Winners, Losers, Everything in Between
The Surprising Gainers and Decliners in the Political Market Place
"May you live in interesting times."
More curse than proverb, these are indeed interesting times; So interesting that it took five full weeks and two 5-4 Supreme Court decisions before we could settle the presidential elections.
Regardless of the occupant the highest office in the land, this campaign has produced an astounding shift in the political fortunes of many, many politicos. I refer not to the winners and losers in the races for political offices; Rather, the players the causes and the issues who have seen their power and influence changed dramatically by this election.
Here then are the more significant net gainers and losers of these most interesting times:
THE LOSERS
Al Gore
The Squanderer
Even if he had somehow managed to squeak out an electoral victory, Al Gore ends up the season’s biggest political loser. The presidential race was his to lose, and lose it he did. In a period of inordinate peace and extraordinairy prosperity, it is simply dumbfounding that a few hundred ballots (whether counted or not) determined the election's outcome. Gore's winning the popular vote is more a credit to his campaign's "Get Out the Vote" efforts more than anything else.
Conventional wisdom suggests that it never should have been this close. The sitting Vice-President enjoyed the lowest levels of unemployment in decades, enormous productivity gains, fantastic job and wealth creation. Has any VP ever squandered this much political capital? His frequently changing message, his inability to connect with voters on a personal level, and his frustrating failure to land a punch on his opponent doomed him.
None of the credit, all of the blame: Somehow, the VP somehow managed to share get none of the positives of the Clinton Presidency -- the white hot economy, most of all -- while still shouldering responsibility for the President’s personal peccadilloes. It is unthinkable that the Gore team was incapable of finding some way to take advantage of President Clinton's enormous prowess on the campaign trail.
There are some Democrats -- and "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert --who have been pushing the following theory: "Win or lose, Gore wins." By being "magnanimous and statesman-like, he would then be, in fact, a shadow president -- almost the de facto nominee in 2004," Russert argued in an interview with MSNBC. (http://www.msnbc.com/news/337140.asp). His supporters, chanting "Gore in 4" after his magnanimous but somewhat belated concession speech, obviously agreed.
Sheer and utter nonsense. Al Gore was unable to fashion a coherent message as a candidate. His very best campaign speech -- some 40 days too late to help his election bid -- was his heartfelt and moving concession. Post-election, who will be reporting what he says? Nobody -- including Russert.
Gore simply blew this race, despite all the built-in advantages he had. Every ambitious Democrat who patiently deferred to a sitting Vice-President will be clamoring for their fair turn in 2004. They will argue -- correctly -- that Gore had his turn at bat and struck out.
Win or Lose, based upon the sheer quantity of squandered opportunities, Gore ends the race as the single biggest political loser in the 2000 elections.
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor
FORMER Presidential Candidate
Florida was expected to be a safe state for Texas Governor Bush. After all, the Republican nominee's younger brother is the popular Governor in the state.
It did not work out that way.
The failure to deliver the State does not reflect well on Jeb, his efforts or his political machinery. His comments certainly were not helpful, either. The St. Petersburg Times, quoted the Florida Governor as saying [he had to be careful how he helped his brother] "because of the comparisons that might not help George in some cases."
More painful for Jeb must be the realization that his brother's election ends his own chances to be President. This despite the fact that "supporters whispered that [Jeb] was the one better suited to the presidency, better spoken, more diligent and thoughtful." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/politics/09BROT.html Kennedy clan notwithstanding, Americans are no fans of political dynasties. The Florida governor's dreams of his own White House run are now dashed, as the exhausting Clinton fatigue is replaced with a more benign, but equally tiresome Bush fatigue.
What little is left of Jeb's reputation has certain been nfairly tarnished by the incompetence of the State’s lower level electoral officials. Katherine Harris, his Secretary of State, certainly didn't help; Her sheer partisanship leads his administration vulnerable to charges of “playing politics” with people’s votes. With each additional story of incompetence and fraud, Flori-duh looks more and more like a Banana Republic. Governor Bush looks vulnerable in his own re-election in 2002.
Poor Jeb. For years, he's been the diligent, reliable, hard working, dues paying son. That the slacker frat boy of the family became President will torment him for years to come. He’s one of the bigger losers in this election.
The Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates
Betraying Their Own Raison D'Etre
In allowing the two campaigns to bully them, to dictate the terms of the three Presidential debates, the CPD undermined their very raison d’etre. They end this campaign season as a huge loser.
The Commission showed absolutely no backbone in their dealings with the candidate's negotiating teams. The absurd two minute time limit (stomped on by Gore) turned the debates into little more than a festival of sound bites. Other rules were equally misguided; Not allowing interaction between the candidates’ took all of the rough and tumble spontaneity out of the exchanges. Except for an intelligent and revealing Vice Presidential debate, the Commission failed their charge miserably.
Perhaps Jim Lehrer bears partial responsibility. A highly respected journalist, Lehrer is a true gentleman of the Fourth Estate. Unfortunately, his erudite, scholarly manner encouraged both candidates to spew canned responses. The debates were devoid of the aggressive follow up "ruder" journalists might have made. This allowed both candidates' evasive answers to go unchallenged. It devalued the entire process.
Still, it was the Commission who agreed to have Lehrer host all three debates. Is it healthy for a Democracy to put this much power and influence in the hands of any one private person? Hindsight may be 20/20, but given his intellect and experience, I believe Lehrer should have known better. He should have agreed to host no more than one debate. At least two of the debates should have had some of the attack dogs of the Press. Where were Tim Russert and Sam Donaldson? Where were the print journalists? The process demands "major league assholes," as Bush unfairly labelled NY Times reporter Adam Clymer. At least they may have succeeded in getting a straight answer, instead of the evasions and half truths Lehrer was forced to swallow.
The Commission’s failure to stand tough in the face of wavering candidates undermines future elections. They should have thrown down the gauntlet, set the terms of the debate, and told the candidates to take it or leave it. (Some observes even suggested making non-debating candidates ineligible for matching Federal funds). In the 2000 elections, the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates did not serve the cause of Democracy well.
Ralph Nader
Et Tu, Brute?
His 100,000 votes in Florida -- 2% of those cast -- essentially handed the Presidency to GWB. Today, he is a political pariah whose influence and funding are completly shot to hell.
Nader has had an enormous impact in numerous industries. Once hailed by the Left as a true American hero, today he is a persona non grata amongst Democrats, lobbyists, congressmen, environmentalists, pro choice organizations, trial lawyers, unions -- the list goes on and on.
Nader's causes have long been financed for decades by the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA). They are beyond furious at him. Bush's record on tort reform and access to the courts is despised by the attorneys; the ATLA holds Nader personally responsible. A politically active class action attorney I spoke with said "A Right without a remedy is just a suggestion -- I learned that from Nader. I believed that. Now, Nader won't see one thin dime from the ATLA."
Nader has, in essence, defunded his dearest causes.
What’s so bizarre and intriguing about Nader's run was the fundamental flaw in his reason for being in the race. His claim that there was no difference between the candidates -- oh so true in most elections -- was outrageously false. On many issues which voters said were important to them, Gore's positions were very, very different than Bush's: on theenvironment, tax fairness, habeas corpus, civil court access, the Kyota accord, school vouchers, gun control, affirmative access, campaign finance reform, privatizing social security. Nader's claim is just weird -- Gore's core positions are mostly a less radical version of Nader's. That's why many on the Left saw Nader's run as little more than narcissistic egotism.
Nader could have entered the primaries as a Democrat, and forced the party Left, the way Buchanan shifted the GOP Right in '92; That's how you have an impact in a two party system. Instead, his windmill tilting exercise has effectively banned him from within the city limits of Washington D.C.
Its hard to find a person who did more damage to their own reputation and political fortunes in this run, but Nader gets my vote as the person who plummeted the furthest.
John Ashcroft
defeated incumbent Senator from Missouri
Republican Senator Ashcroft is on this list not because he lost, but because of the way he lost. How unpopular msut you and your positions be to become the first ever incumbent US Senator defeated by a corpse?
Ironically, the extreme conservatism of Ashcroft's views, coupled with his resounding loss to the dead, may inadvertantly push local and state politicians towards the middle. His legacy will serve as a reminder to any pol whose positions are out of step with their district. There won't be an election in the next thirty years where some campaign manager somewhere won't have to pull aside his candidate to say: "Um, sir, its a representational form of government. This means your views should reflect those of the people you represent. Remember John Ashcroft?"
The humiliating defeat of the Republican Senator from Missouri will weigh heavily on the mind of Congress. The Ashcroft legacy will serve as a reminder on any vote for the more extreme positions of Bush.
Ashcroft will be the bone thrown to Conservatives for keeping a low profile during the campaign -- his nomination for Attorney General was gift to the far Right. He may also be the first Bush nominee to suffer a bruising, Clarence Thomas-type of confirmation hearing. If he's lucky, Cheney's ticker will hold on long enough to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate confirming him as AG.
Ignore also the babble about the “statesmanlike and magnanimous” way Ashcroft did not contest the dubious legality of his “un-election.” It was simply self-interest not to contest the voters. Unlike the Presidential race -- a mere few hundred ballots seperated the candidates in Florida -- Ashcroft lost by tens of thousands of votes.
Can you imagine what the trial and ensuing media circus would have been like if this was litigated:
Q: Were you aware of the fact that the candidate you were voting for was deceased?
A: Of course. It was all over the papers that the Governor's plane crashed.
Q: If you knew he was dead, why did you vote for him,?
A: I would have voted for patio furniture rather than send that
phlegmatic monkey back to the Senate.
Q: No further questions.
No, a public trial would have only added insult to injury.
Still, one must wonder which is more embarrassing: losing to a dead guy -- or voting for one? Perhaps the "Show Me" State will now change its nickname to the "Show Me You Can Fog a Mirror" State.
Missouri's proximity to Illinois may have finally affected it. If the dead can vote in Chicago, why can't they win elections in St. Louis?
The Reform Party and Pat Buchanan
Say Good Night, Gracie
Whether you thought Buchanan was a legitimate candidate, or a party hijacker, he has effectively driven a stake through the heart of the Reform Party. They’re now an asterisk in political science and history books.
Under Ross Perot, its eccentric billionaire founder, the Reform Party won 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Eight years later they took less than one percent of the vote. Kiss goodbye any matching Federal funds in future elections.
One could argue that the federal surplus hurt the Reform party as much as Buchanan did. When Perot made the Deficit THE single most important issue of his campaigns, he staked his Party's future on it. He miscalculated that it would always be there to rail against. Sure, there’s still a multi trillion dollar national debt, but that’s less palpable -- its harder for voters to understand, less threatening to the overall economy.
Besides, long term political support does not come from popular personalities; Rather, parties derive their strength through the positions they stake out, their key issues, their political agendas. Mere personality driven parties simply do not last as participants on the national stage unless they have a broader agenda.
As to Pat Buchanan the candidate -- stick a fork in him, he's done. The 2000 election officially marks the end of his political career as a candidate. How insignificant a factor was Buchanan in this election? The far right zealot got less than 1/2% of the vote, less than 500,000 actual ballots, and ZERO electoral votes. These numbers include the few thousand accidental votes in Florida. Most of his positions -- on restricting trade, immigration, and US involvement abroad -- have been completely marginalized. How far has Buchanan been pushed off the screen? His concession speech consisted of little more than calling his wife from the car to say he was on the way home.
On the other hand, Buchanan, the pundit, is only a quasi-loser. Never considered a "serious" candidate, he was more gadfly than anything else. Buchanan did hope to shift the GOP rightward, and in a way, he achieved that objective. His reactionary babble, his isolationist posturing, his anti-semitic comments lauding Adolph Hitler, all made George Bush appear to be a relatively moderate Republican in comparison.
Given the notoriety Buchanan achieved this campaign -- not least of which was the infamous Palm Beach Butterfly ballot -- his lecturing fees are sure to double. The Reform Party may be dead, but Buchanan will parachute into some cushy gig on a cable news channel as a highly paid professional blowhard.
Final tally: Reform Party -100%, Buchanan +20%.
The Clinton Legacy
Legacy? What Legacy
One can only imagine what Bill Clinton felt throughout this entire campaign. The President must have paced through the carpet in the Oval Office watching the debacle unfold. It must have been difficult for Bill to watch Gore slowly bleed out all the advantages Clinton bestowed upon him this election. He was dying to pull this one out for Al as much as himself. Locked inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, allowed out only to campaign for Hillary in New York, the President fumed.
Post election, Clinton should have shaken some sense into both candidates with a display of Presidential decorum. He could have used his considerable persuasive abilities to tone down the disturbingly harsh rhetoric. In the process, he would have made both candidates look like weenies in comparison to himself; It might even have done the country some good. Instead, he tried to stay above the fray. Unlike other campaign accusations, this truly was a squandered opportunity.
With Gore distancing himself from Clinton, and the GOP retaining both Houses and the White House, how will the history books judge Clinton? Will the booming economy be the main topic decades hence? No, Bill’s legacy will be his impeachment, oral sex with a young Oval Office intern, and the subsequent perjury about it.
This election moves Bill Clinton permanently into the political loser column in the history books.
THE WINNERS
Senator John McCain
the single biggest winner of the 2000 campaign
In the primaries, Senator John McCain galvanized the electorate, surprising everyone with his victory in New Hampshire. McCain's blunt honesty was refreshing; his independent criticism of the "broken" electoral process created a groundswell of public interest. At last, a politician who tells the Truth! The emperor has no clothes!
He also scared the hell out of the GOP leadership. They quickly had to "release the hounds." The Bushies went viciously negative to stop the McCain insurgency.
It was all over by South Carolina.
Still, McCain’s star was ascending. He demonstrated a cross over appeal to moderate Democrats not seen in the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. Capturing the support of McCain voters would be essential to the GOP retaining the House and Senate. More than anyone else -- 'cept Ralph Nader and Monica Lewinsky -- McCain got Dubya elected.
How did the Arizona Senator wield this awesome, new found political strength? He could have played hardball, extracting promises from the Bush campaign to endorse his baby -- McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Instead, he was -- once again -- the loyal soldier. McCain sacrificed his own wants for the greater good of the Party. He endorsed Dubya, despite the particularly nasty campaign run against him. (Recall the Bush camp's claim that Veterans did not support the breast-cancer-research hating Senator). It was readily apparent from their joint appearances that the two did not care for each other personally; The Texas Governor thought of the Arizona Senator as a usurper, while McCain objected to the inevitable coronation of Bush as heir apparent.
McCain could have taken a page from Ronald Reagan's 1976 playbook. Gerald Ford had become president under trying circumstances, with the country was still smarting from Nixon's resignation. The Republican leadership thought Ford's quiet dignity deserved the nomination.
Reagan knew better. He knew that Ford's early pardon of Nixon doomed him in the general election. How did RR respond? He lukewarmly endorsed Ford, damning him with faint praise. Reagan did not actively campaign for him, returning instead to the "pressing business" of governing California. Whatever hope Ford had of victory died at the convention, when Reagan's barn burner keynote address made everyone in the hall realize they had nominated the wrong man.
McCain steered clear of this approach. The Senator did not so much as extract a single promise regarding campaign finance reform. Some pundits complained he didn't even make W promise to read the bill, much less endorse it. Does this mean structural reform is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill?
Not likely. Post primary, McCain was a one man GOP machine. He criss-crossed the country tirelessly, campaigning on behalf of Congressman, Governors and even other Senators. His surprise victory in New Hampshire raised his profile. He took advantage of that to amass an enormous war chest of political IOUs. The party leadership is now morally beholden to him. Though his endorsement of Bush -- given the fantastic amount of soft money raised by Dubya -- leaves him vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy when he runs in 2004 or 2008, McCain himself comes out the biggest winner in the 2000 elections.
The Electoral College
Behold the Glory of the Consitution!
When was the last time Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution received this must press? Op-Ed pieces, talking heads, the financial press -- it seems that everyone spent the past six weeks discussing constitutional arcana.
Consider the simple, elegant math of the Electoral College: Each state receives the same number of electoral college votes as they have Congressmen and Senators. Sending 538 votes once each four years, instead of the usual motley crew we otherwise foist upon the Capitol, serves as a reminder of the delicate beauty of the Constitution.
Would any of the candidates have spent a single moment in Wisconsin or Minnesota, but for the Electoral College? Think of the "lesser" political groups which are ignored nationally, but -- thanks to the electoral college -- manage to have their issues considered quadrennially. If you followed the campaign, you learned of the plight of farmers in the midwest, of small business owners in New England, of immigrants in California. We are better off as a nation knowing the concerns of our fellow citizens.
We each owe a deep debt of gratitude is owed to the drafters of the constitution for their foresight. Without it, the limited insanity in Florida would be happening NATIONWIDE. Histrionics aside, that would be have been a constitutional crises. Regardless of your partisan leanings, the thought of 50 "Daleys" and "Roves" fanning out to each state in the nation, wrangling and bickering over a nation-wide recount, is enough makes one convulse in horror, retch and die.
Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution is more than merely beautiful, it is instructive. It informs us that our nation is a Federation, a Union of Sovereign States. The wisdom of the founding fathers is apparent in the firm yet flexible mechanics of the college’s voting procedures. Perhaps only a lawyer could love a section of the constitution, but the wisdom, majesty and foresight of this document never ceases to amaze those who choose to study it. The Electoral College ends up a big winner in 2000.
Joseph I. Liebermann
What a Mensch!
The moderate Connecticut Senator emerges as a major player as this whole affair grinds to an end. He was the only reason Al Gore was even awaiting Florida’s recount results. He returns to his Senate seat more influential than ever.
Throughout the campaign, Senator Lieberman showed himself to be a thoughtful, intelligent, Statesmanlike. Even as complications continued to arise from the Florida vote, his respectful decorum on the Sunday morning talk show circuit stands out. His warm persona and self-deprecating wit were a welcome respite from the top of both tickets.
We knew before election day that the country appreciates the Jewish sense of humor, but are we ready for a Jewish Vice-President? It says as much about the United States as it does about Joe Lieberman that the Democratic ticket actually won the popular vote with a Jewish VP candidate. "We may be different," his candidacy seemed to declare, "but we are not so different that you can't vote for one of us . . . Here, have a piece of Kugel."
Like Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman returns to the Senate with a higher visibility amongst his peers. And also like McCain, Lieberman has collected a trunk full of political IOUs. He comes out of this election as one of the winners of 2000.
Late Night Pundits
David Letterman/Jay Leno/Jon Stewart /Conan O’Brian /Bill Maher
Want to be President in the new millennium? Add to your campaign duties a Top Ten List on Letterman; Some schtick with Leno; Lastly, have your Vice Presidential candidate sing a song on the “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” (the smartest show of the lot). On the modern road to the White House, these five white guys man the toll booths.
Study after study show that more people get their election news from NBC's Tonite Show and CBS's Late Night than any other media source. These shows help set the tone and agenda of the campaigns. Because of Leno and Letterman, this election was not a debate over privatizing social security or targeted tax cuts; Rather, it was a battle between the stiff guy and the dumb guy.
How influential are the late night shows? When Saturday Night Live wanted to do an election special, each camp leapt at the chance to participate. They wanted to demonstrate that their candidate was not a humorless automaton.
But something else was at work: FEAR. Do not underestimate the role abject terror played in compelling their quick RSVPs. Campaign advisors know that a vicious, potentially election losing skewering awaited whichever side did not accept. Recall President Gerald Ford slipping on the last few rain soaked steps of Air Force One; He became fodder for a running SNL gag. Chevy Chase’s depiction of Ford as a bumbling, graceless klutz -- though hilarious -- ignored the fact that Ford was actually a graceful and gifted college athlete. Many GOP strategists insist it was that depiction of Ford, and not his pardon of Nixon, which cost him the 1976 election.
His advisors missed the point completely: Ford was savaged by Chase because he pardoned Nixon. Ford's appointment as V.P., and his too-quick-pardon of Nixon were perceived as a nefarious quidpro quo. After that, he was fair game for anything the writers of SNL could think of.
That’s the newfound influence of television comedians in modern elections: the ability to define the candidates, and the power to destroy through ridicule. "What people often forget" wrote Bob Dole, in his recent book, Great Political Wit, "is that the last laugh doesn't belong to the victorious candidate -- it belongs to the late-night comics." That’s why the jesters are the new powerbrokers in American politics, and big winners in this election.
The State of Oregon’s Mail-in Ballot
Innovation and Experimentation in the NorthWest
Preliminary numbers suggest an astounding 82% of eligible voters in Oregon cast their votes <
Initiatives such as this -- contrasted with the debacle in Florida -- make it all the more likely that each of us will one day in the future register and vote on line. For that reason, I say Bravo Oregon.
George W. Bush
As I first started writing this on Election Day, the Texas Governor was in the top of my Winner's column. Regardless of the race's outcome, he had -- surprisingly -- run a much smarter, tighter campaign than the one the Gore team cobbled together. His cheerful, simple bromides – "I trust people, he trusts the government" – found resonance with a portion of the
electorate.
It turns out that Bush is the far craftier political operator of the two candidates. Though out of step with mainstream voters on a surprising number of issues, Bush managed to keep the election from being about his positions. Dubya kept his slogans general, his campaign upbeat, and never really had to answer for his sins – of which there are many.
Tagged as an "amiable doofus" lacking gravitas, it turns out that its Bush who possesses the shrewder, more political mind. W. did far better in the debates than any of his supporters had any right to expect. A fellow Texan once said, "Any politician who has ever underestimated GWB has lived to regret it." Just ask Ann Richards, the former Governor of Texas.
All things considered, Bush was the surprise winner of this election cycle. . . until Florida. The Sunshine State rained on Dubya's inaugural parade.
Either lack of sleep or bad advice helped degenerate the Bush endgame. Post election, the feel good campaign shifted to histrionics as W apparently lost control of the GOP’s radical right wing. His campaignto come?
The closeness of the vote had some GOP insiders to grumbling about the Bush campaign's finish. While the Gore team worked down to the wire – the VP did a non-stop 30 hour final lap – the Bush team "coasted" to victory. Full of swagger, hubris -- and that famous Dubya laziness -- they quit campaigning on Sunday, November 5th – two days before the election ended. Would a recount even be necessary if Bush didn't revert to form? He coasted through Yale, did no work at Harvard, and blew off most of his National Guard duty; That he failed to kick it out in the last few days of the campaign confirmed the worst suspicions of many.
That Dubya laziness was apparent even in his Vice Presidential
selection. Instead of making a bold selection on his own, Bush went to the "Cliff Notes." He looked to his dad instead of studying for the test on his own. What is it with the Bush family's VP picks? They are congenitally incapable of picking someone both intellectually and physically up to the job. Cheney may be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, but he's one defibrillation away from the hereafter.
But all this pales next to the post election posturing. Leaking the names of cabinet members and declaring yourself victor before the state mandated recount is completed does not exactly endear yourself to the opposing party. Where was that famous Bipartisan Consensus building we heard so much about during the campaign?
What really leaps out – what shifts the Bush squad out of the winning column -- was the team's Orwellian displays of astounding hypocrisy. After complaining long and loud that the Gore team was even thinking about litigation, it was the Bushies who filed the first lawsuit. Not just going to court, but Federal Court, to invalidate the sovereign state of
Florida’s manual recount laws. Bush himself signed into law a statute encouraging manual recounts in close elections. Highlighting the hypocrisy, the Wall Street Journal revealed the Bush campaign had funded GOP congressional staffers to run amuck in Dade County -- rent-a-riot was some pundits called it -- thwarting the manual recount.
The most troubling aspect of the post-election Bush was cited by the Florida Supreme Court's comments on disenfranchisement: "Courts must not lose sight of the fundamental purpose of election laws: [They] are intended to facilitate and safeguard the right of each voter to express his or her will in the context of our representative democracy,” the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled. “Technical, statutory requirements must not be exalted over the substance of this right."
<
But the biggest political debit George W. Bush may end up paying will be with his relationship with the Media. His honeymoon with the Press is all but over.
Most ominous for the Bush Presidency will be when the uncounted ballots are finally counted. Expect by early summer one of the major newspapers -- The New York Times or The Washington Post -- to have successfully sued (and won) under Florida's Sunshine laws to review the actual physical ballots. Unless they mysteriously disappear, the actual count could potentially
undermine his term.
The writing may already be on the wall: First came the embarrassing revelations about Bush cousin and the Fox News analyst John Ellis. Now, an embarrassing Newsweek
Prior to that was the MSNBC rumor earlier that Bush had his Texas driver’s license number changed; the new number will not pull up the old DWI (its only listed under the old driver's license number). Texas does not allow license changes -- excepting theft of identity or stalking scenarios.
(MSNBC.com ultimately did not run the story).
The DWI issue, spun as a long forgotten youthful indiscretion, is now looking more like an artfully stage managed issue which has been carefully concealed over the years.
Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if it turned out we elected another charming southern rogue? Perhaps McCain’s tag of “Bush lies like Clinton” touched a nerve. Bush lacks the glibness of Clinton, so he is not as artful of a liar. But as the discussion veers into whether failing to disclose a personal history is different from outright lying about it, aren’t we practically back to debating what the meaning of “is” is?
Just as Gore blew the election, Bush blew the post-election. Though he ultimately won the White House, Bush spent an enormous amount of political capital doing so since November 7th.. For snatching political defeat from the jaws of electoral victory, Bush ends up -- not with a resounding Win -- but with something much less.
Why is it that two Republican Secretaries of State 3000 miles apart find themselves under similar microscopes in an election which was too-tight-to-call? The answer, in a word, is partisanship.
Florida's Secretary of State certainly has done all she could to thwart a statutorily permittable hand count. Harris was demonized by the Democrats; Their ire is somewhat understandable -- she was co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida. Of the two Secretaries, she certainly has garnered more infamy. Though the media took her to task for her liberal application of make up, its her numerous attempts at disenfranchisement that raises more concerns.
Compounding the attempt to block the hand counts was Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program
<
Prior to the resolution of the election, Harris openly hinted at her desire for an ambassadorship. Apparently, the "appearence of impropriety" is not much of an issue in Florida.
Jones, though the lower profile California Secretary of State, may be the more dangerous of two. His sin was in thwarting the First Amendment. For this affront, he has the ACLU and a bevy of constitutional law professors crying foul. For those of you who do not recognize his name, Jones was the Republican who stopped the voter exchange sites, such as Voteexchange2000.com and Nadertrader.org. These were designed to help both Gore and Nader, and to thwart the election of Bush.
"It is outrageous that the Republican secretary of state in California would try to squelch a political dialogue among Democrats and Greens a week before a presidential election," said James B. Raskin, a constitutional law professor at American University. It was Raskin who first proposed the
vote swapping sites in an article in Slate. http://slate.msn.com/Concept/00-10-24/Concept.asp "This is just blatant government censorship. We have the First Amendment to prevent this kind of official interference with free-speech rights."
http://www.fresnobee.com/localnews/story/0,1724,209183,00.html
Not, apparently, in California. At least not while Jones remains in office.
Once there lived a Queen on a chessboard. Try as she might, she was unable to escape the long shadow of the King. In her unhappiness, the Queen dreampt she was a Rook, the piece furthest away from the King -- and out his long shadow. "If only I were the Rook," she sighed.
As it happened, her wish was granted. She was a Rook. Finally, she was away from the King's shadow. But a Rook, though an important piece, is no Queen. Whenever she tried to move diagonally, she would trip and fall over, and all the pawns and bishops and knights would laugh at her. Once again, the Queen found herself unhappy. "If only I were King," she sighed . . .
Hillary should have been an undeniable winner, running a surprisingly strong campaign against the best muscle the New York State GOP could throw at her. Her quick recognition of the significance of New York's upstate region was the key to her winning the Senate seat. The GOP's better funded candidate, despite being a "lifelong" New Yorker, failed to grasp that in time.
But ominous signs are already appearing, for the Rook has forgotten she is no longer a Queen.
In the midst of a precarious and tiresome squabble over the recount in Florida, the First Lady -- in a distasteful grab for the spotlight -- releases an ill-timed, poorly considered Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. An inauspicious way to begin life as New York State's Senator-Elect. Would she have been so quick to offer this flash of Constitutional insight, if, as many pundits predicted (including your humble author <
Talk about frittering away hard won political capital.
If New York's very junior Senator decides to weigh in on every national controversy, New Yorkers will very quickly grow tired of her.
Many will say its too premature to label the Supreme Court winners or losers in this election cycle; How much can you really lose when you have lifetime tenure?
But the early response to the Court's judgement is coming in, and the reviews are not good. There are very ominous signs that the Court's very political decision in Bush vs. Gore will not be its brightest moment; In fact, it may very well be its low point.
The basis of the decision -- that Florida's Supreme Court ran afoul of the Constitution in their interpretation of a Florida statute -- requires an inordinately tortured legal reasoning to reach. It essentially creates an entire new basis and application of the equal protection clause. This was a shockingly activist, anti-State, pro Federalist decision.
What's so ironic is that the conservative majority who supported the decision 5-4 has spent the past few decades railing against this sort of activist, anti-State, pro-Federal judiciary. Its hard to reconcile their previous jurisprudence and dicta with this decision, without concluding that -- plain and simple -- this was nothing more than partisan politics.
Providence and history will ultimately judge the Judges. Its a great irony of the Court: A conservative judge like Rehnquist can author thousands of opinions on every manner of legal jurisprudence imaginable, but write one lousy decision -- and you are stuck with an unfortunate and embarrassing legacy.
THE MIXED RESULTS
Snatching Defeat Out of the Jaws of Victory
Republican Secretarys of State
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris
California Secretary of State Bill Jones
Hillary Clinton
Be Careful What You Wish For
The U.S. Supreme Court
The Rehnquist Legacy: Juducial Activism in Furtherance of
Federalism?