|
Democratic
Strategy for Upcoming Elections
October 31, 2002
By Bob
Connors
The repugnant Republicans have a few core beliefs figured
out. They accurately identify and placate their base, and
they lie to the rest of us. Why? It is their hope that a small
percentage of the huge majority - who are incidentally getting
shafted thoroughly by the right-wing conservatives - will
vote GOP.
The administration's core supporters are rural, white, male,
southern Republicans without a college diploma. These so called,
“moral majority” people like guns and are predominantly bigoted,
religiously-oriented and warmongers. Doesn't the GOP stand
for all of these things?
The NRA said that they would set up office in the White House
when Bush was selected. Bush's slashing of the budgets for
all of the social welfare programs appeals to every prejudiced
voter. His plan to fund religious charities is a double winner.
It emphasizes religion, and he can even cut legitimate federal
social welfare budgets as he can crow about his faith-based
programs being more effective and therefore needing less of
a financial expenditure. His goofy, preemptive, unilateral
war on Iraq is great for warmongers as well for Bush's oil
interest. His few policies, the huge tax cut for the richest
1%, to the war on terrorism, have one unifying theme - namely
to make his supporters happy, at the expense of the rest of
the country and world.
Then, the hypocritical GOP inner circle plots to gain a few
extra votes whenever they can. Rove follows the example of
Atwater as unprincipled political scavengers. What Hispanic
person can name one policy that the GOP has made that benefits
their community? Yet the experienced, corrupt, GOP players
make a few insincere gestures and they are making progress
in that very important segment of voters. Bush's brethren
in the GOP controlled House has passed many bills that have
stalled in the Senate. These bills have no merit except that
their passage gives the right-wing thugs cover. They are crowing
now that they passed bills, but the Democratically-controlled
Senate is obstructing their good work. Let's use the House's
Prescription Drugs bill as an example. Who does it benefit?
The huge corporations in the Prescription Drugs industry are
the selected few who will make money in this business deal.
Who does it shaft? The poor people who are allegedly supposed
to benefit from the bill are the selected ones to feel the
brunt of this terrible policy!
I remember - before it was explained to him that he had to
be a good team player - Bob Dole said that Senior's War on
Iraq was all about oil. Then Senior mumbled some incoherent
nonsense that the world couldn't allow naked aggression to
stand and the entire GOP, including Dole, toed the party line.
In Junior's War, Bob Armey, for a very short period, disagreed
with Junior. Very rapidly he succumbed to arm-twisting and
even though he is soon retiring, he has converted to the one
accepted position.
What can the good-guy Democrats do?
Can't we emphasize that the Prescription Drugs bill that
we favor, which we can't pass because of Republican opposition,
would help the people it was written to help, not just another
corporation?
Can't we mention that we voted against the Congressional
Iraq resolution even though at the time, Bush was accusing
any Democrat who defied him of being a traitor, and that that
was the right position and the one that the international
community, as well as even Bush, is now moving toward?
Can't we say that now in the U.S. the vast majority of people
are in agreement with our position of not wanting to start
a war without international support, and that the garbled
Bush position is now mirroring the Democratic position?
Would it hurt to say the truth that the Democrats pushed
for a smart, beneficial tax-cut last year? The Democratic
tax-cut was implemented immediately and focused to most income
earners, it helped the economy, and we pushed it through against
opposition from the Bush Administration. The GOP tax-cut has
done nothing useful for the economy. How could it, it won't
be in effect until 2006?
Would it hurt to say that the Administration's Paul O'Neill
has frequently mentioned that Americans should stop considering
Social Security as being what they will retire on?
Can't we say that we tried, in the Clinton Administration,
to tighten up on offshore tax dodges, which would have been
tremendously useful to combat Enron and other corporate scandals?
Can't we mention that California is suing Enron for jacking
up prices and that the Bush Administration, at Ken Lay's bidding,
fired one person and then hired a Lay lackey to help Enron
do this?
Why is it horrible to say that Cheney is obstructing the
GAO from information from his Energy Task Force and that the
GAO is suing the White House in this regard?
Can't we say one thing about the need for another tax-cut
this year to help the economy?
Can't we say one thing about how the Government went from
huge surpluses for the foreseeable future, to huge deficits
for the foreseeable future - and how these projected deficits
are hurting the country?
Can't we mention that engaging in a preemptive, unilateral
war is against the existing international rule?
Can't someone say that SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt's career
started by protecting corporations from being examined by
the very place he is now in charge of? Is it wrong to mention
how often he was forced to recuse himself from investigations
due to conflicts of interests?
Finally, can't someone say that Bush is reducing the SEC
budget while also saying that they are responsible for prosecuting
corporate crime. Logically that means he wants them to cut
down on corporate crime by a lesser proportion that equals
the cut in their budget!
|
