Consider yourself warned

I'm getting a lot of letters, these days, from people who say I'm
being too tough on George W. Bush.

"He's our only chance!" these missives plead. "Wait until after the
election to criticize him. Focus your attention on the real enemy -- Al
Gore."

Our only chance? For what? What does George W. Bush stand for that is
fundamentally different than Al Gore. To me the difference is like
Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumber. Wait until after the election? Oh, don't
worry. There will be plenty of criticism left to go around after the
election as well. I haven't begun to blow my wad. And, as for Al Gore, I
don't think I'm high on his list of favorite journalists.

But let me give you one more concrete example of why, I believe, all
those folks writing now pleading for mercy for Bush will be the same
people writing to me complaining about him after Jan. 20.

TRENDING: May the Farce be with you

One of the most frequently mentioned imperatives cited for supporting
Bush over Gore is the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices. I agree
this is an important consideration for evaluating any presidential
candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court has been severely misused by activist
judges over the years so that it has become indistinguishable -- in
practice -- from the legislative branch of government.

These same Bush advocates try to appeal to my sense of morality on
the issue of abortion. Gore, they say, will continue to appoint justices
who seem to believe that any pregnancy not ending in abortion is a
miscarriage of justice. Bush, they maintain will bring some sanity to
the court by appointing justices who are more open-minded when it comes
to issues of life and death.

Is that so? Do we have any evidence to suggest that? What exactly is
Bush's track record on judicial appointments as governor of Texas?

Perhaps the best and most concise explanation I have seen on this
subject came, oddly enough, in the New York Times in July. Reporter Jim
Yardley wrote: "Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court stunned
social conservatives throughout the state by issuing a 6-to-3 ruling
that allowed a 17-year-old high school senior to have an abortion
without telling her parents.

"'It was shocking,' said Joe Kral, the legislative director for the
Texas Right to Life Committee. It was, after all, appointees of Gov.
George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue. ...

"(A) look at Mr. Bush's record in Texas shows that he has appointed
justices who have had a moderating influence on the Texas Supreme Court,
often regarded as among the most conservative and pro-business in the
country. He has appointed four of the court's nine justices and has been
a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O'Neill, who wrote the majority
opinion in the parental notification case. ...

"Debbie D. Branson, president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association,
a group that has been critical of the court and Mr. Bush over the years
... agreed that the Bush appointees had started the process of moving
the court back to the center. ...

"By the Supreme Court's 1998-99 term, the liberal judicial watchdog
group Court Watch found that Mr. Bush's appointees were 'eliminating the
excesses of the G.O.P. old guard.'"

Now, I know that's not likely to persuade you Bush die-hards who keep
writing to me. I realize you have made up your minds to vote for the
lesser of two evils. I understand that this is a matter of faith with
you. But, for those of you who don't like to participate in evil -- even
if it's the lesser of two -- I suggest you give serious thought to
Bush's judicial record in Texas. If you are voting for George W. Bush
because you think he will bring America a better U.S. Supreme Court, I
suggest you are being misled.

I know. I know. Your next question is: "Well, Farah, what's the
alternative? If not Bush, who then? Gore is the only other candidate who
has a chance to win."

I agree. There are only two realistic possibilities for victory in
November -- Bush and Gore. And I am not here to urge you to support one
particular third- or fourth- or fifth-party candidate. But I am telling
you, once again, that I will not waste my vote on a candidate who, even
by the admission of many of his most vociferous proponents, is a lighter
shade of evil.

Remember where you heard it, folks. Don't come crying to me about
being "betrayed" a few months down the road. Bush's record is clear.
Support him and you are endorsing his past and his future.