| February 18, 2000 There has been an outcry from my readers for an analysis of the 2000 elections. Frankly, I have been extremely uninterested in the primaries and the election so far. However, as a matter of civic duty, I will try and explain to you what is going on. To understand the 2000 election, you need to understand something that is going to sound extremely banal, but really isn't. You need to understand that the 2000 Presidential election is extremely unprecedented. To put it simply, the Republicans and Democrats have completely reversed roles. To put this in historical perspective, let's remember that the Democrats controlled Congress for every term between, I believe, 1954 and 1994 (excluding the Senate from 1980-86). The control was so dominant that there was rarely an election when it was even conceivable that the Republicans could be a majority. Therefore, the Republicans focused their efforts on the Presidency. The focus on the Presidency was a natural fit for the post-WWII Republican party. While the Democrats are the "Mommy" party (compassionate), the Republicans are the "Daddy" party (responsible). While the voters, generally, prefer their Congressman to look after their specific interest (please be compassionate and give me goodies), they want the President to look after the general interest (please be responsible and don't give others goodies). The general interest includes, for instance, foreign policy, in which voters generally prefer their President to be responsible as opposed to compassionate. This differentiation in the mind of the voter is what explains ticket-splitting and why the Republicans held the Presidency for the majority of the time post-WWII (during the Cold War), even though they were barely competitive for the Congress. Because the Republicans had to put all their marbles on the Presidency, there was great institutional pressure to only put the best candidate forward. Therefore, whether intentionally or not, the Republicans insisted that their candidates go through a political test that is, in retrospect, incredible. Beginning in 1952, what did it take to receive the Republican nomination? If you weren't already President (Eisenhower 1956, Nixon 1972, Ford 1976, Reagan 1984, Bush 1992), you had to do one of the folllowing: 1. You had to win a war (Eisenhower 1952). 2. You had to be the Vice-President for eight years (Nixon 1960, Bush 1988). 3. You had to have been Vice President for eight years and already run for President (Nixon 1968). 4. You had to have been the governor of the largest state in the Country, and run three times for the Presidency (Reagan 1980). 5. You had to be a former Vice-Presidential candidate, run three times for the Presidency, and be the leader of the party in the Senate (Dole 1996) The only exception was 1964, when the party nominated Barry Goldwater, and who lost in a debacle. Think about this. Richard Nixon was on the Republican ticket every year from 1952 through 1972, with the exception of 1964. There was a Bush or a Dole on every ticket from 1976 through 1996. In other words, Republicans want their nominees tested. They want their nominees to wait their turn. Comparatively, the Democrats appeared to care less who they nominated. If you weren't already President (Johnson 1964, Carter 1980, Clinton 1996), the nomination was up for grabs to the most ambitious man of the moment: 1. You could be a semi-well known Senator (Stevenson 1952, Kennedy 1960, McGovern 1972) 2. You could be an obscure governor of a small state (Carter 1976, Dukakis 1988, Clinton 1992). 3. In desperation, they might nominate a Vice President (Humphrey 1968, Mondale 1984). The only exception was 1956, when the Democrats renominated Stevenson, who lost big to Eisenhower. After that debacle, the Democrats never nominated a candidate who was previously been a serious candidate and lost. (Compare Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Dole, all who lost before they won, to Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, who lost and never were provided another opportunity). In 2000, there are exactly three Republicans who are qualified for the Republican nomination based upon the historical standard: 1. Colin Powell. (He won a war.) Notwithstanding begging by the entire Republican establishment, he refused to run in 1996 and again in 2000. 2. Jack Kemp. (VP nominee in 1996 and ran for Presidency in 1988) Notwithstanding that he has been the dream candidate for much of the Right since 1980, he has shown little stomach for a Presidential campaign, and especially little stomach to raise the money for a Presidential campaign. In effect, Kemp is THE victim of campaign finance reform. If Steve Forbes could have funded Kemp instead of himself, Kemp would certainly would have run in 1996 and likely would have run in 2000. 3. Dan Quayle (VP 1988-92). Quayle actually did run in 2000, but dropped out last summer. It is UNPRECEDENTED that a candidate with Quayle's resume will not be the Republican nominee in 2000. Further, in the abstract, it is unbelievable, because Quayle is well-liked by every wing and interest group of the Republican party, is the most experienced, and can claim to be the heir of the Reagan message better than any of the candidates. The fact that he will not be the candidate is purely a result of the fact that he is not taken seriously based upon his perceived lack of intellect and boyishness, which is extremely unfortunate for both Quayle himself, as well as the Republican party. Because Powell/Kemp/Quayle are not in the running, the Republicans do not have a traditional standard bearer. The nomination is up for grabs and has turned into a Democratic nominating process -- which means ANYBODY can receive the nomination -- and the Republicans are in a panic specifically for that reason. The crop of Republicans who made it to Iowa and New Hampshire has got to be the lowest level of quality and depth of candidate for either party in recent memory. Just compare: 2000 Democrats Al Gore Bill Bradley Republicans George Bush, Jr. John McCain Steve Forbes Alan Keyes Gary Bauer Orrin Hatch Elizabeth Dole (dropped out before Iowa) Dan Quayle (dropped out before Iowa) John Kasich (dropped out before Iowa) Pat Buchanan (dropped out before Iowa) Lamar Alexander (dropped out before Iowa) to recent history: 1996 Democrats Bill Clinton Republicans Bob Dole Phil Gramm Lamar Alexander Steve Forbes Pat Buchanan Alan Keyes 1992 Democrats Bill Clinton Paul Tsongas Bob Kerrey Tom Harkin Jerry Brown Republicans George Bush Pat Buchanan 1988 Democrats Michael Dukakis Bruce Babbitt Gary Hart Joe Biden Dick Gephardt Jesse Jackson Pat Schroeder Republicans Jack Kemp George Bush Bob Dole Pete Dupont Pat Robertson Alexander Haig 1984 Democrats Walter Mondale Gary Hart Jesse Jackson John Glenn Alan Cranston George McGovern Ernest Hollings Republicans Ronald Reagan 1980 Democrats Jimmy Carter Ted Kennedy Republicans Ronald Reagan George Bush Bob Dole Howard Baker John Connally Phil Crane John Anderson (extra points to anybody who can figure out who I forgot to include) The Republican nomination is down to two -- Bush and McCain. McCain is a typical Democratic nominee -- a semi-well known Senator who has never previously run for President. He is extremely quirky, is not liked by his colleagues, and is running against the Republican establishment, which no successul Republican candidate has ever done (the closest is Reagan in 1976 -- by 1980 he was a unifier; Goldwater in 1964 doesn't count). The chance is NIL that he would have been a serious candidate in any Republican nominating process between 1952 through 1996. Bush, on the other hand, is well-liked and is supported by the Republican establishment. He has very consciously attempted to unify all wings and interests of the Party and to be a Reagan Republican. And, to tell you the truth, he has been very successful -- there is nobody in the Republican party who has a bad thing to say about Bush (as opposed to McCain). So why isn't he running away with the nomination? The answer is simple -- he has not been tested and it isn't his turn. If 2000 was like any previous election, Bush's outcome would have been extremely predictable -- he would be the VP nomineee to President Powell/Kemp/Quayle and would run again in 2004 or 2008, and it would be his turn. Therefore, Bush's problem is that he is too early. This is never a problem with Democrats. Traditionally, if you are a Democrat and run and lose, you are out of the game forever. Not with the Republicans -- they think running and losing is good for your soul. Therefore, Republicans are in a major quandary -- they prefer Bush over McCain ideologically, but Bush's inexperience is grating. TO REPEAT, Bush would not have a problem if he were a Democrat. If his name was Gov. George "Kennedy", this nomination would be wrapped up. On the other hand, the Democrats are running an entirely Republican campaign. Al Gore has a typical Republican resume -- he ran for the Presidency in 1988 and lost, and then was VP for eight years. While Bradley has had its moments, Gore is pulling away. If I didn't know any better, I would say that the Democratic voters think he is tested and it's his turn. Even more bizarro for the Democrats, there is nobody else in the race. Usually, Democratic Presidential campaigns are a magnet for Democratic ambition and ego -- where is Richard Gephardt? George Mitchell? Bob Kerrey? Mario Cuomo? Compare 2000 with 1984 -- Vice President Mondale had an extremely difficult primary, barely beating out a semi-well known Senator named Gary Hart, but also facing heavyweights like Glenn, Hollings and Cranston. Again, if I didn't know any better, I would say that Democratic voters think Gore is tested and it's his turn. Right now, the Republican campaign is just too hard to predict. It is extremely competitive -- two second tier Republican candidates are fighting it out and Republican voters do not know what to do. However, since the Republicans have turned into Democrats, if we look at recent Democratic history, we see a definite pattern that provides guidance: 1992: Governor (Clinton) defeats Senator (Tsongas) 1988: Governor (Dukakis) defeats Senator (Gore) 1984: VP (Mondale) defeats Senator (Hart) 1980: Prez (Carter) defeats Senator (Kennedy) 1976: Governor (Carter) defeats Senator (Jackson) For whatever reason, sitting Senators are not successful candidates. Voters think of Senators as "legislators" and Governors as "executives" and the Presidency is the executive branch. Therefore, when all is said and done, I think Gov. Bush will be the nominee, and thereby extend the Dole/Bush tradition for another election. As for the general election, as each day goes by, I believe we are headed for a Gore victory. The reason is the following. California controls something like 20% of the electoral votes, which means whoever wins California is going to win the election. In the big picture, California is a libertarian, and not a conservative, state. Unlike other Republican strongholds, such as the Midwest and South, the Religious Right has little influence in California politics. For a Republican to win California, he needs to be moderate on the social issues (Wilson compared to Lungren). Bush will be relying on the support of the Religious Right to win the Midwest and South, and will do very well there, but by doing so, it will be easier for Gore to portray Bush as an "extremist" in California. If Gore is successful in doing so, and I assume he will be, Gore will win California and, therefore, the election. I will qualify this to say that Bush has demonstrated the ability to define and defend himself well. He comes across very well and it will not be easy for Gore to break him. (Again, his problem in the Republican race is timing, not skill or ideology). However, Gore is a ruthless campaigner, and the Democrats have the ability to follow a California playbook that permitted Barbara Boxer, an extremely ineffectual and liberal candidate, to turn Matt Fong, a very moderate Republican, into the candidate of the gun lobby who wants to destroy the environment, and that permitted Gray Davis to destroy Dan Lungren, who was a very competent and experienced California politician. If Bush wins California, it will be a major credit to the man and his campaign staff. On the other hand, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, Gore will have a devil of a time portraying McCain as a social extremist in California. McCain is the type of Republican that Californians have historically supported -- a Western maverick. If McCain wins the nomination, he will have a very good shot of winning California and, therefore, the election. Of course, to Republicans, they could care less this time who is President as long as Rudy defeats Hillary. -------------------- AND THE WINNER OF THE CONTEST IS: For those of you who forgot, here was the riddle presented in an earlier Rant: "I am going to describe a real product. The first person to correctly guess the name of the product will be named as the plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit to be filed by me at the earliest opportunity. Here is one hint -- it is not alcohol or alcohol related. 1. Like tobacco, almost all users of the product start when they are kids. 2. Like tobacco, the product goes in and out of fashion. 3. Like tobacco, the product is, in fact, marketed to kids, with the use of animals and cutesy advertisements. 4. Like tobacco, the product is marketed as fun, healthy and will make you more attractive. 5. Like tobacco, there is, I believe, warnings on the product concerning risks involved with the product. 6. Like tobacco, the product is not a necessity and is used in connection with an activity that is purely leisure time. 7. Many people falsely believe that the product is completely safe, which causes people to overuse the product, which makes it unsafe. The makers of the product do nothing to dispel the myth that the product is harmless. 8. Like tobacco, most users regret using the product when they are older because of what it does to the body, even if doesn't kill you. 9. And, most significantly, like tobacco, if used as directed on a regular basis, the users chance to suffer from cancer is dramatically increased." AND THE ANSWER IS: SUNTAN LOTION The first correct answer was jointly provided by Brian England, Ron Burnovski, and Brett Markson. However, they are disqualified because they are attorneys who work at the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. For those of you who do not know, Robins, Kaplan represented the State of Minnesota in the State's totally frivolous extortion scheme against the tobacco industry on a contingency basis. Of course, the scheme was entirely successful, netting the State several billion dollars. As compensation, Robins, Kaplan was awarded more than $445,000,000!!!! (Hope you enjoyed your bonus). The only good news is that Robins, Kaplan has been sued, on the theory that the State legislature never authorized the payments. The plaintiffs' website is ttp://www.saveourconstitution.com/ Interestingly, what Robins, Kaplan is doing was very common in the ancient world and is known as tax farming. Here is a description which can be found at http://taxworld.org/History/tax_farming.htm: "Tax farming is the principle of assigning the responsibility for tax revenue collection to private citizens or groups. Tax farming occurred in Eygpt, Rome, Great Britain, and Greece. The principle was considered very effective for tax revenue collection but suffered from a tendency of the tax-farmers to abuse the taxpayer for collection. Only when the system included checks and balances for the tax-farmer as well as the taxpayer did the system seem truly successful. The publicani of Rome were known as some of the most abusive tax-farmers. Tax farmers bid at auction for the contract rights to collect a particular tax and was held responsible for any loss. In Eygpt taxes for collected very effectively without tax farmers until the Greek Ptolemies set up rule. Under the Ptolemies the tax-farmer watched over the taxpayer and the government tax collector to prevent the scribes from imposing lighter taxes on the poor and unfortunate." Brian, Ron and Brett -- you might be interested to know that a common occurrence when the tax farmers became too "abusive" is that the tax farmers were lynched. I am sure you guys have nothing to worry about. Because Brian, Ron and Brett have been disqualified because of their employer, I will be awarding the prize to Rand Neveloff. Rand, I suggest your contact the guys at Robins, Kaplan and see if they will represent you in the lawsuit against the suntain manufacturers, distributors and retailers. Good luck! DBS |