November 15, 2002

Fortney Pete Stark
Thirteenth District California
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Stark:

The following is an excerpt from a letter I wrote you in April 2001.

My family, both sides, have been Democrats forever. The Democratic Party supported the little guy and that's just what my family was and still is today. Unfortunately, in the Nineties, the Democratic Party has not been about the little guy in general, but only a certain little guy, that is, the little guy who's a certain race or sex (I'm not talking about what is in the hearts of Democratic Politicians, I'm talking about their actions and what comes out of their mouths on CPAN). I believe this is the wrong approach since America is a very diverse country, if this was Japan, it would be another issue, but it's not, this is America. A diverse America, even more so now, as is clearly pointed out in the 2000 census report.

What should define the little guy is economic status, not race, or sex, or sexual orientation, but simply economics. By allowing the Republican Party the opportunity to pretend that they now are strong supporters of the little guy by stating that they are not just going to give money back to the rich, but they are going to give all Americans back money, the Democratic Party is going to lose even more support, slowly, but surely. If the Democrats would have shown America, in Ross Perot style, that the rich do not pay most of the taxes, in fact the rich utilize most of the tax loopholes, and that they, the Democratic Party supports all the little guys, I personally believe the Democratic Party would be much more supported by the middle-class including the middle-class in the Heart Land of America.

For the past week there has been a lot of news analysis on why the Democratic Party lost big last week (November 5, 2002). Political analysts are saying it was the President's popularity, 9-11, homeland security, the fact that the Democrats have no direction.

The Democrats should have won the 2000 presidential election: everything was going their way in November of 2000. And they should have won by a large enough amount to negate the Florida vote counting issue.

Since the Democrats lost in 2000, they had problems way long before Bush was president, and way long before 9-11. As far as not having any direction, the Republicans have no direction either except to make the wealthy more wealthy. So what's really going on in the Democratic Party?

As I stated in my letter to you in April of 2001, I suggest the problem with the Democratic Party is that they are too focused on a certain race and sex.

Last Thursday (November, 7) on CNN's "Talk back live," Jesse Jackson said the base of the Democratic Party is, "Organized labor, women, and African-Americans [sounds like Jackson's use of the word "rainbow" is misleading]." Jackson also stated, "60% of the workers in Georgia make less than $20,000."

I would ask Mr. Jackson, what about the non-African-American males who make less than $20,000 and who don't belong to a union? Jackson and the Democratic Party could care less about them, right? Wrong, non-African-American males who don't belong to a union are very important, they are a large part of the population, like it or not.

The Democratic Party needs to quit being so race and sex oriented, that is, care about the little guy, the guy with no representation in D.C., regardless of the person's race or sex.

Hopefully, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will be true to her word and go even more left, and concentrate even more on minority and women's issues, alienating the non-African-American males even more. That way the Democratic Party will surely lose even more support. And maybe that will be a good thing. That way a new party could emerge (yes, that has happened in America). One that represented middle-class America regardless of sex or race. One that stood for middle-class values and issues: honesty; a strong economy with fiscal responsibility and a solvent Social Security system (no not a Social Security trust fund that simply holds government bonds, that is, the government owes itself, but a real solvent Social Security system, something that neither the Democrats or Republicans are actively trying to pursue); freedom; love for the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd amendment and religious freedom; a quality public school system; affordable and available health care for all U.S. citizens; respect for nature and the environment; foreign policy that protects America as well as accepting those who have different political systems; and finally, support for those in the low income bracket who deserve help, unlike the Democrats who simply help everyone below a certain income level, including help for the lazy and those who don't want to do their homework.

If the Democratic Party wants to lose more constituents on the way to the 2004 election they should go even more left and exclude the non-African-American, non-union males even more when they talk on the floor of the U.S. Congress. With Nancy Pelosi at the helm, they should easily reach that goal.

I do have one question on the subject of corporate corruption. The following was from CBS.MarketWatch.com: Gateway shares hit by SEC probe By Leticia Williams, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 4:35 PM ET Nov. 15, 2002

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Shares of Gateway slid 15 percent Friday after the company reported that it has been under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission since December 2000.

The California-based computer maker (GTW) said the investigation is primarily focused on its fiscal 2000 operations and will likely conclude in the current quarter or first quarter of 2003.

The SEC began its investigation in December 2000, according to Gateway.

"The company is fully cooperating with the SEC in connection with this investigation," the company stated.

"We are somewhat perplexed by Gateway's decision to wait to disclose the investigation for nearly two years, given potentially material implications of SEC investigations," Banc of America analyst Joel Wagonfeld said in a note to clients.

Respectfully,