Reconsidering All Things (RAT)
March 15, 2005
Column by Mike Webb

Screaming Deans, Bankrupt Dreams and The Supremes

You know, there’s nothing like a posting by your publisher asking for political writers and the comments of an astute political friend to motivate a RAT into actually filing some thoughts on politics du jour. Thank you boys – just like the Democrats, RAT needed a kick in the ass.

Thing: Confused Democrats decided to roll the dice and let Governor Doctor Howard Dean lead them back from the wilderness. My buddy Greg Joseph seems to believe that this will be the end of the world for D-crats. Joseph was an early supporter of former Texas Dem leader Molly Beth Malcolm to be the DNC chief and RAT agreed, thinking that any woman who can get something done in Texas can probably get it done across the country. But Molly dropped out and Joseph argues here, “The reason Dean sits poised as DNC chair is that people remember him for his 2004 grassroots organization and fundraising ability...Democrats are going to raise money, it doesn’t matter who DNC chair is. As for his grassroots organization – it didn’t quite step up during what Michael Jordan use to call ‘winning time’... If his low-on-results political skills don’t scare you, then perhaps Dean’s real record in Vermont will. Yes, the Jackass Party is now being lead by a man with a 100% rating from the NRA. Lets take that message ring out in Watts and East St. Louis.”

Reconsideration: Now RAT’s not saying Dean was the best choice, but he’s not the worst choice either, so Joseph is a little off base. Dean had plenty of grassroots supporters pounding the pavement in Iowa because he motivated people to get involved. They didn’t get the job done, but RAT is inclined to think that it wasn’t entirely their fault. Dean didn’t just accidentally raise more money than all the other primary candidates. He did it by being the most vocal anti-Bush candidate in the race. And the subsequent money Kerry raised was from the Anybody But Bush brigades. So believing the money will just appear is a mistake because people’s fear and hatred of W. made them reach in their pockets in 2004. (This AP report shows how the GOP out-raised Dems 3 to 1 so far this year, and how Dean himself has been a particularly good fundraiser as Chair.) Plus, when you consider that the Democrats aren’t in danger of losing to Republicans in Watts or East St. Louis, a leader who’s going to try and be competitive in “red” states isn’t exactly carrying baggage with a pro-gun record. And besides, when was the last time you voted against a candidate because the party leader was NRA friendly?

Dean’s job is to make the party competitive across the US and his relative “star” quality will make him a draw at fundraising events, and his plan to give the party back to its grassroots activists in the states seems sound to RAT.

Financially bankrupt: The most rapacious example of why the Democrats (or a real opposition party) must win back the Senate or House came this past week with the passage of the Bankruptcy Bill. This new law, which essentially punishes poor people for being poor, is a craven example of what happens when corporations (credit companies this time) have too much say in our government.

Morally bankrupt: Nevermind preying on war veterans, people with health-related financial problems, and our most destitute, the really insane part of the Bankruptcy Bill is that the Senate went out of its way to protect CEO’s, trust funders and people with vast sums of money from the creditors. I mean, if you were owed a total of a billion dollars and $25 million was due from 1 million people, and the other $75 million was due from 1000 people, who would you chase down to collect? Obviously not your fellow fat cats.

Right now, RAT thinks this was the most important vote your Congressional rep has cast this year. You should click here to see whether your Senator voted with Joe Citizen or James Corporation. It will tell you much of what you need to know when you vote in 2006.

The Supremes: Before every election, you’ll hear the phrase ‘this is the most important election because the President will appoint new justices to the Supreme Court.’ And it’s true that these lifetime-tenured folks make decisions that can affect everyday life in America. But do we really need to go into freak out mode every time a President appoints a new Supreme?

Minus Diana Ross: Well considering that our current President is such a prick that he’s renominating judges that the Senate has already turned down, it truly is an imperative issue. But RAT has never been comfortable with the ‘most important’ argument because the High Court has never been that easy to characterize. Current Reagan appointees Kennedy and O’Connor have sometimes sided with the left side of the bench (such as on affirmative action and sodomy), and current Democratic appointees... oh wait, there have only been two since President Johnson, so RAT’s taking a pass on finding examples. But this article on Historynet.com shows: that the big change on the Court are the types of people being nominated (longtime jurists instead of political cronies); and their different commitment to ‘judicial activism.’ Time and time again Republican Presidents have appointed Justices that have swung left (such as Eisenhower/Warren and arguably Nixon/Burger) and Democratic appointees who went right (Kennedy/White). From what RAT can sniff out, the US Supreme Court is too much of a strange beast to put into a left-right cage match. However, if Bush would just realize he does not have a mandate to pack the court with hardcore conservatives, he’d make his life much easier (and would dampen the hysteria on the left) by nominating moderates much like his predecessor.

(Mike Webb is a staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine)