On the 36th day after they had voted, Americans finally learned Wednesday who would be their next president: Governor George W. Bush of Texas.
Vice President Al Gore, his last realistic avenue for legal challenge closed by a U. S. Supreme Court decision late Tuesday, planned to end the contest formally in a televised evening speech of perhaps 10 minutes, advisers said.
They said that Senator Joseph Lieberman, his vice presidential running mate, would first make brief comments. The men would speak from a ceremonial chamber of the Old Executive office Building, to the west of the White House.
The dozens of political workers and lawyers who had helped lead Mr. Gore’s unprecedented fight to claw a come-from-behind electoral victory in the pivotal state of Florida were thanked Wednesday and asked to stand down.
“The vice president has directed the recount committee to suspend activities,” William Daley, the Gore campaign chairman, said in a written statement.
Mr. Gore authorized that statement after meeting with his wife, Tipper, and with top advisers including Mr. Daley.
He was expected to telephone Mr. Bush during the day. The Bush campaign kept a low profile and moved gingerly, as if to leave space for Mr. Gore to contemplate his next steps.
Yet, at the end of a trying and tumultuous process that had focused world attention on sleepless vote counters across Florida, and on courtrooms form Miami to Tallahassee to Atlanta to Washington the Texas governor was set to become the 43d U. S. president.
The news of Mr. Gore’s plans followed the longest and most rancorous dispute over a U. S. presidential election in more than a century, one certain to leave scars in a badly divided country.
It was a bitter ending for Mr. Gore, who had outpolled Mr. Bush nationwide by some 300000 votes, but, without Florida, fell short in the Electoral College by 271votes to 267-the narrowest Electoral College victory since the turbulent election of 1876.
Mr. Gore was said to be distressed by what he and many Democratic activists felt was a partisan decision from the nation’s highest court.
The 5-to -4 decision of the Supreme Court held, in essence, that while a vote recount in Florida could be conducted in legal and constitutional fashion, as Mr. Gore had sought, this could not be done by the Dec. 12 deadline for states to select their presidential electors.
James Baker 3rd, the former secretary of state who represented Mr. Bush in the Florida dispute, issued a short statement after the U. S. high court ruling, saying that the governor was “very pleased and gratified.”
Mr. Bush was planning a nationwide speech aimed at trying to begin to heal the country’s deep, aching and varied divisions. He then was expected to meet with congressional leaders, including Democrats. Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush’s ruing mate, was meeting with congressmen Wednesday in Washington.
When Mr. Bush, who is 54, is sworn into office on Jan.20, he will be only the second son of a president to follow his father to the White House, after John Adams and John Quincy Adams in the early 19th century.
Mr. Gore, in his speech, was expected to thank his supporters, defend his hive-week battle as an effort to ensure, as a matter of principle, that every vote be counted, and call for the nation to join behind the new president. He was described by an aide as “resolved and resigned.”
While some constitutional experts had said they believed states could present electors as late as Dec. 18, the U. S. high court made clear that it saw no such leeway.
The U.S. high court sent back “for revision” to the Florida court its order allowing recounts but made clear that for all practical purposes the election was over.
In its unsigned main opinion, the court declared, “The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter.”
That decision, by a court fractured along philosophical lines, left one liberal justice charging that the high court’s proceedings bore a political taint.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an angry dissent:” Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law.”
But at the end of five seemingly endless weeks, during which the physical, legal and constitutional machines of the U. S. election were pressed and sorely tested in ways unseen in more than a century, the system finally produced a result, and one most Americans appeared to be willing at lease provisionally to support.
The Bush team welcomed the news with an outward show of restraint and aplomb. The governor’s hopes had risen and fallen so many times since Election night, and the legal warriors of each side suffered through so many dramatic reversals, that there was little energy left for celebration.
1. The main idea of this passage is
[A]. Bush’s victory in presidential election bore a political taint.
[B]. The process of the American presidential election.
[C]. The Supreme Court plays a very important part in the presidential election.
[D]. Gore is distressed.
2. What does the sentence “as if to leave space for Mr. Gore to contemplate his next step” mean
[A]. Bush hopes Gore to join his administration.
[B]. Bush hopes Gore to concede defeat and to support him.
[C]. Bush hopes Gore to congraduate him.
[D]. Bush hopes Gore go on fighting with him.
3. Why couldn’t Mr. Gore win the presidential election after he outpolled Mr. Bush in the popular vote? Because
[A]. the American president is decided by the supreme court’s decision.
[B]. people can’t directly elect their president.
[C]. the American president is elected by a slate of presidential electors.
[D]. the people of each state support Mr. Bush.
4. What was the result of the 5-4 decision of the supreme court?
[A]. It was in fact for the vote recount.
[B]. It had nothing to do with the presidential election.
[C]. It decided the fate of the winner.
[D]. It was in essence against the vote recount.
5. What did the “turbulent election of 1876” imply?
[A]. The process of presidential election of 2000 was the same as that.
[B]. There were great similarities between the two presidential elections (2000 and 1876).
[C]. It was compared to presidential election of 2000.
[D]. It was given an example
难句译注
1. stand down 退出竞争/竞选，辞职，推出法庭。这里指戈尔感谢这些竞争支持者后，就退出竞选。此短语的对立面是stand for 竞选。 Ex: to stand for parliament 竞选国会议员。
2. The Bush campaign kept a low profile and moved gingerly, as if to leave space for Mr. Gore to contemplate his next steps.
4. …one certain to leave scars is a badly divided country.
[结构简析] election 的同位语one (election) which was certain。 Leave scar 留下伤疤。
[参考译文] 人们可以肯定计算问题在这两派分裂的国家上留下伤疤。
5. It was a bitter ending for Mr. Gore, who had outpolled Mr. Bush nationwide by some 300000 votes, but, without Florida, fell short in the Electoral College by 271votes to 267-the narrowest Electoral College victory since the turbulent election of 1876.
[结构简析] outpoll 得到的选票超过某人。Fall short (of) 缺少，不足，达不到。Electoral college 选举团票，指每一个州人民选出一群人组成选举团，由它们直接选举总统。
7. James Baker 3rd 贝克曾任前共和党总统里根(Ronald Reagen)政府的内阁成员和白宫办公所主任。在小布什父亲的父亲George Bush任总统时又担任过国务卿(1989--1993)。这次他是小布什为重新计票问题在法庭展开斗争的律师代表，而民主党的律师代表似乎克林顿政府中担任过国务卿的克里斯托弗Warren Christopher (1993--1997)。
8. Dick Cheney 切尼是小布什父亲执政时的老臣。他这次出山要以辅弼大臣的资格和经验辅佐朝政。所以报道中提到he will act in the Bush administration as a president in a corporation while George W. Bush as the Chairman of the board of directors.
9. John Adams (1735-1848), 约翰·亚当斯，10. 美国第二任总统(1979--1801)，11. 联邦党人，12. Federalist, 是起草独立宣言的关键人物。
13. John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) 美国第六任总统，14. 是上述亚当斯大儿子。
22. It saw no such leeway. 美国高等法院认为这是没有成功的多花时间，23. 金钱的事。和后面句内for all practical purpose the election was over 事实上选举已结束(已成定居)，24. 传达了高等法院认为重新计票毫无作用之义。
25. That decision, by a court fractured along philosophical lines, left one liberal justice charging that the high court’s proceedings bore a political taint.
[参考译文] 法院这一裁决割裂了哲学思想，使一位自由派法官(司法官)指高等法院程序沾上了政治污点。
26. But at the end of five seemingly endless weeks, during which the physical, legal and constitutional machines of the U. S. election were pressed and sorely tested in ways unseen in more than a century, the system finally produced a result, and one most Americans appeared to be willing at lease provisionally to support.
