Katherine Harris just announced that her boy, George W. Bush is the certified winner of the presidency in Florida, by 537 votes.NEXT: W.W.R.D.
Seems she couldn't resist taking a nice wide swing at the Florida Supreme Court before she did, though.
Now Section 168 kicks in. Now Gore can finally contest the election certification in court. Now the jackbooted thugs hired by the Republicans are going to have to go after judges, not low-level local canvassing board members. It should be interesting. Contempt of Court, Obstruction of Justice, anyone?
Of course, we all have heard the Republicans decry court action (even while pursuing it), preferring as they do to import hired out-of-state rabble to threaten and accost election workers, and to incite their supporters to the point of contacting Democratic officials with death threats. And why wouldn't they? That's their style, you get a lot of bang for your buck, and Americans really don't seem to mind too much:
GOOD CLEAN CHEATING, AND DIRTY POOL
"We're [Americans are] comfortable with buying or wrestling votes, or busing in mobs of protesters, but trying to use the courts to get people to abide by statutes, or to clear up murky ones, well, that's dirty pool. Right now, there is a vague presumption among Americans that Gore is the down-and-dirty cheater and Bush is the honest cheater. Bush is using tactics we all are used to, saber-rattling press conferences and thuggish spokespeople and vague threats to do something really nasty." -- Richard Stengel, TIME/CNN
A sad time for democracy, or as Republicans are fond of pointing out, our glorious republic.
At this point, it's important to review what has gone before, and to consider what this means for our country:
THE CASE AGAINST A GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY
"It has not, therefore, surprised me in the slightest to see Bush, The Man Who Trusts The People, arguing that we really ought to trust the machines instead. Or that Bush, The Man Who Believes in Tort Reform, has run to court at the first opportunity. Or that Bush, The Uniter Not a Divider, is accusing the other side of, among other things, being "unpatriotic" and anti-military by challenging some unpostmarked ballots. Or that Bush, The Man Who Is Running On His Texas Record, is distorting the facts of a vote-counting law he signed in order to make the process sound sinister. Or that Bush, The Man Who Would Bring Honor and Integrity to Washington, sees no conflict of interest in having his cousin call the election for him on a major TV network, or having his tireless campaigner certify the election for him without bothering with such niceties as finishing the counting of votes. As Bush undoubtedly sees it, all those campaign slogans were things he promised to do if he won. He hasn't won quite yet, so we can't hold him to rules that don't apply until afterwards. If we want Honor in the White House, we first have to let him win by any ugly means necessary." -- Politex, BUSHWATCH.COM
The election has come down to this. The courts. The venue of last resort for Americans with a grievance. Are the courts impartial and objective? Who can say? But we expect them to be, require them to be. The courts of Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States, will hear the grievances of the candidates, the voters, the people. Will democracy win? Will it lose on a technicality? Stay tuned for the answer.
WHAT WOULD REPUBLICANS DO?