IT
AIN'T NECESSARILY SO
Florida
law clearly calls for the option of a manual recount in
the event of a dispute about the outcome: the real issue
before the US Supreme Court is the question of who determines
what is a vote – the 67 different county canvassing
boards, who are each free to accept dimples (both pregnant
and sterile) – not to mention the multitudinous varieties
of hanging chads – or must the Supreme Court of Florida
set a single standard? This is the central issue before
the Court, and a victory for Team Bush does not necessarily
put Dubya in the White House. In some ways, it may make
it harder for him to get there. For the statewide recount
ordered by the Florida court, with its widely variegated
methods and standards for counting votes, if actually carried
out, may have given Bush the lead: but, then, we'll never
know, will we? On the other hand, any standard set by the
Florida Supreme Court is more than likely to be as liberal
as their own record of legislating from the bench. By acting
to stop the recount, the 5-person majority of the US Supremes
have in fact ruled in advance for Team Bush: at least, that
is what the 4 dissenting members averred, in their vigorous
– some would say unusually contentious – dissent.
That may be true in strictly legalistic terms, but politically
and practically it ain't necessarily so.
ELASTIC
DEADLINES
There
are supposed to be all these deadlines, and close followers
of the whole procedure are confronted with complex timelines
detailing the date and the meaning of each one: the deadline
for certification, for submitting the elector lists to Congress,
for the meeting of the electors, but none of these are carved
in stone. The December 12 deadline for certifying the names
of all electors has been ignored before in the case of a
recount – Hawaii, in 1960, was declared for Nixon but
the recount was not completed until December 28. Kennedy
was awarded the electors. The real deadline (or, at least,
a more substantial one) is December 18 – the day electors
nationwide meet in their respective states and cast their
votes in the Electoral College – a day that could bring
us a whole new set of surprises. Yet, as we shall see, the
crisis could continue well beyond even this late date –
because the Gore team will still not have exhausted all
its options.
REVISITING
THE RECOUNT?
How
many slates of electors will meet, on December 18, in Florida
– and which one will eventually be accepted by Congress
as valid? The whole strategy of the Gore camp has been to
create the political and legal conditions necessary to the
creation of a rival to the slate legally certified by Florida
secretary of state Katherine Harris and Governor Jeb Bush.
In order to accomplish this, they have used their lawyers
to gain the imprimatur of the Florida Supreme Court not
just for a recount but for a reinvention and reversal of
the Florida vote. The US Supremes issued a stay on the recount,
but theoretically one could still be held unless the Court
rules out the possibility entirely, which is highly unlikely.
Provided the Florida Supreme Court reacts quickly enough
– and somehow I don't think a phone call from William
Daley is really all that necessary – the chad-ologists
and dimple-counters of the Democratic party machine could
well be back in business, creating votes out of thin air.
THE
COMING CONGRESSIONAL DEADLOCK
On
the political front, Gore and his media minions have constantly
reiterated two major themes: that the Democrats won the
popular vote, and that legitimate votes in Florida were
simply not counted. These efforts will pay off in political
support once their permanent campaign reaches its next stage,
which could commence on January 6, when Congress must meet
in joint session to count the electoral votes. It is going
to be a bizarre and possibly quite contentious gathering,
with Vice President Al Gore presiding over the spectacle
and Joe Lieberman (still a Senator) among the participants.
If there is any dispute about the validity of the electors
or their votes, the House and the Senate will meet separately:
a decision must be reached by a majority in both houses.
Given the complexion of the incoming Congress, this means:
deadlock.
ONE
POSSIBLE OUTCOME
At
that point, the legal units of the Gore camp will come back
into the action, with the contention that, since Florida's
electors have not been recognized, their candidate has a
majority of the remaining electoral votes – and therefore
Al Gore ought to be declared the winner. Once again, the
US Supreme Court could be called on to decide the fate of
the nation – but even if the decision goes against
Gore, the campaign will be far from dead. For this would
just prolong the deadlock, and throw the problem back in
the lap of Congress. In view of the Electoral College dysfunction,
the House of Representatives would then be given the task
of electing the next President: the results, while probably
resulting in a Bush victory, are by no means certain. There
are several "moderate" Republicans who might waver, and
make the difference. Over in the Senate, however, the party
lines are more clearly drawn, and the election of Joe Lieberman
Vice President – with Gore personally breaking the
tie – seems a near-certainty.
FAITHLESS
ELECTORS, AND OTHER RENEGADES
Another
variation on this doomsday scenario is that the Gore team
is even now busily pursuing the "faithless elector" strategy
– trying to win over electors pledged to Bush, or at
least get them to abstain. Former New York Governor Mario
Cuomo raised
this possibility on TV the other day, opining that "If
the Supreme Court were to beat Gore, there is no guarantee
that three or four electors who were supposed to vote for
Bush wouldn't turn around out of anger and confusion perhaps
and say, 'We're going to go with Al Gore.'" Democratic political
consultant Bob
Beckel was supposedly embarked on an effort to "research"
the background of Republican electors and target those who
– for whatever reason – might be susceptible to
persuasion. Beckel strenuously denied any such nefarious
plan, but remember: these are the same people who claimed
that the legal effort to throw out thousands of votes in
two Florida counties – and virtually all of the overseas
military ballots – had nothing to do with the Gore
campaign or the Democratic National Committee. The margin
of Bush's victory is so thin that any defections mean defeat
for the GOP: the Democrats, marching in lockstep, have the
kind of discipline that could eventually give them the White
House – or the Vice-President's mansion. The "faithless
elector" strategy may work, especially in light of the faithlessness
of so many Republican "moderates." Representative Connie
Morella has already stated that she would vote the way her
district voted – that is, for Gore. How many more Morellas
are out there? Remember, they only need three or so to block
the election of Bush in the both the Electoral College and
the House, depending on where this ends up.
WILL
GORE DO THE RIGHT THING?
The
idea that some impartial court, namely the US Supreme Court,
is going to hand down some kind of sanctified decision and
save the Republic from the Gore-ista coup-plotters is a
naïve fantasy. Choosing a president is a political
process, one that, if not accomplished in the voting booth,
will then inevitably, under our system, wind up in the hands
of Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States cannot
elect or appoint the nation's chief executive: Congress
can, and probably will. Of course, I could be wrong: Gore
could do the right thing, and drop out in the wake of an
unfavorable decision by the US Supremes – who have
it in their power to throttle the coup-plotters and deliver
the kind of political blow from which the Gore camp would
never really recover. According to this optimistic scenario,
Gore would be forced to drop out.
INVASION
OF THE ZOMBIE DEMOCRATS
But
any ambiguity in their decision, combined with the narrowness
of the 5-to-4 majority, would keep the zombie Democrats
marching on the White House. Think of it as a cheap horror
flick, "Invasion of the Zombies from Planet Gore": alien
beings inhabit the bodies of the dead, who rise up from
their graves, become remote-controlled zombies, and try
to take over the country. They march on the White House,
and, no matter how much incoming fire they take – from
Judge Saul, the Supreme Court, the editorial pages of the
nation's newspapers – these animated corpses just keep
on marching, blank eyes fixated on their goal of total power.
That is the horror movie we are living, which might also
be entitled "Monsters of the New Millennium." The only problem
is, we can't change the channel or walk out of the theater:
we have to stand and fight.
A
MOVEMENT IS BORN
Conservatives
and some nonsectarian libertarians have rallied against
the Gore coup with the kind of passion that they failed
to exhibit for their own candidate before Election Day –
an irony that is surely not lost on them. Thousands have
rallied across the nation – 5,000 in Sacramento, California,
last week, and even here in San Francisco, a city that is
a byword for liberal Democrat politics, as many as 1,200
protesters have taken to the streets each and every week,
proclaiming their contempt for Gore the usurper. The Gore-istas,
for the most part, are nowhere to be seen. But the key issue
is whether this newly-radicalized movement really is an
independent mobilization or just the echo chamber of those
infamous "paid Republican operatives" that supposedly directed
"Republican mobs" to beat up their opponents and "intimidate"
the Mimi-Dade canvassing board. For if indeed the thousands
of anti-Gore protesters are bubbling up from the conservative-libertarian
grassroots, entirely independent of the "operatives," then
the base must inevitably come into conflict with the ever-wavering
Republican leadership. Instead of being directed by the
GOP, the catalytic role of this protest movement must be
to make the Republicans fight – which is something
that most of them have no idea how to do.
THE
COMING SELLOUT
They
are gentlemen, and gentle-ladies, and they won't stoop that
low – but the rank-and-file are in a fighting mood,
and will not put up with wavering leaders. And what will
GOP leaders tell their supporters, if and when Congress
decides that we must "share" the executive with the Democrats?
What will they tell the conservatives who went to the barricades
for them – that it is time to move on, forgive and
forget, and accept the verdict of some court, congressional
wheeler-dealers, or some unsavory combination of the two?
The big sellout, in whatever form, is coming, and conservative
activists out there on the barricades had better brace themselves
for it – and resolve to not give up the fight, even
if they have to take on their own "leaders."
When oh when are these people going to wake up?
