December 2000

I have always tried to be a freethinker. It may require a lot more mental toughness but I have always tried to keep an open mind and examine all sides of an issue. Many times, a clear cut analysis of a situation has not been possible. Many times a step backward was needed before any definite opinion was reached. That process has taken its toil. The task of trying to assimilate the evidence can leave one emotionally drained to a point you almost want to put away all the newsletters, magazines, web sites, etc., and just go fishing. However the academic pursuit goes on and the information mounts more and more.

Many today remain convinced the world is moving in the right direction. The feeling is that if certain objectives are met, the world is headed for a time of peace and prosperity humanity has dreamed about for centuries. Many in Christian circles remain convinced all will turn out okay no matter how long it takes.

The recent election has left many perplexed and confused. Some things are very certain. One is how split this country is concerning direction and objectives. George W. Bush is now the President. How much difference is there between his views and those of Al Gore? Did it really make any difference who won? Was the voter put in a position of choosing between the lesser of two evils? I say yes because Nader and Buchanan never had a chance. In the past two elections, Clinton-Gore won because the conservative vote was split. Ross Perot’s Reform Party won 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996. Both times Clinton-Gore failed to get 50% of the vote.

Many voters were not going to make that mistake again. In the spring that was not clear. Buchanan was consistently around 5 to 8%. Many were convinced that if the Reformed Party gained momentum, it certainly could put Al Gore in the White House. As months rolled by, it became clear the Reformed Party was in turmoil. Many made the decision this was not the way to bring reform to America no matter how many of Pat Buchanan’s ideals seem to be light years ahead of what Gore and Bush were saying. By the time of the election Buchanan was not much of a factor. Many who identified with his beliefs voted for Bush. It is safe to assume that if Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party had not made so many mistakes and continued to gain momentum, Al Gore would be President today.

Buchanan may have been closer to the truth when he said, "We ought to have a broader range of candidates than either the son of a U.S. Senator from St. Alban’s and Harvard, or the son of a President from Andover and Yale. The elite’s have two candidates - iddle America has none."

No matter, that was the choice. In the aftermath of the election, George W. Bush is now the 43^rd President of the United States.The Bush-Cheney team faces the greatest challenge ever. Are they up to the task? How much do we really know about George W.

He will not get a lot of support from the Democrats. They are pointing toward November 2002 and will do everything in their power to control both the House and Senate. If George W. fails - and he may due to circumstances beyond his control - the Democrats will win back the Presidency in 2004. Who would they run? My guess is not Gore but Hillary. Do not laugh and do not fail to underrate her political abilities. She is as sharp, experienced in all political aspects of the game, and is married to one of the best "politicians" the world has ever seen. She recently nogotiated an $8 million deal from Simon & Schuster to write her memoir as the First Lady for eight years. The first lady will only earn $141,000 year as Senator. The Clintons will leave the White House with an estimated $10 million in legal bills and the $1.7 million mortgage on their home in New York.

Her book is scheduled to be published in early 2003. By that time she will be the media darling of the world. The leading magazines will swarm all over her. The media will make her the biggest interview in the world. She will be spotlighted as the wonderful wife, mother and champion for all the "causes"of the world.

By then George W. may wonder what happened. Times will get worse if interest rates soar. Many Republicans could be smeared, and even George W. could be a target. The elites of the world may not save his presidency. You say this is far fetched? I am not so sure. I do not look for a lot of success the first two years. This could lead to bitter defeats for the Republicans in two years. George W. could be faced with so many problems domestically and internationally, he will have no where to go. His approval ratings could be low with the media stacked against him. The Democrats' game plan will continue in reaction to the Supreme Court decision by five Republican appointed justices that ruled to stop the recount in Florida giving W. the White House. If W. has to appoint anyone to the Court in the first two years the battle lines will be clearly drawn. He will be stretched to the max to find any appointee that can get through a divided Senate.

The time could be right in four years for the Democrats to take back the White House. At present, at least twelve Democrats are giving consideration to the possibility of gaining the nomination. Al Gore may make one more attempt. Richard Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, and as stated above Hillary Rodham Clinton, may be the front-runners at this stage of the game.

George Barna’s conclusion that we are facing a moment of decision in this country, is vital in trying to gain an understanding of what President Bush is facing. If Barna is correct with his research and revival or anarchy is looming over this country’s head, it seems to indicate we cannot continue to follow the same path we have been on the past decades. What an awesome responsibility he faces in an unprecedented time in America’s history. Almost one third of those who voted see him as an illegetimate President. He is only the fourth president to have lost the popular vote. He won the electoral college by two votes."The Democrats are promising an Era of Good Feeling-and sharpening their knives in the alleyways of the abattoir". (Newsweek On Air: President Bush, Dec.25 issue, Martha Brandt.)

Brandt goes on to point out that President-elect Bush is facing a scenario similar to what his father faced.

He followed Reagan’s boom and paid for it with the recession in 1990 which resulted in a loss in the polls in 1992. W. is following the Clinton boom, which his father’s budget deal helped to create. In Brandt’s opinion, his proposed sweeping tax cut needs to make sense to Congress and Greenspan. More importantly, it is crucial his economic policy works. To survive Brandt says he will need Bill Clinton’s maneuverability, Ronald Reagan’s sunny solidity, and Harry Truman’s tenacity. ( ibid.)

Ralph Reed says, "George W. Bush assumes the presidency under trying circumstances, facing the challenge of uniting the country under a contentious campaign". He seems to feel optimistic , pointing out that Bush's victory was a remarkable triumph. Reed seems to feel W. has demonstrated the skills needed to lead this nation with continuing peace and prosperity, addressing the issues in such a way that will pull a divided people together insuring success. (AJC 12-17-2000)

That is my prayer. May this nation come together, be committed to spiritual principles and avoid the anarchy that may be inevitable. George W. has a monumental task. Can he do it? Will he be allowed to do it? I don’t think so. The political machine is too similar, no matter which group leads Washington. We are simply on the wrong track.

[ Home | Current Events | Newsletters | Book Reviews | Links | Contact Us ]