Mary Mostert
A cliffhanger or a Republican sweep?
By Mary Mostert
According to the polls, President Bush is ahead of Senator Kerry by 2-6 points. In the words of pollster John Zogby, "Let me try to put it this way: It's close! It's close! It's close!"
Following the first debate between Bush and Kerry an Associated Press poll, reported by CNN, among 944 likely voters, showed the Kerry-Edwards ticket led Bush-Cheney 50 percent to 46 percent.
A year ago, in California, in the election which swept Democrat Governor Gray Davis out of office, and Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, I collected some of the poll "predictions" about the Recall. As recently as two days before the election, we were being told in news reports from all over the world that the Schwarzenegger campaign was "deeply troubled by claims he groped women and once praised Hitler."
In August 2003, the Washington Post reported that in the race to replace Gray Davis, that the Democrat Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante led the pack of 135 candidates with 25% of the registered voters, followed by Arnold Schwarzenegger with 22%. Gray Davis had won the 2002 election with 47.4% of the votes or 3,469,025 votes in a field of six candidates. His Republican opposition Bill Simon received 3,105,477 votes.
The week-end before the October 7, 2003 election, the story broke, headlined in the California papers, accusing Schwarzenegger of "gropping" women and a Knight-Ridder poll showed Bustamante with 29% of the vote. Schwarzenegger had 36%, a 7 point spread, before the story broke and Governor Davis grabbed headlines by signing into law a bill he said would "provide health insurance to nearly 1.1 million working Californians who do not currently receive job-based coverage" and that "opposition to Gray Davis was slipping."
At that point, we were told, it was going to be a cliff hanger which could go either direction.
Three days later, Schwarzenegger received 48.5% of the vote, 12.5 points more than even the most optimistic poll had predicted. Republican Tom McClintock received 13.5% of the votes, bringing the total Republican vote for governor in the California recall election to 62%. The leading Democrat in the race, Cruz Bustamante received 31.5% of the votes with the rest of the more than 130 candidates receiving among them the remaining 6.5% of the votes. Schwazenegger's 7 point lead on October 5, 2003 had somehow become a 17 point lead by October 7, 2003.
None of the polls came even remotely close to detecting that kind of support for Schwarzenegger and the Republican Party since there were nearly 15% more registered Democrats than Republicans.
I observed at the time in an article following the election: "This is not good news for the Democrats. This is especially not good news for Democrats who believe they can trash any candidate and defeat him or her. It also suggests that Schwarzenegger has given young voters a reason to go to the polls, which, if it continues, will be REALLY bad news for the Democrats. Young voters are mostly independent voters."
John Zogby reports that "Bush leads with women (Bush 48%- Kerry 47%), juniors 18-29 years old (Bush 55%-Kerry 44%) and seniors (Bush 49% — Kerry 47%)." In other groups, military families, the Bush lead is more dramatic: 57% support Bush. What appeared to have happened in California was a huge turnout of young voters — who voted heavily for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It appears to me that much the same thing is happening in the Presidential election. Certainly in the Presidential race, like the California Recall race, the media favored the Democrats and generally gave wide coverage to Democrat personal attacks on the Republican candidates, with major attacks featured in the last week of the campaign. As in the California race, young voters may vote heavily in the Bush-Kerry Presidential race, which would not be good news for the Democrats. In 2000, some Florida Democratic precincts reported 95% of the voters having voted. Since the rolls had not been purged for several years, a 95% voter turnout indicated probable fraud. A study after the fact revealed that many dead voters voted in Florida in 2000 and in some precincts there were more votes cast than there were registered voters.
If voter fraud is reduced and young people vote in the Presidential election, George W. Bush will not only win but will have fewer Democrats in the Senate to obstruct his appointments and his goals.
Here in Oklahoma, there is national interest in the U.S. Senatorial race between Dr. Tom Coburn, a Republican obstetrician who served 8 years in the House of Representatives and his Democrat opponent Brad Carson. This is an open seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Don Nickles, a Republican. Indian sovereignty is a big issue in Oklahoma and Indian Casinos on Indian territory has become a big business.
Dr. Coburn is married to a registered Cherokee and Brad Carson is a registered Cherokee. Coburn, who is a friend of my doctor son, believes the giveaway programs need to be cut back and Carson believes they should be expanded. So, the "Indian" issue is very heated here. It also is an issue with national implications. Below is a letter I wrote on it for the Muskogee newspaper:
Why are Citizens of Other Sovereign Nations Voting in Oklahoma?
By: Mary Mostert
October, 29, 2004
In today's Phoenix there is a front page story entitled "Indian Vote Could Swing Key Elections;" an article about a suit filed charging the chief of the Cherokee Nation of spending Cherokee nation funds to urge citizens of the Cherokee Nation to vote for Brad Carson, who is a candidate the Senate of the United States of America. There is also a letter to the editor from a tribal member of the Cherokee Nation stating that Indian gaming casinos are "part of the sovereign tribal land" of the Cherokee nation and, therefore, the State of Oklahoma should have no say in what happens in those casinos.
I would say, certainly, that if the Cherokee Nation is, as is claimed, a "sovereign" nation, then the letter writer is correct. We citizens of the United States of America do not have a say in the domestic laws of our other neighbors, i.e. Canada and Mexico.
On the other hand, it is illegal both in our laws and in the US Constitution for members of the sovereign Cherokee nation to be voting in our State and Federal elections. The 14th Amendment still states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
The law also states that those who wish to become citizens of the United States must promise "in the Oath of Allegiance to give up prior allegiances to other countries." Obviously, those citizens of the Cherokee Nation have not done that.
Since the Cherokee nation is another country and since non-Cherokee US citizens cannot vote in its governing body, why are citizens of the Cherokee nation, who are not paying taxes or abiding by Oklahoma gambling law, voting in Oklahoma and US Elections? How can it possibly be that the citizens of other nations, the more than 500 sovereign Indian nations, are voting in contradiction to both the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Laws? And, why are they being counted in the US Census that determines the number of Congressmen and Electoral College members in Tuesday's election?
© Mary Mostert
According to the polls, President Bush is ahead of Senator Kerry by 2-6 points. In the words of pollster John Zogby, "Let me try to put it this way: It's close! It's close! It's close!"
Following the first debate between Bush and Kerry an Associated Press poll, reported by CNN, among 944 likely voters, showed the Kerry-Edwards ticket led Bush-Cheney 50 percent to 46 percent.
A year ago, in California, in the election which swept Democrat Governor Gray Davis out of office, and Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, I collected some of the poll "predictions" about the Recall. As recently as two days before the election, we were being told in news reports from all over the world that the Schwarzenegger campaign was "deeply troubled by claims he groped women and once praised Hitler."
In August 2003, the Washington Post reported that in the race to replace Gray Davis, that the Democrat Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante led the pack of 135 candidates with 25% of the registered voters, followed by Arnold Schwarzenegger with 22%. Gray Davis had won the 2002 election with 47.4% of the votes or 3,469,025 votes in a field of six candidates. His Republican opposition Bill Simon received 3,105,477 votes.
The week-end before the October 7, 2003 election, the story broke, headlined in the California papers, accusing Schwarzenegger of "gropping" women and a Knight-Ridder poll showed Bustamante with 29% of the vote. Schwarzenegger had 36%, a 7 point spread, before the story broke and Governor Davis grabbed headlines by signing into law a bill he said would "provide health insurance to nearly 1.1 million working Californians who do not currently receive job-based coverage" and that "opposition to Gray Davis was slipping."
At that point, we were told, it was going to be a cliff hanger which could go either direction.
Three days later, Schwarzenegger received 48.5% of the vote, 12.5 points more than even the most optimistic poll had predicted. Republican Tom McClintock received 13.5% of the votes, bringing the total Republican vote for governor in the California recall election to 62%. The leading Democrat in the race, Cruz Bustamante received 31.5% of the votes with the rest of the more than 130 candidates receiving among them the remaining 6.5% of the votes. Schwazenegger's 7 point lead on October 5, 2003 had somehow become a 17 point lead by October 7, 2003.
None of the polls came even remotely close to detecting that kind of support for Schwarzenegger and the Republican Party since there were nearly 15% more registered Democrats than Republicans.
I observed at the time in an article following the election: "This is not good news for the Democrats. This is especially not good news for Democrats who believe they can trash any candidate and defeat him or her. It also suggests that Schwarzenegger has given young voters a reason to go to the polls, which, if it continues, will be REALLY bad news for the Democrats. Young voters are mostly independent voters."
John Zogby reports that "Bush leads with women (Bush 48%- Kerry 47%), juniors 18-29 years old (Bush 55%-Kerry 44%) and seniors (Bush 49% — Kerry 47%)." In other groups, military families, the Bush lead is more dramatic: 57% support Bush. What appeared to have happened in California was a huge turnout of young voters — who voted heavily for Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It appears to me that much the same thing is happening in the Presidential election. Certainly in the Presidential race, like the California Recall race, the media favored the Democrats and generally gave wide coverage to Democrat personal attacks on the Republican candidates, with major attacks featured in the last week of the campaign. As in the California race, young voters may vote heavily in the Bush-Kerry Presidential race, which would not be good news for the Democrats. In 2000, some Florida Democratic precincts reported 95% of the voters having voted. Since the rolls had not been purged for several years, a 95% voter turnout indicated probable fraud. A study after the fact revealed that many dead voters voted in Florida in 2000 and in some precincts there were more votes cast than there were registered voters.
If voter fraud is reduced and young people vote in the Presidential election, George W. Bush will not only win but will have fewer Democrats in the Senate to obstruct his appointments and his goals.
Here in Oklahoma, there is national interest in the U.S. Senatorial race between Dr. Tom Coburn, a Republican obstetrician who served 8 years in the House of Representatives and his Democrat opponent Brad Carson. This is an open seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Don Nickles, a Republican. Indian sovereignty is a big issue in Oklahoma and Indian Casinos on Indian territory has become a big business.
Dr. Coburn is married to a registered Cherokee and Brad Carson is a registered Cherokee. Coburn, who is a friend of my doctor son, believes the giveaway programs need to be cut back and Carson believes they should be expanded. So, the "Indian" issue is very heated here. It also is an issue with national implications. Below is a letter I wrote on it for the Muskogee newspaper:
Why are Citizens of Other Sovereign Nations Voting in Oklahoma?
By: Mary Mostert
October, 29, 2004
In today's Phoenix there is a front page story entitled "Indian Vote Could Swing Key Elections;" an article about a suit filed charging the chief of the Cherokee Nation of spending Cherokee nation funds to urge citizens of the Cherokee Nation to vote for Brad Carson, who is a candidate the Senate of the United States of America. There is also a letter to the editor from a tribal member of the Cherokee Nation stating that Indian gaming casinos are "part of the sovereign tribal land" of the Cherokee nation and, therefore, the State of Oklahoma should have no say in what happens in those casinos.
I would say, certainly, that if the Cherokee Nation is, as is claimed, a "sovereign" nation, then the letter writer is correct. We citizens of the United States of America do not have a say in the domestic laws of our other neighbors, i.e. Canada and Mexico.
On the other hand, it is illegal both in our laws and in the US Constitution for members of the sovereign Cherokee nation to be voting in our State and Federal elections. The 14th Amendment still states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
The law also states that those who wish to become citizens of the United States must promise "in the Oath of Allegiance to give up prior allegiances to other countries." Obviously, those citizens of the Cherokee Nation have not done that.
Since the Cherokee nation is another country and since non-Cherokee US citizens cannot vote in its governing body, why are citizens of the Cherokee nation, who are not paying taxes or abiding by Oklahoma gambling law, voting in Oklahoma and US Elections? How can it possibly be that the citizens of other nations, the more than 500 sovereign Indian nations, are voting in contradiction to both the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Laws? And, why are they being counted in the US Census that determines the number of Congressmen and Electoral College members in Tuesday's election?
© Mary Mostert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
