|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| JOURNALISTS' PERSPECTIVES | |
 December 7, 2000  |
|
|
Regulars Broder, Brooks and Oliphant discuss the presidential election endgame.
|
|
 JIM
LEHRER: Now, some closing thoughts from Broder, Brooks and Oliphant: David
Broder of The Washington Post, David Brooks of The Weekly Standard,
Tom Oliphant of The Boston Globe.Tom, for once, since this began, is it in fact almost impossible to overstate the importance of the Florida Supreme Court decision when it comes? TOM OLIPHANT: It is literally impossible to overstate the importance of the Florida Supreme Court decision when it comes because, at least in the case of Vice President Gore, an adverse ruling effectively ends his presidential campaign. Governor Bush is in the exact opposite position because he is prepared to flout such a decision, if it's adverse to him. JIM LEHRER: Let's take it one thing at a time. David Broder, if it goes for Bush, against Gore, you agree that it's over from Gore's point of view at least?
JIM LEHRER: But in practical political terms, if in fact this court, the Supreme Court should rule against Gore tomorrow, then we could have a concession within hours or within days after that? DAVID BRODER: I have no idea what the vice president's timing is, but I think the concession statement would be the next big step. JIM LEHRER: All right, now, David Brooks, the other scenario, that if in fact it goes against George W. Bush, the expectation here, as Tom said, is that that is not the end -- is that a good... not a great expectation, but a reasonable expectation? DAVID BROOKS: That it's never the end? Yes, that's a good expectation. Yeah, then we're back to the chad wars. Then we don't know how to count them. And then there's the third possibility, which is that we get Gore wins... or Gore loses the Supreme Court but then wins the absentee and stays with it, does not concede immediately after -- then we're in the thermonuclear phase -- if he does not concede right after the Supreme Court rules, where we then have to fight over these absentee ballots. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
| Hanging in there | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: Well, let's go back to that. You think that's possible, you think that he might just hang in there another two or three days?
JIM LEHRER: Tom? TOM OLIPHANT: That doesn't seem likely. JIM LEHRER: Crazy as with a nation?
JIM LEHRER: Yeah. TOM OLIPHANT: So that creates the likelihood that the state Supreme Court ruling, when it comes, I assume tomorrow... JIM LEHRER: You mean in the big case? TOM OLIPHANT: Right. ...Would come in a context of where there'd be all three, at least in the same news cycle. It's certainly possible that the trial judges could go for Gore and the Supreme Court against, but having endured all 22 hours of those two trials, the hill that the plaintiffs have to climb to be successful seems to me to be like Mt. Everest. JIM LEHRER: But to David's point specifically, though, Tom, that if for whatever reason and, you know, predicting is not a really good... TOM OLIPHANT: Not in this case. JIM LEHRER: ...Not a good thing to do right now. But at any rate, assuming that, for discussion purposes only here, that there is a lag time -- okay? The Florida Supreme Court resolves the big one but the other one has not been resolved yet -- would you think Al Gore might say, well, wait just a minute here. Let's let these two play out as well, no matter how long it goes? |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| A chance to play out | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: But, David Broder, would the vice president risk something with the public and in a political sense if he hung in there too long waiting for these second two cases to be resolved?
JIM LEHRER: All right, now, David Brooks, let's go back to the Bush... the other scenario, that if in fact Bush wins -- I mean Gore wins in the big cases or in any of these cases and the thing is still pending -- and he's going to go on, right? DAVID BROOKS: Right. JIM LEHRER: This thing can go on? DAVID BROOKS: Go to the U.S. Supreme Court and then we fight the Chad wars, as I say - what counts - JIM LEHRER: Then what happens on December 12, under this scenario? DAVID BROOKS: Well, they've got to do it all very quickly. JIM LEHRER: They - DAVID BROOKS: And then that leads to the possible open result, which then leads to the Florida state legislature. JIM LEHRER: Yeah, yeah. And is it your understanding and your belief that George W. Bush and his people are prepared to do that? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| General coordination | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
DAVID BROOKS: I've seen no evidence they are not. JIM LEHRER: Tom... two Davids at one time... TOM OLIPHANT: Try to make it a little bit more explicit than that. I thought it was extremely interesting that, if we could assume general coordination here among Austin, Tallahassee, legislature, Governor Jeb Bush, that the... JIM LEHRER: Should we assume that, Tom?
JIM LEHRER: That's what you - TOM OLIPHANT: Absolutely. JIM LEHRER: David Broder, do you read that message the same? DAVID BRODER: I think that's right. And this Supreme Court in Florida has really two sets of people looking at them. They've got the legislature across the street doing exactly what Tom said. And they also know that the Supreme Court is looking over their shoulder with a good deal of skepticism about their legal competence. JIM LEHRER: You mean the U.S. Supreme Court? DAVID BRODER: U.S. Supreme Court. I'm sorry. What did I say? JIM LEHRER: There are a lot of courts. DAVID BRODER: Right. JIM LEHRER: David, that's a pretty serious charge. You think these two men are right?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Tight deadline | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: If that happens before December 12, you mean? DAVID BROOKS: Right, we're all dealing with this incredibly tight... JIM LEHRER: Dealing in that context. DAVID BROOKS: Right. JIM LEHRER: So you believe that, to suggest that they're going to send Bush electors to Washington no matter what happens in this is not fair?
TOM OLIPHANT: Actually, we do know as of tonight, that there are differences or at least shadings of opinion among the Republicans in the legislature. Some of the state senators have actually said in public that should the courts direct the certification of the vice president as the winner, that they would be prepared to support that. Now, I still think the majority is prepared to…. JIM LEHRER: Senate leader McKay pretty much said that, that he would abide by a court decision to do it for Gore. TOM OLIPHANT: Precisely. And that is why I suggested that this otherwise gratuitous seeming act last night was designed to send a message to the court that this legislative body is watching. JIM LEHRER: What's the nature of the threat, then? TOM OLIPHANT: Well, that, go ahead, go ahead, you know. We're here, and you can decide this case in the vice president's favor -- and there are some of them who are prepared to do this even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to uphold a decision in Gore's favor -- that no matter what, we're going ahead. JIM LEHRER: David. David Broder?
JIM LEHRER: And the way to do... they have two ways to did it, right? They can go through the Florida legislature or they could go to the U.S. Supreme Court? Is there any other place to go? DAVID BRODER: Or the Congress. JIM LEHRER: Or the Congress, right. DAVID BRODER: Yes. JIM LEHRER: But can all of that... give me a scenario for how that could work out. DAVID BRODER: Well, you would need to have someone in the Congress to take that last step, object to the seating or the counting... not the seating… the counting of the Florida electoral votes. It takes only two members of the Congress, one from the Senate, one from the House, to force the Senate and House to vote on what tally to accept from Florida or whether to accept a Florida tally. That's the ultimate line of resistance on the Bush side. JIM LEHRER: David Brooks. DAVID BROOKS: It should be emphasized, first of all, that we are eight hurdles. We've run eight hurdles in the last eight minutes and that it's still... all of this is still unlikely. JIM LEHRER: Absolutely.
JIM LEHRER: I was interested in what Professor Gerken said a while ago to Margaret, that all of these judges seem to be saying, not me. Not me. I don't want to pick the president of the United States. I mean that's kind of a healthy view of things, is it not? DAVID BROOKS: Well, yeah, nice humility and appropriate and a sign of their wisdom. Listen, they're stuck with this impossible task. We had this tie election and we're expecting somebody to say, here's the firm result we can all look to. That is an impossible task and anybody who tries to undertake that impossible task gets soiled because they inevitably fail.
TOM OLIPHANT: I think in terms of acceptance, the answer would be in a New York minute, with very few exceptions. And to go back to what David Broder said about Mr. Gore's concession after the New York primary, which we all remember so well a dozen years ago, he's all... he's prepared even to lead in the movement toward acceptance of the result, that it would be very important to him that people not use words like illegal or illegitimate JIM LEHRER: Or clouds? TOM OLIPHANT: Or clouds or anything like that. And you would see a modern... in fact, the thing I was going to add to what Dave Broder said is that we've already seen the vice president twice in this month come right to the brink of concession. JIM LEHRER: That's right. In fact he did it once. TOM OLIPHANT: He actually did it on the telephone. So facing this is not something that's new to him. And I think if it came, as you ask it, that his leadership would take the vast majority of Democrats with him. JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, David Broder? DAVID BRODER: Absolutely. JIM LEHRER: That would end it?
JIM LEHRER: Okay, two Davids and a Tom, thank you all very much. |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
DAVID
BRODER: I think so, because while those absentee cases would still be
hanging out there, as your previous panel pointed out, it's hard for
me to see how Gore ultimately wins on the basis of tossing out absentee
votes. I think that's an action that would really provoke a counterstroke
from the Florida legislature, and then we're really in deep trouble.
DAVID
BROOKS: Well, I don't know what he will do, but the possibility is...
the Supreme Court decides for Bush, then does Gore immediately concede?
Does he concede before these other two decisions? And is that even possible,
since he doesn't really control the other two decisions? But if he doesn't
and then we do get the other two decisions, throwing out possibly some
of these absentee ballots, then we really do go crazy as a nation. 
TOM
OLIPHANT: Well, that goes without saying. But it doesn't seem likely
to me as a scenario for two reasons: First of all, the two trial judges
have said today that they expect to rule, in effect, by noon tomorrow,
certainly in the case of the one in Martin County and I have a feeling
that that judge and the judge in the Seminole County case are probably
doing a little bit of communicating. 
TOM
OLIPHANT: To make a semi-educated guess from talking to his advisers
in the last day -- here's the way they put it: Look, these are two cases
that survived attempts at summary judgment, so they went to trial, they
were heard. Presumably we could agree that perhaps the plaintiffs had
a right to a verdict. And you have to allow for the possibility, after
all, that the judges might find for the plaintiffs and that their rulings
could be upheld by the Supreme Court of the state of Florida, in which
case, these cases would hardly seem legitimate -- so... illegitimate,
rather. So for Vice President Gore to say that these cases should have
a chance to play out hardly seems to me an unusual stance for a public
figure to take with his election hanging in the balance. 
DAVID
BRODER: Yes, he would risk. And I think his political advisors, as distinguished
from his legal advisors, understand that. Jim, there's one bit of history
that may provide a guide. When Al Gore first ran for the presidential
nomination back in 1988, the decisive event in ending things for him
was the New York primary. He did not tarry. He left the race the next
day with a statement that was extraordinarily gracious toward his opponents,
even though it had been in a bitter fight in New York. So I think we
might look to that example as to how he would react. 
TOM
OLIPHANT: I think we should. I'm told by legislators in Tallahassee
that there's no question that all of these places are in the same loop.
But it was very interesting yesterday that the legislative leadership
in Florida went ahead and announced the convening of this session tomorrow.
Now, there is no vote anticipated before the middle of next week, so
the mind wonders, why did they do this last night? And I think the...
is there a polite word for threat? I think the message that they were
sending to the courts was, we're here, and it doesn't matter... if you
decide against Bush, we're prepared.
DAVID
BROOKS: I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it matters. You know, one of
the things about the legislative branch -- the legislators are being
treated like peasants with pitchforks who dare to intervene in this
thing. They are a democratically elected body; they are the body the
constitution says should intervene and should be really running this
show. But one of the things that they can do, they are not a... they
are not a static body. They are an elected body. These guys have to
face re-election in a few years. It could be they mean to charge in
full bore for the Bush campaign. But say they do that, say the court
rules for Gore and then they start actually counting. Then the count
goes in favor of Gore. These guys are sitting there with the public
seeing the court has gone for Gore. They may be solid Republicans, but
do they really have the guts to overturn that count?
DAVID
BROOKS: What I want to emphasize is they are a political body; they
are not a judicial body. That is to say they are flexible, they are
open to public pressure and that you can't take a static look at what
they are going to do. What they mean to do now may be different from
what they do in a few days. 
JIM
LEHRER: All right. Speaking of soiled, Tom, let's move on to beyond
the candidates, beyond the courts. Let's say that, as a result of what
happened in the Supreme Court of Florida today, George W. Bush is certified,
the certification holds, he becomes president of the United States.
Are the Democrats, the rank-and-file Democrats in the House and the
Senate announce we're going to accept that, or is he going to be...
is that cloud going to remain? What's your reading right now?