Election 2000 Essay Research Paper Election 2000Unless

Election 2000 Essay, Research Paper

Election 2000

Unless you have been hibernating in a cave somewhere off the coast of Madagascar for the past six and a half months, you know about and/or have experienced the historical year 2000 presidential election. Since day one there has been mass coverage not only of the candidates, but also of their families, friends, and business associates. One periodical that did an excellent job of covering the facts about this election, especially between November 8th and November 19th, was the New York Times. The editorials and op-editorials in this newspaper were powerful opinion pieces that questioned political position, the Separation of Powers, and the responsibility of the candidates. These editorials and op-editorials finally gave the nation an inside look on what was going on behind the scenes and what was really happening during the election.

First I would like to discuss the responsibility of the candidates. What exactly is responsibility? Does Vice President Al Gore or Governor Bush display this quality of leadership? According to the New Lexicon Webster s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, responsibility is the state or quality of being in control or having to give satisfaction and through the eyes of Mr. Leon Panetta, neither candidate is truly worthy. After reading Mr. Panetta s article, I sensed that there seemed to be an aura of pettiness surrounding this campaign. That both candidates were taking issues and situations to the extreme. Basically, that no one was ready to take the role of the defeated. In turn a nation full of people are suffering from the egos of two men who want to be the leader of the country, but aren t giving satisfaction to the nation. Therefore are these two men living up to their responsibilities, or are they only being selfish and looking out for themselves?

Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff under President Clinton (1994-1997), writes in his November 14th op-editorial that, ASo far both (Al Gore and George W. Bush) have allowed their campaign organizations to engage in continuing campaigns to convince the public of fairness of their positions. Deploying lawyers, spokesmen and campaign managers this way may satisfy the appetite to fight, but not the responsibility to reconcile a serious national dilemma.@ This statement alone displays that Panetta has a problem with the way the candidates and their campaigns were behaving. He goes on to say that having a national election of over 100 million votes boil down to a few hundred Acontroversial@ ballots in Florida is outrageous. He also feels that Aa scorched-earth litigation process to the bitter end@ makes sense to the lawyers and the campaign officials it really makes no sense for the nation. It was also apparent to Panetta that the US was divided over who should win, but he felt that a post-election battle would only make it difficult for the winner to govern the nation.

Since the federal court decided not to interfere with Florida and its laws, both Bush and Gore faced a crucial choice according to Mr. Panetta. He concluded that they (Gore and Bush) could litigate each election decision that was not acceptable, but challenging those close votes would not stop at Florida, they would have to challenge Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and any other state that disputed results. He also feels that this is all twaddle and that the two should come together and agree to a course of action that would bring this election to closure as justly and dutifully as possible.

The op-editorial also goes on to speak about how an agreement between the candidates would not satisfy the campaigns or the lawyers and possibly some voters, but it would be the right thing for the nation because both sides were fighting a legal and propaganda war that they were losing. Moreover the candidates weren=t the only people losing, the nation was also at a loss because there was no one to govern and in Panetta=s eyes the presidency is about putting the nation=s interest first.@ As a true test of the responsibility of candidates and their campaigns, Panetta concludes with a call of action. He states, ABoth of these candidates have campaigned on the basis that they would make the tough choices if and when the time came. That time is now.@

On the other hand, in the November 18th edition of the New York Times editorial page, the courts instead of the candidates are being questioned and how much the public owes them and how much power one person can have. Florida=s secretary of state, Katherine Harris, was directed from prematurely certifying the presidential election results. The state=s highest court scheduled a hearing to consider the legality of the hand counts and Ms. Harris=s claim that she has the authority to ignore all late returns. The editorial also goes on to explain how the public owes a great deal to the state Supreme Court for its commendable speed and shrewdness in stepping in to maintain the status quo until all legal issues were resolved. Also how it would be stupid to continue the hand counts and exclude the results, that way the American electorate would be sure that the outcome of the presidential election was based on a full and fair count, even though under imperfect conditions.

Ms. Harris=s claim of authority would not be the last word on this election because the Supreme Court would not wait