Regards, Ivan
Posted on 10/06/2002 1:46:37 AM PDT by MadIvan
So let’s get this straight: a closely contested election is now headed to the US Supreme Court. The voting machines in Dade and Broward County, Florida, just malfunctioned spectacularly. Al Gore is breathing hellfire. The DemocraticRepublican share of the vote is as close as dammit to 50:50. And the rhetoric is heating up.
“The enthusiasm of this crowd is created by the fact that they tried to take away our rights, to smother our choice at the voting booth,” one of the candidates said last week.
The language probably sounds familiar: it could have been lifted verbatim from the bitter ending to the Florida mess two years ago. But this isn’t election 2000 we’re talking about. It’s the run-up to this autumn’s critical congressional elections, where the future of American politics for the next few years will be decided.
The similarity of the issues, however, the wafer-thin margin of difference between the two parties, the resilience of the Bush-Gore dynamic — all these suggest that the election of 2000 decided relatively little. In fact, in some ways, the election of 2000 is still going on: unresolved, brutally contested, and extremely, extremely close.
Look to start with at the sheer tightness of the vote. Neither party has opened up a clear lead over the other since 2000. The Republicans have a tiny majority in the House of Representatives. The Democrats have an even tinier majority in the Senate (in fact, it’s the tiniest it can get: one seat). In the latest polls from the heartland, the Republicans and Democrats are polling at a statistically indistinguishable level. This is, to put it simply, as close as it ever gets.
That’s why George Bush spent vast amounts of time this summer dragging himself across the country raising money for his favoured candidates, in a fundraising tour that beat even Bill Clinton’s mercenary records. And that’s why the tempers are fraying on Capitol Hill.
Things are so tense that last week a Democratic senator from New Jersey, the ethically challenged Bob Torricelli, dropped out of the race to let his party find a candidate who might still win. Torricelli is not a quitter by nature, and nobody knows the pressure put on him by party elders to get out of the race, but the result was the same: he jumped.
Alas, New Jersey law says a candidate cannot drop out and get a replacement if there are fewer than 51 days to go before an election. But the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the law is there to be broken or “interpreted” by judges, and so let the replacement candidate go on the ballot.
New Jersey’s voters will now get to choose between a novice Republican and an old former senator drafted at the last minute by a political party that has its collective fingernails bitten down to the skin. Meanwhile, in a move creepily reminiscent of Florida in 2000, the Republicans are appealing to the US Supreme Court.
And then there’s Gore. Some of us hoped that after his disastrous 2000 campaign he might gracefully bow out of politics for good. Fat chance. In several recent speeches, Gore has now blasted the Bush administration more bitterly and aggressively than any other Democrat dares. He has no seat he can lose and he has a lot of anger to dispel.
Also no end of damage he can do as well. Go Al! - Ivan
Sometimes, in fact, it seems as if nothing changes in American politics. Another Bush is being attacked by the same Gore over an attempt to combat the same Iraqi dictator. Insiders are predicting that Bush will pull out a second term, but that in 2008 the Democratic nominee will be . . . Hillary Clinton! In what has the superficial appearance of a democratic republic, you have a cast of characters that is scarcely more diverse than a bunch of 18th-century European aristocrats, vying for the monarchical succession.
But the stakes are still huge. It may be hard to remember for Britons, who last had evenly matched political parties in the mid-1970s, but a political system so finely balanced is a rare and exhilarating event. The tiniest of swings, the smallest of factors, could lead to enormous changes in the body politic. And neither side has any reasonable margin of error.
Even given the unusually close match between the parties right now, this is still unusual. In almost every mid-term election in a first-term presidency, the president’s party loses. It’s usually boringly predictable who’s going to win. But this time, buoyed largely by the president’s strong ratings at a time of war, the Republicans look highly competitive.
At the same time, the post- bubble economy and evidence of corporate corruption have kept the Democrats in play. The result is that, at this point in time, a full eight Senate seats are regarded as far too close to call.
If the Democrats keep the Senate, but don’t take the House of Representatives, you’re likely to see a continuation of the current politics — a popular president at war, deferring in part to the Democrats on domestic policy. If the Democrats win both houses, the war itself will be contested in ways not seen up to now, especially if an Iraq campaign runs into trouble.
But if the Republicans make gains and win back the Senate, the whole picture changes. Domestically, Bush could add teeth to his “compassionate conservatism”, cut taxes further and move the judiciary firmly to the right. Given that the odds are historically against the president’s party, a victory would also be a huge boost to Bush’s ability to wage war with no worries about being restrained or micro-managed by Congress.
Under those circumstances, it’s perfectly possible that the Democrats will swing left and succumb to bitterness at the closeness of their defeat in 2000 and the war politics of today.
In some ways, I think, it might be better for Bush if the Democrats do well this time. If the war is successful, he can still rely on a large plurality of Democrats to keep supporting him, as they did last week in preparing a congressional resolution for war. And if the Republicans sweep all the branches of government, the public, which seems to prefer divided government, may well want to rein in the Republicans (or dump Bush) in 2004.
But Bush might be forgiven for wanting a clear victory. It would allow him to shape the Supreme Court for a very long time. It would strengthen his hand against domestic spending. Above all, it would give him in 2002 what he never had in 2000: the sense that a majority of Americans actually endorse his legitimacy and support his presidency. He’s the first president who never had a majority of the popular vote. It’s only natural he’d want to secure it for his party in November.
Regards, Ivan
THIS JUST IN: "The newly discovered Moron particle may help explain why several New Jersey Supreme Court
Justices lowered themselves to "grease the skids" for their party's Bosses.
Two physicists have suggested that the spin on the MORON particle
which inadvertantly irradiated the Justices also interacted with the white matter and
MADE THEM secretly donate money to their party of allegience (which appointed them)
and then incredibly made them forget to admit it. Oh, the horror of it all. MORONS."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Andrew has been pretty on target when it comes to this war on terrorism.
Well, no. We need only go so far back in history as WJC to find another president who never won a majority of the popular vote.
Even if Sullivan means that W is the first president to have been outpolled in the popular vote by his rival that too is false. There are examples in the 19th century of exactly that.
Don't trust most Brits when it comes to American politics,I guess is the moral. (Except Ivan, we'll have to admit quite happily.) This is particularly true when it comes to the Republicans. The British, even sensible types, too often regard the Republicans with a mixture of dread and awe. So they discount the popularity of Republican policies here in the U.S. of A., and are too pessimistic about the prospects for success.
Americans don't know any better. If we had won a couple of those stolen elections last year, the tax cuts would be larger, the recession smaller and shorter, the defense department better funded, the judges approved, partial birth abortion ended, and probably Klamath water turned back on.
Exactly, that wasn't true Andrew dear!
He is usually spot-on, an atypical blunder of his.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.