President Carter: "I don't think that George W. Bush won the election in 2000, against Al Gore"

[kpete]

President Jimmy Carter: Bush Didn't Win in 2000

Thom Hartman
"I'm wondering, have we had a legitimately elected Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower?"

Carter chuckles and says he thinks so, but wouldn't want to comment on that, and then sort of backs off the question. Carter does make a point to say:

"I don't think that George W. Bush won the election in 2000, against Al Gore, because I think that he probably lost Florida and also nationwide. But the Supreme Court rules in our country - that's what we have to accept."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/08/1290435/-President-Carter-Tells-Thom-Hartmann-I-Don-t-Thing-George-W-Bush-Won
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/77616/best-of-the-web/president-jimmy-carter-goes-on-record-bush-didnt-win-in-2000

[TroglodyteScholar]

1. Carter was before my time...

...but I learned quickly to love him if only by how much the right-wing loathes him. (Of course, he gives innumerable reasons to love him.)

Our recent presidents would have done well to listen less to their sycophantic advisors and more to this man.

[laundry_queen]

15. Before my time too

but my dad always said that Carter's problem was that he was too honest and not crooked enough to be the POTUS and that's why 'they' forced him out.

I think it was a few months ago on AC360 they had a psychopath expert on who 'analyzed' all the ex presidents (and other high profile politicians) and he said the only ones that weren't on the psychopath spectrum were Carter and Gore. Funny thing is Anderson Cooper and the expert scored very high on the test also (which led them to discuss how some psychopaths are successful citizens and some are depraved individuals). Interesting show. I don't take it too seriously, but interesting nonetheless.

[awoke_in_2003]

72. Ted Kennedy challenging him

in the primaries didn't help him, either.

[madokie]

101. Ted did more damage than reagan and his goons did

I was cussing Ted Kennedy as we went through that primary. It was like he felt he deserved the Presidency because of who he was. He done a lot of damage, irreparable damage to Carter. 4 years of republiCONs doing everything they could to stop President Carter was hell on the man too but Ted Kennedy was the final nail in that coffin.

IMHO

[Bohunk68]

107. Thanks for saying that.

I thought that at the time and still do. Ted was too damn full of himself. The Repubs would've had a field day with him. Think Chappaquidick.

[Gman]

110. You've got that right

I never had much regard for Ted after that.

[agent46]

120. Interesting AC360 propaganda piece

I've seen this meme show up in a few places lately. Namely, that many psychopaths are actually successful and so shouldn't be considered bad people. Could be part of a larger campaign to normalize psychopathy in the public opinion. No doubt we'll soon hear about efforts to legally reframe psychopathic behavior as a defense and rehabilitate the reputations of past psychopaths. After all, this is America. Success is the only meaningful measure of a person.

[billhicks76]

59. Our Fault

Bush called in his troops...Gore told his to stand down. End of story. They have backbone...we don't.

[BlueMTexpat]

100. Gore only told his troops to stand down after weaselly Lieberman

and other Dem rats literally deserted the ship. Gore finally conceded when the Supremes made their totally uncalled-for selection.

Is this an honest mistake on your part?

You may be thinking of 2004 - when Kerry did not challenge the results in Ohio - after his campaign declared that they had lawyers standing by.

[billhicks76]

102. ?

I thought the Black Caucus wanted to rally people in the streets and Gore told them to stand down in the interests of our country. Looks like our interests would've been better served making more noise since Bush served us up 911, Iraq, Afghanistan and the financial collapse. That entire family should be put on trial, tarred and feathered.

[BlueMTexpat]

113. Totally agree with you about the criminal Bush family ...

but if Al Gore told the CBC to stand down, that would have been after the Supreme selection.

Much as I also detest the current five Js for whom the corporatocracy and oligarchs can do no evil, we are either a nation of law or we are not.

But I admit that I am very tired of seeing those of us who believe in the rule of law being screwed by those who believe that laws are only for US to abide by. They can do no wrong apparently.

I also believe in karma, even if it doesn't quite work the way that I'd like it to or as quickly as I would like.

[billhicks76]

118. It was after

You know they would've done it though

[trof]

63. I met him during a campaign stop in Birmingham.

My wife and I and our 3 year old daughter attended his speech in a local church.
When he talked about the need to take care of the nation's poor I teared up.

Afterwords, he passed through the crowd outside.
My daughter was on my shoulders.
She yelled "HI JIMMY!".
He smiled and came over and shook her hand.

[arikara]

64. Awww, thats so sweet

[trof]

67. She's 42 now. So far that's the only president she's met.

[malaise]

2. George Bush did not win the 2000 elections

and members of the Supreme Court should have been impeached for that coup

[warrior1]

3. yup

[malaise]

4. Why did ReTHUG Reagan appoint Rehnquist as CJ given his drug dependence?

Rehnquist, a man with a jones for Placidyl, died yesterday. He also served as chief justice of the United States for 19 years." But the reluctance to explore this part of Rehnquist's life at any length illustrates a general rule of journalism: Most obituarists prefer the airbrush to the sharpened pen when it comes to the famous and powerful. In Rehnquist's case, reporters can't make the "I was on deadline" excuse. The chief justice gave generous advance notice of his impending death for months, and novella-length pieces like the Greenhouse obit were hardly banged out over Labor Day weekend.

Recounting Rehnquist's Placidyl story isn't just a bit of journalistic blood sport at the expense of a dead man. His unorthodox drug consumption first made headlines in 1982, when the Washington Post (owned by the same corporation that owns Slate) broke the story, when he entered the hospital to get off the stuff. The Placidyl episode was also news in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan upgraded Rehnquist from associate justice by nominating him as chief. A confidential report on Rehnquist's medical history prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which contained more details about his habit, was leaked to the press.

The Rehnquist story deserves a third airing today if only to illustrate the ugly double standards that excuse extreme drug use by the powerful, especially if their connection is a prescribing doctor, and condemns to draconian prison terms the guy who purchases his drugs on the street. Reviewing Rehnquist's tale one more time also demonstrates the reluctance of the Senate—and some members of the press—to grade the mental competency of judges and judicial nominees.

The 1986 medical report on Rehnquist described him as seriously "dependent" on Placidyl from 1977 to 1981. He often consumed three month's worth of the drug in one month before requesting more from Dr. Freeman H. Cary, the attending physician to Congress, who prescribed it. Anonymous sources told the Post that Cary first prescribed Placidyl to Rehnquist in 1971 to help him sleep through his severe back pains, but "Cary reportedly told the FBI that Rehnquist had taken it before."
------------

They owned him from that day

[Tom Ripley]

10. +1000 for the reminder of corruption and favoritism

[Octafish]

11. Just our Bill

By Dennis Roddy
Post-Gazette, Saturday, December 02, 2000

Lito Pena is sure of his memory. Thirty-six years ago he, then a Democratic Party poll watcher, got into a shoving match with a Republican who had spent the opening hours of the 1964 election doing his damnedest to keep people from voting in south Phoenix.

"He was holding up minority voters because he knew they were going to vote Democratic," said Pena.

The guy called himself Bill. He knew the law and applied it with the precision of a swordsman. He sat at the table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were from, how long they'd lived there -- every question in the book. A passage of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote.

By the time Pena arrived at Bethune, he said, the line to vote was four abreast and a block long. People were giving up and going home.

SNIP…

Party leaders told him not to get physical, but this was the second straight election in which Republicans had sent out people to intellectually rough up the voters. The project even had a name: Operation Eagle Eye.

CONTINUED…

http://old.post-gazette.com/columnists/20001202roddy.asp

Vote Supressor in Chief

[northoftheborder]

37. fascinating history I hadn't heard about

[Octafish]

78. An Unappreciated Fascist.

Rehnquist, Cambodia & Abu Ghraib

Bruce Shapiro
The Nation

It is April of 1970. President Richard Nixon, frustrated with the Vietnam War, orders tens of thousands of US and South Vietnamese troops to invade neutral Cambodia. He launches his new war--and widens his bombing campaign--without consulting an outraged Congress. Demonstrations engulf campuses and cities. Aides to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger quit in protest. And at the Justice Department, an assistant attorney general named William Rehnquist, in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, makes a case for the legality of Nixon's new war in a white paper, "The President and the War Power."

It is half a lifetime from that spring to this one, and half a world from Cambodia to Iraq. The historical chasm abruptly collapsed, though, with the release of the memo on torture written for the White House in August 2002 by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, Rehnquist's latter-day successor at the Office of Legal Counsel. What do Nixon and Cambodia have to do with the beatings and rapes at Abu Ghraib? Ask Bybee, because it is his memo that makes the comparison with Cambodia and Rehnquist, a comparison that lays open the deeper motivations, goals and implications of the Bush Administration's interrogation policy.

The Bybee memo attempts to erect a legal scaffolding for physical and psychological coercion of prisoners in the War on Terror. Coming from the Office of Legal Counsel, it holds the authority of a policy directive. The memo proposes so finessed and technical a reading of antibrutality laws that all manner of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" interrogation techniques--including beatings and sexual violations like those in Abu Ghraib--simply get reclassified as Not Torture. The memo's language so offends common sensibility that within a few days of its release, White House officials were disavowing its conclusions and selectively declassifying documents allegedly showing the President's commitment to humane treatment of prisoners.

SNIP...

One glance at the Rehnquist documents and it is easy to see why his 1970 reasoning resonates throughout the Bush Administration's 2002 and 2003 memorandums. Just as Bybee finds that torture isn't torture, Rehnquist argued that the invasion of Cambodia wasn't really an invasion: "By crossing the Cambodian border to attack sanctuaries used by the the enemy, the United States has in no sense gone to war with Cambodia." The Bybee memo offers officials accused of torture the "necessity" defense; in 1970, Rehnquist argued that pursuing Vietcong troops into previously neutral territory was "necessary to assure safety in the field."

In particular, Rehnquist offered the Nixon White House a bold vision of the Commander in Chief's authority at its most expansive and unreviewable: The President's war power, he wrote acerbically, must amount to "something greater than a seat of honor in the reviewing stand." Cambodia--where the devastation of the war and the Nixon Administration's carpet-bombing following the invasion would prepare the way for the Khmer Rouge holocaust--amounted to "the sort of tactical decision traditionally confided to the commander in chief."

CONTINUED...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040712/shapiro

Ironic, as he fought them as a US Army weather man in World War II.

[malaise]

69. Fascinating

Wasn't Roberts his clerk and wasn't he in Florida in 2000?

[Octafish]

74. Roberts gamed Florida and helped fix Iran-Contra...

A regular pooper scooper of a legal mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002281926

Until NSA spying on Congress story, nobody would believe how the guy could have so many friends during his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.

[FailureToCommunicate]

14. The deciding vote to anoint the **losing** candidate as president in Bush v Gore:

Justice William Rehenquest



Elections have consequences.

PLEASE set your alarm clock...and just go vote.

[JHB]

24. Because he would take care of "his side"...

That's a big point about the Chief Justice office that gets missed in a lot of discussions: he gets to pick the people on the 3-judge panels that oversee special prosecutors. Rehnquist made sure two of them were politically-reliable conservative activists.

Rehnquist himself played a key role in both sabotaging the Iran-Contra investigation and setting the stage for the relentless legal assault on Bill Clinton and his administration. In a little-noticed maneuver in 1992, Rehnquist used his power as chief justice to overhaul the three-judge panel that picked and supervised special prosecutors.
***

By ousting MacKinnon, Rehnquist eliminated one of Walsh’s strongest defenders. By putting Sentelle in charge, the chief justice picked a judge who had already voted to overturn Walsh’s hard-fought convictions of Reagan’s White House aide Oliver North and National Security Adviser John Poindexter.

Rehnquist made this change despite language in the 1978 Ethics in Government Act aimed at preventing partisanship by stipulating that in picking members of the three-judge panel “priority shall be given to senior circuit judges and retired judges.” That provision had always been followed – until 1992 when Rehnquist brushed aside the language and reached down for an active junior judge, Sentelle.

****
But Sentelle remained as Rehnquist’s appointee to run the three-judge panel. Sentelle used that authority to pick Republicans for sensitive special prosecutor investigations, whether the target was a Republican or a Democrat. Sentelle’s first special prosecutor was named when a scandal arose in fall 1992 over the Bush administration’s illegal search of Bill Clinton’s passport records – seeking derogatory material that could be used to destroy Clinton’s political viability.

Sentelle’s panel handed this politically sensitive probe to Republican stalwart Joseph diGenova, who ran an investigation that turned up many facts pointing to Republican guilt but still concluded that George H.W. Bush and his operatives were innocent.

Once Clinton took office, Sentelle’s panel began selecting hard-line conservatives to investigate the Democrats. Republican Donald Smaltz was named to investigate Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy. David Barrett, who had headed Lawyers for Reagan, was picked to investigate Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros. Most notably, George H.W. Bush’s Solicitor General Kenneth Starr was chosen to investigate President Clinton, first over the Whitewater case and later over a variety of other allegations.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/090705.html

[grasswire]

31. good time to donate to consortiumnews.com

Robert Parry there, keeping a record of the truth for decades. Blacklisted after his exposes on Iran Contra. Thank you, Robert Parry.

[dreamnightwind]

50. +1

[stuffmatters]

92. +2 Parry's facts on Nixon's real motive behind Watergate are essential history/reading.

Parry's is simply a national treasure.

[lovemydog]

98. Yup

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/09/rethinking-watergateiran-contra/

[malaise]

86. Great post

Thanks

[noiretextatique]

42. the bastard was an anti-voting rights activist

like his pal Roberts.

[jaysunb]

56. Bingo !

And that should have been enough to keep him off ANY judiciary in this country.

[Kolesar]

105. Rehnquist used to harass black voters at the polls in Arizona

That briefly came up at his hearings, but was brushed away.

[yeoman6987]

104. I don't think Reagan wanted Rehnquist

Didn't he want that extreme conservative Bork, but backed down after opposition and then put someone else up but was backed down so he ended up with Rehnquist. He definitely didn't want him if I remember correctly.

[TBF]

18. Exactly. K&R your post. nt

[Samantha]

25. Do you know there was a movement to impeach the Supreme Court 5

who handed the Oval Office to George W. Bush*. The day of the announcement at 5:00 pm near the Supreme Court was September 11, 2001. And that is why that announcement did not happen and it was considered an impossible endeavor in light of the attacks.

There is no question the Supreme Court had no standing to intervene in that controversy since the Constitution of the United States clearly assigns the individual states the authority to determine the winner of Presidential elections. The last word should have been had by the Florida Supreme Court. In its last finding on the matter, it began with the words (paraphrasing): The right to vote is paramount. And that is what the Supreme Court decision discarded.

Sam

[malaise]

46. I did not know that

Wow! Freaking wow!

[druidity33]

53. Don't forget about the unaccounted for trillions

from ? that Rumsfeld disclosed on Sep 10. Didn't hear a peep about it afterward.

[INdemo]

76. They figured they got away with electiion theft so easily that tried again

in 2004 and got away with it again. Now if we would have had a different DNC chairman at the time I believe John Kerry would have been called the winner but McAuliffe wanted to set Hillary up for 2008 and really didn't fight the issue as he should have...think about it
Hell Karl Rove refused to give up on Ohio in 2012 because they thought they had the succeeded again with election theft. And I think Romney though everything was in place for the theft and he would win.
..

[Samantha]

81. I believe you are correct on all points

Last edited Thu Apr 10, 2014, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The one thing that Bush* told Rove he wanted was to win the popular vote in 2004. The best place Rove decided would make the difference, and had a Republican Secretary of State in place to facilitate the process, was Ohio. All of the usual tricks had been implemented -- reducing the number of voting places in highly-populated Democratic lines, mechanical problems with counting the vote, even an electrical outrage at one strategic voting center, to help suppress the Democratic count. Here at DU, we watched that election all day long, and some were specifically focused on that count in Ohio. There were several links posted where we could watch the blow-by-blow count. When the electricity went off at that one station, people knew the number of Kerry votes and Bush* votes. When the electricity came back up, surprise, surprise, those numbers had changed.

Many believed the numbers had been changed remotely and outlined how that was possible with today's technology. That is a theory that was much discussed here - not a proven fact.

Yes, I do believe Romney thought he would take it in 2012, and the ONLY reason he did not was because the Obama team outsmarted them. They had acquired a copy of the last census and identified where their base was located. Some of these places were kind of remote. In some instances, they worked the margins so to speak. The team whipped the vote in those remote areas, and that additional turnout helped Obama hold on to his seat in the White House.

The day is here where it does not really count (pun not intended) to be on the right side on the issues. One must be championing the issues that do matter to major sectors of the populace; but additionally, and just as important, I am ashamed to say, one must foresee where the voting "slights of hand" will occur and plan to offsets those as well.

Sam

[INdemo]

121. Great post and Democrats are just a little to lax on 2014 and even 2016

the Republicans are already ahead of the game even for 2016. and with the current RNC chairman anything goes. Dirty tricks you betcha,and if they get caught so what they will try and try again. Nothing I mean nothing has been done to insure we cant have the same tricks as we did in 2000 or 2004..The Obama team was exceptionally sharp and knew the technology and knew as you said where the voter base was by census numbers. We wont have that same team in 2016 but I tell ya I want to see Elizabeth Warren run because Hillary is more of a corporate Democrat than a liberal and we need a true progressive."The torch has been passed" This voting thing and election process is now up to the younger voters (Democrats) to insure our success. Has anyone ever thought that a 4 year old in 2000 will be eligible to vote for the President in 2016...Hope there are more Democrats than Republicans..Let me think ..Was the winter of 2000 exceptionally cold?

[Bobcat]

84. Correct

All 50 states have their own method for resolving contested elections. The SCOTUS had no legal standing whatsoever when it INTERVENED in the contested Florida election in 2000. The 10th amendment reserves all powers over voting and elections to the states since the Constitution grants nothing in this regard to the federal government. Same with marriage law and education law.

[Samantha]

85. I keep making this point and finally someone has agreed with me

Thank you so much. It was quite a simple thing -- the Supreme Court had zero standing. It was purely a political but Unconstitutional maneuver.

Sam

[uponit7771]

41. amen

[Dawson Leery]

43. Without question they should have been impeached.

[The Wizard]

68. Scalia and Thomas

had clear conflicts of interest. Scalia's son worked for the firm representing Bush and Thomas' wife was on the Bush transition team. Thomas especially profited from his vote to install Bush.

[CanSocDem]

5. What he DIDN'T say....

...about the lack of a "legitimately elected Republican president..." is more important. Everybody knows that Gore got more votes but what about the Guns for Hostages dirty trick of Carters time as just one example.

Democrats can't really talk about all of this because it's the way the game is played, unless you're a person of integrity and a 'deathbed confession' is your last opportunity.

This kind of political integrity is fading fast. The question is, What will disappear first, the myth or the ritual.



.

[derby378]

6. Well, DUH. (n/t)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. 2000 was a travesty IMHO

it continues to mystify me how SCOTUS was able to insert itself into the election and halt the recount.

[Sunlei]

8. haven't noticed any "legitimately elected Republican"

[mountain grammy]

9. Of course W wasn't elected, that's a fact.

[oldandhappy]

12. Agree!!

[Tanuki]

13. I have to ask myself why I wasn't out in the street protesting the coup.

What the hell was I doing that was so important? My country was taken over, the democratic process was set aside and a pretender was inaugurated, and all I did was act disappointed and complain about it.

[calimary]

26. Well, whether you'd been there or not, you wouldn't have seen ANY coverage.

My husband and I didn't see any until we went to see "Fahrenheit 911." And we were appalled and disgusted and quite outraged. We talked about it on the way out of the theater - "did you remember seeing any of that coverage on the 'Nightly News' - or any other newscast?" Michael Moore retrieved it from various cutting room floors. There was such a huge protest during the "inaugural" parade in 2001 that it literally stopped the bush/cheney motorcade in the middle of the street. Their limo could not proceed because there were too many people in the street. Little bushy-boy had to be snuck in the back door of the White House to get inside.

And no. There was NOTHING about that on the news. Everything was "la la la la la la la! Never is heard a discouraging word! Nothing to see here! A fun time was had by all! Move along, everybody! And now a word from our sponsor!"

[Rex]

33. I took to the streets to complain about it, but nobody cared.

I was told to, 'suck it up and move on'. I never have moved on from that spot. It still burns inside, the anger and frustration of being helpless to do anything about.

[Rider3]

16. I agree

They stole the election.

[Zambero]

17. And now Jeb the "recused" enabler is getting ready to run

Subverting the will of the people and thereby altering the course of history for the worse are not the best qualifiers for the job.

[Samantha]

27. Since these suggestions have surfaced that Jeb might run in 2016

I keep asking myself does he truly think that even though the 2000 election was 14 year ago, that Democrats have forgotten his role in handing the White House to his brother?

Sam

[colsohlibgal]

19. The Perfect Storm For Theft

GWB's brother was governor of the key state, his campaign manager the head elections official. So even before the Supreme Court Coup the fix was in - right back to his cousin at Fox News jumping the gun to call it for Bush. One big nightmare facilitated by Gore's hasty rush to concede, to give up prematurely election night, in a razor close election.

How different things would be now had this election had gone to the real winner - as long as Al stayed alive and Droopy Dog didn't take over. That deficit the right likes to throw in the left's face would be much, much lower - as would Cheney's bank account.

[Gin]

23. I agree the fix was in....when FL was called for Gore...W made an unprecedented appearance..

When I saw that, I knew it was a signal to " fix" the situation....the SC sealed the theft.

[grasswire]

34. yep

shit eating grins on the Bush family.....it was a coup, and they all knew it at the time.

[arikara]

66. I still remember chimpy being interviewed before the election was called

Gore was ahead and it looked to everyone else that he had won. Chimpy sat there smirking all over and made some kind of cocky statement that it wasn't over yet. I wasn't following American politics so much at the time, but I knew somebody was cooking the books in his favour somewhere. Sure enough...

Excellent thread. It reminds me of the old DU, the reason that I got addicted to this place.

[Samantha]

83. But he did not concede election night

He left to go to make the concession speech and had arrived there, but a call from his numbers geru in the counting votes pit told him not to concede. The count had narrowed to less than half of one percent difference (I believe that was the margin) and Florida's constitution required with that small of a margin, a recount was automatically required. So Gore left without making the speech.

I know many here have been critical of his not continuing to protest following the Supreme Court decision. But Gore knew and remarked specifically his actions in continuing to contest the election could prompt a revolution. He did not want to see that happen and did what he thought was the best thing for the Country.

More so in finding fault in that decision, I truly believe he did what he thought was the best thing, I have never forgiven the Democrats who failed to step out and support Gore during this whole debacle. Kerry was one of two people I remember doing so. Where were the rest?

Sam

[grasswire]

93. I'm sorry, but I will always fault Gore and his advisors.

He should have made Bush wrestle the presidency away from him, in full public view. Step by wretched step.

A marker would have been laid down for history, a marker that the election was not legitimate and the victory was wrested from the proper winner.

Capitulating to preserve his future electability, and then he never ran for office again.

[demwing]

109. So fault Gore- but don't pretend

There was some imagined rush to concede

[Samantha]

114. It is okay to disagree, grasswire

Like you, I was very disappointed but I do think the threat of a revolution was real, and Gore is more of a statesman than a politician. I do not think his future political possibilities had anything to do with it.

I would give anything if he would step out and run in 2016. The issues he put forth during 2000 are biting us all in the butt now, for instance, climate change, championing choice, protecting social security. I do believe he could stomp anyone the Republicans choose to run. I have read that Gore has been quietly been approached, but I do not hold out much hope that he will step in.

Regards to you.

Sam

[grasswire]

116. remember there was tremendous pressure put on Gore...

.....to be a "statesman" and go quietly away. People were outside his family home in NW Washington day and night pounding drums and hollering "Get out of Cheney's house!" and "Don't be a sore loserman!"

It was a frightening time for his family, I am sure.

And then the Black Caucus of congress begged him on the floor of congress to repudiate the Florida count. Begged just one senator to step forward and challenge that count. That was a horrible, horrible attack on democracy. Not one democrat would step forward and challenge the coup. Not one.

[Samantha]

119. Yes, it was a horrible time and I remember so many things as if it were yesterday

The part about the Black Caucus begging him was particularly touching. I heard later that Gore had asked no one repudiate the vote. He spoke in the article I posted above about respecting the rule of law. His attorney (including Bois) should have been more aggressive in pointing out the Supreme Court had zero standing to intervene. That is to say, the Republican 5 ignored the rule of law, meaning the U.S. Constitution, the State of Florida ignored its own election law, yet Gore made the point it was important to respect the Supreme Court decision and the "rule of law." He also said continuing protesting that opinion would not change the result.

And Florida was held to its constitutional requirement to select a slate based on the plurality of the popular vote. I know I stated this before, but it was an important point. The recount was stopped by the Supreme Court illegally, and because of that Florida could not assert it did select that Republican slate as a result of the plurality of the vote. Florida didn't know and didn't care. Win at all costs.

I just don't understand how Jeb Bush thinks his role in that whole debacle will not come up should he elect to run in 2016 (GAWD HELP US).

Sam

[Samantha]

115. Postscript: this Gore quote was my signature line for about two years

"There is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and a violent revolution."

I see that he was asked about this in May of 2013, and here is part of his response:

“I made the decision in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision 12 or 13 years ago to respect the rule of law,” said the former vice president. “I strongly disagreed with their opinion, said so, but the rule of law is the bedrock of American democracy. There is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and a violent revolution. What was best for the country, the answer was very simple, to respect the rule of law and avoid undermining it and dragging the court into a partisan squabble where the outcome would not change in any case. So I am going to stand by my decision to respect the judiciary.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347083/gore-i-prevented-violent-revolution-accepting-supreme-court-verdict

Unlike you, I hold the Democratic party just as responsible as anyone else because it lacked the spine to step out and challenge the Constitutionality of Republican maneuvers. When I joined DU in 2001, I came swinging against the party for that very failure. Where were they, where were they....

Sam

[demwing]

108. There was no damned "rush to concede"

It took the Supreme Court to get Gore to step down.

In what way is that a rush?

[Hekate]

20. ... And St Ronnie, with Bush the Elder's black arts help, killed off Carter's second term.

We have so much to thank the BFEE for.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Mighty sporting of them to return the White House to the Democrats in 2008

Or was it?

"Gosh, although we stole the White House in 2000 and again in 2004 (see Ohio), you won fair and square this time. Congratulations."

Question: Who was the biggest recipient of defense contractor sources in 2008? (by a whopping 34%, in fact)
Answer: Here

[dreamnightwind]

52. Somehow I was not aware of that

Not the kind of thing DU tends to focus on. Means a hell of a lot to me, though, thanks for the link.

[santamargarita]

22. He stole 2004 also!

[Samantha]

28. A two-year investigation conducted by officials in Ohio

Last edited Tue Apr 8, 2014, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

determined that 25 percent of the vote had been "dropped." When the question was asked by the Governor, who wants to tell the American people one-fourth of the vote was not counted in 2004, no one answered.

Constitutionally, there was no way Bush* could be removed from the White House at that time for that reason.

Sam

[kpete]

29. yep

[RufusTFirefly]

49. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln...

How did you like the play?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I am amazed a certain group of posters

Has not shown up...nnnnnoooo

[Rex]

32. Carter telling the truth, unlike the corporate ex-POTUSes.

nt.

[UTUSN]

35. R#74 & K for, he's done nothing but get better and better forever. n/t

[raccoon]

36. You rock, Jimmy Carter! nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Depends what you mean by "won".

If you mean "should have won, if the votes had been counted correctly" then my understanding is that the answer is not as clear-cut a "no" as most DUers seem to think it is, but it's "probably not, depending on what you mean by correctly".

If, however, you mean "got the post that the election was a contest over" then, self-evidently, Bush won. And from the point of view of learning lessons for future elections, that's the definition that matters.

[DallasNE]

91. The People That Studied This After The Fact

Found that by examining the over-votes it did not matter what criteria was used on the under-votes (hanging chads) that Gore won by between 1,500 and 2,000 votes.

The over-votes are those where someone marked for one candidate and then wrote in and marked for the same candidate a second time and about 2,500 more people did this with Gore than with Bush. Some claim the clear intent could not be determined on over-votes just as all hanging chads should have been ignored. That is the only criteria where Bush would win -- all of the others said Gore won.

Then there was the issue in Broward County and the butterfly ballot where Buchanan picked up 8,000 votes which far exceed his tally in all other counties combined. No way to divine those votes but based on statewide totals Buchanan rightfully would have gotten about 200 of those votes -- all of this thanks to Katherine Harris.

[orleans]

95. jews for buchanan....

Jews for Buchanan: Did You Hear the One About the Theft of the American Presidency?
by john nichols
"A stinging, laugh-inducing look at how George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, in words and pictures. A recent ABC News poll revealed that 35 percent of Americans— or close to one hundred million people—believe that President George W. Bush was not legitimately elected. In a wonderfully irreverent grab bag of facts, rumor, idle speculation, and unmitigated rage, Jews for Buchanan revisits the major events and decisions of the 2000 presidential race, and with a jaundiced if twinkling eye, outlines the overwhelming litany of mistakes, conflicts of interest, inappropriate behavior, and political abuse that were on display during this sorry episode in American political history. Drawing on a variety of sources, from the Annenburg Center's comprehensive collection of election-related documents to little-known websites, Jews for Buchanan covers the whole range of issues that don't pass the smell test: the intimidation of black voters; the disproportionate number of older Jewish residents of Florida who recorded votes for Patrick Buchanan; information about Katherine Harris's connections with the Bush campaign; arguments for the recusal of specific Supreme Court justices; communication between Jeb Bush's office and the Bush campaign; and the role of Republican aides in disrupting the recount—all adding up to a powerful case that George W. Bush is merely a pretender. Combining quips and quotes with the best editorial cartoons and commentary from the election, Jews for Buchanan will be the ultimate memento of the 2000 election for millions of Americans"
http://www.amazon.com/Jews-Buchanan-About-American-Presidency/dp/1565847172

[butterfly77]

39. K&R..

[uponit7771]

40. Amen and Amen

[MisterP]

44. Newsweek said so, too--in September 2001!

[Ecumenist]

54. YEP, they did..."THE ACCIDENTAL PRESIDENT"

I don't know why noone else remembers this

[Enthusiast]

45. Another thing President Carter is right about.

[Corruption Inc]

47. He also said the 1st thing Obama should do as prez is close Gitmo

Oh well, let's blame idiot repukes even though there was a dem majority at the time.

[RufusTFirefly]

48. The table is tilted. The game is rigged.

"The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care."
-- George Carlin

[shenmue]

51. He is right

As pretty much always.

[YOHABLO]

55. Perhaps the Supreme Court has over-stepped its power .. We the People Rule .. Not the Supremes.

[rhett o rick]

61. In my opinion the SCOTUS has long ago over-stepped the power given by the Constitution.

The founders thought the Legislative Branch the most important and is discussed first in the Constitution. Second comes the Executive Branch. Both of these branches are directly responsible to the people. If the people dont like a law that gets passed thru Congress and the President, they can remove the offenders in the next election and replace them with those that will better represent them. The founders took on the Judicial Branch last, and included very little authority for the SCOTUS. They were concerned that being appointed for life might make the Justices dictatorial. Then alone came Chief Justice Marshall who, without a vote of Congress, approval of the President, decided that the SCOTUS could reign supreme over the other branches. Striking down or "interpreting" laws made by the other two branches. While bad decisions by Congress and/or the President can be fairly easily rectified, bad decisions by the SCOTUS can not. The balance of power is out of balance.

[samsingh]

57. wow - that truth is out there

what a shame for a great Democracy

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Carter stands apart

[Madmiddle]

60. No Mr Carter.

We do not have to except the SCOTUS ruling at all. They are there to make law decisions and a few times lately they didn't rule on law, they made a choice.

[Boomerproud]

77. That is the only line I took umbrage to as well.

The Supremes do NOT rule over this country-it is SUPPOSED to be a balance of power-and I (and you) do not have to accept anything.

[orleans]

96. they are not supposed to take on a single issue/incident case like that

where it only effects a single situation

bastards!

they never should have taken it on to begin with

[Berlum]

62. Decent Americans have always known that the Republicans stole the election

For their chickenhAwk hero George AWOL Bush

[rickyhall]

65. Thanks to the 26th Amendment

He was the first pres. I got to vote for, forget the other guy, named for a car I think. I had been 21 for about a week. I also remember the rw treated him as bad they do President Obama and he's white.

[Go Vols]

70. First Prez I voted for too

although he was up against Ronnie Raygun when I got my first chance to vote.

[INdemo]

71. I dont think George W Bush won in 2004

and John Kerry should have been President and would have been a great one at that.
Karl Rove set it up and gotta hand it to him he knew how to steal 'em He should be in prison along side the person he got in office.
If the truth were know George W. didn't win the election as governor either. Ann Richards had a tremendous lead in the polls but something went wrong to watch the pollsters swing so fast.

[ozone_man]

73. He was my favorite.

We haven't had any real Democrats since him.

[RainDog]

75. agreed n/t

[Jenoch]

79. I don't get the question.

Is there any doubt that Nixon won in 1968, Reagan in 80 and 84 or H.W. in 88?

[stevenleser]

111. Won't argue about Nixon. Reagan won in 1980 with the Iran October Surprise and...

H.W. won in 1988 with the extremely underhanded Willie Horton ad.

Reagan's October Surprise amounts to treason to win an election. The whole Willie Horton thing is so underhanded that it is something that should not be allowed happen.

[Leith]

80. Carter Is Proof That What the Reichwing Wants and

what they say they want are polar opposites.

The Tea Party, Moral Majority, Perotnistas - whatever they're calling themselves these days - claim that they want a good, religious, man for president. A political outsider uncorrupted by DC. Well, they had it in Carter. They rejected him by the millions for a Hollywood insider, divorced man, non-churchgoer, former union head. I don't get it.

[ancianita]

82. Since The Carter Center has observed 96 elections in 38 countries, he'd be in a position to know.

He wouldn't lie, and he'd draw his conclusions only after collecting all the relevant information on that situation. This is not just another "opinion." I'll bet that, through the Carter Center, he's even got the proof.

[deutsey]

87. Massive pre-election voter purges in Florida, dirty tricks leading up to and during Election Day,

the confusing "butterfly ballot", that odd live shot of the Bush family smiling like the cat that ate the canary saying with absolute certainty that Florida didn't go for Gore, reports of missing ballot boxes, Bush's relative working at FOX News calling the election for Bush, the "Brooks Brothers Riot" during the recount, and the decision of a Supreme Court dominated by Reagan-Bush appointees...

Gore wins the popular vote and would've won Florida if a statewide recount had been done...

Nope, no discernible pattern there suggesting Bush didn't win.

[Maedhros]

88. There was no election in 2000.

The votes were never counted.

[Baitball Blogger]

89. Finally. A Democrat who finally gets it. It really wasn't in the best of the country's

interest to concede.

[Blue Owl]

90. I'm with Jimmy

[Rex]

94. How the hell did I not rec this one!

Sir your words are heard loud and clear! We need to remember to tell the TRUTH. There was so much conflict of interest, no way did the SCOTUS have the right to decide a national election. The SCOTUS ruled politically and we ended up with nonstop nightmare for 8 years.


Senator, at no time did I eat babies...burp...

[orleans]

97. i will never get over what happened to us and this country

and the supreme court is not supposed to take on single issue cases --

did carter speak out on this years ago? i don't recall that he did.

i certainly did. but my voice was not heard nearly as loudly as his would have been heard.

[B Calm]

99. We should not accepted the SC ruling and screamed bloody murder!

The final recount in Florida showed All Gore won and was to be on national news Sept 12! But something happened on Sept 11, coincidence?

[billhicks76]

103. Neither Do Most Republicans

But that's ok with them because cheating is always an appropriate way to get what they want. The ends justifies the means with them.

[Junkdrawer]

106. There are some lies even former Presidents can't repeat...

without blushing.

[Liberalman777]

112. I tolerated the SCOTUS stepping its bounds before..

I will not stand for it again. Remembering them say: "This is a one time deal it won't happen again"Yeah right. sure it won't! It had better NOT!

[librechik]

117. Thank you, President Carter. When will our other Dem Presidents

and candidates respond to his challenge and prosecute the war criminals of that criminal administration??