• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Imagine, for a minute, the roles of the two contenders for the
presidency are reversed.

It’s Al Gore who wins Florida by a few hundred votes and George W.
Bush is contesting the election in the courts.

Do you have any doubt that the Clinton-Gore administration would be
releasing the money necessary to begin the transition?

Of course not. The idea is ludicrous on its face. Yet, the Clinton
administration, for obviously political reasons only, is blocking the
transition plans of the apparent winner of the presidency.

The General Services Administration, an arm of the Clinton
administration, says it will not release $5.3 million to help Bush
prepare for office until the challenges to the election are resolved.

This despite the fact that Florida’s statewide canvassing board
certified Bush the winner of its 25 electoral votes and, therefore, the
presidency. The reason? Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, is contesting
the election.

As required by law, the GSA set up a transition office complete with
computers and telephones and stood ready to turn over the keys — and
the bank account — to either Bush or Gore the morning after Election
Day. But the recounting and legal battles, which are now likely to
intensify, kept the door locked.

Now, personally, I’m not losing any sleep over this. As far as I’m
concerned, the United States of America would operate well, in most
cases, without any president. The trouble is, we still have one. In
fact, we have a president who would welcome any excuse to avoid leaving
office Jan. 20.

And the other problem is that Bush simply doesn’t get it. Did you
hear his speech after the certification in Florida? He’s still making
campaign speeches about Social Security, government schools and senior
citizen health care. Many of you told me that was all just campaign
rhetoric prior to the election. Well, folks, the election is over. And
Bush is making clear that his No. 1 priority remains the transfer of
wealth from one segment of society to another — regardless of what the
Constitution might say about such plans.

What he ought to be talking about is the prosecution of the organized
criminal enterprise known as the Clinton administration.

After all, the behavior of these folks speaks for itself. Not only
did they pull out all the stops to try to steal the national election –
through encouraging non-citizen voting, by depriving military service
people the right to cast absentee ballots and, ultimately, by changing
the rules for counting votes after the fact — the Clinton-Gore crime
syndicate has refused to concede after losing under the system it
rigged.

This is why I have repeatedly stated that I do not have a dog in this
race. The choice has always been between a criminal enterprise known as
the Clinton-Gore administration and a Bush-Cheney administration that
has made it clear it will not clean up Washington.

It will be business as usual, if Bush and Cheney are successful at
prying these Clintonistas from office. There will be no prosecutions of
high crimes and misdemeanors. There will be no great reforms. There will
be no effort to rein in the federal leviathan. There will be no effort
to restore limited constitutional government.

Instead, it will be Bush II. And that’s the prescription that led to
the Clinton years in the first place. W’s Daddy made it all possible –
along with the help of some, once again, familiar faces like Cheney and
James Baker.

These guys simply don’t have the stomach to fight in the gutter with
the likes of Clinton and Gore. They also don’t have enough philosophical
differences with them to give us any hope that things will really change
come Jan. 20 — if Clinton decides to turn over the keys.

I hate to be a wet blanket. So many of you are excited about the
certification of the vote in Florida. I tell you this criminal gang in
the White House has not yet begun to fight. They will never give up.
They will never surrender. And, even when they are eventually extricated
from power, what we’ll have in their place is not all that much
different in terms of governance.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.