Eisenhower’s Warning

Technically, lawyers can represent whom they like. However, as a citizen, Mr. Baker’s apparent “conflict of interests,” in representing Mr. Bush, while his name-sake law firm defends the Sauidi Royal family against the 9-11 familes, concerns me and reminds me of General Eisenhower’s (Republican president, 1953-1961) warning to the nation in his farewell speech:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” [ Text of Farewell Speech ]

It seems to me that far too many of us, Americans all, have neglected our solemn duty to remain vigilant against the danger that General Eisenhower warned us about.

There are some things that do transcend partisanship.

What Would Bush Have Done? II

News items reporting that Mr. Bush would’ve challenged the electoral college, if the 2000 results had been reversed, are “scattered and hard to find;” because, one, the news items are four years old, and, two, Mr. Bush’s decision to challenge the electoral college did not receive much coverage to begin with. Again, let’s remember that when such reports would’ve bubbled up in the media’s news cycle, towards the closing days of the campaign, reporters had more pressing news items to cover. Again, let’s remember, that at the time, there were far more topical news items receiving attention before the election, (i.e., the dash to the finish line by the candidates); and, after the election, well, there were far more visible news items that overshadowed everything else (i.e., the Florida debacle).

Nonetheless, those that follow politics and elections closely remember such reports — I know I do. Here’s an off the cuff remark made by one of the panelist in PBS’s The News Hour:

The Bush folks were all prepared according to my conservative sources to challenge legally if George Bush did win the popular vote and Al Gore won the electoral vote. They had done the research; they had the attorneys; and I assume they’ll now turn that over to the Gore people just to expedite the matter. [ Transcript ]

The 2000 Bush team of attorneys referred to above were led James Baker III, a member of the Carlyle Group, whose law firm (Baker Botts) is representing the Saudi Royal Family against the 9-11 families, and, is the same James Baker III, that is currently leading Mr. Bush’s presidential debate team.

I know that the 2000 election is in the past and that we should just move on and focus on the up-coming election — which is what I’m focused on. However, I posted the original entry, “What Would Bush Have Done?”, because of indignant remarks I’ve read on some message boards regarding Mr. Gore’s Florida election challenge.

What Would Bush Have Done?

Recently I’ve come across the un-critical and reflexive remark, “Oh, just get over it, Gore lost the election. Period.” After coming across this on a message board, I was reminded of isolated news reports at the time that raised the opposite scenario. That is, in some late polls in 2000 it appeared that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would go on to carry the electoral college vote. Well, we all know what happened. What’s not well remembered, is that Bush and his campaign had decided that if Gore won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, that Bush would contest the election on popular grounds:

The most intriguing scenario has Bush winning with voters while Gore squeaks to victory in the Electoral College.

Such an ambiguous finish to the closest, most hotly contested White House race in decades, would give Gore a legal claim to the presidency – and likely plunge the nation into a messy political crisis.

The Bush camp, sources said, would likely challenge the legitimacy of a Gore win, casting it as an affront to the people’s will and branding the Electoral College as an antiquated relic.

McGovern, however, warned that any Bush legal challenge could tear apart the nation and undermine the presidency.

“If there’s no legal basis for Bush’s case, it would be destructive,” said McGovern.

One informal Bush adviser, who declined to be named, predicted Republicans would likely benefit from a storm of public outrage if Bush won the popular vote but was denied the presidency.

“That’s what America is all about, isn’t it,” said the Bush source. “I’m sure we would make a strong case.”
Boston Herald, Nov 3. 2000 [ Link via EVote.com ]

Now, I’ll grant you this, reports like the one I cited are scattered and hard to find; however, I think that Republicans would’ve been far more rabid if the above scenario had played out, as opposed to what occurred. Perhaps the Democrats and Gore would’ve mounted a far more strenuous challenge, if the Democratic party had controlled the Senate, House and, for all practical purposes, the Judiciary — as the Republican party did then, and does now.