Daily Kos

Jimmy Carter certain Al Gore won 2000 Election

by NewAmerica

Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:57:04 AM PDT

You will not hear the mainstream press pick-up on this,
but the following article comes from www.rawstory.com

Carter says Gore won 2000 election
John Byrne

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter delivered a shocker at an American University panel in Washington Monday: RAW STORY has learned he told the crowd he was certain Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."



Note:  John Roberts is also a partisan-loyalist
who would similarly violate the public right to vote
and obstruct/corrupt the election to give Bush/GOP power.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 291 comments

  •  I'll add my voice (4.00 / 68)

    to the chorus that is certain Al Gore won in 2000.

    Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

    by AnthonySF on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:58:59 AM PDT

    •  me too (3.33 / 3)

      although not to the gratuitous Roberts dig.

      The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

      by Superribbie on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:08:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll see your Gore (4.00 / 29)

        and raise the gratuitous Roberts dig.

        "America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way around. Human rights invented America." -Jimmy Carter

        by Bulldawg on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:34:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll call and furthermore ... (4.00 / 51)

          :: pushing all my chips into the center ::

          2002 and 2004 were dirty too.

          Re '04: Come on, 2-4 million rabid ultra-right Christians who eluded all pre-election polls -- cause they were too SHY, allegedly --  miraculously turned up on election day and avoided all exit polling?

          It was an Act of God Diebold.

          by Peanut on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:49:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Plus there's the fact that (4.00 / 18)

            Once George W. Bush took office illegitimately after he lost in 2000, there's no way in which he can be said to have won democratically in 2004.

            by HStewart on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:55:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That gang of crooks has been running ... (4.00 / 33)

              ... the Watergate playbook, only they plugged up the weaknesses (bought out/bullied any independent media, secured the Dept of Just-us, do an emphatic, early-discrediting of whistleblowers, classify everything they get their hands on and stonewall otherwise. It just never ends.)

              And they're pathologically allergic even to routine statements under oath.
              .

              by Peanut on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:03:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dept. of Just-us (4.00 / 3)

                I love it!

                "Oftentimes there's only one thing more dangerous than thinking that you're right: Being right." -Simon Malthus

                by dreamsign on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:23:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  This is an excellent point (4.00 / 12)

                The most remarkable thing about Watergate is how little people talk about what it was really about - gaming the '72 election.  "The cover-up was worse than the crime" excuses many sins.

                Rove, Rummy and Cheney are the inheritors of the GOP dirty tricks machine, with 35 years of investment and study behind them.

                Y'know, ultimately my question is this:  why isn't the Dem dirty tricks machine up to snuff?  Are we too "pure" to go there?  That doesn't seem to follow, considering how dirty many of our politicians are with lobbyist and corporate money.  Or maybe our pols are too happy with the status quo to have the fire necessary to engage in a prolonged dirty tricks campaign.

                Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!

                by imatlas on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's easy (none / 1)

                  You can't make the kind of money with a progressive, populist government in the short term as you can with turning a wealthy democracy into fascism.  If that's where all the money is, that's where all the best dirty tricksters go.  They're essentially scam-artists anyway, so they have no real interest in making things better, just better for themselves.

                  While the voices of dissent are many, reason has but one voice. -lizardbox

                  by Nellebracht on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:36:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Read Mark Crispin Miller's (4.00 / 19)

              None Dare Call it Stolen - Harpers last month (and probably online now)

              I'm willing to bet Kerry won 2004...

              ARB

              A Rational Being typed this.

              by A Rational Being on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:19:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  America died on 12/12/2000 (4.00 / 15)

                Everything since has just been the minor details....

                Wars not make one great. - Yoda

                by Volvo Liberal on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:48:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Kerry (4.00 / 5)

                What made me lose faith in Kerry was how, after having 2004 stolen from him in Ohio, he just surrendered--as if this were some kind of country club golf game. "Good match George. Guess you got me on that one."

                Harper's Magazine: None Dare Call It Stolen.

                by NY Writer on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:18:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The thing that killer me about Miller's article... (4.00 / 5)


                ... was that it said that there's overwhelming evidence that suggests fraud in the US election process, but the US media isn't talking about it.

                He get this piece published in one of our country's top journals.

                And you know what?

                The US media still isn't talking about it.

                Really, we might as well be living in a Stalinist 'people's democracy' in Eastern Europe.

                "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

                by quaderni on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:43:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Harper's (4.00 / 3)

                  is a top journal in terms of the general quality of its writing and thought, but hardly in terms of circulation.

                  In terms of circulation, think Time or Newsweek or at least US News and World Report.

                  But if Harper's is as mainstream as you can get with your idea, then you're pretty marginalized.

                  by corvo on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:49:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  100,000 (none / 0)

                    Without getting up to find a recent copy, I'm going to guess that Harpers subscription numbers are in the low 100,000...

                    Hardly a big voice.

                    I bet that we kossacks could get that article into more hands than Harpers...

                    ARB

                    A Rational Being typed this.

                    by A Rational Being on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:30:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Media silence prompted publication, (none / 1)

                      in fact:

                      For as remarkable as the information in the Conyers report may be, the near total media silence that greeted it when it first appeared--as well as the scant coverage of the formal objection to the Ohio electoral vote count filed by Representative Stephanie Tubb Jones--is, to my mind, just as remarkable. So remarkable, in fact, that Harper's Magazine has devoted its August cover story to summarizing and explicating the Conyers report and to asking why it wasn't considered more newsworthy by the national media.

                      -7.38, -9.23

                      by macdust on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:16:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Just to clarify... (none / 0)


                      .. I wasn't saying huge distribution.  But a magazine like Harper's is very reputable and carries tremendous respect within the world of publishing and journalism.  It doesn't live in a totally rarefied environment.

                      Color me naive: that should still count.

                      Now, the one place that is publishing the most damning material on the contemporary US is -- The New York Review of Books.  Tony Judt and Joan Didion have been on fire there, and writing absolutely amazing fucking stuff (excuse my language).

                      "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

                      by quaderni on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 05:12:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Stalinist people's democracy? Unnecessary. (3.50 / 2)

                  Really, we might as well be living in a Stalinist 'people's democracy' in Eastern Europe.

                  Quaderni,

                  I agree. And what I find particularly remarkable is that in our country, it's not even necessary to put anyone in jail for publishing material contrary to the Party line. Nor it is necessary to run media organizations which are openly run by the Party.

                  The overwhelming majority of media outlets in this country uncomplainingly align themselves with whatever the RNC puts out on any given day. No, they don't have to agree 100% -- that might even sound too fake -- it's fine if they vary their point of view slightly, as long as they use Republican talking points as the basic text of each and every major political story.

                  How economical for the Republicans. The whole USA turns out to be a cheap and easy date when it comes to hardline takeover.

                  "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described." *

                  by dratman on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:32:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the mojo (4.00 / 3)

                Didn't realize that pointing out Millers article and betting on Kerry would be worth so much mojo. Appreciate all the 4s.

                ARB

                A Rational Being typed this.

                by A Rational Being on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:26:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'd love to know (4.00 / 6)

            when the last completely honest national election was. Surely you don't think these last two were an anomaly. The difference is merely one of scale and brazenry. People have been stuffing ballot boxes for just about as long as they've existed. Rarely, however, has anybody set up a system so completely dedicated to flushing any sense of legitimacy out of the results without so much as a whimper from the subjugated.
            Sure, if it's your side that's winning, it's easier to overlook a certain amount of "inconsistency", but a week old sturgeon rotting away in the middle of the room is hard to ignore nomatter what team you play for. Even the slightest bit of forethought should allow for the idea to creep in that the shoe could concievably be on the other foot some day, and there are boundaries that should not be crossed lightly. Alas, half our nation seems bereft of that bit.

            The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelley

            by justme on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:11:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are probably right (none / 0)

              No election is wholly honest. They've just been so far apart that the dishonesty didn't affect the outcome. Now we are "closely divided" the cracks are showing..

              ARB

              A Rational Being typed this.

              by A Rational Being on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:21:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You know what? I don't want that. (4.00 / 6)

              I know we have a long history of low blows, hinky counts and ballot stuffing, but the depth of Bush filth is unprecedented.

              Most people are for the same things I get trashed for by the handful, glassy-eyed Bush worshippers I know who don't remember 23-rationales ago for being in Iraq cause the WH keeps changing them.

              I have complete reality-based, fact supported faith that this will be vindicated someday and that people can retrieve their oversight and fumigate this filthy government and fetid whoring media.

              We need transparency in the election process, and no more GOP campaign managers or big donors who also happen to be in charge of the voting equipment and vote counting. I mean ... COME ON.

              by Peanut on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:25:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That I'll grant ya (4.00 / 9)

              and cheating is wrong, no matter who does it. We all know that LBJ had plenty of dead folks voting for him. And Kennedy was rumored to have had Mafia help in Chicago.

              But in these and other elections, was the presidency really at stake as it was in 2000? Meaning, would these people have not won anyway.. and perhaps the cheating just increased their margin a bit?

              I guess my problem with Bushco is that half the country seemed to despise him, and it felt like he was being installed against our will. Maybe as a progressive, I am just being biased. But I still believe the scale of their cheating was beyond the norm.

              Just from what we know (Sproul destroying Dem voter registrations, few machines and long lines in Dem precincts, intimidation of black voters, etc) it's bad enough. But what we don't know and may never know, is what really happened with all those Diebold and ES&S voting machines.

              I am not naturally given to conspiracy theories, but I will never believe those things weren't rigged somehow.

              "Soon the time will come to choose between what is easy, and what is right." - A. Dumbledore

              by epluribus on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:27:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kennedy (4.00 / 2)

                Even if there were shenanigans in Chicago, Kennedy had enough electoral votes to win without Illinois. Bush . . . not so much.

                Buckle your handbaskets, America.

                by Soy Lechithin on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I thought (none / 0)

                  it wasn't just Illinois . . . maybe I'm wrong.

                  "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs

                  by matthewc on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:38:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And the rethugs sent the FBI to illinois (none / 0)

                    to investigate that election before Kennedy took office.  The FBI didn't find anything, which may not be suprising, but the rethugs want to pretend that they would just roll over if the shoe had been on the other foot.  That's true if rolling over involves a bulldozer.

                    by unterhausen on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:29:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The downstate ballot shennigans (none / 0)

                  pulled by republicans in 1960 are thought to have offset what Daley did in Chicago.

                  Hey, have you heard about that kook fringe Lib site, Daily Kos?

                  by greee on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:45:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  A Diebold insider recently (none / 1)

                described the open back door in the software that was easily breached.

                Bradblog reported it here.

                The back door was well known, even recorded in a federal elections publication, but nothing official was done to force Diebold to fix or open source the software.

                The insider allegedly did not know of specific instances of vote or database tampering, but it obviously would have been quite a simple task since so many of the machines had direct telephone hookups.

                Could there have been problems with Diebold's sister company - E&S - compilers used to total county and state level votes?

                by fhcec on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:38:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Give me a Break (4.00 / 2)

              If you're going to equate "always some ballot stuffing"with a Supreme Court justice stopping them from counting votes, or all that went on in Ohio last month, you've lost it.

              by NY Writer on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:19:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'll call (none / 0)

          One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

          by JR on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:49:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gore - New Orleans HERO 1st weekend (4.00 / 6)

            after Katrina struck.

            - with pics -  Al Gore's personal Med-Evac flights arranged Sep. 1, given clearance to land by DoT Sep. 3.  He fought the bureaucrats' veto, and he won.
            He and doctors rescued 270 people in 2 flights and was personally on board to bring them from NOLA to Tennessee hospitals.

            by joan reports on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:00:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The way Gore cut through crap (4.00 / 13)

              made my heart ache that he wasn't President when the disaster struck. Sure, there would have been stumbles, Muphy's Law lives for times like these, but real leadership breaks through the bottlenecks. Gore would have been yelling at the Bureaucratic numbskulls, and he would have been there within a day, he's like that. For all that he's personally a bit stiff, "He marches toward the sound of the guns."

              Charlie Brown for Congress

              by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:18:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (none / 1)

                Gore would have been yelling at the Bureaucratic numbskulls

                That may be an understatement.

                As Dick Clarke wrote in his book:

                "In the care on the way to the J. Edgar Hoover Building, I painted the picture for Gore one more time. "Here are some questions you might like to ask, innocently," I said, passing a list of what we had asked in Atlanta. "Then, after a while, you ought to look really mad."
                "I do mad well". Gore smiled.
                He did have an impressive temper when he thought bureaucracy was unresponsive."

                This episode occured during the security planning for the Atlanta Olimpics.
                Hard to imagine Gore in a Katrina-like situation being held back by red tape.

                by stardate on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 05:57:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Roberts ADVISED Bush during post election (4.00 / 6)

        HE told them how to jigger their court case to subvert the election, this nomination is his payback.

        -9.00, -5.85
        Wherever you go, there you are. -- Buckaroo Bonzai

        by Wintermute on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:20:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Jigger"? (none / 0)

          Um, governor, what we need to do is get in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, where we have a majority rather than the Florida Supreme Court, where we don't.  I could have done that.

          The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

          by Superribbie on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 07:01:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You must be kidding... (none / 0)

        Roberts was nominated specifically for his willingness to suspend voting rights in favor of the planned BushCo coup and military junta in 2008.

        The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

        by dj angst on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:40:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gore won (4.00 / 44)

      and so did kerry.

      We the people

      by coconutjones on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:41:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me too (4.00 / 12)

      Count me in. Gore was the real winner. What a sad joke America has become that while a thief/thug occupies the White House the real President walks around unnoticed, being ridiculed. Shame on us.

      by Shuvo Dutta on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:54:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think there's a parallel universe... (4.00 / 5)


        ... somewhere, where things actually go right.  There, Gore won the 2000 election, there was no 9/11, no fucking war in Iraq, a responsible evacuation from New Orleans with no deaths, a budget surplus, new action on the coming environmental catastrophe, and plenty of health-care services being diverted to flu vaccines.

        But, fuck no, I got stuck on the wrong side of the universe, the one where the Hitlers, Stalins, and George Bushes of the world always triumph and murder the innocent.

        "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

        by quaderni on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:49:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think so too. (4.00 / 3)

          I followed Gore for years and knew, just KNEW that he'd win in 2000. It was his year. In the alternate real-world he won in 2000 and won by a landslide in 04. In this place he is President now, God bless him.

          There was no 9/11. Or at least, if there was - there was no dazed reading of books in front of school children while the towers fell.

          There was absolutely no Iraq war.

          As far as Katrina goes - that still happened but with FEMA still a cabinet position and people with actual experience running the show it ended very differently. It took its appropriate place as a terrible act of God or nature rather than further evidence of the overwhelming idiocy and incompetence of this unelected administration.

          I've never stopped grieving for Al. I don't think I ever will.

          by Mama Cat on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:27:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  he won (4.00 / 3)

      and i hate to even think about it :(

      email: tlawkos@yahoo.com

      by tlaw on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me too. (4.00 / 8)

      And fuck John Roberts and everything he stands for.  

      When do we take up arms?

      by Billy Shears on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:13:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll second that... (4.00 / 4)

        FUCK ROBERSTS.  and FUCK LEAHY!  Bastard.

        "America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it is the other way around. Human rights invented America." -Jimmy Carter

        by Bulldawg on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:36:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about the dkos hero (none / 0)

          Feingold. Didn't he also vote for Roberts, after all that false bravado? hmm?

          "conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals".

          by gandalf on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:54:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I knew there would be people here tonight (none / 0)

            all upset over Leahy and Feingold, but think about this: voting "yes" on Roberts , especially for people with records like theirs, is sending the following message: This is to show you I'm a reasonable person who will be leading the filibuster against Brown (or Owens, or whatever rabid wingnut he nominates). It's about the credibility.

            People who voted "No" are probably planning to run for Prez someday, and desire most to please us, rather than positioning themelves for the filibuster. Which is why Feingold's vote puzzles me - I was sure he was going to run.

            The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

            by sidnora on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:13:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  See you all, and raise Carter (4.00 / 6)

      one October Surprise.

      -7.38, -9.23

      by macdust on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:35:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He knows (none / 0)

        from whence he speaks.

        Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!

        by imatlas on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •   SBS telvision in Australia (none / 1)

        broadacsted a french made documentary about the history of the CIA, William Quandt who was a memeber of the NSC during while Carter's presidency categorically stated that NSC members Frank Carlucci and Robert Gates secretly gave information about the hostage negotiations to Reagan Campaign officials.

        H.L. Mencken: "A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves"

        by igneous on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:19:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  and Reagan won by TREASON (4.00 / 12)

      Don't forget that Reagan beat Carter by having his advance-team make a deal with Iran:  When we get into office we'll give you armaments if you divert some of them to the Contras.

      The Iranian hostage-takers dutifully held the hostages right through the election, guaranteeing that Reagan would indeed win, and then, almost as if to say Thank You, released them on the very day Reagan was first sworn into office.  

      Private citizens -including election campaign advance men- making deals with a hostile foreign power in a manner that harms US national security, is TREASON.    

      TREASON
      TREASON
      TREASON for the purposes of stealing an election.  

      And it worked.  And the worst part is the persistent myth that Carter lost because Americans didn't like his pessimistic realism about energy and other issues, or that he was "weak" on Iran.  

      by G2geek on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:02:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent, although (none / 0)

        Americans didn't like Carter's "pessimistic realism" either.  Hate to be cynical, but voters hate unpleasant realities and will vote against anyone espousing them.

        This much said, you're right about the treason and its role (perhaps lead role) in determining the 1980 election.

        by corvo on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:05:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  His "Put on a sweater" (none / 0)

          approach to the energy crisis probably made him seem feeble.  (Don't expect sacrifices from our current Prez, though.)

          Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

          by AnthonySF on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:11:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  he was smeared by the press from day 1 (none / 0)

          I think it was when they discovered it was "fun" to do stuff like that, which they rediscovered with Gore.

           

          by unterhausen on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:32:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  the amazing thing is... (none / 1)

          i see carter as one of our greatest presidents.  i don't really remember the time... i was born in 72.  but i feel that carter might well have been the last real president we've had.  he wasn't there to line his pockets.  it would appear he genuinely was a true president...  there to help ALL of us.  and rich people don't like that kind of thing.  they want someone who will screw over the common man and do the rich folks bidding.  kudos to them.  they have found their man in bush!  

          it would appear that if carter's conservative attituudes about energy, along with his prioritizing the search for alternative fuel sources would have been allowed to grow to fruition, we might possibly not be in the situation we are in today.  a repeat of the gas crisis of the 70s.  

          what will it friggin take to get people to see that the only way to stop this madness is to quit giving the oil companies the power!  it's interesting that they had a news story regarding the gas prices which will most likely be jumping again today...  and they noted that the oil companies are projecting profit increases this year or quarter or whatever...  just one of them boasted $31 BILLION dollars was it for a year or a quarter?  i am not sure.  but i know they seem to get moeny on top of those profits from our dear leader... their buddy in oil.

          carter was made to look like a fool.  and the juxtopposition from a man they wanted people to look at as a 'fool' vs the real fool we have to watch on tv fumbling and bungling on a daily basis is staggering!  i shed tears for my daughter's america.  i fear it will be much different that the america i envisiooned as a child... even if that dream didn't exist in reality, at least the hope was  there.  there is no longer hope.  

          by ejpoeta on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 03:17:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  re: oil company profits (none / 0)

            they did that segment again, and i screwed up.  oil companies are projecting profits of 50% this year.  and exxon/mobil alone have posted $31 billion dollars profits... or maybe that is what they are projecting.  it's really sickening!  but who to blame?  we can only blame ourselves for allowing our dependency on oil to continue.

            by ejpoeta on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 03:46:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Even earlier--1968 (none / 1)

        Nixon operated treasonous back channels to undermine Johnson's Paris peace talks.  The first so-called "October Surpise."  The GOP does not give a shit about Democracy or the rule of law, just power.  

        by stirringstill on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:05:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Youknow where I stand! n/t (4.00 / 2)

      C'est la guerre!

      by never forget 2000 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:05:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what is President Carter going to do about it? (none / 1)

      If everyone is so sure Gore won, which he did, why is Bush being allowed  to continue where he is? What is everyone afraid of? Thomas Jefferson and our Founding fathers would NEVER have allowed a lying opportunist like him to continue as an illegitimate President...so why are we?!

      Why don't we kick him out on his lying ass and inaugurate our President?When that day comes, you KNOW I will stand in the street to do that! It is one thing to say this five years after it has happened... and quite another to demand justice for it. Our PAC has a petition up on our site (http://www.patriotsforgore.com) to this day that asks Congress to consider a constitutional change that allows anyone cheated in an election that can show such proof, to be allowed to serve the office they were cheated out of. Hardly anyone has signed it, and all we keep getting on it besides the few serious people who signed it, are filthy freepers posting nastiness on it. I see NO real seriousnees regarding bringing back our President on the part of anyone who keeps claiming he won.

      So while I agree 1000% that Gore won in 2000, and our PAC tried in the small way we could to try to shed light on that, what has anyone with the prestige of Presdient Carter done to call for this crime against the American people to be righted? Al Gore should not have to run again. He should not have to be drafted. He should simply be allowed to take his place in the White House to fill the term stolen from him.

      Therefore, if there is anyone out there who is a constitutional lawyer who can somehow stear me in the direciton of finding any such remedy constitutionally, or in helping me alert Congress to possibly amending outr consittuion in that regard, please e-mail me. My e-email address is in my profile. Thank you!

      "I miss the ability to influence events, but I don't miss politics."
      Al Gore In LIFE
      Bergen Record, June 23, 2006

      by Patriot for Al Gore on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:59:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also, is there a link to the article diaried? (none / 0)

        "I miss the ability to influence events, but I don't miss politics."
        Al Gore In LIFE
        Bergen Record, June 23, 2006

        by Patriot for Al Gore on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:14:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What we as Kossacks... (none / 0)

        need is the same thing every American needs.

        Someone at the top with the balls to yell:

        "RALLY TO ME!"

        In the same way they did last year in Kiev.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4038767.stm

        Instead we got pussies Gore and Kerry.

        The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

        by dj angst on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 09:57:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then why aren't you yelling? (none / 0)

          "I miss the ability to influence events, but I don't miss politics."
          Al Gore In LIFE
          Bergen Record, June 23, 2006

          by Patriot for Al Gore on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:18:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  some how my response got misdirected... (none / 0)

            load this:

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/22/13574/1443#289

            The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

            by dj angst on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:05:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not Gore... (none / 0)

            Yes, we we're all wronged as Americans...

            And yes I did yell...but me not being a national figure, reaching about as many people with as much impact as can be expected all factors considered.

            But you're not considering, you're just snarking.

            In legalese: Gore is the one with "cause of action". It was HIS responsibility to do the yelling; instead he wimpered.

            I won't fight for a man who won't fight for himself.

            Only a stupid person would.

            The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

            by dj angst on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 01:33:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  help me out (4.00 / 3)

    why is this "a shocker"?

    by NeilDB on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:59:21 AM PDT

    •  I guess it's a shocker that he actually SAID it... (4.00 / 3)

      ..not that it's true.

      Everyone knows it's true.

      by Vagabond57 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:03:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  For Several Important Reasons: (4.00 / 63)

      1. Former presidents typically refrain from criticizing a sitting administration. Carter has broken from this already, but now he's saying that a sitting president is wrongly in office. That's a HUGE historical precedent.

      2. Carter is an internationally-recognized expert in democratic voting processes and fair elections certifier. He conducts voting for developing nations and jurisdictions worldwide.

      3. A former president is outright calling an equal branch of government's head -- the Supreme Court -- partisan. The integrity of the entire judiciary rests with the presumption of non-partisanship at the helm of the judiciary. This needs to be amplified. (A chance for Armando to redeem himself.)

      Others? Please stack on. This should me made into an historical hairpin moment -- like the Dean Scream. This is an Armando moment. A former president, respected internationally, should not be so easy to brush aside. But if we don't pick it up and run with it, the flame will be smothered.

      "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

      by TX Unmuzzled on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:07:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously (4.00 / 36)

        The travesty of the 2000 election, and the subversion of the principles of democracy which occured, can NOT be allowed to be forgotten.  I realize that people in general are slow learners and quick forgetters, so it is up to us to not let people forget.  In my opinion the 2000 elections marked a turning point in this country's history - the point that set the stage for exposing ourselves to be an arrogant, self-absorbed, corrupt and hypocritical "superpower" - not the super power of democracy we (however imperfectly) strived to be before.  The fuel was accumulated during the debacle of the 2000 election.  And 9/11 was the spark that awakened the beast.  I'm sure many here have visualized an alternate reality where Gore won in 2000.  The event that changed everything wasn't 9/11 itself, it was the election that determined who was president when 9/11 occured.  That may very well be the day that the american experiment died.

        "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by Progressive Liberaltarian on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:20:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seems to me it was forgotten a long time ago (4.00 / 13)

          As soon as it was over the whoring media shut up completely about it--they went on to trashing Bill Clinton for a whole month about his pardons, remember?

          Al Gore did not run in 2004.  Election 2000 was never mentioned in any of the election narratives I witnessed.

          Did Kerry call Bush on gratefully accepting a stolen election?  Good lord, why do I ask?

          It was said the George Bush was irrationally happy for a long time after the election, even after the war news had gone to utter hell.  He was happy because he though he'd finally gotten that stolen election collar of his god damn war felon shoulders.

          Turns out, as an incumbent, the massive advantages he had have sort of dilluted the electoral legitimacy.  Sort of, not much.

          How utterly shameful and disgraceful to have this war felon hide behind a stolen election for four years.  We have completely fucking lost our country.

          Just today Democrats confirmed replacement to one of the thieves who stole the election from Al Gore.

          I'm not getting into all over again, but the idea of attempting to persude such putrid souls who would do such a thing is highly offensive to me.  Traitors like that are only worth the effort it takes ot beat them in the primary, not to waste a millisecond of energy upon in some totally futile attempt at "reason" and "persuasion."  Their minds are obviously incapable of it after voting for Roberts--I'm surprised they can tie their shoelaces with brains like that, but well, you know, it's life in the USA.  We're pretty dumb and goin' downhill fast in these parts.

          by paradox on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:41:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Paradox, your point is excellent (4.00 / 12)

            Particularly about the SCOTUS.

            We have some spectacle playing out. An unelected president appointing not one, but two fucking justices to the SCOTUS for life.

            The problem becomes more severe because if we dare make a peep about our truly tragic history we're called sore losers or some such bullshit.

            You know the "get over it" mantra.

            Did any of the "dems" ask Mr. Roberts about Bush v Gore, I followed the hearings pretty closely, not every minute, I didn't hear anything.

            I kept wondering am I crazy, isn't this something we need to bring up--again?

            Yeah we lost everything--everything with Bush v Gore?

            One more question, why weren't the American people in the streets in 2000?  I was ready, but I couldn't do it alone.

            Tell your healthcare and insurance horror stories at Guaranteed Healthcare

            by nyceve on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:11:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly (4.00 / 4)

              "An unelected president appointing not one, but two fucking justices to the SCOTUS for life."

              I have literally been feeling sick to my stomach about this.

              It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

              by kathika on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:44:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And let's not forget... (4.00 / 11)

              ...the roles that Scalia's and Thomas' wives played in Bush's 2000 campaign. Their roles made for a huge conflict of interest that should have resulted in both Scalia and Thomas recusing themselves from participating in Bush v. Gore. Without them, Gore wins 4-3 and the recount continues.

              Seven score and five years ago... -7.62, -6.36

              by wiscmass on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:48:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes NYCeve, (4.00 / 4)

              And if you don't learn your place and "GET OVER IT", then you get marginalized as a "tin-foil hat" wearer looking for conspiracies around every corner.

              Guess what people, it happened!  2000, 2002 & 2004 were hacked and that is HUGE because now we don't need hundreds or thousands of people to band together to commit vote fraud - now we only need a few well placed crooks along with a few others "willing" to look the other way as votes are changed/disappeared/invented via a keyboard.

              The difference between votes tallied and the polling numbers is the primary way to identify vote fraud all across the world, yet we had the biggest discrepancies right here in the USA and it went uninvestigated.  This - as our govt was calling for a revote in the Ukraine.

              It was and remains surreal.

              Thank you Mr. Carter for validating what so many of us knew in our highly evolved, logical brains to be true.

              We are here to take it back. 01-03-08

              by IL dac on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:09:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  get over what? (none / 1)

              How come the Republicans that bandy the "get over it" line didn't do so when Clinton won his second term? Instead, the drooling right-wing thugs cranked up the propaganda machine to get anything on Clinton, even if it had to drag our children through the details of his sex life on the internet & nearly every newspaper in the country. Unfortunately, when the 2000 election comes up people have in mind ballot counters holding them up to look for chads, not the crooks in Florida who cooked the voter rolls. Check out Greg Palast's book & video on this. When Palast was interviewing a Florida official (& I can't recall who that was) & pulled a document out, it was so immediately damning that the guy said "this interview is over" then hustled to his office & locked the door!
                  When some say the "W" stands for winner, remember it also stand for weasel.

              by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:26:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Your point number 1 is (4.00 / 6)

        repeated in the press as a Republican talking point whenever a Democratic ex-president says anything.  It was Bush, the elder, who broke that tradition and criticized Clinton frequently.  

        I know it's a small point but the SOB's have everybody in the press repeating their catch phrases; Let's not repeat Rethug Bull here.  The tradition of silence among ex-presidents was broken by the Republicans.

        Your general points are still well taken.

        The Long War is not on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. It is on the American people.

        by Geonomist on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:01:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Carter (none / 0)

        Carter, for all his good, is not perfect in terms of elections.

        He is a strong, strong, strong central statist.  His organization calls for a single controlling voting authority in a country.

        Maybe in 3rd world nations it's okay ,but in the USA, our decentralized system is a benefit, not ap roblem.

        After Carter's guys leave and have setup a centralized voting system it is periousily easy to corrupt such a central system.  The number of people needed to swing an election suddenly drops into the single digits.

        In the US, the elections are handled by local authorities, with tabulation being done on the county then state level.

        Like we saw in Florida 2000, corruption can cause problems county by county, but, at the end of the day, the actions of incompetent officals and political hack effectrs the validity of the vote only for Florida residents.  My vote as a resident of, say, Kansas is not in trouble because of the rank hackery of a Floridian politican.

        Carter dismisses decentralization and calls for a centralized system.

        Right now, a nationwide election fraud like we saw previously requires the participation of hundreds of people, maybe thousands, which is why we know exactly what has happened in the last two elections.

        With the central government running elections, Bush would have been able to manipulate the elections with no trace to leave behind.  

        It's a flaw of principles, essentially.  Carter believes whole heartedly in central authority, while America was founded on the federalist system.  

        by danheskett on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:35:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a difference (none / 0)

          Carter's group generally observes elections in countries that are just starting out on the road of democracy. A decentralized federal voting system is a big first step for countries with no tradition of voting.

          In a mature country like ours, where politicians put the welfare of the nation ahead of their own interests, where the citizenry is involved in the political process and well aware of both their egalitarian history and their place on the world stage, and especially with a free and independent press acting as an auditor, the federal system may work.

          "Can we all get along?"

          by hotspur on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:08:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wait a second (4.00 / 3)

            I appreciate that you're drawing a distinction between the US and countries just starting to participate in democracy, but...

            In a mature country like ours, where politicians put the welfare of the nation ahead of their own interests

            Can you point to when this has happened in the last few years?

            where the citizenry is involved in the political process

            Our country ranks very low in voter turnout.  And the percentage of those "involved" in the political process beyond voting, for example through donations, volunteering, even keeping up on the news, is much lower.

            and especially with a free and independent press acting as an auditor

            Again, I think you'd find people around here to disagree with this generous characterization of the press.  The press has been hamstrung in various ways over the last 30 years and now serves mostly to regurgitate official talking points.

            by archibaldtuttle on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:33:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  heh (none / 1)

              I live in Iceland.

              Just kidding. Forgot the </snark>. I have not been sniffing model airplane glue for the past ten years although I kinda wish I had.

              "Can we all get along?"

              by hotspur on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:26:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  response (none / 0)

              Our country ranks very low in voter turnout.  And the percentage of those "involved" in the political process beyond voting, for example through donations, volunteering, even keeping up on the news, is much lower.
              Voter turn out was 99.8% in Iraq.  It is inconvient to vote many times.  Things like poll hours and having to actually go some place puts the lowest of low thresholds to voting.  This weeds out those who are so socially disinterested that they are incapable of being good citizens.  That's good.

              The election system in the US works great: the crap that happenes in Ohio or Florida only affects those Ohioians and Floridians voters.  It doesn't affect me up in New England.  Beacuse some corrupt hacks got ahold of the election process doens't mean that I have to question the result of the school board election in my home town.

              A centralized system puts all eggs in one basket.  To fix a nationwide election that wasn't close would require, literally, tens of thousands of people's participation.  Any individiaul seat or race or county or whatever can be fucked with - which can happen anywhere - but the integrity of the entire system holds just fine.

              by danheskett on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:34:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  WHAT? (none / 0)

                "the crap that happenes in Ohio or Florida only affects those Ohioians and Floridians voters...  It doesn't affect me up in New England."

                Come again? Doesn't affect you? I live way across the country, and I can tell you, I am deeply affected by the malfeasance in Florida and Ohio, and there is NOTHING I can do about it.

                by fhcec on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 12:00:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  response (none / 1)

                  I am deeply affected by the malfeasance in Florida and Ohio, and there is NOTHING I can do about it.

                  As an American, I am offended by the misdeeds in Ohio and Florida.  

                  BUT:

                  1.  YOUR vote was not compromised.  

                  2.  YOUR ballot was not rigged.

                  3.  YOUR city, county, state and regional elections were not tainted.

                  4.  YOUR electors for President were not tainted.

                  5.  YOUR representatives were not tainted.

                  6.  YOUR legitimate state government was not tainted.

                  See, Florida and Ohio are bastions of corrupt state politics.  Yet, that corruption is limited by the power of federalism.

                  In central systems it's all or nothing.  Something like what happened in Florida could lead easily to systemic collapse - a widespread invalidation of the election and a resultant failure of the government in the most total forms.  Reveloution, coup, or disintegration of working government.  

                  The great thing about our system is that you, a single person, can have a great effect on the voting in your area.  If there is some injustice going on, a single concerned citizen can rectify it.  If everything emmantes from one place - DC - it only enhances the power of the political elites and more scarily the in power ruling party.

                  Centralized voting authority is good only when a more robust system like we have is nascent.  

                  by danheskett on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 04:37:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Carter is also generally commenting on (none / 0)

            small countries, not a vast continent-sized nation with over 300 million in population like the USA

            www.worldwidewebers.net

            by KWeberLit on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:53:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  US elections fail his observation criteria (none / 0)

        Carter has said, back in 2000, that the U.S. elections failed the usual three criteria that need to be in place before his organization will go an observe an election.  I forget what they are, but apprently, without them, there is not even any point in going to observe for fairness.

        Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig.

        by rhubarb on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:06:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, last fall before the election... (none / 1)

        ...Carter made an apperance on Letterman where he was talking about overseeing elections and saying (somewhat jokingly with a smile on his face), that his commission was trying to oversee fair and Democratic non-partisan elections, "which is not going to happen in the state of Florida".  So, I guess his saying this about the 2000 election now is less suprising in that light.  

        A Spirit with a Vision is a Dream with a Mission

        by CO Democrat on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 04:16:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good Question (4.00 / 31)


      The shock is that a former President of the United States would publicly say, in so many words, that the current President was not elected, and ascended to office through illegitimate abuses of both the electoral system and the supposedly independent judicial decision.

      Such a statement goes far beyond the related taboo of former presidents not criticizing sitting presidents, and goes to legitimacy in a classic Weberian sense.

      It is doubly damning, because Jimmy Carter has more prestige outside the United States than any living ex-President, and has particular prestige associated with his work and that of the Carter Center around the world in organizing elections observations with the OECD and other organizations.

      The message to the rest of the world is that Dubya is not seen as a legitimate leader by our most respected international representative.

      by greenskeeper on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:08:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It IS a huge shocker (4.00 / 25)

      This is the 39th president of the United States of America.

      This is the man who has led election monitoring efforts in other countries.

      This is one of our nation's former presidents coming out and saying that the current president is illegitimate.

      This is huge.

      Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!

      by RobertInWisconsin on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:08:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree! (4.00 / 6)

        Jimmy Carter is THE most moral and ethical man to have served in the White House since Truman. He stood for principles while president and has since then.

        I do think he made a mistake when accepting national photo ID's for voter registration. I guess it only proves we're all human.

        Jimmy's my kind of Christian - a REAL one who loves thy neighbor and proves it!

        by Retired in Ohio on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:54:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  *Ditto* (4.00 / 4)

             He is my favorite president because of his morals and ethics.   I watched the peace accords and cried as a young woman.  It made me hopeful.  What a travesty our nation has become.  I truly pray these people pay.  They trashed Jimmy Carter hard and that  sucked.  I didn't care for the Clinton or Gore trashing either.  I voted for Clinton for Health Care,and i haven't like republicans since.  And giving Regan credit for toppling the Iron Curtain makes me gag.  We have to get these guys gone, and try to fix our country, get some health care or they will be the death of many more po folks.  Once again I'm very proud of Jimmy Carter.  I saw his wife at a authors dinner, she was great.  And i admired his mother, she joined the peace corp or something in her later years.  And i remember voting for Fritz and fearing a Cia leader as a vice president.

          have a billy beer on me

          Democracy is not a spectator sport

          by Sophie Blue on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:42:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  John Roberts (4.00 / 6)

    has already done so.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:59:57 AM PDT

    •  Added his voice, you mean, to the recount (none / 1)

      [1st commenter]

      Yes, I'm surprised that the Herald story was picked up only the Florida media and sent out only over the Florida AP wire, not national.  So this never saw daylight like the story a week earlier that Roberts consulted with Jeb.

      Everyone's memory is conveniently fuzzy on what Roberts worked on, and the senators didn't ask.

      by joan reports on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 11:43:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans were 'horrified' at Demcrats in 2000 (4.00 / 2)

      I read that again in that article, and I still cannot believe that they can't understand how Democrats were 'horrified' at what they did in 2000- specifically what Jeb and Kathy did to deny the rights of Floridians to vote.
      Unbelievable.
      This one thing makes me hate Roberts so much.

      by NYFM on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:27:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Specifically, Roberts helped Bush... (4.00 / 6)

      ...by flying to Florida and offering legal advice (polishing legal briefs, participating in mock court rehearsals, etc.) for the Bush team in 2000, as Ted Olson prepared their case for the Surpreme Court.

      The article informs us that he flew down "on his own dime," as if to somehow reassures us of his impartiality.

      I nope no-one misreads your post, and thinks that Roberts has questioned the legitimacy of Bush's election. Just the opposite, in fact.

      Thanks for the link. Everyone should read that story. I'm sorry that Patrick Leahy, for one, never bothered to do so...

      by QuickSilver on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:28:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everything tha FLOWS from 2000 is illegimate (4.00 / 6)

      Everything.

      So the spectre of an unelected president appointing two justices is breathtaking.

      Trust me the chickens will come home to roost, somewhere down the line the whole fucking disgrace will unwind. Some of us may be dead by then, but the legitimacy of the entire era will be called into question.

      Maybe this will be the work of another generation but I guarantee when the American people finally grasp what has been do to us, they will react and the reaction will be violent and profound.

      Tell your healthcare and insurance horror stories at Guaranteed Healthcare

      by nyceve on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:59:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right. Everything that follows (4.00 / 3)

        is illegitimate.  Exactly so.

        by joan reports on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:37:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And the GOP (4.00 / 4)

        know that, and as such will do what they can to keep the dems out of power for as long as possible so that they can in turn destroy as much evidence as possible.

        So, the Dems must regain power ASAP and first order of business is then to (well after repairing the damage done by the GOP), do a thorough investigation.  And if the suspicions are true?

        Public trials, long jail terms for some and firing squads for others.

        And then you undo all the legislation from the era as it was not legally enacted, and you remove all appointees as they were not legally nominated.

        It won't happen but it is nice to dream...

        by skippythebox on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:38:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (4.00 / 2)

        you know, evidence obtained from an illegal search is regarded as "fruits of the poisonous tree" and thrown out of court. Laws, treaties and appointees coming from an illegitimate president should also be regarded as such as paid no heed. The 2004 election which Bush apparently won? Fruits of the poisonous tree, since Bush's candicacy in that election resulted from the theft in 2000.

        The Dems should have stood behind Gore for 2004 with the position "Gore won the last election and we're damn well renominating him.", But Kerry and Biden wanted to run and did their best to force him out.  Hillary, who wanted her chance in 2008, did too. Did she threaten Al and tell him that if he ran, she'd instruct her big donors not to donate? For shame.  Terry McAuliffe, who ran the party to the ground during his tenure as chairman of the DNC, also wanted Al out. Shame on them!

        by TLS66 on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:36:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In law, they have an expression: (none / 1)

        "Fruit of the poisoned tree."

        Kingman, Barstow, San Bernardino!

        by jem6x on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:39:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  BTW - - - remember 2004 ? (4.00 / 7)


      Now a county prosecutor has brought the first indictments in the botched Ohio recount of last December.

      2 election workers in Cuyahoga County Ohio were charged each with 6 counts of not following state law in the way they selected and reviewed batches of paper ballots.

      The charges came after a grand jury probed allegations that election workers took "measures in order to all but assure that there would not be a countywide hand count," prosecutor Kevin Baxter said. More info here (seems the 2 were following instructions of their bosses). The news was reported at the edge of the first hurricane on Aug. 31 so it's not front and center, of course.


      Who's afraid of paper recounts ??

      These Secretaries of State:
        Nevada (Heller)
        Florida (Hood)
        California (McPherson)

      Nevada defeated Cobb's request for a recount by demanding an exorbitant fee ($346,000).  So Nevada's ballyhooed paper trail was only a placebo.

      McPherson is pushing Schwarzenegger to veto the new paper ballot bill.

      And Florida went to lengths to avoid a recount in the Slots machine race from November. First, a 74,000 late vote add-on for absentees was not revisited. Second, Pinellas County results were mistakenly reversed by a clerical error and purposely left uncorrected for the record.  If all these numbers were reconciled, the margin for the slots machine would have been slender enough to have forced a recount, which Florida was careful to avoid thru false record-keeping from Pinellas.

      Today, Florida is slow-walking certification of the accessible HAVA-compliant AutoMARK machine interface to produce opti-scan paper ballot outputs. Hood's office is frustrating the request of Volusia and Leon Counties to buy and use the AutoMARK.  

      by joan reports on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:36:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]