The Election of 2000
(We interrupt the "Revolution at Our Door" article to bring you some thoughts
about the Election.)
The Election of 2000 will no doubt go down in history as one of the turning
points of the new century. Not since the 1876 election attempt of Samuel J.
Tilden, the governor of New York, running against Rutherford B. Hayes, has
there been as evenly contested a race.
But it’s not going to work out the way either Gore or Bush have in mind. I
predict that the winner of this election will be the loser.
Look at the facts:
- the House and the Senate are evenly split
- the economy is slowing down (in Silicon Valley the business headlines over
the last couple weeks have been about dot-com lay-off’s and bankruptcies)
- the markets have dropped 25% over the course of this year and we haven’t
seen the bottom yet
- and the vote counting process has opened up the barely contained rage and
rancor of US voters split right down the middle: it’s the great rural
heartland (Republican territory) against the urban centers on both coasts
(Demo-land)
- and that's not even mentioning crises overseas
Who would want to walk into this train wreck about to happen? No wonder Bush
has a boil on this cheek. I would say to my man Gore, "Duck and cover." Let
the Republican’s blunder in where no fool would dare to tread and let’s pick
up the pieces in four years.
After months of partisan chicanery, on 4 a.m. on March 2, 1877, two days
before President Grant's term expired, the president of the Senate announced
that Rutherford Hayes had won the presidency by a single electoral vote (cast
by Florida!). Hayes was a completely ineffective president; he was known as
Mr. Fraudulency throughout his presidency. When his term ended, he did not
run again.
