End of Amazing Race

Election Primer 2000:

You’ve listened to the speeches. (Or not.) You’ve watched the debates. (Or you meant to.) You’ve made up your mind. (Or will in the next 48 hours.) You’ve registered to vote. (Or knew there was something you’d been meaning to do.)

You’ve crossed off McCain, Bradley, Forbes, Keyes, Dole (Elizabeth, that is), Bauer, Alexander (Lamar, in case you’ve forgotten) and Quayle, one by one, and definitely not in that order. You’ve traded in Henry Hyde and Whitewater and Linda Tripp for a solid year’s worth of fresh material. You occasionally wonder whatever happened to Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Vernon Jordan, Kenneth Starr and other names you used to hear every time you turned on your TV.

You’ve seen Congress approve a pay raise for the president to $400,000, beginning in 2001, double what he previously made. (Note we didn’t say earned.) You’ve seen Bill Clinton veto a $792-billion tax cut sanctioned by a Republican-dominated Congress, and you’ve seen U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright slap a fine of $89,000 in legal expenses on Clinton for lying in his deposition in Paula Jones’ harassment suit.

You’ve observed that Atty. Gen. Janet Reno decided not to appoint an independent counsel to examine whether President Clinton illegally spent Democratic Party funds on television ads in 1996 a month after Reno said she would not appoint an independent counsel to examine whether Vice President Gore illegally made phone calls from the White House to raise additional campaign funds.

You’ve noted that when every candidate running for the presidency was asked if he had ever used cocaine, all of them said no except one, George W. Bush, who said only that he was once “young and irresponsible.” You’ve also heard Bush add that he hadn’t used illegal drugs in “the last 25 years.”

*

You’ve been told how Gov. Bush somehow managed to raise $67 million in campaign funds in 1999 alone. You’ve heard it stated by Democratic activist and actor Warren Beatty that the money Bush raised “has come from three-tenths of 1%” of Americans, which is why, in his opinion, so few average Americans vote, because they “feel they’ve got nothing to do with the government. And they’re right.”

You’ve been amazed by Al Gore claiming, “During my service in the U.S. Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” You’ve been surprised by Bill Bradley, a fellow Democrat, lambasting the vice president in a debate by asking him, face to face, “Why should we believe that you will tell the truth as president if you don’t tell the truth as a candidate?”

You’ve wondered how John McCain so easily trounced the Texas governor in a New Hampshire primary and stunned him in Michigan. You remember this same Arizona senator who now wholeheartedly endorses Bush once mocking him as “a Pat Robertson Republican who will lose to Al Gore.”

You’ve grimaced or grinned as Bush thumbed his nose at the current administration’s ethics, saying “they think a strong defense is something to expect from their lawyers.” You now hear this same Bush justify how “I’ve made mistakes in my life, but I’m proud to tell you, I’ve learned from those mistakes.”

You’ve seen how Clinton’s mistakes spilled over into Gore’s campaign, forcing even the president himself to concede, “Frankly, it would have been inappropriate for me to be out there campaigning with him.” You’ve seen how Clinton was bashed for not coming forward with the truth (about an extramarital affair), but how Bush now explains why he didn’t come forward with the truth (about a drunken-driving arrest) because he didn’t want his children to know about it.

*

You’ve been told that this presidential election is so up for grabs, Ralph Nader’s 3% could decide it. You’ve seen our top candidates appear on more TV talk shows in 2000 than Dr. Ruth and Richard Simmons have combined. You’ve seen the way Gore kisses his wife and the way Bush smooches Oprah.

You’ve been aware that Nader doesn’t care if he takes votes from Gore, unimpressed with his inability to beat “a bumbling governor from a troubled state.” You’ve seen signs and buttons that read “Nader/LaDuke,” without having the slightest idea who LaDuke is.

You’ve heard speculation that this race is so close, one guy might get more votes than the other and still lose. You’ve been informed that it happened in 1824, 1876 and 1888, that the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the electoral vote.

You’ve even heard that it’s time to get rid of the electoral college entirely, that Gore and Bush could even tie--just as Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr did, exactly 200 years ago--and have the winner decided by the House of Representatives.

So you’re up to date.

Your time is up. Put down your pencils. You’re going to wake up on Wednesday morning with a new president. Or maybe not, if this thing’s as close as they say it is.

*

Mike Downey’s column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Write to: Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. E-mail: mike.downey@latimes.com