General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think it deserves it's own thread: Gore won the election
Try and remember, people. Nader or not, it doesn't matter. Gore won.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
polichick
(37,152 posts)because they're counting on people to keep fighting each other.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)are created through skillful corporate media with the goal to influence people's perception, the wealthy and well-connected made sure that the mantra that Duhbya won the election was kept on the front pages and in the main storylines, cleverly implying that "Gore is a Sore Loser" right from the get-go.
And it stuck.
Perception is king, and unfortunately in this country, he reigns supreme.
I was happy to see that Obama was able to see this tactic and used it to his advantage, crushing any chance that yet another Republican makes it into the WH, and sparing this country and her people decades of inevitable and irreversible harm.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)Do you REALLY think the republicans.....who own the media, the voting machines, and the government.... are going to allow another democrat to win in 2016?
You and I live on different planets.
The only reason they let Obama win --- twice --- is because the first time, they had made such a mess that they wanted to blame it on someone else. The second time, because it wasn't fixed yet, and they had already set up the scenery for their next act.... 2016.
Our ONLY hope is Anonymous.
We most definitely live on different planets if you truly believe, based merely on your conjecture, that a Republican is going to take the White House in 2016.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)In my previous post, prior to the last one, I was referring to Obama's wins. I wasn't trying to imply that a Republican won't win the WH in the coming decades, but should Hillary Rodham Clinton run in 2016, the race will be hers to lose - and you can bet that she won't lose again. That much I know, based on the grassroots work of OFA and ReadyforHillary PAC that had just signed on two of Obama's top campaign strategists.
Also, President Obama has already said that he won't leave DC after his second term. He says that he's staying there until his youngest daughter finishes school, but we all know why he really wants to stay.
Finally, to paraphrase Howard Fineman in October 2008: "Obama is a savvy politician. They (meaning, his Republican opponents) underestimate him at their peril."
You should keep that in mind.
And this and a nickel will get you what? I think Gore should have fought harder. If he feels he was unfairly treated, then perhaps he needs to run again. I don't know why he didn't run in 2004. He probably would have won.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not a stand alone comment.
Do some reading of threads in recent days.
polichick
(37,152 posts)What matters is not that Gore was treated unfairly, but that the country was - and IS - being scammed. All the fighting between people works as a great distraction while the country is raped and pillaged before our eyes.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)and we haven't tarred and feathered even one of the thieves that stole our country from us.
Think how much better shape this country would be in if Gore had won that election.
Makes me crazy.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)to ditch the bottle and pick up a spoon so they can graduate to a fork
What up polichick???
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)Turns out it wasn't so much an undercount in the Dem precincts as it was an undercount of Dem votes in Republican precincts. That's why Dirty Tony did the deed at SCOTUS. That court majority is forever tainted in our history, including Sandra Day O'Connor.
questionseverything
(9,672 posts)LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.
RinR: For your research, you merged this set of data with detailed profiles of Florida’s electoral precincts. What did you find?
LdHS: One of the things I found that hadn’t been reported anywhere is, if you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida, these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark.
So you can understand why African Americans would be so careful, checking off Gore’s name on the list of candidates and also writing Gore’s name in the space for write-in votes. But because of the way the vote-counting machines work, this had the opposite effect: the machines threw out their ballots.
http://rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
LukeFL
(594 posts)That election was such a scam. Real and true Democracy died that day.
questionseverything
(9,672 posts)part of the solution is simple....we need hand counted paper ballots at the precinct level and a tight chain of custody for the reporting
unfortunately this has been going on since the mid 60's so the corporate candidates that always seem to benefit are entrenched in the system,,,,very difficult for anyone to run for national office if they are not already wealthy,that gets us "conservative dems" which in turn gets us bad policy
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)which in retrospect creeps me out.
LIEberman is a corp whore/did I mention also a Republican at heart/skeeze
Al didn't fight for his own effing presidency (!)
wtf was going on?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)questionseverything
(9,672 posts)Until now, the architectural maps and contracts from the Ohio 2004 election were never made public, which may indicate that the entire system was designed for fraud. In a previous sworn affidavit to the court, Spoonamore declared: "The SmarTech system was set up precisely as a King Pin computer used in criminal acts against banking or credit card processes and had the needed level of access to both county tabulators and Secretary of State computers to allow whoever was running SmarTech computers to decide the output of the county tabulators under its control."
Spoonamore also swore that "...the architecture further confirms how this election was stolen. The computer system and SmarTech had the correct placement, connectivity, and computer experts necessary to change the election in any manner desired by the controllers of the SmarTech computers."
Project Censored named the outsourcing of Ohio's 2004 election votes to SmarTech in Chattanooga, Tennessee to a company owned by Republican partisans as one of the most censored stories in the world.
In the Connell deposition, plaintiffs' attorneys questioned Connell regarding gwb43, a website that was live on election night operating out of the White House and tied directly into SmarTech's server stacks in Chattanooga, Tennessee which contained Ohio's 2004 presidential election results.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2319:new-court-filing-reveals-how-the-2004-ohio-presidential-election-was-hacked
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...just about the time he was going to testify about Karl Rove and all that rot.
Bob Fitrakis explains:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bob-Fitrakis-on-New-Eviden-by-Joan-Brunwasser-110728-924.html
malaise
(269,637 posts)Shakes head.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with nasty stuff on his computer. Oh wait, that was a dream.
questionseverything
(9,672 posts)In his email to Mukasey today, Arnebeck writes: "We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to 'take the fall' for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations."
//////////////////////////////////////
fitrakis is an American hero btw
pacalo
(24,722 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)We'd be too busy building on the peace and prosperity that came about as a result of eight years of the Gore administration, and we'd probably be looking forward to seeing a guy named Obama run for the Presidency...!
DU came about as a result of that frigging robbery by the Gang of Five...!
Of course, if Nader hadn't been in the picture, shitting on the left from the left, and taking money from the right to do it, Gore, or four years later, Kerry, would have not had to watch two flanks and deal with them.
Nader is a shithead (as well as being a wealthy closet corporatist who affects a "poor" persona to con his fans, and who "donates" most of his income...to HIMSELF), and well, fuck him, the miserable old con artist, and fuck Ron Paul too!
DFW
(54,620 posts)He showed up at Helen Thomas's memorial gathering at the National Press Club in October. I was standing right next to him. I was tempted to let him have it with both barrels (verbally, of course), but given that the event was in Helen's honor, and she was a fervent pacifist, I said nothing.
malaise
(269,637 posts)as someone told me.
DFW
(54,620 posts)I knew her family was from Lebanon. I knew Nader was of Arab origin, but didn't know from where-
malaise
(269,637 posts)and respected. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)DFW
(54,620 posts)You should have heard the things she had to say when the microphones were off!
Here's a pic from happier times with her:
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
MADem
(135,425 posts)about her.
I was so sad for her when her career kind of ended on that klunker of a note. It's a tough business, and the whole "Nail that sticks up gets hammered down" rule applies. She was a woman worthy of roses!
Some day you ought to write a magazine article about your years with Helen--I'll bet you have enough anecdotes over fifty years to make it a ripping good read. I should think a publication like say, VF, or one that likes those in-depth retrospectives, would love to hear your recollections. If you do, and someone publishes it, you gotta give us all a link!
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)are you trying to stoke more of it?
In any case, I agree. The bottom line is that Gore won and the Presidency of the United States was stolen from him.
DFW
(54,620 posts)This was one of the historical events that will reverberate in history as a turning point into darkness for us, the country and the world. Environmental issues left deliberately unaddressed, security issues left deliberately unaddressed (including ones that might have prevented 9/11), unnecessary war begun on intentionally concocted false premises, domestic issues deliberately ignored, disastrous financial measures deliberately undertaken---all because Sandra Day O'Connor thought a Gore presidency would be "terrible," and she said so on Election Night, a month before the case came up before her.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)It's alternative energy.
Not just because of the march to war so that we could steal middle eastern oil, or even because of the additional green house gasses that we're spewing into the atmosphere because we didn't pursue it aggressively, but also because that was when we had the dot com bubble and alternative energies were the next technology for everyone to be enthused about.
I remember Gore talking about the 'information super highway' during the '92 election before anyone even had a glimmer in their eye about an Internet.
Gore would have supported alternative energies to the max because of his obsession with CO2 emissions.
I agree with you completely. When historians look back on the Bush Administrations legacy - the only logical conclusion is that we took the wrong turn onto a very dark path.
No Vested Interest
(5,170 posts)I get so disgusted when she is portrayed as a heroine because she was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court.
Similarly, I an disgusted when Colin Powell is held up as someone to be emulated, when he let all humanity down when he could have prevented a tragedy.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Tops...
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)granted. Sad.
malaise
(269,637 posts)Rec
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The idiot Republicans thought all that talk about Middle Eastern Terrorism was to distract the country from Monica. They even called the attempt to get bin Laden "Monica missiles" and mocked the notion of shooting a multi-million dollar rocket at a ten dollar tent.
They dismissed all warnings as former Clinton loyalists trying to make their former boss look like he wasn't a liar.
They didn't want to HEAR about the subject.
Classic projection upon your opponent the kind of things you would do. It never even OCCURRED to them there are some things that transcend politics.
You know,....like REALITY.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Overseas
(12,121 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)are the very same people that put Reagan into the WH. 100,000 'Democrats' voted for Bush in Florida...and I suspect many of them are the exact same people crying about Nader in these threads.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)or in elections decades ago. They weren't DUers.
MADem
(135,425 posts)stand Reagan when he was whining about microphones in New Hampshire...so, whatever.
Your thesis is not supported.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)national races. They are Democrats only in relation to the extreme crazy right kind of Republicans that run for local office in the panhandle and Alabama and Mississippi.
They are irrelevant in the Nader discussion.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)What exactly should Gore have done to win their votes? Promised to end affirmative action? Appointed pro-life judges? Allowed the oil companies to drill wherever they want to? These people voted for Bush because they agreed with Bush's policies. If you're complaining about Al Gore being too far to the right, then why are you complaining about a group of people who voted for Bush because Al Gore was too far to the left for them?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I dont think many of them have stopped to think about it. Anyway you slice it, and the way you did was quite good, it is a nonsensical attempt to deflect blame.
rustbeltvoice
(432 posts)I refer to it as such. When the sand and ashes are blown and cleared away, it will be recorded as such in history. Right now, still, if one says this, he may be dismissed, or hooted at; but those doing the hooting tend to be partisans whom care nothing about justice. Those are the people that include the teabaggers, and other miscreants, yelling about "taking our country back". This is the anti-democratic element, it is unfortunate for the country and the world, that the United States has such a large contingent of these fascists.
Further, gwbjr was the worst president in our history ever. People speak of the incompetency of Harding, Harding realised that he did not measure up. gwbjr lived a partial fantasy, lacked introspection and honesty. Some historians sight Buchanan or Pierce as the worst, because of the ensuing war they did not act to prevent. I reject that argument, the tension over slavery and the culture/society/economic base it was and secession was brewing decades before the 1850s. That men were not able to solve beforehand the conflagration is not too hard to understand. dick cheney is the meanest bastard ever to achieve power in our history, his combination of access, involvement and resources to cause evil has no equal in the history of the United States. Still further, the whole operating apparatus of the Republican Party has been fascist.
Gore, Kerry, et alia did not want to cause embarrassment to the country by showing the system corrupt. Who did this benefit? Not the country, or the world, just the special interests of the American fascists at the top, not their idiot supporters.
That period has to be viewed as a disaster, and an interregnum. It should not be repeated, but just as there were lingering Nazi supporters, and then neo-Nazis in Germany, so there are similar people here.
samsingh
(17,620 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)2000's Snowden didn't make or break the vote!
Gore1FL
(21,216 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)which was originally set up to protest the stolen 2000 election. Yes, Gore won Florida and should have been President. And the US would have been much better off for it.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)because those Democratic Senators (including Paul Wellstone)
who REFUSED to back the Congressional Black Caucus petition
arent about to take the blame, are they?
Country died that day, and Nader didnt sit on his hands making it happen.
Post accountability and progressive bashing phoney memes.
thats all it is.
over and over.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 03:21 AM - Edit history (1)
that was decided by 500.
He's the single progressive who had the greatest influence on throwing the election to Bush.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)That about sums it up right there. Of course Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and the SCOTUS 5 are more responsible for Bush "winning" than Ralph Nader. But Ralph Nader is the ONLY PROGRESSIVE who made conscious choices that could've changed the outcome of that election. Furthermore, he doesn't regret those choices.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Naderites try to get around this by saying that a lot of those people were so disgusted with Gore that they wouldn't have voted for him even without Nader on the ballot. While that's true, it doesn't change the fact that Nader's decision to exercise his legal right to run was one of the causes of the Bush presidency.
According to exit polling that (IIRC) Nader himself has cited, there were such disgusted Nader voters who, without Nader on the ballot on the Green Party line, would have written him in, or voted for whoever was on the Green Party line, or voted for some other no-hoper minor candidate, or would have left the presidential vote blank, or would have stayed home entirely. All these people, instead of making themselves virtually irrelevant by voting for Nader, would have been finding some other way to make themselves virtually irrelevant. They may be ignored for this purpose.
The only Nader voters who matter are those who, without Nader on the ballot, would have voted for Bush or Gore. (Yes, some said they would have voted for Bush.) They key point is that the percentage of Nader voters voting for Gore minus the percentage voting for Bush was about 13. Thus, if Nader had decided not to run, the Gore margin -- number of Gore votes minus number of Bush votes, which in the official count was minus 500 or so -- would have increased by 13 percent of Nader's total vote. Even with a typo to render Nader's total at 9,000, that would have been enough to give Gore the Presidency, but of course at Nader's actual total of well over 90,000 the gain for Gore of more than 10,000 would have put the state (and thus the Presidency) out of reach of any Republican cheating and Supreme Court malfeasance.
An event can have more than one cause. Bush became President partly because of the illegal voter purge in Florida, partly because of Nader's candidacy, partly because of the Supreme Court decision, etc. Change any one of those factors and Gore would have become President. That there were multiple factors doesn't excuse Nader any more than it excuses Katherine Harris.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)had instead voted for Gore, he would have had more than enough to beat Bush.
The Rethugs who tampered with the election were also responsible. But Nader was the only progressive who had such a negative impact on the results.
reddread
(6,896 posts)it was decided by 5.
you should really start dealing with the truth of the matter.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)If even 1 percent of Nader's votes had gone to Gore instead, there would have been more than enough to decide the election.
Jeb and Katherine would go no further honoring their promise.
come on. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Election thefts are a long and proud tradition all over this country.
certainly in California over the last many years, and obviously Florida and Ohio
have done some really big things. WITHOUT RALPH.
Your thesis is smoke.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)The way Obama won his two elections was by having a margin that made such cheating too great a risk.
reddread
(6,896 posts)really? You think elections can only be stolen a little?
How many ways do you think there are of cheating and stealing,
and why dont you blame the real culprits?
Do you think it is acceptable to have our votes uncounted?
Do you think Nader is running the election offices of every county?
How many crimes and criminals will you overlook while focusing on
a scapegoat? He could be guilty as hell of everything people suggest,
but one thing he probably didnt do, was break any laws.
Meanwhile...
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)could have changed the election. They succeeded in 2000 and 2004, but Obama, with his margins, kept the cheaters from winning.
How else do you think Obama managed to win? Do you think the Rethugs suddenly had a change of heart and decided not to cheat anymore? You must not have been paying much attention to Ohio.
reddread
(6,896 posts)and now I know what "woo" is.
thanks for clarifying that.
I actually thought Obama won because they counted more ballots with his name selected.
pnwmom
(109,032 posts)a level of cheating that would have been obvious. If you don't recall, this almost happened in the last election, when Karl Rove was clearly shocked that they didn't take Ohio -- despite all his precautions. He couldn't get Fox news to help him in the vote stealing, by reporting a win for them while they took care of the machines.
With Nader sifting off 95,000 ballots in Florida, the margin was only in the hundreds of votes and a few stolen ballots in each district would have been easy to cover up.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Bush still would have been sworn in a few weeks later, end of story.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Nader didnt steal it, the Democratic members of the Senate rolled over for the kingpins of organized crimes.
then proceeded to use Nader as much or more than any Republicans ever did.
this charade is beyond belief.
Whatever happened to accountability?
Scapegoating voters and marginal candidates while
a nonstop string of crimes against humanity proceeded, and Nader never cast a vote in favor.
Cant say the same for the top tier DLC Gods of those who put party first these days.
America the ugly will never regain its position, and both parties are equally at fault.
People who cant deal with the barefaced treason and point fingers at scapegoats
aint helping a thing.
some of you deserve exactly what you got.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)To vote to overturn them. That would not have happened even if every single Democrat in the Senate supported the CBC.
reddread
(6,896 posts)the people would have backed an honest recount.
what a coincidence the Media Consortium recount was
due on 9-11. Bush was not getting much headway until the Big Event.
The stink and death of democracy is not something to be shrugged off.
yet...
reddread
(6,896 posts)that contesting the results would not have had profound results on subsequent elections?
that those "stealable margins" (forgive the fabricated quotes) would not have been eliminated
by an outraged electorate?
its hard swimming in the murky waters of dim bulb propaganda, but lets try for a modicum of consistency.
Get it?
Mira
(22,382 posts)And it was clear in both instances even then - but not only did we get screwed - we did not get a nod or encouragement or apology or caring, above all, no official acknowledgment of it even having happened that way.
We instead got gerrymandering, and all the crap that is going on to hinder the young/folks of color/immigrants/women who might lean towards Democratic voting from having their chance to do so in an easy way as is their right.
All of it is the new and in essence unstopped action by the Republicans to prevent Democrats continuing to win. After all they know there is a limit to how large the voting machine scams can be, since, after all, our numbers are increasing exponentially. And will increase even more after Obamacare is off and running.
We are and could be so fucking scary if we only realized it and stood up instead of cowering all the damn time.
And don't even start me on having been lied into a war and nobody is being even investigated.
I am Never
Never
Never
going to get over it, or forgive it.
This is my rant for today.
And it's a mild one, really.
And Ralph Nader had nothing to do with any of it. He exercised his right to run, as we all could if we chose to.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)1 chad, 2 chads, 3 1/2 chads, 0 chads, Gore won Florida despite the illegal dumping of voters, mostly black, because their name was similar to a felon. And other shenanigans. It was unprecedented as far as I know - in the pivotal state electorally one of the candidates has his brother as governor and his head state election official was Florida's too.
Then there is the real coup by the Supremes. The final decision was that stopping the recount would cause irreparable harm to - not the US, but Dubya. Unbelievable.
The way this played out was also facilitated by Gore himself - by falling all over himself to concede right away in a razor close election, and later restricting his request for a recount to a few counties in Florida instead of the whole state.
Of course this all happened in an election where Gore comfortably won the overall popular vote.
After Dubya was installed of course he had the unreal gall to claim a mandate - and lead us into a phony war that ruined lives and bankrupted the US while his cronies made 100s of millions.
That Hillary Clinton did not see this shades my view of her to this day. Of course she had a lot of "democratic "company who shamed themselves as well.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Yes, on DU and elsewhere, there is a belief that, take your pick of phrasings: Gore won, Gore/Lieberman won, the election was stolen, Bush stole the election, the Supreme Court stole the election, it was a usurpation, it was a coup, it was the death of American democracy, or whatever. Those Iraqis, Americans, and others who died violent deaths as a result of it are beyond caring how we describe it. What mattered to them was that Bush became President.
A century from now, when people are reading and writing (or getting information beamed to and from their cerebral implants) about this period of American history, it will be recorded that Bush became President. There will be detailed accounts of what happened as a result of his becoming President. In some contexts, but not all, there will be a passing reference to his having lost the popular vote. In a very few contexts, there will be a reference to the dispute about who "won" the election in the DU sense, and/or to the effect of Nader's candidacy.
And if you're on Jeopardy! in 2114, and the answer is "He won the 2000 presidential election," the correct response will be: "Who was George W. Bush?"
The good news is that there's one other fact that matters. From 2000 to 2004, Nader's share of the vote collapsed. One could spend days on DU reading Naderites' posts about Katherine Harris and Gore lost Tennessee and all the rest of the points made in response to any criticism of Nader -- but the vast majority of Nader's voters in 2000 concluded, after four years of Bush, that they had been wrong. Nader and other Green Party candidates have never again come anywhere close to his 2000 vote total.
I only wish Nader would have the intellectual honesty to admit that he grievously erred in 2000 when he stated or implied that there was no significant difference between Gore and Bush.
By the way, to forestall one of the Naderites' favorite memes, I am not saying that Nader had no right to run. Under our system, it is clear that he had a legal right to run. It is equally clear that Republican governors and state legislators who've refused Medicaid expansion in their states had a legal right to do so, and that Republicans in Congress who blocked the extension of unemployment benefits had a legal right to do so. It is also clear that I have a right to denounce people's bad decisions even when those people acted within their rights.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ralph Nader hearts Sarah Palin?
We decided to call the longtime left crusader about a speech Palin gave in Iowa earlier this month, one which seemed to mark the transformation of Palin from a standard-issue movement conservative to something more independent and more reformist. And Nader told us he liked what he heard.
“I think she’s a lot smarter than most people credit her,” says Nader. “Judging by her comments, she is squarely in the camp of conservative populism, opposed to corporatism and its corporate state.”
There is a word for people who sell themselves like that. And he doesn't even have the "intellectual honesty" to admit that he's been for sale for a long, long time (and he's become very, very rich from the transactions, too). He's also about as LEFT as my right foot, IMO.
All I can say is
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
lpbk2713
(42,791 posts)Katherine Harris, Jim Baker and the Supremes stole it while the whole world was watching.
sakabatou
(42,243 posts)If it weren't for Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court, though.
Iris
(15,694 posts)that was on -NPR discussing a study of the votes which showed that Gore actually won? Then the attacks happened and the story was buried
2naSalit
(87,192 posts)but the attacks, you know. They ended my professional life that day and I can never get it back either.
But I have been thinking as I read through these comments and I wonder why Gore didn't fight harder, and perhaps it had to do with his running mate and that he was either being set up by him or had already been set up for a "Wellstone event" so that we would have had a president Joe who would have overseen 9/11 anyway...? And maybe Gore wasn't interested in being the dead guy while Joe was planning his demise and the demise of the country simultaneously.
And I also suspect that Gore may have felt that being around to try and dispute the admin rather than be dead might be better. Unfortunately, it ended up not making a difference except we didn't have a freshly elected dead president.
byronius
(7,421 posts)I love Obama, but Gore will always be President-Elect until he is allowed to serve his term. Technically.
Rule of law demands it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Just think of the events that transpired since the 2,000 election. None of these events were just coincidence. The media continues to ignore what should be the biggest story since Pearl Harbor.
JCMach1
(27,595 posts)H2O Man
(73,785 posts)Absolutely.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)