EDITORIAL
The opinion of the Mercury News
Now, act presidential
The Republic is not in
danger, and we can
wait for resolution -- which will
mean one candidate bowing out
WITH either George W. Bush or Al Gore at the helm, the Republic
will stand. The United States is not even close to a constitutional crisis.
It is not the nation's survival that we are testing, but the character of
two men, one of whom ultimately must step aside, probably despite an
imperfect claim by the other to have won a close and messy contest.
The time for that magnanimous withdrawal is not yet at hand. The
nation needs to know who won the election of 2000. Just as surely, it
needs to know that the election was fairly won.
Certainly it tries our patience to wait for ballots to be recounted by
hand, and for complaints of voting irregularities to be resolved. Let us,
however, put this in perspective: What would be truly intolerable is for
a new president to be sworn in, in January, with the legitimacy of his
claim on the office still in doubt.
If it takes days or weeks now, to avoid that crisis then, so be it. Grace
under pressure, at this stage, means patience.
The Bush camp came dangerously close on Saturday to losing sight of
this truth, when it asked a federal court to stop the recounting of
Florida votes by hand. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, the
Republican point man in the dispute, argued in effect that machines are
more reliable than people. Bush himself cited the need to get on with
the transition to his new administration. Both arguments contain some
truth. Neither was persuasive.
Machines counted the votes the first time around, and there were
errors. One partisan person might make bigger mistakes. Panels
including representatives of both parties, working with election officials
and with the press listening and looking on, are unlikely to make
arbitrary calls.
We find two other problems with the Bush bid to shut down the hand
count. First, it is hypocritical. As governor of Texas, Bush signed that
state's law requiring recounts by hand in disputed elections.
Second, it invites a federal court to intervene in a state matter.
Ultimately, that might be necessary. It certainly is not now. Florida
election law provides for recounts; should it be necessary to go to
court, Florida has statutory and case law that provides remedies,
including the ordering of a new election.
Like all complicated matters, this dispute requires compromises.
Everyone wants the election resolved. But Americans are telling
pollsters that they are not in a panicky rush to do it at any cost. The
fairness and accuracy of a presidential election are at least as
important as the speed with which it is concluded. Americans know
this.
In particular, it would be inappropriate to ignore or gloss over
indications that in Palm Beach County several thousand voters
punched their ballots for Pat Buchanan while thinking they were voting
for Gore. The recount there is particularly necessary.
Keep in mind that none of the recounting thus far has delayed the final
tally in Florida, which must wait until Friday for absentee ballots mailed
by Americans abroad.
Baker has argued on Bush's behalf that Gore should commit now to
being bound by the present results plus those absentee ballots.
Certainly the absentee votes will matter; they may even be decisive.
But they are no substitute for an accurate count of the votes cast by
Floridians at home.
As important as an accurate count certainly is, whether the nation can
be confident that the election is decided fairly depends, more than
anything else, on Bush and Gore.
It is not too late for them to stop acting like candidates and begin being
presidential -- not in the sense of filling out change-of-address cards
for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but in putting the good of the country
ahead of personal and partisan ambitions.
Instead of dueling in press conferences Saturday, they should have
jointly assured the American people that they would respect the
integrity of the electoral process and the presidential selection system,
and that they understand that no election is perfect.
They should have acknowledged that certain recounts are in order,
because of the closeness of the results. Accuracy of the tally, as far as
possible, is a goal all Americans share.
Now they should agree on a deadline by which one of them will have
given up the fight, certainly before Dec. 18, the date on which the
electors in the Electoral College meet to cast the votes that actually
elect the president.
We won't hold our breath waiting for a joint press conference. But
even without one, Bush and Gore can at least act separately in a
responsible manner.
They, and we, should draw a long, slow breath and remember what is
and is not at stake here.
The country will have a new president who is either a moderate
Democrat or a moderate Republican. Congress will be virtually evenly
divided between the two parties. There is far more danger of gridlock
than radical movement in some new and dangerous direction. Very
likely, the candidate who steps aside now will have a good shot at
unseating the incumbent president in 2004.
So let the count continue. And let both candidates be aware that
wittingly or not, each will demonstrate his capacity for leadership in
how he conducts himself while the outcome is still uncertain. |
