|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| NEXT STEPS | |
 November 9, 2000  |
|
|
The outcome of the presidential election now hinges on a recount in Florida that could take weeks. Should one candidate concede for the good of the nation?
|
|
JIM LEHRER: Now some final thoughts about how the two men caught in the middle of this storm - Vice President Gore and Governor Bush -- might play this out. They come from Howard Baker, former Tennessee Senator, Republican leader of the Senate, and White House chief of staff under President Reagan. We also hoped to be joined by Leon Panetta, who was President Clinton's chief of staff in the first term; technical problems have prevented that from happening. Senator Baker, welcome. HOWARD BAKER: Thank you very much. |
||||||||||
| Winning isn't everything | |||||||||||
|
HOWARD BAKER: Jim, it would be extremely difficult, but it would also be heroic on one candidate or the other's part. Someone said earlier in the program that, in effect, winning isn't everything. I go one step further than that and say that anyone who's a serious contender for president probably undertakes a responsibility to the country to see that the final result is legitimate and that we don't shatter of the confidence of the country and its new leadership. Now, what that means in terms of the conduct of Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in the final analysis remains to be seen because we don't know the final results in Florida and probably won't know until November 17. We don't have the final vote totals in a couple of other states. It is not at all sure that one candidate or the other won the popular vote, although that's really not important in terms of our system. But in the final analysis, the primary obligation that presidential candidates have, in my view, is to see that the presidency is legitimate, that the new president has an opportunity to govern and under the very best circumstances, Jim, this is going to be a very difficult time, given the closeness of so many elections. So I think greatness depends in large measure on somebody deciding that this should not be prolonged, this should not be dragged through the legal system, this should be decided on the best basis you can in deference to your responsibility to the country. JIM LEHRER: Even if you believe, if you pushed it a little bit further, those votes might be out there that would make you president of the United States?
|
 |
||||||||||
| Moving the nation forward | |||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: Would you agree, then, with Wendy Kaminer that the parties and the candidates should not be involved in the legal process? HOWARD BAKER: Well, that's my own personal view.
HOWARD BAKER: Well, I think because they do... the presidential candidates do owe a special responsibility to guarantee not only the succession but the legitimacy of the successor. And you don't have that. It's not certainly of the same gravity and extent on behalf of a private citizen. Maybe a citizen made a mistake or a misjudgment in the way he cast his ballot, but mistakes are not the basis for a legal judgment. But these are technicalities. There should not have to be a judicial intervention here. It ought to be decided on the basis of the primary responsibility that two presidential candidates have to see that the country goes forward in an orderly way with the least controversy possible under the circumstances and that we do not cast doubt on the legitimacy of the next administration. JIM LEHRER: But, Senator, is it possible, viewing this situation right now, the reality that we know about it, for either man to walk away and say, "Okay, I accept this, and everything's going to be all right." And for people to say, "Okay, he really did lose, the other guy really did win?" HOWARD BAKER: Well, maybe, but I think there's a modicum of heroism involved that go a long way toward convincing the country that if the candidates can be that big about it, that they must be also. The one thing I really don't look forward to and fear, Jim, is that beginning in January of 2001, we have not only had a numerically divided congress and country but you have an adversarial relationship that makes it impossible or virtually impossible to govern. If you do, then this period will be known perhaps as the interregnum of the 21st century, and we simply can't afford that. So somebody's got to be big about it and I have no nomination for who that is. I simply say that we must not drag this through the legal system. JIM LEHRER: Were you as concerned as others were about the rising of the rhetoric today on both... from both campaigns?
JIM LEHRER: But as a practical matter, Senator, let's say the country is essentially divided, the people who voted at least are divided between these two men and let's say Vice President Gore or Governor Bush walks away now. And what if the supporters... Let's say Governor Bush decides to forget it, okay? What does he say, then, to the people who voted for him and the people who care deeply about abortion and the Supreme Court and tax cuts, all the issues he fought for, and he'd say and say, "Hey, come on." What does he say to them? HOWARD BAKER: What you say to that is, "I have a higher responsibility and that is to my country and to make sure of the legitimacy of the next administration. And all these issues are important and you know where I stand, but I'm going to try to bind up our wounds and you should, too."
HOWARD BAKER: I do think that. I think they're both capable of it, and I don't think you have to run out the legal string to get there. I think both these men-- and I know them both well-- I think both these men understand the gravity of the situation, but they also understand the responsibility that they have to the country. Just because the country was almost equally divided in the campaign and the election doesn't mean it'll stay that way -- the country craves, it yearns for a coming together of the political system, and I think that if either candidate, whichever one it is, decides that this has gone far enough, that the country will cheer, the system will prosper and the country will be better off for it. |
 |
||||||||||
| A president or a hero | |||||||||||
|
JIM LEHRER: So what you're really saying, Senator, is that out of this, there are opportunities for one man to become president and another man to become a world hero forever, I mean a hero of history?
Ann Richards who's former Democratic Governor of Texas said to me the other day, "You know, the only bad thing about politics is that when you get elected, you have to serve." And she said that, you know, with a smile on her face. But the truth of the matter is someone can be a world-class hero here, someone else is going to be president, and they're going to have to undertake that responsibility. But both of them have opportunities to discharge their obligation to the American people and to the institution of the presidency. And frankly, I think they are aware of that. I think both men are big Americans, and I think they can grasp that concept without any trouble, and I think the important thing, the bottom line is: Don't drag this out. JIM LEHRER: All right, Senator Baker, thank you very much. |
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| |||||
 | |||||
| |||||
|
|
| |||
| |||||
| |||||
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | |||||
JIM
LEHRER: Senator, "rise to the occasion," Stephen Carter just
said. Just in simple personal terms, what is your view of how difficult
it would be for either one of these men to now walk away based on where
we are right now?
HOWARD
BAKER: Yeah, I think even then. You know, I'm a lawyer by trade, and
I've been doing it for a long time. And I can tell you first hand that
lawsuits almost never solve anything. They create more animosity and
controversy usually than they solve. I would not like to see a presidential
election decided on the basis of judicial intervention. I think that's
what Richard Nixon did in 1960, and whether President Eisenhower did
that or it was done on his own initiative, I don't know, and I have
no way to tell. But the fact of the matter is the country was delivered
from a great challenge to the legitimacy of the next administration
when Nixon decided not to contest the election, particularly in Cook
County, Illinois. Now, the analogy is not exact. The votes are not yet
in. There's no clear pattern of misconduct. There are all sorts of allegations.
But in the final analysis, these two candidates, in my view, owe a responsibility
to the country to see that the decision is made in a timely, orderly
way and that it does not cast doubt on the legitimacy and effectiveness
of the next administration. 
JIM
LEHRER: Now why? Why is that different than an ordinary voter or somebody
in Florida pursuing it? 
HOWARD
BAKER: Well, I was concerned. I just didn't listen. You know, I think
that the country is... I think it's sated, I think it's tired of the
whole thing, I think it certainly doesn't want to get involved in the
legal minutia, and I think the country by and large is not listening.
And I think most of the rhetoric we've heard, which is certainly...
it's certainly enthusiastic rhetoric on both sides. I think that it's
said for the benefit of the partisans and those who are most carefully
involved, but I don't think that's the way the country feels. I think
the country thinks we need a decision, we need to bind up our wounds,
we need to get behind a president and get on with it. And I think we
ought to get on with it as soon as possible. 
JIM
LEHRER: And do you think anything like that is likely to happen? I'm
not talking about Governor Bush -- I'm not singling him out, I'm using
him as an example. Do you think either one of these men is capable and
willing to do this? 
HOWARD
BAKER: Exactly. And those are not small rewards, both of them. And as
a matter of fact, the hero who makes the decision may be remembered
by history more favorably than the man who was elected and had to serve.
You know, the great thing about politics, to be frank, Jim, is-- I served
there a long time in the Senate and then for President Reagan-- but
the happiest moment of my life was to be able to voluntarily return
to private life. 
