Should Gore have acquiesced in the Coup of 2000?

[Arkham House]

Believe me, I do not ask this question frivolously. But I felt very strongly, at the time, that he was making a huge mistake by "conceding defeat"; I *knew* what those bastards were going to do--not in detail, of course, but the scent of their corruption was already wafting in the air...and their tactics in the Florida recount, and their totally unjustified sense of entitlement, made it clear what was going to happen. I *knew* there had been corruption in that "election"...the greatest political polemic of our time, by Vincent Bugliosi in the "Nation", just confirmed what I, and a lot of other people, already knew about our country. I believe absolutely, though I can't prove it, that there was direct collusion between the Court and the Bush campaign, especially on the part of Scalia. The coup of 2000 was the "original sin" of contemporary America, and the Democrats' acceptance of it was *their* original sin.
All one has to do to see this in its proper perspective is to wonder what would have happened if the roles of Bush and Gore were reversed. Bush has the popular vote lead, and has Florida called for him...and then, hey presto!, he doesn't have Florida anymore, and the Dems are busily stealing the state, with the help, say, of a Dem governor who just happens to be Al Gore's brother... Well, just imagine. Actually, we don't have to imagine, because before the election the GOP had teams all over the media, saying that Gore shouldn't be allowed to assume the Presidency if he won the electoral college, and Bush won the popular vote. *This* is what they were afraid of before the election, though everyone has forgotten this...and Tweety, at one point, babbled about how Gore could never look the American people in the face if he entered the White House that way. It is clear to me that the Repubs were determined to steal the White House at all costs and at all hazards in 2000, if *any* opportunity presented itself. Had the situation been reversed, those "bourgeois riots" of Delay and his boys would have been bloody, and the Repubs in Congress would have declared Bush the President-elect, and they would have used their influence with the military to assure Bush's inauguration. (In fact, someone I know in the military told me that the GOP DID sound out some of the generals about just this, *before* the election, "just in case"...but never needed to do anything about it, as it happened...)
So: should Gore have acquiesced in the Coup of 2000? My answer, given what I instinctively knew then, and given everything we've seen of this criminal regime since, is absolutely not. It's easy for me to say, but for what it's worth, had he asked me to go into the streets, I would have been there. If nothing else, it would have made the MSM laugh out of the other side of their mouths. They would have filled the airwaves with anti-Dem and anti-Gore hate and bile...but that would have been better than the contempt and condescension we've seen from them ever since... Clinton would have had a supreme moral crisis, one he couldn't have triangulated himself out of. Gore himself would have had to confront crisis as great as Lincoln had in 1860. Would this have led to Civil War? I doubt it would have come to that--if we know anything about Bush, it's that he's a coward, and if someone his own size had drawn a line in the sand I have no doubt he'd have run off with his tail between his legs. Gore should have--and probably would have--demanded the resignation of the Supreme Court majority. The Repubs and the media of course would have despised him, but they'd have done that anyway. At the very least, Gore should have *insisted* that the recount be finished, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court--and if it wasn't, he shouldn't have "accepted" their decision, but said outright that the Bush was a usurper and that he did *not* "accept" it. Had he done this, the moral climate of this country would have been a whole lot more breathable these past six years. Gore, it seems to me, was thinking "in the box"--he thought this was a "normal" election, and these were normal opponents. But they regarded him and the Dems as *enemies*, not "opponents"...and he didn't realize this, I think, until much later...but I think he gets it now...

[saltpoint]

1. Kerry, Edwards, or Gore, in my opinion, will be our next nominee.

A scholarly inquiry about Gore's respone to the 2000 election in Florida would be interesting, but not relevant to my appreciation of him as a potential candidate.

[Samantha]

28. Gore was recently asked in an interview about this

and I put his response in my signature line.

He took his "protest" pretty far and he made it clear he didn't agree with the Supreme Court decision. He specifically said so in his concession. To go farther than what he did would have been to invite a revolution. Being the statesman that he is, this he would not do.

[saltpoint]

33. Yep. He can jump in if he wants and he'd be hard to beat.

[NYCGirl]

2. "Should have insisted"? NT

[janx]

3. Damn, son, give us some paragraphs! n/t

[Laelth]

4. It would have been difficult to keep fighting after Bush v. Gore.

To continue to fight would have meant challenging the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution. * is awful, indeed, but I think that, Constitutionally, Gore made the right decision. The federal courts are nearly all that keeps us from dictatorship at the moment. I'm for preserving a powerful and independent judiciary.

-Laelth

[Arkham House]

12. But what happens when the Supreme Court itself are criminals?

Read Bugliosi's book, "The Betrayal of America". There's no doubt at all that the Court acted *illegally* in "Bush vs. Gore". I don't honestly know what the hell Gore and the Dems should have done in 2000...but what happened was the worst of all possible worlds...and I feel they, we, somehow had a moment of decision, and made the wrong one...

[Laelth]

20. I haven't read Buglosi's book ...

... but it seems like a stretch (to me, anyway) to say that the SCOTUS acted illegally since they are the ultimate body charged with determining what's legal and what's not in this country. I admit that Bush v. Gore was a weird case. The conservative Justices that voted for Bush are the same ones that say the SCOTUS ought to stay out of interpreting state constitutions. The same ones who argue for the supremacy of the states are the ones who denied the Florida Supreme Court the right to interpret Florida law. The acts of the five Justices who installed Bush were highly hypocritical, no doubt, but they weren't illegal.

And the results of their decision have been horrendous, no doubt, but the authority of the Supreme Court to make such decisions was preserved by Gore's concession. Were it not for that, the authority of the Supreme Court might have forever been abolished. That might have been worse than a * presidency. We won't know for sure until we see whether or not the dictator will voluntarily give up his power in 2008.

[blm]

5. You don't factor in who REALLY controlled the issue - the CORPORATE MEDIA

And they would not give Gore the airtime or the room necessary to assert any action.

They worked 24/7 to assist BushInc, and they only ramped it up after 9-11. Ever read Boehlert's book "Lapdogs"? It should be required reading so you know exactly WHAT both Gore and Kerry faced in 2000 and 2004.

Fight the enemy and their complicit media.

[NYCGirl]

6. Perhaps you need to read this quote from VP Gore:

“In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/17065/index2.html

He's right, you know.

[RagingInMiami]

24. Perhaps he was trying to send us a message

[onehandle]

7. The Moment SCOTUS was involved, the election was over.

Five Republicans chose our President over Millions of voters' wishes.

[sweetheart]

8. He should have called for a total recount

As much as a back seat driver's unhelpful comments about "should".

The moral ground of being a democrat went away without a statewide
recount. I think he should have just spoken that from his heart,
strongly, forecefully, that a full count of the will of the people
across the state of florida was his outspoken objective from the
outset. For whatever legalllleze, i felt his moment slip in that choice,
to keep recounts to some counties.

[PATRICK]

9. Limited, weakened, betrayed

His strategy was doomed by going too soft, too much to their strength, too giving in to concessions given away by media or Lieberman or the party "leadership"(minus Clinton who wanted more bare knuckles). BY SCOTUS time Gore was doomed already by: the Florida slate already selected by the GOP State House, by Delay's Congress sown up to deny Gore, by the press who together with party leadership had bent away and surrendered and hampered Gore from ever doing what he should have down since the beginning of the campaign. With all that however, the forces arrayed were very strong and undemocratic, and Gore himself slowly awakening much less able to deal with each descent into GOP and media depravity.

No, Gore was set for the course that happened. SCOTUS bailed out Congress from having to turn the knife. The other suits would have ended the same way.

But should he have fought anyway instead of protecting democratic forces and the betrayed from bloody defeat? THAT is the question. I think now we would rather have gone down swinging instead of giving the lies reign and rope and putting hope to sleep. mAybe that would have been worse, but the alternative was pathetic and shameful weakness for democratic America as a whole. And the truth,. above all the truth that the wrong man is sitting in the WH by voters' choice denied, by truth muddied.

[robbedvoter]

10. Unlike kerry&Edwards, Gore fought. At least WE KNOW.

very few are aware of the 2004 theft 9you too, I bet), because those two tolled over without a whimper. And they have the audacity to want to run again - when to this day they never disclosed the truth.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Bad vp choice, weak campaign, horrible debates, Nader on the left.....

Gore was doomed. By the time the Supreme Court ruled, it was over.

[dysfunctional press]

14. you can't blame nader

i get sick of people blaming nader- anyone has as much right as anyone else to be on the ballot- you can blame the people that voted for him, but not the candidate.

BUT- i agree that Gore had a shitty campaign and the worst possible running mate.
AND- that he caved in without a fight.

[janx]

18. The people who voted for Nader did not know about Bush. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

29. that's their fault for being uninformed then.

the rest of us knew, or at least suspected the consequences.

but nader had every right to run, just as ross perot did, or lyndon larouche, or anybody else who has chosen to "run".

[Saboburns]

31. Al Gore never 'caved in without a fight'.

He fought as long as possible. If you want to blame someone for giving up, all we needed was ONE US Senator stand up for Democracy.

ZERO DID.

[dysfunctional press]

32. i beg to differ...

he even told people to stay OUT of florida, while the repukes trucked them in...A LOT of it is in public perception, and they just wanted it more.

but forget about florida, or even election day- as far as i'm concerned, Gore caved in the moment he chose LIEberman- trying to appease the right/letting them choose your running mate is the wrong way to go.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

35. AS it was absolutely

impossible for Nader to win, he should have told his supporters 2-3 days before the election to through in with dems in at least Florida. I don't believe Nader should NOT be blamed for one of the greatest political errors of this century. Many of his supporters would have accepted his leadership as the most pragmatic thing to do. This would have been a normal course in any country of the world. It was egomaniacal. I have never forgiven him or the greens. It was just unforgivable. I and many others frantically were, writing and calling them to consider it. They refused. I'm glad he disappeared since 2000. And it is too bad as it destroyed the green party as anything viable.

[dysfunctional press]

36. not at all.

he never had a chance to win- but he had a right to win. and as far as throwing support to the dems- why? he sees them, and quite correctly so in MOST cases, as being as corrupt and problematic for the country as the repukes.

and the green party was never anything viable in this country, anyway. nader actually had more credibility before being associated with them.

[Warpy]

13. In retrospect? He should have stood his ground and SHAMED

Jebbie Bush into authorizing a recount of the entire state of Florida.

We know that he won 7 of 9 recount scenarios and all statewide recounts.

[janx]

15. Gore is the possible giant contender of 2008. N/T

[dysfunctional press]

16. we the people aquiessed

there were A LOT of us there to protest at the coronation of the little monarch- but obviously not enough- Those who didn't go to DC and demand respect the way the people of Ukraine did- BLAME YOURSELVES!

[usrbs]

19. I was there, and I still call myself an acquiescer.

Do you remember the parade-like almost festive atmosphere? Do you remember us agreeing to all of the restrictions and First Amendment zones? That first protest foreshadowed all of the rest ineffectual and uncovered protests we've been holding ever since. I haven't gone to one in several years. They're just a waste of time.

[dysfunctional press]

30. i remember it being a very grey, cold and drizzly day...

the perfect precursor for what america was about to go through.

[usrbs]

17. No, he shouldn't have

It's been obvious for some time that the Bush gang will stop at nothing to get what they want and to stay in power, and that since 2000 it's been a whole nw ballgame where the earlier rules no longer applied. Everything since then, the secrecy, the blatant disregard for law, what went on in Ohio in 2004, the almost daily revelations of yet another outrage follows as inevitably as Winter follows Fall.

This conclusion, of course, begs at least 2 questions:
1. What makes anybody think that they'll let the Democrats take back even one house? If voter suppression and Diebold aren't sufficient, they'll come up with something else. Look at how they were prepared to overthrow the results! If the story about the approaches to the military are true, they were thinking about an overt coup d'etat!
2. The even more important question is what, then, are we going to do about it? My pessimistic prediction - about as much as we did in 2004.

[Innocent Smith]

23. Why

Why aren't the Dems in congress screaming from the rooftops about Diebold? Do they not think that there is a problem? Do they not think that massive fraud is going on? Are they scared?

I myself would be less skeptical if the leadership of the Dems spoke out about it. After all they are the ones most directly affected. I was talking to someone about this and they said (refering to our Dem leaders), "If they don't think there is a problem why should I?"

[Innocent Smith]

21. Gore would have been abandoned

If Gore had done what you suggest do you have any doubt that a large number of House/Senate Dems would have abandoned and condemned him? Unlike Kerry I think he took it as far as he reasonably could.

Also if my memory is correct the reasoning behind the 7-2 decision just as effictively ended his chances as the 5-4 SC decision. I remember at the time thinking the 7-2 decision make it almost completely impossible and the 5-4 did make it impossible. Is there a specific reason you disagree? I'm very willing to change my mind. :)

[johnaries]

22. He had no choice after the SCOTUS vote.

Your question has no relevance. Gore did all he could do.

[bemildred]

25. He had nowhere to go after the felonious five intervened.

Short of a spontaneous insurrection, which we came up a bit short of, there wasn't much to do at that point.

[JanMichael]

26. No. The stakes were too high to let them take the country.

Even if it failed, which it would've likely done, at least there would have been a stand.

Hell toss in the Bush-Harris Voter Purge and we know it was stolen. We know it now, and sensed it then.

We were in the right and now were in a world of shit.

I don't hate Gore for this, actually I'd work my ass off for him if he ran again, but in my opinion 2000 was a tipping point if you will. A literal coup by the fascist monied interests.

Oh well. His quote about no alternative between a SC ruling and violent revolution is sadly true and a huge weakness in our political system.

It gives us few "outs".

[Hubert Flottz]

27. NO!

PERIOD!

[jerry611]

34. The cards were stacked in Bush's favor

No matter what the courts would have decided, the body of government that has the final say according to the Constitution is the House of Representatives.

The courts are to play no role in the electoral process. If a winner cannot be determined, the state legislature then has full control over who the electors are going to be (Article II, Section I). If the electors are not choosen by December 19th of the election year, then that state's electoral votes do not count in the final tally (federal election law). That would mean that neither Bush nor Gore would have a majority of electoral votes. This means, according to the 11th amendment, that the House goes into a special session where all the representatives of each state go into their own conference. Each state conference gets 1 vote. Since the GOP would have the majority of states, Bush would win no matter what scenario occured.