Skip to main content

View Diary: Five G.W. Bush Policies That Still Haunt Us (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Too Bad (9+ / 0-)

    But the fact remains that Nader was complicit in putting Bush in the White House and no amount of trying to absolve him  can change that.  We will be living with the consequences of the unmitigated disaster that was 8 years of the Bush/Cheney administration for a long, long time and for as long as we do you will be reminded of the role Nader played in that.

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 03:26:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Noone needs your absolution. If you want (6+ / 0-)

      to help Democrats win elections, it will be more productive to start from the obvious premise that you're not entitled to someone's vote just because you have a D by your name. Instead of alienating Greens and other natural allies, work to rein in the right-wing lie machine, to put some spine into Democratic politicians, and to institute fair voting procedures (including instant runoff voting).

    •  Not how I remember it, Clinton did his best to ... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem, wdrath, Sandino, elwior, JVolvo

      Not how I remember it, Clinton did his best to hurt Gore, where Gore disowned him and Nader took more votes from GOP. Gore made a disastrous pick in Lieberman. Lost TN. But if you want to get mad, go after the illegal GOP Court decision that stopped the counting. Bush had better lawyers, including Roberts. Blame Roberts. Lots to blame all around. Bush's legacy is Katrina, which genocide against US citizens the Ferguson syndrome doesnt yet approach. Nader didnt lose it for Kerry or ask Obama to keep Guantanamo open. That doesnt mean that Nader didnt waste his efforts by not getting more votes out of his moderate GOP base of neo-Perotists.

      •  But without Nader, (8+ / 0-)

        nobody would have cared about the infamous butterfly ballots, because Gore would have won Florida.

        I don't mean to say that the Democrats are blameless for the 2000 defeat. But throw your vote away of a Green when you live in a swing state, and you just might get the very opposite of what you want for President -- which is what happened in 2000.

        Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

        by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 07:49:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gore would've won Florida if the SCOTUS... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wdrath, elwior, Sandino, Maverick80229, JVolvo

          had stuck to centuries old American jurisprudence of staying the hell out of individual state's electoral matters.

          It really is that simple.

          "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

          by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:22:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the GOP would have disputed. (0+ / 0-)

            They had the votes to uphold the dispute in the Senate. Would have then been kicked to the House I believe. Guess how the House would have voted.

            Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

            by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 10:17:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bull. That's not how it works... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino

              Congress can only get involved in a presidential election in the case of an electoral tie, -- which it clearly wouldn't have been -- because Florida would have given Gore MORE electoral votes than shrub. All other disputes are worked out in the courts in the state where the dispute originated.

              The '2000 election was pure, UNPRECEDENTED election chicanery -- perpetrated solely by SCOTUS-- by overturning the decision of the Supreme court of Florida.

              In fact, it was so unprecedented that SCOTUS itself declared that what it did in '2000 should never be used as precedent in the future.

              "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

              by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 12:47:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If both houses agree on an objection... (0+ / 0-)

                one of the scenarios is that the election could go to the House.

                Here is an article that explains the scenarios quite well.  

                Dutch is an interesting character. It's hard to tell if he's a conservative who often swings left, or a liberal who often swings right.

                Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

                by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 04:01:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There's only been one election decided by Congress (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RhodeIslandAspie

                  because of a dispute concerning electoral votes, and that one involved disputes between several states.

                  The election of 1876 ended up being decided by Congress because of disputes over the electoral votes from several states.
                  Never has a U.S. presidential election been decided by Congress involving the electoral votes of one state. Although, apparently, they could have decided the case if they had not been divided -- as stated in the linked article. Instead, SCOTUS did their dirty work for them.

                  However, I still stand by my assertion that SCOTUS's decision to get involved in an individual state's electoral affairs was both unprecedented and epically wrong-headed.

                  Anyway, thanks for bringing the article to my attention. I was only aware of Congress' constituted involvement in a presidential election in the event of an electoral vote tie.

                  I stand corrected on that aspect.

                  "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

                  by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 05:43:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I will agree with you that is was unprecedented. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    markthshark

                    But this election would have had the odor of taint regardless of what happened, or who had won. To be sure, I can't imagine the GOP defending the system if it hadn't worked for them. But was there any right decision here. The recount would have involved the counters to guess at a voters intentions, regarding the butterfly ballots, and that would have certainly been unprecedented.

                    I have no illusions about the objectivity of the gang of GOP proxies that dominate this court, but even if we had 9 truly dispassionate justices on this court, it would have been a vexing situation to which there was probably no solution. To refuse to hear the case would have been tantamount to the court not doing there job. To here the case and defer to the states might have given the election to Gore, but only by letting counter assume that most of the Nader votes were Gore votes - they probably were, but how many to bee sure? The decision that WAS made might have been far less infamous had their this court not been so transparently Republican - a problem that was to become even worse with the appointees of Bush.

                    A better solution would be not to have a situation able to even come up. Standardized election laws for Federal election would be a good start. I'm quite open to instant runoff elections, which would allow people to vent their frustration with the establish by voting for third party candidates without throwing their votes away. If either of these two solutions had been in place, chances are we wouldn't be having this thread today.

                    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

                    by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 06:49:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Agreed... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RhodeIslandAspie
                      Standardized election laws for Federal election would be a good start.

                      "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

                      by markthshark on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 07:25:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Gore did win florida (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wdrath, elwior

          Nader didn't cause Fox to change the call.

        •  Gore would've probably won New Hampshire too (5+ / 0-)

          if not for Nader pulling thousands of votes with his "no difference" B.S.

          Election Day is Nov 4th, 2014 It's time for the Undo button on the 2010 Election.

          by bear83 on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 08:28:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You mean the 308K registered FL Dems who (0+ / 0-)

          voted for Bush.  Final margin: 537.  Look to pathetic Gore "I'm not Clinton" campaign + Lieberman! effect nationwide.  Gore lost his home state (!!).

          Jim Hightower will enlighten you about Dem's national and Florida failures:

          Losing ground with under $50k voters nationwide.
          Losing FL senior vote to Bush.
          Losing FL white women vote to Bush.
          PS there were a total of @ 40,000 3rd party votes cast in FL (excluding Green party votes).  Bush's margin = 537.

          But, yeah.  Blame Nader.

          Sad.  How long did Repugs whine about Clinton's '92 and '96 under-50% plurality wins?  They hated Clinton's guts but they sure as shit didn't piss and moan about Perot for 14 years.

          "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

          by JVolvo on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 01:30:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site