Subject: E-Mail to Daschle
I recently discovered Bartcop (yep, through your Salon.com
ad) and have enjoyed it thoroughly.
Those who fail to appreciate the humor are more likely than not cranky right wing partisans.
I'm just glad I've finally found another cranky left wing partisan.
Please continue to pound that mendacious pea-wit we have in the White House.
Below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Senator Daschle. He responded with a personal phone call,
asking for my forgiveness in great weepy gasps. (This is untrue, of course, but wouldn't it be neat if he did?)
It's interesting that Evan Bayh, who represents my current home state of (cringe) Indiana was among
the first dozen Dem senators to come out against Ashcroft. Given the political landscape in Indiana
(home of drooling John Birchers and twitchy Religious Right types), that took a bit of courage.
Of course, he could be just positioning himself for the VP slot in 2004.
Call me cynical.
I wanted to express my great disappointment re: your recent report to Mr. Bush that he needn't fret about the confirmation of
any of his cabinet nominees. It seems the Democratic opposition to Norton & Ashcroft were merely for show.
Some have argued that a president has a right to choose his cabinet. I'm sure I needn't remind you that Mr. Bush lost the
popular vote by a margin three times that in the Kennedy-Nixon race and was awarded Florida's electors only after a baldly
partisan Supreme Court decision which has left most legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike, gape-jawed with disbelief.
A *majority* of Americans either voted for Al Gore and his agenda, or against the Bush agenda. Polls demonstrate
repeatedly that a majority of Americans favor traditionally Democratic positions on abortion, gun control, education, social
security, debt reduction, tax cuts, environmental issues, civil rights, etc. etc. etc.
Given the above, shouldn't the Democrats in Congress be vigorously opposing policies and appointments which conflict with
these values and beliefs? Don't you indeed have a *mandate* to do so? Gale Norton has a track record of consistently siding
with polluters and against environmental groups. John Ashcroft, while he may be a pleasant enough colleague, is an emblem
of hard right extremism. Now you announce that he will be safely ensconced in a post with such broad discretionary powers
as AG? That might help with fundraising, sir, but it's dire impact on the lives of many will be real.
This talk of bipartisanship is a crock. I'm sure you too see that Mr. Bush's mumbled platitudes about "healing" and "coming
together" are empty rhetoric. From all appearances, his definition of bipartisanship is "I present my agenda; Democrats, you
consent." Do you think for a minute that Republicans would be cooing about "working together" if Mr. Gore had taken the
oath of office last Saturday? Of course not. They would be contesting Pres. Gore for every inch of ground and making no
apologies for doing so.
One of Ralph Nader's appeals to progressives during the 2000 election was his contention that there is no real difference
between Democrats and Republicans. He was wrong. Elected Republicans stick to their guns and fight tooth-and-nail for
their agenda. Democrats, in contrast, cave.
It's enough to make even this loyal Democrat consider registering as an independent.