From: jonathan_edelstein@my-deja.com Subject: Hanging Chads Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:20:42 GMT Who would have dreamed, even thirty years ago, that an American Presidential election might hang on Chad? Many people wonder to this day why the Central African state is part of the United States at all - and it probably wouldn't have been if not for the discovery of oil in the Lake Chad and Doba basins in 1917. This discovery, by an expatriate Texan oilman serving in the French expeditionary forces, stirred interest in Chad among the American public, especially after his valiant deeds won him both the French Legion of Honor and the Silver Star. So it was that when France offered Chad to the United States in settlement of its war debt, a narrowly divided Senate voted to accept. For decades afterward, Chad was an afterthought in American civic and political life, ruled practically as a colony by Congressionally- appointed governors and deprived of a voice either in its own government or that of the United States. Thanks to the opposition of racist Southern Congressmen, Chadians were not even granted United States citizenship until 1946, and statehood wasn't seriously contemplated until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. By that time, Chadian students at American universities had brought the plight of their homeland to the attention of the public, and the suppression of civil rights protests in Ndjamena in 1966 - which left more than 250 civilians dead - gave rise to a wave of sympathy in the continental United States. In 1967, a statehood resolution narrowly passed the House but failed in the Senate; the second attempt in 1969 was more successful, and the State of Chad officially joined the Union on July 4, 1970. In every Presidential election beginning in 1972, Chad voted reliably Democratic, but its few electoral votes never made the difference to the outcome. Indeed, few Presidential candidates even bothered to campaign there, and even the Democratic nominees promised much but delivered little. What few people noticed, however, was that the explosive increase in the Chadian population was steadily increasing its representation and electoral influence. Chad's shining moment finally came in the closely contested election of 2000. By four o'clock on the morning after Election Day, after it became clear that Bush's narrow margin in Florida and Gore's in Oregon and New Mexico would hold up, the electoral vote was split 271 to 267. All eyes were on Chad, where Election Day was Wednesday and the polls were open at that very moment. By the end of the day, Chadian time, the state's 19 electoral votes had been delivered to Gore, making him the come-from-behind winner of the election. Will Gore recognize the debt he owes Chad, and begin the long-delayed development of "Exxon's plantation" - or will he leave Chad hanging as so many others of his party have done? Only time will tell, but the Chadians await his inauguration with the sort of anticipation they have never felt before... Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 From: chris__w@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Hanging Chads Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:13:35 GMT In article <8upeu0$bcf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, jonathan_edelstein@my-deja.com wrote: > Who would have dreamed, even thirty years ago, that an American > Presidential election might hang on Chad? Really, I thought that this isn't new. After all, the 1980 election seemed to be settled in Reagan's favour by Carter's (well, really the Joint Chiefs, but let's leave than can of worms closed) disastrous Benghazi Expedition. If only the US had accepted Quaddafy's offer of compensation for the nationalisation, and mediation over the border question, thousands of Libyans (and hundreds of US servicemen) would still be alive. Chris Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From: jonathan_edelstein@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Hanging Chads Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:07:52 GMT On 13 November 2000, chris__w@my-deja.com wrote: >> Who would have dreamed, even thirty years ago, that an American >> Presidential election might hang on Chad? > > Really, I thought that this isn't new. After all, the 1980 election > seemed to be settled in Reagan's favour by Carter's (well, really the > Joint Chiefs, but let's leave than can of worms closed) disastrous > Benghazi Expedition. If only the US had accepted Quaddafy's offer of > compensation for the nationalisation, and mediation over the border > question, thousands of Libyans (and hundreds of US servicemen) would > still be alive. Don't tell me you're still beating _that_ dead horse. Funny how all the people who think we should have accepted Qaddafi's "offer of compensation" (which hardly amounted to ten cents on the dollar) forget about all the aid he was giving to Habre's "nationalists" in the Aozou, not to mention the three documented cross-border incursions. What were we supposed to do? He _invaded American territory_, for heaven's sake, even though the European Union no longer recognized it as American by that time. (Which is another thing that sticks in my craw - the French _sold_ us the damn place, so what right did they have to turn around fifty years later and tell us we weren't legitimately there?) At any rate, it's really the CIA that deserves the blame for the Benghazi debacle - if it weren't for the bum data that they gave the Joint Chiefs about the strength and armament of the Libyan garrison, we probably wouldn't have attempted a landing. And most political historians today agree that it was the economy, not Benghazi, that cost Carter the election - if anything, the death of American servicemen caused the country to rally around him. Now if you want to argue that the arms-for-slaves deal that Bush set up with the Sudanese, using Deby as the middleman, cost him the '92 election, then maybe you'd have a point... Jonathan I. Edelstein in Forest Hills, NY "Who is wise? He who learns from all." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.