Skip to main content

View Diary: In Tehran, Riot Police Standing Down (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think it was Gore's concession (10+ / 0-)

    If Gore had refused to concede and openly stated that he considered the Supreme Court's decision a pure partisan one, I think people might have taken to the streets.

    But I doubt it would have sustained like the Iranians are doing now.

    •  I think Gore was right... (5+ / 0-)

      and that's gonna get me flamed. But think about it. Ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court would have been a revolutionary decision, and such things are not controllable once they begin.

      The proof of the rightness of Gore's decision is that George Bush left office peacefully on January 21, 2009.

      We survived George W. Bush. That cannot be said with any certainty regarding our only alternative course in December of 2000.

      Al Gore made a decision that the alternatives were submission or civil war. I think he made the right choice.

      --Shannon

      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 09:54:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i am not persuaded that "we" survived GWB. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        politichic, math4barack, Jantman

        the jury is still out.

        and iraq certainly did not. nor did 1,000,000+ Iraqis.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 10:07:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I cannot abide that thought. sorry. nt. (0+ / 0-)
        •  But I'm saying that you should think it, (0+ / 0-)

          at least to come up with your own answer to the question.

          Because, as I see it, what was beyond the acceptance of 2000 was not non-violent protest, although that's probably where it would have begun.

          It was, in fact, armed resistance. Because if, in the face of mass protest, Bush and Cheney had said, (as I'm sure they would have,) "The Supreme Court has applied the law, and we are the legitimate government of the United Sates", and ignored the protests, then what other option would exist?

          The last time part of the country challenged the outcome of an election, over a million people died. It would have been worse this time. And with no guarantee that the government arising from those ashes would have been benign. In fact, the history of revolutions would indicate that it would not have been.

          We were spared those rivers of blood. The day Bush v Gore was announced is a dark day in the history of the Republic, to be sure. But it could well have been the last day in that history, and it wasn't.

          That, at least, is a good thing.

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 02:47:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't agree here (0+ / 0-)

            Clinton was still President.  Bush/Cheney had not been inaugurated, so they would be unable to leash a secret police against the protesters.

            What if Clinton joins Gore and refuses to hand over power to Bush?

            •  Same scenario, really... (0+ / 0-)

              an outgoing President has never refused to turn over the office. It is precisely this one fact that defined the Republic at the beginning, and the day it stops is the day the Republic dies.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 04:17:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well you would have a disputed election (0+ / 0-)

                if Gore refused to concede.  So there is no one to turn the office over to.

                I guess in 2000, I would probably have agreed with you.  But having seen how bad this guy has been over the last 8 years, I wonder if we would have been better off had Gore refused the concede and let the people express their sentiments in the street.

                Regardless, I still think the Iranians have a lot more courage that Americans.  I'm impressed by the people there in the last few days.

      •  You're right. Gore made the right (0+ / 0-)

        decision under the circumstances. He respects the rule of law, and he did the best he could within that context. We all could have independently built a movement to get Gore's back during those 35 days, but we didn't. Republicans hit the pavement everywhere, but our side was hardly to be found.

    •  People did take to the streets (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      politichic

      I went to demonstrations with thousands of people, in the weeks after the elections, when it was clear that Baker and his clique were cooking the Florida results.  We had no backing from the Democratic establishment - our Congresswoman, Barbara Lee, being a notable exception.

       Gore chose to put his lot in the hands of lawyers and angle for a hand recount only where he thought he might be favored.  Whereas a statewide hand recount including the "overvotes" (people who wrote their candidate's name as well as marking their candidate's box) would have avoid the sort of straw that the Supreme Court ultimately grasped.  

      Even better, of course, would have been a popular uprising against the iniquity that is the Electoral College.  A man can dream.

      Silvio Levy

      •  We need to stop repeating that rightwing myth: (0+ / 0-)

        "and angle for a hand recount only where he thought he might be favored."

        In reality, Florida law DID NOT allow for a blanket a statewide recount request. Which meant Gore (unilaterally) asking for separate manual recount requests in each of the 64 or so counties, i.e. 64 different ensuing legal contests -- a logistical nightmare -- with no guarantee that all 64 counties would have granted those requests for a recount. Had Bush joined Gore in asking for manual recounts, there would have been a far better chance of having one statewide. That's why Gore made this offer to Bush very early in the counting process:

        CNN - Gore offers to accept manual recounts as final, meet Bush
        11/15/2000
           ....
           Gore then said, should his opponent, Republican George W. Bush prefer, a full recount of all Florida counties could be conducted. He then offered somewhat of an olive branch to the Bush camp, offering to meet with the Texas governor twice -- once before the completion of the vote count, and again afterward.
           .....

        The next day, of course, Bush rejected Gore's offer because it would've required the actual counting of votes.

        Because of this, the rightwing myth is false. Gore WAS open to counting in ALL of the counties. It was Bush who refused Gore's offer to join him in asking for it.

    •  Precisely. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      politichic

      The extent of the chicanery in Florida was not widely known, and that Buchanan done more poorly with the nearsighted vote, Gore would have won.  Also, George W. Bush ran on a policy of a "humble" foreign diplomacy and "compassionate conservatism".  

      It helped that the 2001 Dubya was not a particularly bad President;  one of the true achievements of his branch of the Right was slapping down the Coulter branch.  After the victory in Afghanistan, he became the incompetent ideologue that we all loved to hate, and remained so until the financial crisis.

      2009: Year of the Donkey. Let's not screw it up.

      by Yamaneko2 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 11:44:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site