Skip to main content

Now there are retrospectives on what went wrong in Iraq.
10 years in Iran.
11 and a half years since 9/11.
But the seminal event - 12+ years since the Supreme Court hijacked the country.

Lest we forget - a time line description from the UK's Guardian from 12/14/2000 (Link)

December 12
The US supreme court rules for Mr Bush, halting recounts of disputed Florida presidential ballots ordered by the Florida supreme court, after concluding in a 7-2 vote that the decision violates the US constitution's protections of due process and equal protection under the law. But the supreme court splits by a 5-4 vote along ideological conservative and liberal lines in deciding that new recounts should not be ordered to remedy the problem. Democratic National Committee Chairman Ed Rendell calls for Mr Gore to concede the election, although he later says the vice-president has "every right" to review the decision.
We went wrong when we laid down our democracy to the Bush v. Gore crowd.

7-2 the Constitution was violated.

But 5-4 that it is OK to violate the Constitution.

The 5 Supreme Court Judges who removed the will of the people: Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Since then, Rehnquist has passed on; O'Connor retired; the other 3 'winners' are still screwing up the country.

Their decision was the triggering event setting into motion 9/11.  Remember there were ignored warnings given to President Bush two months before the airliners flew.

Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the will of the people - we would have had a competent executive at the helm to continue hunting bin Laden.  Was Bush looking for him before 9/11 (remember bin Laden was involved in the first World Trade Center Attack as well as the USS Cole)?  It didn't look like he was looking for him afterwards.  We were sold on Iraq to avenge 9/11.  And the media bought it.

Al Gore, the choice of the people, would have taken the job of President a heck of a lot more seriously than 'W'.  Would Al Gore have been that stupid to destabilize an Iraqi regime that was already bottled-up?  It is fair to say NO.

Bush sat in the Oval Office because the SCOTUS put him there.  Those five have uncredited blood on their hands.

It is also on the hands of then-DNC Chair Ed Rendell who threw the towel in on Al Gore instead of fighting and rallying our population.  Gore was still fighting for the office when Ed Rendell pulled the rug out from under him.  

Vice President Gore could "review" the decision?  

Seriously, how does Al Gore continue to fight when he has Benedict Arnold off-script telling the troops to go home?  It should have been Gore's decision, not Rendell's, to give up the ghost.  Talk about your # 1 National Wussy.  (It is the height of chutzpah to brand the rest of the political system a bunch of wusses when Rendell withered in the breach.)

But nothing ever seems to haunt these people.  We get to see Fast Eddie on MSNBC.  Retired Justice O'Connor yucks it up on late night TV with Jon Stewart. She must be hawking another book.  Justice Scalia talks about usurping Congress with respect to Voter Id laws.  Justice Kennedy, who knows? Justice Thomas, well forget him.

I guess it is OK if the media wants to flail at itself and talk about what questions should have been asked up to the Iraq war.  But the exercise would be incomplete without a survey of the media's role in the 2000 debacle and what punishment they meted out to the players back then.

If the Media can hound Congressman Weiner out of office because of his cell-phone photography or The Dixie Chicks can be branded as unpatriotic for years for speaking their minds; why are these other people still players?

As we look at the retrospective of the 10 years of blood spilled, it wasn't just the selling of the war that got us here.

It was the outright theft of the government in 2000 that killed our people and the people of Iraq then bankrupted our nation.

And the Media stands by silently absorbing and absolving.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Counterfactuals (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock
    Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the will of the people - we would have had a competent executive at the helm to continue hunting bin Laden.
    It's tempting to think so, but I doubt that Gore would have prevailed even had the courts ruled otherwise. The Florida legislature was poised to enact legislation that would have awarded Florida's electors to Bush. And such a move would have been undoubtedly Constitutional.

    The electoral college is going to be an increasing source of grief to our democracy in coming years as Republicans' desperation to overcome their demographic disadvantages mounts.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:15:30 AM PDT

  •  Consider Gore's own choices (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Demi Moaned

    He put one of the biggest neo-cons of them all on his own ticket. That was supposed to win Florida.  Epic fail.  Instead he could have worked harder to inspire liberal voters to turn out.  He wouldn't have lost with any more finality had he made concessions to Nader.  

    Nope, our problem is that we didn't even have an opposition party to face down the neo-cons.  

    Still don't.  And I don't see anybody standing yet.

    •  Living up to your name I see (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      GREENbell.  I've said this before many times; Lieberman was regarded merely as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat at the time, not as a neocon.  Lieberman only jumped into bed with Bush and Cheney in 2002 because he liked the idea of going to Iraq.  However, at the time, Gore's choice was regarded as gutsy and bold. No other presidential nominee had chosen a Jewish person to be their running-mate.   Indeed, in the days after Gore's selection of Lieberman (August 7, 2000) in the run-up to the convention in L.A. in late August, Gore went from a 20 point deficit nationally to a slight lead, which turned more solid after the convention.  Indeed, Gore had a pretty solid lead until around September 21; after that it turned pretty much into first a slight but solid Bush lead and then a see-saw race.

      And when Gore was surging after his Lieberman selection, in what state was this surge, most pronounced? Florida!  Before Gore's selection of Lieberman, the state was seen as a solid Bush state, in spite of Clinton's win there in 1996, because his brother was governor there.  If there is anything I can't stand, it's a historical revisionist who ignores these facts to fit his narrative.  I've no love for Holy Joe now, but you really need to look at him through the lens of 2000, not of today.

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 07:00:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Denial doesn't make for objective history either (0+ / 0-)

        He just jumped into bed with Bush and Cheney because he liked the idea of going into Iraq?  He liked the idea of going into Iraq because he was and is a neocon.  

        Gore ran an utterly uninspiring campaign.  They forced the DLC Kool-Aid down his throat and then he distanced himself from Clinton.  Talk about conflicted!  Lieberman further muddled whatever message he was trying to sell.  

        I can't believe how people like to have it both ways.  Nader cost him the election but Lieberman was going to win him the election (as if Nader voters were going to be attracted by Lieberman?!).  Nope he just muddled up the whole thing and lost.

        •  Lieberman had two edges (0+ / 0-)

          he was a liability in most of the south, including Tennessee and the panhandle area of Florida, because he didn't accept "Jay-sus" as his "Lawd and Savior".  However, in the South of Florida, especially the east coast of the state, which held most of the votes needed to win FL, he was an asset.  

          Let's look at facts ... 1) before Joe's selection, the state was regarded as solidly for Bush, 2) after Joe's selection, Gore jumped into a lead in the state, 3) in the campaign's final days, Bush and Gore seesawed in statewide polls.  Also it is apparent that not all of the 3,607 votes that Pat Buchanan netted in Palm Beach County were meant for him (most of them were meant for Gore). In all the other 66 counties in the state, Buchanan got anywhere from 500-800 votes.  So, yes, Gore's choice of Lieberman did in fact make political sense at the time, no matter how you may dislike it.  

          You can argue that Gore should have selected Graham, who could have won the state and at the same time not alienated the other southern states because of the "Jay-sus" angle.  Gore was partially reacting to Bush's choice of Cheney, who was from the noncompetitive (solid red) state of Wyoming ... on paper, a dumb choice but the media made it out as inspired because its own way it was daring to ignore politics and pick s/o from a state that was in the bag anyway.  Gore chose someone from a similarly safe state so his choice didn't look more politically motivated than Bush's.  Now, "mean Greens" (such as you) may say Gore fell into a trap, but I do not.

          "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

          by TLS66 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:22:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Short of a Physical Revolution I Don't See What (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demi Moaned

    the people could have done to reverse a Supreme Court decision.

    We didn't lay down our democracy, it was taken from us.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:52:55 AM PDT

  •  You misinterpreted the Guardian quote. (0+ / 0-)

    7-2 decision was that continuation of recount by FL Supreme Court (at the time it had a Dem majority) was unconstitutional. So no, they didn't declare their own decision unconsitutional.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site