Advertisement

Gore should've shown tanks

December 19, 2000

Gore should've shown tanks



Just so you know, the first six paragraphs of this column will be the contest phase. The next eight paragraphs will constitute the protest phase of the column and the final four paragraphs will make up the certification phase.

If you have any questions, write me in care of Antonin Scalia.

It's over, huh. Be honest. Wasn't there some small part of you that was hoping Wednesday night that instead of conceding Al Gore would have announced that he's taken over the military and surrounded the U.S. Supreme Court with tanks?

We act like we're so good because we don't resort to violence in our elections. Phooey. The Third World has Molotov cocktails and semiautomatics. We have courtrooms and lawyers. Want to tell me which is worse?

And for we Second Amendment champions, I can't tell you how disappointing it is. All our lives we have stockpiled weapons with the fantasy that one day we'll be able to take out a fleet of black helicopters and a battalion of jackbooted thugs.

Advertisement

For a nanosecond I thought there might be a glimmer of hope. But now I guess there's nothing for us left to do but go Christmas shopping. Sigh.

These are the times I'm glad to be an Independent. I have no sympathy for the Democrats who are complaining they were jobbed. As if they wouldn't have done the same thing, were places switched. I would feel sorrier for Gore had he taken care of business in other areas, such as - oh I don't know - winning his home state.

Gore would have won if he'd carried West Virginia, home of the Possum Ballot - vote Democrat and go back to sleep. My mom had to vote on a community center washing machine, for crying out loud.

So stop it, Bush won. (Like they came to say about Rutherford B. Hayes, "He stole that election fair and square").

And for you Republicans, at least you could ACT like winners. Reconcile, Schmeconcile. Take the offensive. The donkey's down, kick it. Who cares about four years from now, seize the moment.

Appoint the board of Mobil Oil as co-secretaries for the Department of the Interior. Abolish the Department of Education. Appoint Hillary Clinton secretary of the Department of Health - and then abolish it, too. Yoink!

Have some fun.

But noooo. All they can do is talk bipartisanship. I'm against bipartisanship, and here's why. If the two sides can't agree on how to spend the nation's surplus it goes, by default, toward paying off the national debt - which is where it ought to be going in the first place.

(Sorry for that brief glimmer of lucidity; it won't happen again. Now back to today's regularly scheduled rant).

The GOP is also working the "debate paradigm" to the max, that is, desperately lowering expectations. Remember how they outfoxed Gore in the debates by telling us how Bush stood less than no chance?

Then when he got through them without slipping into trancelike state while repeating "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" over and over again, we all thought he was Churchill.

Now they're doing the same thing. We're on the brink of a recession. The world is in chaos. Dogs and cats, living together. Four years from now, if we are still able to stagger out of our mud huts and catch a rat for supper, we'll think the fellow's done a right good job, given what he had to work with.

Speaking of a Spartan existence, has anyone heard from, what was his name, Rick Nader? Alf Natter? I'm worried about him. These ought to be a cheery four years for him. Not only is he almost universally hated, every time Bush sinks another oil well into the Arctic it will be like a voodoo pin into his spine.

Anyway, if I were Bush I'd be ticked. Democrats think I'm a thief. Republicans think I'm a lightweight. Every photo of me makes me look as if I've just lost my lolly.

Given the circumstances and my contrary nature, I can't help but hope that Bush turns out to be the best darned president since Lincoln.

Tim Rowland is a Herald-Mail columnist

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|