^{Hail to the Thief!}

Now that the election battle is over, we can all bask in the warm glow of being Americans. We can embrace the common spirit of cooperation, we can cling to the cherished tradition of bipartisanship and we can give a deep, long, wet soul kiss to President Elect George W. Bush.

Um, wait a minute. Everyone from Democrats to Republicans to pundits has called for bipartisanship, which makes me immediately suspicious.

Why should we smile and pretend the 2000 election had a clear winner? Why should we hope W gets off to a decent start? Why is it that all of a sudden what's good for the country just so happens to be what's good for George W? Nixon tried to convince us that the president is the country and dislike of one equals dislike of another. It just isn't so.

I don't remember Republicans calling for bipartisanship in '94 when they held almost all the power. I don't remember Republicans calling for bipartisanship during the past two months. W's little army of flying monkeys, including Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Trent Lott and Dick Armey were in the press claiming W would win (or did win) because of the strength of his ideas. Now, to hear the political class say it, the strongest quality of those ideas is their ability to be mixed with the ideas of the opponents. And I have a question for W, George Will, Matt Drudge, et al.: If Democrats were really trying to steal the election and take over the government against the clearly stated will of the people, why should you cooperate with them? Aren't they evil?

This call for bipartisanship will die a quick death as soon as it is put to the test. The Senate is split 50-50. As soon as they convene, they will have to decide how to split up the committee funds, membership and heads. Normally, the party in the majority gets all the committee chairs and funds and most of the membership. With an even split, the resources should be split: equal funding, equal membership and co-chairs or an equal number of committees for each party. This idea is fair and bipartisan and will cause the Senate to explode. Do you think Jesse Helms is going to heave his mossy carcass off the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of his own free will? Senate Republican leader Trent Lott has talked vaguely about how he'll have to consider how much power to concede and what they are willing to share.

I've got news for him: Power is no longer yours to concede. You lost it when voters bounced Republican Senators. And it's not like Republicans to ignore the will of the voters, right? Trent Lott's arrogance is amazing.

The other death knell for the bipartisan spirit will come as soon as somebody suggests looking into voting corruption and reform. I'm not going to re-argue the election. I understand that given the set-up of the board and the arbitrators of the contest, my guy lost. My guy, by the way, was Ralph Nader. Al Gore also lost. Although I didn't support Gore, I am truly annoyed that votes have not been counted simply because the machines didn't take them. The brand spankin' new Coke machines alway spit out my dollar and it's still a dollar. The fact that your vote was more likely to be passed over the closer you live to Democratic areas gets me even angrier.

Has anybody else noticed that the 2000 election resembles a strange sort of affirmative action for the Bush clan? The Supreme Court steps in and declares how harmful it would be for poor little ol' Bush to go through a recount. This will forever be known - to me anyway - as the "give the baby his bottle" decision. The Bush clan seems to squeak through life with a certain "close enough" rule.

Maybe Republicans managed to pull off this vote-rigging without ever saying it out loud, but somebody should look into it. In a state with a certain amount of corruption already confirmed (in Seminole county, for instance), accusations of voter intimidation and partisan trickery by election officials needs to be investigated.

Let's face it, whether you like W or not, he may have been elected by some party worker who decided "Let the blacks vote on old machines." Anyone who brings it up however, will be accused of trying to delegitimize President Bush. And that's just not bipartisan.