Why Did Gore Concede?

[Two Americas]

Why do you think Gore conceded, and how do you feel about it? I will refrain from giving my opinion, because I want to hear what others have to say.

[CatWoman]

1. why refrain? why do YOU think he conceded?

[Two Americas]

11. lol

For one thing I am too argumentative.

[CatWoman]

14. i'm just ribbin ya

:)

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

20. yeah I know

Consider me ribbed. :)

[AndyTiedye]

If He Hadn't, He Would Have Been Assassinated, and Lieberman Would Have Started the PNAC Wars

[jlake]

3. Wow. that is quite a claim....any evidence?

[CatWoman]

6. we don't need no steeken evidence

:rofl:

[Bandit]

102. The Anthrax mailings to Democratic Senators

That is pretty damn strong evidence IMO.

[Virginia Dare]

196. I likee the tinfoil!...n/t

[Kokonoe]

2. The supreme court ruled for bu$h.

[acmavm]

5. Yep, what you said.

edit: To add the hilarious fact that the douche bags who made the ruling said that they were not intending to set a precedent. I almost laughed myself unconscious on that one. And the laughter was not happy nor amused laughter. Not at all.

[Two Americas]

19. ok

What is your opinion of their ruling?

The Taney Court ruled that Negroes were not human beings. That didn't slow down the Abolitionists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. After going to the USSC and being rebuffed he had just one more choice

and he didn;t want to bring the country to a civil war.

He's explained this many times.

Now let me repeat this... after almost a month of fighting in the courts, once he was rebuffed by the supremes in Bush V Gore he had just one choice... and it was faustian.

Accept the judgement of the supremes and concede to the rule of law or... declare himself in open rebellion to the Government of the US.

My question is rather a more simple one, why people don't get this... and of course the secondary one, after the coup... yes it was a coup, would you have followed Gore in open rebellion?

Truly the myth making is astounding at times

[Echo In Light]

7. Tough spot to lead by example in...just wish people would lay off the Nader mythos

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Part of the myth making

and helps to keep people distracted from what REALLY happened, a coup

[Echo In Light]

17. An aside: then don't you suppose "they" were aware of all the Big Changes ahead?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. No, this coup was run by at tops fifteen people

and I include the supremes in there.

and no, not all of them necessarily either... they needed five... a very cryptic phrase by Ginsburg makes my mind run.

When she said that she at times was sorry for her vote in 2000

[caraher]

27. Don't you mean O'Connor?

Ginsburg surely didn't regret voting "for Gore"

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You are right, sorry

been a long week, been a long three months

:-)

Not to mention seven long years

[Echo In Light]

28. That's where we part views. I can't for a sec believe this regime came along 'just in time'

To take advantage of all the evil shit they'd already planned. PNAC, sure, but even going back to the congressional hearings on Iran/Contra, and the REX84 plan, to subvert the constitution after a national terrorist attack. Some of the same people involved then as now ... and all by coincidence/happenstance? Not a chance. But we can agree to disagree on it, no prob.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. It is not a disagreement

they didn't come just in time... but they needed a coup

Clinton got in the way, if you get my drift.

[Echo In Light]

94. Agreed there. He did serve them in helping to smear the left in the public eye a la Monica

...with a little help from the corporate, right wing media, of course ... and even though many of his admin's policies weren't exactly "left."

[defendandprotect]

53. Oh, come on . . . the GOP fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQ's was how many?

How many GOP thugs did they import into Florida to STOP that vote --- ???

And, why not arrests --- why no legal reply---?

The media quickly reported who they were --- Bush financed?

Where was the law to stop that fascist activity?

Rather --- they did STOP the vote counting --- !!!

IMO, that fascist rally -- which the public might have thought was real --- did a lot to
scare the public from wanting a recount.

[Echo In Light]

95. It's covered well in two doc fims:

Orwell Rolls in His Grave
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521&q=orwell+rolls&total=207&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8791828705871803171&q=unprecedented+2000+presidential&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[defendandprotect]

140. And comprised of Republicans .... GOP operatives . . . all directed by from a

nearby trailer ---

All expenses paid --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

54. Gingsburg regretted not being part of the Gang---????

Where did you hear that?

[bonito]

8. But it was all Nader's fault don't you know

And remember to vote any Dem regardless for the benefit of the supremes.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

141. Yeah . . . Nader also caused Kerry's loss . . . !!!

:sarcasm:

[Virginia Dare]

201. He certainly didn't help matters...n/t

[LSK]

218. New Hampshire

Care to look up the vote in 2000 there?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Actually there was another choice: fight the result in congress.

Gore could have challenged the report from the electoral college, he chose not to. That was a mistake. He should have fought the coup through every legal option open to him short of rebellion. He didn't.

[Echo In Light]

12. I recall reading a book by Mark Crispin Miller that made this point

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Yes, he needed a senator to support him

as the VEEP he was the Senate President, good luck doing that... for political and realistic reasons

I suspect his own party was going to let him hang in the wind.

[Two Americas]

66. another good question

Why did the entire party leadership roll over?

[Two Americas]

26. or take it to the people?

Was there not an option of taking it to the people?

Thanks Warren, I am anxious to hear your thoughts.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. That would be the rebellion option and Gore certainly

was not prepared, nor were we. He gave up after the SCOTUS coup, and he gave up too early. I think Gore is even on the record as stating that his decision to stop fighting at that point was wrong.

[Two Americas]

38. maybe

Maybe a rebellion, but rebellions can take many forms and do not necessarily need to be violent. Could it not be that it is a rebellion postponed in any case, rather than averted? Imagine them opportunity it would have provided us had Gore continued to fight ans speak against the court decision forcefully, and refused to concede. It may not have been "successful" in terms of overturning the decision and installing him in office, but imagine the possible political successes that could have come from that for all of us.

[leftstreet]

80. Less than half "the people" voted

Which means more than half the people might have found a rebellion/fight between two corporate political factions only somewhat more interesting than the nightly news roundup of car crashes.

Who knows.
:shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. If they made it interesting enough as in a... reality show

perhaps it would have gotten the interest of the masses going

:-)

And on this corner....

Comes from....

Ooohhh ouch, that ... must have left a mark!

[defendandprotect]

142. Corporations have bought the two parties in order to run their own show . . .

and to keep the public out of the elections --- !!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. BRAVO, standing ovation

and you and I know this, I wish more people realized this.

That said... I will be there to "vote" and make them steal it, damn it!

[defendandprotect]

151. I think the larger the turn out the more difficult the steal --- !! ??

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. I no longer hold any hope

that they will not steal it.

Ironically... that admission has freed me in ways that are quite incredible.

Of course I am willing to be proven wrong... and I hope I am... including the ever so popular narcotized American Public actually doing something about it if they steal it.

The last seven years have truly stolen any hope that anything can change in this country

I think 2006 was the final straw

[defendandprotect]

160. Overall I would be optimistic that finally we would slay this dragon . . .

the problem that I see is that we have time constraints because of Global Warming which is moving rapidly and where I think we are almost too late for a response --

[MonkeyFunk]

92. Nope

wouldn't have worked, and would've legitimized Bush.

The Florida legislature had the last word on which slate of electors to send - they were going to send the Bush electors no matter what.

Challenging it in the Congress would've still made Bush President, and would have done so through constitutionally prescribed methods.

[Hippo_Tron]

175. If successful, unlikely, it would've gone to the House which would've chosen Bush

[Two Americas]

18. thanks nadin

Thanks for posting on this.

So you are saying that he respected the USSC's decision?

What are you seeing as the only remaining option he had? Do you think that civil war was the only option? Or that he thought that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. He has said that he was not willing to go that route

if I remember correctly in 2004

He was not willing to put the country through that one

And I suspect that he means it when he says that he is a recovering politician and will NEVER ever again pursue political office... in fact, I'd be shocked if ANY in the Gore Clan run for office, even dog catcher.

Of course the latter makes me wonder what skeletons are there, but that is my mind running, not based on what he has said, at least since 2004... when he made the allusion, but didn't call it by the exact words.

[drmeow]

23. would you have followed Gore in open rebellion?

In a heartbeat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Not most of the country

which was in shock, and in some respects still is

Hell, I doubt today we could get that going... not while Idol is on

(Yes you can call me cynic, will not feel insulted one bit)

:-)

[Two Americas]

39. 50 million

50 million people were disenfranchised. With the right leadership at the right time in that fiasco, all of the ingredients for mass action were there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Then you must ask yourself why did the powers that be don;t do that?

My personal view is that open rebellion is not good
(Though I fully expect it, sooner rather than later)
Moreover, back in 2000 people were way, and I mean this WAAAYYYYY too comfortable... and a few even had an inkling of how bad things were going to get. And I mean the inkiling part

Now today... you may get something going... and I still doubt it

If we were ready there would be more than revolts

[Two Americas]

61. of course

Rebellion is not "good" anymore than being forced into a position to harm an intruder to protect your family is "good" - until we consider the alternative. One doesn't seek to have the intruder enter and threaten one's family. Rebellion is in a sense collective self-defense from an intruder, and of course it would be better to not be assaulted at all than to be forced to resort to self-defense. But the alternative is worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Having been in a shooting war, I´d rather not go shooting

until there is absolutely no choice.

Which reminds me, Gore is also a combat vet...

And if the light is right and under certain questions, you can see.

That is the OTHER reason I suspect he didn´t fight any further

Now, don´t get me wrong... I will fight, even die, if it comes down to it... and there is a civil war coming, but I am
not looking forwards to it... been there, done that... and seen it and tasted it... ain;t pretty

That is why I hope that we can steer this ship off them rocks in a peaceful (and not less rebellious) way, but given the
last seven years... when it finally happens, it will be bloody.

Just my opinion of course

[Two Americas]

72. indeed, yes

"...until there is absolutely no choice." Agreed.

Are you saying that Gore did everything possible right up to the point of armed conflict, and that in fact had he not stood down that was imminent? Or might there have been just a few stones left unturned when he folded?

Peace can always be obtained by abject surrender and submission.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. He folded due to that little concept of rule of law

legally he was at then end of the road.

And the country was not ready for a hot civil war. These days... I´m not sure its ready either... but when that civill war goes hot... I know it will be nasty

I have no idea what it will take for most Americans to FINALLY take to the streets in a way the MSM cannot ignore it (which is another reason he gave up... he had no PR... the MSM was ruthless and still is actually)

[Two Americas]

78. what law?

5 Supreme Court justices broke the law. How is obeying that honoring the rule of law?

I think the people are ready to take to the streets. They lack leadership, and I think the Gore concession is an example of that lack of leadership.

How can we with consistency hope the the people take to the streets en masse, and see that as the solution, yet praise Gore for preventing exactly that from happening?

If the people, without any leadership, did take to the streets in sufficient numbers to have an impact, what do you think would happen? I would say that had Gore not folded the likelihood of violence would have been much less than there would be in a spontaneous and leaderless uprising. Every cave-in by the opposition leadership makes the latter more likely, not less.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. They did not break the law

I know... but they did not.

I have as many problems with their ruling as Gore did... but strictly speaking they did not break the law

Why this coup is so well done... and historians will have loads of fun with it

Now if they broke the law, then impeachment procedures should start ex post facto against the justices... nobody has even proposed that, while we have had madame speaker remove impeachment from the table for bush and chenney.

IN fact, their ruling will fall in the same category as keeping blacks segregated in the south or some other egregious decisions. But strictly speaking it was NOT a violation of law, since they are the supreme court in the land... the last arbiter of law. So, unless you can prove a conspiracy (and if there was one, I fear the evidence is gone), and the supremes voted this way as part of a grander plan... they voted wrongly...

As I said, Gore gave up when he ran against that wall... once the USSC decides against you, there is only one choice if you decide to go against it. And that is for you to go into open rebellion against the US. He chose not to do it, and he has explained it. If you don't want to accept it, that is your prerogative. But legally that was the wall and he conceeded once they rendered their decision in Bush V Gore.

As to the people being ready to take to the streets, perhaps today (been to enough demos to know otherwise), but they were not ready in 2000. Shock Doctrine, read on it. because that is exactly what they did. At least the bush boys. The country WAS in shock during that month.

[Two Americas]

85. of course they did nadin

They committed the greatest crime in the history of the nation. Had you or I broken into a ballot box and stolen an election, would there be any doubt that a crime had been committed? Since when does holding an office of public trust make one immune from the law?

A coup d'etat could be seen as the breaking of ALL laws.

This was far worse than the Taney court decision, by the way. The highest office in the land was stolen.

[Hekate]

126. I'm a little confused. Are you, Two Americas, advocating a shooting war in the US?

Are you advocating civil war? You know, with the dead people and destroyed neighborhoods and all that?

I ask this because you disingenuously posed a question in the OP, said that you were just seeking input, and then persistently steered the conversation toward the notion that the sole remedy for our current dilemma is violent rebellion.

Or maybe I am just reading you wrong. I'd really like to know what you mean.

Hekate

[Two Americas]

133. of course not

Several other posters took the discussion that direction. It hadn't crossed my mind before that.

I think your charge that I am being disingenuous in not true, as is the charge that I have steered the conversation toward violence.

[idovoodoo]

117. Some pretty smart lawyers disagree with you

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Yes and plenty others disagree with you

this decision will be hotly contested a hundred years from now

[idovoodoo]

157. So, your position is that the Court acted fully within the law of the land?

I find that fascinating.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. My position is if you can prove it, impeach the bastards

because your innuendo implies high treason, which is both impeachable and a death penalty offense

The court has had its moments... dredd scott anyone? Bush V Gore? But if you have SOLID evidence that they committed treason, bring it to your reps and time is of the essence.

Otherwise, just as OTHER dreadful decisions, it will be, in the end fodder for historians.

Oh and given HOW the US Constitution was written... yes they acted within the law. They INTERPRETED the law, (wrongly in my view), but they are the LAST arbiters of the law. It was an activist decision, violating every principle of states rights... but it was a legal decision nevertheless.

So unless you can prove a conspiracy to make sure George got "elected" and high treason... they did act within the law... even if their decision is in the category of Dredd Scott.

And yes, I am aware of that little factoid of this shan't be used as a precedent... have read the damn thing, more than once... and you know what? It has been used as precedent regardless of what they wrote, which itself breaks US Precedent principles going to Magna Carta.

So the only way you can overcome that problem is a law written by Congress, hopefully NOT overturned, or a huge Constitutional change that removes the USSC as the ultimate arbiter of law.

Is what I am saying popular? NO.. but for many screaming treason, bring forth the evidence... and I mean the kind that will stand in a Court of Law... because what you are accusing them off... is a hanging offense. Now in my OPINION, which has no legal legs, just like yours... what they did is akin to treason. Can you tell the difference between my LAY opinion and how the US Constitution was written and the role of the USSC?

Should it be changed? Probably, there are many things in the Constutiton that are archaic, electoral college and winner take all come to mind... but FOR THE MOMENT... your and my opinions don't have legal standing... but the role of the USSC is to be the highest arbiter of US Law... even a limted role with state supreme courts.

Is it ironic that they took the most activist role in the last fifty years? Yes... but I will never accuse conservatives of understanding irony.

So, do you have that evidence? Otherwise, yours is an opinion, with no legal standing

[idovoodoo]

162. I didn't make any fucking claims, I gave a link to BUGLIOSI's claims.

I do however agree with them (the claims, not the USSC) As to evidence, there is more than enough in "None Dare Call it Treason" to satisfy me. Your mileage obviously differs. And my opinion is worth just as much as yours, thankyouverymuch.

I think the only real difference between our positions is that I think a crime was committed and you just regret what was done is NOT a crime. It ain't something we can decide here anyhow...a shame IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. None dare it call it treason does not fulfill the legal standards

and that is the point I am making

You and I agree that it is treason... but it does NOT meet the legal standards required for impeachment, a trial in the senate and conviction, and ultimately... the death penalty.

That is the point.

And unless you are willing to revolt against the system (and suspend the Constitution while you are at it), unless you can fulfill the LEGAL standards, it is AN OPINION.

And in my opinion.... LAY OPINION Bush V Gore is in the category of Dredd Scott... but I cannot PROVE treason beyond a shadow of a doubt, as defined in US Law.

Just as in my opinion they let 9.11 happen but I CANNOT prove it

THat is a fine distinction, and one that is very hard for many folks to understand.

By the way, well after we are gone from this world I would not be too surprised if a graduate student finds the kind of evidence that would prove it... because if there was an actual conspiracy they probably destroyed MOST of the material proving it by now. But as it usually happens a paper or two will survive... and this is the way it usually is done and history happens. Alas, those graduate thesis seldom make it out of academia.

[Two Americas]

168. high treason, yes

The evidence is readily available and is not ambiguous or controversial.

Your remedies all require public pressure in a representative form of government. Public pressure depends upon first the top leadership taking strong stands, and secondarily upon those of us who have a disproportionate role in affecting public opinion not rolling over. If we in the activist community were not so fuzzy-minded and wishy-washy, that would increase the chances of successfully building public pressure and would give "cover" for leaders such as Gore to take stronger stands. In a democracy, no politician can get too far ahead of public opinion. But when the voices of the intellectual left fail to tell the truth, that short-circuits the process and makes democracy unworkable. Again and again we see organizations, individuals from outside of liberal activist circles, and the general public taking far more radical and left wing stands on issue after issue than the activist community does. This places us in the role of suppressing the very public awakening that we say is needed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Can you prove it in a court of law? If you can't then it is an opinion

yes, it is that cut and dry.

Just like 9.11... in my opinion they allowed it to happen. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence. COULD I PROVE IT IN A COURT OF LAW? No.

Now if you can prove it, what are you waiting to go down to your congress critter and show the evidence, and lets have the impeachment (and subsequent trial in the senate) begin.

[Two Americas]

172. of course it is an "opinion"

What is missing is the political will, the willingness to look at the evidence, not the evidence itself.

Why would we want to contribute to weakening the political will?

You have no basis upon which to cateorically say that "no" it could not be proved in a court of law. That is just foolish. Citizens are convicted of crimes on evidence much weaker than this every day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. I said can you? If you think there is a case

do your duty, and go down to your Congress critter and insist they are impeached.

Good luck

Not even Fein went that far, and he has ben the most critical of the court

[Two Americas]

174. not a reasonable question

This is the same argument that has been used against those calling for impeaching the president. You are asking us to accept the idea that no one can call for the impeachment of the president unless they personally can somehow not only bring the president to justice, but guarantee the result of the trial in advance. No one could ever meet that threshold under any circumstances, and were that required no criminal would ever be brought to justice in any crime.

You are saying that unless this absurd burden can be carried by an individual, then what they are saying is invalid. In other words, certain opinions are not to be heard unless an impossible burden of proof - and a burden of power and influence - be met by the speaker. I would need to be appointed as a special prosecutor and have the work of dozens of legal assistants already in hand, and I still could nit met that burden. That means that no one could ever report a crime, no one could ever file a complaint, no one could ever expect the police to respond to any call, no criminal investigations would ever occur, and no criminal charges could ever be brought. Our system of justice would collapse were we to follow your logic.

I will say this: the case for treason against the justices, from a legal standpoint is infinitely more solid than the case for the awarding of the presidency by the justices to Bush - by their own words, the actual case they did in fact make for their decision.

Shifting the burden away from the weak case for the justices over to some imagined and hypothetical case against the justices is deceptive.

At issue is not whether or not I, as an everyday citizen with no power or authority, could make an airtight case against the justices. At issue here is the failure on the part of the justices to make the case for awarding the presidency to Bush.

Why must I make a solid case against the justices, but the justices are not required to make a solid case for stealing an election? By this logic, any old alibi or excuse on the part of an accused murderer would trump - pre-emptively - even the best evidence that law enforcement had against the accused. If a relative of the accused could not make an airtight case against the suspect, then the relative would lose their right to make a complaint and could expect no response by the police.

[Two Americas]

165. no, it will not

There is no controversy now. Opinion from legal experts is as close to consensus as you can possibly get.

That decision is only hotly contested in the political arena, and the political controversy is based on a campaign of outright and intentional lies. Just as with the right wing propaganda about evolution, or global warming, the lie that "experts differ" - as though there were two equal sides to the debate worthy of serious consideration - is what is being promoted on this issue. I am sorry to see any Democrats repeat it - that there is a valid case to be made for defending the conduct of the justices that deserves equal consideration.

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. If you are saying there was a conspiracy (which in my opinion there probably was)

and YOU CAN PROVE IT, legally, bring it to your legislatures. It is an impeachable offense and a hanging offense

As to the supposed lack of controversy... sorry wrong, it is still hotly contested in Law Schools and law journals, and will probably go into history journals in about ten years

It all goes around the interpretation of the court of the equal protection clause.

I have followed this... and though you have strange fellows who think the cour ruled wrong (John Dean and Bruce Fineman, since they are both "rignt wing") others have held their opinion (Weintraub, who is left wing) and still others are still discussing this.

Though I suspect in ten to fifteen years most legal schollars will come to see this decision as a bad decision... for the moment it is still argued.

By the way you have also contended that Gore had other choices, given that you didn't even know what they ruled upon... I wonder if you really have read this.

By the way, here is the link to Bush V Gore, or hells bells, the actual decision

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT


Per Curiam.
I

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called “undervotes” had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.

The proceedings leading to the present controversy are discussed in some detail in our opinion in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., ante, p. ____ (per curiam) (Bush I). On November 8, 2000, the day following the Presidential election, the Florida Division of Elections reported that petitioner, Governor Bush, had received 2,909,135 votes, and respondent, Vice President Gore, had received 2,907,351 votes, a margin of 1,784 for Governor Bush. Because Governor Bush’s margin of victory was less than “one-half of a percent . . . of the votes cast,” an automatic machine recount was conducted under §102.141(4) of the election code, the results of which showed Governor Bush still winning the race but by a diminished margin. Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).

On November 26, the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission certified the results of the election and declared Governor Bush the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes. On November 27, Vice President Gore, pursuant to Florida’s contest provisions, filed a complaint in Leon County Circuit Court contesting the certification. Fla. Stat. §102.168 (2000). He sought relief pursuant to §102.168(3)(c), which provides that “eceipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election” shall be grounds for a contest. The Circuit Court denied relief, stating that Vice President Gore failed to meet his burden of proof. He appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court.

Accepting jurisdiction, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d. ____ (2000). The court held that the Circuit Court had been correct to reject Vice President Gore’s challenge to the results certified in Nassau County and his challenge to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board’s determination that 3,300 ballots cast in that county were not, in the statutory phrase, “legal votes.”

The Supreme Court held that Vice President Gore had satisfied his burden of proof under §102.168(3)(c) with respect to his challenge to Miami-Dade County’s failure to tabulate, by manual count, 9,000 ballots on which the machines had failed to detect a vote for President (“undervotes”). ___ So. 2d., at ___ (slip. op., at 22—23). Noting the closeness of the election, the Court explained that “n this record, there can be no question that there are legal votes within the 9,000 uncounted votes sufficient to place the results of this election in doubt.” Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 35). A “legal vote,” as determined by the Supreme Court, is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ’ ” Id., at ____ (slip op., at 25). The court therefore ordered a hand recount of the 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. Observing that the contest provisions vest broad discretion in the circuit judge to “provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances,” Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000), the Supreme Court further held that the Circuit Court could order “the Supervisor of Elections and the Canvassing Boards, as well as the necessary public officials, in all counties that have not conducted a manual recount or tabulation of the undervotes … to do so forthwith, said tabulation to take place in the individual counties where the ballots are located.” ____ So. 2d, at ____ (slip. op., at 38).

The Supreme Court also determined that both Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County, in their earlier manual recounts, had identified a net gain of 215 and 168 legal votes for Vice President Gore. Id., at ___ (slip. op., at 33—34). Rejecting the Circuit Court’s conclusion that Palm Beach County lacked the authority to include the 215 net votes submitted past the November 26 deadline, the Supreme Court explained that the deadline was not intended to exclude votes identified after that date through ongoing manual recounts. As to Miami-Dade County, the Court concluded that although the 168 votes identified were the result of a partial recount, they were “legal votes could change the outcome of the election.” Id., at (slip op., at 34). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Circuit Court to include those totals in the certified results, subject to resolution of the actual vote total from the Miami-Dade partial recount.

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

II

A

The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon. Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot. See Ho, More Than 2M Ballots Uncounted, AP Online (Nov. 28, 2000); Kelley, Balloting Problems Not Rare But Only In A Very Close Election Do Mistakes And Mismarking Make A Difference, Omaha World-Herald (Nov. 15, 2000). In certifying election results, the votes eligible for inclusion in the certification are the votes meeting the properly established legal requirements.

This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.

B

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.

Much of the controversy seems to revolve around ballot cards designed to be perforated by a stylus but which, either through error or deliberate omission, have not been perforated with sufficient precision for a machine to count them. In some cases a piece of the card–a chad–is hanging, say by two corners. In other cases there is no separation at all, just an indentation.

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.” Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 39). This is unobjectionable as an abstract proposition and a starting principle. The problem inheres in the absence of specific standards to ensure its equal application. The formulation of uniform rules to determine intent based on these recurring circumstances is practicable and, we conclude, necessary.

The law does not refrain from searching for the intent of the actor in a multitude of circumstances; and in some cases the general command to ascertain intent is not susceptible to much further refinement. In this instance, however, the question is not whether to believe a witness but how to interpret the marks or holes or scratches on an inanimate object, a piece of cardboard or paper which, it is said, might not have registered as a vote during the machine count. The factfinder confronts a thing, not a person. The search for intent can be confined by specific rules designed to ensure uniform treatment.

The want of those rules here has led to unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects. See Gore v. Harris, ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 51) (Wells, J., dissenting) (“Should a county canvassing board count or not count a ‘dimpled chad’ where the voter is able to successfully dislodge the chad in every other contest on that ballot? Here, the county canvassing boards disagree”). As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.

The record provides some examples. A monitor in
Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.

An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.

The State Supreme Court ratified this uneven treatment. It mandated that the recount totals from two counties, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, be included in the certified total. The court also appeared to hold sub silentio that the recount totals from Broward County, which were not completed until after the original November 14 certification by the Secretary of State, were to be considered part of the new certified vote totals even though the county certification was not contested by Vice President Gore. Yet each of the counties used varying standards to determine what was a legal vote. Broward County used a more forgiving standard than Palm Beach County, and uncovered almost three times as many new votes, a result markedly disproportionate to the difference in population between the counties.

In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way.

That brings the analysis to yet a further equal protection problem. The votes certified by the court included a partial total from one county, Miami-Dade. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision thus gives no assurance that the recounts included in a final certification must be complete. Indeed, it is respondent’s submission that it would be consistent with the rules of the recount procedures to include whatever partial counts are done by the time of final certification, and we interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to permit this. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 21 (slip op., at 37, n. 21) (noting “practical difficulties” may control outcome of election, but certifying partial Miami-Dade total nonetheless). This accommodation no doubt results from the truncated contest period established by the Florida Supreme Court in Bush I, at respondents’ own urging. The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees.

In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. The State has not shown that its procedures include the necessary safeguards. The problem, for instance, of the estimated 110,000 overvotes has not been addressed, although Chief Justice Wells called attention to the concern in his dissenting opinion. See ____ So. 2d, at ____, n. 26 (slip op., at 45, n. 26).

Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work. It would require not only the adoption (after opportunity for argument) of adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote, and practicable procedures to implement them, but also orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise. In addition, the Secretary of State has advised that the recount of only a portion of the ballots requires that the vote tabulation equipment be used to screen out undervotes, a function for which the machines were not designed. If a recount of overvotes were also required, perhaps even a second screening would be necessary. Use of the equipment for this purpose, and any new software developed for it, would have to be evaluated for accuracy by the Secretary of State, as required by Fla. Stat. §101.015 (2000).

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000).

* * *

None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.



about ushelp© copyright

Note to mods, this is open source since it is a public document

[malaise]

91. The Supremes broke the law

Correct

[hedgehog]

107. True that. People forget how much of a joke George Bush was the morning of

September 11, 2001. The real failure of the Democratic Party leadership came then, when the criminal act of a small group was allowed to develop into the War on Terror. Do you remember the names of those who bombed the WTC the first time? You don't, and no one else does because the one thing CLinton got exactly right was to turn the problem over to the Justice Department which got a clean conviction and put those reasonable into prison for life.

[defendandprotect]

135. misplaced

misplaced

[defendandprotect]

44. That's an interesting side issue ---

Many people were energized by the recounting --- it felt right, IMO --- on our way to justice.
However, many people seemed to be frightened by it and grateful that the SC "took over."

I was frightened by the GOP fascist rally outside of Miami-Dade Election HQs to stop the vote counting ordered by the Florida Supreme Court!!!

I very much wanted to see a continuing battle against the stealing of the vote ---
and ultimately, the stealing of America --

[Two Americas]

110. so it was fear?

Do you think fear was the motivation behind the lack of will to resist? I think there was a small, but influential segment of the public that was frightened and glad the SC took over, but unfortunately they were able to control the national discussion about the issue. The great mass of people, most of the 50 million who voted for Gore, were ready to resist had their been any leadership in that direction.

Back in '99 I spoke and wrote to the campaign staffers and campaign workers around the country, urgently warning that the threat from the gang around Bush was unique and that we were walking into a trap, and that the Gore campaign was being run on false an dangerous premises. I said that we owed it to the American people and had a moral obligation to inform them as to what the true nature of the choice was - to expose the people around Bush; their plans, their threats, their history, their connections. I predicted that they were going to stage a coup, steal everything in sight including elections, provoke war, subvert the law, and destroy the country. I was dismissed with the usual tin foil and chicken little arguments.

All of that has come true - it continues to unfold - yet the same "smooth things over and play it safe" approach is being employed by the party.

When they subverted the law to install Bush, I saw the choice as confronting them right there about thatm, whatever it took, or facing much harder decisions down the road. You cannot stop criminals by caving in to them.

I wasn't here back in the early days of DU after the stolen 200 election. Was there outrage and anger then? Or was there the same resignation and defeatism and repetition of right wing talking points about the subject that seem to dominate the discussion today?

[defendandprotect]

134. I think part of it is was shock for some people . . . as

Naomi Klein talks about in her book. And, obviously, Americans didn't ever discuss what to do if we had an obvious vote steal... ???? So the GOP, which seems to think about these things, had pre-planning on their side. They had decided, for instance, that if Bush won the popular vote and not the electoral vote that they would move to claim the presidency on the popular vote. What they planned to do I never heard --- but I would guess appeal to the nation probably with fake rallies.

I think for some long days we all trusted that a recount would show that Bush lost . . .
and also there was a hoped-for but not happening attempt to get a re-vote for those who had been victimized by the "butterfly" ballot. That was also denied.
And when the days moved along and Bush's lead came down to something like 61 votes, the recounting
got tossed aside. When the Florida Supreme Court then demanded that Miami-Dade county conduct a full recount, they hit the button for the fascist rally to stop it.

NOTICE: No police were ever called in to protect State Election HQs and citizen's ballots from the mob . . . how could that be?
Rather, the event was used to try to suggest that Miami-Dade Election HQ couldn't protect the votes
from those who wanted to cheat Bush of his win!

Therefore, to not very successfully answer your question, IMO, it was mainly shock and not knowing how to react to the disorder they were facing where they expected order. And, no pre-planning, no
prior-warning that they could face a situation like this.

In my opinion, most people who had some skepticism and some intense feeling for justice wanted the recounts to go forward. I don't know how to estimate those who still believed; those who welcomed the SC interference. I also think the SC decision created more shock, but still no action.
Overall, Americans --- at least in my case --- have little political experience --- not very savvy.

Specifically re your comments here . . .

Back in '99 I spoke and wrote to the campaign staffers and campaign workers around the country, urgently warning that the threat from the gang around Bush was unique and that we were walking into a trap, and that the Gore campaign was being run on false an dangerous premises. I said that we owed it to the American people and had a moral obligation to inform them as to what the true nature of the choice was - to expose the people around Bush; their plans, their threats, their history, their connections. I predicted that they were going to stage a coup, steal everything in sight including elections, provoke war, subvert the law, and destroy the country. I was dismissed with the usual tin foil and chicken little arguments.

All of that has come true - it continues to unfold - yet the same "smooth things over and play it safe" approach is being employed by the party.

When they subverted the law to install Bush, I saw the choice as confronting them right there about thatm, whatever it took, or facing much harder decisions down the road. You cannot stop criminals by caving in to them.

I wasn't here back in the early days of DU after the stolen 200 election. Was there outrage and anger then? Or was there the same resignation and defeatism and repetition of right wing talking points about the subject that seem to dominate the discussion today?

Glad to meet a fellow-"tin foiler" --- I'm female, btw.

Was just watching "An Unreasonable Man" . . . and one of the writers calls them "the worst Mother-fuckers I've ever seen" . . .

I had no clear idea of just how bad they were --- lots of info came out later on this . . .
though I have to say I had some pretty fair idea that probably Poppy was connected to JFK coup,
I didn't realize how deeply.

The Gore campaign was ridiculous --- especially when pulled from their populist message ... by the DLC? And certainly, I wasn't aware of the Cheney/Baker/Rumsfeld and Iran-Contra notables who went back into the Nixon/Ford administrations --- i.e., an obvious period of government crime and pro-war thinking.

How did you know all this . . . I mean in such a tight and not vague way.... ????
I head heard things about TX and Jr . . . but still wouldn't have prepared me for what has
been going on! But ... not only that ... the lack of response at all by Democrats to these crimes!!!

I agree on the immediacy of response. In my opinion --- and I was around then --- it was very clear to me that in trying to bury the coup on JFK that we were going to only increase their power and their violence.

I'm only here a short while so I can't answer your questions about DU . . . but I'm very disappointed and think we need more emphasis on the small "d" democractic angle than on the big "D"
Democratic Party. I had woken up about 20 years ago -- it was over Roe vs Wade, but instantly I recognized that we had fascism approaching us. I spent some time reeducating myself at the library and reexamining my own life philosophy, but the more I found out the clearer it became that we had environmental disaster facing us --- and corporate-fascism. Did some political stuff with Dems for a while before recognizing dead end --- was a delegate for Jerry Brown, but didn't get to go to the convention. Then the Green Party came along --- ran for office with them. Didn't vote for Nader though because my kids were so scared of Bush. I've spent a lot of time trying to wake up the public -- your own family is always the hardest!!! I've done this at a number of websites ---
and would you believe that I thought DU knew it all so I wasn't bothering with them! Well, about a year ago, I thought I have to come in and make some counter-comments. There are limits, howeve, with the great number of taboo subjects and the rah, rah for the Dems to the point of overlooking almost everything that has gone wrong with them.

I would also be interested in finding out what the reactions were at that time ...
some seem to suggest that DU has changed and they don't seem to be saying for the better
they seem to be suggesting less unity. Actually, I tend to see that as a positive!

[Two Americas]

178. how I knew

How did you know all this . . . I mean in such a tight and not vague way.... ????Text

Well I certainly was well familiar with all of the players around Bush and their histories and radical views. I was aware on PNAC. I was aware of the Chicago connections. I was aware of the dirty tricks in Texas politics by Bush and Rove and crew.

However, I was close to someone at that time who worked as a house maintenance person for a wealthy oil family close to the Bushes, and he was able to eavesdrop on numerous occasions to casual conversations and pass those along to me. People close to Bush knew exactly what the plan was, just as we have sen it unfold.

[drmeow]

64. I think you are probably right about then -

I suspect I'm in the minority (although perhaps not here at DU). However, I had been reading the alternative on-line press for a quite a while before SCOTUS screwed us over and I was already convinced that the election had been stolen. I HATED, HATED, HATED Shrubs daddy (when he was elected after Raygun, I said that I hated Raygun but was afraid of Bush) and was scared to death (with good reason) of Shrub.

I do think that at the time there was a core group of hard core liberals (I say that in the most positive of ways - I consider myself a hard core liberal) who would have fought for Gore - but maybe not enough of the country. On the other hand, its amazing who comes out of the woodwork when there is a revolution.

As for now - I'm conflicted. I'm not sure if the Repubs stole the election for McCain whether people would fight ... its hard to say. But I think if Bush tried to declare martial law ... I'd rather not be here if that happens (and if there is a revolution, I am F**KED - I basically work for the federal government and my husband works for the state, my job will be one of the first to fall victim and my husband's would probably not be far behind!).

[JPZenger]

144. People didn't know to fear King George

In December 2000, most of the public didn't fear King George. They viewed him as a likeable guy and believed his compasionate conservative shtick. In Texas, it had looked like he cooperated with Democrats. If we had known how bad it was going to be, we would have fought in the streets.

It reminds me of the American and Filipino soldiers in the Phillipines who surrended to the Japanese in early 1942. Many said later that if they had know the brutality that was ahead for them, they never would have surrendered and would have fought to the death.

[Two Americas]

69. yes

Absolutely.

Would 10% of the population done so? I believe so. That would have been enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. In a civil war, you need more than 10%

granted once the shooting starts you will bet about 30 to 35% on one side, about the same ammount on the other, and then the rest who don´t take sides...

But you do need more than just 10%...

Now my personal view... when the hot civil war starts, (we have been in the midst of a cold civil war), it will lead to the dissolution of this country. My opinion, and it will NOT be nice, in fact it will be EXTREMELY bloody. Partly because a lot of people have this idea that war is something that it is not.

Oh and it will come... when the Empire finally fails and that is coming, courtesy of junior (and the policies of the last 25 years, but he will get most of the blame)

[Two Americas]

79. ok

Why is the only alternative to rolling over a hot civil war?

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Because historically any country that has been in the midst of a COLD

civil war for ten years plus, ends up in a hot one. Ours started in 1996 with the impeachment and the purposeful policies of the GOP.

If we did not have the last twelve years or more of cold cviil war, then that is another story.

Listen to the language from some right wingers, who are ready to go to war, literally, if a lib is elected. And increasingly the same talk is now being heard from the left

That is a bad sign... to any student of civil wars and the process that leads to them.

That is why.

And the failure of the Empire will lead to much finger pointing and some folks ON BOTH SIDES taking matters into their own hands.

Just an observation

[Two Americas]

191. I am not advocating civil war

I am not advocating civil war, and I am not claiming that 10% would be sufficient for one side to win a civil war.

10% would have been sufficient to keep the issue alive with the public, Where that would have led specifically, we can't know. Had the issue been kept alive in the public mind, that could have changed everything. If we want to avoid civil war - and I certainly do - then we must go down that path. Shutting down discussion about this and other issues makes social upheaval and even civil war more likely, not less, and makes the eventual reckoning more likely to be horrific. Ironically, the desire for a safe solution by using a tame approach is making things ultimately more dangerous.

[defendandprotect]

143. Revolution can be non-violent and I think that's what we're all talking about . . .

the power of the powerless . . .

the power of non-violence . . .

We've seen it many times on TV . . . citizens standing outside in the square . ..
simply making clear that they know an election has been stolen and they want justice --- !!!

[Matariki]

31. Horribly ironic what the person the Supreme court favored has done to Rule of Law.

*sigh*

[defendandprotect]

49. But, wait . . . Bush had plans to fight on had he won the popular vote and not the electoral --- !!!

This idea that this country is so fragile that it can't stand not knowing who is president by
bedtime is nonsense!

Can we imagine how Bush might have worked this out . . . appealing to the public?
Demonstrators for him in place?

On the other hand, this isn't a nation of people yet wholly committed to walking out into the streets for what they want . . .

THAT's the "power of the powerless" that we don't seem quite yet to understand --
but somewhere in the subconscious of all Americans is visions of people in other countries
coming out into the streets --- standing quietly and demanding justice.

[uppityperson]

74. Thank you Nadin, and kinta below (#16). eom

[Greyhound]

109. One thing wrong with this, there was no rule of Law. The decision itself

explicitly states that it is not to be considered precedent in the future, tantamount to an open admission of the coup.

While the sheeple are too illiterate to understand this, Al Gore certainly is not. He was a coward that didn't want the responsibility of being the rallying point for the inevitable revolution/police state.

[LynnTheDem]

159. Where is the "rule of law" that the USSC selects US presidents?

[Virginia Dare]

198. It didn't necessarily mean civil war..

perhaps a rebellion?

If all Democrats had staged an economic boycott and massive sit-ins, they would have gotten the message. Bush may have still been President, but at least we could have said we didn't just roll over and play dead.

[Two Americas]

206. that is not true

Gore did not go to the Supreme Court and was not rebuffed. That statement supports the right wing propaganda about the event - "Gore tried to pull a fast one but the Supreme Court stopped him." Bush went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had no legitimate jurisdiction, Bush had no standing, and the Supreme Court (actually five corrupt and partisan justices) had no legitimate legal basis upon which to make their subsequent decisions.

That was the smoking gun - the linchpin and the foundation for everything that has come since. I do not understand how any of us can claim to be in any sort of serious opposition to this regime and be so unclear about this.

[Hawkowl]

207. Actually he had another option

If he could've convinced one Senator to contest the results, (there were already several black caucus members of the House willing to contest), the entire election would've been thrown into the House of Representatives.

I think he should have done this, but I don't blame him for doing what he did. I'm just saying there WAS one more option short of defying the law--However corrupt that law may be.

And I have always been a big Al Gore fan.

[Uncle Joe]

209. I agree, of course the Republicans controlled that as well.

I believe there was literally a snowball's chance in hell of that succeeding.

I also believe Al Gore knew the corporate media was openly hostile to him from the very beginning going as far back as March of 99 when they started slandering him for almost two years prior to the selection. I believe the corporate media was motivated in large part because of his strong support for opening up the Internet to the people, thereby taking some of their power, influence and money away from them and giving it to the American People. They didn't want the primary political champion for empowering the people via the Internet in the White House. It also seems Bush wasn't in office long before the illegal wiretapping began, no doubt with the Internet in mind and prior to 9/11 and I'm confident Al Gore wouldn't have done that. So with the corporate media firmly set against him, there was no way to get a legitimate message out to the people and the Internet wasn't as strong then as it is today, of course today the corporate media is still the dominant medium but the Internet is stronger now it was then and it's influence is growing.

The Republicans also controlled the Florida State legislature which was prepared to put their own slate of electors up for consideration. I have no doubt which slate the Republican controlled Congress would have seated.

I believe Al Gore viewed the situation guided by the Law of Diminishing Returns and our cause would only be hurt had he proceeded knowing the corporate media was firmly against him. I believe he viewed the Internet as a salvation of sorts for democracy.

I also believe this course of action would have succeeded with the Democrats taking control of the Congress and or Presidency in 2002 and or 2004, had 9/11 not occurred. Bush was mediocre at best, and the corporate media couldn't hide or camouflage his shortcomings anymore as they had during the campaign. However 9/11 galvanized the people to stand behind him mostly out of fear, and nationalism or patriotism, however you want to define it.

In conclusion I believe Al Gore did what he thought was best for the nation and I haven't seen any evidence to date that his conclusion for doing that was misguided as I see no other logical alternative for him to have pursued at time.

[kentuck]

9. After the Supreme Court made their ruling..

he didn't have a legal leg to stand on. That was the end of the road, unfortunately. I suppose he could have called for armed rebellion? Perhaps he should have, in hindsight?

[Matariki]

16. Your answer - from THE MAN HIMSELF:

"Of course, the popular vote was in my favour, and the outcome in the electoral college was not driven by an effort to count every vote that was cast, because the counting was truncated by a Supreme Court decision. In the American system, unfortunately there is no intermediate step between a Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.

"Given those two remaining alternatives, I took the advice of Winston Churchill, who said that the American people generally do the right thing after first exhausting every available alternative. Choosing to live under the rule of law seemed to be the only alternative remaining, even though I strongly, strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. Historians and scholars will put that decision in its own separate category."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Al_Gore

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Thank you for the exact quote

and I do respect him fully for his decision

[Matariki]

30. I remembered hearing that speech. Thought it was first class.

Glad I was able to find it. My memory didn't do it justice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. You know the Attack on reason is also a superb book

and now it is in translation across the world

Hell, COSTCO mexico is now selling it

Alas it will be one of those historians will use to try to decipher this period...

[Hekate]

37. God bless Al Gore.

[Two Americas]

40. thanks

Thanks for posting that kineta. I read that earlier this afternoon, which is what prompted the thread.

With the benefit of hindsight, do you think he did the right thing? Did you at the time?

[Matariki]

43. My opinion for a long time was based on that scene in Fahrenheit 911

I only heard that speech from Gore recently. His words make a lot of sense and I changed my opinion. It's unfortunate that Bush and his administration don't show the same regard for the Rule of Law and the Constitution. We can only hope that ultimately those things prevail (and work toward that end).

Honestly, if you think about it in these terms, we can't protect the Rule of Law by disregarding it, no matter how right our reason is. On the other hand... if all the legislative branches become so completely corrupt...

[defendandprotect]

55. Personally, I think the next step was up to the American public . . .

to come into the streets and quietly demand that the winner of the popular vote be president.
We see this all over the world --- and non-violent change is forced on the corrupt.
Non-violence is a powerful tool.

[Two Americas]

68. not without leadership

The American working class has been decapitated. When the leadership is all saying "stand down" the only way that the people could have a voice would be to go against that party leadership. Yet so many, right here on DU, first and foremost fight to the death against any hint of disloyalty to the leadership. Who is not awake? The people? Or us? The people? Or the leadership?

There is a small but very vocal and influential class of palace guards between the leadership and the people. We can see who they are when we look in the mirror.

[hedgehog]

108. What streets? That's the biggest problem with suburbs.

It's hard to run a revolution from the mall.

[Two Americas]

62. respect for the law

Respect for the law would require holding 5 Supreme Court justices liable for breaking the law and violating their oaths, at the bare minimum.

Is "law" whatever those in power decide it to be? Or is that not the opposite of law?

[defendandprotect]

45. If you recall, the Bush gang were prepared to fight for either decision. ....

They thought that maybe Bush would get the popular vote --- and lose the Electoral votes ---
and they were planning to wage a big battle --- to argue that the winner of the popular vote
should WIN.


It turned out to be the other way around --- but Gore didn't go on --- he folded.

[defendandprotect]

47. Maybe we should ask, What would Bush have done had he won the popular vote ..... and not .

the Electoral votes --- ????

In that event, they had plans to fight a major battle to convince America that the winner
of the popular vote should be president --- !!!

[Matariki]

48. And Bush has also demonstrated he doesn't give a damn about our country's laws

Would it have been better if Al Gore did the same?

[defendandprotect]

50. And so did the Supreme Court Gang of 5 demonstrate that they don't give

a damn about the country's laws --- about a ruling by the Florida State Supreme Court ---
or about justice.

What was required was a walkout by the American public --- out into the streets.
Revolution doesn't have to be violent ---

[Matariki]

52. That was OUR failing, not Al Gore's

sadly.

on edit: I don't disagree with your sentiment about the Supreme Court. The decision was an outrage.

[defendandprotect]

56. Agree ... I think the next step had to be up to Americans to demand JUSTICE ---

[Two Americas]

76. he enabled law breakers

How is that giving a damn about the country's laws?

[Matariki]

86. You mean Gore? By respecting the decision of the highest court in the country?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

[Two Americas]

88. yes that is what I mean

Calling a crime a "decision of the highest court in the country" does not make that crime deserving of respect.

The Supreme Court has no right to make up laws or to break laws, and no way to enforce dictatorial actions. Respecting law breaking is not respecting the law.

What if the Supreme Court - and with that bunch of loonies this is not so far-fetched - decided that homosexuality were a capital offense? Are we then obligated to "respect the decision of the highest court in the country?"

The Supreme Court, five of its members, conspired to steal the highest office in the land. Why does that deserve respect?

When the Supreme Court ruled that Negroes were not human beings and had no rights, millions refused to respect or obey that "decision of the highest court in the country."

It is Republican propaganda that no matter what the Supreme Court justices do they are to be seen as dictators to be obeyed without question. The power and the role of the Supreme Court is not absolute.

Ironic that so many Democrats fell for the "rule of law" argument while the court itself was breaking the law.

[Greyhound]

111. It is, IMO, our societal fig leaf.

The bottom line is that there are/were far to few that love this country enough to fight for it. We were too afraid of losing our "illusion of making a living" to fight for our liberty. The SCOTUS coup allows the guilty to pretend there was no choice and that the rule of law prevailed in spite of the fact that the decision was patently unconstitutional.

[Two Americas]

116. I agree

The problem is that the stance we are taking has required that we accept a lie, so we have ben basing everything on the very weak foundation of that lie, and that has set the pattern for us to be victimized again and again in the same way. We opened the door for the extremists who have seized control over us.

I don't "blame" anyone, either, for what happened in the past. It is the refusal to learn from the errors of the past that disturbs me.

[defendandprotect]

150. I have great sympathy for Gore . . . because I'm guessing that many of

our politicians feel a threat from these right-wing thugs ---

We've had four decades and more of political violence in America --- though unacknowledged by our "free press."

Besides the behind the scenes threat of violence, there was a heavy propaganda war being waged
by the Bushies, based on pre-planning.

How naive were the Democrats going into that election?
How naive about a possible steal?
How naive about what the Bush camp planned to do one way or another?

[Two Americas]

189. so do I

A politician cannot get too far ahead of public sentiment, and public sentiment cannot change when the core party activist community is acting as a buffer and suppressing public opinion. That turns democracy upside down and makes it almost impossible for politicians to lead. The role of activists, the intellectuals - and by that I mean thinkers, readers, writers and organizers on the left - should be to rally public opinion so as to put pressure on politicians. Then they have something to represent. We go at it backwards - apologize for the politicians to the public, and rather than rallying the public to pressure the politicians, we harangue the politicians and ask them to change the public for us. It is an odd and self-defeating and self-contradicting position for us to be in, and it inevitably leads to failure after failure. We then settle for the consolation prize of politics - being "right."

I blame us more than I blame Gore or any other politician, and more than I blame the general public. We are loyal first and foremost to ourselves, to our own prejudices and preferences, then to various political heroes, then we are loyal (somewhat) to those who are "like minded," which is an exclusionary process that causes endless division and splintering, and then to principles and ideals, and only then to the people. That process is exactly backwards from the process that would lead to effective political action and produce results. That leads to personal self-actualization.

The people first, then principles and ideals, then the activist community, then political celebrities, then to our own personal needs and desires - that is what produces political results. That leads to effective collective and community-oriented action.

[defendandprotect]

224. Well . . . certainly we don't have an uncommitted public re single payer health care . . .

nor preserving Social Security and against any privatization . . .
On the other hand, we do have Clinton as a DLC candidate who doesn't support single payer and
she and DLC seem to support some privatization of SS . . . .
and Obama is lying about a SS "crisis" . . . !

We also have the situations where post the 2006 election, the public clearly expected the Democrats to stop the war in Iraq and to hold the Bushies accountable for the criminal and corrupt behavior
of that administration . . .

We also have film of Pelosi after the election acknowledging that the Democratic victory was about ending the war in Iraq and holding the GOP accountable . . .

In all of those cases, public opinion is clear --- and yet we have BETRAYAL by Democrats; most especially, the leadership!

Meanwhile, of course, I find it frustrating that so many of our liberal groups work alone ---
women and their concerns are not united with labor organizations. Why? Women are not united
with environmental groups. Why? Women are not united with NAACP interests --- though I think
we do have unity of some kind between women and homosexual groups. I am often pleased when NAACP
representatives speak about their concerns --- but will usually include concerns, as well for all human rights and for women and homosexuals. And, how slowly . . . slowly . . . the groups from
organized religion have come out to support environmental interests and to stand against fanatical
religous groups.

Specifically, re Gore . . . he and Libermann at first had a populist message but were pulled off of it.

I do still believe that a people's government must work for . . .
The greatest good for the greatest number of people ---

I'm encouraged, however, that we are bringing more people out to vote --- though I'm sure it is in anger and protest rather than in support of government performance. More than 50% of the public
is not voting --- and the GOP would be happier if it were 90% -- while the Democrats, as well, have given up local actions to draw them out and educate their potential voters.

All of that is an agenda which pleases the corporate interests.

[varelse]

29. To prevent any further damage to the public image of the Democratic party

and the "liberal" (aka "progressive") agenda by appearing to be a "poor sport".

I don't blame him at all. I don't blame the American people either, tbh. I think we were amBushed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it... unless someone has a very persuasive fact-based alternative theory that is...

[defendandprotect]

57. Well...I'd just point out that an "ambush" requires prior thought and planning . . .

which is something that obviously the Cheney/Bush people had done --
it took something to mobilize the GOP fascist rally outside Miami-Dade Election HQs to STOP the
votecounting which was a Florida US Supreme Court ruling only handed down that night!!!

AND, the Bush people also had plans to fight on had Bush won the popular vote but not the Electoral
vote ---

Don't know what the plans were, of course ---

but I imagine they would have had to include demonstrations by the public --
fake, probably ---

[Hekate]

36. Once the SCOTUS ruled, what other recourse was there? Be serious in your answer.

I knew it was a coup, and it made me sick. But what were his and our actual alternatives? Once the highest court in the land had ruled, it was either accept it or take up an armed revolt.

Who among us would actually do that? I'm not fool enough. Uncle Sam has all the soldiers, tanks, jets, and rockets. What could rebels actually accomplish? There wouldn't be enough of them to make a damned bit of difference, except to cause some havoc and destruction on bystanders, culminating in a few Ruby Ridges.

We can't even get enough people to engage in civil disobedience to gum up the works for more than a day or two. Every march I've ever been in over the past 8 years has been so law-abiding it's a wonder to behold -- which is one reason I participate. But Bushco isn't paying attention -- except when a few people get in the way, and then the entire legal and extra-legal system comes down on them like a ton of bricks.

And then what?

Our best bet is still to keep working within our system of laws to take our country back.

Hekate

[Two Americas]

42. a precendent

I don't agree that there are only two options - what happened OR "soldiers, tanks, jets, and rockets" and various horrific scenarios.

We have a precedent in Lincoln's response to a decision by the Roger Taney court. Certainly we should be able to imagine many options somewhere between a graceful exit and bloody revolution.

I don't think revolution is a course of action that people choose, in any case. Revolutions are about something, and the goals can often be achieved without bloodshed. They become violent only when all other avenues have been exhausted as a last resort - when people prefer risking their lives to living in slavery. They are choosing freedom from slavery, they are not choosing revolution.

I am not sure that all avenues had yet been exhausted. I did not think so at the time, either. I think that the price we are paying is growing tyranny and enslavement.

[defendandprotect]

58. Yes . . . NON-VIOLENCE is peaceful revolution . . .

We've watched as many nations have had their citizens walk out into the square to fight an unjust election --- to fight for JUSTICE ---

Peacefully standing there --- the power of the powerless ---

WE can do the same !!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. The problem is that we have over the last seven years

how many marches have you gone to?

How many of them have made a tinkers damn of difference?

I fear we have reached the point where it will take more than just a demo.... now a national strike that last for weeks... now ypu are talking baby

Given the experience of those national actions as well, I have little hope that will work

I have no idea what it will take for Muricans to get off their bums, but so far it hasn´t happened

[defendandprotect]

125. Probably three --- maybe four --

What I was mainly addressing with "coming out into the streets" I meant as a reaction to the 2000 steal . . . and we may yet see another one in 2008 . . . ?????

To finish answering your question, however . . .
I've gone to a few of the big protests --- never arrested.
Though I spent quite some time on the streets of my home town and neighboring town re with
locals in the anti-war movement --- it was very successful --- after he invaded, i tall fell away!

One of the things I absolutely believe is that the reason they get such little coverage is because
it is imperative for the pro-war movement to not let it be known how huge the anti-war/anti-Bush movement is --- and for US not to be able to see our own power!!

I've also seen how .....I don't necesarily want to say "militarized" because our local police aren't yet looking like the city police --- you know the military/gestapo look .... but I can tell you from
way back in my own town how hugely frightened they were of even pro-choice/feminist rallies!!!
High police presence and they were obviously freaked-out. Don't know what they had been told to expect, but they were on high alert --- against pretty much all females of varying ages in a small town!!!

And, my town was one of the ones that Bush visited for his arranged political meetings with pre-selected audiences . . . and there were demonstrators on the streets and they were really kept away --- a huge distance away --- from the highschool where the even occurred!!!

So -- on a national level, I'm really concerned. IMO, we have to change the ways we are doing things --- in that I agree with you.

There are many ways to do it --- Australia, for one has a "lights out" environmental action ...
I'm not sure of details, but they don't use electricity for an hour or more, one night every week or so. We can send messages with our cars --- pull them over for 15 minutes at a given time.
Don't buy gasoline on a given day. Anything consumer oriented can help. And I'm sure there would be loads of better ideas.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. The problem is that we have had calls for national strikes

hell, I have participated in every one since 2005, at least

And I have yet to see any of them actually make a difference

A day of not buying gas, been done many a times. It will only work when we all collectively walk out of the job and STAY out of the job... for weeks if need be

That will get their attention.

But demonstrations... nope

SIngle day actions... make me laugh.

And I don't think most Americans are ready for single day actions, let alone something akin to a national strike.

This is my frustration, but I have no idea what it will take for Americans to FINALLY get off their narcotized state and do something. Oh and by the way... activist sites like this one can lull us into a false sense of the peasants finally get it, and they are reaching for them pitchforks

And for the record I expect 2008 to be stolen... I will still vote... but mine is NOT an American attitude. If it was, I'd stay home. Reality is, I want to make the bastards work to steal my vote.

[defendandprotect]

145. The goal of the suggestions is for many ....

more to participate so that Americans can see how deep the anti-Bush, anti-neo con, anti-war
sentiments are ---

because a large part of the problem is the media created "invisibility" of the movement ---

I have to agree with you that strikes would be more effective ---
they tried to get that going last Labor day --- I never heard how many went out?

People don't want to see their own families harmed ---
and it's becoming evidence that these aren't very nice people ---
as Mark Crispin Miller put it . . . "They'd just as quickly shoot you as look at you!"

We can see the overall effect on brutalizing police enforcement ---

and on introducing TORTURE ---

I also expect a steal in 2008 --- 2006 suggests that the more people come out the bigger the problem
they have in stealing it ---

That's why they seem to be getting so creative and physical in interferring with citizens trying to vote ---

[Hekate]

89. At that moment in history, Al Gore had done all that was possible for HIM to do.The rest is up to US

It will take a long long time for us to get our country back, but many of us have been working at it, and working hard, to get there. I am currently exhausted, but my friends are continuing. I believe with all my heart that it can be done, but I also believe that it is possible to fail.

1798 was a dark time in our young nation, when men were jailed for dissent under the Sedition Act. In a letter to a friend Thomas Jefferson wrote --

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

Hekate

[kskiska]

65. And while the recount and all this was going on, the media was beating the drum

and taking polls and asking repeatedly, "How long will the public's patience hold out?" They seemingly wanted the whole thing to be over. "Forget about the uncounted votes. We can't wait for that. Gore should concede ASAP." There should have been a revote in West Palm Beach. It should have been over when every vote was counted. Gore kept saying that if the complete vote total showed Bush to be the winner, he'd accept that decision. Bush said no such thing.

I remember the teleconference where Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle were sitting up in D.C. giving very weak support to Al Gore for the recount to continue. They should have been in Florida, but it seems everyone just wanted it over.

[Matariki]

46. Do you think it's possible that the utter disaster of the Bush admin will be ultimately beneficial?

Perhaps waking the nation from its complacency? Haven't there been record turnouts for the democratic primaries? Would we finally have both a woman and a black man as the front runners in the upcoming election had bush not been such an utter failure - even being embraced by republicans?

Would Al Gore have helped raise the level of awareness about the environment had he become president? Truthfully I think his losing served him on a personal level. Maybe it even served the rest of us - in that painful sort of way that well needed lessons can.

[defendandprotect]

59. We can hope that the nation is waking up . . .

but to exactly what I'm not sure ---

This is not a one-even conspiracy ---
this is a pattern of political violence that goes back decades ---
including vote steals since the computers came in during the mid-1960's.
Sadly, I'm quite sure that 9/11 is part of it all ---

While I have no doubt that Global Warming is the greatest threat to humanity and the planet
and certainy appreciate that Gore has brought it more legitimacy for the average person . . .
he has really asked for nothing to respond to it ---

Where the call for nationalizing our oil industry?
Where the call for electric cars ---?
See: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

We need to totally reverse the insanity and suicidal impulses of capitalism/capitalists ---
and their war on nature.

[Rex]

51. Because he couldn't prove he won.

Not in time, before the SCOTUS ruling.

[defendandprotect]

60. He couldn't PROVE it because "recount" had been made into a dirty word by the GOP --- !!!

We've left too much language available for them to distort into propaganda and I wish to hell
that someone in the Democratic Party would begin to respond!!!

[Two Americas]

70. either could Bush

And SCOTUS intentionally rigged the time frame, first with a stay (completely unwarranted) and then with the imposition of an artificial time frame (based on a complete lie on the part of the justices.)

[defendandprotect]

147. True . . . but Bush had the propaganda momentum . . . and pre-planning

on his side ---

It was a tide of propaganda if you noted ... ???

What if there is another steal in 2008 ---

though it seems that the larger the number of voters the harder the steal is for them --

????

[Two Americas]

176. is it?

I wonder if a greater number of votes makes it harder to steal. There was a massive GOTV in 2004 and Kerry won by a landslide, but that didn't stop them.

Imagine if it were a bank that kept no audit trail. They steal your money and you cannot prove that they did. Would you then think "well if I put enough in they can't steal it all?"

[Rex]

214. Oh I agree, there was obvious collusion between the SCOTUS and

the Bush camp. The obvious signs were there for all to see. Scalia and Tomas, at the very least legally, should have recused themselves from having anything to do with a federal election. We all know how that played out.

And now look at the fucking legal mess we are in today, with Bush leading us down the toilet. :(

[Two Americas]

215. in other words...

Rolling over didn't "work." Is "rolling over" too strong of a phrase for people? Is it really?

It is interesting what we are willing to get over and move on from. We get over the greatest crime in US history and move on - "we will get them in 2004!" and then we move on again - "focus on the midterms!" and then again - "we need to get more progressive candidates!" and yet again - "we need to get enough votes so they can't steal it!" but we are not willing to say "we all rolled over" and get over THAT and move forward. So we have set a pattern for rolling over again and again, then making up comfortable fictions about that to excuse ourselves, and right under our noses the coup continues to unfold and we are contributing to the right wing effort to rewrite the very history we are living.

[Rex]

225. I've always said Americans are docile, mindless cows.

Is that too strong a phrase for people? I really don't care anymore - everyone should know the difference between good and evil by now.

[blm]

219. And DNC still did nothing to secure the election process for Dem voters

and candidates in 2002 and 2004.

[gort]

63. He was shown footage of the JFK shooting

only it wasn't Zapruder's Shakey 8mm film. It was crystal clear, photographed in 35mm Technicolor & it was shot from the grassy knoll.

That's what I've heard.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. That's silly

I heard Zargon the Elder, from the planet Zyzzyvyx, had a heart-to-heart with him.

[gort]

101. or was it Kolak from the the planet Twylo?

Are you sure it wasn't Kolak, an alien from the planet Twylo who looks just like Danny Thomas, out to conquer Earth by spreading around walnuts filled with absorbatron turning humans into aliens with only four fingers(no thumbs)and eyes in the back of their heads?

[Thepricebreaker]

84. Because they went to the Supreme court and lost.

[Two Americas]

87. I don't think so

Bush brought the Supreme Court into the issue. He had no standing, was granted an irregular and unjustifiable stay, and then an absurd (and probably unenforceable) order was issued by the court to stop counting votes.

Gore did not "lose" in court. A conspiracy to steal the highest office in the land is what happened. Nor did Gore exhaust all peaceful options for redressing the greatest crime in the history of the country and holding the criminals accountable.

I am not expressing anything radical or far fetched. Four of the Supreme Court justices, and virtually every legal expert in the country agrees with me.

[earth mom]

90. This thread of yours is an attempt to smear Gore with innuendo.

Gore is NOT responsible for the crimes of * & Co.

Gore is NOT responsible for what the criminals in Washington DC have wrought these long, ugly, inhumane 7 years.

No. The criminals in Washington DC who have lied, cheated, stolen, and killed to get what they want and who have blood dripping from their hands are the ones responsible.

Gore is NOT the one to blame. NO WAY.

FYI-In 2000, Gore was blindsided plus he was not supported by Congress. He was fighting a huge battle practically all by himself.

You are delusional if you think the people of this country would have gone out into the streets back then over it.

People in this country won't even take to the streets now to take back this country after 7 years of pure hell from the fascists criminals who have taken it over!

Instead, people in this country think corporatist candidates like Hillary or Obama are going to save them and this country. What a fucking joke!


This thread is disgusting. I thought I'd seen it all on DU but this innuendo of yours on this thread absolutely takes the cake.

:puke:

[Hannah Bell]

93. where did he say all that? n/t

[earth mom]

103. You haven't been here long enough, but I've seen this kind of crap many times before.

:puke:

[Two Americas]

105. I don't understand

The highest office in the land was stolen and we still can't discuss it years later for fear of saying something that could reflect badly on a party politician? I am not trying to smear Gore in any case. If anything, I am smearing the five justices.

Could it not be that the nightmare we have endured for the last 7 years is the direct consequence of errors made back in 2000? Would we not want to examine those errors so that we can stop repeating them?

Can we not discuss errors made by our team without being accused of disloyalty?

[earth mom]

113. Your words: "'Nor did Gore exhaust all peaceful options...

for redressing the greatest crime in the history of the country and holding the criminals accountable.'"

That line places blame squarely on Gore.

Gore tried to fight but it was a huge and impossible battle that he couldn't win without the support of Congress and the American people. Neither of whom who had his back.

To rehash this now by saying "Gore did not exhaust all peaceful options" is most certainly an attempt to put the blame for 7 years of hell on his shoulders.

Otherwise your OP would have asked the question "Why did the Supreme Court allow the presidency to be stolen?" instead of "Why did Gore concede?"

[Two Americas]

119. well never mind that

We spend a lot of time and energy worrying about blame and who is a saint and who is a sinner.

Saying that Gore may not have exhausted all peaceful options is not "blaming Gore" - but so what if it were?

People are still rehashing the Lincoln presidency, and even the most devoted fan of Lincoln is willing to discuss errors he made.

[earth mom]

122. Sorry but blaming Gore is not gonna fly with me.

And probably not with a lot of other DUers.

Gore fought as hard as he could but he had no one to back him up.

You can second guess Gore all you want, but what if you had been in his shoes?

I doubt you would have been able to get the apathetic people of this country to march in the streets.


So cut the crap about Gore, because in a very cunning and circuitous way you are blaming him for the crimes of * & Co. Which is just wrong, not to mention total b.s.

[Two Americas]

123. I can't defend myself

I can't possibly prove that your speculations as to my hidden motives are false.

Attacking me on this basis is a form of ad hominem attack - rather than responding to the message you are slyly hinting at the possible motives of the messenger, and appealing to the mob to back you up as well - "and probably not with a lot of other DUers." The rest of the DUers can speak for themselves.

You are suggesting that what I have been saying should not be said, but have not given any good reasons for that call for the suppression of free speech.

[earth mom]

127. If you have something to say about Gore spit it out then.

Don't post a thread asking for opinions without posting your own opinion until very late in the thread-an opinion that was really innuendo, not an out an out statement about what you really think.

You are the one playing games here. I did not attack you personally-you are playing games and you need to cut it out.

FYI-I don't need validation from any mob. I mentioned other DUers because I know that if you had posted your innuendo about Gore as your OP, DUers who support Gore would have been all over this thread in a New York minute. That's why you set it up the way that you did, so they wouldn't be.

But hey, feel free to paint yourself as some kind of victim anyway. :eyes:

[Two Americas]

137. yes, I thought about that

I thought about stating strong opinions in the OP, then decided not to. You really can't win when you raise certain subjects, and your motives will be attacked no matter what. But really I have more questions than opinions, so I don't know what strong opinion I would have expressed, other than that the election theft was a crime, and there was an inadequate response and there still remains a reluctance to discussing it. Gore just happens to be the main player in the drama, so of course we need to mention him. In my opinion, Gore is not the one to be "blamed" as it is complex and there were many players, and it goes without saying that the perpetrators are by far the primary villains. I am more interested in what people here think than I am about Gore. I think I have been respectful to the other posters and to Gore. If you think I have abused either, point that out. It was not my intention.

What innuendo about Gore are you seeing? What is the game you think I am playing?

What does "all over this thread in a New York minute" mean if not mob action?

I do think that questioning the motives of a poster, based on speculation, is a personal attack. hard to see it as anything else. If you assume that there are things I am not saying and that I am being devious, then of course you can imagine all sorts of things that I am not saying. But I can't possibly be expected to respond to that. How can I prove that I am not secretly trying to destroy Gore? I can't.

[earth mom]

182. Sometimes you have to put yourself out there if it's something you believe in.

I just put myself out there with a thread and have been attacked up one side and down the other. I knew it would happen when I posted the thread but I did it anyway, because the topic is important to me.

Your OP question bothered me from the get go. I read the entire thread to see what your intention was and when I found it, I was ticked off. I found it to be disingenuous and called you on it. You had to have known that people would find any negative portrayal of Gore here on DU offensive and so you avoided it. Maybe you didn't intend it as innuendo or a game, but I've been here long enough to see many games played by people-especially when it's about liberal politicians they don't like.

If you don't like Gore, just say it. Be brave. I don't like Hillary or Obama and I say it often around this place. I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to fit in or to not ruffle any feathers. However, that being said, I don't usually post threads bashing H or O either-I think I posted one about Hillary a few months ago. Usually, I just add my 2 cents to other peoples threads.

IMO, both 2000 and 2004 were both stolen elections. Gore tried, he really did, but the rethuglicans had it all planned, probably years in advance. When Kerry conceded in '04, I was upset and that's why I came to DU-looking for answers. I gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt for months and months until I finally understood the implications of what Kerry had (not) done. So, if anyone's to blame for allowing the rethuglicans to get away with murder, I would place the blame squarely on Kerry and the rest of Congress for voting for the war in the first place and then continuing to fund it.

But blaming Gore for any part of it just won't fly with me.

[Two Americas]

184. belief

Sometimes you have to put yourself out there if it's something you believe in. I just put myself out there with a thread and have been attacked up one side and down the other. I knew it would happen when I posted the thread but I did it anyway, because the topic is important to me.

Understood. I don't have a "belief" on this subject. I am not sure why Gore conceded, and I definitely did not know how others felt about it.

Your OP question bothered me from the get go. I read the entire thread to see what your intention was and when I found it, I was ticked off. I found it to be disingenuous and called you on it. You had to have known that people would find any negative portrayal of Gore here on DU offensive and so you avoided it. Maybe you didn't intend it as innuendo or a game, but I've been here long enough to see many games played by people-especially when it's about liberal politicians they don't like.

You are reading something into this that isn't there. There is no way for a person to prove that they do not have a hidden agenda. Continually suggesting that I do is not an honest approach to the argument. I voted for Gore, I have defended Gore. How does one prove one's loyalty, and why should that even be an issue? Is this loyalty business, and suspicions about hidden motives, merely a way to avoid hearing unpleasant things and to prevent the discussion from going certain directions? I do not understand how we can learn from our mistakes, or intelligently discus politics, in this climate you are attempting to establish for the discussion.

If there is any politician out there who has never made a mistake, I would like to know who that is. Right now we have a serious hatefest going on against two Democratic party politicians in GD-P. Are you suggesting that while that is permitted and tolerated, that what I have said should not be?

If you don't like Gore, just say it. Be brave. I don't like Hillary or Obama and I say it often around this place. I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to fit in or to not ruffle any feathers. However, that being said, I don't usually post threads bashing H or O either-I think I posted one about Hillary a few months ago. Usually, I just add my 2 cents to other peoples threads.

I don't "like" or "dislike Gore or any public figure. As with all politicians, I think they do some good things and some bad things. You are asking me to pick a side - all or nothing, saint or sinner, and since you don't think I see him as a saint you assume I must therefore see him as a sinner. real life is a little more complex than that, and I neither hate nor worship Gore or any other public figure.

IMO, both 2000 and 2004 were both stolen elections. Gore tried, he really did, but the rethuglicans had it all planned, probably years in advance. When Kerry conceded in '04, I was upset and that's why I came to DU-looking for answers. I gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt for months and months until I finally understood the implications of what Kerry had (not) done. So, if anyone's to blame for allowing the rethuglicans to get away with murder, I would place the blame squarely on Kerry and the rest of Congress for voting for the war in the first place and then continuing to fund it.

I agree that Gore tried, and I agree that a cabal within the Republican party had this all planned years in advance. So where is the disagreement between us?

But blaming Gore for any part of it just won't fly with me.

So Gore can do no wrong? How do we decide which politicians get this sort of immunity, and which do not? We find fault with virtually every other Democratic party politician on occasion. I am not trying to beat you down, thegoldenrule, I am asking you seriously about this. I am not looking for a fight, and I have no intention of bashing Gore.

[Two Americas]

185. some thoughts

I am trying to walk a mile or two in your shoes, thegoldenrule (I don't like arguing with a person who choose that username :) ) and have some ideas. You tell me if I am wrong, as I am just thinking out loud. I think there is a miscommunication between us, but as I said - you tell me.

Could it be that there was so much frustration over the stolen election, so much stress and pain, that personal loyalty to Gore is a last refuge of sanity? Could it also be that there is so much lying and manipulation around us that we decide to err on the side of suspicion, and that things are so confusing that we need to draw the line somewhere to anchor our thinking? If so, you should know that I understand and share that and that I am not trying to bash anyone into abandoning that, rather I am looking to expand and augment that.

It is as though we have been abandoned on a deserted island, and while it is pretty miserable it is better than being out on the open sea, and we have been tricked so badly so many times that when a rescue boat shows up we cling to the island and resist the rescuers, thinking that they seek to throw us out in the open sea gain.

I am suggesting that Gore made a mistake - a completely understandable and forgivable mistake - and that it set a pattern of ongoing errors by all of us. Might that not get us off of the island? I am not asking anyone to leave the island until they are certain about the rescue, I merely ask that we discuss the possibility of rescue.

[Uncle Joe]

190. If you believe Al Gore made a mistake, and having the benefit of hindsight, what would Two Americas

have done different?

[Two Americas]

194. I don't know

We all make mistakes. We learn from them and try not to make them again. I don't know what other answer there is to that question. I don't think we should expect anyone to be perfect, nor should we hold mistakes against them. It is all part of the human condition, no?

Had I been in Gore's situation I probably would have made the same mistakes, or worse. He was in an extremely difficult position and under tremendous pressure.

We can't change what has happened, so hindsight is not useful in that way. But we can learn from what happened as we go forward.

[Uncle Joe]

195. Then I guess the ultimate answer is we'll never know if it was a mistake

or if that was the most perfect thing that could be done at the time. As we'll never know the consequences of his actions had they been different.

I suspect Al Gore has a tremendous faith in the people or he would never have championed opening up the Internet.

[Two Americas]

203. very true

We can never know with certainty.

I see your connection between the topic at hand and the Internet now. That is more a response to those who paint all politicians with a broad brush as being owned by the ruling class and having no interest in the people. I think there is some truth to those charges, and of course it is also true that many of us hope that there are exceptions to that and that there is someone we can believe and trust. Our system is controlled by wealthy and powerful interests, and we are all flies caught in that spider web. I think we can all agree about that.

[Two Americas]

106. duplicate

double post, browser hanging

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. 1.- Not every legal expert agrees with you

2.- I don't think you fully understand the seriousness of the charges you are issuing. Essentially you are accusing five justices of high treason. (Which incidentally is an impeachable offense... not to mention a death penalty offense)

Now the USSC has issued terrible decisions... and they are beyond Tanney. Depending on your political POV some recent decisions, such as the 1973 court decision legalizing abortion, is a terrible decision. Was Bush V Gore terrible? Absolutely

But to go from terrible to high treason, there is quite a bit of ground to cover.

As I have repeatedly told you... Gore went as far as LEGALLY he could

Moreover this country is NOT YET ready for an armed revolt. That is today. What makes you think that people were ready in 2000 to reach for guns and take to the streets? Hell, what makes you think they were ready to take to the streets when less than 40% even bothered to vote?

Oh and here is a factoid to consider. Once you enter armed revolt that Constitution is all but shredded paper, and a SUCCESSOR state will have a new one, based on which side wins. That is a worst case scenario... oh wait, the worst case scenario is anywhere from three to rive successor states (and Constitutions)

Was there a coup? no doubt about it... were five justices part of the conspiracy? Even if I MAY believe this to be possible... I don't have legal evidence to stand on it. Was the GOP part of it... there is stronger circumstantial evidence

Was the American people ready to go on revolt... you kidding me? Idol's on tonight.

By the way, here is a FIRM prediction based on the GOP pattern of behavior. Regardless of who the Dems nominate, assuming they don't outright "win" another four years under McCain... care to wager how fast evidence will be manufactured to impeach the Democrat, and how fast the militias will become active once again?

[defendandprotect]

148. Agree . . . agree . . . agree . . .

However, what Gore and Kerry have really learned or discovered from those steals they aren't saying.
We do know that Gore seemed to be under threat near his own house!

In pre-planning while the rest of the country was in shock . . .
the GOP had the propaganda advantage in making "recounts" a dirty word ---
and on insisting that Gore was stealing the election!!!

Americans were unprepared for any of this --- the GOP thugs were prepeared ---


And, btw, something that posters here don't seem to be considering . . .
The Bush people also had plans that IF Bush won the popular vote but not the Electoral votes
that they would claim victory!!!!

Obviously, they would have had to have a lot of heavy propaganda ready ---
and probably some more fake crowds around calling for Gore's head!!!

[Imagevision]

96. Gore didn't concede like fellow "Bonesman" John Kerry did...

[Echo In Light]

97. I remember that eerie feeling the day after...it was all so tidy, the media on board 110%

[fujiyama]

98. Because Al Gore believes this is a nation of laws

and that means the final arbiter of the law is the Supreme Court. And he believes we are to abide by the rulings of the court, no matter how corrupt the members of the body are.

Beyond that, his only choice would have been to form a coup and that wasn't going to happen.

[Greyhound]

112. The Constitution of the United States is the law. The SCOTUS is merely the interpreter,

and they themselves established the decision as outside the bounds of law with the shall not serve as precedent part...

[fujiyama]

121. Yes the USSC interprets the laws

and what they say is final.

Al Gore had exhausted all lawful means to have the vote counted in FL (which as we know would have shown he won the state). It was denied to him.

There was nothing more he could do. No other LEGAL avenues to pursue. The majority for Bush v Gore stated that while the decision was not to used as precedent, it was the decision for that case. Was this a good decision? Hell no. It was one of the worst SC decisions ever made.

But it was final.

[Two Americas]

163. what law did they interpret?

What law did they interpret and how did they interpret it?

Also, why was not the Taney court decision on slavery seen as "final?" Why did not everyone move on and get over it back then? That decision slammed the door on abolition much more throughly than the

I think it misrepresents the case to say that "it was one of the worst SC decisions ever made," since calling what they did a "decision" gives it more credibility that it deserves.

"No other LEGAL avenues to pursue" suggests that anything else we considered would therefore be "illegal."

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. read the decision... it was based upon the equal protection clause

of the 14th Amendment... and given what emerged recently about the Walker side of the family owning slaves, file it under irony.

The fact that you have asked the question tells me you have yet to actually read the decision. It is easy to find

Google and enter Bush V Gore

But to make it simple and sweet... they found that the State decision was not affording George Bush equal protection under the Amendment

Was the decision activist? Yes

Did the decision trample over states rights? Again yes.

Did Gore, or many other people agree with it?

No

Did they have anywhere else to go? NO

Is this decision in the category of Dredd Scott? Absolutely.

Will historians have fun with that one in the same way they have with Dredd Scott for almost a hundred years now? Absolutely.

[Two Americas]

170. not so

Even the justices themselves did not try to make any equal protection clause argument. Yes, they used it for cover. I have read the decision.

Each thing you cited is circumstantial evidence - powerful circumstantial evidence of wrong doing. You present them as though they are legal points, in isolation and giving the benefit of doubt to the justices.

They did NOT find "that the State decision was not affording George Bush equal protection under the Amendment" because that would be impossible to do. They CLAIMED to find that.

Upon what basis could George Bush to have been considered harmed by differing methods of taking and counting votes? Obviously, BOTH candidates would be equally harmed by that, and the only party that could possibly have standing in court to even BRING a suit would have been the voters. How does preventing the counting of the votes of the only possible aggrieved party remedy any harm from a violation of the equal protection clause? It cannot. It is absurd.

This was far more than an "activist" decision.

No, there is not a specific law forbidding a coup, let alone one done in this manner. And it is also true that treason has been historically applied to cases involving foreign enemies. But this is a unique case, and not comparable in any way to anything that has happened in the past. There is no precedent for the Supreme Court cynically using their office to anoint a person to the office of chief executive and blatantly thwart the voters' intentions and a state's electoral process.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. Yes they did, the MAJORITY made that argument

read the decision

They also wrote that it should not be used as precedent, which it has.

I provided you with the decision, now go read it

And I will remind you once again that under the US Constitution the PEOPLE DO NOT elect the president, the President is elected by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Oh and there is a precedent in the 19th century for a President NOT winning the popular vote and getting elected..

See 1876 election and Rutherford B Hayes, which WAS as controversial in his day as 2000... in fact, Rutherford was called His Fraudelency

Here is a link to the college and how it works today

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/

Now I'd love to get rid of this archaic device, but for the moment I am aware that I DO NOT vote for a President, but for an Elector. And that Elector has ZERO obligations to vote the way I did.

[Two Americas]

177. you misunderstand

What is the argument that would justify applying the 14th amendment in this way to this case? There is no such argument. I understand that they said this was their argument. But merely saying it does not make the argument. Follow me?

How was Bush irreparably harmed by counting the votes (the stay) and how was the varying methods in different precincts biased in such a way that Bush was harmed (the awarding of the office to Bush)? That would be the proper argument - to explain how Bush was harmed. They made no such argument, because no such argument can be made. How can you grant a plaintiff relief without citing any damage dome to the plaintiff? You cannot, unless you are lying and have another motive.

If you are going to claim that the justices were telling the truth, and did in fact base their decision on the equal protection clause, then what is the logic - any possible logic that would support that? The justices have not told us, and neither have you. Ergo, the argument has not been made. They merely claimed to have made such an argument, and you are agreeing with them.

If you believe that they made the case for their decision, you should have no trouble making that case for me.

Th electoral college argument you are making is another distracting and irrelevant argument. The people are the ultimate authority, regardless of the mechanism used for the people to express that authority.

Please stop with the lecturing. I have read the decision, and merely saying "now go read the decision" is a poor substitute for arguing your point here. I am also familiar with the history of the 14th amendment and its applications, and with the electoral college. None of that has anything to do with the nature of the Supreme Court action, let alone with why Gore conceded.

[Greyhound]

181. "Don't try to take my fig leaf, damn it"!

This conversation is a good example of why we will continue down this road to fascism. People will neither accept responsibility nor demand accountability of our "leaders".

To acknowledge the fact that a coup was carried out in this nation, by political operatives on the court working in concert with this faction, would necessitate dramatic action on the part of the citizenry, which is quite comfortable as subjects (consumers) of the ruling class and has no interest in risking that comfort for something as petty as liberty.

The worst part is that they will be the ones crying the loudest once it is too late to matter.

[Two Americas]

187. a trap

There is a trap we are all in, and it is difficult to explore with people. On the one had we are saying "it is fascism" and on the other hand we are resistant to considering appropriate responses. Either it is fascism, and we should start talking and acting consistently with that, or it is not fascism and yapping about it endlessly is not very useful. There is an odd combination of faith in the system and sounding the alarm about a dire emergency. That is paralyzing, and paralysis is the last thing we need in the face of a relentless and all out assault on us from the big money interests and their extreme right wing henchman.

"OMG it is fascism and there was a coup and the elections are being stolen - it is a dire emergency and we need to wake people up!" people say, and then the remedy that is stubbornly held onto is "so that is why we need to be loyal to the party, get out the vote, and work within the system!"

Which is it? Those two statements - one about the problem and the other recommending a remedy - contradict each other. That makes it impossible to rally the public, because the message is garbled.

[Greyhound]

205. Which is why it is essential to maintain the illusion of choice.

I have no doubt that in 50 or a 100 years, assuming such a person still exists, historians will mark 12/11/2000 as the date of the American Coup. I also firmly believe that all but the dimmest and most completely deluded know, deep inside were they rarely look, that it is over. We have lost our country.

It is fascism and some are making preparations, but most do not want to look at it because it means everything will change. A lot. For the worse. The system cannot be changed and anybody that has lived in it, or around it, knows that.

President Obama is going to find the same people running DC that run it now, they are immune to charisma and they are not easy to frighten. I hope he turns out to be our raygun and can bypass much of the insider baseball and appeal directly to the people. A clever man can use that to spur the power brokers into action and push an agenda through Congress.

[Two Americas]

212. you could be right

People may know what the truth is, but are not emotionally ready to face the truth.

The expressions of powerlessness and helplessness here on this thread are stunning. Think about it - the right wingers were able to round up a few dozen people to pound on the windows of a canvassing board room and actually stop a key vote recount, yet we are to believe that absolutely nothing could have been done to rally any of the 59 million people who were disenfranchised to do anything whatsoever that would be effective in any way. Then, to keep that illusion in place, people go through incredible gyrations and convolutions to simultaneously appear to be in opposition while at the same time accepting all of the fundamental premises of the right wing propaganda about what is happening. It is a winder that our heads don't explode.

Clearly we have all been abused and are now intimidated, and all of the confusion and chaos and the divisions among us spring from the unwillingness to simply speak the truth about that.

We are afraid to act; afraid to even speak except in carefully couched words and within very narrow parameters. That, I think is the truth. All of the rationales, explanations, speculation and analysis that we argue about serve merely as a distraction and an escape from that.

[Olney Blue]

99. Why, oh why, didn't I take to the street in protest?

[Lilith Velkor]

217. The Democrats in my family

were too busy blaming the ones who took to the street called Pennsylvania Avenue.

We were also called "violent thugs" because we bum rushed the police line to fling produce at the usurper's limo.

Wake me when the party stops rolling over for fascists, willya? :boring:

[Jennicut]

100. Gore did not want a civil war, did not want the United States to fall apart

Further, Bush and his cronies would have taken to calling him an enemy of the state and of the people and no doubt many would have believed them as many still think Gore was trying to "steal" the election from Bush. Ridiculous, but people have a way of being manipulated. Look at the Nazis and Germany. He did as much as he could legally do and anyone who says he did not fight hard enough has no respect for what he did. He tried to keep things as smooth as possible for the sake of the country and hoped that eventually Bush would be voted out in 2004. Of course, there were enough people who allowed themselves to be manipulated by the "fear agenda" and voted him back in again and the apathetic simply did not vote at all. Still, over 59 million voted for Kerry. That is positive and maybe enough people have woken up and will help those who knew all along that the country was hijacked to stop McCain.
Furthermore, Gore's family was being threatened outside of their house and his children probably felt unsafe. I can't speak for Tipper, Albert, Sarah, Kristin or Karenna but I am sure they must have felt a bit intimidated and frightened. Why continue to put your family through that? I really believe Gore thinks the United States can bounce back from this but I doubt he wants to be part of the process again except as a voter as the process seriously let him down and his own party did not really stand with him.

[defendandprotect]

136. Have to agree with you about the success of GOP propaganda . . .

they've been studying it for decades --- !!

And, true . . . they had made "recount" a dirty word by the time the courts were being petititioned... and had crowds in the streets --- perhaps fake? --- chanting that Gore was
stealing the election!

Two other points . . . the computers came in during the mid-1960's and we can only presume that
we have had manipulations of the votes for steals since then.

This didn't begin in 2000 . . . stealing isn't always that simple --- and 2000 got noisy and woke
up a lot of people.

2004 looks like another steal from Kerry --- and they say 2006 was a much bigger Democratic vote which would have meant larger majorities in House/Senate.

Secondly, we have had political violence in America for the past 40 plus years ---
that cannot be denied --- and probably general r-w violence generated by corrupt segments of our
government/CIA since Post WWII.

And, from what I read, both Eisenhower and JFk were betrayed by parts of our "intellience agencies."

We have heard here and there that the Kennedy family is under constant threat ---
and so I can understand that pressure upon the Gore family --- something we should all be more
familiar with. I'd heard the story before --- weren't they bringing in some buses from a church group or something --- but very intimidating with constant chanting thru the night --- and very close to their house?

Daschle --- and this was after the Anthrax attacks --- was absolutely demonized by the GOP . . .
and commented on it ---

There has, however, been no admission, acknowledgment, confirmation of that, however ...
by our "free press" so the public is on its own in figuring that out!

[applegrove]

104. He conceeded because it was turning into a circus and he wanted his country

to be better than that. Then he saw in the next two terms that the circus just continued with the *WH bushing the envelope beyond anything decent again and again. No doubt he regrets it.

[Two Americas]

114. yes

I am not trying to beat up on Gore. But the circus was not ended - it was promoted and goes on to this day.

I think it is possible that Gore conceded because he did not see the danger accurately or fully. That was true for many in the party leadership and activist community. It is of course forgiveable, but I don't think history will forgive us if we continue to sweep it under the rug and I do think that is what we are doing.

The trap we are in is that the more clearly we are able to see the danger, the more into denial we crawl. We started down that path when he conceded, and now 7 years later it is amazing the convolutions we go through in order to keep that denial in place. I started this thread to revisit that moment of the fateful - and perhaps fatal - decision, in the hope that we can break out of the pattern.

[drmeow]

124. I think you are right

about Gore not seeing the danger accurately or fully - I certainly did not envision this country getting this far off track back then. I certainly believed that the election was stolen (regardless of the recount issue) and I knew Bush would be a terrible president and I had a feeling he was going to get us into a war but I NEVER expected torture and extraordinary rendition and free speech zones and all the other elements of the current administration that makes this country completely unrecognizable.

[applegrove]

129. I think the only people who expected it were the movement conservatives and the neocons. Cause they

had been dreaming the nightmare for so many years before. Now they will get booted out of office. Too bad a Presidential term is 4 years. Another year is way to long to wait.

[defendandprotect]

138. Bush is confident that the GOP will hold onto the White House . . .

he may simply be telling us that there will be another steal in 2008 .......????

[yardwork]

118. He didn't. The Supreme Court made the decision.

If Gore had fought it, he would have triggered a constitutional crisis.

Kerry conceded in 2004. Blast his eyes.

[Two Americas]

120. the people are the ones with that authority

The people make the decision as to who should hold the office of the presidency. The Supreme Court serves the people, the people do not serve the Supreme Court.

Fighting the criminal behavior of the Supreme Court would not have precipitated a constitutional crisis, the crisis had already occurred and was caused by the actions of 5 justices.

Failing to fight the extreme right wing does not mean their is no battle or no crisis, it merely means that we surrender and lose and they win. We pay the price for that surrender every day.

[Uncle Joe]

128. You just got here before Christmas and a thousand posts already, congratulations.

I don't have time tonight to reply in full to your all your assertions on this thread, but I'll be back tomorrow.

But one point I would like to make is that you might want to thank Al Gore for empowering you to trash him for all the world to see when he championed opening up the Internet for the people, because that was the primary reason the corporate media slandered and libeled him for over the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000, while they gave Bush a free pass to the White House.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. You have forgotten about the Electoral College

Huge correction, we don't elect the President... the Electoral College does. Now if you really want to blame somebody for that, start with oh... Mr Adams... and his friends.

In fact, until 1912 we didn't elect Senators either (in a direct way that is)

[Skittles]

139. he made a huge mistake letting the GOP take control of the issue

really bad one - he should have demanded a state-wide recount from the start

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. IIRC he did... but it morphed within hours on CNN

(What we had on at my mother in law's place in Maui, no other news station)

remember a lot of what you saw was exactly what they wanted you to see.

[Skittles]

152. I was in England at the time it happened

and it seemed to me that Gore was on the defensive from the start which was the wrong place to be - absolutely the media played a HUGE role in that travesty

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. As I said, I remember it taking hours

but yes, he was on the defensive and in shock VERY FAST

For the record, I don't know about you, but I felt helpless, and in shock. It took readying people like Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf to fully identify what was going on.

For the record I expect them to steal it again... but if we understand what is going on, we MIGHT be able to fight back

[Skittles]

155. I initially heard Gore had won, then it was "HOLD ON THERE"

I told my boyfriend right then and there that they'd find a way to put that piece of shit bush in office - and they did

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Exactly, it took hours

We watched it early in the day, since the time difference allowed us to watch this at our leisure

ABC announced he won, and then Fox (a cousin of bush did) said hold on... and within a day... it was the mess we all know (CNN actually had the time line early on, silly ones)

It just got more and more complex and the previous Anti Gore shtick from the press got even more strident

I also remember the PARTY did not stand with Gore...

He fought as far as he could... and today he can say... told you so... but I doubt ANY in the Gore clan will run for office, not even dog catcher and I can't blame them either

[AlphaCentauri]

158. does Gore support election reform? n/t

[Two Americas]

179. summary

Why did Gore concede?

- Because he couldn't have won anyway

- Because the only alternative to conceding would be civil war

- Because the Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush, and what they say goes

- Because the only alternative to conceding would be violent revolution

- Because he had no support in Congress

- Because the people would not have supported him if he fought

- Because the Republicans would have called him a bad loser

- Because conceding made it easier for the party to focus on winning in 2004

- Because he didn't understand the full scope of the threat from the Bush administration

- Because he was afraid

[Senator]

186. Summary of reasons or rationalizations?

Because they are very different things.

It's certainly true that "he was afraid." But that's mostly a truism, in that he feared doing what he didn't do.

But most of what is posted on this thread are rationalizations. Gore's own rationalizations grew over time -- up to civil war, violent revolution -- which is patent nonsense. The "intermediate step" was clearly described by Justice Breyer in his dissent to the BvG edict. Gore says now that he "disagreed" with BvG. But that's not the action (or lack of) that he chose to pursue at the time.

He simply failed to lead -- just like Kerry. In exactly the same way DC-Dems are failing to lead now by firewalling impeachment of these war criminals. And for pretty much the same "reasons." They are choosing (deluded) "beltway reality" over our founding principles. And they are rationalizing that their failure is some "strategeric" machination to serve a greater (non-specific) good.

What is important is that we be honest about these things. That we refuse to allow 2 stolen elections and a war criminal regime to be forgotten, rationalized, or euphemized into non-existence.

That requires blame for Gore. And for others. But not for the American People. This war criminal regime has never carried the "consent of the governed."

That is the core reality we have left to rebuild on.

---

[Two Americas]

192. yes

I just wanted to list the answers people gave as reasons to forward the conversation and kep it on track.

I also do not blame the people. I blame us - those who are the most visible and vocal on the left - more than I do the politicians. We don't give our representatives anything clear and unambiguous and consistent to represent. Perhaps even if we did, they would still ignore us and continue to represent the wealthy and powerful, But as things stand now we can't tell, which makes hero worship foolish. Gore may be wonderful, but how would we ever know? Unless, that is, we seek politicians who make us feel good and say the things we want to hear rather than politicians who are effective representatives. By that measure Gore is wonderful.

"What is important is that we be honest about these things. That we refuse to allow 2 stolen elections and a war criminal regime to be forgotten, rationalized, or euphemized into non-existence."

Yes. That is where we are failing, and that failure by us is not only the most critical failure of any, in my opinion, it is also the area over which we have the most control. By "we" I mean the intellectuals on the left - the researchers, students, writers, thinkers, speakers and organizers.

[Uncle Joe]

193. If you believe this, do you believe he ever would've

championed opening up the Internet for the people's voice to be heard, while also empowering or magnifying their potential criticism? To be an effective Representative wouldn't unfettered two way communication with the masses be advantageous? If all Al Gore cared about was representing the wealthy and powerful, why make it easier for the average American's opinion on the matters of the day to be heard?

Maybe you don't appreciate the Internet for what it is and what it's capable of becoming? I believe if the current leadership still doesn't understand the people's motivation, they're not reading the Internet.

Everyone is human and capable of making mistakes and I don't believe in hero worship, but I dread a world without heroes.

"I also do not blame the people. I blame us - those who are the most visible and vocal on the left - more than I do the politicians. We don't give our representatives anything clear and unambiguous and consistent to represent. Perhaps even if we did, they would still ignore us and continue to represent the wealthy and powerful, But as things stand now we can't tell, which makes hero worship foolish. Gore may be wonderful, but how would we ever know? Unless, that is, we seek politicians who make us feel good and say the things we want to hear rather than politicians who are effective representatives. By that measure Gore is wonderful."

For the record Al Gore fought that disputed election longer than any other election in United States history.

[Two Americas]

197. not sure

Not sure I see the connection between the discussion here and the Internet. Your points about the Internet are valid and well taken, however.

Everyone is human and capable of making mistakes and I don't believe in hero worship, but I dread a world without heroes.

I agree.

For the record Al Gore fought that disputed election longer than any other election in United States history.

Understood. But we would need to compare that to similar opportunities for fighting a disputed election to make much determination about that. It could be argued that Lincoln's election was disputed - quite violently - for 4 years. Similarly, there are ways in which Clinton's election was disputed for 8 years.





edited for a typo

[Uncle Joe]

202. No one ever prevented

Lincoln or Clinton from taking the oath of office over a disputed election, that my's definition, although I would put an asterisk by Lincoln's name.

I believe the closest analogy to Al Gore would be the election Samuel Tilden was involved in.

[Two Americas]

204. yes

The Clinton and Lincoln analogies were admittedly a stretch. Certainly Lincoln was prevented from effectively acting as president over the entire country, and the right wing did many things to hinder and hound Clinton - severely impacting his ability to perform his lawful duties as elected president - with no respect for the fact that he was the legitimately elected president. In that sense those elections were in dispute, at least by a significant portion of the population, in functional and practical terms rather than legal terms.

The 1876 Tilden-Hayes election contest hung in the balance ubtil March 2nd, three days before the inauguration.

[countryjake]

180. He didn't want Americans to think that we have a right to fight city hall?

Is this a trick question?

I don't think that any dedicated politico who cherishes his position and career is about to step that far out of line to actually buck the system. His function is to work within the accepted structures; obey the "laws", follow set "methods", recognize the power of the "courts", and not upset the fruitbasket.

How I feel about it is that our government decided it would work better for a rethug to accomplish the conquests in South Asia and the Middle East, so that is why a rethug was installed. If the people would have resisted those mechanizations and somehow made their votes count for something, I haven't a doubt that the bombardments, invasions, and occupations that were required by the imperialist nature of our country would have proceeded, according to plan, no matter who held the reins.

[Jackpine Radical]

183. WTF, did I just step into a Wayback machine or something?

What is this, April 2001? We were doing this schtick when I joined DU.

[Two Americas]

188. ah, good

I wasn't here back then. What were people saying?

[leftofthedial]

199. the owners told him to

[John Kerry VonErich]

200. I really hate to be a conspiracy theorist

But, if something like 2000 election happens again, I do fear that this would spark some kind of civil war.

[Two Americas]

208. some things that are not true

There are things being presented on this thread as facts that I do not believe are true.

It is not true that Gore went to the Supreme Court and was rejected. Bush went to the Supreme Court. He had no standing and the court had no legitimate jurisdiction, and no legal basis for their subsequent decisions. It was right wing propaganda that "Gore tried to pull a fast one and the court stopped him," and being unclear about this reinforces that propaganda.

It is not true that the Supreme Court can do anything it wants to do and is the final word on all things in a broad and comprehensive way. The court has specific duties and obligations, and the justices are not dictators.

It is not true that the only alternative to Gore conceding would necessarily be civil war or violent revolution. Gore did not say that was what he was trying to avoid, and I do not believe there is any evidence suggesting that this was the reason he conceded, though it is presented here as though it were fact.

It is not true that merely expressing these things is necessarily an attack on Gore, not is it disloyalty to the party.

It is not true that "opinions vary" about the actions of the court, or that there is some legitimate and serious "other side" to these issues that merit consideration. As with evolution and global warming, it is always possible to dig up "authorities" who will express support for almost any cockamamie idea. That does not make the "two sides" worthy of equal consideration. This is such a common tactic by the right wing propagandists that it is surprising to me that anyone falls for it.

The theft of the 2000 election was the original crime that led to all other crimes. I do not understand how any of us can think that we are in serious opposition to this regime and at the same time sweep this crime under the rug, and the fuzzy thinking and lack of clarity people are expressing about this does just that.

[MiniMe]

210. The Gore case went to the Florida Supreme Court, and that is where it belonged

You are correct that it was Bush et al that took it to the USSC, where it didn't belong. The supreme court's decision was atrocious, but who do you appeal it to? They are the highest court in the land. Bush was the one in the campaign that kept talking about states rights, and he took it away and went straight to the federal courts. It will be interesting to see what history has to say about the decision, and the Bush regime in general.

My personal opinion is that if something like that had happened in any other part of the world, fraud would most certainly have been suspected. The Brother being the governor of the state in question should surely bring up suspicion.

In the end, the USSC heard the case on December 11, 2000. That was 5 or 6 weeks after the election. Election results had to be completed by December 12, 2000.

Section 5 of Title 3 of the United States Code regulates the "determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"<13> in Presidential elections. Of relevant note<12> to this case was the so-called "safe harbor" provision,<14> which allows states to appoint their electors without interference from Congress if done by a specified deadline:

If any State shall have provided...for its final determination of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination...shall be conclusive.<15>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Bush did then what he is doing now, stalled. He managed to stall the process until it was too late.

Since the electors were set to meet December 18, the "safe harbor" deadline was December 12, just one day after the case was argued before the Court. I believe that the decision was that given the circumstances at that time, a meaningful recount could not be completed by December 12, so they ordered the counting to stop. I really don't think there was much more that Gore could have done legally.

[Two Americas]

213. thanks

Good post. Thanks for filling in some details for us.

There was nowhere to "appeal" to, in the sense of a higher court, so, no, we couldn't appeal it in that sense. But nor did we have to obey it. People are saying that we must obey the Supreme Court, that we must respect the Supreme Court. But German war criminals were hung despite employing that exact defense - "we were following orders." We are not obligated to follow or obey immoral, illegal, or illegitimate orders from any authority. Doing so is not respecting the law or the institutions, it is the opposite of that.

The five justices and the Bush campaign broke the law. resisting that is not disrespecting the law, quite to the contrary.

I don't know exactly what sort of form resistance may have taken, what would have worked, nor what the consequences would have been. But could the consequences been any worse than the consequences of rolling over have been? And I do know this - people were and are afraid to discuss the subject of resistance, so that influences their opinions as to what the options may have been. Saying that "there were no options" is cover, in my opinion for "we are afraid to even consider options."

[MiniMe]

220. Other than a violent takeover, there was nothing else to do at that point

If Gore hadn't conceded, Florida still would have seated its delegates for Bush. Gore could have taken it to another court, but how does a court overturn a supreme court decision? If time wasn't an issue, the decision might have gone another way, but at that point, there was 1 day. The only other thing that could have been done non violently was for a Senator to oppose seating Florida's delegates. That would have given them a chance, but with Gore being President of the Senate, it would have put him in an awkward position. It was tried in 2004 with Ohio, but it failed.

Right or wrong, the United States is a country that is ruled by law (at least it was before bushco). The highest law in the land is the US Supreme Court. Gore believes in the rule of law, as do I. That is one reason that even if the democrats nominated Mickey Mouse, I would vote for a democrat this year. There will most likely be several supreme court openings for the next president, and it is critical that a democrat appoints them.

To me, the real question is why did Kerry concede. He needed to at least try, but he didn't.

[Two Americas]

223. not really

I do not think that the Supreme Court is "the highest law in the land." I don't think any officeholders are the law, nor are any office holders above the law. Only in dictatorships would we describe a person or persons as the law.

I am not sure how we can remedy the curious lack of imagination and creativity that we have. Again and again I hear people say that the only alternative to caving in to the right wingers is violent revolution.

I also don't understand reducing the greatest crime in US history down to merely a horse race - whether Gore could or could not have done anything to win.

We would not justify or excuse a murder by saying "oh well the victim had cancer and only had a few days to live anyway. So it wouldn't have made any difference."

I also don't understand how people can think that had Gore not conceded, that we would have then been in a "constitutional crisis," since we were already IN such a crisis, and have been ever since.

Were we to imagine that having broken the law, stolen the presidency, and flaunted the Constitution in 2000 that somehow that was the end of the game and all there was for us to do was try next time? Once having broken the law by successfully executing a coup and installing Bush, the Bush people went ahead and continued to break every law that was in their way. Why not? We rolled over once, so why should they not proceed with their plans in full confidence that we would not get in their way? We have for the most part not gotten in their way.

[Freddie Stubbs]

211. What other options did he have?

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

216. just one

Not concede.

[MiniMe]

221. And what difference would that make?

Seriously. He doesn't have to concede for him to lose, it is the gentlemanly way. If he didn't concede, and make a great speech saying that he didn't agree with the decision but would abide by it, the Florida delegates would have been seated on December 12 anyway, and they would have voted on December 18th. So what difference would it make?

[Two Americas]

222. all the difference

It could have made all of the difference in the world. There would not have been any controversy on this thread, for example, nor all of the confusion and fuzzy thinking, nor the resignation and defeatism.

At issue is not winning or losing any particular battle with the right wingers, at issue is whether or not we have the will to fight back.

[MiniMe]

226. So if Gore didn't concede, what do you think the next step would have been?

I really want to hear what you think. What should Al Gore have done next if he didn't concede?

[Two Americas]

228. we can't really know

Had he held off conceding - not doing "something else" - things may have started shifting. The Republicans have worked there way out of much worse traps dozens of times. They have vastly outplayed us, and have always been willing to gamble. I think he should have withdrawn from the public eye for a little while and let events come to him - been mysterious. That has worked for the Republicans time and again. By what authority can the Supreme Court order a state to stop counting votes? That question did not get a chance to play out enough. How could they have enforced it? They couldn't, anymore than the Taney court could force people to deny all rights to African Americans in the 1850's.

The Bush team and their accomplices on the Supreme Court were in a Hell of a hurry, and were counting on bluffing the Democrats and the public into submission.

[MiniMe]

229. In one day?

And you have no suggestions as to what he should have done.

My suggestion is deal with the present, not the past.

[Two Americas]

231. one day was not true

The cabal that overthrew the government were creating artificial deadlines to scare and bluff us into surrendering. The Tilden-Hayes contest was finally decided 3 days before the inauguration.

When mistakes from the past are not acknowledged, and lies are swept under the rug, they do not go away. The lie of the 2000 election impacts everything we do and is still influencing our future, and the mistakes made then are being repeated and repeated and repeated.

My suggestion is to clean up one mess before you go on to the next, and to stop repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

[Freddie Stubbs]

227. Smart people know when to fight

[Two Americas]

230. winners never stop fighting

The opposition, the Republican party and their right wing propaganda machine, never stop fighting. They are relentless and they ruin circles around us. They don't hesitate, they obsess and fuss. They know that it is better to boldly attack with a bad plan than to sit back, and they know that when they make mistakes those can be overcome by keeping up the momentum.

We Democrats are very smart, and are right about everything. Unfortunately, those are the consolation prize in politics, and while the consolation prize may be sufficient for the better off Dems and liberals who are in the upper 10% of the population and who control the party, it is killing the poor and the working poor. The consolation prize does not protect the rights of workers, does not pay the rent and does not pay the utility bill, and does not keep the wolf away from the door for millions of Americans.

The Republicans have a sense of urgency and determination, boldness and courage, that is completely lacking in the Democrats.