« Don't enlist | Main | Why do Democrats hate democracy? (part 1) »

Monday, October 25, 2010


I don't see how anyone can deny the basic facts about 2000.

1. Gore won the election.

2. He and his campaign, even though he won the election, had his own party in control of the executive branch and the Senate, and physically held the White House, unilaterally chose to cave in and hand the election he won over to a little thug who was pathetically trying to steal it.

Bush and the scotus didn't force Gore to do that, nor did the media, and most definitely not Nader. Gore and his people chose to submit 100% on their own.

Gore won the election. He had no right to let Bush steal it. He and his campaign betrayed the American people.

I guess they still demonize Nader in order to try to cover up their own eternal shame and dishonor, perhaps most of all from themselves.

Russ, you get halfway there and stop... keep going.

The answer, the explanation, is that there is no difference between Repub and Dem where Al Gore is concerned. Al's $$$ grows no matter who's in charge. Al trusted Gee Dubbs and The Dickster to do what Al would have done awkwardly ("Mission Accomplished!" in codpiece on an aircraft carrier).

The spineless acceptance of the SCOTUS ruling in Bush v Gore revealed that Gore and the Democrats are happy partners with the Republicans -- not opponents in any way except as actors on a stage. At the cast party, Donkeys and Elephants drinks, smoke, and tell jokes with each other, with no antipathy.

That's what people don't get, and don't WANT to get. The ugly truth.

Aside from that -- while Nader seemingly would be a damned sight better than either Donkey or Elephant from my voting lifetime (since 1980), that's not saying much, given the string of losers who have sat at 1600 Penna Ave since 1980.

That we have an Articulate Black loser in there now is just proof that bipartisanship is post-racist.

I know that. I was referring to the mindset of those who think there is a difference between the kleptocratic parties. (To hate Nader over 2000, one would have to be either a Party hack or be sincerely deluded that the Dems are better.)

One can believe Nader was (and is) right and still not like the man. One can not like the man and not have been influenced by Democratic attacks. My dislike of Nader long predates the 2000 election. I think he is an uncharismatic egomaniac. He is also right about most things.

It is also possible that if he had not run, Gore would have won by enough votes that he wouldn't have been put to the post electin test he failed. Of course, it is probable that his election wouldn't have made any appreciable long-term difference, though there are various fantasies one can have about how much slower our handbasket would be moving towards Hell, had he won.

shargash, in what way do you think Nader is an egomaniac (especially your pre-2000 opinion)?

I love it when people whine about Nader being an egomaniac. Maybe if Gore had built up a little more in the ego department, he wouldn't have run a pathetic campaign and then folded like wet tissue paper post-election.

And I especially love it when the people calling Nader an egomaniac are breathless fans of such peerless icons of humility as Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, et al.

When you really want to beat the horse, any stick will do.

That would be a great motto for the average American "progressive" blogger and their great "progressive" leaders like Obama: All Stick. No Carrot. Since ___. <--- (year of your choice goes here)

The comments to this entry are closed.