Democrats may be in a curious position in all of this which lends them something of an advantage which
Republicans cannot have. It is a posture not unlike that, perhaps ironically, of the South in the Civil War.
They are faced with having to hold onto their position, while Republicans must 'take' it. 

There were some ancillary matters which appeared in the context of the 1998 elections which need to be
addressed, as well. Primary among these is the continuation of a regular tradition of election irregularities
which reared their heads once again in 1998. Especially in large urban areas, which also happen to have
large black populations, each election that comes along seems to be stricken with voting or counting 'snafus'
which actually should leave the tallies that come out of them in suspicion. These areas have records of 
almost one-sided Democrat voting and also are under the thumb of Democrat political machines. Every
election there are 'problems' with getting the vote counted, and large lapses of time occur between the time
the polls close and the vote results appear. It is a situation that is clear for the potential for abuse.

This happened in Detroit as it does with every election -- literally. But that is not the only place it occured.
From New York City to Jefferson County in Kentucky, and even in scattered Congressional districts from
California east. It lends the suspicion, if not the appearance, of impropriety, particularly when it helps create
electoral 'surprises.' It casts a dark shadow across the electoral process, which is the seedbed of republican
government. 

Watching the election results unfold on the night of November 3 this year, a  curious thing happened
in Michigan. In the 9th Congressional District long represented by Democrat Dale Kildee, there at first
seemed to be a strong showing by a third party candidate of the Libertarian Party named Konrad
Johnson. Postings of vote tallies on the internet showed him with over 5000 votes at 2 am. That was 
15 % of the vote at that point (Kildee had 48 % and the Republican challenger named McMillan had 37 %).
Suddenly, however, there was a substantive shift in the vote tallies, and by 3 am, Kildee's share had 
climbed to 56 % and McMillan's to 42 %, while Johnson suddenly had only 4002 votes  for 2 % of the 
total. As the morning progressed, the totals for both the Democrat and Republican candidates climbed
slowly although their shares of the vote remained quite constant. And yet, having already won now 4002
votes in the counting, Johnson's total never changed at all. He ended up with the same total of 4002 votes.

The night before the election, on Monday November 2, the ABC website showed the 'results' of the election
that was going to take  place the next day. An explanation was entered that this was a test showing what was
apparently polling data, to make sure, as it were, that all systems were go. ABC was also being hit with a
strike at the time. The explanation is plausible, except that the results posted the night before the election
bear striking similarity across the board to the final vote the next day! Rarely have  polling data been so 
accurate in their detail. It is a situation that bears both watching and investigation. But then, who exactly
would do such an investigation? The FEC or the Reno Justice Department? That would be like letting the
wolf watch the sheep. Congress cannot do it because they would be subjected to a barrage of attacks
from the left in mainstream media for even investigating it, let alone if they reported improprieties.

Exit polling and pre-election surveys offer some other reasons to wonder about both the results of many
contests and about the interpretation being rendered about them in the media. While most voters did not
indicate any connection between Clinton's travails and their vote, a great number -- a substantive minority --
did express a desire that Clinton should resign or be impeached. There was also a widespread assertion that
morality and public values had a lot to do with voting decisions. Somehow, that is not what we are being
told the results of the election indicate.

If Bush wins the GOP nomination for the 2000 race -- actually many of the other leading contenders could
also benefit -- Republicans might do well to coordinate a strategy for their campaign modeled on the Contract
with America. Perhaps they could formulate a promise of a Covenant with the People, to include a sundry list
of items they would do, which the American people clearly support, and which could unite the party, and do
so around ideologically consistent terms.

Such a covenant promise could include such things as:

1. to seek a ban on late term abortions except where the mother's life is threatened.
2. to rebuild our military defenses and push for development of the SDI
3. to make it illegal for labor organizations to use their members' dues for political purposes
	unless they obtain prior express specific permission from those members to do it
4. to 'save' social security through a privatization plan which would allow people to 'invest' their
	own money
5. to refund the social security and other trust funds the liberals have raided for years to finance
	their deficits.
6. to enact a constitutional amendment establishing term limits for federal elected officials
7. to enact a flat tax to be phased in over perhaps a five or ten year period, but which provides
	for an immediate general 15% tax cut, strict curtailment of IRS powers, and which
	includes a negative income tax mechanism to replace welfare altogether. It should,
	however, also protect such current provisions as the home mortgage interest deduction.
8. to cut capital gains taxes in half, with provision for them to be phased out over a five year period
9. to pass a constitutional amendment allowing for a line-item veto for the President
10. to pass a Civil Rights Act of 2001 which prohibits affirmative action discrimination
11. to eliminate the Special Prosecutor law
12. to actually balance the budget by 2002, and to separate
the social security and general federal budgets as they used
to be before the Democrats combined them to disguise the size
of their  programs and the deficit they were causing. 

This 'Covenant' need not be restricted to these items, but it should neither be too extensive, so as to be
managable, clear and concise. These items all enjoy broad-based support in the country. Those aspects
were all part of the beauty and success of the Contract with America. The 'program' should also include
a statement of promises made and kept by the 104th, 105th, and even the 106th Republican Congresses.

It must be acknowledged, however, that the Republican rise to power in 1992 and especially 1994, had to do
with a host of other factors. The nation had been treated to a heavy dose of Congressional corruption with
the House Post Office and Bank scandals, and the Clinton administration had just failed in its attempt to 
nationalize health care by having the government take over 14 % of the economy, while it had succeeded in winning enactment by one vote of the largest and first retroactive tax increase in our history. That certainly motivated a lot of voters toward a cha
e. And in districts across the country, the NRA marshalled its forces in opposition to liberal opponents of the 2nd Amendment. 

The Republican 104th and 105th Congresses have won some major accomplishments along the way, but it is not altogether clear that this is as well understood by the general public as it might be. They have been demonized to no end, as well, and Republican
may have to mount a challenge to an image of 'the Gingrich who stole Christmas' with its record, which includes moving the country far along toward a balanced budget,
enacting captial gains tax cuts, and passing important procedural reforms, to name but a few of its acheivements. 

As for the abuses of power and other illegalities carried out by the current administration, they should 
not be ignored, but practically speaking, probably the only way they are going to be dealt with would be
for the Justice Department of a new administration to vigorously enforce the laws that have been breached,
from Whitewater and Filegate and Chinagate to the matters of perjury and obstruction of justice. There is 
no need to include this in such a covenant. Simply allow a new Attorney General to seek to enforce the law,
and to do so not restricted to the Starr Report vis-a-vis Clinton and Lewinsky. 

Imagine the impact of Republican Congressional and Senatorial candidates meeting with the standard-bearer
to endorse such a program, and a campaign centered on it. Even with another Perot run, which would suffer
from continued diminishing marginal return, the prospects would be inspiring. The fundamental things apply
as time goes by.

Return to beginning of this issue of ejps


Return to beginning of ejps