Shut Up And Listen Special--Decision 2002

So Jon Stewart tells me that there are some elections coming up in the US. The entire House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate and a bunch Governors are all up for re-election. Now, apparently these elections are very important as both the House of Reps and the Senate are very close in which party has the majority of seats, and this election could decide if Bush will have much say in what goes down for the last two years of his “term”. So I thought I’d do a little pre-election hype or whatever in an effort to influence votes on a massive scale. Or for entertainment reasons. Or just because I’ve got space to fill.
	Not only will I be providing my thoughts/commentary, but also a couple of my friends (only one will appear here, the other will be a post-election column in this week‘s regular Shut Up And Listen) will also be providing their thoughts. First up are my thoughts.

A Canadian Commie’s Opinions On The Dumb US Mid-Term Elections
I pity the Americans, I really do. Well, not the right-wing ones. See, they’re going to win either way.
	I look at the state of the political situation and I just shake my head. This election, Americans have a choice between extreme right-wing fanatics and wimpy semi-right-wing pussies. We have on one hand, the Republicans, who are shitting on the economy and want to bomb the fuck out of anyone who looks at the US wrong. And on the . . . same hand, we have the Democrats who, except for a select few vocal members, will just go along with what the Republicans do because Bush is president. 
	But despite that, I’m telling people to vote Democrats because, sadly, they are the lesser of two evils (notice how every time there’s an election, you hear that phrase A LOT). They may be wimpy, but they can sometimes be pushed into doing the right thing. Sometimes. But that’s better than the Republicans, sadly. Although to be fair, there are a few Republicans and Democrats who are willing to take a stand against Bush because they realised what’s really going on, and aren’t buying into his bullshit (notice that the ones who are against going to war against Iraq are the actual veterans of Vietnam).
	So to write this little piece, I had to do some research into what’s going on and found that there are only four elections of note, in my mind. These are obviously the ones that most people are focussing on, but I guess that’s why they’re the only ones I actually give a fuck about. These are the ones that I, and others, see as the symbolic ones. Either party could win the other races, but with these four, it’s all about the messages.

Race #1: The Florida 13th District House Race
Candidates
--Patrick J. Feheley (D)
--Wayne Genthner (Write-In)
--Katherine Harris (R)
Republican Rep. Dan Miller is retiring and leaving this seat open. Take a look at the GOP (Republican, for those who don’t know--something which I wouldn’t blame you for as no one ever seems to mention that GOP or Good Ol’ Party means Republican) candidate. Recognise the name? You should. Yes, that’s THE Katherine Harris from the 2000 race. The woman who helped the Bushes fuck over Gore in Florida. I would say that this will tell us what Florida really thinks of her and what happened in 2000, but this is a typically Republican district, so the odds of her winning just because she puts an R after her name are good. This is probably the least notable of the notables, but still worth a look.

Race #2: The Minnesota Senate Race
Candidates
--Norm Coleman (Republican)
--Miro Drago Kovatchevich (Constitution Party)
--Jim Moore (Minnesota Independence Party)
--Ray Tricomo (Green)
--Sen. Paul Wellstone (Democrat-Farmer-Labour) replaced by Walter Mondale (Democrat)
We all know what happened here: Sen. Paul Wellstone and his family were killed in a plane crash a short time ago, and he has been replaced by former Vice President Walter Mondale on the ballot. Wellstone was the most vocal opposition of Bush in the Senate, and therefore, winning against him was a big priority to Bush. He even got former St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman to run as the GOP candidate and then did a nice smear job on Wellstone for opposing the war in Iraq. But Wellstone had recovered in the polls and gained back a lot of ground. Then he was killed.
	Now, unlike most people, I don’t give a fuck whether or not Bush had Wellstone killed somehow. It doesn’t matter because if he did, Bush won’t get caught and this will end up being just another conspiracy theorists’ thing that will be mocked years from now.
	What I do care about is Mondale winning just to send a message to Bush. Actually, anyone but Coleman winning will be okay with me. Here’s hoping.

Race #3: The South Dakota Senate Race
Candidates
--Kurt Evans (Libertarian)
--Tim Johnson (D-Incumbent)
--John Thune (R)
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s protégé is high on the list of symbolic targets for the GOP. Defeating Johnson will be a strike against Daschle, one of Bush’s enemies. Thune has a lot of support from Bush and the rest of the Republican Party. This is also a key seat for the Democrats, so not only will a victory be a symbolic victory for Bush, but also a much needed seat in the Senate.

Race #4: The Florida Governor Race
Candidates
--Jeb Bush (R-Incumbent)
--Bill McBride (D)
This is THE race this fall. If there’s one race that you’re going to watch this fall, this is the one. This will be the race that decides what Florida really thinks of 2000. This race will give one side the authority to say “See, we were right, you fuckers!” 
	First off, I must say that the Democrats should be extremely happy that it’s McBride going up against Bush and not Janet Reno, who ran against McBride for the nomination, because Reno would have lost. There are still a lot of people in Florida who remember that whole Gonzalez kid thing and her role in it. The Cuban vote would kill her. Having McBride as their candidate is definitely a big plus right from the get-go.
	 Then we have Bill Clinton and George Bush facing off in the fund-raising circle. This is pretty much the election that SHOULD have happened in 2000. Clinton versus Bush, but in an indirect way. We all know that if Clinton could have ran again, he WOULD have won no problem. Clinton was the man at elections. Bush “won” pretty much because Gore sucks.
	What we have in Florida is the rematch and this is the election that will make or break the spirits of each party. But this will also be the election that will determine how Bush will act these next two years. If his brother wins, he’ll be a boastful moron, but remain essentially the same. If Jeb loses, we may get a more vindictive Bush emerge. If McBride wins, it will be saying that Bush most likely DID lose in 2000 and he will not like that.
	Sadly, it’s a bit of a lose-lose situation, but still the race most worth watching.

Personally, I’m not really all that into these elections. They ARE important, but much of it is stuff that, really, you have to like in the US to know. All the stuff that you know just by growing up there and hearing all the media. The kind of stuff I know about Canadian elections that I never really learned, just picked up along the way. Most of the races in the states, I couldn’t tell you shit about. I don’t know who three-quarters of those people are, but luckily, I do know people who know and their commentaries are below.
	But, in closing, I do want to stress that you should vote and you should vote Democrat, just to keep those war-crazy bastards from fucking up the world more.

USA, Mid-Term 2002: Pre-Election ramblings--wader@optonline.net Wade R. Boaz
It's about political party, which is somewhat confusing, because we generally subscribe to the notion that only the best people will obtain our enabling votes. Somewhere, wherever it is that they slave at these behind-the-scenes jobs which affect our living conditions - imagine some grey, neo-classical buildings, sporting carefully centered domes - these beholden folks will tire effortlessly on our behalf for a given period of time. And for the larger population, we hastily assume. Of course, elected Officials have no incentive to work feverishly, nor on our behalf for much of their guaranteed term . . . but that's a matter of undefined performance standards, or lack of consistent means to fairly report on job accountability.  In the end, we focused on the task at hand, performed an exemplary service at the polls, and patted ourselves on the back for making a reasoned difference which incrementally improves our chances of seeing a better life unfold.  Oh, how we lie to ourselves.
	Some folks drive to the polls with staunch political party affiliation, others as ruggedly independent or anti-establishment, and far too many as confused or frustrated citizens. The latter types comprise that so-called "swing vote" population which we hear about in the media - they generally determine the outcome of close races. However, regardless of how you entered the voting booth, you didn't pull back on that lever without political parties in mind. Hey, you've been besieged with party associations from day one - in every ad, mass mailing, quote, debate, editorial commentator, and even lawn banner colours. Why does this even matter, when it's the *people* you are scrutinizing, and the *people* who get your votes? Well, in the final tally, it turns out that you voted for an image most closely associated with the ability to effectively champion your personal desires in a specific job category. "This person is probably more capable of being a good XYZ". Why? Because we can't measure any candidate in an objective fashion for a particular role they'd like to play - spin is not only legal, but one of our only forms of information on who would best fulfill X position.  The media is of little help in this regard, because they either editorialize or offer facts which don't describe the context of a candidate's public job experience.  So, you must rely on something, and that's most often going to be spin.
	Outside of party hounds and fervently scrupulous Independents, the Swing Vote - that mushy element which Pollsters or Campaign Managers blitz every day up to the polls - will only tend to vote cross- party among different job categories (e.g., Representatives vs. Governor), rather than between state/federal levels for the same type of job (e.g., State legislature and Federal legislature). Therefore, the delicate trick is to convince these non-aligned voters that definable ideologies would be superior for handling particular job categories, in a seemingly unrelated manner for each available position (so as not to appear as mindless party drones). So, the parties have been letting you know what's up with their counterparts - and, they emphatically call out who is associated with the other parties. With us or against us.  "Us" means you, of course.  Be a part of the best side, the capable side for a given position . . . which is usually consistent with a political party, and most noticeable if you aligned all of the political ads within a state-wide region.
	In every national election, US political parties bombard this most crucial electorate - middle class and upper-middle class Swing Voters - with the notion that their support is necessary to ensure future prosperity and security. Candidates echo their major party planks and initiatives. Overwhelming far-right political commentators on private radio and television/cable channels will turn up their no-confidence insinuations and full-frontal assaults on non-Republicans, surfing beyond hackneyed rhetoric into new lows of dehumanizing personal characterizations concerning their enemies du jour. Corporations will meet behind the scenes following massive fundraisers, negotiating for deals based upon their ability to guarantee turnout and quid pro quo financing.  The mass media will report whatever announcements are placed in front of their noses by official channels, allowing more weight to those who most threaten their livelihoods: conservative advertisers. Local races will reveal interesting mixes of tax talk, education improvement spin, bond initiatives and state/federal dollars ceremoniously brought in to revive the local economy - often under the unclaimed banner of party, which doesn't play consciously with voters until we reach Governor or Federal level seats.  It's a thick atmosphere of political party intentions and representation, only made obvious when a figurehead party representative campaigns in support of local candidates - this is done only when desperate times are ahead without coattails, and is a move which can easily backfire. Swing voters don't like to admit that they are swayed by parties, but that their choices are being made based on available evidence. Spin, conservative commentators, stilted mass media. Impact of the former is why political campaigns cost so much money these days - in advertising, exposure which dominates your competition's presence with key demographics is key. So, Swingers vote in a considerate manner, which inevitably aligns with party affiliations, by necessity of what they've seen.  Repeat after me: you are voting with a party, you are voting with a party,  . . .
	In 2002, you get to look back on two years of the Bush Administration, primarily Republican Legislature and Republican-majority Supreme Court, wondering to yourself, "Am I better off than I was two years ago?". This question seems reasonable at first blush, but somewhat limited in helpfulness for this election, perhaps - consider following up with "Why so?". We're in a deepening recession of almost 2 years, which happened to show it's roots through early corporate warnings coinciding with the 2000 Bush Presidential campaign. Coincidence that Coke and others were Republican contributors, and that all benefits in Bush's plan to stave off continued recession go to corporate welfare and the top 2% Wealthy? Mounting unemployment, increasing trade deficits, loss of Social Security surplus, cutting of government-managed education and social welfare initiatives in favour of religious-based alternatives. Did Bush allow US corporations to maintain tax shelters out of the country as payback to campaign backers, or scuttle Head Start for Christian interests? Previously protected forest and park lands are now in the hands of lumber companies under reduced oversight of their land management practices. Cowtowing to wealthy Western benefactors? Environmental laws for clean air, clean water and clean cars have all been repealed. Is the Bush Administration beholden to the Energy Industry (which wrote their two energy bill proposals) and influence by US Auto Manufacturers? Caps on civil damages lawsuits against corporations and repeals of Democratic worker safety regulations. Is Bush simply keeping his friends happy at the expense of fairness and accountability? Horrible terror from people we're assuming are extreme Muslims, possibly led by a billionaire Holy Leader who miraculously escaped capture from two armies in war-torn Afghanistan. Although we pissed off Islamic peoples in the Middle East more times than can be counted, by our bombings and constant military presence meant to protect specific oil interests (and strategic security sources), did strong-arm threats to close a pipeline deal during negotiations with Bin Laden make us even more of a beacon for capitalistic desires in oil-rich, foreign lands? War, unending war by it's very definition, fully stealing resources from the silently stunted "War on Drugs" for a more fashionable, reactionary battle against an opponent characterized in patriotic colours, always referencing that terrible attack on 09/11/01 . . . an Axis of Evil defined among nations which don't deal with each other in any significant manner. Is this a battle with Eurasia, and why is the Bush Administration fighting a bipartisan investigation of 9/11? The Patriot Act and labelling opposing policy views as not only anti-USA, but not allowable as free speech; people incarcerated for the color of their skin, without legal recourse or contact with their families. Are these the roots of fascism? Significant US-owned corporations reveal that the extent of their corruption in the name of hording wealth for their Executives will cost tens of thousands of workers their pensions, with no umbrellas for retirement. Did the Republicans who fought against strict corporate accounting audits during the Clinton years realize their mistake recently, and knowingly rectify such problems that have rocked our local economy and allowed the Energy industry an unfettered rate growth? Paul Wellstone dies, and the Republicans instantly point out legal roadblocks against counting his absentee votes, plus suddenly add spending not before seen to that state while Wellstone was still winning (and alive) in the polls. Is there a conspiracy afoot, regardless of how terrible that sounds, or is this simply the case of attempting to circumvent true votes from being counted? Jeb Bush accused noted civil rights activists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, of canvassing Florida the day before elections to all-white crowds, yet it was not true; his brother George is allowing Republicans to sit at predominantly minority and Democratic pollsites, to "observe" Voters. Are the Republicans trying to play race cards and intimidation in Florida's elections, again?
	The Democrats have voiced opposition and progressive alternatives to all of the above, and compromised (actually, caved in) to political and media pressures which made them appear to hold up progress due to spin - they showed little backbone with only one legislative house in their control by a 1-vote margin. Very different than the Clinton years.  Have they been honourable and practical, or simply weak-spirited?
	Instead of going through regional and state/federal elections in detail, I'd like you to consider the above. Some things you may find go against your understanding of things, but many should hopefully resonate in your centres of reasoning, however uncomfortably they may feel while reading. Consider that this election, like so many before, comes down to parties of people, with notable Independents excepted. Small variations in local issues, but party politics not only survives in this election, it has driven your entire understanding of it - mine, too. I'm voting against the voices which caused what I see as the disastrous effects of the last two years at the Federal level; at my local level, I have two primary types of job functions to consider in terms of where I go - one set of jobs may go to Democrats, the other Republicans. Regardless of which way I eventually vote, I'll pat myself on the back for doing an exemplary job - the only job as defined for me, really.
	For information on interesting races, election processes an implications of party in voting around the country, you might consider:
http://www.moveonpac.org/moveonpac/viewcandidates.phtml
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2152
http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ed110102.shtml
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/preview_2002.htm