Politics 2000

*Note: I originally posted this article at a now-defunct site just before the 2000 election. I don’t think Ralph Nader will get one percent of the vote nationally this year. Bob Barr would be thrilled with three percent. The 2008 election could be so close any vote for a third-party candidate could tip the balance but I doubt the result will be quite so razor-thin. I’ll post tomorrow about some third-party candidates who were really were spoilers. You probably remember Ross Perot. Maybe even George Wallace but I’ll look for some more. I’m also working on a few interviews on topical issues. I think hearing from different people will be interesting. Variety is good.*

For a year, Democrats proclaimed George W. Bush too stupid to be president. A week before the election—tide turned toward the governor—Democrats claimed that Bush will single-handedly usher in a reactionary period circa 1950. Therefore, they are desperately trying to convince anyone now or had ever been thinking about casting a ballot for Ralph Nader to reconsider.

One question: If Bush is going to bring Armageddon with his Bible when he goes to Washington, doesn’t he have to be smart?

My question is not flip. For six years, the Republicans have held a majority in both houses of Congress. In 1995, the Republicans and President Clinton fought over the upcoming year’s federal budget. Part of the federal government were shut down. Although the case can be made that either Congress or the White House was more responsible for the shutdown, the court of public opinion ruled dramatically against the Republicans.

So I’m clear, are Gore supporters talking about the same Republican Party that saw two House speakers resign under ethics clouds, watched a long-time spokesman quit to run for president under a third-party banner and has seen its Contract with America reduced to a late-night joke? That Republican Party? The one with Dennis Hastert, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond?

As I understand the situation, Nader voters–like me–are supposed to vote for Al Gore because if we don’t, George W. Bush will single-handedly ram through Congress what the Republicans have failed to do on their own. That leaves me with another question: If Bush is as unqualified and unintelligent as Gore voters contend, how can he possibly lead the Reign of Terror that’s been described?

It is true that the Republicans have controlled the House for three consecutive terms, a feat not achieved in more than a half-century. On the other hand, it is also true that the Republicans lost seats in the House in 1998. For the first time in a century, the party not in control of the White House lost seats at a midterm election.

The American public is not with the Republican Party. Conservatives on Capitol Hill are not with the GOP leadership. According to a recent article in Roll Call, conservative Republicans are angry that federal spending has increased dramatically under Republican “new management.”

The fiscal year 2000-01 budget process is in such a shambles that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) sent everyone home last week to campaign and will conduct a lame duck session after the election to finish the necessary appropriations bills.

There remains doubt whether the Democrats will claim a majority in either or both chambers (I think the Democrats will get the House; the Republicans will keep the Senate). There is no question though that the majority will be razor-thin. As Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) put the situation last month, “A majority of 51 or 52 or 54 really doesn’t matter.”

The Senate generally allows unlimited debate on an issue before it. Filibustering–like the climatic scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington–is an occasional occurrence to stop a vote or to extract concessions from the other side. Cloture–a vote to end debate–can be invoked with 60 votes. Neither party will have close to 60 votes.

Filibustering has become more common in recent years. Assuming President Bush nominated “Antonin Thomas” to the Supreme Court, I would expect Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer or Robert Byrd to block the nominations.

Unfair, you say? Ask Jesse Helms, who’s single-handedly derailed hundreds of judicial appointees. At this point, the Republicans are hoping for a Republican president to withdraw Clinton’s standing nominations and appoint judges they will accept.

Fair is fair. Using the same tactic, the Democrats will likely block unsuitable judicial nominees by Bush.

Then again, had Democrats already done that, Scalia (98-0) and Thomas (52-48, 11 Democrats in favor) wouldn’t be on the court today. Earl Warren, one of the most liberal activist justices in U.S. history, was a Republican appointee.

If you want to cast a “Hollywood Squares” vote (I’ll take Al Gore to block), then do so. If you believe in Al Gore, George W. Bush or any other presidential candidate, vote for him. One more question though: If you want the best but take the good because you fear the worst, don’t you think you’ll continue to be offered only a choice between the good and the worst?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS