Who is to blame for George W Bush being president?

1. George W Bush's ineptitude and paranoid schizophrenia whose charisma managed to win 48% of the electorate.

2. The Supreme Court of the United States, acting on a partisan bias rather than selecting via true democratic criteria such as "the popular vote".

3. The Green party, although they only received 1.6% of the vote in Florida - that lone solely one state that actually mattered in terms of who got selected in this "election".

The only correct answer is #2.

1.6% of the votes?! You green bashers are so terrified of 1.6% of the vote count?! :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

http://www.evote.com/elections2000/results/NewStates/FL.asp

These are the facts, pure and simple. If 1.6% of the population is going to irk your ire, then I pity you.

Go ahead, rate this a 1. I know you will.

are Jeb and Katherine Harris.

The Supreme Court is a close second.

come, we go to the hill top, yell it to the world

I only remember vaguely, but Jebbie and Kathy did do a bit of chicanery in order to have their way.

:-(

But the SCOTUS still had the final say. They should have been non-partisan and judged based on fairness while slapping Jebbie and Kathy. They are just as much criminals as Jebbie and Kathy in selecting this creep* of a fraud* of a terrorist* into power.

I blame him for 25% of what happened. I truly believe that he had not gotten the 96000 votes in FL that Bush and Harris would have had a MUCH more difficult time in manipulating the outcome in their favor.

No Monica. No Bush.

I remember saying that a long time ago, but let it slip my mind. Without the scandal, things would have been quite different and the pukes were trying to trap Mr. Clinton any way possible. (could Monicagate have been a stepping stone deliberately placed by the pukes? Methinks so...)

oh, please. he was a grown man under a microscope.

please resist the temptation to absolve clinton of blame for what he brought on himself.

When they said their decision in bush v gore could not be used as precedent in future cases!!! That is nonsense and proves even they knew they were in the wrong. That disclaimer in bush v gore is a smoking gun that dems should have used but of course, they did nothing.

They knew they selected Bush out of "partisan loyalty", but they sure as hell won't admit it. And by saying that, they leave the door open to legitimately make the same illegitimate decision in the future.

It is wrong to vote based on your political party preference. Not as a judge of all people!

The judges of the SCOTUS are traitors for have selecting Bush based on their own republican roots. That's all there is to it.

Yeah, it's a very strong comment all right and in all honesty I feel bad in saying it. But with so much evidence showing that on a fair and balanced level Gore would have been the right choice, there is no other possibility than partisan preference. And that just disgusts me. We were betrayed by the SCOTUS, it's as simple as that. There was no justice on that day in December.

If there was enough evidence to show that Bush* was the legit popular vote winner, then I would have had no real problem with the SCOTUS for they would have still voted out of partisanship, but behind the perfect alibi of the popular vote.

It's sad that America is so split and so divided these days.

SCOTUS Gang of 5

I think the answer is that it is a variety of people who are to blame. They are:

1. Harris

2. The Supreme Court

3. Ralph Nader

But to say that Nader is completely blameless is to be dishonest, especially in light of the comments he made during the whole campaign. Nader all but said he wanted Bush to win.

Again this is just another pathetic attempt to exonerate Nader from any blame from the 2000 fiasco.

The apathetic Democrats who didn't vote.

http://www.gp.org/documents/spoiled.html

Okay, it's the Greens' web page and I do agree Nader was a puke in Green clothing (so their "Lie #2" is partly inaccurate), but who said I was trying to exonerate Nader?

I'm trying to pinpoint the real problem.

That URL I mentioned seems to do a great job of doing the work for me.

The SCOTUS is ultimately to blame. That cannot be argued. They had the power to choose and they chose based on party affiliation and not objectively given the facts. Gore should have won based on the popularity vote.

Jebbie and Kathy are to blame for their cheating and treachery.

Clinton is to blame because he fell for the republican trap called "Monica Lewinski".

Al Gore's pathetic campaign is to blame as well. If he ran a stronger one... heck, if he ran one that didn't try to use Clinton's economy to lean on he might have done better...

The Green voters blindly accepting Nader are to blame as well. If they had known at the time what Nader was... but still, only 1.6% of the voters in Florida is hardly enough to have made Gore the winner and who said that all of the Green voters were disenchanted Democrats (though many of them were)?

Nader himself is to blame, especially now that we know what we know. I can't exactly blame you for hating him.

But still, your recent posts clearly show you feel Nader was the root cause. And you're partly wrong - yet partly right. But there were numerous causes, most of which get traced back to the republicans. (though Mr. Clinton didn't need to fall for the Monica trap the pukes set up for him...) But Nader should not be pointed out as the scapegoat for the whole affair. The pukes are to blame and people need to be told all of this in such a way that it doesn't come across as blatantly as "we're not over it".

But for the future, we need to unify and defeat the republicans for good. If those Green voters are so important, let's convince them to vote Democrat instead of Green. Being vicious toward the party or certain representatives that some of them still don't know the truth about surely won't help in bringing them to the Democrat party, nor will the Democratic party itself be of much help either right now as Gephardt's latest stunt has pissed me off royally to the point where even Nader seems to be less disingenuous. :-(

The national total is 5% - not much, but we seem to need as many votes as we can get.

But he sure didn't help either. And I am still very angry about how he lied about Gore. One issue that angered me is that he lied about Gore's investments when he himself invests money in Fidelity Magellan, which hold shares in many of America's best corporate citizens:

Citigroup*
General Elec*
Viacom B*
Microsoft*
American Intl Group*
Pfizer*
ExxonMobil*
Wal-Mart Stores*
Merck*
Fannie Mae*
Bank of America*
Johnson & Johnson*
ChevronTexaco*
Coca-Cola*
Freddie Mac*
UnitedHealth Group*
Wells Fargo*
Cardinal Health*
Procter & Gamble*
Verizon Communications*
Home Depot*
Lowe's*
Clear Channel Communications*
Morgan Stanley/Dean Witter*
Altria Group*

Source: http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Fund/Portfolio.asp?Country=USA&Symbol=FMAGX&qttab=portfolio#anchor4

Again I own stocks so I don't have an issue with other people investing in the market. But I do have a problem with Nader attacking Gore for investing in the market when he himself owns mutual funds.

As for working with the Greens let me say this much. I do think the Democratic Party in places like CO, NM, CA, and other areas where the party is strong should try to at least bring some of the Greens over. Now should the Democratic Party adopt the entire Green platform? The answer to that question is a clear no.

Of that I am by your side 100%. The hypcrisy stinks.

For the other issue, the Dems need to find a way to constructively compromise with the Greens and vice-versa, it definitely needs to be a two-way street. Compromise on enough issues to bring them back.

But the Dems need to reclaim their backbone and stop capitulating to the republicans on any number of issues. Even though the Green party lost a great deal of voters in 2002, I currently would not be surprised if they got an even larger amount of votes in 2004 to surpass the amount of votes they had in 2000. And even Nader can't be blamed for that. Unfortunately, that just leaves a wider gap for a republican 'victory' - which is technically wrong since Greens and Dems are idologically similar; adding their numbers up shows the pukes have a minority but a technicality still gives them the power and position to make things worse. The Dems have got to come out fighting now, and with certain Presidential candidates (and Al Gore who has nothing to lose of course) are starting to do so. But I refuse to give Gephardt any more respect these days...

I personally refer the Green platform, mainly for its lack of corporate involvement, but I am willing to compromise and have, do, and will vote Democrat in most cases. I know the Greens won't win, and for candidates like Nader and McGaa I certainly wouldn't vote for them because they're not true to their party's spirit. (McGaa, a Green running against Wellstone, supported nuclear storage or something... I don't recall all the details but it was that issue which turned me off big-time. Far, far more so than Wellstone breaking his campaign pledge to only run 2 terms - a pledge no politician should EVER say in order to win votes out of the simple logic that, for any number of reasons, the candidate might need - or want - to stay in power. Wellstone needed to, that much is certain.)

Why do you think the Democratic party should not adopt the entire Green platform, or on what issues should the parties remain different on? As a whole, both are idologically similar... At what point should the Democrats remain different from the Greens?

I'd love to have a list of all the business dealings he's done, directly and indirectly, who he screwed in the process and how much money he got out of each deal. Then do that with Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc., so how much of those funds goes to the media and GOP party. Soon they'll have those electronic ballets owned by the GOP. Man, am I depressed!

The media is to blame for making him appear to be somewhat credible, even though he was/is totally without qualifications and character. The media never investigated or pursued any allegations of past drug use, arrest record, Harken insider trading, or AWOL charges. The media was blatently biased about the Florida election fiasco. They are to blame for making the election close enough for Bush to steal with the help of the Supreme Court.

No doubt that the media was very hostile toward Gore throughout the whole campaign.

Especially when you are talking about a few hundred votes that could have been decisive. 1.2% of 6 million (approx registered voters in FLA, AFAIK) is 72,000. If those 72,000 had voted Gore, we wouldn't be in this mess.

If he had only gotten 1/2 or even just 1% of those votes he would have carried the state.

that's more than I thought... sorry Greenies... you guys in Florida did mess things up... or at least allowed the election to be so close that Bush could manipulate the results.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/fl_epollgridPres.html

13% of 2.4 million (40% Democratic electorate according to the poll) dwarfs the Nader vote.

Many of those "Democrats" haven't voted for the party's ticket for president since 1976, and a large number probably not since 1964. Those Democrats would only vote for a true DINO. Maybe in downballot races they vote Democratic, but not for president.

They're Democrats. Your putting quotes around the name and trying to redefine them into neither fish nor fowl mutants doesn't make them something other than Democrats. A lot of Democrats voted for the other team, whether you want to face it or not.

It's not Bullshit--some of the most Republican southern states still have more Democrats than Republicans.

Why do you assume and pretend that they have been voting Democratic up until 1996 and then suddenly reversing course to support Bush?

They were asked -- are you a Democrat?

haven't been voting for our candidates for decades, at least not in presidential races. The only Democrat would have gotten their vote would have run on a pro-gun, antiabortion, anti-black platform.

A lot of Democrats voted for Bush. The mere mention of Greens sends you into a raging froth, but Dems who helped elect Bush don't faze you because they're dependably disloyal?

What part of that don't you get? You act as if they suddenly started voting Republican. The only Democrat who would get their vote is someone like George Wallace.

Greens vote for the Green candidate, Carlos goes ballistic -- Traitors! Fools! Those votes should've gone to Gore! Greens threw the election to Bush!

A whole swath of Democrats vote directly for Bush, Carlos says -- eh, they've been doing that for years, what's your point?

The Greens are supposed to be supportive of left wing issues yet they help the one candidate most hostile to their cause win.

Those Democrats would only vote for someone like George Wallace so they were not going to vote for Gore in any event.

Green votes were owed to Gore. Nutball-voting Dems get a pass.
Greens --> Evil.
Lester Maddox Dems --> Wacky cousins.

They weren't going to vote for Gore, as they hadn't even supported Clinton. You have to go back to Carter before you find them voting Democratic for president.

The Greens at least advertised themselves to be liberals and concerned about progressive issues. Yet their votes helped elect Bush.

knowing it's a lost cause?

It is his RIGHT to campaign. Gore did well in FLA but NATIONALLY the election was close.

There are so many better ways to spend your expertise than obsessing over this. YOu are a talented educated man and will be a plus for any org that hires you but NOBODY OWES their votes to the Dems...the DEMS OWE it to people to COMMUNICATE how THEY will better serve them....there are a lot more voters out there than the mushy reactive middle.

Nader appealed to voters that CENTRISTS on this board mock every fucking day! stop crying over voters you call the far fringed left anyway.

I never disputed that. But those who voted for him are partially responsible for the mess we have now and I will never stop saying that.

And how do you know the pukes wouldn't have found another way to manipulate the system to get Georgie Pordgie* into the Oval Office? Jebbie and Kathy are hardly innocent in the whole affair, damn criminals...

And how do you know that all 72,000 of them were disenchanted Democrats? I'm sure even some republicans and others are tired of the 2 party system where both parties equally cater to corporations, greed, lies, deceit, and other nasty things...

And why aren't we looking at the real problem; what did Al Gore do WRONG to turn voters away from him? Losing his own home state was probably a slap in the face as well. People don't seem to like that aspect. Gore is human and will make mistakes at times.

And do the same small quantities of Greens make a difference in other states where there was a clear winner?

Should America get used to a "2 party system where people from other parties become scapegoats just because a handful of people are sick and tired of the lunacy going on in the 2 parties?!" I sure as hell won't, not with the Dems of recent. Gephardt's latest bit with supporting the pukes on the overtime issue burns me right up. You think Greens are a problem and yet still blame them when the REAL problem causes more Dems to turn Green?! Explain that one to me please. :-(

Gore was harassed by Nader in the final weeks. In the final weeks of the campaign Nader was going to places like OR, WA, MN, and IA attacking Gore. Gore was forced then to spend precious resources that could have been used in FL and in other states to beat Bush. Maybe if Gore had more money he could have won TN against Bush.

As for your dislike of the 2 Party System, unfortunately, we don't live in a parlimentary system like Europe. We don't have proportional representation here where fringe parties get representation even if they just get 2-3% of the vote. Voting Green in a presidential race is a Republican vote no matter how much you want to say otherwise.

And until America's election laws change significantly, which I highly doubt will happen any time in the near future, Democrats are the only choice. And if you want to change the party then maybe you should get more involved.

Without Nader, Gore could have won NH, making Florida irrelevant and then would not have to worry about Court.

4) The News Media in the US.

I think Green Gays are as odd as Gay Republicans.

Are Greens so powerful that the Democrats can't win without them? Or are the Greens so marginal that the Democrats can move to the "center" and still win?

You can't have it both ways!

Very interesting, and refreshing, point to read!

Definitely an eye-opener.

I know some around here don't like Nader - and that's okay, Nader's no saint. But some don't like the Green party because they (don't) "steal" votes from the Dems. Such logic is illogical. http://www.gp.org/documents/spoiled.html speaks the truth on any number of issues, though "Lie #2" I find suspect in that the Green candidate of Nader stole Green ideals for his own selfish purpose (helping Duhbya to get selected; though with only 1.6% of the votes; how exactly were the Greens powerful in that state?)

found that Gore would have won if overvotes and incorrect-votes were counted. THE CONSORTIUM REPORT

actually i believe that the 'Chad' affair was really a diversion to hide a 'voting machine' scandle, check out www.blackboxvoting.com and surf out 'senator hagel black box voting', he owns and is CEO of a voting machine company, used exclusively in his last 2
elections. .and he neglected to report that to the ethics committee. the machines in question have 2 hidden talleys with the capability of rearranging the votes to another party.. and hiding the fact it happened.. there have been many complaints, recently the diebold voting machine company 'patched' 22,000 machines just before an election in GA, the patch was not certified and certified people didnt do the work. in florida bush/gore presinct managers had the passwords for the tally programs...?what, these machines were reported to break down in black demacratic presincts.. the managers had the keys...

You've evidently been around for a few posts, but I haven't had a chance to welcome you...and I like the way you think!!

This, to me, is FAR AND AWAY the BIGGEST scandal of all time against our Democracy. Straighten out the voting machines and give us a free press, and we'll get this country turned back to the good guys in no time.

No way have we, as a people, been electing this bunch of blood-sucking bastards!! Shoot the damn machines, and give me a pencil and a piece of paper, and a few honest locals to count my vote!!

:kick:

get real loyalists. time to cut through the bull.

the 'big dogs' extra-maritial affair with a young intern cost al gore a walk-off slam-dunk victory in '00. the whole world was watching his every step and he thought he could get away with this. talk about your self serving ego-maniacs!

the resulting up-roar resulted in the dem. losing votes in the squishy center the DLC so highly values.

and the practices and policies of the dems for the last 20 years has got the party where it is today. the democratic party history did not begin in 1992.

who voted for a tax cut so they could cash in on their prosperity under Clinton. About a million of them or so.

Sky-high surpluses. Unparalelled prosperity. Peace. Incumbency. How the hell did he squander all that??? Gore should have won in a landslide.

So, it's Gore's fault. After that, Nader's. And after that, the Bushies for striking the "felons" from the voter rolls. Even if the Supremes had let the recount go forward, Gore would have lost the counties he chose. Only a statewide recount would've given Florida to Gore.

In other words, it was a perfect storm.

Are they irresponsible ? or would all of them have voted for Bush ?

Nader still has to take some responsibilty for spending the whole campaign running against Gore and not bush. Also, 1.6 percent of the vote would have made the difference. Sorry but Nader is a negative and needs to be marginalized even more than he is now. That's politics, and no one has to stop blasting the guy for what he did or intends to do in 2004. Why the hell should he get a free pass?

which allows big money to buy votes and keep the media in its pocket

I could have worked harder to make Florida and Nader irrelevant. If the democrats had carried my state and a couple of others Florida would have been a footnote.