War-Hawk Dems and Disatisfaction with Both Major Parties Opens Door Wide for So Cal Greens

The Bush administration's poll numbers are still abysmal, a majority of Americans now oppose the Republican lead war, and every day it seems that another Congressional incumbent is in trouble with constituents.

And that includes Democrats.

Indeed, voter unhappiness with Democrat incumbents may be the great unnoticed story of this election cycle.

According to a Washington Post / ABC News poll released last week, independent voters are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican in the coming election. No surprise there. But then the Washington-Post story finishes with this sleeper: Independents “appear motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party.”

The Post’s poll analysis notes that “about half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so ' very enthusiastically.' "

This should come as no surprise to election-watchers in southern California.

Locally, long-time Democrat incumbents Jane Harmon, Howard Berman, and Adam Schiff have been strongly criticized as "Bush Democrats" or "War Democrats" and worse, based on their supportive voting records and luke-warm criticisms of the current administration.

Harmon and Schiff each faced a serious Democrat challenger in the primary, based largely upon a lack of opposition to the Iraq war and the President's warrantless wiretapping -- issues which current poll numbers suggest may still resonate with voters and transcend traditional party lines.

The novelty of so many serious Democratic challengers has garnered only modest press, and most of that was in the Winograd/Harmon race. Still, quite a few votes went to the last-minute challengers, and there has been little comment on that fact from the general media. (Schiff’s challenger for example, Democrat activist Bob McClosky, drew nearly 20% of the vote in June after a short campaign.)

In the end, the incumbent advantage was too much for these quick primary campaigns to surmount.

Surprisingly, however, the pro-Bush Democrats remain unrepentant, having done nothing of consequence to address their constituents’ concerns, nor asserted leadership on any of the important issues of the day.

Ordinarily this would still mean easy re-election for Democrats in their “safe” Democrat districts, despite the abandonment of their constituents’ values. But this year dissatisfied voters still have viable options on November 7.

The Green Party is fielding very strong candidates in many races, including two of the three seats held by the incumbents noted. And now that the Democrat challengers have been eliminated in the primary by incumbent money, there will be an awful lot of voters unwilling to vote for the remaining right-wing Democrat incumbent -- and who may well turn to a well-known Green.

Both southern California Democrat challengers have since endorsed Green Party candidates over their own party members, Winograd endorsing Byron DeLear in the 28th Congressional District and McCloskey endorsing Bill Paparian in the 29th.

Local Democrat activist Danny Bakewell Sr. has endorsed Paparian, as has Glendale Republican power broker Bill Holderness. Holderness went so far as to host a fundraising event at his home for the Green.

This points up that it is not just Democrats who are fed up with the Bush administration; more than a few conservatives disdain the illegal conduct of the Bush regime and are embarrassed by the Republican Party's capture by extremist elements.

For a conservative who believes in local control, sees conservation of resources (financial and natural) as a conservative value, and disdains our role as world police, the Green candidate is an acceptable – maybe even preferable -- alternative to a Democrat.

In point of fact, there are more than a few former-Republicans in the Green Party; the Green “Ten-key Values” are a mix of conservative and progressive elements that often surprise people with their sensibility.

DeLear, running in Berman's 28th Congressional district began the campaign for Congress with a burst of energy that has been gathering further speed as the only viable alternative to the long-entrenched Democrat Howard Berman.

Paparian also got off to a fast start, and is the only viable alternative to a pro-war Democrat in Schiff's 29th Congressional district; a former Mayor of Pasadena, Paparian is well known to local voters in the district.

Indeed, the Schiff campaign has signaled that it is now worried that their candidate is not drawing the support he will need to win a fourth term. Recent fund raising mailings by Schiff claimed (falsely) that Paparian had outspent Schiff. (According to the independent Center for Responsive Politics website, Federal Election Commission campaign records show that Paparian has only spent about 3% of the nearly $700,000 spent by Schiff during this election cycle).

The incumbent also “warned” Democrats of a spoiler effect. But as it happens, neither Paparian nor the 28th District’s De Lear is in a position to act as a spoiler.

In each of the last races in those two districts, Republicans pulled so few votes that if the Democrat total did drop below the Republican number, it would be because the Green challengers had won the contest outright.

This is important to note again: Based on the numbers in the last race, there is no way for a spoiler to change the outcome of the race in either the 28th or 29th District, unless they win everything.

So there is no down side to voting for a candidate that actually stands for the values espoused by a voter – values which may be considerably different from both the Republican and Democrat “business as usual” candidates.

At worst, this presents a scenario where Greens could easily pull double-digits in these two races, which would make national news in and of itself.

But a win for Greens is NOT out of the question at all, especially g iven voters moods and the inability of a Green to spoil.

Most importantly, regular voters have begun to realize -- as a recent Paparian Campaign statement noted -- that choosing the lesser of two evils is still a choice for an “evil,” or at least more of the same luke-warm non-opposition to Bush administration policies.

This year, voters have a real choice for a real change. And they just might exercise it.