Why didn't the Senate support the CBC objections over coup 2000?

[mzmolly]

After watching F911 I came to realize that I, like many others, erased this painful event from my pea sized democratic brain. I am certain I was stuck between grief and disbelief as were many others, but it was wrenching to see again.

As there has been so much discussion in other threads, I though we may want to have a thread to discuss this issue alone?

As you can see by my avatar, I supported the good Senator from Minnesota, but even he did not step in to help the CBC. I remember at the time thinking surely Paul Wellstone would do so, but it did not happen. I think progressives/liberals/dems and others, felt defeated already and that dragging it out would be a futile extention of an already painful process? :shrug:

I have a question for our Gov/Legal scholars though. What would/could have happened if the CBC had gotten Senate support for their objections?

[still_one]

1. The movie did not present Congres in a very good light

They blindly allowed bush to become president

They blindly gave away the power of the Congress to declare war

They blindly allowed the patriot act to happen without question

Like the press, where has Congress been?

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Beyond sad. Pisses me off to no end that no folks on the Hill from

any party said or did anything to back up the CBC. EVERYONE who truly believes in democracy should have stood up and howled over the miscarriage of justice in that "election".

[cthrumatrix]

2. sadly agree..and makes one wonder if TPTB had this as the plan

and dem/rep go along with the "flow". They had a chance...they decided not to fight.

[beyurslf]

3. What about Carol Mosley Braun? She may have lost her

re-election, but she was a Senator when this happened...and had nothing to lose. I would like to know what would have happened if a Senator had signed on.

My guess is the House would have held an election... in which case BUsh would have been selected anyway. Maybe this is why they (the Senators) abstained.

[mzmolly]

5. Me too? Though it sounds as if it would have been futile anyhow

given it would have gone back to the R controlled house for a decision?

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. True. Maybe they thoought they were helping Gore

by staying out of it.

But hindsight tells us otherwise. Wonder how many congress critter memoirs will talk about this one day?

[mzmolly]

10. Hindsight is 20/20

*sigh*

[w13rd0]

8. There was some "legal discussion" on the topic at the time...

...it would have meant that the Florida slate of electors would have been rejected. Thus, neither candidate would have achieved the 270 required votes in the electoral college. It would have then been tossed to the House, who would decide, but they could choose anyone, they weren't bound to "elect" Bush. There was some theorizing that the Senate caved to keep the House from getting too much power, as the House tends to extremes, while the Senate tends to trend the "middleground". Or at least that's the thinking.

There were stipulations in the CBC proposal that would have allowed Florida to rectify the situation thru a revote or statewide recount to "legitimize" their electoral slate. But the "leaders" of the Democratic party feared further polarization of the populace, and struck a deal.

No, the film didn't cast Congress in a "good light". Most of them don't deserve a good light. Even Senators I respected caved. Oh, and on CMB, she's discussed this. Having already been "voted out", the GOP would have lynched her on the floor of Conress.

Actually, since the Republicans were already at the point of being irrational, frothing mouth rabid twits, we'd probably be steeped in a modern civil war. If the election had gone to Gore, they likely would have taken arms up against their RIGHTLY ELECTED Government. Telling I think. Can one appease traitors? It seems some Democrats still think so.

[mzmolly]

11. Post #7 points out that the house was controlled by the Republicans

which explains much to me.

I don't really consider that "striking a deal," it seems they were in a no win situation?

[mdmc]

25. awsome w13rd0... Can one appease traitors?

those democRATS!

[catzies]

98. I came away from the movie angry with incumbents (even some good ones)

and really hating the corporate media.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Carol Moseley Braun lost the 1998 election, not 2000. n/t

[beyurslf]

34. Ah thank you for pointing that out. I thought it was 2000.

[JHBowden]

14. Moseley-Braun lost in 1998.

That seat, now occupied by Peter Fitzgerald, will likely be Barack Obama's after November.

[senseandsensibility]

46. Good point.( on edit: I see she may have not been in Senate)

I hadn't thought about Mosley-Braun. Any ideas on why she didn't sign?

[Dookus]

56. Moseley-Braun was US Ambassador

to New Zealand at the time. She lost her seat in '98.

[I Lean Left]

60. Braun was gone by then.

Ryan just dropped out of the race for her seat, so she lost in '98. And then Clinton made her an ambassador. Somewhere.

[hedda_foil]

84. Carol lost her Senate seat in '98. She wasn't there.

[ShaneGR]

7. Because it was really up to Gore...

Gore had already gone to the Supreme Court. When they found against him, the only recourse would have been a challenge in the Senate. Gore declined to do so. Why would a Dem Senator stick his kneck out for a guy who won't do it himself? Pay careful attention to Gore's behavior during that. Look closely at Jesse Jackson Jr.'s petition, where does he place it? He turns around and puts it on the rail in front of Gore.

The problem is that even a grievance was just delaying the inevitable. The House was Repub controlled, and would have voted Bush in anyways.

[mzmolly]

9. I disagree with the first part of your analysis as I've read indepth

about Gore and how he did everything possible within the law.

One article lays it out nicely here - if interested:

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6543

However, this may be the most important piece of information here:

"The problem is that even a grievance was just delaying the inevitable. The House was Repub controlled, and would have voted Bush in anyways."

I do remember thinking it would have been futile at the time?

[Kukesa]

18. Good article, mzmolly.

I had forgotten the ins-and-outs of that mess in Florida. Thanks for the reminder.

[mzmolly]

26. No problem.

:hi:

It's tough to revisit though huh?

[AP]

19. You need to read Too Clost to Call, by Jeffrey Toobin

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375761071/qid=1088265827/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-3666528-3809629?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I came to quite a different conclusion about Gore after reading that book.

He made bad choice after bad choice.

[mzmolly]

30. You need to read "Blaming Al Gore-The Latest Crime of the Stolen Election"

For starters....

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6543

I will look into the book you recommend however, thanks. :hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

12. Gore didn't to the supreme court, bush did

Gore did everything he could legally do, but the senate and congress did not. They were missing in action because they were already making deals about committee chairmanships and such. What does it matter where Jesse Jackson put his petition. Gore couldn't do anything about it. He couldn't have signed the petition.

And of course some of them knew running for Pres themselves in 2004 would be impossible if Gore took office.

[mzmolly]

17. Ches, it sounds like it would have been futile anyhow?

Support from the senate would have sent the measure back to the Republican controlled house to decide upon. And strangely, the house would not have had to choose between Gore or Bush :shrug:

[AP]

27. Gore was told by experts to skip the contest phase and go straignt to

the second phase (not sure what each phase was called). They told him he needed a state wide recount, and that it would produce the votes he needed. He was told this on Wed morning by the two leading experts on recount legal strategy.

He ignored their advice. He asked for a recount in four counties. He didn't skip the first stage. He ate up time with that challenge (and the Supreme Court ultimately said that time was the problem, and not the impossiblity of doing a proper recount).

Ultimately, the consortium recount showed that the expert advice was exactly right. Sadly, because Gore didn't ask for that originally, papers were able to say that Gore's wouldn't have won even if he succeeded because he never asked for the statewide recount.

Gore also had Lawrence Tribe prepare for the second Supreme Court argument. Tribe spent days preparing. At the last minute, Gore pulled Tribe and sent in Boies, who was exhausted, had just flown home to New York, and who on three days notice had to prepare for a Supreme Court argument he hadn't even thought about. Tribe shared his notes, but Toobin writes about how an underprepared, tired Boies flubbed the key question in that oral argument.

Then there was Lieberman saying that the Dems wouldn't challenge unfranked military ballots even thought the Dems had every intention of doing so since the rules said that military ballots need not be stamped but must be franked, and they were receiving unfranked military ballots DAYS after the election that MUST have been mailed after election day.

Toobin's book -- without intending to be a hit piece on Gore, but an indictment of the whole recount process -- is, nonetheless, pretty harsh on Gore just in stating the facts.

[mzmolly]

29. There is different analysis here:

"Blaming Al Gore - The Latest Crime of the Stolen Election~ Nancy Kuhn"

"Had the Gore campaign instead chosen to dispute the purging of legal voters who were illegally denied their right to vote on Election Day, this would not have added any votes to the vote totals. Rather, it would have blocked any attempt to count the legal votes that had been cast on Election Day and not counted because the 72 hour deadline would have passed - and once that deadline passed, the campaign had no recourse.

The Gore campaign filed its election protests in order to enforce Florida's clear election law, which calls for hand counts when the number of uncounted votes would change the outcome of the election - which was clearly the case in this election dispute.

Let's also remember that it was the Bush campaign that first ran to Federal court to block these legal handcounts, because they knew that if all of the votes were counted, Al Gore would win. This fact was subsequently proved true by the NORC ballot count of the uncounted Florida ballots."

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6543

[AP]

31. Toobin's analysis goes into much more depth. You should read the book.

[mzmolly]

32. The article I posted was in response to the book..

from what I gather :shrug:

I am not interested in blaming the victim personally. But I am reading the reviews now, sounds like a good read so we'll see. Most readers conclude that Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and a biased Supreme court are to blame.

[AP]

33. It's not a thorough rebuttal. Toobin's a lawyer...

...and he goes into a lot of depth about the law of the recount and conest.

That article didn't convince me that Gore didn't make a mistake by just picking four counties. I believe the first SCt argument was over letting that stage continue.

IIUC, he shouldn't have even bothered challenging that one. He should have been trying to get to the second stage as soon as possible, and trying to get the statewide recount, including overvotes too (which I don't think he asked for explicitly, but I'm not sure).

[mzmolly]

38. The article I posted addresses this issue.

I made a mistake allowing Katherine Harris to live.

From the article I asked you to read:

"As someone who lived in Florida for 16 years and volunteered on numerous Democratic campaigns while I lived there, now both the disputed territory and Florida election law extremely well. It pains me greatly that two of the people involved in this unjust attack are none other than two of my favorite Democrats in the entire world, James Carville and Paul Begala. Also involved in this false attack is my favorite journalist Greg Palast, and two authors whose books do an outstanding job of documenting many of the illegal acts that the Bush campaign used to steal the election - Jeffrey Toobin and Jake Tapper."

...

These false attacks range from accusing Al Gore of not fighting hard enough to win in Florida to blaming Al Gore for the pro Bush media's unprecedented campaign against him. They include allegations that Gore abandoned African American voters who were illegally purged off of the Florida voting rolls, that he vetoed public demonstrations, that he did nothing to promote voting reform and counting all of the votes. The truth is that there was nothing short of starting a civil war that Al Gore could have done to have gotten the uncounted, legal votes in Florida counted."

...

"The allegation that Al Gore did not fight to have all of the votes counted is false. The Gore campaign asked for the votes to be counted in the counties where there were the most uncounted undervotes, since these were the largest number of votes that had not been counted.

Under Florida election law in 2000, all statewide candidates had the right to file election protests in the counties where they disputed the vote totals and wanted a more accurate count. Florida law allows the campaigns 72 hours to file these protests with the county canvassing boards. There was no mechanism for a statewide count.

Had the Gore campaign instead chosen to dispute the purging of legal voters who were illegally denied their right to vote on Election Day, this would not have added any votes to the vote totals. Rather, it would have blocked any attempt to count the legal votes that had been cast on Election Day and not counted because the 72 hour deadline would have passed - and once that deadline passed, the campaign had no recourse.

The Gore campaign filed its election protests in order to enforce Florida's clear election law, which calls for hand counts when the number of uncounted votes would change the outcome of the election - which was clearly the case in this election dispute."

Read the article, there are at the very least differing opinions. Gore has a backround in law also, but it's a complex dog that's for sure.

http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6543

[AP]

48. This is not a rebutttal of Toobins arguments.

These false attacks range from accusing Al Gore of not fighting hard enough to win in Florida to blaming Al Gore for the pro Bush media's unprecedented campaign against him.

Toobin doesn't blame Al Gore for, vaguely, not doing enough. He lays out the things that Gore did that were counter-producitve. He lists a series of Gore's actions which created problems for Gore.

They include allegations that Gore abandoned African American voters who were illegally purged off of the Florida voting rolls, that he vetoed public demonstrations, that he did nothing to promote voting reform and counting all of the votes.

This doesn't rebut the fact that Gore told Jesse and Al to go home and not to protest.

The truth is that there was nothing short of starting a civil war that Al Gore could have done to have gotten the uncounted, legal votes in Florida counted.

So is she saying it's OK that he made so many mistakes because he wouldn't have won anyway, or his she saying that he did everything he could?

To me, it's seems Nancy is just upset that people were blaming Gore and is giving him a blanket "you're forgiven" without really giving any arguments to rebut the things that Toobin talks about.

There was no mechanism for a statewide count.

IIUC, there's not mechanism at the protest stage, but there definitely was at the contest stage, and the point is, Gore held things up at the protest stage when Gore should have been trying to get to the contest stage as soon as possible. For someone who states that her aim is to rebut Toobin at the start of her article, she doesn't really seem to care much about addressing the precise issues Toobin raises in his book.

Nancy's article seems to have much narrower ambitions than Toobin's book. I'd give Toobin's book a read at this point if I hadn't read it.

[mzmolly]

50. Al Gore wanted to win as badly as we wanted him too. I don't

want to second guess his thought process personally.

I am now focused on electing John Kerry, afterwards I may read the book.

:hi:

[AP]

51. Understanding what happened in 2000 can only help you understand what

is going on now.

For instance, I don't trust Lieberman very much at all as a result of reading The Roaring Nineties and Too Close to Call (I'm not sure if it's his motivations or judgment I don't trust, but it's definitely trust that I don't have for him).

[mzmolly]

52. Understanding one mans view is not going to change my opinion of Al Gore.

It's one view of the story. In fact, in one review I read the author claimed Toobin let Gore off the hook for not demanding a state wide recount due to media pressure?

I did see unprecidented which represented a fairly similar viewpoint however.

I just don't need to revisit it right now. I'm not into blaming the victim KWIM? Though I understand the book has much information that is useful.

I agree with you on Lieberman. I think he's an honest man, but he doesn't share my thought process. :hi:

[AP]

58. It's not just one man's view. It's a well-researched, in depth analysis of

the historical record.

I think Nancy's thing was one person's opinion. But I think Toobin's book is a great historical record which helps people understand how the world works, which is always helpful.

By the way, it wasn't my impression that Toobin let Gore off the hook. But he does offer the point of view that Gore was pretty much indicating to the staff that he was conducting the recall in a way so as not to offend the editorial board of the NYT. He alwasy looked to them to see how the "public" was reacting, and indicated that he didn't want to do anythign to which they'd object. I believe he even changed his position on something after the editorial page criticized him.

I'm not sure if pointing this out is letting Gore "off the hook."

[mzmolly]

66. No matter how much he researches the matter he is one man with

an opinion. Hindsite is always 20/20.

I am certain Al Gore would have done somethings differently if he had it to do over again.

[AP]

93. There's a lot to be said for a well-researched opinon though.

[mzmolly]

43. dup

*

[Nay]

36. "Why would a Dem senator stick his neck out for a guy who

won't do it himself?"

Well, hopefully because there's a Dem senator who puts his country's welfare above such petty considerations, for one.

And as far as being afraid to polarize the country -- well, hell, they don't mind polarizing the hell out of it for totally stupid reasons, so why not for a good reason?

Still, no one had advanced a convincing theory about why not one senator would sign on with the CBC.

[mzmolly]

40. Sure they have. Because the measure would have sent the decison

to the Republican controlled house for a decision.

We were in a lose/lose situation :(

[AP]

94. Would that senator want to be known as the person who cost the party

parity in the committees (which is why the dems agreed not to fight the battle Gore wasn't fighting)?

Incidentally, Gregg Pallast said the reason Gore didn't fight was because all his friends on Wall St called him and told him he wouldn't serve on an corporate boards if he fought the recount vigorously.

[jfxgillis]

15. It would have delayed the count by a few hours or a day

And the result would have been exactly the same.

[FloridaPat]

16. This is how dictators take over. You do something for the "right

reason", but you walk on the Constitution while you're doing it. Doesn't matter if the Democrats wanted to get on with it and show how united they were. They walked on the rights of the voters and African Americans. Especially when the Supreme Court used the same reason to put Bush in office that they used to support African American votes. Someone should have stood up for them.

Same thing with the Patriot Act. Most Americans are willing to shoot the Constitution for more security. That should have been everyone's first hint Bush was a traitor. The Consitution is good for over 200 years but under Bush it's now out of date??? No. The population should have been in the streets asking for impeachment at that point. But most people don't understand what happened.

[mzmolly]

22. I think the fact that our media is so brain dead/docile/compacient in it

all, of course allows it to continue.

So much for freedom of the press when they're owned by the war profiteers.

Did Moore mention that GE owns much of the media and profits from the war they trumped up? I don't recall?

I can only hope we get some "footing" by electing John Kerry so we can start the f over.

[Nay]

41. Thank you, FloridaPat.

If we can't get even the elected Dems to act in support of principle, then we are well and truly f**ked, and all these people out here who think they are safe because of the Patriot Act are going to have the local cops and Feds looking up their assholes with microscopes before they figure out they've been hoodwinked. And it will be too late then. I hope they like their McDonald's fries and their mall shopping hobby, because that's all they will have left. And not for very long, just until their jobs disappear.

[Solly Mack]

54. Nicely put...and in ever so much more politer terms than I can manage

when asked about why others wouldn't stand up for America along side the CBC.

[mdmc]

64. well said

:kick:

[freeforall]

20. I was absolutely appalled to see that not one lousy senator

would sign.

I hope that if * tries to pull this again, all the people will be out in the streets, and also relentlessly hounding the senators.

Disgusting!

[Eric J in MN]

21. it would have caused more coverage of the disenfranchisement

It would have caused more coverage of the disenfranchisement of legal Flordia voters who had been labelled "suspected felons," and would have delegitimized Bush to more people.

[mzmolly]

23. I agree, I think that's about all it would have achieved.

Then the R's would continue with the Sore/Loserman *whiner* labels and Limbaugh would have had a ratings bump. :puke:

So much for Democracy huh?

[Eric J in MN]

42. I think it's important to delegitmize Bush. He is a fraud.

I think it's important to delegitmize Bush. He is a fraud. he stole the election through his brother's admin. stopping people from voting.

The more people who know that, the better.

Maybe Congress would have gone along with Bush less if there had been greater awareness of how Bush stole the election.

[mzmolly]

45. And we have the media to thank for a lack of awareness as well.

If the people remain *ignorant* the corporate controlled government can do whatever it pleases.

As long as the very corporations who profit from the war, own the media that is supposed to *enlighten* the American public we'll be hard pressed to see a change.

The song "shiny happy people" comes to mind again."

All the more reason Michael Moores film is so very necessary.

[AP]

28. It would have cost senators parity on the committees and Republicans would

have been able to ram through everything.

Hearsay: another poster in anothe thread said that Daschle cut a deal. No protest if they got equal power on all the committees.

Since any further protest would have been symbolic, this was probably an OK deal to make.

Anyway, I'm sure that if they could have counted on Gore to take up the flag they passed off to him, they would have done it, but without Gore on board, any symbolic value would have been lost immediately. Does anyone thing the press would have covered this in a way that would help Dems? Not at all.

[Nay]

44. **newsflash** AP, the Repubs are ramming everything through

anyway. Haven't you noticed?? And as astute as long-time politicians are, didn't the Dem Congresspeople notice that the Repubs weren't playing fair from the git-go, and any promises of "parity" on committees were going to be total hogwash anyway?

And never mind that most Dem congresspeople aren't even using their "positions of parity" for anything meaningful. So why were they willing to cave for "positions of parity"? As far as I know, Sen. Byrd can, and has, stood up and berated the administration without any "position of parity," but the rest of the Dems can't even do what that honorable man is doing? Why not?

There is something else going on, and we just don't know what it is.

[AP]

49. We're talking from 2000-2002. Now they have a majority in both houses.

But even now, Bush is unwilling to ram some of the worst stuff through because after 2002 you're too close to the election and people remember. That's why the MBNA profit protection act (the bankruptcy bill) hasn't passed.

If Bush controlled the Senate b/w 2000 and 2002 I bet that would have passed.

[lucky777]

24. This caught my eye again during the movie

Moore was featured on a CNN program this morning saying that the richest 10% get two political parties (repub and dem) while the bottom 90% are unrepresented. This came out in the movie -- it makes you so ashamed of congress, the sup ct, and the president. Apart from a few people in the House, no one has the balls to stand up.

[bushwakker]

35. I bought Jeff Toobin's book abouth theft 2000 Too Close To Call

I bought this book a year ago and have yet to read it. It's just too painful. That election marked a real change in how I view this country.

[Mnemosyne]

37. No support from Kerry either, very disappointing.

I read an email to Mike Moore from a soldier in Iraq on his website, before it seems the soldiers were censored in mailing Mike, not officially, but letters seem to stop in mid-Oct 2003.

This soldier said his dad told him that sometimes you have to pick the best turd out of a pile of sh*t to vote and 2004 election is such a situation.

Sorry to Kerry fans,but thats how I'm voting this year.
He sounds too much like *lite in many policies, ie Isreal, etc. and is a fellow skull and bonesman.

Wonder how many times he's been to Bohemian Grove? if he has.
If he has been there we are majorly f**ked anyway.

Anyone know???

http://www.geocities.com/bohemian_grove_dirt/

[mzmolly]

39. Turns out we were in a lose/lose situation....

Senate involvement would only have sent the measure to the R controlled house to appoint a President.

But, I am glad I asked because I wasn't clear on why they didn't. The media loves to portray D's as milquetoasties because it furthers their agenda.

As for Bohemian Grove, I don't have a tin foil hat quite big enough for that one. ;)

[Mnemosyne]

89. Mine's getting a bit bigger each day, I'll share mzmolly!

[mzmolly]

92. LMAO!

;)

[Senior citizen]

47. My best guess is that the DNC and the DLC

told the liberal Democrats that they would not get any support in future elections from the Democratic Party unless they kept their mouths shut. Rep. Bob Filner (D)CA of San Diego has been getting reelected by the people here who know how progressive he is, and I don't think he was approached by the Democratic leadership because they knew he wouldn't go along to get along. As for Wellstone and the other supposed liberals in the Senate, they went along. There are many cases of liberals and progressives being elected DESPITE the Democratic leadership, and we we need more of them. But what we really need are more political parties, more valid choices, and representation of the people, not of the parties. Moore was correct, the two major parties owe their allegiance to big campaign contributors, and only a complete reform of our election system will change that.

I believe that if there had been even one senator to sign the CBC petition, we would have been plunged into Civil War. I believe that we should have been, and that it may still be necessary. I don't know how younger people may feel, and I respect them because they have full lives ahead of them, but I would rather be dead than continue to endure fascism in the free country of my birth. I would emigrated when JFK was assassinated if I had been able to afford to. As it was, I spent many years in other countries, and learned that most of what I'd been taught about the world was wrong.

[mzmolly]

55. "had been even one senator to sign the CBC petition, we would have been

plunged into Civil War"

I really think some of the Dems feared this. If we'd only realized that it may have been worth it? If B is selected again, I may be headed to Canada.

[grasswire]

53. GORE TOOK THE BAIT

He believed what was told him, that if he wanted to preserve his future electability, he'd better dummy up and "go along to get along."

He, essentially, sold us out so that he might run again.

It was a trap.

There was a Constitutional remedy, and it should have been followed to the bitter end, in order to demonstrate to the world and to future generations that democracies do not just cede power to despots and coup-plotters.

Those who would seize power against the stated will of the people by fiat must be made to take it in public view -- with shrieking and wailing of the people as the backdrop.

Civility be damned. Look at where it got us. More divided than ever, more ripe for civil war.

[mdmc]

57. Yup ... Dems are suckers

The rich profit, the poor die. WAR!

[mzmolly]

59. Not as much as Nader voters are.

Nader profits, the poor die. WAR!

[mdmc]

61. we will disagree on this one

Greens want peace.
Dems want war without Bush.
GOP wants war with Bush.

Our best argument is that Bush is evil, that Kerry is better.
The Green best argument is that they are right on the issues, and that Kerry has supported Bush at every turn.
The GOP's best argument is that the Greens are nuts, and that Kerry supported everything that Bush did, so why not stick with Bush?

Which argument is strongest? Even Nader concedes that if "all you care about is removing Bush from office, than you should be voting for Kerry."

[Nlighten1]

62. Indeed.

It isn't suprising the depths that Nader haters will stoop to smear him.

[mzmolly]

67. "Nader haters"

:eyes:

What about "Kerry haters" ???

Kerry = THE ONLY HUMAN BEING WITH A SHOT AT DEFEATING BUSH, remember?

[Nlighten1]

87. Indeed.

If only it would mean something besides defeating Bush.

[mzmolly]

90. Check his Senate record .. it means much more.

http://changein04.com/mainContent/bvsk.php

Snip:

Worker Rights

Bush:

Banned collective bargaining for the 60,000 employees who provide security at our nation's airports. More than 1,000 airport screeners who belonged to SEIU lost union representation due to Bush's decision.
Issued an order denying Justice Department employees the freedom to form a union.
Blocked more strikes than any president in recent history.
Repealed workplace ergonomics rules that protect workers from injury and help cover the costs of workplace injuries (nearly 2 million workers a year suffer from crippling musculoskeletal injuries).
Pushed for changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act that could eliminate overtime pay for as many as 8 million workers.
Proposed new financial reporting and disclosure requirements for Unions that would cost organized labor upwards of $1 billion a year to comply.
Opposes any increase in the minimum wage.

Kerry:

Would immediately overturn Bush's ban on Project Labor Agreements.
Opposes Bush efforts to allow employers to refuse to hire union organizers.
Opposes "paycheck protection" legislation (Bush supports) aimed at preventing unions from spending money on political activity.
Supports collective bargaining rights for state and municipal public safety officers.
Supported the minimum wage increase in 1997 and supports increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation.
Opposes Bush effort to allow employers to avoid paying overtime.

My personal reminder. ;)

Nader: Talks a good game, but busted a union among his workers and helped bust other unions as well.

[Nlighten1]

95. We shall see won't we.

We shall see.

[mzmolly]

96. I hope we do.

:hi:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. You mean "smear" as in...

...accurately reporting quotes such as:

1. When asked during the 2000 campaign who he would vote for between Gore and Bush, Nader responded, "Bush";

2. When asked why he was running in 2000, Nader replied, "To make sure that Gore doesn't win".


Does anyone still wonder why so many Democrats are bitter about the 2000 election?

[mzmolly]

76. Not to mention the fool is running AGAIN.

I could forgive 2000, but I wont go down quietly today.

[mdmc]

78. I voted for Nader in 96 and 2000

based on the drug war and the death penalty.

Sure, I don't like w., but I doubt w. will relinquish power. Kerry has a great chance of getting more votes than w., but he will never WIN (Bush won't give up the power - Dems won't overthrow him).

I was / am a sore Democrat - Clinton pissed me off with his drug war.

[Nlighten1]

86. Not arguing but...

Do you happen to have links to verify these statements?

[mzmolly]

65. Yes we do.

Greens want peace.
Dems want war without Bush.
GOP wants war with Bush.

Our best argument is that Bush is evil, that Kerry is better.
The Green best argument is that they are right on the issues, and that Kerry has supported Bush at every turn.
The GOP's best argument is that the Greens are nuts, and that Kerry supported everything that Bush did, so why not stick with Bush?

Which argument is strongest? Even Nader concedes that if "all you care about is removing Bush from office, than you should be voting for Kerry."

I do not subscribe to your assertions at all.

Greens want peace? Are they the only ones? Last I heard Nader wasn't even a green and he owned stock in Haliburton.

Dems don't want war, they want the same end Ralph Nader does. He suggests we pull out carefully with the help of the international community. His position almost EXACTLY mirrors Kerrys. The only difference is he claims it does not.

As for what the Greens stand for, I'll leave you with this quote from Gloria Steinem:

"He was able to take all those perfect progressive positions of the past because he never had to build an electoral coalition, earn a majority vote, or otherwise submit to democracy."~ Gloria Steinem on Ralph Nader

Regarding Naders quote: "If *all* you care about is removing Bush from office...."

How generous of Mr. Nader to give me the two choices below:

Care about only one issue - removing Bush and that's it
or...
Care about all the problems facing humanity today

:eyes:

F-U Nader is all I have to say to that! I am not a "Nader hater," but believe me I'm getting there.

Perhaps he should take his one man show around the globe and see what the people of the mid-east think of his superioriority complex?

[mdmc]

71. sound bite it for me, molly

Greens - The rich own both parties, profit on war.
Dems - Bush is evil, Kerry will be a better diplomat.
GOP - Kerry backed Bush, stay the course. Or, to put i another way, Bush is the only one who would have went in and removed Saddam from power.

F911 seemed more of a rally cry for the Greens than it did for the Dems. Everyone left the flic with a dislike for Bush. The Greens, progressives, and peacenics might have left with less love for the Dems, and a stronger belief that the rich profit from war, own both parties, and don't mind the deaths of the poor.

[mzmolly]

75. Ask Moore what he'd like to see happen because of his movie.

Here's a sound bite for ya:

Greens Cobb faction = pragmatic progressives who see the big picture and want to build their party without destroying the world in the process.

Greens Nader faction = Pie in the sky finger pointing idealogues who refuse to see the union busting, war profiteering, Bush enabling, egomaniacal hypocrite for who he is in spite of the hindsite election 2000 should have afforded them.

Dems = Bush is evil, Kerry has a strong progressive record worth supporting.

GOP = Let's help Nader so that we can divide progressives and keep our guy in office.

There's a sound bite for ya ;)

http://changein04.com

[mdmc]

79. Not too shabby, Molly : - )

Please concede that the Dems would be better off spending their time courting those (Dems, blanks, others) that don't vote instead of courting greens.
:hi:

The Greens - the way I see the factions
1] Pure - want to destroy the Dems and take on the GOP in a 2 party system
2] Persuadable - actually disenfranchised, progressive, liberal Dems
3] others- care less about politics; think the system is f'ed. Smoke pot and tune out. If they vote, it is in protest.

[mzmolly]

82. Thanks mdmc..

:hi:

Regarding who the Dems "court" ... This Dem will court anyone within earshot. And, I think that's the approach my party should take.

Hey, I know many Greens BTW and lot's fit into the #3. category. :smoke: I hope they see F911. Perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the nation. ;)

[mdmc]

83. lol

those hippies! what love!

Kerry 04

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. Smartest thing Nader has said in the last 4 to 5 years. He'd look like...

...a genius if he dropped out now.

[Hamlette]

63. Gore asked Senators not to contest

it would have prolonged the agony. Gore knew he would lose in the end. He was being pragmatic and honorable. The Senators apparently agreed (Gore had no real power over them) either out of a belief it was futile or out of respect for Gore.

I think it was the honorable thing for Gore and the senators to do. I remember it well and thought that part of the movie was a cheap shot. Remember Moore was a big Nader supporter, he's not always a friend of the Dems.

[mdmc]

72. Gore acted with honor,

but disenfranchised a good block of dems.

F911 was anti- bush, but was NOT pro democrat.

[mzmolly]

80. Of course it wasn't Pro-Democrat. Moore is not a Democrat, but he's

interested in defeating Bush.

"In the 2004 presidential election, we must not split our vote between Greens and Democrats. I know the Greens have party building to do, but, if Mr. Bush wins again, there will be no America for them to build their party in. So they must defer this time and earn our respect and admiration for doing so."~ Granny D

I'm off to the library, peace.

[mdmc]

81. Peace , Molly..., Thanks for the back and forth

:hi:
KERRY IN 04!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

88. Actually, as I recall, MM implied how difficult it must have been for Gore

to preside over the session. I know Moore is not a democrat, and I'm glad he's holding their feet to the fire for rolling over and just letting the GOP have their way. However, the opening montage in the film clearly indicates he would have greatly preferred Gore as president. MKJ

[mzmolly]

97. Good point.

:hi:

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

68. I don't want to excuse a lack of Senate support

BUT I think it is instructive to remember no one, and I mean NO ONE had any idea how completely dangerous and destructive a bush presidency would be.

No one. Not even me, and I'm a Texan. I knew he was a retard, and I figured he'd be a pretty ineffective president. Maybe screw up some minor things, I expected the economy to go sour, but THIS??? THIS????

No fucking way. No one saw it coming. There wasn't the sense of urgency we have now.

That wouldn't happen now, I gaurantee you.

[mzmolly]

70. Indeed, to question the CBC we must also question everyone who was

complicit in this stolen election. Including those that are running again against the only progressive with a chance to defeat Bush.

[mdmc]

74. well, has the CBC lost credibility

F911 - Gore, "Well the rules care whether you have the signature of a Senator." Laughter and the clucking of tongues. The CBC should have joined Jeffords and left the Dem party.

Sickening!

[mzmolly]

77. Gore spoke the truth. He wasn't trying to be humorous. Did you see

R's laughing and clucking or Dems?

Moore supported Nader in 2000. He's got to have a bit of validation in his film. But I shall let him redeem himself as he has chosen to do.

Apparently today "all" he cares about is defeating Bush? :eyes: :P

Tell me HAS THE CBC LOST CREDIBILITY WITH NADER? Just last week they asked him "Get his ass out" of the race. Guess Mr. Nader may be laughing all the way to the bank again.

[WilliamPitt]

85. BECAUSE AL GORE ASKED THEM NOT TO

and they were abiding by his wishes.

[mzmolly]

91. Hmmmm. I'd be interested in learning more.

If you have any information I'd appreciate.

I understand that a Senate signature would have sent the matter to the R controlled house to decide, and that is perhaps why Gore would say "it's over" :shrug:

[Vadem]

99. I have the tape of January 6, 2001, of the certifying of electors....

which I taped from C-Span. I was furious, heartbroken and protesting the election on 1/6/01, on the grounds of the US Capitol, a freezing January day in DC, along with David Litell, co-founder of Democrats.com. who organized the protest from Democrats.com, as well as with my 78 year old mother, my sister, myself and about 25 other faithful Dems, including PFAW, and about 15 freepers. The Dems were protesting the election and waiting for the decision of the electors. We were listening to C-Span radio on 90.1 FM in DC. The full House and Senate were there that day and Bill Thomas (assh*old from CA) and Chris Dodd, were reading the electoral votes from the states. Al Gore, as we know, as VP to break votes in Senate was MC.

Folks, I pulled my tapen from that day and am watching it now and I am getting the same sick, furious feeling I had on that day! The laughing, the joking, it makes you want to puke!

I begged Al not to concede in so many emails, telling him that the whole Democratic party and country were behind him and we would stand beside him and fight to the bitter end. He so disappointed me.

If anyone would like a copy of this tape, please PM me with your name and address (and please send me $5.00 to cover cost of tape and shipping) and I will copy this tape for every one who wants it and ship it out to you and you can see for yourself how we, and the Black Caucus were betrayed!

The next day, I called every Democrat Senator (on Sunday, which I previously thought was Saturday) and reamed them out on their answer machines, calling them cowards and worse. OMG, I'll NEVER get over it!

It was a bloodless coup and we stood by, furious and fuming, and not knowing what else to do!

God help us!

[Vadem]

100. II have the tape of January 6, 2001, of the certifying of electors

which I taped from C-Span. I was furious, heartbroken and protesting the election on 1/6/01, on the grounds of the US Capitol, a freezing January day in DC, along with David Litell, co-founder of Democrats.com. who organized the protest from Democrats.com, as well as with my 78 year old mother, my sister, myself and about 25 other faithful Dems, including PFAW, and about 15 freepers. The Dems were protesting the election and waiting for the decision of the electors. We were listening to C-Span radio on 90.1 FM in DC. The full House and Senate were there that day and Bill Thomas (assh*ole from CA) and Chris Dodd, were reading the electoral votes from the states. Al Gore, as we know, was there as VP to break votes in Senate and was MC.

Folks, I found my tape from that day and am watching it now and I am getting the same sick, furious feeling that I had on that day! The laughing, the joking, it makes you want to puke!

I begged Al not to concede in so many emails, telling him that the whole Democratic party and country were behind him and we would stand beside him and fight to the bitter end. He so disappointed me.

If anyone would like a copy of this tape, please PM me with your name and address (and please send me $5.00 to cover cost of tape and shipping) and I will copy this tape for every one who wants it and ship it out to you and you can see for yourself how we, and the Black Caucus were betrayed!

The next day, I called every Democratic Senator (on Sunday, which I previously thought was Saturday) and reamed them out on their answering machines, calling them cowards and worse. OMG, I'll NEVER get over it!

It was a bloodless coup and we stood by, furious and fuming, and not knowing what else to do!

God help us!



Click here to go back to the main forums.
The information you requested cannot be displayed because it is no longer available. If you think this is in error, please contact the site administrator.

If you have any questions, please contact the site administrator.
Click her

[Vadem]

101. Sorry for the dupes! I was trying to correct typos in the message ....

and somehow I ended up with two messages, the first one with the typos and the second one with the corrected typos.

[Vadem]

102. :kick: this is important! :kick: eom

Oh, well, obviously, the Smilies aren't working.\\\

[mdmc]

103. kick

:kick:

[Kenneth ken]

104. Thanks all

I had wondered about this myself.

It's all come back to me now, like a bad nightmare.

It's easy to look back and say shoulda coulda woulda but I agree with whoever said no one expected things to be as horrid as they actually are.