Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Six Years After 'Gore's Victory'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 11:35 AM
Original message
Six Years After 'Gore's Victory'
Thank a veteran today, folks. They are why our country is free, despite the best efforts of more than a few people.



Robert Parry reminds us of Corporate McPravda's role in the current national situation:



Six Years After 'Gore's Victory'

By Robert Parry
November 12, 2007 (Originally published November 12, 2001)

Editor’s Note: Six years ago on another Veterans Day holiday, eight news organizations published the findings of their unofficial recount of Florida’s disputed ballots. The recount had discovered that Al Gore would have won the decisive Florida election if all legally cast votes were counted.

However, just two months after the 9/11 attacks, the news organizations chose to conceal the obvious “Gore Won” lead, apparently putting their sense of “patriotism” over journalistic professionalism.

Rather than tell already-shaken Americans that the wrong man was in the White House, the big news outlets – including the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN – structured their stories around hypothetical recounts that would have excluded some legal votes and thus still would have resulted in a Bush “victory.”

To further protect Bush’s “legitimacy” amid the 9/11 crisis, the news organizations mocked those who challenged these carefully structured stories as “Gore partisans” or “conspiracy theorists.”

SNIP...

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.


SNIP...

In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters – both nationally and in Florida – might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/111207a.html



Remember, veterans are the reason we have elections.



Partisan repuke hack supreme court judges are the reason they're not what they used to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pssssssst. It's seven. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Right you are! Thanks!
2000 + 6 = 2006

Not 2007.

Seven it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. it's SIX years after publication of the media-consortium finding that gore won
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Now 'Chief Justice' - Roberts Had Larger 2000 Recount Role
Six? Seven? Has it been that long, already?



Speaking of turds tied to the election:



Roberts Had Larger 2000 Recount Role

By Marc Caputo
The Miami Herald
Wednesday 27 July 2005

The role of US Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in the 2000 election aftermath in Florida was larger than has been reported. Roberts helped prepare the Supreme Court case.

Tallahassee - US Supreme Court nominee John Roberts played a broader behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election than previously reported - as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job.

Ted Cruz, a domestic policy advisor for President Bush and who is now Texas' solicitor general, said Roberts was one of the first names he thought of while he and another attorney drafted the Republican legal dream team of litigation "lions" and "800-pound gorillas," which ultimately consisted of 400 attorneys in Florida.

Until now, Gov. Jeb Bush and others involved in the election dispute could recall almost nothing of Roberts' role, except for a half-hour meeting the governor had with Roberts. Cruz said Roberts was in Tallahassee helping the Bush camp for "a week to 10 days," and that his help was important, though Cruz said it is difficult to remember specifics five years after the sleep-depriving frenetic pace of the 2000 recount.

But one thing was certain, Cruz told The Herald: "There was no one better for the job."

"He's one of the best brief writers in the country. Just like a good journalist or a novelist, he can write with clarity, concisely and can paint a picture with words," said Cruz. Roberts, a constitutional-law expert in a top Washington law firm at the time, is now a federal appeals court judge in D.C. Roberts was a no-brainer for the recount effort: His win-loss record at the US Supreme Court was one of the most impressive. And, like Cruz, he was a member of a tight-knit circle of former clerks for the court's chief justice, William Rehnquist - a group jokingly referred to as "the cabal."

CONTINUED...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/073005Y.shtml



Thanks for the help, unblock.

Time. What a concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Part of the problem lies within the Democratic Party's "leadership" & their reluctance
to take this public.

THE SILENCE BY DEM LEADERSHIP, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE DLC (since they played the most prominent leadership role) WAS DEAFENING. I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF WHO BENEFITTED W/IN THE D's FROM A GORE "LOSS"? FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

YEAH RIGHT. THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN AND THE PARTY LEADERSHIP PUSHED FOR CONFORMITY IN SILENCE. WHY DIDN'T THEY FIGHT TO MAKE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PUBLIC? WHY IS THE DLC STILL REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE GORE WON?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I believe much of corporate media's behavior in 90s was motivated in large part
Edited on Mon Nov-12-07 06:19 PM by Uncle Joe
against Al Gore from the beginning,long before the 2000 selection season began. The corporate media recognized Al Gore's populistic streak as the Internet grew in power because the Internet itself is populistic by nature as it allows the American People to communicate directly in mass, without, over or around the media's filter. This makes ruling the American People by dividing and conquering them by stereotype infinitely more difficult. I also believe this is why Karl Rove recently attacked the anonymity of the Internet. It's because the powers that be whether neo con, or media conglomerate have become accustomed to attacking the messenger, as opposed to the message simply because they have the megaphone and vast wealth on their side to attack any messenger, what they don't have is the truth or facts to attack the message.

Just as when you play chess, the best players see several or many steps ahead. I believe the witch hunt against the Clintons was in truth a back door media attempt to keep Al Gore from coming to power, their true target was never the Clintons. As I posted on another thread who would want direct competition when they have the market cornered on any product or service? In this case the product was information, information = power, money and influence.

I believe the primary motivation for the media's dysfunctional behavior was because of Al Gore's championing of the Internet while he was in Congress and as Vice-President and they didn't want a strong advocate of the Internet in the White House. This is why on virtually every television network, newspaper editorial and radio station, they repeated the slander of "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet", among many others, thus while promoting the party that claimed to cherish the Ten Commandments, "they bore false witness" against Al Gore, non stop from the morning shows to the late night comedians. They simply transferred the sins of the President on to the Vice-President and Bill Clinton only aided them in that endeavor. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" was an obvious lie to the nation and the media morphed it in to "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet". The media made the prime concern about integrity in spite of previous terrorist attacks, because they knew Bush wouldn't stand a chance given an honest debate with Al Gore on the issues or qualifications for the most powerful job in the land.

Thanks to Octafish for this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. They are running scared about the internet, and rightfully so. I remember
growing up watching TV almost every night. Now, my children (9 & 11) very rarely watch television but go online every day. The same is true for friend's teenage children and my single divorced 40 y o brother. If it wasn't for Keith Olberman we would never watch tv (especially since my husband's alma mater, Notre Dame, is really sucking this year. They may have blamed Gore for this but I don't think he had much to do with this phenomenum (just think what happended to radio when TV came into homes.

You're right that they used Clinton's sins against Gore but remember despite election fraud (that we now realize, Gore still won the overall vote by 3 million. Wonder how high it would have gone w/o interference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-12-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I was the same, glued to the television, many days
Edited on Mon Nov-12-07 08:14 PM by Uncle Joe
from the time I got out of school until I went to bed. Gilligan's Island, The Big Show, The Wild Wild West, etc. I also agree that sooner or later the Internet phenomenon would've taken hold, if not in the U.S., some other nation would have wised up, however Al Gore was the leading political proponent for opening up the Internet and as such became an easy symbol for them to vent their fear and anger on to, over the seismic changes threatening to their livelihood.

Two recent symptoms or tremors from the recognition of the Internet's growing influence, are the Writer's Guild strike and Karl Rove's recent speech attacking the anonymity of the Internet. The first is based on the loss of money and the second is based on the loss of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Some Democrats have tried, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
You nailed it, mod mom. Some people -- including many apparently intelligent Democrats -- just don't get it.

As for the DLC types, they need to remember Democrats believe all people are created equal. There's nothing in that thought about corporations. They're the mainstay of the Reich Wing.

From our good friend Thom Hartmann:



Stand Up for Democracy With Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

by Thom Hartmann
Published on Sunday, June 4, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written a brilliant new article about the biggest political story in the history of the United States: An American politician illegitimately took the office of president by outright theft and fraud. Although such high crimes and misdemeanors have been rumored in previous elections, none in the history of the republic have been so thoroughly documented. George W. Bush is not the legitimate president of the United States.

Schoolchildren read (in the few remaining civics classes in America) about the multiple pollings and tense standoff that led to Thomas Jefferson's election as president in "the Revolution of 1800," because newspapers of the day looked into and reported on such things. But - unless we speak out - odds are that few will read about what happened in Ohio in 2004 in future history books, because modern newspaper editors are increasingly corporate appendages, and many of today's "reporters" worry more about currying favor with institutional power than investigating stories that may inconvenience or upset their "sources."

Kennedy's story - "Was The 2004 Election Stolen?" - broke on Thursday, June 1, 2006, when Rolling Stone magazine put it on their website and it appeared on other websites including www.commondreams.org. It hit the newsstands soon thereafter. In the article, Kennedy lays out the details of exactly how the Republican Party, in several states but particularly in Ohio, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to both steal the 2004 election and to cover up the evidence of that theft.

The subtitle of the article lays out Kennedy's foundational premise: "Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House." And that's just the beginning of the story, which includes ballot-box stuffing, electronic voting machine manipulation, "caging" in defiance of a court order banning Republicans from the notorious practice, threats and intimidation of Democratic voters by imported Republican goon squads, and multiple illegal uses of the office of the Secretary of State to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The Republican rebuttals/attacks have already begun, starting with a particularly tragic hit-piece in one of the higher-profile "online magazines" that claims to authoritatively quote so-called but unnamed "experts" who doubt Kennedy's sources, and takes a clip of Ohio law so out of context as to essentially reverse its meaning in support of the Republican talking points.

The day Kennedy's article came out, Republican callers began dialing into talk radio shows complaining about "massive Democrat (sic) voter fraud by registering illegal immigrants" (to quote a caller to my Air America Radio program on 6/2/06). Clearly the meme Republicans will put out if Kennedy's story gets traction in the mainstream media is that "election fraud is something both parties do," and they'll use that meme to push even harder for more Republican-helpful restrictions on voters who are old, urban, or poor enough not to have or easily acquire two forms of government-issued ID. We can't let them - this is about real crimes, and the destruction of democracy in our republic.

Kennedy's article is an in-depth, on-the-ground report from Ohio about the 2004 election. In it, he acknowledges that he is building on the work of many who preceded him - this was a story not particularly difficult to uncover, even though the mainstream media has chosen to ignore it. Seminal investigations were done by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman of the Columbus, Ohio Free Press, and by Michigan Congressman John Conyers, who held hearings in Ohio that resulted in a summary report now available in book form titled What Went Wrong In Ohio (all referenced by Kennedy).

CONTINUED w lotsa links:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0604-20.htm



PS: Sorry this is so late in reply, mod mom. My walk has become much sillier lately...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
9. God, that election remains a deep, deep wound in my personal consciousness
and in the national psyche.

I still believe that we can recover, but there are times when I have grave doubts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It's over
I swear -- some people revel in reliving old wounds. Whether it's someone obsessing over mistreatment as a child, or an ex-wife who treated you like crap, or some evil boss who berated you. It is over. You can heal, move on, and do something productive.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing about it. Gore should have absolutely trounced Bush in 2000. Shouldn't have been close even. And yet we had to argue over butterfly ballots, chads, under-votes, over-votes, etc. to try to cobble together enough votes to make Gore president. It shouldn't have been that close. Can you say Tennessee?

So . . . pick your new favorite candidate and fight for that person. Nothing is sadder than hearing some athlete talk about a bad call late in the game that cost him the win, especially when the game was SEVEN YEARS AGO!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Disagree. The turds are working to steal 2008.
Something else we must always remember: Corporate McPravda is on the cheaters' side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. What???
You really think the NY Times is actively working to secure a Repub victory in 2008? The very same paper that came out in support of EVERY SINGLE DEM CANDIDATE in 2006? The same paper that has endorsed the Dem candidate for President for as long as I can remember?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Follow the money DD (and look to the OWNERS). . . .
Edited on Tue Nov-13-07 12:53 PM by annabanana
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. NYT didn't do squat to cover e-voting irregularities in 2004.
I don't think they'll do much to tell the truth in 2008.

BTW: Back in 2000, our socialist friends pegged the NYT/WaPo story, a week after Smirko's first steal:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/nyt-n13.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. "Corporate McPravda!" I like that better than M$M... has a nice ring to it...
besides being more descriptive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I also like the sound of it and may start using it rather than MSM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. If you're accusing me of "reveling" in "reliving old wounds", man, have you got the wrong address
Personally, I've moved on, but it doesn't mean I can't remember the travesty that 2000 was. How the Bush thugs blatantly stole the election, how tens of thousands of my fellow citizens were disenfranchised, how the media propped up the illegitmate regime, how so many Dems (official and rank and file) rolled over...I may not revel in wallowing in those old wounds, but I sure as HELL ain't going to forget them either.

And also, personally, if I were still "reliving old wounds", who really cares if you're tired of hearing about it? :shrug: I for one don't need any lecturing from you one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. sorry
reveling was too strong a word. My apologies.

But I am tired of hearing about Florida 2000. But that's my issue. You go ahead and talk all you like, and I'll leave you alone. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-14-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No problem...it's still a very touchy subject, ain't it?
I do agree with you that we need to focus on here and now and move forward...that's what the "progress" in "progressive" means, right?

Take care.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
10. Argh
:argh: :banghead: I can't even talk about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-13-07 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
18. I had such hope that the 'Restoration' would take place in '04...
figuring all the investigation would show that the Bush vs. Gore decision would be overturned because of the Media Consortium's information and that what Jeb and Katherine Harris did would be found out by a whistleblower.

So much work DU'ers did and they were the FIRST to do all the Stolen Election investigations.

Sad...so much time and effort...hopefully one day the truth will out and we have to hope that exposure of what's been done and will be done until those machines are out...and we get a Constitutional Amendment giveing citizens the "legal" voting rights we've been denied. I'm still waiting for Jesse Jackson, Jr. to introduce the legislation to make that happen that he promised us. But, then, I'm still waiting for Conyers to start hearings on Cheney Impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC