, Attilla the Hun, and some other characters all qualify as "anybody but Bush." When I go to the Deli, I look at whatever it is they're putting between the slices of bread, before I eat it.

The Tragedy of America

As I see and feel it, this period of United States' history is most like the 1850s. Perhaps the Civil War was avoidable, perhaps not. But, we were not helped by the incompetent or incapable presidents, Whigs and Democrats - Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan - who could not see what was coming or what it meant. So it happened.

If George W Bush and his party have their way, the United States will return to conditions similar to those of the late 19^th century. That was a time when the Robber Barons lived high, Manifest Destiny was the rage, and the Pinkertons helped the National Guard kill and maim Pullman strikers in Chicago.

If Sen Kerry and his supporters have their way, the party of FDR and LBJ - the New Deal - will be a thing of history. In its place will be the party of Coolidge, Hoover and Clinton. The 1920s and 1990s were times of great opportunity, during which the little people got a little ahead; but, not for long. The Roaring Twenties and Nineties were mostly a great showing of the nouveau riche, and a temporary respite for everyone else. For the poor, "temporary" was just that, not too long at all, as relief got time limited.

The New Deal and the Great Society elected people for a long time because they were aimed at helping the bottom half - those who were poor and lower middle class. Today, that's the half of the population with household incomes below $45,000 or so. Senator John Kerry's Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC,Clintonites) don't represent those folks. George W Bush's Republicans don't even try. When was the last time you had a serious discussion about poverty?

In this election, it's all about those who make more than $60,000. Maybe that's why half the voters just don't give a damn. The most I ever took home in one year was $29,000. Now I'm on Social Security and way below the poverty line. Why should I give a damn?

June 24, 2004

At Least a Quid for a Quo Pro

I received a note, which I quote in part:

Last update: 11/02/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.