Did George Bush steal the 2000 election?

[Terwilliger]

Poll question: Did George Bush steal the 2000 election?

Come on Dems! Whaddya think? You think Bush, through the supreme court, the media, or even Ralph Nader himself, STOLE the 2000 election??

[Terwilliger]

1. I voted NO, because Dems went along with it

OnEdit: because

[pmbryant]

5. By that logic...

If you 'go along' with a mugger who sticks a gun in your face and give him your wallet, then you weren't robbed. I'm glad to see very few others here share that point of view.

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

6. Give me a break!!!!!!!

what is this, the mean streets? For fucks sake. The only thing that kept Democrats from challenging the election was either their lack of courage or complicity.

[pmbryant]

12. 'Lack of courage or complicity'

I think my analogy is a pretty good one.

'The only thing that kept (the mugging victim) from (challenging the mugger) was his lack of courage or complicity.' After all, he could have run away, or fought back physically or with a weapon of his own. If he had done so, there is even a small chance he could have escaped with his life and possibly even his money as well.

Similarly, there is a small chance that our country could have emerged intact if we had moved on to extra-legal challenges to the Supreme Court's decision. But did that small chance merit the risk?

In retrospect, perhaps one could say yes, though it is still not the obvious answer. But at the time, no one knew 9-11 would happen, no one knew Bush would be jailing citizens indefinitely without trial, no one knew Bush would go off a single-handed crusade to occupy much of the Middle East.

As of December 2000, though, the country still had peace and prosperity. Pursuing mass civil disobedience or armed revolt (about the only options that were left) were definitely not preferred options for the vast majority of US citizens.

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

27. No one knew Democrats would just go along with all these horrendous things

you're right

[pmbryant]

32. LOL

You mean "some Democrats". Though in the specific cases I mentioned, I don't think your comment even applies to that many. Saying just "Democrats" wrongfully implies that a significant majority of Dems support jailing citizens indefinitely without trial or single-handed crusades in the Mid-East. I don't think there is even a significant minority that supports these positions.

The more important question is 'Would any of the Democrats running for President pursue these policies themselves?'. The answer, to me, is quite clear. But that is a matter for a different thread, I think, as we've gotten pretty far off the subject of the 2000 election.

Back to the 2000 election: What course of action you would have liked to have seen Democrats in general take after December 12, 2000.

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

44. well, lessee...i was a bad man because I couldn't see the difference

yet, despite my vote and that of other Nader supporters being so important, Democrats, who (supposedly) had a case against the Repukes and had evidence that they stole it and had ways to prove it...did nothing. OH WELL!! I guess you people should shutup about Nader then! UNLESS you want to talk about Democractic complicity in the theft of Election 2000.

Whats not to grasp?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. Funny.

I voted: YES, because Democrats weren't willing to stop it.

Kind of a glass half-full/half-empty argument. I think we're both right.

[pmbryant]

56. 'Complicity'

I don't recall mentioning Nader. Either in this thread or any other thread I've posted recently, perhaps ever.

The Supreme Court handed the Presidency to Bush. Who are "Democrats" going to appeal to after that with this proof? Congress? The GOP controlled it. Perhaps the general public, in the hope of taking over Congress in the next election cycle? Alas, 9-11 ruined any hope of such an electoral strategy, even assuming it would have been a winner.

Also, I'm genuinely curious how the 35-day battle after the election---a fight unprecedented in recent American history---with virtually the entire system controlled by the GOP and Bush's cronies, amounts to doing "nothing".

:shrug:

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

58. you lost the respect of anyone you claim you want votes from

then 9/11, the the Patriot act, then the War resolution

its like there aren't two different parties at all

[pmbryant]

60. OK

I thought we were discussing the 2000 election. :shrug:

I also didn't realize that I had voted for the Patriot Act and the War Resolution. I really should pay more attention to how I vote in the Senate. Or is it the House? ;-)

--Peter

[Terwilliger]

61. but there you go, acting like one thing is disconnected from another

and you know that's not true

OK...what should the Democrats have done? Something more than they did.

[Mairead]

69. I think you're suffering from false consciousness here

Similarly, there is a small chance that our country could have emerged intact if we had moved on to extra-legal challenges to the Supreme Court's decision. But did that small chance merit the risk?

What makes you believe we 'emerged intact' from the coup?

What does 'emerged intact' mean to you? That we retain the form of unity and democracy even though we were stripped of the substance? Because that's what happened, isn't it? We were stripped of the substance of democracy. Our votes were nullified. Democracy was gutted.

In a way, we had a very, very short civil war. And we surrendered. I don't see how we can be said to be 'intact' after that. Could you clarify?

[pmbryant]

72. I never said that

Re-read the last part of my post for the clarification:

In retrospect, perhaps one could say yes, though it is still not the obvious answer. But at the time, no one knew 9-11 would happen, no one knew Bush would be jailing citizens indefinitely without trial, no one knew Bush would go off a single-handed crusade to occupy much of the Middle East.

As of December 2000, though, the country still had peace and prosperity. Pursuing mass civil disobedience or armed revolt (about the only options that were left) were definitely not preferred options for the vast majority of US citizens.

EDIT: Changed subject line slightly

[Mairead]

74. um, that doesn't seem to clarify very much

We know that nobody stood up against the coup (except for the Black Caucus, all honor to them!), but 'intact' doesn't seem to be a good description of a country in which half the people are alienated from the political process and the other half are deeply factionalised with even nominal allies cursing one another. I can think of many words I'd choose before I'd choose 'intact'.

[pmbryant]

76. Once again

I never said that.

:eyes:

--Peter

[JVS]

11. I disagree

I voted for option 5. Even if Democrats comply with the theft, it has still been stolen from the people.

[Oracle]

49. THIS ABSOLUTELY SAYS IT ALL---TURN IT UP LOUD!

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

[JVS]

78. Yeah. It is a travesty

Those bloviating windbags on TV were always talking about how great the USA is because this happened without tanks on the street or that kind of stuff. In reality it just shows how anemic our government has been in defence of democracy.

[robbedvoter]

14. Ha!ha! Then we didn't attack Iraq either - cuz they didn't stop us!

And scratch rape from the criminal code too. You funny!

[Terwilliger]

17. The difference is STILL that Democrats could have done something

they chose to do nothing

[robbedvoter]

52. Something to cancel the coup? We may debate strategies

(but I am tired to to so). The election was stolen from us, the voters - and whatever your beef with the dems that doesn't alter that fact.

[Terwilliger]

67. stolen becuse nobody was willing to stop it

man, can you not hear yourself?

"Well, see, we believe in this shit, but we wont do anything about it. See, we have to appeal to independents and swing voters, who dont respect us because we dont stand by our beliefs."

[Skittles]

38. F***ING RIDICULOUS

IT WAS F***ING STOLEN AND NO AMOUNT OF SPINELESS DEMS MAKES THAT LESS OF A *FACT*.

[Terwilliger]

45. Just makes them cowards

giving true meaning to the term "yellow" dog

[Skittles]

77. I'LL CONCEDE THEY WERE COWARDS

(excepting the Black Caucus) - but g.d., don't EVEN insinuate that damn election was not STOLEN.

[Terwilliger]

79. just trying to find out how everyone thinks about it

it seems to be a VERY popular notion here at DU...better than92%, and that doesn't count the folks that have me on ignore (you KNOW they're pro-"Bush stole it")

[4_Legs_Good]

2. I think that the SCotUS gave it to him

more than he acutally stole it.

He *bought* the Republican nomination, and tied in the election. Well, maybe he didn't tie. His Harris pre-emptive strikes actually did a lot to get Florida within striking distance, then the SCotUS delivered Air Force-1 to him.

That said, I sure do wish Al Gore had been able to win his home state.

david

Kucinich 2004

Arianna YES
Recall No

[Terwilliger]

4. interesting take

:hi:

[nannygoat]

7. I hear what you're saying but there was vote fraud in TN, too

Vote Fraud in Tennessee: Worse than Florida?
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10589

[Terwilliger]

8. Wow, more corruption at the polls

how much election reform have we had since then??

Oh yeah! I believe Bev Harris is out there doing most of the struggle.

[4_Legs_Good]

9. Remember when Cheney said that election reform as a non-issue

and Americans didn't care about it? Or was that Campaign finance reform? I don't remember, but I know there's nothing I enjoy more than being told by Cheney what I care about. I don't know what I'd do without him.

david

[CBHagman]

3. And he had accomplices,

To be brief, DeLay's thugs, who disrupted the vote count (And there are pictures, which I hope will eventually lead to lawsuits against those infernally evil people); Katherine Harris, who HEADED BUSH'S CAMPAIGN IN FLORIDA, certified the vote; his crappy brother Jeb, who acquitted himself poorly; and members of the Supreme Court (You all know who you are).

[oasis]

10. I'm checking in with yes. Those who vote "NO fair and square" please

check in for a chat.

[TheYellowDog]

13. Nader stole it,

and in essence, let Bush steal it. Greens/Socialist/Communists like Terwilliger will never admit it, but it's true. The Greens are not our friends, they have screwed over many poor and minority children to make a stupid political point.

[Terwilliger]

15. the stupid point that Democrats aren't actually liberals?

they're more like yella-dawgs! ;eyes:

[TheYellowDog]

22. No,

I think you mean that Democrats aren't Communists like yourself. And you're right.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheYellowDog]

23. I see through you, Terwilliger.

All you basically do is hijack other threads and start ranting about how the Democrats running aren't left enough. Hell, even Kucinich isn't left enough for you. What does that say about your political ideology?

[Terwilliger]

26. hijack other threads?

hmmm

What does what say about my political idology? That I'd prefer to stand by what I think rather than compromise with right-wingers all day?

No thanks.

[Sideways]

33. Oh So You Are A Seeing Eye Dog Too?

Maybe your DOGma is just a tad bit too DOGmatic YD.

[Forkboy]

53. "I see through you"

Geez...you're sounding like a comic book.

[Terwilliger]

57. no no no...I'm transparent man!

See right through me at a single bound!

[NewJerseyDem]

24. Greens serve a purpose

Basically you are suggesting that we should just have two political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. The Green Party serves the purpose of creating a pull to the left that helps resist the republicans' pull to the right. Conservative third parties do the same as do moderate and special interest third parties and it is an important part of our electoral system. Without third parties the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't be as responsive to the people's wishes.

[w4rma]

29. The left would better be served by the Greens if the Greens

would reorganize as a Democratic lobbying group under the Democratic big tent.

[NewJerseyDem]

34. How would that help?

There are plenty of liberal lobbyists already. There is already the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO and others that lobby for ideas that are largely backed by the Green party.

I just think that we should not accept that only 2 political parties matter and that they can do whatever they want. If you disagree with both political parties than you're screwed right now. Some people are culturally conservative and otherwise liberal. Even though they may prefer the democrats they may not like either candidates very much. It is completely reasonable for them to vote for a third candidate. People shouldn't be forced into choosing between two parties.

[library_max]

64. That would only work

if the Democratic Party was the ruling party and so a pull to the left by the Greens counterbalanced a pull to the right by the Republicans. But the Democratic Party isn't the ruling party. The Republicans already control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the judiciary. The Democratic Party doesn't need a pull to the left, it needs a pull to the center.

I know, this doesn't make me happy either, but it's true nonetheless. We are going to keep losing elections if the left can never be left enough to suit the left. And the Green Party, in proportion to whatever successes it achieves, simply institutionalizes that effect by institutionalizing the splitting of the progressive vote.

But the thing is, Greens like Terwilliger don't want to win elections. They want to be right. It doesn't bother them to be right and pure while the country goes to hell under another four years of Bush. Compare four years of Bush to eight years of Clinton and any reasonable progressive will see the point in voting Democrat. But because Clinton and Democrats like him aren't/weren't perfect progressives, the unreasonables turn up their noses. It's a classic recipe for failure, in both the short and long run.

[NewJerseyDem]

16. No, not enough evidence

I haven't really seen enough evidence to convince me that anyone really stole the election. If Nader didn't run Gore would probably be president right now, but I don't think that Nader ran for any other reason than that he felt the democrats weren't liberal enough. I know my opinion is far from popular here. But, I haven't really seen enough evidence to suggest that anything illegal happened. I also haven't seen much evidence to suggest that Gore would have won in Florida if the recount was allowed to go forth.

[Terwilliger]

19. really?

you didn't read the NORC report? that concluded that Gore would have won in all these different scenarios?

[NewJerseyDem]

21. NORC?

I've never heard of that. What is it?

[Terwilliger]

25. National Opinion Research Center

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results/

they conducted a true recount of the Florida ballots under state Sunshine laws. They found that, given the same initial conditions, Gore would have won a recount in most cases.

OnEdit: adding http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/

[bitchkitty]

73. "Gore would have won a recount in most cases"

That is correct, and I seem to recall, that's not counting the ballots that were never located, I forget how many but they numbered in the thousands.

[Isome]

31. "I haven't really seen enough evidence ..."

Of course he stole it, but Democrats didn't fight back (that was my vote)!!

Geeze Louise NewJersey, where the heck have you been hiding all this time?!

Didn't you read any of the newspaper accounts of the recount; despite the headlines, the actual articles all said that Gore had more votes under a number of different recount scenarios?!

There is also the small matter of the illegally disenfranchised voters in Florida, Tennessee and a number of other states. You didn't read about Jeb's administration being sued for prohibiting legal voters from voting? You didn't see any impropriety in Kathrine Harris allowing Republican operatives to work in her office during the post-election recount, which was supposed to ensure the recount was legal and impartial?

I can't imagine you didn't read any of these articles (much of the information in them was gleaned from Greg Palast's unrivaled investigations).

• DU Thread
• Greg Palast
  
• Salon Article
  
• Alternet
  
• CPA reprint

[NewJerseyDem]

37. So what if they sued

Anybody can sue anybody. It doesn't mean much.

I'm just not convinced by "more votes under a number of different recount scenarios." Who knows what the actual scenario was? I honestly don't know who won Florida. But, there is very little evidence that Bush illegally, intentionally stole the election. I don't like to read what someone like Greg Palast writes because from the beginning he set out to find that Bush stole the election. Just like conservatives would go out to start research to find that Bush really won the election. I only trust people who decided to do research because they didn't know the answer not to confirm their answer.

[VermontDem2004]

39. You should read Palast's book

he provides the evidence for you, you can see it for yourself. He also talks about the innaccurate voter purging machine, Palast provided a picture of list and once guy was purged from the voting rolls because of a crime he committed in 2013!!! There is tons of evidence, you just don't want to see it. My point is whether you trust him or not, the evidence is there, he documents everything in that book.

[Isome]

65. How do you KNOW what Greg set out to do?

He wrote about the voter roll purge prior to the election. That doesn't render the information he discovered after the election null & void! Greg's investigations have never been biased; he's been highly-critical of Democrats & Republicans alike (Gore & Clinton included).

Anyone can sue anyone and it doesn't mean anything? It doesn't mean anything when the COURTS tell a sitting governor that his policies are ILLEGAL and he must cease & desist? That doesn't raise any warning flags with you?

Your reasoning is bizarre!

It's unfortunate, but you epitomize the complacent and intellectually lethargic contingency within our ranks that rolled over and played dead while the neo-cons STOLE the election.

[Cocoa]

18. he stole it fair and square

:-)

[LynneSin]

20. Bush didn't steal the election

Geez, he can't even remember his own name if someone didn't write it down for him each day.

BFEE my friends, BFEE

[hippiegranny]

28. that is what i was thinking too

george the moron single handedly stealing the election? please! he'd get caught shoplifting a pack of gum, he's so stupid!

[Enraged American]

35. What;'s BFEE?

The GOP as a whole stole it with the help of Nader who worked as the GOP's agent.

[myomy]

36. Bush Family Evil Empire

Which is the one I voted for because * isnÕt smart enough to do it himself.

[0rganism]

40. It's like holding Ronald the Clown responsible for McDonald's food

Ostensibly, there's no way in hell the guy in the clown suit has anything directly to do with the mechanics of purchasing, shipping, preparing, or retailing the "burgers" to customers.

On the other hand, like the McDonald's clown, GWB is the BFEE advertising frontman. I, for one, have a visceral reaction whenever his smirking clown ass appears on my TV. Sure, the clown isn't calling the shots, but he's complicit as all get out, selling a shoddy unhealthy product, and he's incredibly annoying. He's the media image of a dangerous megalith, and represents that which has done immeasurable harm.

[ElementaryPenguin]

41. Of course the Chimpy stole it (with BFEE help), T - is this a trick questi

eom

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

47. no trick, ep

I just wanted to get a sense of how people here felt about it

[Terwilliger]

68. 9 votes for Fair and Square?

GOT to be Freepers (I hope)

OnEdit: I suppose there could be a few people who have to acknowledge that the thing is legitimate

[Starpass]

43. No, HE JUST BORROWED IT AND HE HAS TO GIVE IT BACK

Come swearin' in time in '05!!!!!!!!!!

[Nederland]

46. Yet another poll...

...demonstrating how far out of step with America DU is.

Which is fine, so long as people here realize it.

[Terwilliger]

48. That's right! DU is OUT OF STEP!

So I don't want to hear any bullshit about Bush being re-electewd being a bad thing.

[Nederland]

55. Funny

I don't recall saying that...

[VermontDem2004]

51. It is time to get "America"

in step and help them find out the truth! :-)

[MisterP]

59. And thank goodness it is on these issues!

Or would you prefer 22% or so of DUers to believe WMDs were already used on U.S. troops by Iraq?

[indigo32]

70. Nederland

are you saying the voter registration purges didn't occur?
I think you're way wrong on that.

[Nederland]

75. No

I just like it when we conduct a poll here at DU that demonstrates indisputably that the members of DU hold opinions that are vastly different from the rest of the country. Its important to point instances like this out, because it tells us just how much work we have to do. If we are going to have a chance in the upcoming election, we need to be honest about where we stand. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that just because thousands of people here believe that GWB is an idiot/theif/murderer whatever, that the rest of the country shares that opinion.

I worry that DU has become, as another poster put it, "a giant pacifier". If we all come here and take comfort in being surrounded by like minded individuals, but do not interact with the rest of society, we merely make ourselves out of touch--and out of touch parties do not win elections.

[Andy_Stephenson]

50. He won fair and square....

5 to 4

[AntiCoup2K4]

62. Do we have 8 Freepers lurking here?

Or is there a blindness epidemic infiltrating DU?

[gully]

63. How bout YES, but Nader helped?

didn't see that option ;)

[Terwilliger]

66. YES, but?

"YES, and" maybe...but you can just click the YES, Nader stole it option...it's a catch-all

[Oracle]

71. It was all done with mirrors!

And it was Clinton's fault!

[Terwilliger]

80. well, its safe to say that DU is of a like mind...92% say YES

:think: