How could Gore or Kerry ever win again after giving up their presidencies?

[omega minimo]

How will they address the perception problem?
Those who believe they did win their elections will see their capitulations as weakness (Gore as Senate President overseeing the electoral vote and Kerry on election night).

Those who believe they might have won will see their capitulations as weakness.

Whatever the logisitical aspects of their options at the time, how would they overcome the perception that they gave up and gave us an illegitimate administration (twice)?

:shrug:

[bahrbearian]

1. Gore Yes... Kerry NO

[susanna]

54. My thoughts, too...

Gore's concession came after a long, hard fight with everything stacked against him. He had some guts, IMHO. I can respect what he tried to do.

As for Kerry, he rolled within hours with nary a question about voting irregularities, so I don't think there is even a comparison. I would happily vote for Gore again. Kerry? I MIGHT hold my nose and vote for him, but he would be my last choice to run again.

on edit: punctuation is useful.

[wakeme2008]

2. IMHO I would vote for Gore in a hearbeat but not Kerry

Gore did put a fight, Kerry folded like a Skull and Bonesman SHOULD

[emulatorloo]

8. huh huh huh . . . . he said BONER

[Goldeneye]

19. Didn't Gore tell other Senators

not to challenge the results? I like Gore, but your stance seems sort of short-sighted. Florida fraud was way more proveable than Ohio's was. We still can't prove Ohio was stolen.

[journalist3072]

38. But here is what we can prove with Ohio...

Intentional or not, we can prove that there was voter suppression in Ohio. There was a Washington Post article that talked about the Ohio vote.

And featured in the article was an African-American woman who lived in a predominantly African-American neighborhood in Ohio. She waited 4 hours to vote because they did not place enough voting machines in the precints.

She endured, and waited the 4 hours, and had to even stand in the rain some. She said as she waited, she watched other people come in, see how extraordinarly long the lines were, and leave in digust.

After she finished, she went to visit her mother, who lives in a predominantly White, Republican neighborhood. She asked her mother how long it took her, and she said 15 minutes, because they had more than enough machines.

[karynnj]

47. The problem is that although it is provable

that it was harder to vote in Democratic strongholds - which is very wrong- due to a new type of impersonal voter supression (insufficient number of machines) which likely caused some people who came out to vote to abandon their right to vote because they could not wait hours in the rain.

Unfortunately, there is no way to reclaim votes not cast. Also, there were bipartisan committees in each county who received the report listing the number of machines - It sounds like Blackwell et al set this up, sent out a routine report that didn't raise red flags with local Denocratic election officals. Now, the Republicans say everyone knew and agreed with the plan. The League of Woman's voters suit addresses this and correctly aims to prevent this in the world.

For Kerry, this is an impossible situation - reasonable, but not provable estimates of the % of votes lost due to this type of suppression likely lead to the conclusion that in a fair world he would be President. Tough when he sees every day what Bush does and knows what he would have done.

What could Kerry have done? Even if an Ohio Republican court would have ruled that these problems made the true winner unknowable, what would the remedy be? The constitution gives the power of picking the method for choosing the electors to the state legislatures - in Fl if the winner was in dispute, there were arguments that the legislature itself could directly pick the electors - There was absolutely no provision in any state to have a second election. I really don't see how Kerry could get these electors from a Republican dominated legislature.

I see both Kerry and the US as victims in 2004. Kerry was prepared for recounts and fought many Republican attempts to hamper registration and voting, but I don't think anyone mentioned not providing a reasonable number of voting machines before it happened. The problem is that the Republicans were willing to cheat in a way that would be apparrent, if there was no way to call then on it.

[journalist3072]

53. But I think what is important to remember...

Is that voter supression is illegal, thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which celebrates its 40th anniversary today).

During the Jim Crow days, African-American voters were suppressed by poll taxes and literacy tests. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which reinforced the 14th and 15th amendments) made that illegal.

But today, we are seeing new types of voter suppression, such as the ones I mentioned. And there is more. There have been reports that polling places are being moved without notification to the voters. People have a right to know when their polling place is moved.

Also, Republican operatives last year sent out flyers saying that if you couldn't vote on Tuesday, it would be ok to vote on Wednesday. And they sent out fliers to predominantly African-American neighborhoods saying that if you owe child support, or have unpaid parking tickets, you would be arrested if you tried to go vote.

So we are seeing a new type of voter suppression today, and it is illegal.

And it also adds a sense of urgency to making sure that those portions of the Voting Rights Act, that come up for renewal in 2007, are indeed renewed.

[omega minimo]

56. So. First free, fair, legal, verifiable elections-- then candidates

Who is strong on this in the Democratic Party leadership at any level?

Who is responsible for making it happen (and why weren't the problems addressed b/w 2000 and 2004?)

What potential Dem presidential candidate is talking/acting about this issue?

Who is safeguarding the Voting Rights Act?

Does the Congressional Black Caucus have to do EVERYTHING to represent We the People and preserve the democratic process?

Randi Rhodes said Friday that she asked a female member (Maxine Waters?) of the Cong. Black Caucus WHY they were so strong and determined regarding the DSM and other issues. The response was,

"Because we understand injustice and know how to work to (combat/correct?) it."

UNTIL WE KNOW OUR VOTES COUNT, ALL THE PASSION ABOUT CANDIDATES IS MISPLACED.

THE HEARTBREAK AND CRIMINALITY OF THE 2000 AND 2004 ELECTIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED.

The questions I asked about the candidate/winners of those presidential elections are relevant to Where Do We Go From Here.

Acting like it's business/politics-as-usual and all we need is the right candidate is wishful thinking.

on edit: VERIFY

[karynnj]

59. I agree that it is illegal

the problem is that the people involved can go to jail if it is proven in court. It does NOT overturn the election, unfortunately. I think given the time frames, what was known and the fact that the Ohio courts and legislature are Republican, there was nothing Kerry could do.

One promising thing is that the League of Women Voter's is suing on most of these issues (plus lack of experience and knowlege on the the part of election workers). Their goal is to get this fixed going forward. I would love a reality that would have the courts in this country find that their was rampant cheating by the Republicans, indicting those involved and then have the white house staff sound a fire drill alarm - not let any Republicans back in - and have Kerry brought to the White House to immediately take office. This is not remotely possible and the next best thing is to fix the problem and if possible charge those involved in these actions.

[susanna]

55. You know something,

This intrigues me:

Democratic precincts have very few machines, lines are long and slow. Republican precincts have more than enough machines, folks are in and out.

Isn't this sort of thing an equal protection lawsuit on its face? I mean far more compelling than Bush v. Gore, IMHO. I am obviously not a lawyer, I would appreciate someone who is explaining this to me.

[journalist3072]

60. In Ohio...

The state of Ohio (Ken Blackwell and his criminal crew) basically tried to defend the lack of enough voting machines in African-American neighborhoods, by saying they were going by past voting trends. It was based on the number of people who had been voting in the most recent elections.

That's a bullshit excuse because they had an increase in the number of newly registere voters. The increase in registered voters should have given them a clue that they needed more machines.

You raise an interesting point about the equal protection clause, and whether it plays a factor here. Needs to be looked into.

[AtomicKitten]

20. I too would vote for Gore.

I can't help feeling that it is his karmic destiny to run again. He was flat-out robbed, and that had to just gut him. Hell, it gutted me! I think if he ran again, it would provide a reckoning, like setting the world back on its axis, sort of "fixing" what went so terribly wrong in Florida in 2000. That moment in history was the demise of our democracy. I think a Gore run and win would go a long way toward setting things right.

[omega minimo]

37. Don't axis no questions, we won't tell you no phony vote tallies

WOW AK! Karma! :rofl:

You got That VisionThing.

Yeah, there is still light at the end of the Halliburton tunnel straight to Hell.

It would help if this were common knowledge:
"That moment in history was the demise of our democracy."

:toast:

[Kitsune]

3. I certainly wouldn't vote for Kerry again.

I could barely stomach voting for him in the first place, but quitting without any fight at all.... You'll fight for me? Riiiiight.

If Gore got the nomination, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. At least he put up a fight before Supreme Court cast their ballots.

[Bucky]

61. I won't vote for Kerry in the primaries. But yes I'll vote Democrat in NOV

Always have, always will.

[jobycom]

4. The opinion that they gave up their presidencies is a very small

minority opinion. It seems bigger here because so many people shout about it, but even here, I'll bet it's a minority. People who disagree are just tired of wasting their breath arguing about it.

Gore won the election, but short of calling for civil war had no recourses left. Kerry lost, and no amount of whining was going to give him enough votes to win. That's how MOST people see it, even if those who shout loudest disagree, and even if it's wrong. Perception is everything. Most people perceive that Kerry lost.

So neither would have a problem running again. They might lose a few thousand votes over the issue. Not enough to hurt them.

Just MHO.

[Moochy]

5. You're making a prediction with this statement:

Those who believe they might have won will see their capitulations as weakness.

I'm not so sure about that, at first that was the emotional response I had. After a bit of analysis it did seem that in 2004, there was a sufficient margin of votes for Bush nationally that Kerry's decision as a sitting senator made sense tactically. I'm not saying I liked his decision, but he was of the mind that the national margin was sufficient to make the contesting of the Ohio results not something he was prepared to fight for. He feared the backlash and wanted a legitimate victory free from taint, ie. won in the courts or on a recount.

So as such, my own reaction shifted from blaming Kerry to blaming the system for inevitably choosing someone so establishment, and with a vested interest in not "throwing the country into an election crisis"
I think an electoral crisis is just what we needed. I beleive Edwards would have fought for the recount in Ohio, but that may just be wishful thinking.

So I dont fully disagree but I dont think it's an accurate prediction of how everyone will react to Gore or Kerry in 2008.

[brainshrub]

6. To Gore's credit, he did fight back.

While Gore should have insisted on a full-state recount from the start, Florida law said that he could only recount on the district level.

Gore had crappy DLC advisors and did not have precedent as a guide; he fought and lost. There is no shame in losing a fight in the political arena.

If Gore chooses to run again in 2008, I'd take him seriously.

ON EDIT: It's understandable why Gore didn't fight harder in the Senate. He didn't want to use his position to damage the office of the presidency, nor did he want to cast the deciding vote to get himself elected.

Gore showed himself to be a man of honor and grace.

[omega minimo]

14. I agree

with this :

"Gore showed himself to be a man of honor and grace."

However, given the (illegal) circumstances and what was at stake (the predictable demise of the nation and the planet under a Bushco. hijacked administration) would it not have been an honorable sacrifice of Senator Gore to "cast the deciding vote to get himself elected"? Anyone with foresight could predict that we would end up on the precipice of destruction with Bushco. I think Gore DOES have that kind of integrity.

"It's understandable why Gore didn't fight harder in the Senate. He didn't want to use his position to damage the office of the presidency, nor did he want to cast the deciding vote to get himself elected."

[brainshrub]

26. Hindsight is 20/20.

...given the (illegal) circumstances and what was at stake. Would it not have been an honorable sacrifice of Senator Gore to "cast the deciding vote to get himself elected"?

At the time there was no hard evidence of election fraud. We know today, thanks to the hard work of people like Andy Stephenson (RIP), that Kathleen Harris illegally purged thousands of voters from the roles. But at the time, any action on the part of Gore to stage a counter-coup would have set a dangerous precedent.

Hindsight is 20/20. When Bush won I knew his presidency would be a failure, but not in my wildest nightmares did I think it would be this bad. However, if Gore had not as acted with as much restraint as he had, the ensuring fight would have entrenched the BFEE even deeper into the heart of the Republic.

[omega minimo]

32. Too bad foresight is so unfashionable

Maybe we're on different sides of the Looking Glass.

"At the time there was no hard evidence of election fraud."

There was enough reality in the air at the time to know that we needed Gore to cast that vote. Have that vision and courage. And take that chance. And the truth will out.

And NOW you say "hindsight is 20/20." Yet these presumptions aren't proven:

"But at the time, any action on the part of Gore to stage a counter-coup would have set a dangerous precedent."

"However, if Gore had not as acted with as much restraint as he had, the ensuring fight would have entrenched the BFEE even deeper into the heart of the Republic."

You're retro-casting predictions that never happened and viewing them with 20/20 hindsight. :shrug:

"When Bush won I know his presidency would be a disaster, but not in my wildest nightmares did I think it would be this bad."

It was foreseeable.

[karynnj]

50. Actually there was way more evidence available in 2000

Even before the election, one of the counties had an employee find her (non-felon)husband's name on the list - they then examined the list found many other errors and refused to use it and alerted Harriss and others to the problem.

Once the SC got involved, there was little to do - especially as even if FL was called too close to call, the constiution doesn't call for splitting the electors or a new election.

Kerry's case was far weaker - in fact it is very likely not provable in a court of law. Additionally, Gore had a Democratic President and Senate. Gore, a decent, honest, law abiding person, probably never thought an American election could be stolen as blatantly as it was.

[Imagevision]

7. With receipt-less voting machines How will Dems ever win??

are you kidding.

[emulatorloo]

9. PAOJKAGDNIM

Petty Attacks On John Kerry And Al Gore Do Not Impress Me

[politicasista]

11. Good one emulatorloo!

:hi:

[Zhade]

31. The OP is a "petty attack"?

I think the OP has a very good point - neither of these men did all they could when their victory was wrested from them. Nor has the Democratic party done much to address the issues of illegally purged voters and unaccountable proprietary-coded voting machines.

[emulatorloo]

36. Yes it is petty to paint Kerry and Gore as "WEAK" because they conceded

Conceding is what you do in elections if there aren't any realistic options.

Gore fought in the courts and got stomped on by the Supremes, then he disappeared from sight. They painted him as Sore Loserman. And then he came back strong as a wonderful voice for us. He has my respect and the respect of many dems.

Unlike Gore, it did not appear that Kerry won the popular vote. Margins as reported in Ohio were too wide to contest. However he did do some investigating, and did lend his support to recount efforts, They didn't prove fraud. and then he went right back to fighting Bush in the senate. He has my respect and the respect of many dems.

There were questions about Kennedy v Nixon, and I seriously doubt repugs were out there pushing that Nixon was weak. . .

And Nixon won when he ran again.

[omega minimo]

42. Petty is as petty does

Rather than share your ideas, you chose to make a PETTY attack.

If you read the OP carefully, it asks about public PERCEPTIONS relevant to campaigning; it DOES NOT "paint Kerry and Gore as "WEAK" because they conceded."

:smoke:

:kick:

Thanks to everyone here for the great insights and opinions. It is important to consider these things openly. The campaign strategists will be.

No insult was intended toward Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore.

[emulatorloo]

52. Well, my "perception' is that you are creating problems for Dems where

none exist. . .

If Nixon can come back after being narrowly defeated by Kennedy (who some say "stole the election), so could Al Gore. Unless Democrats sit around endlessly hand-wringing and self-flagellating about it, which we are so good at.

[Zhade]

43. I guess I just don't see it as petty.

I don't agree that Gore is weak, and I don't agree that Kerry lost, either.

I saw those exit polls. I've read about the statistical impossibilities. I don't see the second term as any more legitimate than the first.

Obviously, YMMV.

[politicasista]

10. Gore and Kerry are cool with me

I don't care what anyone says about who fought, caved, who's wrong or right. Let's just focus on 2006. Get behind good dems like Gore and Kerry who are staying visible. Stop eating your own and put the blame and anger where it should be.

[emulatorloo]

12. How Will The New England Patriots Ever Win After Giving Up the Super Bowl?

How will they address the perception problem after their loss to the Green Bay Packers in 1997?

[Hidden Stillness]

13. To "Capitulate" is Weakness; To Be Robbed, an Outrage

Gore has the stronger case, as many have mentioned, and a campaign could even be based on the shocking criminality of the capitalist/Republican theft of the Presidency. Refer to history and how no such thing had ever happened here, even during the Civil War they had legitimate elections, etc. Gore could talk about "what might have been," with a Gore Presidency as elected, how the world might have united after Sept. 11th, as it was for a while before Bush and Republicans killed it. It could actually end up being a strength for Gore--just going over the details of how they fought and were sabotaged by a Republican-packed Supreme Court alone, is a chilling lesson told correctly.

Apart from that, I would support either one of them in a heartbeat; I like them both. This situation of having been robbed could even be a rallying cry rather than a "problem" to have to hide, if told correctly, as a threat.

[omega minimo]

16. Good point-- yet didn't the outrage demand expression at the time?

Americans follow their leaders. Leaders capitulated. Americans capitulated. To the extent that Americans are also responsible for what has happened to our nation and planet. To the extent that some repliers here think the perception issue only affects an irrelevant "minority." It's bigger than that and if Dems aren't willing to discuss it, the Far Reich will continue to rule.

"Gore has the stronger case, as many have mentioned, and a campaign could even be based on the shocking criminality of the capitalist/Republican theft of the Presidency...Gore could talk about "what might have been," with a Gore Presidency as elected, how the world might have united after Sept. 11th, as it was for a while before Bush and Republicans killed it...It could actually end up being a strength for Gore--just going over the details of how they fought and were sabotaged by a Republican-packed Supreme Court alone, is a chilling lesson told correctly."

Your idea could work. It would have to be done from the heart. If the handlers get a hold of Gore trying that, it will be turned into a sappy performance art piece and he will be SHREDDED by the RW.

[Hidden Stillness]

21. It Doesn't Need to be "Spun," Only Told, Now That People Know It

Exactly, and this is why I hate "framing" and other academic exercises--they are very crude advertising pretending to be psychology, and they ignore the fact that real people have real concerns and needs. This is politics, not a TV pseudo-"reality" game show. This should be told with eloquence, not "hooks."

Especially now that Republicans have very publicly stolen or manipulated many things since then--from Gannon to Iraq and "WMDs," from trying to kill the very popular Social Security to manipulating votes in Congress and recess appointments, Bolton, etc.--it has reached a stage now where things are building up, it is no longer a "shock" to accuse Republicans of destroying our Constitution, and people are getting more and more fearful at the changes in our country and our world. It is getting to be the time to say it, an idea whose time has come. A campaign based on opposing Republican corruption can be understood, now, as exactly what we need.

[omega minimo]

28. If only strategists have enough vision to "tell" not "spin"

The "hook" mentality and tactics works for the Reich Wing to metronome the lockstep. It is the deathknell for Dems who need to win "hearts and minds," not Dittoheads. Eloquence indeed, which both these candidates are capable of. The discomfort they both exhibit on TeeVee when it really counts could be the feeling of the handlers jerking their strings, when they both have the brains and charisma to step out as real human beings. They are too smart to be manipulated by political marketing clones and not look pained.

"Especially now that Republicans have very publicly stolen or manipulated many things since then--from Gannon to Iraq and "WMDs," from trying to kill the very popular Social Security to manipulating votes in Congress and recess appointments, Bolton, etc.--it has reached a stage now where things are building up, it is no longer a "shock" to accuse Republicans of destroying our Constitution, and people are getting more and more fearful at the changes in our country and our world."

Damn, HS, this "very publicly stolen or manipulated" stuff is the Grand Old Party's grand old tradition since Reagan and the denial of the Merican people is at about the (toxic) Teflon level now. DOES ANYTHING GET THROUGH?

I'm willing to suspend my sense of disbelief for "It is getting to be the time to say it, an idea whose time has come" (even tho it's been that time for 25 years) and "A campaign based on opposing Republican corruption can be understood, now, as exactly what we need."

Oh yeah and what about those voting machines? What if EVERYBODY votes absentee?

[Hidden Stillness]

41. It Takes So Long Because We Don't Have a Public Forum Anymore (Media)

Yes, I think absentee ballots--monitored--could be a short-term solution, except of course where they don't send them out, like Florida. I've been thinking of that one as a possible way around Republican machines, too. There have to be lawsuits about this, to get rid of these connections (that will somehow bypass the Supreme Court, since it is obviously an active and biased party here, what with Scalia and "Fuck Yourself" going on a hunting trip--supposed to be illegal). The Kerry campaign had a lawsuit, and may or may not have finally impounded voting machines for inspection--they were still blocked the last I heard--but I am still shocked to think that there were no laws safely on the books already that would have precluded this whole scam from happening. Of course, no matter what the system, everything magically turned out okay, where there were Democrats in charge--all counts, no matter how they went, were accurate.

The idea that this is something whose time has come is just a feeling I have about listening to people attack and complain about the corporate media, how corporations will stab us in the back every time--killing overtime pay, busting unions, outsourcing, buying the whole political system for their good, not ours, etc.--and hearing this, very clearly expressed, on a level I have never heard before. Almost like you don't have to explain every last thing to them anymore. They don't relate to the media the same anymore, but actually seem to think of it one step removed now. It is not Mary Tyler Moore and Walter Cronkite, "Rocky and Bullwinkle" and Lucy and Ricky anymore. Now they know it is a corporation, coldly, facing them and delivering propaganda, and don't just believe it anymore. They don't identify with it anymore. You hear that said nowadays, real sweeping criticism, where you didn't before; it would've been "extreme"--not anymore. I like it.

[omega minimo]

45. Yet they feel powerless and disconnected before it

That is the perception that has to change.

:hi:

[Zhade]

33. It actually HAD happened once before, back in the 1800s.

Ironically enough, also involving Florida!

[norml]

15. That's harsh.

They could've tried more.

They could've tried less.

Either way, I predict flames.

[omega minimo]

24. That's reality. You can bet their strategists and handlers talk about it

It's healthy for DU to allow discussion and valid questions without defensiveness.

:hide:

[Uncle Joe]

17. Al Gore

has been always been a fighter for the American People. The Republican controlled Florida Legislature with their dual set of electors, the Republican controlled Congress that would not have recognized Al's electors had the Republican controlled U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor and allowed the ballots to be counted, short of an armed rebellion what would you have the man do? Al Gore was fighting for us when he held the hearings on toxic waste in Tennessee which also included Love Canal. He was fighting for us when as a Senator he authored his visionary best seller "Earth In The Balance", (a wake up call regarding the threat of global warning). He was fighting for us when he became the primary champion of the internet only to be trashed and slandered by the corpwhorate media who want to retain their monopoly on information. This is the same media of course that enabled the corrupt incompetent one to power, and cheered him on as he "fixed the intelligence around the policy" in the runup to the war in Iraq. Al was fighting for us when he called Bush a "moral coward" who could not say no to the special interests (oil, coal,timber etc.) when it came to protecting the environment and drafting energy policy. Al was fighting for us when he came out with a major speech in the spring of 2002 against the war in Iraq, only to be accused by the same corpwhorate media to be ranting instead of them covering the content of his speech. Al is fighting for us today and tomorrow with his new television/internet hybrid "Current", which is advancing the democratization of information even more, and giving voice to the average American. If their is a modern day Prometheus in American Politics, it is Al Gore. And if Al decides he wants nothing more to do with running for office again, he has already done more for democracy than any living politician, with the possible exception of former President Jimmy Carter.

P.S. If Al decides he wants to go to Hell and kick the Devil's ass, I will be happy to go with him.

[omega minimo]

22. Great post, good question:

"...short of an armed rebellion what would you have the man do?”

A.: Play by the rule of law, especially in the face of those who were not. If he had a legal option that day in the Senate, an option that would have taken great courage and personal sacrifice, and potentially would not have succeeded....if he had one chance, if the nation had one chance to not go down the path we are on and he held that power for that moment, then.....what? We could have pointed to that moment in history that he did what he had to do, on behalf of the nation and the future.
*************************************************

Context from above:

“Whatever the logisitical aspects of their options at the time, how would they overcome the perception that they gave up and gave us an illegitimate administration (twice)?”

“I agree with: "Gore showed himself to be a man of honor and grace."

"However, given the (illegal) circumstances and what was at stake (the predictable demise of the nation and the planet under a Bushco. hijacked administration) would it not have been an honorable sacrifice of Senator Gore to "cast the deciding vote to get himself elected"? Anyone with foresight could predict that we would end up on the precipice of destruction with Bushco. I think Gore DOES have that kind of integrity.”

[Uncle Joe]

40. It was not just his personal sacrifice,

it was the cohesion of the American People that Al was primarily thinking of. The scene from Fahrenheit 911 when he ruled against his own interests in the Senate was the epitome of grace to me, not a quitter. It is easy to look back now with our 20/20 hindsight and judge his decision as to which choice was the best for our Republic in 2000. Few people expected Bush to turn out so totally incompetent and corrupt as he is. Our excuse for American Journalism never covered Bush in depth, and in 2000 Bush was more of an unknown quantity to the American People. I believe to this day Al did what he thought was best for our republic to move on and come back to fight another day, as opposed to taking a snowball's chance in south Florida and risk tearing the nation farther apart.

[omega minimo]

44. With props to Cohesion. Aye.

Re: HIndsight-- #32 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1989947&mesg_id=1990225

Re: Foresight--
"Few people expected Bush to turn out so totally incompetent and corrupt as he is."

"Few people"? What percentage of half of the voting public DID expect Bust to be exactly what he presented as in the campaign-- a total nincompoop!?

The question is why the American people are (half of them) incapable of recognizing an incompetant buffoon without wanting to "have a beer with that guy" and electing him King of the World?

I don't doubt this:

"I believe to this day Al did what he thought was best for our republic to move on and come back to fight another day, as opposed to taking a snowball's chance in south Florida and risk tearing the nation farther apart."

That's fine. With respect. I asked these questions today because somebody has got to point out that Al's snowball is a little melty around the edges, in this regard. My question was how will this perception be addressed.

And the Rethugs will milk that horse for all it's worth.

[omega minimo]

46. A. Ronald Reagan

Q. The question is why the American people are (half of them) incapable of recognizing an incompetant buffoon without wanting to "have a beer with that guy" and electing him King of the World?

[Uncle Joe]

48. Answer, because they have been living in the " Matrix"

"The question is why the American people are (half of them) incapable of recognizing an incompetent buffoon without wanting to "have a beer with that guy" and electing him King of the World?"

(see movie for details) this Matrix has been created by the collapse of American Journalism. Most people go about their daily life working for a living, raising a family and maybe catching 15-30 minutes of news wrapped around 15-30 minutes of commercials a day per cycle. They have become complacent trusting that their "fourth estate watchdogs" would look out for them. As five corporations now own 80+% of our so called "mainstream media" they have become corrupted and sold out the American People. I would suggest checking out the Daily Howler's extensive archives regarding the War against Gore perpetuated by the MSM ever since 1998. The 2000 Gore/Bush debates are just one example, the MSM turned a 180 overnight and told the American People that Bush won, they reported the opposite of what they said the day before overuling their own focus groups that had thought Gore won hands down. The American People eventually became brainwashed, I believe our excuse for journalism has more blood on their hands than the worst neocon, because the press was supposed to look out for us and tell us the truth (I do not expect better from a neocon). I have to cut this short, I am running late, will be back Monday to take up where we leave off.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Just a few quick links to Daily Howler before I go.

Better to Give
Richard Cohen, The Washington Post, 4/16/98

http://dailyhowler.com/h042698_1.shtml

HOWLER OVERVIEW! Did Gore embellish? We know the Post did. We draw our incomparable conclusions:

ANATOMY OF A PSEUDO-SCANDAL! Love Canal islike Love Story! They both have been all gimmicked up:

TOTALLY BY THE BOOK! A strange book review in the New York Times shows the power of conventional wisdom:

HOWLER SPECIAL! LET THE GAMES BEGIN! Coverage of the Dem town hall meeting showed the press corps' great love for high style:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/archives_99.shtml

DESPARATELY SEEKING INFORMATION! Where do voters go for info? The press seems information-averse:

HOWLER EXTRA! ANOTHER NO-NO! Once again, the Post’s Ceci Connolly reports something Gore never said:

MANCHESTER MAYHEM! Bradley said that you can’t believe Gore! How did the press corps react?

GIVING GOOD STORY! Press corps accounts of the Hsi Lai luncheon are remarkably slick with basic facts:

FROM OUR "THERE THEY GO AGAIN" DEPARTMENT! Over-excited by the Elian flap, the pundits showed off their bad habits:

A DAILY HOWLER TWO-DAY WONDER! HAMMERING OUT THIS YEAR’S STORY! CelebCorps scripted the ’96 race. They may be scripting Y2K as we speak:

BACK TO THE FORGES! MORE WORK ON THOSE SCRIPTS! Seelye and Connolly show us what happens when the news is rearranged to fit scripts:
BUT WHO WILL GUARD US AGAINST THE GUARDIANS? Our press corps is a hapless elite. Be careful when they "interpret" Tuesday’s forum:

THE EMBELLISHMENT WARS! A pair of stories in the Times and the Post extend the Embellishment Warfare:

DAILY UPDATES! The analysts are struggling to get all caught up. In the meantime, a week of cool updates:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/archives_00.shtml

SUMMER SMILE-A-WHILE SPECTACULAR! The Post is shocked by Hoover's vendetta. Two years back, they launched one of their own:

DEFEATING THE DOLDRUMS! News slows down this time of the year. Your pundit corps fills in the dead spots:

FUN WITH BOOKS! Pundits are penning election books, reinforcing those Official Press Stories:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/archives_01.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/archives-2002.shtml


We say it again: we think the press story of the year, post-impeachment, has been the negative coverage of Gore.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h111899_1.shtml

[karynnj]

51. Absolutely agree

He was thinking of the American people - as was Kerry.

[bigendian]

23. Way to go, Uncle Joe!

Looks like you summed it up!

[TahitiNut]

18. How could citizens ever vote again after giving up their sovereignty?

:shrug:

Our obsession with 'leaders' and (in effect) hired hands doing our dirty work for us is destroying any vestige of democracy in this nation. There is nothing more uniformly symptomatic with the fascist right than blind subservience to 'leaders' - a lockstep loyalty that trumps individual thought and personal responsibility. Where were the fifty million voters who were disenfranchised in December 2000? Where wer the howling mobs carrying torches and pitchforks? When did we have a national strike? There are dozens of countries that have earned a greater entitlement to democracy than the U.S. - countries where people strike and take to the streets when their public servants steal the silverware.

Put the blame where it belongs: the people, whose abdication of the 'throne' is an abandonment of everything our ancestors died to give us.

[omega minimo]

25. Absentee

"Put the blame where it belongs: the people, whose abdication of the 'throne' is an abandonment of everything our ancestors died to give us."

That's right. We want our Stoon of Scoon back.

The "Looking Glass" we stepped thru is the point at which the candidates and the citizens capitulated and yet SOMEHOW don't understand all the implications of that. This is not the world we left behind.

[Zhade]

34. This is a damn good point, TN.

Hell, I'm ashamed I didn't even vote in 2000. I was blissfully ignorant. It wasn't until election night, when I worked overnight and witnessed the crazy antics in Florida, that I actually started to wonder if something horrifically wrong had just happened.

[MasonJar]

27. I love Al and John; both are great Americans, who have strug-

gled valiantly for the rest of us in their own inimitable ways. It does infuriate me so that we were cheated of their leadership and left with a leafless shrub. Either can count on my constant support. Al has a totally new personna; I doubt he will let others reshape his new mantra. However, the chances are slim we will win again unless we get verified (paper) voting. If Kerry had known in November, what we all know now about Ohio, I am sure he would have pressed ahead. Until we eliminate Jeb Florida is a lost cause.

[journalist3072]

29. Al Gore did not give up.....

He fought all the way to the Supreme Court to see if all the votes could get counted. And when the Supreme Court handed down their ruling (on December 12 or 13), it was reported in the press that he and his advisors stayed up all night, pouring over the SC's decision to see if they could find any glimmer of hope, any way of taking it back to the Florida SC and getting the votes counted.

It was only after they found no opening in the SC's decision, that he decided to give the concession speech.

Kerry, on the other hand, is another matter. I will forever be disappointed in him for conceding so quickly. But also, I wonder if Elizabeth Edward's health crisis played a role. It could be that the Kerry/Edwards camp realized there was a more important issue at hand---someone's life at stake.

Just my opinion.

[omega minimo]

35. Appreciated

[journalist3072]

39. No problem!! n/t

[aspberger]

30. very thoughtful post

n/t

[Donailin]

57. Gore yes, Lieberman fuck no

The only regret that I DONT have is that Liberman aint the VP. I hate that guy.

[omega minimo]

58. He's creepy

:scared: