11/02/00 4:55 p.m.
Dummkopf
Republicans are “fascist,” says Patrick Kennedy.

By NR’s John J. Miller & Ramesh Ponnuru

rom the nimble mind of Patrick Kennedy, campaigning for the heroes of liberty in Pennsylvania: "If you want to know what happens when people don't turn out, all you need to do is look at Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay — because this is the crowd that gets elected when working people don't show up. This is the right-wing crowd that does get elected. If you're a student of history, as I am, you study history. The fact of the matter is, we've always battled the right wing. There's always been a fascist kind of crowd in every society who's reactionary, that scapegoats people, who's more interested in power than the exercise of power for the good of the common will. So we have that battle today." This quote was first reported by Robert Schlesinger of voter.com.

Ah yes, Patrick Kennedy, that "student of history." Speaking of fascists, perhaps Kennedy should study his own family history — including that of grandpa Joe, who was notably soft on Nazi Germany.

Down to the Wire…
"Just days before the election, American voters remain narrowly divided in their choice for president and unusually volatile, according to new Washington Post polls. The uncertainty of Tuesday's outcome is conveyed by differing findings in two new nationwide polls conducted by the Post. The Post got two different results in its two national polls from two different polling procedures."

That (only slightly edited) quote is from November 2 — 1980. Two days later, Ronald Reagan ended up winning that election with 50.7 percent of the popular vote to Jimmy Carter's 41 percent, and 489 electoral votes to Carter's 49.

Oh, and one more quote from that old Post article: "The new polls show a striking difference between men and women voters this year."

Split Decision
It's probably not going to happen. But what if Al Gore loses the popular vote to George W. Bush but wins states with more electoral votes than Bush does? George Will's column suggests that we should all accept the legitimacy of the electoral-college result in that case. And maybe we should. But that's about as likely to happen as Ralph Nader is to get elected president.

If the electoral college and the popular vote give different results, the party that won the popular vote will launch a campaign against the legitimacy of the electoral college and its result. They will try to get some of the electors to bend to "the will of the people." And they will do so even in states that theoretically bind electors to the winner of those states; the legal status of those attempts has never been put to a real test.

If Gore took office under such circumstances, he would be well advised to appoint a truly bipartisan administration — which is to say that a token Chafee or Jeffords would not be enough. But in the aftermath of a post-election campaign against Gore's legitimacy as a president, Gore would have real trouble finding Republicans who would serve under him.

Whatever else happens, it would definitely be a great story to cover.

California Dreamin’
Did Bush waste his time in California? We don't think so. For a day or two, people actually wondered whether he could carry the Golden State. He probably won't. But the simple fact this was discussed gave him momentum — and encouraged Republicans around the country. If Bush hadn't gone, the conversation might have focused on Gore in Florida, having the reverse effect. A new Field Poll shows Bush trailing in California, 47 percent to 40 percent — still behind, but Gore's lead has been cut in half from a month ago. Also, Bush actually leads Gore by big margins in portions of the state: 51 to 37 in San Diego and 54 to 35 in the Central Valley. Gore is way ahead in Los Angeles, 56 to 31, and the Bay Area, 61 to 22.

Love & Hate
Republicans are more likely to have a favorable view of Bush than Democrats do of Gore, 88 percent versus 77 percent, according to a CBS News survey. Republicans are also more likely to have an unfavorable view of Gore than Democrats do of Bush, 77 percent to 60 percent.

Gulf-War Revisionism
Making his case for Gore on the Wall Street Journal editorial page today, Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic, notes in passing that Gore would not have "left the Gulf War unfinished and Saddam Hussein still in power, as George W.'s father and George W.'s running mate did…"

It is true that by April 1991, Gore was calling for Hussein's removal from power, and that by September he was saying that President Bush had erred in ending the war too soon. But that's not what he was saying when the war was actually in progress. He gave a fairly thoughtful speech in the Senate on January 30, 1991, on what American aims should be. He said then, "We are not seeking the surrender of Iraq. That has been made clear. No one in a position of responsibility is talking about the conquest of Iraq." And: "Let me be clear then about what we want. The removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait is enough to warrant a suspension of combat operations."

Gore's was not by any means a dovish speech. He was concerned that the war would end with our narrowly defined objectives achieved but with Hussein free to make mischief. But that doesn't mean he was prepared to overthrow Hussein's regime: "Doubtless, among the exiled Iraqis, one can find survivors who are people of virtue and wisdom, but it is hard to see how these individuals might come to power unless we were to install them, and that would require the conquest and occupation of Iraq, which is not in prospect and should not be in prospect." Gore's preferred solution was to control the export of military technology to Iraq.

The New Republic, by the way, was not for overthrowing Saddam Hussein either. Its editorial on April 29, 1991, argued: "We do not have to march on Baghdad to achieve stability and justice. We do not have to overthrow Saddam and take over the government of Iraq." TNR wanted to use our air power to help the Iraqi opposition hold on to areas it controlled.

On the Site
John J. Miller on the controversy over Napoleon Chagnon, the anthropologist accused of starting a measles epidemic in South America… and Clinton's record: The President leaves his mark, and Ramesh Ponnuru applies the stain remover.