WASHINGTON -- On its way into the Florida Supreme Court yesterday, one would have expected from all the weekend noise that the Bush campaign was prepared to argue passionately for the allegedly abused voting rights of Americans in uniform overseas. But it wasn't, because to do so would hurt George W. Bush's case.
Also on its way into court, the Bush campaign made it clear that as far as the Texas governor is concerned, this mess only ends in Florida if he wins on his terms. Otherwise, he is prepared, unlike Al Gore, to drag it all out into the federal courts and into the Republican-friendly confines of the Florida Legislature or the US Congress.
On her own way into court, the person whose corrupt decisions to represent the Bush campaign instead of the people in Florida created most of this melodrama got a crude lesson about her place. Secretary of State Katherine Harris wanted 40 minutes of argument time all to herself; the seven justices told her to take her place within the Bush campaign's allotment. One hopes the lesson was more than symbolic.
And on their way into court, one also hopes the court itself is getting ready to rule instead of split hairs. Each side has its hopes and fears, but on one point both sides agree: Hair-splitting would make settling the election with something faintly resembling finality that much more difficult for whoever gets the presidency.
The danger is that the court could follow the letter of Florida law, ruling for Gore on issues like recount deadlines for counties but withholding rulings on which votes actually count until Harris has formally certified somebody's ''victory.''
The hope on both sides is that the logic of consolidating all the cases moving through trial courts is a definitive, comprehensive decision. But the fear of another ten days of political turmoil before all questions are ruled on is real.
The noise about absentee ballots from abroad is classically illustrative of that turmoil.
If the Gore campaign intended to be ruthlessly thorough in its scrutiny of them, it should have been at least as prepared for the noise that followed, which it wasn't. In this case, image politics counts a great deal because it helps frame the backdrop of emotions that will eventually determine how much acceptance the eventual President's designation will win from a divided country.
On one level, the notion that ''our boys'' are being singled out by antimilitary liberals is beyond silly. About half the overseas absentee votes were from military personnel, and one presumes the Bush campaign has equal concerns about businessmen, students, and Peace Corps volunteers. Beyond that, the fact that the military was worth a PR campaign but not a legal argument is revealing. The Bushies' point had been that a technical violation (missing postmark or missing witness signature) should not stand in the way of the obvious intent of a voter and the overriding public interest in counting the votes of those who clearly intended a vote.
That is dangerously close to the argument that a recount deadline (especially one in conflict with other provisions of law) or a partially punched voting card should also not stand in the way of voter intent that can be determined objectively. And that's why the Bush campaign's concern for the military ended on the Florida Supreme Court's front steps.
There was no such reticence, however, on two other issues in the case. The Bush campaign raised a federal issue - the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantees - in a state court case, signaling its intention to carry on if it loses there. And it argued that Harris's actions to foreclose a recount were within state law, signaling her role more as Bush campaign co-chair than constitutional officer.
You can say that Gore's decision to put all his eggs in the Florida basket reflects necessity more than judgment, but the fact remains that he is not the person threatening to prolong and exacerbate the agony in either Tallahassee or up here where Congress and the Supreme Court lurk.
That's why Harris's place in court with the Bush campaign was more than symbolic. Bush's argument yesterday supported her discretionary authority to cut off the counting process; but his larger argument was that the recounts by hand under Florida law are unconstitutional in the federal sense and his strategy has sought to block them at all costs. That strategy required a Florida surrogate to delay them and then void them via the narrow ground of the alleged deadline. Enter Harris, far more the pol than the minister.
And if there is anything that can bring the hope of widely accepted clarity to all this it is a definitive, comprehensive decision after yesterday's argument. The last thing this mess needs is judicial hair-splitting at a nearly climactic moment.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.
