Is Our President-Elect Learning?
by JCH
December 14, 2000

"Our long national nightmare is over." So said Gerald Ford when he ascended to the presidency after Nixon stepped onto that helicopter and went to play golf with mobsters. And with the ballot controversy ended by the Supreme Court this week, I guess our most recent national nightmare is over too. Something tells me, however, that another has just begun.

"Good evening. Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States, and I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time." It was with those words last night that Al Gore began his concession speech, ending a presidential election that lasted some 36 days past the day we actually went and voted.

President-elect Bush said in his speech later last night, "I am optimistic that we can change the tone of Washington, D.C. I believe things happen for a reason, and I hope the long wait of the last five weeks will heighten a desire to move beyond the bitterness and partisanship of the recent past."

Rush Limbaugh for one did not get that memo. On his show today, he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are at the beginning, at the outset, at the dawning of a brand new hustle. The hustle is that the Democrats are going to work with us. The hustle is that there is conciliation going on out there. There isn't anything of the sort, and it's proven by all of the news articles cited in my Thursday stack of stuff." (I'm sure his stack of stuff is full of shit.)

He goes on, "Everyone, everywhere, is telling George W. Bush that he must moderate or perish politically. He must tone down the rhetoric, because this election was so close, and he owes it to the other side to work with them on their terms. Well, I think that's the sting. I think that's the hustle. Because there is no conciliation on the liberal side. There never is and there never has been. Why do we all of a sudden buy the notion that the liberals want to work with us?"

So as far as "El Rushbo" is concerned, it's an "Us v. Them" mentality. For him, Us consists of white, male Republicans. Them, and I am one proudly, is everyone else. They're right; we're wrong.

I didn't listen long to the man today as prolonged exposure to him makes me break out in hives, but there was a caller who told him what he was doing was unpatriotic. That on the eve of a new presidency and after such a battle was waged to win the White House, that the time is ripe for bipartianship. She wasn't winning any brownie points with him. For the first part, the caller was a she. See, to Rush, women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they use -- gasp! -- emotion as a factor in deciding whom to vote for. (This is a man who on his September 20th, 2000 show said, "I'm no Warren Beatty, but I know women.")

I'm sure he was also wanting to accuse her of being a "seminar caller." But then, that would come across as paranoid and delusional. Which I think he very much is, but I also imagine his handlers have told him this as well. So he went without playing the seminar caller card this time.

He then went into this long-winded discourse on how he was being patriotic by not being bipartisan. That's not how politics is, he was saying. Compromise is wrong and if you don't think so, you're a moron. He is, after all, all knowing.

Later, he stated his agenda very clearly: "I'm not trying to start a war here, folks. I'm just telling you what the reality is and giving you evidence to prove it. You just have to have the courage to believe it. You can't get along with liberals." Sounds like he's starting a war here, folks.

In other words, he hates Them.

Here we see Blythe Teed and other supporters of Al Gore who gathered at War Memorial Plaza in Nashville early Nov. 8, hear for the first time that the vice president retracted his concession to GOP candidate Bush. This image doesn't have much to do with this rant, but is included here because I think she's tasty. (Win McNamee – Reuters) Anyway, back to my rant...

What we have here is two sides of a bitterly fought campaign now being gracious in their statements. This election was so close, they are saying, that the American people expect us to work together, to be bipartisan in all endeavors. And I think they mean it. At least, I think they think they mean it.

But they say this after every election. They said it in 1998. They said it in 1996. They said it in..... Well, come to think of it, they didn't say it in 1994. That was the year of the Republican Revolution, the first and truest sign that Bill Clinton was going to be a one term president. (You know, like George the Elder.) The Republicans had been given a mandate, they said. The country was swinging conservative once again. Back to where it once belonged.

But they blew it and by the time the government shutdown of 1995 came along, the revolution was playing out like a bully who calls on you in the school yard then runs and hides when he realizes that he's got nothing to back him up but hot air. The last of that hot air was deflated when Newt "Deadbeat Dad" Gingrich was run from office at around the same time the Republicans were trying to run the Clintons out of town with their hideous Clinton Cock Hunt.

Which brings me to something else Limbaugh said today: "For the liberal Democrats in Washington, for the liberal Democrats across the fruited plain, to achieve what they want, George W. Bush must fail. Now, what does this tell about you their objectives? Do you think they're going to sit around and hope that he fails, or are they going to try to help that objective along? I choose the latter, using my intelligence guided by experience.

"Nothing has changed since then in terms of liberal objectives and desires. We know that the Democrats want the White House back as soon as they can get it, right? And they may not want to wait until 2004. "How could they get it before that, Rush?" Come on, folks. How could they get the White House (before) 2004? When have elections ever stopped these people?"

Bingo, Rush! There! You said it! When has elections ever stopped your party of choice? I'm sure you fondly remember the Whitewater Investigation. Six years and fifty million dollars later, all they substantiated about Clinton was that the man ordered pizza from the Oval Office and got blow jobs from a young, overweight intern.

But back to the present and what Limbaugh was spewing today. He's saying that the "Dems" are going to try to get Bush impeached somehow. He's hinting that they are going to go through W.'s past with a magnifying glass to try to find anything damning. In essence, they're going to pull a Starr on him. (If the governor of Texas is reading this, that's Kenneth Satrr, not Ringo Starr.) They're going to do to Bush what the Republicans did to Clinton.

He may be right. Which would be a little scary because for twelve years, the man has been wrong a hell of a lot more than he's been right.

Now I'm not saying that it would be right for the Democrats to go searching through Bush's often hazy recollection of his own past. But I am reminded of the old saying, "What goes around comes around."

My guess is that W.'s four years in office will get ugly. He may not be impeached, but we will learn things about this man, things we don't already know, that will frighten us. We will question what the fuck we as a people were thinking when we gave him 49 percent of the vote that threw him in office. We will question why we put a man with the English skills of his father in a position where he now speaks for us. We will question why we placed him in the position of being able to call for a war when in the 1970s he didn't even call for a cab. Instead, he got behind the wheel of a car drunk. Was he using good judgment then?

For that matter, was he using good judgment when he asked Dick Cheney to be his running mate? Never mind the politics of the man or that Dick is a close friend of his father. But the man has a problem with his heart. (Unlike Henry Kissinger, he does at least have a heart.) He may very well not be alive should he be needed to vote in the House to break a tie.

Here are a few things about Bush and the election that should be considered:

1.) Bush, the grandson of a U.S. senator and the son of the nation's 41st president, becomes the first American to follow his father into the presidency since John Quincy Adams did it in 1825.

2.) He captured the Republican nomination with a promise of a new direction and a chance to win back the White House after eight years of Democratic rule. He is the first Republican to govern with Republicans controlling the Congress since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. But he approaches the White House with burdens and challenges that will sorely test his governing style and his promise to reach out to Democrats.

3.) He won the Electoral College by a margin of 271-267, the closest electoral finish since Rutherford B. Hayes bested Samuel Tilden by a vote of 185-184 in a raucous election fight in 1876. That election also ended with a long and bitter dispute over the results, and left Hayes branded as "Rutherfraud" and "His fraudulency."

4.) He won Florida's make or break electoral votes by only 537 popular votes out of 6 million cast in the state -- a margin Gore had hoped to overcome with a manual recount of ballots that did not register a presidential vote when counted by machines. Bush faced the lingering threat that someone would find a way to recount disputed ballots later and reveal that he might have actually lost Florida.

5.) As if that weren't enough, he becomes the first American since 1876 to win the presidency while losing the nationwide popular vote. He trailed Gore by 330,000 votes nationally out of 103 million cast. In other words, he lost to Gore by more than three times what Nixon lost to JFK in 1960.

So all of this begs the questions: Is our president-elect learning? Does he see that he was not elected with a popular vote, much less a mandate. It is true that Congress is Republican controlled. But just barely. And with a few seats here and there, that could change drastically in two years to where the Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Is our president-elect learning? Can he cross party lines like he says he wants to do? Can he work at bridging deep philosophical differences between members of his own party, forgetting about those of the Democrats for a moment?

Is our president-elect learning? Can he be a better president than he was an oil man? (He lost a lot of money that his father's cronies had given him.) Can he be a better president than he was a baseball owner? (He traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs.)

And finally, is our president-elect learning? Does he now know that when he had this insight in Florence, South Carolina last year -- when he said, "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" -- that he was using incorrect grammar?

Chances are the answer to all of these questions will be a resounding "No." And in four years, another Bush will be run out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue after only one term in office.

to my next rant (when posted)
My Rants and Raves
The Joseph C. Hinson Home Page

I was ready to do a final proofing of this rant and, my ISP willing, upload it real quick when I got the following e-mail:

December 14, 2000 evening

Dear friends,

Please take a few moments and read this excellent piece on the Supreme
Court's decision that made Bush "president." Pass it around to all your
friends. It's the best thing I've seen.

Yours,

Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com

A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE
by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?

A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason, right?

A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?

A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?

A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?

A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence
against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?

A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.

A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?

A: They don't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?

A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.

Q: Huh?

A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's
law after the election.

A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?

A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.

A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.

A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.

A: Right. Next question.

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?

A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.

Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!

A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.

Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.

A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.

Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?

A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.

Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?

A: Nope.

Q: Why not?

A: No time.

Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not?

A: Because December 12 was yesterday.

Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?

A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.

Q: So why is December 12 important?

A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.

Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?

A: Nothing.

Q: But I thought ---

A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.

Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.

A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.

Q: Why?

A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.

A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."

Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?

A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.

Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?

A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.

Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?

A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.

Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?

A: Yes.

Q: But, but --

A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.

Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?

A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.

Q: So who is punished for this behavior?

A: Gore, of course.

Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?

A: Yes

Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?

A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.

Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?

A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?

A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).

Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? Count all ballots under a single uniform standard?

A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?

A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.

Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?

A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been affirmed.

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.

A: Read the opinions for yourself at

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf

(December 9 stay stopping the recount), and

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00-949.pdf

(December 12 final opinion)

Q: So what are the consequences of this?

A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.

A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America, in the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme Court votes wins.

Q: Is there any way to stop the Supreme Court from doing this again?

A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the 50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign of terror can end... and one day we can hope to return to the rule of law.

Q: What do I do now?

A: E-mail this to everyone you know, and write or call your senator, reminding him that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW JUDGES until 2004 when a president is finally chosen by most of the American people.

-- [email protected]

There was also this recently from The Dallas Morning News:

And about the DWI:

to my next rant (when posted)
My Rants and Raves
The Joseph C. Hinson Home Page