The months of Palestinian rage known as the "Al-Aqsa intifada"—they are actually only the latest outbursts in the years of Palestinian rage that have comprised most of the political history of the Palestinians—should have demonstrated that peace will be made on the ground or it will not be made at all. The recent violence exposed the peace process as an exercise of elites, of the a bientot crowd, who are always cordial toward each other.
The New Republic has obtained President Bush's inaugural address, and it reveals the new president's determination to end Washington's adversarial culture and restore comity between Democrats and Republicans. "A new breeze is blowing, and the old bipartisanship must be made new again," Bush declares. "The American people await action. They didn't send us here to bicker." That inaugural address was actually delivered by President George Bush in 1989 (and obtained via an electronic database). But the theme will undoubtedly reappear in his son's speech. George W.
Five years ago—five years and two months, to be exact—I wrote in these pages that "no president of the United States has had such valent sympathy for Israel as President Clinton." "You could see it on his face," I went on, "...
Here are some of the things for which Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson is best known: He opposes abortion rights and signed into law a measure so restrictive the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. He fights with teachers' unions and helped bring a school-voucher pilot program to Milwaukee. Finally, and most famously, he despises welfare, having signed one of the first laws requiring single mothers to work in order to receive government assistance. So it's no wonder conservatives are so gleeful that President-elect George W.
You generally assume that people who have spent decades specializing in a topic know far more about it than you do. On questions of medicine you grant a doctor the benefit of the doubt, and on questions of law you grant a lawyer the same benefit. This is especially true when the lawyers wear robes, work in a large marble building, and write in detail about constitutional statutes of which you were not previously aware.What can you think, though, when the U.S.
ON MONDAY, WHEN the Supreme Court heard arguments in Bush v. Gore, there was a sense in the courtroom that far more than the election was at stake. I ran into two of the most astute and fair-minded writers about the Court, who have spent years defending the institution against cynics who insist the justices are motivated by partisanship rather than reason. Both were visibly shaken by the Court's emergency stay of the manual recount in Florida; they felt naïve and betrayed by what appeared to be a naked act of political will.
Almost as soon as the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Bush v. Palm Beach, the questions the justices framed already seemed tangential. The Court had intervened at a moment of great anxiety for George W. Bush. The Florida Supreme Court had just ordered the Republican secretary of state, Katherine Harris, to accept hand recounts--and it appeared that those recounts might allow Al Gore to take the lead.
Imagine that the events last week in Miami had been reversed. A canvassing board counting votes likely to make George W. Bush the next president is besieged by a crowd of Democratic operatives. A Democratic congressman nearby tells his aide to "shut it down," whereupon the throng begins to scream " Cheaters!" and "Fraud!," pounds on the door of the room to which the counters have retreated, and lets it be known that some 1,000 reinforcements, incited by racial appeals on a local radio station, will soon arrive on the scene.
The horror. That seems to be most pundits' verdict on this post-campaign campaign. Both candidates, sober-minded observers agree, have behaved terribly, trying to twist and mangle the law to their own selfish ends. "Al Gore and George W. Bush," admonished The Boston Globe, "should, for once, start acting like statesmen." And then there's Florida's sorry excuse for election law. "I mean, Florida election law," griped CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen, "if [there's] nothing else we can agree on, we can agree that it was just absolutely a disaster." Actually, we can't, and we shouldn't.
It is January 5, 2001. The state of Florida has submitted two slates of electors to Congress, one for George W. Bush and one for Al Gore. To decide which to accept, Congress has appointed an electoral commission, composed of five senators, five representatives, and five Supreme Court justices. The commission is divided evenly along party lines, and the fate of the nation hangs on the mystical deliberations of the only undecided member, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.