Good Riddance to Decade That Began With Theft of the Presidency

by John Nichols

The British press has taken to referring to the passing decade as "the Noughties" has made quite a big deal of trying to identify the political, economic and cultural trends of period from 2000 to 2009.
It is an amusing pastime that has some value, but only if we're focused on identifying the root cause of what made the Noughties such a miserable decade.

If we are serious about the task, there is not much mystery.

The original sin of the good-riddance decade came in December of 2000, when the United States Supreme Court intervened to stop a complete recount of the votes in Florida and then declared George Bush to be the president.

This extreme judicial activism was not merely a devastating assault on American democracy. It set in motion the Bush presidency, and with it the pathologies that the Bush-Cheney administration imposed on the country in the form of unnecessary wars, failed economic policies, assaults on civil liberties and crudely divisive and hyper-partisan governance.

Bush, Dick Cheney and aides are surely to blame for much of what ailed America during the 2000s, and for what will ail America for decades to come.

But it was the U.S. Supreme Court's unprecedented meddling in the presidential election process – an intervention that would have horrified the founders of a republic that was supposed to enjoy a separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers – made the Bush-Cheney interregnum possible.

Bush, it must be remembered, did not win the popular vote nationally.

In fact, the American electorate favored Democrat Al Gore over Republican Bush by more than 540,000 votes.

Of course, because the United States has a convoluted electoral system that does not award the presidency to the candidate who wins the most votes, the contest came down to a fight between the Bush and Gore camps for Florida's decisive 25 Electoral College votes.

Florida ran a confusing and disorderly election on November 7, 2000, and then conducted a ridiculous review of the close result that followed no standards except those imposed by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Bush campaign co-chair.

When the Florida Supreme Court finally ordered a full and consistent recount of all 6.1 million ballots cast by the state's voters, the U.S. Supreme Court halted the process and then declared Bush the winner of Florida's electoral votes and the presidency.

The problem with this unprecedented move by a conflicted high court was that more Floridians went to the polls with the intention of electing Gore than Bush.

This is not some radical notion, not some conspiracy theory.

It is the reality that was evident to scholars of voting behavior from the start.

As University of California at Irvine political scientist Anthony Salvanto, who conducted some of the first and most exhaustive examinations of contested ballots, noted: "There's a pretty clear pattern from these ballots. Most of these people went to the polls to vote for Al Gore."

Salvanto was not an outlier.

Media outlets that looked beyond the partisan spin to the reality of what the ballots revealed.

As The Associated Press noted, "Under any standard that tabulated all disputed ballots statewide, however, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes."

The Washington Post was even more blunt, stating that, "If there had been some way last fall to recount every vote -- undervotes and overvotes alike, in all 67 Florida counties -- former vice president Al Gore would be the White House."

The Palm Beach Post, which conducted its own review of the ballots and also participated in a review by a consortium of media outlets, concluded: "Uncounted ballots and voter confusion cost Gore the election."

Actually, that's not quite right.

The Supreme Court's blocking of the full and consistent recount that could have sorted through the confusion cost Al Gore an election. But the consequences were far greater for the republic, which lost a decade of its promise and possibility to the excesses and abuses of George Bush's illegitimate presidency.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/31-0

The movie was called "2001: A Space Odyssey" for a reason and not "2000: A Space Odyssey".

I think you win the Pedantic Putz award. :silly:

I can get very pedantic myself, but I'm befuddled by the self-appointed purists who insist that 2000-2009 somehow do not constitute a "decade." All decade *means* is a period of 10 years; 1995-2004 is also a decade, though not one commonly identified as one thanks to its obvious lack of "odometer rolling over" appeal.

It's not the same as the argument over whether Jan 1, 2000 marked the beginning of a new millennium. That's because when we talk about the 21st century or 3rd millennium we're counting from an implicit start date, and in those instances it's clear that the 21st century and 3rd millennium cannot begin until 2000 full years have passed since that implicit start date. So pedants have always been correct to point out that Jan. 1, 2001 was the true beginning of the "new" century/millennium.

But nobody refers to the "211th decade" the way we routinely talk about the "21st century." With decades, common parlance includes no implicit starting point in time; rather, people generally group years according to the 10s digit.

Even as I cringed a little every time someone referred to Jan. 1, 2000 as the start of the next century/millennium, I wouldn't deny the "odometer rolling over" appeal that drove such talk. I cringe not at all when people use the same digits-in-the-number criterion for decades simply because, unlike centuries and millennia, calendar decades are rarely referred to with ordinal numbers.

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

And I think that while 9/11 and its repercussions are certainly the lead story of the decade, if you believe in LIHOP or MIHOP wasn't the installation of the Bush cabal crucial to setting the stage for the new "Pearl Harbor" the PNAC types sought?

Would a Gore administration have heeded Richard Clarke? If the plot succeeded anyway, would they have reacted identically? Would they have passed a Patriot Act? Would they have herded us into a war in Iraq on blatantly false pretenses?

If Bush is responsible for 9/11, I think that actually only increases the importance of the first-ever 5-4 presidential election win.

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

Although the most profitable.

Fascists stole my decade. And I don't think much has changed that will keep it from happening again.

Led by the BFEE and its Inferi warriors.

My life has not been the same since. It never will be again.

"It is the duty of the patriot to defend his country against its government."

Thomas Paine

Halle-fricken-lujah!