IF the Florida Voter Purge hadn't happened....

[noiretextatique]

that is, if eligible voters snagged in the voter felon purge scam had been allowed to vote in Florida (and elsewhere), would anyone still be talking about Nader?

and...why isn't there as much HEAT about disenfrancshisement as there seems to be about Nader's participation in the process...as well as those who voted for him? and...why did the NAACP have to sue over this issue?

Shouldn't disenfranchisement schemes like the one that knocked off enough potential votes to put Gore over the top be of more concern in 2004 than Nader or the Green Party?

If Gore won, even with Nader in the race, even with the felon purge...then why does Nader still trump the republicans (the real enemies of democracy) when it comes to assigning blame for 2000?

frankly, i don't get it!!!!!

as always, i feel the need to add this: i voted for Gore in 2000 :eyes:

[samsingh]

1. Gore would be the legal President

instead of the real President

[AndyTiedye]

10. Lieberman Would Be President Now

You don't actually think the BFEE woulda let Gore live, do ya?

[JNelson6563]

2. Agreed!!

I think it is because the whoremedia said nothing about it. Those who have read or somehow learned of this are very concerned, that is not nearly enough.

I greatly appreciate all the voting machine efforts etc. but if we don't address this slippery little tactic all of that is for naught.

Julie

[noiretextatique]

17. exactly, jnelson6563

i'm compiling some information on voter purge efforts...will post it soon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. The thing that has Nader at the tops as an issue

is himself and the Greens support of the recall. Camejo came out in favor of the recall prior to the signatures being gathered. No doubt that helped gather more sigs on college campuses. I hold Green accountable for nothing but what they do. Camejo lost significantly in the last election and being an opportunist saw an opening. No amount of reasoning is going to make me appreciate his tactics. Anyone who associates themselves with those tactics favors style over substance.

The California recall is NOT a referendum on all Greens but on the cheap opportunistic shots of their figureheads...Camejo and Nader.

IF Camejo is so popular and such a labor friend why does he not have the support of LARGE labor unions?

[noiretextatique]

5. my question is this: should disenfranchisement

be more of a concern than participation? camejo is taking advantage of the recall, just like larry flynt and the porno star. you may not care for his tactics, but surely you aren't saying he doesn't have the right to use them...are you?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Plurality is disenfranchisement

[noiretextatique]

12. blame the republicans for that

the folks who initiated and funded the recall effort. and...i won't be voting for camejo or anyone else who doesn't have a chance to win.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Again Repubs funded it and Camejo backed it thereby aiding our mutual

enemy...in my book that is MUTINY.

[noiretextatique]

24. as many have noted here

the greens (at least the CA camejo faction) obviously don't see the CA democratic party as an ally...so there is no mutiny. he ran against davis in the real election.

whether it's right or wrong...here's one green who DOES NOT support this effort, not the republican initiation and funding of it, and not camejo and his supporters backing of it. which, btw, could not have happened had the republicans not iniated and funded the effort to begin with.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. my point exactly though (the Camejo faction)

If the greens are really a party and not spoilers then why is there a Camejo faction a Nader faction etc...Why throw support behind such a poorly organized group when to do so results in UNINTENDED consequences?

[noiretextatique]

26. actually i don't disagree with your assessment

but...i am more concerned, for purposes of this thread, about the heat generated by nader vs. voter disenfranchisement in 2000. i'm not sure the situation here is relevant to that.

in general though, is the size of the candidate field in the democratic primary (and their ideological differences), for example, indicative of factions within the democratic party? why...yes it does.

as i mentioned, i do not support the efforts of camejo...or his supporters.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. As I stated the recent heat comes from the current actions not the past

We judge the Dems and everyone else by their current actions...I don't arbitrarily bash Greens...I think I've made that clear, but I also don't think they deserve any mercy on their current actions. IF they help to turn the state I live in over to a Republican governor considering all the political appointments the governor gets to make on the PUC, the coastal commission, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board and the Industrial Relations Council, they will have made an enemy in me.

[noiretextatique]

31. i know you are consistent, nsma

so, i know you are just as pissed about bustamante and garamendi...among others...factionalizing the ACUTAL democratic vote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Garamendi stepped aside, Bustamante was pressured to run by the

fraidy cats who think that Davis cannot survive. Bustamante has made his position clear that he does NOT support the recall (please keep in mind that I am not a huge Bustamante fan in that he was far too public about the farm labor vote when he could have threatened Davis privately before the electin and accomplished the same result which was Davis signing the bill)

Therefore, my disgust in that is with the chickens in my party who feel we had to hedge our bets thereby leaving California Democrats with so many choices as to cancel their original intention which was a Democratic party state.

[noiretextatique]

36. you are consistent

:hi: i am not a huge bustamante fan either. think davis can pull this out? i'm not so sure...

[dansolo]

42. He also claimed that he wouldn't run if Arianna did.

n/t

[Devlzown]

4. I agree.

I voted for Gore, too, but I can't stand it when some people blame his "defeat" on the Greens. If they want to be angry at someone, be angry with Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush or the Supreme Court or the media. There was plenty of evidence of dirty tricks while the recount was still going on. The British press reported it, the American press sat on it.

[methinks2]

6. Good points

Yes, the voter purges are the real culprits. I recently signed a petition to ban internet type voting, I think that(internet voting) will lead to more problems like lost or miscounted votes. Florida is known for difficulty in voting. Our polls close at 7pm. One fender bender on I-4 on the way home and you miss your chance to vote. We need major reforms, like not towing cars in ethnic neighborhoods when people park to vote. I heard from a reliable source that Lake county lost thousands of votes. And that's just one county. Oh well, the media outlets are republican run locally so you won't hear an outcry from them.

[AP]

7. This is an important point for another reason:

Polling is so accurate that the candidates are able to refine their messages with almost scientific precision in response to polling.

It is so clear to me that Al Gore and Ralph Nader were looking at polling data that showed that Gore was going to win FL and that Nader wasn't going to steal crucial votes. According to Pallast, over 300,000 people who were probably contributing to polling data ultimately didn't have their votes counted.

I'm sure the Democrats factor in denial of voting rights into their formulas for statistical analysis, but they probably had no way of realizing that they're be as much bullshit in Florida as there was.

I think that, if both Gore and Nader knew the REAL numbers you would have seen different behavior from both candidates which would have resulted in a Democratic victory (ie, Nader would have reduced his campaigning in FL and/or Gore would have taken effective, affirmative measures to either coopt or counter the Green vote).

For me, the disenfrenchisement of, mostly, black Democratic votes is the true story of the election, and, although I have mixed feelings about Nader (I totally appreciate his strategy and his role in modern politics, but I often wonder about him understanding how many Americans really experience America), I definitely don't blame him for Bush's ascension to the throne.

[noiretextatique]

14. black, democratic voter disenfranchisement IS the real story

of the 2000 election. i agree with your mixed feelings about nader, btw, and you make an excellent point about both canidates possibly changing strategies...if only they had known about the purge.

[AP]

20. I should add a more positive account of the Green Party

-- I feel that the end of the undemocratic hegemony of the Republican Party in the US will come about by way of a healthy, mutually productive public debate between the Green Party and the Democratic Party which will increasingly push the Republican Party to the margins when Americans begin to realize that their true concerns fall along an axis of debate between the Green Party and the Democratic Party.

I believe that that's a big reason why the media prefers to blame Nader and that anti-Green sentiments are stoked. I think wealthy, powerful people would prefer the debate continues along the axis of Dem vs Republican and that they kill two birds with one stone by undermining Nader and the Greens. I do think there is a slight electoral threat to Dems from Green candidates, but I think it's solved not by shouting down and lying about Greens. I think it's solved by smart strategizing, and by outmanouvering and out-thinking Republicans.

[noiretextatique]

21. i agree

it's the republicans and their enablers, stupid...my humble paraphrase :D

[Robbien]

8. Looks as if they are preparing the public for another purge.

There was an article two days ago

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/6498037.htm

Rolls swollen with voters who haven't cast a ballot

Then another yesterday

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/6511666.htm

Voter rolls concern Dade, Broward

Please tell me that they are not going to try this again. Do they think it wasn't noticed the last time?

[Devlzown]

11. Why shouldn't they try it again?

They totally got away with it last time. Katherine Harris got elected to Congress, for Chrissake! And most of the American public thinks that people in Florida were just too stupid to vote.

[noiretextatique]

13. they noticed they didn't get much heat for it

the civil rights commission hearings, the lawsuit by the naacp and palast's reporting, notwithstanding. of course they will do it again.

[depakid]

29. and the whores won't report it

same as before...

However, on the bright side, Bush has lost much of the military vote, so perhaps the two will cancel each other out.

[noiretextatique]

34. good point, depakote_kid...about the military vote

unless of course the republicans figure that out as well.

[sandnsea]

15. Both are important

But the voter purge gets labeled as Democrats want criminals to vote while trying to void the military vote. Until we get some people who figure out how to talk in single syllables, we'll keep losing the debate anyway. Weren't there alot more actions taken against the Florida voting mess as well? It's hard to remember all the crimes committed since 2000.

As far as the Greens, the fact that they would use this unethical recall to try and take an election that they couldn't possibly win fairly is despicable. They got 5% of the California vote in 2002, Davis got 47%. The people elected a Democrat and if Greens believed in democracy, they'd respect it and reject the recall and support Davis or Bustamante. They've proven themselves to me with their current behavior in California. They're self-serving at the expense of the country and actions, particulary environmental, that once taken can't be fixed.

[noiretextatique]

16. feel the same way about republicans?

that is: using the recall to take an election they couldn't win fairly? notice issa, a republican, bankrolled this effort? would that also qualify as self-serving?

re: the voter scam...

the issue was that some non-felons were snagged, purposely, in the purge. are americans so ignorant (and racist) that this couldn't have been argued successfully as an issue? i certainly hope not...but there is evidence that indicates otherwise.

[sandnsea]

27. uh, yeh, that's the whole point

Republicans bankrolled it meaning it ought to be rejected by anybody who truly cares about democracy.

And anytime I've heard the voter purge brought up I've immediately heard Democrats want criminals to vote right behind it. In a normal world there'd have been a thorough documentary by now, exposing the whole thing. It's not a normal world. 3 word sound bytes rule the day and Republicans have won that arena. Until Democrats learn how to speak in the same unified way, I really think we're sunk.

[noiretextatique]

33. until democrats learn to SPEAK period

the disenfranshisement issue was downplayed...even by democrats. otherwise...i hear you.

[AndyTiedye]

18. We Are, Nonetheless Concerned with the Intent of the Green Party

Nader told us he was just trying to get to 5% for Federal money.
If his actions had been consistant with that, i.e. campaining where he could
get the most voters, which would be mostly in safe Democratic states, I
probably would have voted for him. I had a lot of respect for Nader.

I lost that respect when I saw that his actions did not match his words.
In every small, swing state where Gore was struggling, there was Nader
campaining against him -- often with Republican money! There are not
that many voters in those states, so why was he there? Whe asked, he
just repeated the same baldfaced lies.

You can understand that some of us are a bit concerned when there are signs
that the 2000 election might not be an isolated incident.

Whether the BFEE would have been able to steal the election anyway in 2000 is beside the point.

[noiretextatique]

19. it certainly IS NOT an isolated incident

they are planning the same voter disenfranchisment schemes for 2004 that worked so well in 2000. neither the intent or the strategy of the green party has anything to do with THAT.

[noiretextatique]

22. well...

would love to hear from some others...

[Iverson]

30. response

If the voter purge had not happened, then the US would retain a semblance of a working democracy. It is currently a shell and a sham.

As to your specific queries ...

"... would anyone still be talking about Nader?"
A few, but not nearly as many.

"... why isn't there as much HEAT about disenfrancshisement...?"
It's easier to pick on someone smaller than someone the same size or larger.

"... why did the NAACP have to sue over this issue?"
Nobody else was.

"Shouldn't disenfranchisement ... be of more concern ...?"
If you care about democracy, then yes.

"...why does Nader still trump the republicans ... when it comes to assigning blame for 2000?"
a few reasons:
- The controlling wing of the Democratic Party has more in common with the Republicans than with the Greens and is convinced of the virtues of "bipartisanship."
- Fighting the truly ruthless crowd is hard work, whereas demonizing Greens is easy and fun.
- Confronting the deep offense to the Constitution and to functioning democracy produces a kind of helpless panic that is transferred to an easier target. Thus, otherwise rational people froth at the mouth with orgasmic glee - like dittoheads on an anti-Hillary rant - over Nader getting a pie in the face, whereas they haven't said "boo" about the Supreme Court or Choicepoint or the whole electoral fraud episode beyond throwing up their hands and deciding to work with the criminals.

I hope that helps.

[noiretextatique]

32. LOL...it helps considerably, iverson

thank you for sharing it...most illuminating :D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. But Iverson there is one flaw in your argument even if I like it

The controlling wing of the Democratic Party has more in common with the Republicans than with the Greens and is convinced of the virtues of "bipartisanship."

If we are truly to be a democracy then BIPARTISANSHIP of the two major parties actually DOES represent a majority of the VOTING public which is the point. THe only problem lies in the bipartisanship being purchased by other means from outside those voices.

[Iverson]

38. hmmmm, maybe

There may be many flaws in my argument, but I do not think that your post identifies one because the statements, yours and mine, are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe I haven't fully understood you. Care to retry?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. You argue FOR a semblance of a WORKING democracy

A working democracy would mean that the voters' intentions are recognized in Washington DC. THE VAST majority of voters send Democrats and Republicans to Washington.
The fact that they are in near equal amounts actually CALLS for bipartisanship.
The very SMALL minority of voters (and no I am not using some pithy marginalization as others do) felt otherwise.

I don't SEE BIPARTISANSHIP as an evil when it ACTUALLY exists versus what we currently have which is NOT bipartisanship but capitulation due to repetitive bully tactics.

Therefore the FLAW in you argument was that bipartisanship in a closely divided house and senate is ANTI-DEMOCRACY when in fact the vote itself is MANDATE for bipartisanship.

The fact that so many DON'T VOTE is irrelevent in this argument since if THEY were interested in any semblance of democcracy, they would regardless of reasons not to.(not that you even mentioned this part but I figured it would come as a natural response)

[Iverson]

40. can't agree

However, you have covered yourself by qualifying that the current "bipartisanship" is not true bipartisanship.

The point upon which I can't agree is the claim that voters want bipartisanship. The vote in a closely divided electorate is not a mandate for bipartisanship; it is a demonstration of a divided electorate. It MIGHT mean that the polity wants bipartisanship, but it EQUALLY MIGHT mean that the polity passionately wants their own party's program and not the other.

I am using the term "bipartisanship" in its existing operative sense. It is not my term. The major parties use it. I just happen to think that it stinks. Apparently you do too. This bipartisanship is not anti-democracy by definition, but anti-democracy in context; the will of the voters has been hijacked by a far right cabal. That's the setting.

[Karenina]

41. the will of the voters has been

hijacked by a far right cabal. What Iverson said. Exactly the right word too. *HIJACKED*HIJACKED*HIJACKED*HIJACKED*