The New York Times

Tuesday, November 14, 2000

Time for a Bush-Gore Summit

By LEON E. PANETTA

MONTEREY, Calif. - As I walked through the local airport last week, a baggage handler recognized me and shouted: "If these two guys can't get together and solve this mess, neither deserves to be president."

While his view might not be a realistic solution for the nation, the handler was right about the need for the candidates to take control and agree on some sort of process that will bring closure to this election.

In a very real way, the first test of whether Al Gore or George W. Bush can be an effective president of the United States is now, not the day after the inauguration. So far, both have allowed their campaign organizations to engage in continuing campaigns to convince the public of the fairness of their positions. Deploying lawyers, spokesmen and campaign managers this way may satisfy the appetite to fight, but not the responsibility to reconcile a serious national dilemma.

No one disputes that this is a unique and challenging moment in our history. To have a national election of over 100 million votes come down to a few hundred controversial ballots in Florida is without precedent. It is understandable that both campaigns, having fought long and hard for their candidates, want to do whatever it takes to get the very last votes they need to win. But while a scorched- earth litigation process to the bitter end may make sense to the lawyers and the campaign officials, does it make sense for the nation?

It is obvious that the United States is deeply divided over who should win. Aggravating those differences in a bitter post-election battle will only make it that much more difficult for the winner to govern.

After the federal court decision not to interfere with Florida law, both candidates now face a crucial choice. They could continue to litigate each election decision that is not acceptable, challenging close votes not only throughout Florida but in Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and other states where there are disputed results, and continue the battle for votes right up to the Electoral College decision in December and perhaps beyond, with the Supreme Court and sheer public exhaustion finally ending the matter.

Or they could come together - either in person or through trusted emissaries - and agree to a process that would bring this election to closure as fairly and responsibly as possible. The choice is theirs.

Since the Florida outcome is the deciding factor, they could agree, for example, to allow both sides to hand count those votes that can be challenged under Florida law and could establish a deadline (perhaps Dec. 1) for conclusion of that process and complete counting of the absentee ballots. The secretary of state for Florida could then certify the final results before the Electoral College votes. Both candidates would agree to abide by that final count.

This kind of agreement between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush might not satisfy the campaigns or the lawyers or even some of the voters, but it would be the right thing for the nation. Now the candidates are fighting a legal and propaganda war that both are losing. More important, the nation is losing.

The presidency is about putting the nation's interest first. Having served the president, I know the hardest decisions that confront this nation's leaders are the ones that pit the long-term interests of the country against short-term political gain. Deploying troops, raising taxes, vetoing key legislation or revealing a mistake of judgment may not be very popular, but it may be right for the country. The legacy of every president rests with how he responds to that choice.

Both of these candidates have campaigned on the basis that they would make the tough choices if and when the time came. That time is now.

(Leon Panetta, who was White House chief of staff under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997, teaches at California State University at Monterey Bay.)