Of all the revelations in The New York Timesinvestigation of partisan favoritism in the counting of Florida's overseas ballots, none was more galling than the new information on the role played by Gore and Lieberman. At a time when campaign strategists were pressing Florida election officials to disallow military ballots that lacked witness signatures or pre-election day postmarks, Lieberman appeared on Meet the Press and urged that military ballots be given "the benefit of the doubt." Only in the Timesaccount, eight months later, did senior campaign officials pour out their rage, on the record, at Lieberman--and not for a single blunder but for a whole mentality.
Gore, if anything, was worse. The Times quoted Joe Sandler, then the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee, recalling Gore's exact words: "If I won this thing by a handful of military ballots, I would be hounded by Republicans and the press every day of my presidency and it wouldn't be worth having."
It wouldn't be worth having!
That qualm certainly didn't occur to George W. Bush or Karl Rove or JamesBaker or Katherine Harris. In the event, Bush didn't win by a handful of militaryballots. He won by a handful of stolen ballots. But that didn't prevent him fromappearing presidential, rolling over the Democrats despite his lack of a mandate,and winning early enactment of his program's centerpiece: the tax cut. When hedid finally stall, it was less press scrutiny or Democratic resolve that causedhis crusade to sputter than it was his own stupidity and division in his ranks.
The Times investigation underscores how completely the Bush campaign outplayed Gore. But let's be clear. What allowed the Republicans not only to filch the White House but to assume office with the glow of legitimacy was not just shrewder tactics. Bush and Cheney kept their nerve; Gore and Lieberman abandoned theirs. For some characterological reason, Gore lacked the stomach or the heart or the guts--pick your favorite body part--to call a steal a steal. "All of a sudden, he was Jimmy Stewart," a senior legal strategist said of Gore to the Times. Actually, Jimmy Stewart would have done a lot better: He might not have wrested back the presidency, but he would have been all heart and Bush would have taken over in a Pyrrhic win, as a usurper.
The presidency that Gore decided would not be worth having was not his to giveup. It belonged to the millions of Americans who worked to keep George W. Bushand his gang out of the White House--the citizens who are now suffering theeffects of Bush's rule. In the days after the election, Gore may have beendetached, but there was plenty of passion on the ground. In Florida,African-American and labor activists wanted massive demonstrations. It was thecampaign high command, on orders from Gore himself, who sent word to cool thingsdown. They didn't want the face of the Democratic Party on national TV to beangry black voters and trade unionists. But the Republicans knew exactly what todo. Though the Democrats had real ground troops in a state of righteousindignation and the Republicans did not, Republican strategists knew enough tosimulate a demonstration. Majority Whip Tom DeLay sent congressional staffers in suits, by the planeload, to march menacingly outside the Dade County election offices until the vote recount was called off.
In yet another default of leadership, Gore has remained hors decombat in the six months since Bush's inauguration. People close to the formervice president have several explanations. He was depressed and gaining weight. Hedidn't want to seem a sore loser. He wanted time with his family. All of that maybe true. Yet there is another explanation: Gore has been keeping his powder dry.
One of the oddities about Bush's early success was the vacuum ofnational Democratic leadership. Understandably, Daschle and Gephardt have beenconsumed by the task of holding together their fractious caucuses. Clinton,having disgraced himself yet again with the midnight pardons, has taken himselfout of the limelight, except for discreet $250,000 speaking engagements. ButGore? The man got half a million votes more than Bush did. He had every right,and no small obligation, to stand up and say that the people had not voted forthis program--in short, to lead. Instead, he has evidently been planning acautious comeback. He will shortly be speaking at several--what else?--partyfundraising events. He is very close to the party's ace moneyman, DNC Chair TerryMcAuliffe. Beginning in September, we will again hear the familiar, carefullypoll-tested drone of Gore trying to seem presidential.
And lately, Gore loyalists have been talking about a rematch. As in,the American people love a rematch; the American people deserve a rematch. So inNovember 2004, look forward to Bush v. Gore: The Sequel. Well, let's hope not.
Al Gore got the nomination mainly because the labor movement and theDemocratic Leadership Council agreed, for once, that the candidate should bechosen early and that it should be Gore. The DLC's money and labor's troops gotGore more votes than Bush could get. But both groups are pretty unhappy with Gorenow. He blew a terrific shot. And if the Democrats can't find somebody moreeffective, then maybe they deserve him.
Mercifully, there wasn't an Ishtar II. And Gore-Lieberman I was quite sufficient. Sequels always bomb, don't they?
Editor's Note: Our crisp new format is the work of consulting designer Alissa Levin, of Point Five Design. Let us know how you likeit.
