David Remer: Current Political Events

Yes, 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented

Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:18:07 GMT

posted by David R. Remer

Over at WatchBlog is an excellent and constructive discussion of who is responsible for 9/11. The discussion is taking place among Liberals, Conservatives, folks currently or previously in government and the discussion is, believe it or not, civil and constructive. Check out "Yes, 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented" and join in the discussion.

Two Wrongs Will Not Make A Right

Wed, 07 Apr 2004 22:04:16 GMT

by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Operation Vigilant Resolve this week would be better named Operation Vigilant Devolve. It was wrong for the U.S. to enter war with Iraq without the U.N.'s backing and cooperation. That is clear to all except the religiously loyal Bushites. The growing civil and anti-U.S. occupation war developing in Iraq threatens the handover of government to Iraqi's this summer, because it is becoming apparent what many scholars predicted before invasion, that the differing sects in Iraq will not cooperate in a unified government. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said today about the handover threat, "We will make it work."

Whether Donald Rumsfeld understands what he and our troops are really facing is in grave doubt due to such words as he spoke today. Before one can will a thing to happen, one must know that it is possible to make it happen. When the will and intent to win was adamant in the 60's but, the plausibility of any winning scenario was simply not believable, the United States was caught in a trap of pouring ever more American blood into Vietnamese soil with no end in sight. The reason there was no end to the stream of 52 thousand American body bags and 100's of thousands of injuries, was because the will to win was not matched by a strategy or plan that could win. And politicians refused to face the reality that they had erred in their calculations, erred in their planning, and hopelessly underestimated their opponent.

There is still a winning scenario - Turn the war in Iraq over to the U.N. by whatever means necessary. Then the U.S. can claim credit for deposing a ruthless demonic dictator, while laying the burden of decades of nation building and social and cultural rehabilitation which will be necessary in Iraq to allow self governance to become successful. But, like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Nixon, the unwillingness of American leaders to admit loss or failure prior to the brink of domestic civil war in the U.S. is every bit as evident in President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as in their predecessors. But there is no winning scenario if the U.S. pins its hopes of turning security in Iraq over to a civil democratic government representing the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. It will take at least a generation or two to bring that about, and our losses will only increase over those decades, threatening domestic peace and tranquility here at home.

It was wrong to invade Iraq without U.N. sanction - meaning, unless and until, the U.N. backed the invasion, the U.S. had no winning strategy, exit strategy, or any other kind of realistic appraisal or strategy backing its targeting of Iraq. Whatever we gained by having a presence in the Middle East, as the last year of history in Iraq demonstrates, will be outweighed by the countless billions of tax dollars, hundreds and even thousands of American troop deaths before it is over, 10's of thousands of injuries, losses of limb, and grief born destruction of families here in America. It was a wrong decision to invade Iraq without the U.N. and pursuing redemption by pursuing a war that has no end will not make the first wrong right, it will just continue to put make American troops in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in what otherwise should be pursuit of terrorists threatening the U.S. instead of a civil war and nation building in Iraq that will take a generation at least.

Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:33:15 GMT

by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

It is an old maxim in politics that the only person who can beat an incumbent is the incumbent themself. Often it is quoted as "The election is his/hers to lose". Polls this week appear to support that maxim as Kerry pushes past Bush in a number of polls. Kerry's platform is still relatively undefined in the minds of voters, but, President Bush's and his administration's actions are now everywhere in the media and being evaluated by voters. The polls are showing Bush's record, including his war on terrorism, are defeating him. The public is slow to respond to political news, but, given time and media saturation, the voting public is not easily duped or deterred by "doublespeak", spin, or contradictions.

A CBS article regarding its poll states:

Americans believe the Bush Administration is cooperating with the 9/11 Commission, but that there is still more to learn: most say the Administration isn’t telling the entire truth about what they knew before 9/11.

With so many former administration personnel fired or quit coming forth with testimony that the Bush administration was on a mission and no facts or events were going to deter it from its original course, the American people are awakening to the realization that this President, rather than responding to events, may actually have partially been the cause of them: the rise in deficits and national debt, the growth in the number of terrorists gunning for the U.S., and the growth in the number of programs proposed that fail on their face to address our nation's most important needs.

Programs like the illegal immigrant amnesty program, moon and mars colonization programs, undermining the funding for public schools with voucher programs and undermining children's education by underfunding No Child Left Behind, and budgeting for a federal promotion of marriage, are mounting up in voters minds as ineffective, wasteful, and misuse of our nation's resources in addressing the more important concerns of voters like national debt, protecting our borders from terrorist entry, and exporting American jobs.

In a Los Angeles Times poll and article the following is quoted:

The survey found presumed Democratic nominee John F. Kerry holding a 49% to 46% advantage over Bush among registered voters, a difference within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Adding independent candidate Ralph Nader to the mix resulted in little change. In the three-man race, Kerry drew 47%, Bush 44% and Nader 4%.

This poll too shows "Most Americans accept Richard Clarke's key criticisms of President Bush's anti-terrorism record, but a majority also thinks that politics influenced the timing of the charges by the former White House aide, a Los Angeles Times poll has found."

These polls however must be countered with two other state polls reported on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire site which reports:

In Pennsylvania, President Bush "has moved to a six-point lead" over Sen. John Kerry in this key battleground state, the latest Daily News/CN8 Keystone poll shows. (Full poll results are available.)
In Indiana, President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry, 52% to 37%, according to the latest Bellwether Poll.

Indiana with a long history of being a KKK state, is not a great surprise. Pennsylvania's poll demonstrates that Bush's platform issues on morality and pro-choice still resonate with large numbers of voters in various parts of the country.

Polls this early in the game are no predictor's of election results. They do however, provide some evidence of the impact of candidate's campaign strategies and tactics and media coverage of issues of the day. Somewhere in the Whitehouse in the back of a political mind is a growing question of Karl Rove's ability to improve upon the year 2000's election results. Sometimes no amount of political strategy can overcome an incumbent's record. It remains to be seen if November will be one of those times.

Bush's week in review

Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:49:26 GMT

by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Pres. Bush is in the N.E. defending his record on jobs and anti-terrorism. He is spending this time and money to shore up his record because it is under major attack from a number of directions. Both Democratic and Republican party members of Congress agree that jobs are critically important to both the economy and the November elections, and they both agree, the jobs growth is a major disappointment to economic recovery. On the other hand, 2003 saw our economy grow at a healthy 4.1 percent pace, a point that is sure to be touted in Bush’s speeches and ads from this point forward.

On anti-terrorism, the President is under fire from the 9/11 Investigation Commission which has brought forth testimony indicating that both Presidents Bush and Clinton failed to use intelligence they had to defend American lives on 9/11/2001. President Bush stated today he did not know that planes would be used to attack targets in the U.S. However, the 9/11 Commission has evidenced that our Intelligence Community did in fact know that planes may likely be used in attacks and that the targets such as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were possible targets. Bush’s critics are calling Bush’s statement an outright lie. The question of whether the President knew of this intelligence prior to 9/11 has not been answered. The question of whether the President should have known this information is just now being raised.

Of course the main controversy centers on Richard Clarke’s testimony that the Administration was so obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein that they misinterpreted intelligence regarding an impending al-Queda attack and failed to take necessary steps to defend against what became the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Clarke’s credibility is the primary target by conservatives both on the Commission and in the media. Nonetheless, Republican attempts to pin Clarke in his own testimony were unsuccessful as Clarke demonstrated remarkable poise and calm in responding to court like inquiries by panel members.

While the President has agreed to testify before the Commission, the person with probably the most detailed knowledge of the policies and decisions on anti-terrorism before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice has refused to testify under oath and in public before the Commission. Ms. Rice is becoming a prime target of progressive attacks for what appears to them to be increasingly a case of having something to hide. While the Administration argues that commanding her testimony is a breach of Executive Branch powers and rights, progressives argue that no person in government should be above investigation by the public’s representatives. This is an issue that is sure to fester for months to come and may become a campaign issue.

The stock market tumbled last week amid jitters over terrorist attacks in Spain and Israel, and bombs being found in various locations, as well as intelligence being reported that the U.S. is going to be targeted again, and Donald Rumsfeld has stated it could happen tomorrow. Investors lost big as the markets tumbled, the Dow Jones Average losing almost 500 points in recent weeks. Bearish sentiments are replacing the previous bullish enthusiasm that has lifted the Dow from 7000 plus to over 10,000 since 9/11 according to MSNBC today.

Lou Dobbs began a series on TV over a month ago called The Exporting of America. This program has helped raise the issues of outsourcing jobs to other countries by American corporations, and the transfer of ownership of American assets to foreign investors via America’s national debt and rising deficits, has put these issues in the headlines on the campaign trail. Sen. Kerry is making the lack of jobs a central issue in his campaign and putting the President on the defensive on this issue as seen by his speeches today.

Polls are showing the race between Kerry and Bush neck and neck and the near half billion dollars being raised for campaigning by Kerry and Bush are now in play buying ads to tarnish the image if each candidate’s opponent. This may be an unprecedented spending year for a Presidential election in American history. Ad agencies are salivating.

Bush’s ads are focusing on Kerry’s Senatorial voting record making claims which are not factual about Kerry’s votes on raising taxes. The Bush camp is using votes that reflect Kerry’s votes for alternative amendments and bills that would not have included Bush’s tax cuts. Also included in the GOP claim of over 350 votes to increase taxes are votes on in which Kerry opposed the bills on issues other than the taxes included in them. Kerry’s camp has launched ads placing the jobless recovery and failure to provide troops and veterans with the funds they say are needed to keep military families from falling into poverty or bankruptcy.

9/11 Investigation - Not Good

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:36:36 GMT

by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Testimony today before the 9/11 Investigating Commission was shocking. Among those testifying were Generals, Mr. Armitage, M. Allbright, and C. Powell, D. Rumsfeld, and P. Wolfowitz. Overall, it appears that both administrations, Clinton's and G.W. Bush's governed over a history of intelligence from 1991 right up through the summer of 9/11 which gave a host of indications and warnings of airliners to be used as weapons against the U.S. There were even, though not during 2001, intelligence data indicating the Pentagon and World Trade Center may be targets. Despite this intelligence neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration took any steps to beef up security of our airline industry, or to warn Congress that such action might be necessary.

Particularly damning was testimony by Donald Rumsfeld acknowledging heightened intelligence activity warning of possible impending attack throughout the summer preceding 9/11. Mr. Rumsfeld's response was that he was not responsible for domestic security and his focus was on overseas threats. He stated he does not recall being directly informed of a possible threat to the Pentagon, an area of responsibility that was his.

The President, G.W. Bush today also stated very carefully that, had he known there would be an attack on the WTC on Sept. 11, he would have taken action. Note what he did not say. He did not say he was not aware of increased intelligence indicating a possible impending attack. He did not say he was not aware that the WTC was a potential target. He did not say he was not aware the attacks could likely come from hijacked airliners. Testimony by Rumsfeld indicates that our Intelligence officers and head of CIA were aware of all these facts. Rumsfeld stated however, he does not recall if he had been made aware by the intelligence community of this information.

What we can expect from this investigation is tough questions seeking tough answers as the panel appears to be serious in their endeavor to determine what happened, what didn't happen, and why 9/11 occurred at all. What we cannot expect is a confession by anyone that they messed up or were responsible in anyway for allowing 9/11 to occur. Their answers were calculated, and appeared at times rehearsed. Only Wolfowitz however, became defensive and testy when questioned. Cooperative attitudes appear to be the order of the day. We can also not expect to ever hear the whole truth. Their was reference made by one of the panel that certain information specifically about intelligence content would not be disclosed to the public.

The one inescapable fact that came out today, however, was that both administrations reigned over intelligence indicating that something like what occurred on 9/11 was very likely to occur at some point in time, and neither administration took a single step to beef up airline security. The Bush administration is particularly vulnerable on this point since the intelligence community and the head of the CIA were receiving a high volume of indications in the few months preceding 9/11 that something was very likely about to happen against the U.S. resulting from al-Queda actions.

Clark is scheduled to testify tomorrow. There is a very different story to be told between him and Wolfowitz, tomorrow regarding prioritizing Iraq over al Queda. Wolfowitz today denied Clark’s charge that Wolfowitz in a meeting had indicated that Iraq was a greater priority.

Is Bush Planting WMD in Iraq?

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 04:37:20 GMT

Posted by D.R. Remer Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

There is a story circulating on the net about Americans unloading the kind of parts needed by Hussein in the early 1990’s to develop WMD and long range missiles. The source is an Iraqi Government official who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Mehr, an Iranian news agency covering Iraq. The official reports Americans were seen unloading cargo of the kind mentioned above at a port in Southern Iraq and timed to coincide with other big news and events that would overshadow the unloading.

Two sites reporting this are Forum for America and Dread Times.

The implications if the story can be verified are enormous.

The Great Bush Hoax

Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:29:58 GMT

by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Half the country has been fooled by the Great Bush Hoax. The other half saw it for what it was when it was launched. The Great Hoax is the idea that any amount of money, soldiers, or equipment sent overseas could possibly win the War on Terrorism. If you are a Bush supporter, you won’t want to read this, the inescapable logic of it will make you angry. For all others, the simple and elegant logic that follows will vindicate your gut feelings about this President’s foreign policy and War on Terrorism.

For centuries China had it’s warlords who terrorized their feudal serfs into submission and taxation. The armies of the warlords were terrorists. Ancient Greek history is full of myth, legend, and history regarding terrorists and terrorist tactics by opposing armies. The great Roman Empire ended with the terrorism from the likes of the Visigoths and Huns who with their hit and run tactics, drove fear into the hearts of Roman legions. They did so effectively that Rome actually hired (bribed) the terrorist leaders to join Roman campaigns, only to see the terrorist tactics grow by throngs hoping to get bribed by Rome also.

The Medieval period saw one of the greatest terrorist movements in all of history played out by none other than the Roman Catholic Church via the Inquisition. The epitomy of terrorism was defined during this period. Then there was the conquest of the America’s which brought terror in the form of disease, alcohol, land theft, and habitat and cultural destruction. In the 1940’s and 50’s terrorism was unleashed on 10’s of millions in Germany and Russia by monsters named Stalin and Hitler. In the 1950’s the U.S. saw the growth and perpetuation of a form of terrorism that lives in infamy and is learned by every Congress Man and Woman. That form of terrorism was called McCarthyism and Commie Witch Hunts. And let us not forget the Ku Klux Klan.

Even today we have numbers of terrorists in the USA, serial murderers, freeway marksman killers, Timothy McVeigh, and young lad arrested just last week with 20 or so homemade bombs and a firearm on his high school grounds. They all have an agenda and a common means of carrying it out. Strike fear in the hearts of others. The point of this history recital is simple. The President of the U.S. says he will win this war on terrorism. That is as bold a lie as has ever been told by a sitting President. Humankind carries with it, terrorism, wherever societies emerge. There has always been terrorism in the world, and there will always be terrorism in the world. No amount of money, equipment, or soldiers sent overseas could possibly hope to end terrorism in the world any more than it could hope to end evil, greed, and corruption.

The War on Terrorism will become a terrorism of its own making as the war takes more and more thousands of innocent lives. The lives of children, mothers, and fathers who happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, like the Afghani children killed by U.S. troops in December, or the countless thousands of innocent Iraqis who died in the wake of Bush’s campaign against Saddam Hussein. As long as this war on Terrorism is fought as a military campaign, instead of an intelligence and police campaign, millions of innocent people will live in fear of the war coming to their home despite the fact that they have nothing to do with terrorist activity.

The Europeans (save for Tony Blair) differ with Bush’s military campaign against terrorism. They are going to deal with terrorism as an intelligence and police issue rather than indiscriminately bomb and kill 10’s of thousands of innocent bystanders overseas in the name of liberating them or defending ourselves. The U.S. is becoming increasingly isolated by world opinion, thanks to the Bush Administration. The world was behind us in our invasion of Afghanistan, the U.N. assisted us in Afghanistan, because a direct assault upon our people originated in Afghanistan. Such a retaliatory attack was also seen as defensive by the rest of the world and therefore justified.

And then, the Bush Administration took advantage of the sympathy of foreign nations for our plight on 9/11 to carry out plans laid down in the 1990’s to seize a military hold on the middle east, to obtain revenge for an assassination attempt upon G.W. Bush’s father sanctioned by Saddam Hussein, and to spread American military might around the globe in attempt no less than world wide military strike domination. What the rest of the world sees, but this Administration does not, is the simple fact that to secure our people against terrorist attacks from abroad, we must secure our borders.

When Bush’s Administration places the bulk of its military spending, equipment and personnel overseas to fight terrorism, the people of the rest of the world ask how can such action be committed in the name of war against terrorism? It is obvious to them, that if defense against terrorism is our real objective, we should be placing that money, equipment, and personnel on our own borders, in our shipping lanes and in our airports. The way to defend against terrorism is to keep terrorists from getting in, in the first place. Yet every objective review of domestic defense against terrorism reveals we are as vulnerable today as we were on 9/11. Therefore, it is inescapably logical to conclude that our efforts overseas have some other agenda than defending ourselves from terrorists.

And in fact, that is the conclusion the people of the rest of the world are coming to. As recent headlines reveal that heads of state are beginning to realize what the people have known, as Spain, Honduras, and more to come announce they are no longer to be counted in the coalition of the willing. They recognize the absence of WMD in Iraq, combined with our utter and almost complete disregard for allocating our national resources to our own border defenses, amounts to a Hoax played upon the sympathies of peoples around the globe. A hoax which uses 9/11 and the war on terrorism to cover a far more sinister and dangerous agenda of spreading military strike capability around the globe and having the ability to aim that might into the heart of any city, hamlet, or neighborhood in the world.

If President Bush is reelected, it is the U.S. which will be viewed as the spreader of terrorism, as it continues to fail to rally other nations into its hoax. Bush will in the next four years, leave the U.S. military spread out in the world posing the largest threat to the peace and safety of billions of other people in the world as well as to our own troops. We may easily become viewed as the greatest terrorist threat in the world under another four years of this war fixed administration.

President Bush is not looking to make the U.S. a terrorist. He is not looking to become the greatest fear of peoples throughout the world. He is not bankrupting the American tax payer with grandiose plans of becoming King of the World. He is honestly trying to do what he believes is right for his family, for his friends, and for his country. The problem is, he is afraid. And like all bullies, fear motivates him to overreact, to offend as defense, to harm others first lest he be harmed. All bullies are basically cowards and their irrational behavior is designed to mask their fear. President Bush is just such a man. With the best of intentions, he has become the most aggressive, most deceiving, and most unpredictable U.S. President the World has seen in a very, very long time.

Our nation cannot afford the consequences of another four year term by President George W. Bush. Half the voters in this country understand that. The question is will the other half be capable of seeing through the hoax before it is too late. November will tell.

GOP-Going for Broke

Wed, 17 Mar 2004 18:16:33 GMT

Under Democrats, Congress had a "pay as you go" rule for spending by the federal government. They were called tax and spend Democrats because if they elected to pass a program needing money from the budget, they would raise taxes or decrease other spending to pay for it. The Republican’s Grand Old Party (GOP) now have control of Congress and they long ago dismissed the pay as you go rule. That action has resulted in the record half trillion dollar budget for 2005 without any attempt by the President or Republican House of Representatives to raise taxes or cut other spending in order to pay for this record deficit. And only an estimated 6% of the budget deficit is due to the lackluster economy. This contradicts the President's and Republican spokesperson's rebuttal that the deficits are resulting the 2001 recession and the 9/11 attacks.

The Senate just passed a rule to reinstate the ‘pay as you go rule" by 51 to 48. However, the Washington Post reports:

But no sooner had the Senate voted than at least some of the lawmakers whose support was critical were waffling on whether they would insist that the rule be kept. With the administration and the Republican leadership dead set against a real "pay as you go" rule -- one that applies to tax cuts as well as spending increases -- the provision is at risk of being killed in conference.

The Republicans are ‘Going For Broke’ in their attempt to keep power by bankrupting the nation and middle income tax payers with their program of ‘spend now to get votes and stick it to the tax-payers later after our President is out of office in 4 more years.’ It does appear voters of the major parties have a choice in November: The Tax and Spend Democrats, The Spend and Bankrupt Republicans, or the Green Party which proposes to take a wholistic approach which balances today’s needs with tomorrow’s.

Another Bush Con Job

Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:42:14 GMT

The NY Times today is picking up on a story I saw a couple days earlier entitled Medicare Expert Says He Was Told To Withhold cost, which ran on Friday.

It is a detailed read about how the Bush administration knew the true cost of the Medicare legislation, and told at least one official who thought Congress should know the true cost, he'd be fired if he said anything. When the President deceives the Congress, he decieves the people of the U.S. for Congresspersons are the people's representatives from their local states and districts.

The people simply can no longer trust this administration which continues to justify any means by the ends it achieves. It simply defies reason that Kerry's adminstration could be any worse if it tried. Since a Kerry administration would have a Republican Congress keeping excesses in check.

UPDATE: Add the following to this story from the NY Times, entitled: A Watchdog Sees Flaws in Bush's Ads on Medicare

The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that advertisements and brochures prepared by the Bush administration to publicize a new Medicare law, although not illegal, misrepresented the prescription drug benefits that would be offered to millions of elderly and disabled people.

The fliers and advertisements do not violate restrictions on the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes," but they are flawed by "omissions and other weaknesses," said the legal opinion by Anthony H. Gamboa, general counsel of the accounting office.

Bush: Classic Commodity Defense

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:26:39 GMT

by David R. Remer - Watchblog - Political News & Analysis

A few years ago there was a scandal regarding Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Barely after the headlines ink dried ADM saturated the media with paid advertising. You remember it, it said they were Feeding The World. Now which do you remember about ADM, there scandal, or their commercial? This is classic commodity defense. When your product or company gets in trouble, advertise the negative news out of existence. Shell Oil is currently being reviewed for underestimating reserves and today I saw an advertisement on Satellite TV for Shell exploring where no man has gone before.

Click here for more...

Ralph Nader polling 6%

Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:41:04 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

Ralph Nader, just 10 days after announcing his candidacy as an Independent for President, is polling 6% of voters according to the Associated Press. Nader is going after corporate corruption of the laws, environment, economy, and the exploitation of American workers. Nader has also raised a quarter million dollars in that same 10 days.

So many said he could not be taken seriously except for the votes he would draw from Democrats. That may be so. But, if the money and support continues at the same level it has these last 10 days, both front running candidates will need to reevaluate both Nader's impact and their own issue platforms to court Nader's vote.

Kerry Steamroller headed for Swing States

Wed, 03 Mar 2004 05:06:24 GMT

by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis

Super Tuesday was no surprise for those who have followed my previous articles on the Kerry Steamroller here and here. The question now is, can the Kerry steamroller turn the swing states into win states? It is very likely and here is why.

Regardless of what events occur between now and November, Sen. John Kerry can win the Presidency with President Bush's help. The help Sen. Kerry needs from the President is simply a hard hitting, money flying advertising campaign aiming to discredit the Senator based on his Senatorial voting record. This will actually hurt Bush and help Kerry in November. It is a psychological thing, just as Kerry's steamroller out of N.H. and Iowa was a purely psychological dynamic. There is not a single attack which Rove and Bush could launch toward Kerry's voting record that cannot be turned back on President Bush. The net effect will be to render the President the bigger hypocrite, more inconsistent, and less predictable than Sen. Kerry. In other words, Bush's campaign will backfire.

The exit polls show the economy is voter's number one concern. For working Americans that translates to job security. There is nothing President Bush can do to increase jobs or job security, because the President believes tax cuts to the wealthy will create jobs. As we have seen, throwing money at the wealthy has only resulted in increased productivity, not increased jobs. The President believes in free trade, and free trade is what is exporting America's jobs overseas. The exit polls show many more Americans believe they are worse off now than they were 4 years ago. And there is nothing in the President's ideology that would permit him to reverse these psychological trends in the voters.

Attacking Kerry on the economy won't work for a number of reasons. First, the public does not see Kerry as responsible for the Economy. It is the Republican Congress and President Bush who are responsible for the economy in the minds of voters. Second, attacks toward Kerry on his free trade votes, can be turned on Bush. Kerry simply needs to point to having learned from the NAFTA experiment and expound on equity as part of the free trade package he would proffer. Kerry will offer to rescind the tax cuts to the wealthiest as a means of paying for programs that will help working Americans and which will employ more Americans. This will resonate with independents who voted for Bush in 2000 who are dealing with unemployment and job insecurity today. Finally, Bush and the Republican Congress have given Kerry the national debt and deficit to wield as a rapier against Bush and his enslaving of our children to higher taxes and lower quality of living in their future.

Sen. Kerry has already told Pres. Bush regarding national security to "Bring It On". Kerry's message will be "How can a President lead by misleading"? The answer is he can't. Sen. Kerry only need to point to the WMD and the Hussein / Al Queda ties which the Bush Administration lead this country to war with to prove the misleading point. Also, Sen. Kerry will point to peace arising from nations which work together and respect each other. Kerry will ask how there can ever be Peace under Bush with his alienating other nations, snubbing the U.N. and threatening the peace of the World through unilateral preemptory war as a policy.

Sen. Kerry will make George W. Bush, the man, the main issue of the 2004 election. His message will be that we were all understandably mislead and lied to. His message will be that President Bush said one thing, and did the opposite. He promised Peace, and took us into an unnecessary war. He promised a robust economic recovery, we got a slow and jobless recovery. He promised to be a fiscal conservative, but, instead is giving us the largest debts and deficits in history stealing from our future pay checks for years and years to come the taxes needed to pay them down.

President Bush's only defense will be to try to make the election about Kerry, the man. He has the money to drown the public in negative politics about John Kerry. But, as the Democratic primaries showed, negative rhetoric can backfire and drag down the messenger of such negativity. The more Bush gets negative, the more Kerry will hammer the issues. And the result will be an image in the voter’s mind of a candidate who cares about the issues and a President acting like a trapped animal. Bush will not lose his Republican core voters, though some ultra-conservatives may not show up, but, all Kerry needs is the swing and independent votes.

This will be another close election, and it will come down to the Electoral College votes reaching that magic number of 270. Bush is loyal, and Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz will remain. That means there will be no changing course and the course the Bush administration has chosen is becoming more suspect day by day. Kerry needs to promise a change that will increase American territorial security, decrease debt and deficits, save Soc. Security and Medicare, and create jobs for Americans which help other Americans get back on their feet. This is the steamrolling message Kerry will take to the swing states. Barring extraordinary events on par with 9/11, the Kerry steamroller may wind up at the Whitehouse delivering a new President.

Greenspan Speak - President & Congress Irresponsible

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:42:00 GMT

by David Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Allen Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Banking System, dropped a time bomb in the Republican's laps. Greenspan is appointed and retains his position at the discretion of the President and answers regularly to the Congress. So, Greenspan is never going to come out and say his boss is missing the boat, or the Congress is cheating Americans now paying into the Social Security. At least he would never say so overtly.

He did however; bring the issue of Social Security insolvency in 30 years or more down the road, into focus for the November elections. He did this quite effectively by linking Social Security problems to the deficits which this President and Republican Congress are responsible for. Specifically, Chairman Greenspan said according to Ken Moritsugu of Knight Ridder:

"I think it is terribly important to make certain that we communicate to the people who are about to retire what it is they're going to have to live with. And if we promise more than we can actually deliver, I think it will be a major blot on our whole fiscal process," Greenspan said.

The looming Social Security and Medicare crisis makes it all the more important to get today's growing federal budget deficit under control, Greenspan said. He described today's situation as "probably one of the most difficult fiscal situations we've ever faced."

Now Chairman Greenspan is not about to attack President Bush's tax cuts, that could get him fired. So if revoking any of the tax cuts is off the table, cutting spending is the only option left. And with a half trillion more dollars being spent in 2005 than are taken in by tax revenues, it is clear the President and Congress are not dealing with the problem at all. In fact, Congress and the President are using about 120 billion dollars of Social Security income to help keep the deficit numbers lower than they actually are.

Remember when all the politicians were talking, promising and debating the Social Security lock box? For all the talk, it never happened. And this Republican Congress is consuming Soc. Sec. income for pork projects and their own pay raise while managing even still, to spend more than 1/3 trillion dollars more than they are taking in. Chairman Greenspan is quite correctly bringing to the public attention, the fact that uncontrolled and unpaid for spending by this President and this Republican Congress is going to result in a breach of contract with the American tax payer with regard to Social Security. And such spending threatens future borrowing ability by the U.S. Government. Yes, the U.S. has a credit rating too, just like credit card users. While American credit is fine today, continuing to add interest on the debt, to the debt, and spending more than the government takes in, for years on end, will bankrupt the U.S. just as it would an undisciplined credit card user.

Cutting government spending is one approach. Raising tax revenues is another. Either or both of these solutions applied together will solve the future bankruptcy of the U.S. What Chairman Greenspan is pointing out in his own inimicable way is that this Congress and this President are doing NOTHING to deal with the solution. They are acting like thieves with stolen credit cards, spending with abandon because they know they will not have to pay the bill.

The American people owe Chairman Greenspan a vote of thanks for making this all important issue to Americans, an issue to be raised in the November elections.

Republican Gov't: Hard at work!

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:31:46 GMT

A week in review

Consumer Confidence Drops in February … Nah, all Americans believe Bush – the economy is in great shape and going to be fantastick by December. Note that is only a couple weeks after the election. Hmmm… why didn’t he say it would be fantastick before the election – it only a couple weeks?

Jobs Expected to Continue to Lag Economy …Only one who didn’t seem to know that was Bush before he stuffed his foot in mouth claiming millions of new jobs this year.

Washington's data-mining 'shell game?' …This is a must read for those who thought the data collecting/mining effort by our government to track us all was a dead issue.

Border agents feel betrayed by Bush guest-worker plan …Along with a few millon other folks.

Bush Education Secretary calls teachers' organization terrorists … Ooops! His thinking is out of the bag. Talk about being honest with the public about your biases, Paige takes the cake.

U.S. Shelves Nuke Safety Rules Proposal … Thank the Great Spirit.

Panel Urges Bush to Finance Climate-Change Research

“A panel concluded today that the president's plan for examining climate change can succeed only if it is shielded from politics and if budgets grow.” Guess we can throw that research out the window.

Security Efforts Turning Capital Into Armed Camp And we still think we live in the land of the free? Free to what, respond and focus on our fears regardless the cost?

Bush Defends Decision for War in Iraq Again? Geez, does he really think anyone who didn’t believe him before will change their mind now that the proof is in, or isn’t in, --ahh, you know what I mean.

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

“The group, which included 20 Nobel laureates, said that the White House has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals. By James Glanz.” Oh, please, say it isn’t so. I am so disillusioned, I may never vote again.

Republican dirty tricks used doctored photo of Kerry (shades of every election held since Adams).

Comments by David R. Remer

Looked like good news for a couple seconds.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:27:24 GMT

Army Cancels Comanche Helicopter Program [AP Politics]

Finally, our Federal Government does something RIGHT for the American people. Oh wait, I forgot to ask if they were giving us our money back on that program. Oh, well, made a nice headline though didn't it.

Posted by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Bush's no brainer choices.

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 02:23:46 GMT

Bush Launches More Aggressive Campaign With Speech. WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, battered by his Democratic challengers and slipping in the polls, answered back on Monday, arguing that his opponents are hesitant in combatting terrorism and that their policies will raise taxes. By The Associated Press. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]

Now this is an interesting tactic. Bush argues his opponents might hesitate and contemplate a bit, come up with an exit strategy, and a plan that will minimize losses and get the job done as fast as possible, before embarking on war that will kill our sons and daughters. Hmmm... sounds like we need to give his opponents another look see.

Bush goes on to argue that his opponents and their policies will raise taxes. I guess he means instead of indebting our next generation of children to higher taxes like Bush himself has done. Hmmm... So the choice we have is to vote for Bush and sell out our kids to a lifetime of higher taxes through Bush's spend now, tax later policy, or, vote for the spend now and pay for it now Democrats. Hmm... seems like a no brainer to me.

Posted by David R. Remer, Political News & Analysis, WatchBlog

Kerry Steamroller Unstoppable

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:34:13 GMT

Great article on why the Kerry Steamroller is unstoppable, can be found here at WatchBlog.

Why McAuliffe - DNC's attack dog, shouldn't tell Nader not to run.

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:28:56 GMT

Great article on DNC's Terry McAuliffe's call for Ralph Nader to not run for President on the basis that it will help Bush and hurt Democrats. Insightful treatment of the subject.

Ralph Nader throws hat into race.

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:51:16 GMT

An excellent article about Ralph Nader's announcement of Presidential candidacy and what it means can be found at WatchBlog. Democrats, take heed.

Kerry Steamroller: Part II

Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:54:49 GMT

By David R. Remer - ( Political News & Analysis - WatchBlog )

Kerry wins Wisconsin by an apparent single digit margin, but exit polls indicate it was a landslide. Polls show Kerry received a large majority of the Democratic vote. The primary was open to Independents and Republicans as well. Edwards got a majority of the Independent vote, but, lost large to Kerry amongst Democrats.

As I pointed out in a previous article, Kerry provided voters the one overriding issue and quality that disparate groups in the Democrat party would need to unify them - potential to send Bush packing in November. The exit polls tonight as reported on MSNBC with Chris Matthews hosting, showed that beating Bush in November is the unifying interest of Democratic voters, and Kerry's frontrunner status gave voters that confidence in him to get the job done.

Normally, a frontrunner, this early in the primaries would make the frontrunner a target in other primaries. This phenomenon is not at play in this election cycle. The reason is the Democrats having a common priority, unseating President Bush from the Oval Office. All other differences among a huge majority of Democrats have receded. It is probably safe to say, that Edwards' popularity amongst Independents in Wisconsin, will have little problem shifting allegiance to Kerry, for their goal is not dissimilar from Democrats, just less a priority amongst other priorities, such as likeability.

The large Democratic candidate field created confusion for Democrats trying to decide who, among so many, could win? The psychological impact of Kerry coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire with clear wins, was devastating to the other candidates. Kerry's strong showing in the first primary and caucus of the season helped bewildered voters make up their mind. His frontrunner status took the ambiguity out of the equation for a majority of Democratic voters. That frontrunner status turned Kerry into a Steamrolling machine over the other Democratic candidates and short of a major gaffe, that steamroller will carry him to the nomination.

If Nader decides not to run (very likely), the Green Party nominee will not have the 2000 effect of drawing Democratic and Independent voters away from the Democratic candidate as it did then. Given the dead even numbers of Republicans and Democrats in the country today, this could result in the Kerry steamroller effect carrying Kerry right into the Oval Office. The reason is that the Republican Party is likely going to lose some conservative Independents to the Libertarian candidate (a Nader effect in reverse) and a small, but perhaps significant number of conservatives failing to show up at the polls because of broken faith with the conservative agenda by President Bush.

I can see the slogan in October - JFK IS BACK TO STAY. That is John F. Kerry

Kerry Affair Rumored - Nothing to it so far.

Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:21:43 GMT

Posted by David Remer -- Political News & Analysis

WatchBlog, a political debate site, broke a story 6 days ago about a rumor of Kerry and an affair. Apparently Drudge "broke" the story today and now it is making the circuit around the net. There is nothing so far to substantiate the rumor. Check out the objective coverage of this story here at WatchBlog.

We are still nine months from the election and the "dirty political tricks" are already so deep it is hard to breathe.

Beauty of being an Independent

Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:16:34 GMT

Why would a Texan, such as myself, be sending a campaign contribution to Wisconsin and Arizona Senator's campaigns? As an Independent voter, I am able to choose to support candidates regardless of party based on their record and positions which reflect my values and interests. This year is the first that I am sending campaign money across the political spectrum to the Green Party, Democrat, and Republican Senators. This year I am supporting John McCain (R) and Russ Feingold.(D) I choose these candidates both because they are Senator's of very high integrity, and because together, they gave us the first down-payment on real campaign finance reform in America.

The main additional reason I am supporting John McCain is found in the following transcript of McCain's address to the Senate regarding President Bush's 2005 Budget.

To read the full text go to Sen. McCain's website :

Mr. President, here we go again. Another omnibus appropriations bill - and this one really takes the cake. Obviously the New Year’s Eve parties didn’t end for Congress on January 1st. We’re on a spending bender and this bill proves it.
Americans have heard much about the growing problem of identity theft. Mr. President, what we have before us is perhaps the most costly case of identity theft imaginable. It appears that the big spenders in Washington have all but stolen the credit card numbers of every hard-working taxpayer in America and gone on a limitless spending spree for parochial, pork-barrel projects, leaving the taxpayers to pay and pay. These big spenders view the federal budget as a virtual shopping mall where they can buy their way to re-election.

And the additional reason I am supporting Sen. Feingold is the following text from his website:

1. Russ works hard to bring Wisconsin values to the US Senate: Russ fought for 7 years, along with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), to reform the way campaigns are financed and successfully passed the McCain-Feingold Act, which is the system's most sweeping change in a generation. The Act, which was signed into law in March 2002, bans party soft money (unlimited contributions to national party committees), which had a corrupting influence on government. In addition, Russ led the fight for such successful reforms as a ban on special interest gifts and travel. He does not believe that Congress should be able to receive a backdoor pay raise, and he sends his pay raise and millions of dollars from his federal office back to the US Treasury each year. By attending listening sessions in every Wisconsin county, every year-more than 780 since he took office. Russ has taken the inspiration of local residents back to Washington and has introduced very successful legislation based on their ideas.

2. Russ fights to provide quality and affordable health care for families and businesses, by supporting a "patients' bill of rights" to guarantee patients access to quality health care and protection from unfair insurance claim denials. He has introduced legislation to bring Wisconsin's fair share of federal Medicare dollars back to the state and to help small businesses provide quality health care to their employees, and supports efforts to provide seniors with a prescription drug benefit guaranteed by Medicare.

3. Russ works hard to protect Wisconsin jobs from being lost to unfair foreign competition, by opposing poorly crafted trade agreements such as GATT and NAFTA, by introducing legislation to require the federal government to buy American-made goods, and by working to eliminate tax breaks for US companies that manufacture goods overseas.

4. Russ fights to cut spending and has been honored by the bipartisan Concord Coalition and Taxpayers for Common Sense for his efforts to eliminate the federal deficit while protecting Social Security and Medicare. He has been recognized by the National Taxpayers Union as the ONLY senator to have an agenda that actually cut federal spending.

5. Russ has a deep commitment to improving public education, introducing legislation to reduce class sizes for the early grades, supporting Head Start funding increases to help low-income children get ready to learn in school, and voting to put more teachers in the classroom and improve teacher training.

Pentagon Very Interested in Global Warming

Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:16:52 GMT

By David Remer Political News & Analysis

The President may not be sold on Kyoto Treaty Agreement or be concerned about global warming, but, the Pentagon is taking this issue very seriously and spending your tax dollars to lay plans to deal with what they now recognize may be a problem to face in just a decade, instead of millenia down the road. Note the following and click on this link for the full text from Fortune:

CLIMATE COLLAPSE
The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues.
Monday, January 26, 2004
By David Stipp

Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.

American Establishment of Religion - How it is done.

Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:58:07 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

This story in the NY Times: Charity Reopens Bible, and Questions Follow demonstrates precisely how Bush's funding of charitable organizations is paving the way toward government subsidized religion in American. In this story by Daniel J. Wakin, the Salvation Army of Greater New York is stressing to lay employees that the Army's core mission is not just social services but also spreading the Gospel.

TransAtlantic Cohorts in War must now pay the Piper

Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:52:01 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

In a pair of stories about what Bush and Blair face in the backlash of the Iraqi invasion, trouble looms for them both as they must now answer to their democracies for unprecedented unilateral militance and the looming costs to their peoples for their haste to war and strategic miltary expansion on the globe.

The question is, how independent will the review committees actually be?

An Inquiry That's Awash in Disputes at the Outset. Intelligence officials are hoping that the commission that President Bush plans to appoint to examine intelligence lapses will offer them help, not finger pointing. By Douglas Jehl.

No 10 poised to confirm WMD inquiry. 11.45am: Downing Street is expected to announce an inquiry into the intelligence basis for the war in Iraq.

Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:38:52 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

Your local government taxes are hard at work, or are they? This story has the potential of growing large if not nipped in the bud immediately. But, with cash strapped state and local economies, that is very unlikely thanks to our friends in Wash. D.C.

Report Focuses on False ID's Made at Motor Vehicle Offices. Bribery and poor security at motor vehicle offices across the country allowed thousands of fraudulent driver's licenses to change hands last year, for as little as $350 each, a report says. By Jennifer Bayot. [New York Times: Business]

Bush & Medicare: Irresponsible or Irresponsible?

Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:56:47 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

The following story showed up in my news feed and begs a very important question to be asked:

White House Says Congress Underestimated New Medicare Costs. The budget is not only for prescription drugs, but also for private health insurance plans that would be offered to the elderly. By Robert Pearand Edmund L. Andrews. [New York Times: Business]

Before the question a couple of facts. Fact, the President has his own team of economists and accountants in the Office of Management and Budget. (OMB) Second, the Congressional counterpart is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). So, obviously the CBO came up with and estimate, attached it to the bill and sent the Medicate Bill to the President's desk for signature. The President signed it.

Now, the question. Did the President do his homework and have the OMB determine the cost of the Medicare Bill before he signed the bill?

If he did, then the above headline story is a political ploy pure and simple whereby, the President knew how much it was going to cost from his OMB, approved that cost and signed the bill, and waited for wax to hit the fan, planning all along to blame the cost overruns on the Congress.

If the President did not do his homework by getting the cost of the bill from his own OMB before signing the bill, then folks, we have a grossly irresponsible man signing blank checks at the head of our government. One too busy planning on how to keep power to be bothered with the responsibilities of his office to the American people.

So, which is it, Mr. President? What did you know and when did you know it? Are you signing bills you know will sticker shock the American people spiral our national debt without foreknowledge of the people, or, are you child with a credit card with no discipline or knowledge on how to responsibly use it?

No Stopping Kerry Steamroller

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:21:22 GMT

by David Remer Political News & Analysis

Kerry won Iowa, and he just won New Hampshire. The Kerry steamroller cannot be stopped now. The U.S. is about to see the most unified effort among disparate groups to unseat a President than has been seen in decades.

Groups having diametrically opposed central issues, now have an overriding superordinate goal to unify them. Send Bush back to Crawford, Texas where his path of destruction of the environment, civil and individual rights, and representation of the common person in the halls of government began. Pro-life liberals and pro-choice liberals will find unity. The Democrats and the Greens will find unity. Hawkish social liberals and dovish fiscal conservatives will find unity. Workers in the south and intellectuals in the north, will find unity.

From this point forward, the rule of the game is to put all other differences aside, and send this administration packing, so that our differences will become important again.

Bush puts election above truth on 9/11 investigation.

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:09:06 GMT

Posted by David R. Remer

President Bush and Republican Congressional leaders are balking at the 9/11 Investigation team's demand for 2 additional months to complete their investigation. In an article entitled Sept. 11 Panel Wants Extension on Report, Hope Yen writes:

WASHINGTON - An independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks says it can't finish its final report before late July, putting it at odds with House leaders who oppose a delay that would push the report's release closer to the November election.

The 10-member bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States agreed Monday to request an extension from Congress of at least two months past the May 27 deadline even though the Bush administration and congressional leaders suggested a delay was unlikely.

Watergate: Take Two

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:29:56 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

Republicans are alleged to have found access to Democratic internal documents through a security hole in a shared computer server. Republican staffers on the Hill are alleged to have used that access over a protracted period of time to leak information to the press and others to gain advantage over their rivals. An excellent discussion of this topic can be found at (of all places) ZD Net.

Assuming the allegations are a violation of law, (as they likely would be in exactly the same scenario amongst corporate competitors), the question is raised, will the Republican Department of Justice prosecute its own party members? At this point a radical departure from the Watergate scandal occurs.

Check out WatchBlog for a debate on this issue.

Republican Justice

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:29:47 GMT

by David R. Remer - Political News & Analysis

An era began when President Ford pardoned resigned President Nixon, both Republicans. Now Republicans are getting away with manslaughter with little more than a slap on the wrist. Republican resigned Representative, Bill Janklow from South Dakota was sentenced today. He received 100 days (which will be less with good behavior) and fines and court costs.

Janklow, with a long history of criminally speeding recklessly around the state in his car, finally ran a stop sign and killed a motorcycle rider crossing the interesection at exactly the wrong moment. His defense attorneys argued his blood sugar dropped as a result of being diabetic and not eating for 18 hours. So whose fault was it that he had not eaten knowing he was a diabetic? And whose fault is it that he was speeding as was his customary manner of driving? And whose fault is it that an innocent motorist lost their life and was removed from his family? Doesn't matter. He is a Republican, and like Nixon, we know Republican politicians have all people's interests at heart. If a Republican kills 505 Americans in Iraq or one on the highway, it is accidental at worst or justified if the Republican says so.

A Defensive State of the Union Address

Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:56:12 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

About the only statement about the current state of affairs that rung out to me during the speech was the President's belief that the economy is strong and getting stronger. The balance of the speech appeared more a political stump speech, and one by a candidate on the defensive. The speech itself was well crafted for its intended purpose, to stump for reelection. It was designed to hit all the hot topic buttons in the minds of his political base like religious discrimination by the government and centrist American voter's issues like national defense, jobs, and medical costs.

More than half the speech from the beginning was focused on Iraq, terrorists, and homeland defense. In much the same manner that he associated Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 terrorists, tonight he defended previous claims of WMD in Iraq in by asserting "already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." WMD-related program activities? What does that mean? It sounds like proof of WMD has been found. Then I looked at the text. This impression is completely false. And what are these significant amounts of equipment concealed from the U.N.? Are we talking computer equipment, weather monitoring vans, or freezers? Again, the impression the statement makes to support his previous claims of WMD is cleverly written to conceal, not to reveal. Given the hits the President is still taking on the premises for invasion, this part of the speech was entirely defensive and cleverly so.

He quite correctly stated the world is better off without Saddam's regime, but carefully avoided any mention of what it has cost us. In stark contrast to the common knowledge that the huge share of the human and financial costs being expended in Iraq (almost 500 Americans dead and billions of dollars spent) belong to the Americans, he offered a list of countries participating in Iraq. In an attempt to create an image of an international effort which his opponents have called for through the U.N. he stated, "Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq."

Notably absent from the speech was any reference to 'right to life' or anti-abortion statements, found in previous speeches. This calculated oversight was certainly guided by the recognition that women's votes are important in November and reminding them of his position on that issue should be avoided.

Nor was there any address of the national debt surpassing 7 trillion dollars this year. He did mention the deficit stating, "This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years." Very clever, placing the responsibility for the deficits on the Congress while fostering one of the largest social benefit programs in decades, dispensing with competitive bidding for Iraq contracts which may have saved tax payers 10's of millions of dollars, pressing for colonies on the Moon and Mars, and cutting taxes so deeply for the wealthiest in the nation that the very best he can offer is continuing to deficit spend for at least the next 5 years. This was clearly a defensive maneuver against attacks coming from both the left and right regarding the potential damage our national debt poses as a legacy for the Republican Party.

The President is taking one huge gamble on the economy by professing its growth in his speech. Being a religious man, I would guess he will be praying for the economic fabric to hold together at least until the day after November's elections. This was the only bold part of the speech in my opinion. Bold, because while statistics overall reveal and recovering economy, the sentiment among CEO's and Wall Street, workers and the unemployed is that the economy is not responding fast enough to permit any of these folks to relax.

Bush Troubles Begin

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:17:28 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

There is no land sliding out from under Bush's feet, but the ground beneath him is beginning to quake. A number of stories yesterday reveal cracks in the edifice of Bush's reelection manor. Thumbs down for Martian cities, conservatives threatening consequences in November, N.O.W. and Planned Parenthood mobilizing in response to Pickering's appointment, and Kerry takes Iowa.

ABC reports Republicans split, and general population opposed to expense of Bush's space plan. This does not bode well since it will likely be a key item of tonight's State of the Union address.

The women's vote is about to come into play in a big way as two large organization's representing women's interests are highly motivated to disable Bush's reelection over his circumventing the Senate confirmation process to appoint Pickering to the federal bench. National Organization of Women's (NOW) president Kim Gandy says her organization is outraged. Supporters of Planned Parenthood will be equally outraged and motivated in November by this slight of hand.

Kerry taking the lead in Iowa's caucuses yesterday could dash the Whitehouse's hopes and preparations for facing off with Dean in November. If Kerry can maintain momentum and the lead in the New Hampshire primary, a serious threat to Bush's strategy against "weak on defense" Democrats could be in the offering. With Dean coming in third place in Iowa, there will be some 'back to the drawing board' activity at the Whitehouse. Kerry's war record, heroism in battle, and consistent stance of putting American military lives in harm's way only when absolutely necessary will pose a considerable challenge to Bush's gloat over the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Ralph Hallow of the Washington Times writes: Conservative groups break with Republican leadership. This is the most damning news since it may well translate into conservatives who oppose Bush outdoing Clinton on spending not showing up at the polls in November. According to the article, 6 conservative groups are condemning this Republican Congress and the President for the deficits and growing national debt, especially in regard to the Me3dicare Prescription Drug legislation. Since conservatives are not likely to vote for a Democrat in protest, their only means of protest at the polls is to not show up.

It is still early in the election cycle, but, substantial hurdles are being placed in Bush's path to reelection, some of his own making.

The Other State Of the Union

Sat, 17 Jan 2004 08:48:52 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

In three days President Bush will issue his State of the Union speech. What he won't say is any truth about the state of our nation that would put any negative light upon his administration. The number of items he won't want the American people to focus on are many. Some of the major items he won't mention or will spin appear below.

The Economy - A jobless economy is a fact to date. Yes, there was a fluke two months ago when net job creation spiked only to be followed by another indicating only 1000 jobs created. The Washinton Post states:

More than 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost nationwide over the past three years. Administration officials knew that job creation would be the last part of an economic recovery to kick in, but they were taken aback by a Labor Department report last week showing that only 1,000 jobs were added to payrolls in December.

The Post further states the Administration will use tax dollars to shore up job growth numbers with government spending - this from a President who used to say Government should be downsized and businesses should create jobs. The President also will not mention that the Greenville, Michigan-based Electrolux factory announced it was laying off 2,700 workers.

Nor will the President indicate what manufacturer's had to say this week in a NY Times article which states:

In an otherwise buoyant report, the National Association of Manufacturers predicted that factories would add 250,000 jobs in the next 12 months - less than 10 percent of the 2.8 million they cut in the last three years.

And even that outlook may be optimistic. Manufacturing companies added barely that many jobs during the previous two economic recoveries, and productivity increases have been so high over the last year that demand for workers could climb more slowly than in the past.

And it just keeps getting worse as we may be discovering the white collar jobs may be going the way of manufacturing jobs as reported by Robert J. Samuelson in an editorial entitled The Specter of Outsourcing.

The President also won't mention the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) warning appearing on Jan. 7 that our national debt being created by this Administration and Republican Congress threatens not only the U.S. economy but that of the entire world's.

Iraq - The President is not going to reveal that the Iraqis have one plan for a direct vote to install what is hoped will be a lasting democracy, but his Administration is telling them no, you can't do that, we want caucuses that will involve far fewer Iraqis voting and provide more control over the voting process. Additionally. the Presdent is not going to discuss another setback in Iraq, the desire of the Iraqi's to decide if and how long American troops remain in Iraq. NY Times.

Nor will the President mention the soaring suicide rates among our troops in Iraq, nor many troops scoffing at a proposed $10,000.00 reenlistment bonus: strong evidence that our troops morale is falling and GI sentiment toward the Administration is changing as it extends tours of duties dashing troop's hopes of coming home when they thought they would.

Health Care - The Bush Adminstration did reveal on Jan. 8 that health spending accounts for nearly 15 percent of the nation's economy, the largest share on record. What the President won't mention is that the Medicare overhaul bill which he refused to veto contains language preventing any negotiations by Medicare administrators to reduce prescription drug costs for senior citizens. And the law prevents middle class Medicare recipients from purchasing private insurance to cover the gaps that Medicare does not provide for. Those gaps will be substantial for a great many recipients.

Education - The President will not reveal to the American people the criticisms of his No Child Left Behind initiative like these reported in the CS Monitor.

The requirements don't come with enough new money to pay for them. The new focus on the worst-off kids means the gifted children are now being left behind. The law is prompting some states - which must each create their own tests - to game the system by setting low standards.

Nor will the President have much to offer students facing rocketing college costs because the pressure is on to trim the deficits caused by Iraq, starwars research, putting towns on Mars, 1.5 Billion for promoting heterosexual marriages, and tax cuts, upon tax cuts, upon tax cuts.

War on Terrorism - Nor will the President mention the scathing report from the Army War College. A Washington Post writer Ricks states:

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

Reversals - The President will not discuss how he is having to back down from so many of his original positions evidencing claims of his being a student President, learning from mistakes which others must pay for. Some of these reversals are: White House Wants U.N. to Return to Iraq. Reversal of his steel tariffs imposed upon China. Acting Conciliatory, U.S. Seeks to Revive Global Trade Talks. After years of steps toward improvement in U.S.- Cuban relations, Jan. 8 finds this headline: U.S. Halts Cuban Immigration Talks; Worsening of Ties Seen. The Bush Adminstration made headlines when it announced there would be no Iraq contracts for the coalition of the unwilling. Recent headlines indicate reversal on this mistaken position as the U.S. announces Canada can bid on contracts and Germany, France and Russia are being reviewed for reversal as well.

Bush's 'Not An Amnesty' Amnesty

Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:08:54 GMT

by David Remer Polictical News & Analysis

President Bush announced this week a program that would grant legal working status to illegal immigrants now in this country. However, he insists this is not an amnesty. Sounds like doublespeak to me. Amnesty Definitions:

Noun 1. amnesty - a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment

2. amnesty - a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense

3. amnesty - the formal act of liberating someone

Verb 1. amnesty - grant a pardon to (a group of people)

OK, perhaps the President just misspoke, yet again. But, this President's habit of misspeaking reminds me of Will Rogers, the famous comedian of the 1st half of the 20th century who is still oft quoted today. Will Rogers played a shy bumbling ol' cowboy who would spin a lasso while speaking of things like politics in a Texan drawl kind of accent. Roger's whole persona came across as not educated, non assertive, honest kind of plain folk. What came out of his mouth however, was shrewdly calculated, surgically aimed critique of current events and politics worthy of a Harvard Ph.D.

It took me awhile to accept the fact that "Dubya" was not dim, uneducated, or bumbling. It took me awhile to recognize that he is a very calculating, shrewd, and very bright man capable of being responsible for his actions, his words, and the consequences of them. Therefore, I do not believe he misspoke. I am now convinced he follows the Orwellian political speech described as 'doublespeak'. He is in fact declaring amnesty for illegals, and he knows it will not sit well with the right wing of his party if it is called amnesty, so he denies that it is amnesty, trusting in the dim wittedness of the right wing of his party to accept that on its face, because 'Dubya' is an honest guy, right?

There are many beneficiaries of Dubya's non-amnesty amnesty. First there are the illegals themselves. They will no longer have to fear being arrested, jailed, and or deported provided they break no other American laws. Under Dubya's plan, they will be able to save from their low wages and invest those savings, and when they return to their country of origin, they can take those savings, tax free, with them. Anyone else see a flaw in this line of thinking? I see a few and most have to do with American tax payers subsidizing industries that use green card labor. But, I will get to that shortly.

If these new Green Card holders are able to save, will they? Currently, a great many send their savings back to their families to help increase their family's standard of living in their homeland. The Green Card holder will have to choose between depriving their family for three years of savings he/she is now sending back in order to benefit from the tax free bundle to take home. Also, the tax free bundle of savings can become a form of blackmail. It is very likely a Green Card holder who is saving for the tax free bundle, will lose at the very least, their tax free status if they are accused and found guilty of stealing from the employer, fighting on the job, or just plain refusing to be abused by the foreman or boss. It will only take a few such incidents to take place for the grapevine to spread the news that saving instead of sending home their savings as they are earned is a very, very bad idea.

Then there are the employers in Agri-business, motel chains, janitorial service companies and a host of others who do not want to see a minimum wage increase in this country, do not want to provide benefits to employees, do not want to pay an American standard living wage, do not want to be subject to current laws against employers who hire illegal workers, and who are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to find American employees willing to work so hard for so little. Businesses are going to reap huge rewards from this proposal if it is passed.

But the biggest beneficiary is Dubya himself. He needs the ethnic vote in America if he is to win in 2004. Since attempts to make inroads to the Black vote have largely failed and they are not immigrants by and large, this proposal is designed to cater mainly to the Latino American voters who represent the interests of split families between America and South/Central America and Mexico. This proposal shores up Dubya's votes from the many businesses that depend on the 100's of thousands of illegal workers to keep the costs of operations down, and profitability up. Finally, this proposal shore's up his damaged image as a 'compassionate' conservative, in relieving the stress and fears of so many poor and frightened illegal workers.

Who is likely to lose from this proposal? For every choice there is a cost, often referred to as opportunity cost. In choosing one direction, one loses the opportunities to have gone in other directions. There are 100's of millions of losers if this proposal is enacted by Congress. Those 100's of millions will be American tax payers, millions of poverty level and lower middle class American workers. How do these losses work?

First, the administration of documenting a huge number of illegals and granting them Green Cards will be one cost. Then setting up an accountability system that will track their employers, their address, their length of stay in the U.S., and processing their eviction/citizen notices at the end of their stay is going to cost a millions. Now this proposal, if honest, would ask the employer beneficiaries of the program to pay for the administration of the program, since they will directly benefit from the program. But, there is every indication from Dubya, that all tax payers of America will pick up this tab.

Second, this program does nothing to stem the tide of illegals coming in the country with one notable exception. By filling legitimate low paying jobs with Green Card workers, there will be some deterrent to illegals hoping to land legitimate employment by crossing over the border illegally. However, it does nothing to stem the tide of those crossing over to acquire black market jobs, nor does this bill stop a single terrorist, or other undesirable from entering the country through the sieves we call borders.

The biggest losers however, will be low to moderate wage American workers. Dubya had two choices regarding the kind of jobs that are going unfilled or to illegal workers, because of low wages and hard or dangerous work. To continue to fill these jobs with immigrant labor was one and he has announced this is his choice.

Alternatively, to raise the minimum wage or let supply and demand dictate higher wages to draw American workers into those jobs, were two other choices. Raising the minimum wage would have benefited millions of American workers and stimulated the economy due to those wage earners increased purchases resulting from the wage increase. However, this choice would have resulted in offending some of his key supporters, corporations and business owners.

If Dubya had chosen to fence our borders and stop illegal immigration, supply and demand forces would have dictated increased wages and/or benefits offered by employers who now use illegals, to attract American citizen workers. Of course, the consequence of the latter is that some of those businesses would have shut down, since the profit margin would have dropped had they been forced to increase wages. Again, an offense to some of Bush's key supporters.

Dubya's plan does nothing to control our borders and thus reduce the terrorist threat to our nation. His plan does nothing for American workers struggling in low paying jobs and it increases the taxes that will have to paid by those workers to administer his 'not an amnesty amnesty and to pay for a homeland defense system which does not protect our borders. Dubya's no amnesty amnesty does however give the illusion of compassion while leashing wage growth for American workers. Dubya's plan does increase profitability for Archer-Daniels, wine and produce growers in California and a host of other corporations and businesses, and thus pays back some of his key supporters for their campaign support. I must admit, anyone capable of mastering doublespeak as well as Dubya has, is no dummy. I must give our President credit there.

No Hard Evidence of Iraq - Al Queda Link

Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:54:03 GMT

Secretary of State Collin Powell stated he has not ever seen any proof there was any connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. The NY Times article states:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no "smoking gun" proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Queda.

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

Well of course he thinks the "possibility of such connections did exist" because his boss told him they did. A General does not get to be General by questioning or failing to support his chain of command. Not to mention the fact that it is important to throw the conservative base of the Republican Party a bone so they can continue to defend their belief in, and support of, their party's leader. Scientists tell us there is a possibility there was life on Mars at one time. That in no way indicates there WAS life on Mars. It is just as likely, in fact more likely, that there has never been life on Mars. You don't just mix water and minerals and expect chance to produce life. And you don't just cast all bad guys as responsible for a crime committed by one bad guy. Not logically anyway. But it is evident now, that is exactly what the Bush and his Cabinet did.

Whether there was or wasn't a connection is not now the issue. At the time Powell went to the U.N. and asserted there was a connection, he misled the U.N. and a host of members of the U.N. saw through it. They had their own intelligence and logical reasons for being skeptical of such a claim. In the absence of the kind of evidence JFK's Ambassador to the U.N. provided as proof of Russian missiles in Cuba, why should U.N. members have believed an assertion which ran contrary to the secular-religious ideological differences between Hussein and Al Queda? The U.N. members very likely saw through the assertion which was not backed by evidence. On a matter as great as war, if the evidence existed, it would have been presented.

The U.S. sought, and as we now know, needed the backing and participation of the U.N. for the invasion. The cost of such a venture was going to be huge. Given the gravity of the request, it likely made no sense to many U.N. countries that Powell could not back up his assertion with evidence. And one consequence of going to war in Iraq on a hunch or belief without full U.N. participation is a warning from the (IMF), International Monetary Fund, that the U.S. national debt could spell trouble for the world's economies, not just our own. The huge expenses incurred for the ongoing War in Iraq, combined with reducing federal revenues with large tax cuts, has resulted in a near 7 Trillion dollar national debt. Wages are not going up (except for CEO's and politicians) and the economic recovery is still a jobless one recovering only a small portion of the jobs lost since the Recession of 1999-2000 began.

We are in a mess! Powell's admission merely confirms what a great many in the International Community already knew, the U.S. had not made a rational and justified case for going to war with Iraq in stating Hussein had WMD and implying that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil. U.S. credibility under President Bush has been seriously diminished around the world. And if Bush cries 'Wolf" again at the U.N. you can bet they are going to insist on proof, and proof that the proof has not been manufactured by the Bush administration. This is not good. Nor is the 10 to 12 Trillion Dollar national debt that will occur with another 4 years of G.W. Bush in the Whitehouse. Sorry, make that 12 to 14 Trillion; just heard Bush wants to put non-Republicans on the Moon and eventually Mars.

Newspeak and Doublespeak

Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:06:18 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis, Watchblog

Today CEO and President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tom Donohue and Treasury Secretary John Snow addressed the National Chamber of Commerce. C-span aired the program live at 10 AM. I have never seen Orwell's Newspeak and Doublespeak so eloquently spoken in real life. Donohue belabored the threat to the economy and private industry profitability posed by Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He indicated that these programs were developed based on actuarial data is now outdated. Unfortunately for private industry he indicated, people are living much longer and the actuarial data upon which the programs were based is no longer valid. Snow reiterated in his speech that entitlements have simply got to be dealt with.

Now bear in mind, their audience was press, Business owners, and CEO's and they are talking about eliminating these entitlement programs in favor of the American population providing for themselves by hiring some of these businesses and corporations to invest their discretionary income into profitable investment vehicles for the businesses and corporations. This implies that Americans have not been providing for themselves before. So what were all those decades of Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid deductions from our paychecks for? Must have been for Congressional perks and salary increases if not for Americans providing for themselves through these programs, eh? The Doublespeak here is that entitlements are referred to as being getting something for nothing while investing in private industry is getting something for giving something. Those paycheck deductions were payments into a retirement baseline program and premiums paid into a government overseen health insurance program. Donohue's and Snow's problem with entitlements is that private industry is not getting their cut on the investments, and employers under the current system are providing contributions to each employee's Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid deductions as part of the employee's salary package.

The implication here is that businesses and corporations will become far more profitable by eliminating their contributions to employee's "Entitlement" programs. If accomplished however, DO NOT look for a compensatory increase in salary to the employees, nor a minimum wage increase. The goal here is to reduce employee overall pay by eliminating Employer contributions, which will make the companies more competitive in the international market place where wages are lower. The only problem is they wish to increase their profitability by making American employees poorer.

Snow's position is interesting. Snow stated he has no problem with deficits (meaning: deficits resulting from corporate welfare programs or elective war with Iraq and its nation building), BUT he states that "entitlement" programs for individual Americans paid for by American citizens and employees and their employers are a great danger to our economy and corporate profits since they will result in serious deficits.

Snow of course, went on at length about how successful President Bush has been in stimulating the economy that was declining fast under the previous administration. He cited job growth (net loss of more than one and a half million plus jobs to date), and a host of other economic indicators all showing we are on the right track and growing nicely. He even had the temerity to quote CEO confidence, a key lagging indicator as showing economic promise. He must have been referring to a few friends in the audience because MSNBC yesterday discussed how CEO insider trading demonstrates very bearish numbers with sell to buy ratios higher than have been seen in a very long time.

A DLC Founder & CEO Al From put forth a very uninspiring apology for the Democratic Party in the coming elections citing Dean as the frontrunner while current polls show other candidates have a far better chance of beating Bush. He predicted and expects Dean to change his message to appeal to swing voters and centrist Democrats after the nomination. That at least was probably insightful.

Newt Gingrich, I found the least guilty of Newspeak and Doublespeak, and the most credible speaker on most of his topics. While Gingrich offered few answers, he eloquently posed the problems the nation faces in regards to domestic economics in a global economic arena with all of the challenges that that entails. Gingrich also pointed out probably correctly, that Clark stands the best chance of winning against Bush, but only if Bush experiences a large gaff or setback in the minds of centrist voters. Finally, Gingrich spoke well and cogently about both parties having an obligation for the future of the nation to enact real tax reform. However, he did fall into the Newspeak and Doublespeak of privatizing all social programs as somehow beneficial to the American people when the real beneficiaries will be usurers, middlepersons taking a cut on individual investments for managing them and the corporations to whom individual investments will be loaned. Here too, Gingrich like the other Orwellian speakers fail to mention individual investments come with NO GUARANTEE your money will be there when you need it. Investments are subject to market fluctuations and global economic rises and falls. "Entitlements" the Gingrich fails to mention, come with a contractual guarantee backed by the same full faith and credit of the U.S. Government which gives those pieces of paper we call money, value to purchase real goods and services.

Ashcroft Recuses Himself, Partially.

Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:01:38 GMT

by David Remer Political News & Analysis

Announced today, Attorney General Ashcroft is said to be recusing himself from the investigation of the Whitehouse leak of the identity of a CIA operative who happened to be the wife of a much publicized critic of this Administration. However, on MSNBC, a Dept. Of Justice Spokesman said the Justice Department would still remain involved in the investigation though a special prosecutor is now appointed to pursue the investigation. The article states: "the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, will take over the investigation and report to Comey, who is Ashcroft's top deputy." Somehow, this does not appear to be a recusal. The DOJ spokesperson on MSNBC indicated the decision was made to promote the appearance of independent invesitgation and prosecution.

Appearances, must maintain those appearances, despite what is going on behind the scenes. On the other hand, once an independent prosecutor has been appointed, to whom should that investigator/prosecutor report to? Certainly not the Republican controlled Congress, or the President. For obvious legal reasons, they should not report to the Judiciary. So, while Ashcroft's decision fails to impress skeptics such as myself that paritality has been removed and the facts will be ascertained and revealed, I am not sure there is anything better that Ashcroft could have done.

Failed Leadership - Failed Nation

Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:15:39 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

These United States, under the Presidency of George W. Bush, with tremendous assistance of dire and challenging times not of his choosing or making, have taken the first major step down the slippery slope toward the end of a great civilization. As Rome bribed the barbarians, only to whet their greed for more, as ancient Greece with its wealth and democracy fell into complacency, apathy, and political expediency, as the Great British Empire upon which the sun never set lost its great dominion by spreading its power and reach too thin, we Americans are following all of these same paths toward diminishment, failure, and demise as a once great nation.

Most of the problems facing our nation are not of the President's making. Having said that, the solutions to these problems are nowhere to be found in this Administration. The questions require non-traditional answers. The problems require innovative thinking and creative solutions. Most of all, they require a deep and brilliant understanding of history. What we have for leadership in both the Whitehouse and the Congress, are politicians instead of statesmen, tacticians instead of problem solvers, and short sighted parochial viewpoints instead of long term learned and pragmatic policy priorities.

In current events are stories of bribing North Korea and Libya to conform to our will to stand down from their threatening postures. (The Libyan bribe is particularly interesting since, in stead of money and trade, the door is being opened for Libyan conquest beyond its own borders.) The Romans tried bribery, and the more they bribed, the more barbarian leaders came to threaten in order to be bribed. The more short term success Rome experienced with bribes, the further Rome expanded its reach into barbaric lands. Which in turn, led to more threats, more bribes, bigger threats, bigger bribes, and one day Rome could no longer provide an army large enough to maintain its presence throughout the empire. The empire declined into the dark ages. Note however, the decline began with the first bribe, a couple hundred years earlier. The decline began with a failed policy even as the empire was expanding its reach. What appeared to be a solution, proved to be the end of the empire in due course.

And like the great British Empire, the U.S. now has a military presence strung out around the globe. Our military is stretched so thin, that if an adversary were to launch a military attack upon our troops overseas other than in Iraq or Afghanistan, or commit a breach of treaty, the U.S. would have no choice but to withdraw from current engagements and, or, reinstate the draft. Withdrawing from current involvements would be tantamount to failed leadership, foresight and preparedness. It would also support international claims that the U.S. had gone too far in its invasion of Iraq. Reinstating the draft would result in Viet Nam era type demonstrations, and draft dodging, and demoralized troops who have no affinity nor respect for this Administration's policies or leadership.

Like Ancient Greece, the non-voting middle class are far too engrossed in their personal lives and pursuit of wealth, to afford the time to stay up on politics, policies, and the extremely tiresome task of trying to flesh out the truth from all of the political rhetoric, lying, misrepresentation, and mudslinging din. Like the middle class Greeks around 300 B.C., we pay our representatives, soldiers, and police to mind our interests for us. When the call rang out that the invasion was underway, the middle class said, "I paid my taxes, let the Spartans do what they were paid to do". Vastly overwhelmed in number, the Spartans fought and failed. They failed because their calls for assistance from the middle class merchants went unanswered. Our democracy now calls out to the vast middle class to get out and vote in order to save our democracy from what it has become, government of the few, by the few, and for the few. But the call goes unanswered as only half of potential voters respond.

America needs leadership with this kind of education. American needs leadership capable and willing to wrestle these problems with new techniques, ideas, and a pragmatism that leaves no room for idelology or traditional status quo rhetoric standing in the place of viable, workable and reasoned solutions. America needs leadership capable and willing to take on the really big problems whose solutions can only be found in action adhered to for decades. Three and one half billion people in this world live on $1.00 or less per day. The United States population is only 280 million. Want to fight terrorism? Address the needs of those 3.5 billion people who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by suicidal bombing of the seemingly uncaring well to do. At the very least, give them hope for their children's future. Addressing their needs will require decades of committed action to long term plans that are practical, possible, and motivating.

The best this Administration can come up with is war with oil rich nations, new trips to the Moon, more nuclear weapon research and development, space based strategic weapons hanging over the heads of the rest of the world's peoples, huge tax cuts to insure next years election, and huge deficits and national debt to become the inheritance of whomever should be so unlucky as to become president after George W. Bush leaves office. We must do better than this in selecting our leaders if we are going to avoid that irreversible first step toward the decline of our status as the greatest nation on earth.

GOP - Corporate Bedfellows and offspring.

Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:17:31 GMT

by David Remer Political News & Analysis

In a fascinating article of how things get done in Wa. and how Coporations and GOP bedfellows procreate new ways to get the workers to underwrite and subsidize corporate interests, this NY Times article by MARY WILLIAMS WALSH, is a must read.

The gist of it is that as companies consoldate and or go bankrupt and yield their customer base to more successful or larger companies, the company taking up the customer base or buying out a smaller one, has to underwrite the pension plans in existence belonging to the failed or bought out company. United Parcel Service (UPS) is in just this situation where having taken market share and customers from a host of smaller companies (generating immense growth in UPS revenues, by the way), it is lobbying Congressional members to change the law so that in the future, UPS will not have to pick up the pensions, but, rather the tax payers will.

Following is quote from the article:

The company says it remains willing to pay for its own employees' pensions and even for the obligations it has already assumed from other companies. But it wants to make each company solely responsible for its own workers' benefits in the future. If a company defaults, those obligations would then go to the federal government.

So what is wrong with this? Simply the fact that UPS has the revenues and profits from the new customers resulting for smaller companies having gone out of business. If they could afford with a nice profit margin, their own pensioners in the past, surely, with the new customers and increased revenues and profits from those new customers, UPS can surely afford to pick up the pensions of the bought out companies, as well.

So this is pet legislation and sweet deals between the GOP and corporations are born. Very Interesting.... This kind of working class tax subsidy to the wealthy corporations has simply got to stop. Make your voice heard... Write someone about this. I did.

Captured: Good, But So What?

Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:33:47 GMT

by David Remer, Political News & Analysis

I am very glad for the Iraqi people who suffered under Saddam Hussein. I am glad for the American and allied troops who have sacrificed, and their families, that Saddam's capture will give them a brief moment of satisfaction. But, justice applied to the man, and a modicum of revenge satisfied, little else has changed. The power struggle in Iraq will continue to cost American and allied lives. 'Collateral damage', meaning unintended death and maiming of innocent men, women, and children will continue. The draining of billions of tax payer dollars will continue as the occupation in Iraq continues for at least as long as George W. Bush is President, or the President learns the definition of diplomacy abroad. For our troops in Iraq, I am very glad they have something to celebrate, but, it will be a short lived celebration as the fighting continues.

It would appear the capture of Saddam Hussein is of little consequence in the long run with regard to the issues mentioned above. How, by whom, and where Saddam is tried for his crimes, however, is the new controversy facing the U.S. and the world's other nations as we move forward from here. The International Court has no death penalty, only life imprisonment. President Bush and millions of Americans are going to want Saddam's death after proceedings are completed. The Hague is the obvious choice for such a hideous man who has committed horrid crimes against humanity.

But, where will President Bush's administration seek a death penalty, under what jurisdiction, and for what crimes? Now, the issue of whether Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 atrocity becomes important. If the U.S. hasn't the evidence to make that case, and desires to try Hussein in the U.S., what crimes has Hussein committed within U.S. jurisdiction? If it is to be crimes against humanity, can the U.S. set itself up as a single nation capable and willing to use its military and economic might to try foreign persons for crimes committed in foreign lands? This can and will tear deeply at what diminished diplomatic relations the U.S. has with other important nations around the world. Not being very knowledgeable in international law, I can only wonder and hope there are options under NATO to try the dictator the U.S. supported as a lesser of two evils during the Iraq-Iran war and the Iranian hostage crisis so many years ago.

Gore Provides Renewed Hope

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:33:26 GMT

by David Remer - Political News & Analysis

I watched C-span's coverage of Al Gore's announcement of endorsement for former Gov. Howard Dean. As my previous writings indicate, I have held out no hope that President Bush could be unseated. Tonight, however, listening to Howard Dean speak prior to Al Gore's statements, (they were together on the same stage), a tingle went up my spine. I listened to a candidate who can and does connect with listeners, a candidate who will balance social need priorities with conservative fiscal priorities and who will shut the door on the lobbyist bidders who circle through President Bush's revolving door.

With Al Gore's support (and it will be tremendous considering he got more popular vote than Bush in 2000) the prayers of the Bush Administration that Dean be the one to face in November, appear to have been answered. And Bush should be remembering that old wisdom, be careful of what you wish for, you may get it. I now see a campaign by Dean that can, not only draw the core of the Democrat loyalists, but, also appeal to a large number of independents and 3rd party voters. I even see the possibility of Dean drawing Republican votes in November from those who are convinced that fiscal constraint and small government are words which no longer have meaning or even exist in the Bush vocabulary anymore. Dean, a fiscal conservative, has the potential of being viewed by conservative independents and some Republicans as a better choice than Bush on those issues.

In an AP article by Ron Fournier

Gore, who captured the popular vote but lost the electoral count to George W. Bush, said Dean's stance against the war, above all else, swayed him.

"I realized it's only one of the issues, but my friends, this nation has never in our two centuries and more made a worse foreign policy mistake," Gore told several hundred people at a downtown convention center.

As the American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan mount, and the national debt breaks 7 Trillion dollars damning the earnings future of the next generation due to 40% tax rates needed to pay the interest and draw down the debt, Dean's appeal could grow across the political spectrum. Though Green Party members are rejoicing over the prospect of defeating a Democratic candidate for mayor of San Francisco, the disdain the Greens hold for the current administration will assure the bulk of their 3rd Party votes will go to Dean in 2004 regardless of whom the Green Party selects as Presidential candidate. The same may be true of a good number of Libertarian voters via protest votes. Until now many pundits have said Bush's incumbency would guarantee his reelection provided the economy is in healing mode. This kind of unwritten coalition vote of 3rd party, independent, Democrat and some Republican voters opposed to the record of the Bush Administration focused on the liberal social and conservative fiscal stances of Howard Dean, could indeed change that foregone conclusion.

I have little doubt that Bush campaign workers are going to wish they had time and a half for the hours they are going to have to put in now, to figure out how to stop the Dean Train headed straight for the Whitehouse.

Economic perspective.

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:31:54 GMT

by David Remer Political News & Analysis

In a NY Times article entitled Employers Balk at New Hiring, Despite Growth By Louis Uchitelle it is reported that the work force grew by only 57,000 jobs last month, only a third of what most forecasters had projected.

Folks, a little perspective is needed here. More than 3 million jobs have been lost since the last presidential election. If last month we had created 500,000 jobs, we would have a reason to celebrate, because that would represent 1/6 of the jobs lost, being recreated. But, the fact is only 57,000 jobs were created. At this rate it will take over 4 years to recover all the jobs lost in the last two years.

The jobs lost were mostly full-time jobs with benefits. The new jobs being created are largely part-time, temporary, and full-time near minimum wage with no benefits. It is a mistake to believe the President as he touts the economic recovery while raising $1,000,000 in an hour at a speaking event. Yes, the economy is improving for the President and his corporate buddies. But, for those of us who work in the middle or lower class, it is actually getting worse with each passing month that this President remains in office.

Nader testing the waters.

Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:40:22 GMT

Ralph Nader has thrown his influence behind Dennis Kucinich to date. In a CBS News article it is reported that Nader is testing the campaign contribution waters in consideration of a possible run for the Presidency in 2004. Ralph Nader was seen as a spoiler representing the Green Party in the 2000 elections by Democrats. Others have argued that Ralph Nader merely represented the disenchantment of Democratic voters who may not have voted at all if Nader had not run.

Ralph Nader has been a watchdog on the corruption of government by corporate and special interests for decades. A strong environmental defender, he has developed a loyal following with his political bids for office. The CBS article also states

Nader has sent letters to Republican and Democratic party leaders urging more of a focus on issues such as universal health insurance and corporate fraud. Amato said Nader is still waiting to hear back from party officials.

There is a Nader web site under development now which will debut soon, www.naderexplore04.org.

Being an independent with a liberal lean with identification with Green Party values, I have been a long time supporter of Ralph Nader. He does have all the charisma of bespectacled sub-atomic particle physicist, but, his anlysis, legal expertise, and values regarding government have always made a great deal of sense to me. As a candidate for President, there is no hope of his winning. But, as a candidate for President, he has, and will elevate voter's awareness of the issues he represents.

The President's No-Win Boxes

Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:58:21 GMT

by David Remer - Political News & Analysis

The President has boxed himself into some no-win boxes. He can spin and stutter until doomsday but, the pork filled Medicare Bill and the steel tariffs, are boxes with no way out while saving face.

Senator John McCain and many other conservative Republicans who believe in the 2000 Republican's platform calling for fiscal restraint and downsizing government are beginning to become quite vocal. Many are now calling for President Bush to veto the pork spending in the Medicare bill, and the comprehensive prescription coverage they believe should be provided only to the needy. Bush promised a prescription drug plan, and he lobbied heavily in Congress to get it passed. Now that he has it coming to his desk for signing, he is losing the respect and confidence of conservative Republicans who see their President growing the national deficit, debt and government in unprecedented ways. He is also giving Democrats, who were initially shocked that their Medicare baby had been coopted by the President and Republicans, the ammunition they will need to attack the big spending, budget busting, deficit hog that the Republican party is becoming with Bush as it's head.

The steel tariffs imposed by President Bush early in 2002 for political gain, are now hurting the President's numbers in a handful of important swing states whose workers are seeing job losses as the companies they work for are losing profits and laying off due to higher steel prices which the tariffs created. We know the tariffs which would obviously backfire on the U.S. was a political ploy as evidenced by the President's actions afterward. It is expected the Whitehouse will announce removing the steel tariffs this coming week, in response to political pressure coming from both domestic and international concerns, again for political gain. Except, now he cannot have it both ways. The policy which threatened the American economy with international tariffs placed on American exports was either the wrong policy in the first place, or it is wrong to lift them now, since, the American steel industry is little better off than it was before.

Like other policies like No Child Left Behind without the funding to enable it, a swift war in Iraq, that now appears to have a future of American involvement without end, this President's actions and decisions are now being scrutinized, and the polls are showing the results with as many Americans now stating they will not vote for the President as those who will. Wouldn't it be an amazing thing if Bush's 200 + million dollar reelection war chest fails to buy another 4 years showing that America's government cannot be bought and sold to the person with the deepest pockets?

Bush to Baghdad: The Patina hides little.

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:37 GMT

by David R. Remer Political News & Analysis

The President's surprise visit, (no doubt for security reasons), had all of the patina of McArthur's filmed return to the Phillipines, or Nixon's trip to China. But, this effort to display his role as Commander In Chief, friend of American troops, hides none of the political reason for the war, the poltiical reason for the photo-op, or the political reason for pushing headlines about American miltary deaths off the front pages.

Nor will it do much to hide the oncoming wave of criticism and disbelief as American's learn of the administration's review of calling up the draft of American youth to fight Bush's wars. America's war is with the terrorists and their supporters who attacked our land and people. Half the people in this land don't want this war in Iraq to continue taking American lives. Yet, on the floor of Congress, discussion and warnings of reinstating conscription to fight Bush's wars as well as America's war can be heard. The last time I saw the draft conscript American youth into a war they did not agree with, I saw our nation torn apart with images of a police state shooting and killing unarmed students protesting the war on a college campus.

Friendly visit to the troops for a much needed bolster of morale or a politcal stunt like that photo-op on an aircraft carrier all but declaring victory. You decide.

And where is that victory, anyway, that is supposed to mark the end of our military losses?

Extremes to Demise

Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:42:32 GMT

In response to Dustin Frelich's excellently crafted article on WatchBlog, entitled Conservatives Debate Medicare, I reply in the following way. I understand the philosophy behind those Republicans who believe that social programs are bad for America. It is a philosophy born out of a gross misunderstanding and confusion about the bi-polar extremes of free enterprise fostered by Milton Friedman followers, and socialism as implemented under communist and authoritarian regimes. They fail to recognize that social programs saved this nation after the most horrible of depressions in the 1930's and an extremely costly WWII which would have bankrupt this nation had it not been for the social programs that trained workers and put them to work on public works, and insured those who did work, a modicum of financial dignity upon retirement.

They fail to recognize that social programs do in fact, work today in countries that are democratic and provide benefits America cannot provide its citizens. This is not to say that social programs don't come without opportunity costs. But free enterprise is not without its costs in greed, class segregation, and tiering of society. Free enterprise costs Americans billions each year in fraud, corruption, tax evasion, and a black market that is second to none in the world. There is no freer enterprise than the black market. It makes and enforces its own rules, pays no taxes, defeats all attempts to regulate it and gives very little benefit back to society. That is free enterprise in its purest form.

France has less than a 40 hour work week, and all citizens are assured of basic health and education and training services. Canada has a health care system that recognizes the immorality of being a wealthy nation and leaving 40 plus million of its citizens without health care, experiencing pain and suffering and shorter lives all because they can't afford the free enterprise health care. Granted, Canada will never be a major exporter of medical and pharmaceutical technology, and non emergencies wait months for an appointment, but that is the trade off. It does work and provides benefits America does not.

But, what frustrates me is the short-sightedness of both party's extremes. The ultra-liberals, who believe more or less, that in a wealthy nation all citizens should be relatively wealthy, would sacrifice America’s economic engine driven by capital markets and investments and corporate growth, research and development.

The ultra conservatives on the other hand, would take us back to the 19th century when captains of industry and inherited wealth felt and acted as if they alone were entitled to make the laws that supported them and workers were little more than a natural resource to be consumed, depleted, and replaced at the lowest cost possible. They relied on the eleemosynary system to assist those who were infirm, disabled, too young or too old, or too uneducated to be employed as a cog in the machine. And during those times, free enterprise and the eleemosynary system, relating to charity or giving alms; dependent on charity utterly failed millions and millions of Americans resulting in premature deaths, horrible suffering and abuse in charitable institutions, and total abandonment by society of millions of persons due to there simply not being enough charity dollars to go around.

America has been a blend of socialism and free enterprise, a mixed economy, since FDR and this balancing act between free enterprise and social programs like public education, social security, government supported and union fought for employer paid health insurance and retirement plans, Medicare and Medicaid were a part of making America the most powerful economic, military, and international force in the world, in addition to becoming the envy of 100’s of millions throughout the world.

Ultra-conservatives would take us back to the 19th Century, and ultra Liberals would take down our ability to assist other nations financially, to lead the world in information and medical technology through a redistribution of wealth that would choke investments the size of which are necessary to remain a leading nation and force in the world for good.

In my opinion, the Republican party has gone considerably too far to the right to maintain America's 20th century heritage of growing living standards for all, and aging with dignity, and dramatically reducing suffering as a result of poverty and ending sub-subsistence level wages and benefits for an honest days work.

The Democrats at least are not working to end free enterprise or cripple America's economic leadership. But the Republicans appear hell bent on eliminating the concept of a wealthy nation sharing enough of its wealth through taxation and social programs to insure all of its citizens a fruitful, and relatively anxiety and stress free quality of life. A life for parents and care givers that grants them the ability to pass on the assurance of a quality of life to their children unrivaled in the rest of the world should be a goal for the wealthiest nation in the world.

In a free democracy, persons are free to ruin their lives. But in a free wealthy democracy, all citizens who work 40 hours a week provide the very stuff that makes our economic system great. Where would IBM or Microsoft or Chase Manhattan be without janitors, without clerks, security guards and on and on? They would be knee deep in disorganization that's where.

A janitor should be entitled to a decent wage that provides home ownership, a reliable vehicle, health insurance, a retirement plan, and the ability to save for his/her children's educational choices and assistance in getting their start in life as productive adults. For without that janitor, our nation would collapse. Without that clerk, that secretary, that server at Luby's, that maid at the hotel, free enterprise would grind to a halt in a heck of a hurry.

The white collar manager should make more than a janitor because the manager made a greater investment in either education or career experience, or simply was born with talents in more limited supply. But the laborer’s work is as valuable to this nation as any white collar manager's and they should be entitled to a share of the nation's wealth that provides a life with dignity and hope, not struggle, frustration and despair. Without the laborer, there would be no great nation, just as without managers, there would be no great nation. Those whose work is indispensable to our economic system should earn a middle class wage and benefits, and if employers cannot bear the full load, some wealth distribution through a progressive tax system or at least a flat rate tax system is justified by history, economic practice of the past, rational and ethical grounds.

Nothing even close to this kind of thinking or debate is taking place in the Republican led Congress and it is clear from the President’s actions, that no such thoughts are contained in policies he is promoting. Much of the President’s rhetoric at election time and today are aimed at selling himself as some champion of quality of life for all Americans, but, his programs and policies and executive orders reflect nothing of the kind. I fear for America’s future if centrists are unable to take the helm of this great government of ours in November of 2004, be they Republican, Democrat, Green or otherwise.

The Energy Bill Fiasco

Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:21:54 GMT

by David Remer Political News & Analysis 11/19/03

Sen. Pete Domenici (R) of New Mexico, the chief spokesperson for the current Energy Bill which has come out of conference committee before the Senate for ratification states again and again that if we don't pass this bill now, there will be no energy bill for as many as 10 years. He propounded a list of energy companies that went on and on that would benefit from the bill.

Sen. John McCain and a host of Democrats have flat out stated this bill hurts the American public. It will bloat the deficit without generating jobs in return. It will not address the contract manipulations enacted by Enron, and in fact, permits them to continue. The Energy bill will not enhance energy security, it destroys many environmental protections and gives billions of tax payer dollars to energy companies and corn farmers and does nothing to lower the cost of energy for the American public. And most egregious is the fact that fuel producers have knowingly produced MTBE, a chemical known to cause cancer among a host of other maladies and has now been surveyed to have poisoned ten's of thousands Americans. Leaking fuel tanks send the MTBE chemical into the ground and surface water drinking water sources. The Bill will provide safe harbor to those energy companies insuring they cannot be sued for illnesses incurred from the MTBE's nor for any clean up of water sources that have been contaminated and which in turn are destroying property values for whole communities.

Finally, and in the long run, the most devastating consequence of this Energy Bill is the fact that it provides no focused, concerted, concrete, coordinated plan to enhance, insure, and secure American energy nor does it go anywhere in the future to reduce America's dependency upon foreign oil.

This bill began with the proposal that the President wanted an energy bill passed this year. The only way that was going to happen was to stuff the bill with pork for energy lobbyists, grant non-energy pork to key congressman whose votes would be needed, and at all costs, keep the details of the bill from public and congressional view by Democrats and even Republicans who would likely delay the progress of the passing the bill out of conference with objections designed to represent the what would be best for the American people. The bill contains some very good components like ethanol production. But, they are so outweighed in cost and benefit by the negatives in this bill, that newspaper editorials across the country are stating America will be better off without an energy plan than it will be to adopt this one.

I have watched this bill debated in the Senate for hours now, and it is obvious that the system that is supposed to lead America to greatness, the system that is supposed to protect the American public, the system that is supposed to design programs for the benefit of the economy, the voters, the environment is completely broken. This bill demonstrates that the only factor guiding legislation today is greed by lobbyist business interests and power hungry Congresspersons who place election contributions above the needs and interests of the American people and their country.

Finally, America is poised to become a world leader in cheap, renewable, and environmentally friendly fuel technology. But, that opportunity is squandered by this bill by granting the billions and billions of dollars that should be put into the development of that technology to create jobs and make the U.S. the main exporter of this technology, into subsidization of already profitable corporate farmers and energy companies and even new nuclear power plants to generate ever more radioactive waste that we already can't afford to store or dispose of. If this bill passes in the Senate, it will be a sad day in history indeed, only outweighed by 9/11.

Medicare: A shell game.

Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:57:31 GMT

by David Remer Political News & Analysis

Amy Goldstein and Helen Dewar, Washington Post writers, entitled their article, Republican Medicare Plan Faces Challenges. It might have been more appropriately entitled, The Great Congressional Shell Game. When the GOP and the Whitehouse announced they were selling the plan before the 1100+ page document is even completed and before more than just a handful of Congresspersons even know what it contains, I knew it was time for alarm.

Some of the writing is on the wall. With all the good deregulation that brought us Enron, the ExxonMobil suits, the 401K money market illegal thefts of investors funds, and higher utility costs, the new Medicare Bill will turn a corner of good will and regulate where patients can get their care, underpay millions of citizens through recipient paid membership cards, annual deductibles which increase over time, increase pay for doctors and hospitals and do nothing to lower the costs of prescription drugs. There has to be some good things about the Bill, right?

Maybe! One of the proposals appears to be good on its face, but, in fact, may turn out to be little more than a ruse to help sell the Bill. One of the proposals is to permit recipients to purchase medications from Canada at lower costs. Sounds good. But, while the Bill may allow for it, it could begin only with the permission of federal health officials who have openly opposed the idea. This may be a case of what the one hand giveth, the other taketh away.

Sen. Tom Daschle (D) states, "It keeps drug prices high, causes 2 to 3 million retirees to lose drug coverage and coerces seniors into HMOs." Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R) (Maine), said, "I remain deeply concerned about the specific impact this 'agreement in principle' will have in the real world for millions of Americans who count on Medicare for their health coverage, in particular the untested premium support plan,". Snowe refers to the Bill's proposal to invite private plans to compete directly with Medicare in the future which could lead to a complete privatization of Medicare. The AARP's leaders have indicated favor with some of the proposals but refuse to endorse it until they have a written copy of the Bill for review.

A prescription drug benefit was largely pushed for by Democrats who would now be politically vulnerable to opposing the bill no matter how much of it they disagree with. Some Republicans can comfortably view this Bill as a first installment on the complete privatization of medical care in America leaving quality care for those who can afford it (have earned it) and charitable assistance for the rest of Americans who can't afford health insurance (didn't earn it). In the final analysis, senior citizens are going to get an overhauled Medicare program fashioned in an election year which may do more harm than good and promise a lot now, but, give very little for the participant's dollar later on.

While socialized medicine simply would not fit the American societal model, a single payer plan through the federal government is where America has to end up. It would be so much less expensive to establish today, than it will be a decade or two from now. But, visionaries seem to be a bit scarce in these days of fear and deficits on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Zell Miller (D) endorses Bush for 2004.

Thu, 30 Oct 2003 22:49:09 GMT

by David Remer - Political News & Analysis

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.