We live in sad times, lifeless, listless times, Johnny Appleseed
New York Times times. Republicans swept Tuesday’s
elections as if by default, more successful than the other guys in
getting their zombie base to the polls, probably because only they
could afford the requisite prescription drugs to get a move on.
(Plus they had an inspiring leader in Trent Lott, who
imaginatively, if belatedly, cried out, “Let’s roll! — this after
denying he’d left the Wellstone memorial in protest, but simply
because he had a plane to catch. Oh, Trent, it’s so good to have
you back!)
Drawing on his deep reserves of dignity when accepting defeat,
Al Gore confided to Barbara Walters that it’s time his Democratic
Party underwent a “major regrouping.” That could be shorthand for
sticking to the status quo. In Al’s understanding, regrouping would
begin with having him run for a second presidential term in 2004.
He is proud of his record and wants to extend it: two straight
presidential wins without a night spent in the White House during
either term. He relishes paradox and won’t mind remaining the
people’s choice of a people that can’t stand him.
The worry, though, is that Al wasn’t entirely straight with us.
How can he call on Democrats to undergo major regrouping when
they’ve been in the midst of one for many months now? We saw it in
New Jersey, where Bob Torricelli got regrouped in favor of an even
earlier regroupie, Frank Lautenberg. We saw it in Minnesota, where
Walter Mondale regrouped in time to get a jump on Gary Hart for the
2004 Democratic presidential nomination. We especially saw it in
Native American Dakota, where voters were regrouped, and regrouped,
and regrouped until there were enough of them to secure a
well-earned Democratic landslide. Only Bill Clinton demonstrated
characteristic independence — his first choice is to regrope
select voters.
To avoid future misunderstandings, Democrats might need to
repackage their old new strategy as a major reinterpretation. Again
it’s been in the works for months, but what gives it teeth is that
it involves the law. Or more precisely, evasion of the law. New
Jersey or South Dakota were like fixing a parking ticket compared
to what needs to be done next. Democrats have one guaranteed winner
for 2004. The minor complication is that Michigan’s next governor,
the sensational Jennifer Granholm, is Canadian born and as such
constitutionally unqualified to serve as a United States President.
There are many ways to get around this vestige of dead white male
patriarchy and slave-owning genocidal oppression. The most logical
approach would be to argue that the significance of Canadian-born
depends on what the meaning of Canada is. Since most scholars, in
Canada above all, have long argued that Canada lacks any meaning
whatsoever, it could be safe to say that Granholm was born in
[blank]. Fill in the blank with, say, “America,” and presto —
she’s American born and on her way to becoming our first woman
president.
Naturally there could be fallout. Is the Federalist Society
prepared to accept neo-strict constuctionist Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s application for membership? Come 2004 there could be a
Democratic catfight, or whatever PETA says you can call it. And if
it’s a real regrouping, what’s to keep Geraldine Ferraro from
joining in? Not to mention the distraught Judy Woodruff. With four
you’ve got a bridge club.
Returning to less exciting male matters, our minds drift to Dick
Morris, the Ralphie of the Soprano world of pundits. Many predicted
the reverse of what happened last Tuesday, but no one so recklessly
or with such malice as Dick. Roger Ross, Enemy Central’s agent in
Tomahawk, Wisconsin country, still can’t understand why Morris
seemed so determined to throw “a wet blanket on what was
happening.” Maybe wet blankets and Morris don’t mix.
Of graver concern is the fate of wide-eyed Winona Ryder, who
instead of stealing hearts was convicted of stealing clothes. She
could be in a sadder condition than the entire Democratic
apparatus. Imagine having to be defended by Susan McDougal’s
lawyer. But even more outrageous is that Ms. Ryder’s ambulance
chaser never raised the Ashcroft defense. Who else could have given
Sax Fifth Avenue the go-ahead to install surveillance cameras?
Winona some, lose some.
Which leaves us with the toughest Nancy in Washington since Mrs.
Reagan. Already she’s routed a mild-mannered Texan. Now she can set
her sights on even more distinguished Longhorn. Where Stalin asked
how many divisions the pope has, about Nancy they ask how many PACs
she has. So she has more than the law allows. But who needs law
(see above) when Democrats need PACs? As the Washington
Post put it in its best New York Times voice,
“Members typically see aggressive fund-raising as laudable.” And
they’re going to be seeing a lot of Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’
next House leader, which automatically elevates her to Enemy of the
Week standing. True, they might be seeing a lot of her in Baghdad,
the only spot in which Democrats these days feel secure in mounting
serious opposition to the Bush juggernaut.
