ROLL
OUT THE DIMPLES
It
didn't look on good on Monday for the GOP as their lawyers
were peppered with irate questions, and generally given the
raised-eyebrow treatment by the Florida Supremes. But it wasn't
just the judges' tone and demeanor that threw the Republicans
for a loop – it was the preemptive strike by the Democrats'
legal team asking the court to set standards for vote-counting.
This, at any rate, is what the Republicans were complaining
about in the hours before the Florida court announced its
decision: they even filed a last minute appeal, reminding
the justices that they don't have jurisdiction over the question
of what constitutes a vote. But it isn't really Al Gore's
legal team that deserves the credit for this artful legal
maneuver: it was Judge Peggy Quince, a
Jeb Bush appointee, and not David
Boies, the Democrats' hotshot lawyer, who pulled the question
out of her hat. If
you look at the transcript, it was Quince who first raised
the issue, seemingly out of thin air: Boies is arguing about
the meaning of the word "discretion" to describe the Florida
Secretary of State's authority in this matter, and suddenly
the Judge asks:
"If
that's the case then, should we be trying to determine also
this whole issue about the faulty chads? Because I would assume
that that would be a part of any contest that would be made
of the recount. But if we're worried about this time limit,
is that something that we should be concerned with now, and
is it squarely before this court now?"
That
one was out of the clear blue sky, but Boies jumped right
on it almost as if he expected it:
"Your
honor, I think it is squarely before the court, and I think
the court must be concerned with it now, because I think that
given the particular deadline, the wall, that is set up by
the federal provision, that this court needs to act expeditiously
to set the standard, because we don't think we have time ..."
DOWN
THE PRIMROSE PATH
The
judge then leads Boies down a carefully-prepared path that
can only lead to one possible result: the inauguration of
Al Gore as the 43rd President of the United States:
Is there any case law or other precedent that would give the
court some guidance in setting up this standard? Why, sure,
answers Boies, there's all these really cool examples cited
in our brief, and besides, they steal votes using this very
same method in Texas. "So if that's the case," asks Quince,
"Would
you be telling this court that any mark made by the voter
would be evidence of that voter's intent and should be counted
as such?
BOIES:
"I think so, your honor . . ."
UNDERVOTES
FROM THE UNDERWORLD
The
mechanics of the coup on the legal and political level rest
on the foundations of the massive fraud being committed by
Democratic party activists in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade
counties, where all-Democrat canvassing boards have been carefully
setting aside thousands of so-called "undervotes," ballots
which may fall into a number of categories. Some are hanging
chads hanging by three corners (in the trade, they call this
a "tri-chad"), others are "dimpled" chads and "pregnant" chads,
unperforated indentations made in the ballot indicating, perhaps,
some physical or mental disability, or perhaps the inability
of the voter to go through with it. Yet others show no mark
on the presidential line at all, but indicate a straight party-line
vote for all other offices – why surely these
voters really meant to vote for Al Gore, and only neglected
to do so through some oversight. As Lance DeHaven-Smith, a
Florida political science professor and elections expert put
it, "Why would they vote for everything else and not the
president?'' A number of reasons come to mind, chiefly that
the voter may have decided that none of the candidates deserved
to be President and abstained as a protest. Why is this
kind of "intent" left out of the equation? In any case, the
Florida Supremes left it out and gave the implicit go-ahead
to Gore's dimpled victory by citing
an Illinois case quoted in Boies' legal brief: a vote
is whatever the local party bosses say it is.
REPUBLICANS
IN RETREAT
In
his oral arguments before the court, Boies was essentially
asking for a legal imprimatur on the manufacture of nonexistent
"votes" – and now he has gotten it. Maddened by power-lust,
the Democrats don't even bother to disguise their strategy
and tactics: they merely go for the throat, and worry about
the public relations aspect of it later. The Republicans,
on the other hand, are completely on the defensive, literally
reeling from the unfolding coup. In spite of recently ratcheting
up the rhetoric, the GOP counterattack seems uncoordinated
and generally clueless. There was no follow-up at all on the
revelation that over 1,000 overseas military ballots were
targeted by the Democrats in a coordinated campaign, challenged
and thrown out by local canvassing boards made up entirely
of Gore supporters. A few Republican members of Congress spoke
out, but the party refrained from announcing a lawsuit on
behalf of disenfranchised soldiers stationed overseas. As
for Dubya, he was cocooning at his ranch, playing fetch with
his dog Spot.
TOO
LITTLE, TOO LATE
These
endless surrogates are no replacement for real leadership,
but only lead the more imaginative to speculate on what might
have happened if Montana Governor Mark Racicot had run instead
of Dubya. Perhaps he might have carried Florida by
a big enough margin – but then it's too late for that
now, isn't it?
THE
NEW MILLENNIUM
The
Gore machine has until November 26 to create enough votes
to steal the election. There will be a few more legal skirmishes,
in the circuit court on Wednesday (over the "dimpled" ballot
issue) and perhaps before the Supreme Court again. But essentially
it's all over but the shouting, barring divine intervention,
or some miraculous reassertion of Republican will. Already
Gore is calling on Republicans to "tone down" their rhetoric,
and affecting a presidential air. It's revolting, but true:
Al Gore will be the next President. The significance of the
November Coup cannot be overestimated: this is a new millennium
indeed. That the Gore coup was even a possibility, politically,
is proof positive that the US is entering the Imperial age,
or one might even call it the Napoleonic era.
TRANSITION
TO EMPIRE
An
empire in everything but name for the greater part of the
twentieth century, America in the twenty-first is shaking
off the tattered remnants of its homely republican garb. The
republican veneer of our institutions is breaking down under
the sheer weight of the political reality – a federal
Leviathan whose tentacles encircle the world. The President
of the United States really is the equivalent of a global
monarch, and so many fortunes rise or fall on who holds the
office that the death-struggle in Florida seems not at all
absurd. And it isn't just the office of President that excites
such passions. Elections in America will never be quite the
same again. In the future, we will see each of the parties
mobilizing armies of observers and poll-watchers, as well
as deploying teams of lawyers: these will become as necessary
to a campaign as TV ads and grassroots organizing.
NEW
AGE POLITICS
The
political corollary of the social contract, which supposedly
eliminates force and fraud from the electoral equation, having
broken down in Florida, will disintegrate around the country.
George Washington's fear, expressed in his Farewell
Address, of contending "factions" that could tear
the young Republic apart may have been prophetic. Then the
country will look for a leader, a Great Unifier who can bring
the factions together, or suppress them by force – and
the Age of the Demagogues is upon us.
REMEMBER
YOUR SCIENCE
The
future does indeed look bleak, as we contemplate the end of
our old Republic. But remember your science: for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction. Let Gore and the
coup-plotters have their day. Let the Great Pretender have
his Inauguration Day ceremony – god, that's one inaugural
speech I really dread hearing! Let him take the oath
of office, and in pledging to uphold the Constitution succeed
in overthrowing it. Let them play "Hail to the Chief" when
what they really mean is "Hail to the Thief"! Our day will
come soon enough.
|
