|
|
"American President" Viewers Weigh In On the Election With No Winner
by Dan Sanders Why did the apparent winner, George W. Bush, win?
What was the most important issue in the campaign?
What should the loser have done differently?
What should the winner do first?
What will be the impact of this election on the United States?
What lies ahead for the new President -- and the Runner Up?
WHY DID THE WINNER, GEORGE W. BUSH, WIN?
HOW YOU SEE IT: "Actually, there is really no winning candidate. Bush did not win yet. But I will give him this: he is about to."
"He had a better campaign plan than Gore. People felt that Bush was more straightforward and honest." "He related to the American people better than the other one."
"This was Gore's election to lose. He spent too much time trying to please too many different people instead of just being himself." "Because his baby brother Jeb is the Governor of Florida (and could've allowed some things to go on
that shouldn't have), and likely because of the antiquated Electoral College system we use to elect our president." "Willingness to work with the opposition party." "The anti-Clinton vote."
"People are angry at Clinton getting away with adultery." "Bush won because he appeared to be the only available candidate who could work with the other side of the aisle." "Vote fraud in Florida."
"Because some people are too lazy to vote, and the Bush campaign did a better job of selling their candidate. "The Republicans used every dirty trick in the book and then some."
"Bush (apparently) won because Mr. Gore is so unlikable. How else can you explain that the majority support his platform, yet can't seem to bring themselves to accept watching and listening to him for the
next four years? The man simply does not push the emotional button in a positive way." "I'd say it's primarily because of some perceived integrity the public thinks Bush possesses that almost
of exactly half of the voting public thinks Gore lacks. It's poppycock, of course, because they are both politicians that have long since traded integrity for a chance at the brass ring."
"Electoral college leaves too much room for error." "Al Gore agreeing with abortion, while people like myself think that it is cruel."
"He cheated! Remember his words, after Florida was announced for Gore: 'I did not lose Florida.' Several minutes later, brother Jeb was making phone calls. Sam Giancana could not have done it better!"
"Although there will be a technical winner, the vote is so close that it is hard to assign a "reason" why. My own take is that this was a weird campaign in that there was no mention of the parties. Gore had his
plan and Bush had his plan – almost as if both men were divorced from the Democratic and Republican parties. About the closest we got to "politics" was the use of the term "Clinton-Gore." No one
mentioned impeachment. Because the parties were not mentioned, the candidates' personalities became much more important than previously, rather than ideology or partisanship."
"I understand that Bush has no reason to see if he really didn't win by recounting all the votes, but a truly great leader would allow the time to see if he actually won or not. This whole thing has certainly shown
which of the two candidates is more presidential." "Legal posturing, arguing 'fairness' versus 'process.'" "He could best manipulate the people."
"Bush won largely due to the charisma he portrayed during the Presidential debates. To me he lacks considerable and very vital experience, but people obviously were captivated by his easygoing manner,
his ability to capture the right thing at the right moment. But, between you and me, I wish someone would get rid of his damn smirk!"
"The (apparent) winner hasn't won yet and the shenanigans in Florida have come back to hit them in the face, that's why he is so opposed to a recount."
"The voters in the rural areas of the US are in touch with reality. California and New York voters are idiots." "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public!"
"Bush reminds most people of themselves... just an average guy who doesn't understand Washington but wants to shake things up. If it comes down to who do you want have a beer with down at the tavern,
it would have to be Bush, and that's why he won." "Because we had to throw out 119,000 votes! And, because for some reason, we need an Electoral College making our decisions for us." "Al Gore." HOW I SEE IT:
The turning point, as usual in modern presidential campaigns, was the debates. Bush was far from brilliant in them, but he didn't have to be. His campaign skillfully dampened public and
media expectations of his debating ability beforehand, so when Bush more or less held his own he made himself a truly viable alternative to Gore in the eyes of swing voters. Gore's communications skills were
found wanting. B y the tiniest margin, Bush was more telegenic. Bush did not have a meaningful candidate from the extreme wing of his party siphoning off votes, as Gore did with Ralph Nader. As the
minority party in America, the Republicans must remain tightly unified to win, and their more activist elements – Christian conservatives in particular – kept quiet and out of sight during the campaign. In the
later stages of the post-election court battle, Bush had friends in high places. Florida is governed by his brother, Jeb; its secretary of state, with the power to certify elections, was co-chair of Bush's Florida
campaign; the state's solidly Republican legislature named its own set of presidential electors for him; the U.S. Supreme Court offered a sympathetically conservative majority. Perhaps most important, the
Republicans seemed to have the stronger incentive in 2000. Of course the Democrats wanted to retain the White House, but the Republicans were driven by searing memories: two election drubbings at the
hands of their despised archnemesis, Bill Clinton, the president's rout of Newt Gingrich, and their failure to oust Clinton by impeachment. The Republicans simply seemed to want it more this time..
WHAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE CAMPAIGN?
HOW YOU SEE IT: "Winning, as far as I could tell! Both candidates were so coached, poll-driven and spun, they were downright robotic."
"Honesty. The candidates talk the talk, but very rarely do you see one walk the walk." "For me, it was my hope that the Green party would get enough of the the vote (5%) to receive federal
matching campaign funding. For the two major parties, the main issue seemed to be mud slinging – to make the other candidate look bad, thereby forcing a choice between two jerks." "Moral issues and new sense of direction."
"The most important issue in the campaign was Bill Clinton." "Tax cut across the board." "Were there any?" "Moral issues seemed to be a theme in this election, as well as a "distancing" from each candidate's
party. Interestingly, both Gore and Bush wanted to show everyone that they were not the typical representative of their party." "Education, social security, economy."
"Future energy policy; the ability to maintain prosperity and project the USA as #1; the future of Social Security." "An accurate counting of the votes." "A woman's right to choose, gun control, and the environment."
"Control of all three branches of the Federal Government by right-wing conservatives; now we have one-party rule." "Both sides had a lot of money to spend on focus groups and researching issues, both had the same
exact things to say, basically." "The Supreme Court justices that will be appointed in this term, the environment that Bush is going to destroy. 'We don't know what causes global warming'!"
"Greed. The Republicans unabashedly want more for the individual, less for the less fortunate." "Public schooling funds. For all types of schools."
"Who will decide the makeup of the Supreme Court. I can't believe some of these young women who don't think ahead about their reproductive rights. It won't be me and the women my age who will be
affected by Roe vs Wade being overthrown. Stupid, stupid, stupid." "I think it is gun control." "Keeping the Social Security intact, abolishing HMO's (they are not doctors), continuing to pay down the
National Debt and not make more debt, clean up the campaigning and the spending for it. Also to help seniors obtain their medications without having to get on a bus to go to Canada. It is hard to pay for
them when the prices just keep escalating." "I think Mr. Bush successfully established 'trust' as the most important issue in the campaign. The
Republicans were relentless in labeling Gore as a man who exaggerates, stretches the truth and even lies to make his point." "Experience of candidates." "Taxes and welfare."
"Up to five Supreme Court justice positions may come up for nomination during the next four years and, with Bush as President, we stand to lose the balance that is so desperately needed in order to protect
the personal rights of all Americans regardless of their race, religion, sex or sexual preference." HOW I SEE IT:
The central question of the 2000 election was what America should do in the roiling wake of Clinton. The election was really a referendum on him: should he be punished for his personal
misdeeds by electing Bush, or rewarded for his political triumphs by electing Gore? Other issues arose – Social Security, education, prescription drugs for the elderly – but Clinton's shadow hovered over every
facet of the campaign. Gore was on the business end of a widespread repudiation of his president's highly questionable personal behavior. The great lesson for the Democrats may well be: character does
count, at least to enough of the voting population..
WHAT SHOULD THE LOSING CAMPAIGN HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY?
HOW YOU SEE IT: "Been bold and brave enough to step out, speak out and make a difference."
"Both candidates did rather well in getting out the vote. The margin of error in some of the polls I saw
could have swayed either candidate to hit a state stronger, but who is to say?" "There is no losing campaign, really. There are no winners here. Whoever is elected, half the country is
gonna be ticked off. Campaign on the merits next time, not on how horrible and immoral and stupid the other guy is." "Bush is the losing candidate. He should grow a brain." "We're
"They should have had more commercials saying what they would do instead of dissing the other candidate." "Started being honest." "Gore shouldn't have lied. Who wants their 43rd president to be the guy who always lied?"
"Al Gore lost the elections during the debates. Who would have thought?" "Gore should have emphasized the prosperity USA has had for many years and tried to take credit for his part in it as a top administrator."
"Nominate Bill Bradley, who has no connection to Clinton." "Work at issues, not criticizing the opponent." "Gore should have debated more spontaneously. He stuck to his soundbite script and didn't really do a
good job of clarifying important ideological differences. When he's spontaneous, he shows he knows his stuff and he's a much more magnetic fellow. When he sticks to the script, he sounds condescending and, well, just plain icky."
"Gore should have listened to his advisors. He obviously tried to do too much on his own – writing his own speeches, making decisions without consulting his advisors, etc."
"They should have come to a live taping of the Smackdown Challenge, hosted by the WWF. I think that both candidates should have been there to express their views to the public."
"Neither should have been mud-slinging so much that a newsman would have to come on TV to make some sense of what was really going on. If a national re-vote was cast now, Bush would lose by a great
margin, due to his whining and being so terrified of a recount – especially in his brother's state." "Gore should have won his home state. He should have let Clinton out of the box to campaign in states
where he was still popular ( Tennessee, Georgia, and, yes, Florida). Gore ran a terrible campaign!" "Been a little more acknowledging of the 'reasonableness' of the other side's position regarding the post election procedures."
"Used Bill Clinton more effectively to rally the troops." "Get President Clinton involved in his campaign" "Not have dragged this on forever and be respectful to our election system. Step aside with a little
respect and try again next time." "The losing candidate should not have had the votes recounted and recounted." "If we are talking about Al Gore, give him more charisma and appeal to the general public, as he
unfortunately came across rather cold, without a great deal of personality, and actually quite stiff in appearance." "Talk less about Social Security and "lock boxes" and focus more on his experience in government
versus Bush's inexperience, as well as the state of affairs in Texas under Bush's tenure (i.e. education and health care – Bush takes credit for the health care programs that he vetoed!)."
"The Democrats should have nominated Bill Bradley. I can't imagine anything they could have done, other than to have brought Bill Clinton into the campaign and not try to run away from the last eight years."
"Gore should have enlisted Clinton to help. They should have used the impeachment issue to remind people what Republicans had done. Gore ran almost as an independent (as did Bush)."
"Campaigned more on being experienced, and more aggressively against the unproven economic policies of George W. Bush." "Hammered home the idea that, otherwise, the next three Supreme Court Justices are going to be
appointed by Bush." HOW I SEE IT: Gore's debate preparation and focus groups should have winnowed out his less
attractive personal qualities – his tendency to be overbearing – in particular. The know-it-all kid in the front of the classroom with all the answers is usually liked by the teacher, but not the other kids, and
someone should have had the nerve to tell Al Gore that. His eye-rolling and sighing in the first debate were disastrous, especially with women voters. It is hard to figure out how the Democrats could mobilize
and fight so well in an industrial, union-heavy state like Michigan, then give up so early on neighboring Ohio. A victory in Ohio would have won Gore the White House. The same can be said for his home
state of Tennessee, and Gore's failure to close the deal there is inexcusable. Winning the president's home state of Arkansas, too, would have put Gore over the top. The great what-if of the 2000 election
will always be whether the decision to all but exclude President Clinton from campaigning hurt or helped Gore. My second guess is that Clinton should have been used more, but carefully and strategically. He
would have been best at shoring up the traditional Democratic base – in particular African Americans, who never warmed to Gore as they did Clinton. Clinton appearances in black areas of Memphis and
Nashville might have made all the difference. Little Rock... Cincinnati, Cleveland... Tampa, Orlando, Miami... all might have seen higher African American turnout had Clinton entered the fray. Finally, Gore
never quite drove home his strongest selling point: why go back to the way things were under Bush's father? The Democrat did a lackluster job of reminding voters of the recession miseries of the early
1990s and the economic glories that followed, especially in the debates..
WHAT SHOULD THE WINNER DO FIRST?
HOW YOU SEE IT: "Try to unite an obviously very divided nation that, unfortunately, has only become more divided with the indecisiveness of the election."
"Try and calm the nation (after this voting mess), repair what feels broken and get rid of the Electoral College."
"Reach out to the opposition party." "Show his true colors. Walk the walk." "Say what a loser the loser is." "Appear conciliatory."
"Bush needs to set things back in order and undo all the stupid things the Clinton-Gore administration has done." "Assemble his Cabinet so we will know what the face of the enemy looks like." "Talk about the public school funding."
"Generate as much reconciliation as possible and appear to be humble. Worst scenario is for winner to gloat and discredit opposing candidate."
"Mr. Bush should call a special session of Congress, confront both Houses with the reality of the vote, and the fact that the nation is bitterly divided and fed up with partisan feuds and legislative inaction.
There is one area he and Gore both agree needs funding and creative solutions and that is education. Gridlock will be broken. Start the term with an agenda all can get behind and demand the House act. The nation is watching."
"Find a way to appease the majority of voters, who didn't want him in office." "He should spend four days and nights at Camp David with the Democratic leadership. Extend an olive branch, and bring a few Democrats into his cabinet."
"The winner should take a long bath and wash his mouth out with soap." "Unify the nation so that no one says the election was stolen. He should have some members of the
other party in his cabinet. Meet with Democratic leaders in Congress." "Restore respect and dignity to the highest office in the land." "Keep his hands off our social security fund." "Resign. For the good of the country."
"The winner should try not to alienate the rest of the country that didn't vote for him! The winner should also choose a cabinet that reflects the different views in the country. The winner should not gloat over
the loser with a holier-than-thou attitude, and should make every effort to unite the opposing factions in this country."
"He needs to do what he can to end the divisiveness. This is not a clear victory, and, depending on how the next few days pan out, it may always be tainted by the uncertainty of who the true winner is. To that
end, I think he needs to surround himself with advisors that include members of both parties." "Thank the country for putting up with this stuff."
HOW I SEE IT: The Everest that Bush must conquer if he is to have any chance of a successful presidency is the Mount of Credibility. Should the job really be his? He will face nearly half a nation with
doubts as to whether he rightfully belongs there. The Florida mess aside, President George W. Bush will always be hounded by the fact that he was not the popular choice of the electorate – Gore was.
Neither side has shown any tendency towards sportsmanship of late, and Democrats will be tempted to forge the same sort of obstructionist wall that the Republicans used against Clinton, further dividing the
country. Every day on the job, Bush must anticipate fierce struggles and hard feelings from the Democrats. Cabinet and judicial appointments will mean bad fights, especially if Bush attempts to
confirm anyone with any hint of a hard-right record. Many Americans saw the U.S. Supreme Court's actions in the election as symptomatic of a newly politicized, activist judicial body, and confirming the
next vacancy there could result in a full-fledged legislative bloodbath. Some key appointments from the other party should be strongly considered by Bush; John F. Kennedy
did this after a close race and it helped smooth things over. The bitterness of this election may require unprecedented inclusion of the party in the winner's appointments. This might distress the new
president's more hard-line loyalists, many of whom would regard such bipartisanship as a sign of weakness. Bush's very first act as president, the inaugural address, will be critical – again, a lesson from
Kennedy might be worth remembering: "We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom – symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning – signifying renewal, as well as change," were the
opening words in 1961. Bush will need to really and truly inspire Americans in his public-speaking appearances – and, as is the case with Gore, this will require oratory that he has never shown the capacity to generate. His early acts as president will be watched closely, of course. Expect lots of video of him sitting around a White House table, smiling cozily with Democratic bigwigs. Bush will probably try to do something on
prescription medicine for the elderly early on, reinforcing both his "compassionate conservative" credentials and his promise to be a doer. He will probably know better than to gloat over his victory, but
he should also have a word with Republicans to turn down the "coup d'etat" and "cheating" invective was hurled towards Gore. For their part, Democrats should put away the "we-wuz-robbed" whining as early as possible..
WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF THIS ELECTION ON THE UNITED STATES?
HOW YOU SEE IT: "Hopefully, the electorate will have new appreciation for how important it is to vote."
"I'm afraid it will foster more divisiveness between the parties and 'the people.' No matter who wins, one side will feel cheated. I hope it elicits change. Was also hoping it would take us a step closer to a
possible third party system. That seems all but forgotten one week after the election." "The undoing of all social reforms since F.D.R.; kiss off Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, environmental
protection, gun control, disabilities act, etc., etc., etc.; welcome back policies that will allow the likes of Charles Keating, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky to have another go at plundering the country."
"Divided for some time. Difficult to govern." "This was kind of exciting – a lot of people who didn't vote wished they had, it got people thinking about voting issues and not being so apathetic."
"This election has turned me off to voting. Why bother when whoever counts, Republicans or Democrats decide to toss them in a corner and not count them. I wonder what the image we have is down to now
around the world. I am scared but I would have a little more faith that my Social Security and that of my sons would continue if Gore got in. Bush's plans to have everyone invest their own money for the future
is a disaster waiting to happen. I liked him in the beginning but now I think he is not up to the task." "People will be afraid to cast votes because they know how scheming Republicans can be. How low
down they can be. Now everybody will be afraid." "Nothing will be done for the next 4 years (again). The surplus will just disappear."
"Whoever is the president, he won't serve a second term in office. The Electoral College may be removed as a part of our election process. There could be a civil war of anger, frustration, and
attitudes, since half of the American people will feel cheated. The Supreme court could be setting new precedents in election laws. States may change their election laws and procedures. The economy
could take a BIG dive. More politicians may passionately kiss their spouses or significant others in public." "It will deeply divide this country down the middle. Little progress will be made over the next four years
with a sharply divided country and Congress." "A serious look at how our election process is handled in the computer age." "The impact will be enormous. Many illusions have been shattered. In a country that claims to be a
melting pot of cultures, the cream has separated, leaving a greasy residue. Lots of interesting bits have floated to the top. Some say the bar has been lowered but I think Toto just pulled the curtain."
"More people will vote. More people will become interested in the political process in elections. Unfortunately, this election will create more intolerance for Democrats. Some people seem to think that
the election events are all the Democrats fault. I also think that the impact of this election will felt for a long time to come: Our country is not a 'United" country, and the winner will be faced with the harsh
reality that half the nation does NOT support him." "Increase the number of people who vote." "This is the longest election I have ever been a part of. If these candidates can't get their votes right,
what will happen when they go into office?" "The impact of this election will rumble far and wide. Not only are we a laughingstock to the rest of the
world, but we had the largest turnout of voters in years only to have votes ash-canned in many instances – especially the servicemen's votes being ash-canned in Florida because they didn''t have a postmark.
The service men have no control over that and should not be punished for it." "The Democrats will be upset because they fought against the governor of Florida and demanded a
recount, but they knew George Bush was winning and they didn't want to admit it." "This election will show people that their vote does not count. There needs to be some sort of change in
the electoral process. The election proccess should be changed to a popular vote system." "I hope it will make some of my son's young friends (newly 18-year-olds) realize that their vote could have
made a difference. There were way too many of these kids who felt that their vote meant nothing, so they didn't even register. But I doubt that anything will change. Sure do wish I could be as idealistic as I
once was; someone told me that the curse of being human is the inability to forget. Once you see things in a cynical light, it's hard to go back to the hope and optimism of your youth."
"The Republic will still stand -- maybe we will lose the electoral college." "This business in Florida dramatically illustrates the very real difference in the two Parties. One one
hand (the left, of course) you had the aptly named Democrats. They fought against that which the law proscribes by advocating the counting, and re-counting, of the ballots until they get their desired result.
The Republicans on the other hand (the right, of course) have fought to have the law obeyed. A republic survives only by the majority of the people following, obeying and (more importantly) respecting the rule of law."
"The country will hopefully be stronger, but the next election might drastically change. I hope the electoral college is abolished."
"Things will be pretty scary. First of all, the man can't speak intelligently. He makes Dan Quayle look like a rocket scientist. Second, he's arrogant. The office of President requires a certain amount of
humility and respect that I just don't think he's capable of at this point. Third, while he acknowledges his inexperience in foreign affairs, he thinks he can cover that by surrounding himself with capable people.
What happens when he's in a serious negotiation in the Middle East? Stop the discussion so he can call for advice? Fourth, and probably most seriously, I truly believe he is bought and paid for by the
conservative right wing of the Republican Party. If McCain were in this position right now I would be less concerned, because he is his own man, which is why the old guard really didn't want him for President.
Bush, because of his inexperience, can be controlled. And he will be. And he will appoint ultra-conservative Justices to the Supreme Court like Scalia and Thomas and civil rights will be set back a couple of decades."
"A congress which could turn out to be highly divided and unable to compromise if the current patterns continue. Thus, little may get done. On the other hand, if Bush really had the talent to get the
Democrats and Republicans to work together he might pull it off. Unfortunately, his record of doing so in Texas doesn't really show that he did that much along those lines."
"Hopefully, in my opinion, it will cause our government to take a very serious look at the outdated, outmoded Electoral College. It is no surprise to me that we have a politically disenchanted nation when
our vote really doesn't count for very much in the final analysis." "The return of 'Greed is Good'." "In the short term, there will probably be a period of partisan sniping and vindictive acting-out in
Congress, followed by complete logjam while the losing party positions itself for the next round of elections. In other words, more of the same." "It won't have much – however, new voting machines will be here in 2004, trust me." HOW I SEE IT: No state wants to be held up to the global ridicule and scorn that Floridians have had to
endure this fall. Precisely accurate vote counts are something Americans have long taken for granted, and all the bickering over ballots will, hopefully, lead to widespread reform of voting procedures. At the
very least, the current methods will be improved upon. New technology like Internet voting might help, but the ancient punch cards have one great advantage: they leave real physical evidence that electronic
ballots do not. The paper ballots, then, will probably remain – but paper ballots that leave more conclusive evidence. Look for a device voters can feed their ballot into after voting that reads and verifies
the voter's intent. Disdain for the news media will hit new lows, and rightfully so; the first word that comes to mind in describing their performance on Election Night is "malpractice." Congress will call in
television network news executives for a verbal spanking, but will anything really change? Certainly the networks will try to restore their credibility with better methods for Election Day projections. They might
show a bit more caution with these next time, though the temptation to call races first will remain strong. Look for narrow-margin losers in future elections at every level to resort to recounts and lawsuits. This is
a litigious society, so it's no surprise that more elections will be settled by lawyers and judges. Finally, this may be the beginning of the end of the Electoral College. Opponents see it as outmoded and
undemocratic; supporters argue that it would cause smaller, less populous states to be ignored. I, however, would bet against the constitutional amendment an Electoral College abolition would require.
Such an amendment takes years, and Americans seldom have the attention span to care about anything for that long unless it involves a hot-button social issue..
AN AFTERWORD:
WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT – AND THE RUNNER-UP?
Bush must realize that he was not hired to undertake a conservative revolution as was Ronald Reagan, but instead to unite the country under a moderately conservative agenda. The party's right wing, all but invisible during the campaign, will hardly remain so now, and their expectations will be hard for Bush to meet without alienating the middle-ground voters who elected him. During the campaign, Bush successfully took a page from Clinton's playbook and sold himself as a new and improved product of his party. If he begins meddling in firecracker social issues such as abortion, much of the public will turn on him.
The new president might take the advice of an old king in Shakespeare, who advises his heir: "Busy
giddy minds with foreign quarrels." The usual international troublemakers can be expected to exploit any perception of a weak presidency, like unruly kids tormenting a substitute teacher. The last president so
perceived, Jimmy Carter, fell victim to the Hostage Crisis in Iran. Saddam Hussein, to name but one example, may well relish the thought of making trouble for the son of the man who led the Gulf War
against him. Look for Bush to seize on any foreign crisis and to deal with it in as forceful a manner as is possible, with an eye on giving Americans something to rally behind.
Bush would be just the third son or grandson of a president to win the job. Interestingly, both John Quincy Adams and Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote like he did. Both were ousted four years
later by the man they had bested in the Electoral College (Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland, respectively). Knowing more voters chose him than Bush, and no doubt smarting from the harsh
Republican rhetoric over his contesting of Florida, Al Gore will have a profound incentive to defeat Bush in 2004. If he had been beaten by a wider margin, Gore would most likely have been finished in presidential
politics. But his popular-vote victory, the Florida controversy, and his graceful concession keeps him in the game. For Gore, defeat will be even more excruciating than for most losing candidates, because since
childhood he has had his sights set on becoming President of the United States. There is no Plan B for this man – only the White House will do. Democrats will not hand him the nomination four years from
now, but the inside track is firmly his. As time goes by, how much of the public will see him as a sore loser who didn't know when to quit? His remarks to the press in coming years must be eloquent,
graceful, conciliatory, and free of the anger he probably feels. Trouble could loom up from almost anywhere for Bush – international police actions, a fading economy at
home, or a string of defeats on Capitol Hill caused by his tissue-thin margin there, to name a few. The election hangover could drag on for years: lawsuits, congressional hearings, investigations into the
reports of Republican thuggery at Florida election offices. Even the new president's long-ago drunk driving conviction could return haunt him. Rumors abound that the press, egged on by some Democrats,
are snooping around Bush's legal records. Many legal forms contain a simple question: "Have you ever been arrested?" Bush has already been caught sidestepping the truth on one of these, leaving the
answer space blank in a jury form he filled out some years ago. Lying on many of these forms is a felony; Democrats, still smoldering over the Republican humiliation of Clinton in the impeachment
proceedings, can hardly be expected to be more magnanimous if the shoe is on the other foot. Buyer's remorse with George W. Bush, if it sets in, will be steep. Too many more Dan Quayle-style
slips ("I was born at an early age," etc.) will result in nightly feastings by Leno and Letterman. One can see the bumper stickers already – I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM, AND NEITHER DID THE MAJORITY, or
ALL HAIL HIS ROYAL FRAUDULENCY GEORGE THE SECOND. He will get his share of mail addressed "Acting President Bush." Despite all this, Bush has an immense opportunity to re-calibrate the American political scene. If he
makes good on his pledge to be a more tolerant and inclusive Republican, he could broaden the party's base and influence well into the next decade. Times are quite good in America for the most part, and if
Bush's policies help keep them that way he could reach across the yawning cultural divides that plague America. His greatest responsibility may well be to cool the positively rabid partisan wars that have
raged during the Clinton years. In the wake of this bizarre election and the new depths of bitterness it has spawned, Bush's great daily struggle will be to do what he does best – accentuate the positive.
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT would like to thank individuals nationwide for their participation in this piece. Dan Sanders is a writer living in Santa Monica, California.
