General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThanks again, Ralph Fucking Nader.
Still think there's no difference between Gore and Bush? Lotta blood on your hands, Ralphie boy, and I hope you choke on it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)dsc
(52,129 posts)you can try to blame everyone under the sun but Nader but he is directly to blame here, and in point of fact, he claimed over and over again that these appointments didn't matter by saying that there was no difference. Of course, he lost nothing today so for him there was no difference, fancy that.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)A sad silver lining is that I get tpo see all the Nader Vermin crawl from the ground and shriek like mandrakes that "we did not do this we did not do this" when they damned well know they did! I was in Florida in 2000 where the talk radio bragged about how well they used Nader, how they even impersonated Grenn party members jujst to get people to not vote for Gore.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)when had he fought it, he would have been President. I was in Florida in 2000. That was the most crooked election and counting of votes in industrialized countries. Blaming Nader is convenient, but Gore is the one that all of you should be pointing the finger at.
No, Nader is convenient because it is used to say "See, this is what happens when you don't vote for a third way Democratic candidate, and what happens when you naysay the policies of the third way!". Reality is that Gore folded like an accordion when he should have fought the decision. You have to ask yourself why. I know I do, because I fucking voted for the man, my girlfriend voted for the man and we dragged other people to the polls to vote for the man.
Your talking point is invalid. Too many of us GOTV in Florida for Gore, but he threw in the towel without a fight. So NO. I don't blame Nader - I didn't vote for him. I blame GORE for not stepping up to the plate for whatever reason.
I won't entertain the idea of anybody else that cries NADER when Gore was his own worst enemy by not fighting the decision, and neither should any other good Democrat. I don't have to be in love with third way to be a Democrat, and I can vote for Democrats that I want to vote for. That does NOT make me a Nader lover, since I didn't vote for the SOB in the first place.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)fuck the supreme court? Who could he have appealed the case to, the hague? Moscow?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Pursuant to this Courts Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.
It is so ordered."
-- per curiam decision of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Bush v. Gore, Dec, 12, 2000
That's all folks.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MFN China, amongst others.
The economy was already unraveling by 2000, and Al Gore had no choice but to RUN from the legacy of his (far more personally popular) predecessor. Gore had neither the charisma (famously losing his home state,) nor the policy achievements from which to build a coherent coalition. It's that simple.
At the time, I WAS furious about Bush v. Gore. However, as time has passed, and I have seen the lack of any coherent message or advocacy w/r/t regular working Americans from Mr. Gore, I have come more and more to blame Al for Al's shortcomings. When I watch that hideous video of Al Gore advocating for NAFTA on Larry King Live, I feel sorry. But for US, not for him.
dsc
(52,129 posts)yes he was 17 points down to Bush at the start of the race and wound up winning. His lousy campaign performed better, as in got a higher percentage of the popular vote than, Truman in 48, Kennedy in 60, and the more personally popular Clinton in 92 and 96. But other than that you have a perfectly valid point.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)A great deal of Al's failure lies directly on Al's shoulders. I wish he would come to grips with that. After all, it's not like he's been especially effective as an elder statesman or distinguished in his post-campaign accomplishments on behalf of the American people. Instead, he uses his influence to get government loans to support his private investments (e.g. the now bankrupt Fisker automotive.) Er, thanks Al (I guess?)
There has been ZERO introspection from Al or his camp.
dsc
(52,129 posts)than Clinton who you claim was more popular. Oh, and I guess you forgot the movie and the peace prize he got in his post public life. Must have just slipped your mind.
brush
(53,467 posts)You're kidding right? Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris purging 80,000 African Americans from the voter rolls that had similar names to felons, or court rulings to not let the recount proceed is all Gore's fault?
Oh please.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)In fact, the way the whole thing has unraveled since then has lead greatly to my political disillusionment (see my other comments in this thread if you are interested.)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)instead of following his own heart..
brush
(53,467 posts)Even though Jeb Bush and Harris nixed thousands of votes Gore still got more votes. It took Nader siphoning off votes that made it close enough for SCOTUS to step in and select Bush.
And if you think Gore ran a bad campaign, what about Bush? He and his crew had to cheat to get selected.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)refused to demand a count of all the votes
brush
(53,467 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)There were plenty of votes not counted due to the GOP's illegal vote caging.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Considering he still walks around with a smile on his face about it....damn fool.
brush
(53,467 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)purging of voter rolls in democratic districts made it close enough. but neither of those quite roll off the tongue like "Fuck Nader," amirite?
brush
(53,467 posts)Voters were purged. Repugs do dirty tricks no surprise there.
Where's your link for 200k dems voting for Bush. We should take your word for it?
On thing we do know is that Nader siphoned off votes. Enough, as I posted, to make it close enough for the RW block on SCOTUS to step in and select Bush.
It happened. Nader has to live with it, but it probably doesn't bother him. I'm sure he got paid for it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)In this case, the silent inconvenient truth is that hundreds of thousands of Democrats voted for Bush, and against Gore. The Bush Democrats outnumbered all of Naders supporters by a 2:1 margin in Florida, and outnumbered the Nader Democrats by a 16:1 margin.
If only 0.3% of these good for nothing Blue Dogs stayed home or, (gasp) even voted for their own party, Gore wins the election.
<snip>
Furthermore, nationally 9 million Democrats voted for Bush, while 1.5 million voted for Nader. Again, why is the focus on Nader, when there were 6 times as many Blue Dog Bush Democrats as Nader Democrats?
http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/27/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-2-democrat-defections-to-bush-blue-dogs-bush-democrats-caused-gore-to-lose-fl/
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)to change their party affiliation.
#MythdebunkingFAIL
frylock
(34,825 posts)BootinUp
(46,924 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)then they can woo them and a whole bunch of other "moderate" republicans. won't that be great? you know, if the party could attract a lot more conservatives, bringing their conservative ideas and policies?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)So, people do what the constitution set up to happen and we claim that democracy and the constitution had no right to "get in the way". Do people even realize what they are suggesting?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Gore's camp proclaimed that we should "count every vote" and then focused on only four counties. There were 175,000 undervotes statewide, and Gore's people never seriously attempted to get those ballots counted. It was a bad call that would have undone all the machinations of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris.
Don't get me wrong. Gore -- and the rest of the country -- were seriously screwed in 2000. And Al Gore doesn't even bear most of the blame (much less all of it).
question everything
(47,264 posts)except papa Bush and he lasted only one term.
Whether you like it or no, you are associated with scandal in the administration, and each has at least one, or a perceived one.
And after eight years of staying behind the President, all of a sudden you have to remind voters of who you are and how to distance yourself from the administration - while still be part of it - and provide your own vision for the country.
This, bottom line, is why Gore lost. And, yes, Nader helped.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The difference between Bush and Gore was only 500 votes, and the Rethug-dominated Supreme Court ruled against Florida recounting all the votes -- which, when finally done by the newspapers, proved that Gore had actually even won in Florida.
That's why Gore didn't win. Nader + SCOTUS.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Gore and Bush were only 500 votes apart at the end. Nader stuck his fat thumb on Bush's side of the scale.
malaise
(267,797 posts)Please remind me. You see they are responsible for both appointments.
Alito used his wife's tears to soften Democratic Senators who well know his history.
Same with Roberts - they knew all about him and still allowed the appointment.
Dems have a Senate majority now and still can't get their appointments because ReTHUGs are way more serious about activist judges.
dsc
(52,129 posts)Presidents get to place those judges. Clinton got to place Ginsburg, and Breyer. Obama got to place Sotomayor and Kagan and despite your false implication, some GOP members voted for them. Incidentally way more GOP votes for Ginsburg and Breyer and Dem votes for Alito and Roberts. Nader, and you both know this but refuse to accept the blame he deserves for this behavior. BTW would it have been ok to you if Obama didn't get to name his justices unless he had 60 Senators? He didn't when he named them just so you know.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I loves me Joe Biden, but he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee when Clarence Thomas squeaked through.
malaise
(267,797 posts)but Nader is an easy target
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I voted for Nader myself...but that was in a blood-red state where my vote was totally meaningless.
Getting back to the Senate Democrats approving horrible, awful, very bad candidates--I hope they have learned the lesson that these are not our parents' Republicans. Politics now is a blood sport and lives are on the line.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Nader wasn't the only problem in that election, but without his BS, Gore would have won. No Iraq war, no Roberts Court, more movement on climate change. Gore could be as DLC centrist as he wanted otherwise, but those things at least would have made a hell of a difference.
intheflow
(28,403 posts)So really, how wise was he, or would have continued to be, in choosing appointments?
dsc
(52,129 posts)or Obama we would have been immeasarably better off. I think he likely would have made that cut.
intheflow
(28,403 posts)Definitely better than Bush. (Of course, a mosquito would have been better than Bush. Certainly more sentient.) But we do tend to forget, in light of all that happened since that election, that the two parties seemed much closer in ideology at that point in time for a lot of us. I'm still not a Clinton fan. Welfare "reform", NAFTA, and his bombing raids on Iraq killed his presidency for me.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Floridians thought they voted for him, myself included. You can't blame Nader for that shit.
dsc
(52,129 posts)which you should know if you were old enough to vote for him. He followed Florida law, I know a quaint notion in this day and age.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Nader sucks. Nader voters suck. Nader apoogists suck.
We're living in a real world, not your heads.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Ever here of the fucking Affordable Care Act. That sure would have happened with a Rethug president.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)many in our party still haven't figured that out.
Let's just blame Nader and try it again.
it's a Republican idea.
druidity33
(6,435 posts)you know, home of Romneycare? Signature legislation? Model for the ACA? Not saying it would happen under MCain , but it has happened...
JHB
(37,128 posts)...as neither it nor its Romneycare predecessor existed. It was still a Heritage Action plan for "market based health care reform."
I voted for Gore, so no skin off my nose to heap scorn on the Naderites, but after you're done indulging in the spleen-venting, it's worth asking a question:
How the fuck did Nader get any traction in the first place?
Real reasons, mind you, not "because they're all a bunch of ideological fucking idiots!" because if you count that as a reason, your better target is the couple of even fringier socialist parties that would never come anywhere near winning but still carried enough votes that would have made the difference.
When you get down to why people cast a vote for Nader, it comes down to economics and the Democratic leadership's jumping onto the neoliberal economic program: aiding Wall Street, enabling ever more corporate consolidation, responding ever more to monied interests. They certainly didn't feel they needed to shore up support from economic-populist portions of the party.
So yes, knock yourself out ranting at Nader and the people who voted for him. Nader was (and is) a gadfly, the people who voted for him were myopic twits who picked a disastrous time to "send a message". But I'll also blame the party leadership that needed the "message" in the first place.
But most of all I'll blame the Republicans and their deliberate election-theft.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Speaking my mind is only going to get me banned. It's not worth it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)When people make it about personalities and establish a meme to show they suck...but then go on to insult those who voted for him and anyone who defends him as sucking too.
In the real world this his how you divide and conquer...your head.
George II
(67,782 posts)With your narrow comments, I'm presuming that you think bush was better than Gore in spite of the mythical effect of the "DLC" on a Gore presidency?
earthside
(6,960 posts)Trying to scapegoat Nader distracts from the real villain: George W. Bush and the Supreme Court.
I'm not a Nader fan by any means, but geez, read Vincent Bugliosi's book 'The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President' and get a clue about what really happened.
Ralph Nader didn't elect GWB. That was election fraud in Florida.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas were confirmed by a Democratic majority Senate.
The GOP was in control for Roberts and Alito, but they easily could have been blocked, had spineless Dems not decided to let them through.
But, yeah, let's blame Nader.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Fuck you, Ralph.
And I don't know how those 90k+ Florida Nader voters sleep at night.
Ralph sleeps on a bed stuffed with cash.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Of course that was after the fact the Right Wing Supreme Court overturned the election!
Pinkflamingo
(177 posts)Sadly, the Court had already ruled.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)A consortium of newspapers conducted a recount -- their results came out right around the time of 9/11 and so discussion was somewhat muted -- but it showed that Gore won Florida.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)The report was released in November of 2011. But we were still reeling from both 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan to notice. Other media outlets, however, had been reporting Gore as winning as early as April of 2011.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)could be wrong. . I have slept since then and it was a long time ago.
George II
(67,782 posts)....appointment of bush as President.
HoosierRadical
(390 posts)Had he carried TN there would have been no need to go to the SCOTUS.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Iraq doesnt happen and the appointment of two conservative justices by 'W' doesnt happen if Nader stays out of 2000.
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)and re-iterate thusly
FUCK YOU NADER.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)who enabled repugs
Bettie
(15,997 posts)Lots of blood on his hands from so many directions.
Wonder if he's proud of it, if today, he is sitting at his desk or kitchen table congratulating himself on all of this.
G_j
(40,366 posts)gee, I never heard this before. So original and thoughtful.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)"Get over it" is what the corporate masters say before they try to repeat history.But if you would prefer, we will wait until the next idiot says "HIllary is no different from Ted Cruz" before we remind folks about Nader. That OK with you?
G_j
(40,366 posts)nt
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)23% of young Americans plan to vote in 2014. 23%. For the exact same damn reason. They can't see enough difference between the parties, so they don't feel it's worth their time to vote. And there's no 'Nader' out there telling them that - it's what they see because they care about economic realities, and they can't see much of any difference between the corporate plutocrats on the left and the corporate plutocrats on the right.
There didn't need to be a Nader - unless our candidates are willing to actually BE different on economics that the candidates on the right, young voters don't see enough difference to give a crap about voting.
Spend all the time complaining about Nader that you want, and it won't make any difference to 2014, or probably even 2016. We've got to offer up candidates who are visibly and vocally different on economics or else we're still not going to get out the young crowd to vote Dem.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)it really means is "neither side represents me". We can trot out "the other side is so much worse" arguments until the cows come home, but they might not get much traction with people who already feel alienated from the political process. It's not just the young voters who are concerned about economics, either.
Bernie Sanders runs he will be vilified.
Party first you know...b.s.
Bush LOST, the supremes (before he appointed any) stole it for him. Wow.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)What kind of fool trusts anything that Grover Norquist says? I am beginning to suspect that Nader's consumer work was all done by "underlings" and he was just the front man. I knew where we were heading in January 2001---wars for oil and no universal health care were the two big Bush issues, and boy did W deliver. Anyone who paid attention knew that was what we were going to get. Nader was and is a public danger and needs to find a big sock and put it in his big mouth and keep it there forever.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Lots of people have paid the price for Nader voters imagining that is the case. Iraqis, Women, etc.
frylock
(34,825 posts)klook
(12,134 posts)that's not often mentioned.
Dems who sat out the election don't get much play here either.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Nader is once again, Dr. Evil!
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)OK, McCarthy Taylor, better root-'em out. Maybe you can hold some hearings here at DU where we all get asked "Are you now, or have you ever been a Naderite?"
-app
heaven05
(18,124 posts)corvair, consumer safety advocate and all. Boy! Was I wrong. Much blood on his hands, as much as on the hands of gwb and darth.
Botany
(70,286 posts)He treated the people working for him like dirt.
BTW I am pretty sure he took republican money to run ads in Florida in 2000.
druidity33
(6,435 posts)he was friendly and gracious. Technically you might say i worked for him even. When i was in college i did stagework and often ran lines for guest speakers. I also met Cornell West (while at the same job) and he was an asshole.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Just like a Republican. And this ruling will be forgotten.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There is an effort to keep people from knowing the good parts of what Ralph says.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)I keep hearing that EVERY vote counts. So screw Nader.
He did say that SCOTUS appointments made no difference so he didn't care about a conservative majority overturning important decisions.
The DLC may not have helped, but try quantifying what their policies did. You can see Nader's direct influence on the election. He provided a convenient alternative for people to protest. Without him, some would have stayed home, but enough might have voted for Gore to swing a few states.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)to try to find something else to talk about.
He wanted Gore to lose, he took republican donations to reach his goal, and he succeeded.
G_j
(40,366 posts)Congressional Black Caucus Protests Electoral Vote Count
Aired January 6, 2001 - 2:00 p.m. ET
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: And if you're just joining us, we're going to go straight to the press conference we told you about with the Congressional Black Caucus with regard to the -- all right, we're working on getting audio for you in just a moment. And while we're doing that, I will recap just a bit.
REP. ALCEE HASTINGS (D), FLORIDA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Today was a very solemn day, and the remarks are that many of us were not permitted, regretted by us all. Had I been given an opportunity to go forward with an appropriate objection, I would have indicated that because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud, and an attempt to suppress voter turnout by unlawful means, I felt the necessity -- as do my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members of the House of Representatives -- to object to the kinds of errors against democracy, the holy grail of democracy, that were permitted in the state of Florida.
And we felt that they should not be tolerated, as they would not be tolerated in other countries. Indeed, we should not tolerate them in America.
I would have said to Vice President Gore that Harry Truman once said that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. What we were doing here today is right. I hope all of our colleagues and the American people see it that way. And that is why we raised our objection. And it's a proud moment for the conscience of the House of Representatives, for those of us that are representing the entirety of the Congressional Black Caucus, in the presence of our chairlady, and the members here assembled, we stand proudly to say that we did what was right.
JOHNSON: Forty years ago, during the civil rights movement, I marched for justice with a firm belief that my son would not have to march, in order to utilize his voting rights. Much to my dismay, 40 years later, I find myself marching again, but this time for my grandchildren, so that they will not have to march in order to be afforded the same rights.
How long will we settle for injustice in America? How long will we have to fight to perfect the 15th Amendment? How long will we have to struggle for something that should be every American's birthright? On election day, 100 million Americans went to the polls to make their voices heard. Those voices want to be heard still. No hyper- technical manipulation of election laws should derail the intent of the voter.
We cannot sweep under the carpet the claims of first-time college voters who say they registered to vote, had voter registration cards in their hand, but when they were not allowed to vote at the polls, because their names were not on the roll, the lines were busy all over the country, where they tried to call to clarify their registration.
We cannot sweep this under the carpet, the cries of those who were incorrectly removed from the polling places in Florida by an inept Texas company hired by Mr. Bush's brother.
We cannot ignore believable stories of police intimidation, questionable activities by poll workers and simple ineptness by volunteers at the precincts. We cannot ignore what we saw with our own eyes on television: polls closing on voters in St. Louis, un- American voting lines in Pennsylvania and incredibly complex ballots in South Florida.
There is overwhelming evidence that George W. Bush did not win this election, either by national popular vote or the Florida popular vote. As members of Congress charged with defending the constitutional principles of this country, it is our duty to challenge this vote.
<snip>
REP. CARRIE MEEK (D), FLORIDA: We dare not have it repeated. We dare not have the Tilden and the Rutherford Hayes situation repeated again, because it disenfranchised our people at that time.
This will disenfranchise -- it already has -- our people. We don't want that continued. We will always come out. We will always fight. We don't care who is it there.
We are very disappointed that our senators did not stand up and support us today. We helped to elect those senators. They will hear from us again, because we feel very disappointed that they didn't say we want our African-Americans, and our disjointed people who were not able to vote, to have someone in the halls of Congress to say, yes, give them a chance to debate this issue, so that the world could see what is happening here.
We have had our votes nullified. That's why we're so sad. They were nullified by defective voting machines, nullified by discriminantly distributed and targeted machinery, election machinery, in our neighborhoods. The votes were nullified by a purge of voting lists, undertaken by direction from a campaign that retained the equivalent of electoral thugs.
I was there. I saw exactly what happened. I was chased by these thugs. I was called a communist by these thugs, a socialist by these thugs, many of them who were not even citizens of this country. That's what happened in this campaign in Miami-Dade, Florida.
So that we were illegally struck from the voting list by a process that classified thousands of our people as felons. We were nullified again by deals that were cut in cities -- cut by the winning campaign, with our leading authorities in our cities. We were nullified by ballots that were printed in such a way that reasonably thinking citizens could not know for whom they were voting. That's why we're here.
Everyone should have a right to know how they're voting, and for whom they're voting. We were nullified again, by a secretary of state, who has already been given a very big accomplishment by this administration. She authorized her authority to prevent valid votes from being counted. So, it nullified the thing for us.
All that is left for us now, as the Congressional Black Caucus and as citizens of this country, is to exercise our First Amendment rights, while we still have it, and before it is further undermined by a politically dominated Supreme Court.
We exercise that right today to protest against this ill-chosen nomination. We exercise our right to petition our government for our citizenry to receive a redress of grievances. So, I speak for the majority of Americans, particularly African-American Americans, who did not vote for the new president-elect, but who now must live under an administration that appears to award spoils to the victors, even when the electoral process has been so clearly corrupted.
thank you
----
We're going to bring in our congressional correspondent Chris Black once again.
Definitely not business as usual today, Chris.
CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not exactly. Things were going along as expected. The District of Columbia votes were recorded, and then Chaka Fattah, ironically a member of the black caucus himself but one of the two House tellers working on this Electoral College vote today, got to Florida. He announced the 25 Electoral College votes. Al Gore said, is there an objection? And there were a lot of them. A dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one after the other, rose to their feet to object to the votes from Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, arise?
REP. PETER DEUTSCH (D), FLORIDA: To make point of order.
GORE: Gentleman will state his point of order.
DEUTSCH: Mr. President, we have just completed the closest election in American history. There are at least...
GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session. If the gentleman has a point of order, please state the point of order.
DEUTSCH: Mr. President, there are many Americans who still believe that the results we are going to certify today are illegitimate.
GORE: The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from Florida has a point of order, he may state the point of order at this time. Otherwise, the gentleman will suspend.
DEUTSCH: I will note the absence of quorum and respectfully request that we delay the proceedings until quorum is present.
GORE: The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. That includes a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The chair rules on the advice of the parliamentarian that the point order that a quorum is not present is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator. Is the point of order in writing and signed not only by member of the House of representatives, but also a senator?
DEUTSCH: It is in writing, but I do not have a senator.
GORE: The point order may not be received.
HASTINGS: Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress...
GORE: The chair...
HASTINGS: ... voter turnout.
GORE: The chair must remind members that under session 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.
HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President.
To answer your question, Mr. President, the objection is in writing, signed by a number of members of the House of Representatives but not by a member of the Senate.
Thank you, Mr. President.
WATERS: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.
GORE: Is the objection in writing and signed by member of the House and a senator?
WATERS: The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it is not it is not signed by a member of the Senate.
REP. BOB FILNER (D), CALIFORNIA: I have an objection to the electoral votes from Florida.
GORE: Is the objection in writing? Is it signed by a member of the House of Representatives and a senator?
FILNER: No, it is not in writing, but I rise in solidarity with my colleagues who have previously expressed their objection.
GORE: The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but -- hey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACK: There were 13 objections in all, 12 from minority group members in the House of Representatives, last one saw was Bob Filner, who's a Democrat from California, a former professor, a big supporter of Al Gore, and clearly was just moved by the emotion of the moment.
They were all gavelled down. It was a great irony for the vice president. Here were some of his biggest supporters in the House of Representatives. He was clearly sympathetic, understood what they were trying to do, but he went right by the book. There was no debate allowed under the law that governs this joint session. There is also -- no objection can be heard unless it is signed by a House member and a senator.
Not a single senator would join members of the Congressional Black Caucus, much to their dismay. About a dozen members of the caucus walked out in protest, to protest the Florida vote, and then had a press conference in the gallery.
<snip>
Michael Moore showed this in Fahrenheit 911,
malaise
(267,797 posts)It's Nader's fault
you won't see much complaining about that dark day of utter shame.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tea and oranges
(396 posts)Watched that. Sheer heartbreak.
But hey, it was Nader's fault. So much easier to blame one man who got it wrong than the election thieves, scotus, Jeb Bush, Fox News (who called it for Bush), & all the other BS.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)that's a new spin...
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)It would've only taken one single Democratic Senator, and they all acquiesced and collaborated. Looks pretty identical.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You should really re-evaluate your opinions.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Who's to say Gore's hypothetical appointments would have ruled any differently, on balance? Clinton's and Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court are no flaming liberals.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because your argument makes utterly no sense.
Anyone who's remotely familiar with reality.
You are arguing that the same kinds of jurists who wrote/signed on to a flaming dissent would instead agree with Scalia.
You're desperately trying to deflect, and you're doing so stupidly. As you attempt to fracture the party into cliques 4 months before an election.
So yes, it actually means you are wrong.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)I'm not trying to deflect, stupidly. I'm telling you that blaming Ralph Nader for today's decision is stupid. Look in a mirror before denigrating others' speech.
riqster
(13,986 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)it is also worth noting that the CBC were vehemently protesting ILLEGAL activity.
riqster
(13,986 posts)druidity33
(6,435 posts)Nader is just the easiest target...
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Gothmog
(143,998 posts)We have Roberts and Alito on the court due to Nader's stupidity
we can do it
(12,116 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)have strangled our democracy over the last 30 years. Remember, while Nader has to sleep, corporate investments are always working diligently for the shareholders interest.
Which are one and the same since the reality is on display for all to see and the those who love to play nice with fascists shows no signs of slowing.
90-percent
(6,828 posts)Should not the blame for losing 2000 be placed squarely and solely on the shoulders of the people that chose to vote for Nader?
I generally like Ralph for his body of work, and his family roots are one town over from me, BUT, I knew a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. And Al did win, after all. If not for the blatant corruption of the voting process in Jeb's Florida, we would have had President Gore for two terms. The voter purges and other shenanigans was just enough to tip the scales towards the totalitarian fascist police state dreams of the GWB cabal.
Why absolve all the Nader voters for their abysmally stupid choice to throw away their precious vote to Ralph?
-90% Jimmy
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The vast majority of those who voted for him in 2000 abandoned him in 2004. After living through Bush's first term, they could see that they'd made a mistake. Even his running mate from 2000, Winona LaDuke, endorsed Kerry in 2004 (and endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012).
Nader, however, has never admitted, even with the benefit of hindsight, that he made a ghastly mistake.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Had Bill Clinton kept it in his pants...
1. Al Gore would not have had to lie for him, thus feel forced to distance himself from him.
2. George "Dumbya" would not have had anything to run on, such as "restoring moral integrity to the White House" because there would not have been such a thing.
3. Ralph Nader would not have been a spoiler because he would not have had anything to "spoil". It would NOT have been close. Al Gore would not have lost his own state being tied to Bill Clinton, "The Immoral President Who Couldn't Keep It In His Pants"!
4. Black and Hispanic voters would not have been cold towards Al Gore for distancing himself from Clinton, a president who was very popular among those constituencies.
5. White voters who were angry at Clinton would not have taken it out on Gore, thus moving to "Dumbya" and being swayed by his "Compassionate Conservative" bullshit!
All this could have been avoided had Bill Clinton not messed around with Monica Lewinsky. Period!
Blame Ralph Nader all you want. Nader would not have been a factor. He would not have mattered at all had it not been for William Jefferson Clinton.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)They just don't get it and never will.
we can do it
(12,116 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Gore failed to get the votes of the Moderates he went after and the Left he failed to appeal to.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)no culpability on the part of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS that voted for GWB? but, yeah, fuck Nader fuck Nader fuck Nader fuck Nader fuck Nader, all day, every day around here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lots of older Republicans are registered as Democrats for dumb historical reasons.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)to run for president!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Just because it is your right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Gore won the State of Florida. The United States Supreme Court "lost" the election for Gore, no one else.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)to be the 2nd most powerful person in the world?
I mean, how could anyone pass on THAT!?
CtDemoFarmer
(32 posts)result of his consumer advocacy, like seat melts and on and on. This anti- Nader BS is getting tiresome. Name me one other person that has taken on big business and had more success in protecting us?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)for the SCOTUS to steal.
Marr
(20,317 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)"The DLC means both parties are identical" results in people sitting out elections, or voting third party. Politicians will always pick the reliable voter over the unreliable.
As a result, people who sit out the election are ignored, and the party lurches further right to cater to the reliable voters in the middle.
Wanna fix the DLC? Show up at every election and vote. If you don't have a candidate you like, vote for the least-bad.
Also, think about running yourself, or recruiting someone you know to run. You don't have to win to change the party - most teabaggers lost, but the Republicans are far different than they used to be.
We need better people as mayors, city council, state rep and senator, and so on. Those are the people that become the next generation of national politicians.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)from Gore.
I personally do not know a single Green or Independent who actually pulled the lever for Nader who would have crossed to Gore -- period. They were interested in Nader/The Greens ONLY, Gore/the Democrats need not apply. I do know MANY in those two groups who, in fact, crossed and voted for Gore for one reason only -- the SCOTUS.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Polling at the time showed Nader pulled a tiny number of voters from W, and a significant number from Gore. If only 10% of those Nader voters voted for Gore instead, you don't have a close enough election to steal. It's pretty doubtful that more than 90% of Nader's voters would have not voted for Gore.
thanks
jeff47
(26,549 posts)gordianot
(15,226 posts)The only thing worse than Nader are his apologists and the Republicans who profited from financing this piece of shit.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Nader did not cost Gore the fucking Presidency!
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)That's for keeping me weird!
And you're right. Nader didn't help, but the issue was lost when Al Gore (inexplicably) refused to contest the election.
Edit: I know it was contested, but there were other avenues available to him (see upthread)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)father founding
(619 posts)Gore lost the election by picking the republican liebermon for VP
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)its utterly ridiculous to throw away a vote based on the VP. In fact I question the honesty of anyone who suggests it.
JEB
(4,748 posts)for anything under any circumstances.
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)in protest, don't do it over the VP. At least do it over something important.
DoctorRobert
(9 posts)Gore screwed up in Florida in many different ways. The most detrimental move he made was not picking Bob Graham as the VP candidate. Gore and his team thought they were being cute by picking Leiberman over Graham. They thought that the jews would take them over the top in Florida. Why wouldn't you pick someone that will only help you in West Palm Beach? Graham would have helped him statewide. Graham has quite possibly been the most popular politician in Florida since Governor Askew. But nooo!! They don't want to pick the good ol' boy.
90-percent
(6,828 posts)He is one of the most honorable people to have served in the Senate in the last 50 years.
There was a DU post about a fellow that had a chance meeting with Bob at an airport. Bob was an honorable and compassionate public servant that did what he could, courageously, to prevent the 2003 Iraq invasion. Perhaps costing his political career? (Which did indeed happen to Russ Feingold, if memory serves?)
We should expect nothing less than honor and integrity in all of our elected officials. Unfortunately, we end up electing whoever tells us what we want to hear, regardless of whether they intend to honor their promises. We do get fooled again. Repeatedly.
-90% Jimmy
JEB
(4,748 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)progressoid
(49,824 posts)How about the butterfly ballot. Or 87000 illegally purged voters. Or a couple hundred thousand Democrats that voted for Bush. Or the USSC.
Sweet baby Jebus.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)intheflow
(28,403 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)The Bush family met Nader's.
Not sure what is was, but quite sure that's what happened. He campaigned hard to get junior in the White House, and almost did it. A little further boost from SCOTUS clinched it. I have no problem with how the OP reads.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)an autographed "Decision Points" book by George W. Bush.
http://stephenvoss.photoshelter.com/image/I0000K1EV7Sqrc6E
Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth Book Signing
Ralph Nader waits in line to get his book signed by Former Vice President Al Gore at a signing for Gore's new book, An Inconvenient Truth, at Olsson's Bookstore in Washington, DC on Thursday, June 15, 2006.
Thanks for the thread, Sheldon Cooper.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)rehashing something that happened 14 years ago, solves nothing.
Work for today.
H2O Man
(73,308 posts)Response to Sheldon Cooper (Original post)
Post removed
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)I lost interest in Nader when I found out he lived in a multi-million dollar town home. That, and a friend who squired him around town during his speaking engagement in our community said that he only wanted to eat in the finest of restaurants and included a lengthy rider in his agreement to speak.
Ralph's working man street cred is a fucking fraud.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Give it a rest already.
Tikki
(14,537 posts)I know the supreme court gave boosh the win, but which Democratic candidate should have
run to soundly beat boosh?
Tikki
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)after studying Gore I have very little doubt that he had absolutely no interest in becoming president. He would have fought tooth-and-nail to get it if he did.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,906 posts)the ruling was PURELY a conservative majority protection act. nothing else. no law neeced. lets make it up that votes do not count.
relayerbob
(6,508 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)samsingh
(17,571 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)and ignore the war crimes of Bush et al.
Say, why doesn't the Obama WH tell the CIA to cooperate with the Senate investigation of torture committed under the Bush administration? Could it be that when it comes to torturing people, there's no difference between the two parties?
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Not only running away and distancing himself from Clinton and all the positive he did because he was afraid of the BJ issue, but also for selecting the WORST possible running mate.
Could not even win his home state.
Way to go Al!
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)I can tell you what made the difference was the Butterfly ballot, not Nader. A lot of the Gore votes there went to Buchanan because of how the ballot was constructed.
Still, fuck Nader anyway.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)This is America, people. Every American citizen who meets the requirements of office has the right to run for office on whatever platform they desire. Nobody is obligated to defer to the major parties' candidates.
Nader ran because he was disgusted with the Democratic Party's DLC-instigated courtship of corporate support. He took a principled stand, which is in short supply in politicians these days. Declaring one's "hatred" for Nader is just foot-stomping and tantrum-throwing - it accomplishes nothing and makes one appear politically naive. Further, Nader's positions on rolling back corporate influence in government are the same as pretty much everyone here on DU, so it is self-defeating to continue to demonize him and his adherents. The politically astute acknowledge and move on. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The ultimate responsibility for winning or losing elections lies with the candidate. Clearly the Gore/Lieberman campaign failed to earn the votes of a small percentage of left-leaning voters, and they paid the price. If they wanted the votes cast for Nader, they should have better addressed the concerns of the Left.
Votes are earned, not obligated.
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Howling into the void about what happened in 2000 is pointless and does nothing to help the current situation.
JI7
(89,172 posts)they claim it's about issues so if it's about issues they would acknowledge where the ARE differences between the parties.
but they did not. their entire fucking message was there is no difference. these fuckers don't care about issues anyways. it's all about their own fucking egos needing attention.
in later elections when i have told these fuckers to not to vote for the Democrats if they feel this way they got angry because they think i should be begging their stupid lying pathetic asses .
fucking dipshits.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)it's the fucking height of arrogance to believe Gore was somehow owed those Nader votes.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Both memes have lingered far too long.
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)You already acknowledged that there was a lack of wisdom exhibited by the Nader believers. That makes them much more similar to the Benghazi howlers.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You appear unable to engage in reasonable discussion. Bye.
druidity33
(6,435 posts)the fact that more registered Democrats VOTED FOR BUSH than voted for Nader. Why are we not angry at those folk? The whole blame Nader game is a red herring...
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)The same bullshit here there everywhere.
There are registered Dems in many places but especially the South, that never vote Dem anymore. Not since like the 1960's. They comprise less than 10%. There is no Dem save George Wallace that can get their vote.
Often I see arguments that just forget all about the fact that Dixiecrats became Repukes, or vote for Repukes, even if they didn't change their party registration.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)on external causes, and to brow-beat the Liberal/Progressive wing so that they toe the line.
The "Fuck Ralph Nader!" meme is just an earlier iteration of Rahm's "Fucking R*t*rds" comment. In both cases the objective is to tell the Left to sit down and shut up.
Democrats never feared Nader as a candidate, but the Party fears his message. It might get the quiescent Liberals all fired up and *GASP* expecting things. Hence, the drum beat of empty criticism against him.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)for all the misinformation.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Old hat, and wrong.
Jawja
(3,233 posts)Democrats in Congress who should have REFUSED to confirm any SCOTUS appointment by a PResident who was appointed by SCOTUS.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)responsibility.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and Scalia and Thomas.
BTW this OP is the stupidest today, which is a HUGH accomplishment
neverforget
(9,433 posts)It's the left's fault! It sure makes it convenient when shitty legislation and appointments are made. The culpability of those Democratic Senators that voted for them is zero. Nader gave us Bush so there.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the failures. remarkable "logic"
frylock
(34,825 posts)according to the wisdom of The Very Sensible People.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)If you want to blame someone, or a group of people blame Al Gore and the Democratic Party. Both Gore and the Democratic Party could have done a better job running the 2000 campaign. Also, I do not see how someone in the Democratic Party could not have known about the voter purge that was going on in Florida. Al Gore and the Democrats should have taken action before the election to prevent the voter purge from being successful. In addition, Gore and the Democrats should have tried harder to get Democratic voters to the polls.
intheflow
(28,403 posts)That was a SCOTUS decision just like today's bullshit decisions.
Also, Nader voters were justified in rejecting Gore as he chose Lieberman as his running mate, a Democrat who went on to endorse John McCain in 2008 at the Republican National Convention. Do you think we would have been better off if Gore was elected, had died in office, and Lieberman took the reins? Puh-lease!
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)FUCK NADER !!!!!!!!!!
but ... i'm saying it like a lady should.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)At least I *think* I voted for Gore.
Cha
(295,899 posts)ret5hd
(20,433 posts)flvegan
(64,389 posts)No matter how moronic it may seem. But hey, it's easier than thinking.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)So much fail.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)n/t
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Give it a rest.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I am convinced there would have been no 9/11 during a Gore term.
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)I know several people who normally vote Republican that voted for him.
If you really want to assign blame, look at Jeb, the Supremes, and Tom DeLay with his Brooks Brothers riot.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Here's why.
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2012/09/of-urban-legends-and-2000-election.html
FIFTH most likely reason Gore lost. In order: SCROTUS, Tennessee (and/or NH), the 200,000 FL Dems who voted for Bush, Theresa Le Pore's butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, and then Nader.
Not even the most dumbass Republicans still complain about Ross Perot (twice). It's been almost 14 years now; at the very least, you should just get over it.