>"Among Dems?"-- the folks in the streets were partisan Democrats, so >no,
>there is no party line on this and most folks at the grassroots were
> >pissed
>as hell that Gore was so wimpy.
If the folks you're referring to were the ones mentioned in the transcript, then I'd have to say they didn't sound like a whole hell of a lot. Someone mentioned there were people pissed off at the disruption of the neighbourhood, and Karenna asked, "Where are ours?", referring to crowds, presumably.
Yes, I've heard this one too from different sources about Gore's wimpiness, and I tend to believe it.
>He's a child of the establishment and >has
>all that belief in public service and the greater good. And he was up
>against hardball adversaries.
Mmmm. Maybe it was breeding, maybe it was fear at seeming too ideological, who knows but Gore.
He was up against a bunch of protesters, same as if he'd been Bush in a house in Berkley. What blows me away is that he didn't even call the cops to show them the door, never mind the people whom he was worried about starting a "racial incident."
>Frankly, it was the third party folks who didn't take the stealing of
> >votes
>seriously after the 2000 election. It was partisan Democrats who were
>outraged. BTW I'll happily dig up the archives from LBO if people need
>convincing on this point. I was screaming about it from day one and a >lot
>of folks here were pretty blase, dismissing it at first as merely
> >irrelevant
>partisan games. And Nader didn't do crap during the whole month of >battle.
How does that factor in about Gore and Dems? Look, I admit to yanking your chain a bit about the Dems. I know as much as anyone here that smearing "Dems" with Gore's faults isn't fair, and I apologize if I hurt your feelings.
Are those "irrelevant partisan games" you're referring to the bit about the votes not mattering since the difference between the parties is so slight to many here? Nathan, that doesn't mean people were neccessarily blase about the vote theft, intimidation, etc.; they probably saw a bigger picture wherein the lack of any theft would have brought in a president who might just have done exactly what Bush has done already.
As for Nader, though I agree it would have been a good thing, maybe even "the right" thing, had he supported Gore in that regard, or even raised a ruckus of his own, paralelling Gore's, what was he supposed to do? Wasn't part of his challenge to Americans that both of the big parties are practically alike? Presumably, he either wanted Gore to flounder and dicredit himself (Machiavellian) or have him win a recount, get the presidency, then "prove" the similarity of a Repub presidency and a Democratic presidency.
>So is it the party line of third party folks not to care when tens of
>thousands of African American votes are being stolen?
If this is directed at me, I'm Canadian: we've got four parties here to carve up the votes federally, so charges of "vote stealing" are lost on me, by and large, unless there looks to have been racial and/or class factors involved, such as Florida. What do you want me to do? Use harsh language? I shook my fist at the TV and computer screen and cursed racist SOBs like the Bushes, but that's about the limit of my power, I'm sorry to say. I trust people like you and Doug to use your knowledge, connections, and expertise to do something, even if it's only a rearguard action.
The closest thing to what happened WRT Florida was the last provincial election here in Ontario. Very few people wanted the Conservatives to stay in, and all of the left-leaning organizations, including the major unions, were publicly praising the Liberals and instructing their members to vote Liberal, despite the fact that the National Democratic Party are further to the left than the Libs ideologically. So what happened? The majority of the votes got split between the Libs and the NDP, allowing the Conservatives to come up the middle and take the election. And why did so many people not vote Liberal, the party even I have to admit should have been the next best choice? Because they've had a bellyful of Federal Liberalism and all that ensued because of it (budget cuts, tightening of employment insurance, less money available for welfare, etc.); lots of people know what the Liberals stand for, same as your Dems. They'll vote Liberal or Dem if they think the alternative is really rotten, but don't be surprised if third parties, to the left of the Liberals or Dems, end of taking votes, to the ultimate detriment of the majority voters. People vote as much because of hope, and it can bite them in the ass. But you have to have hope for the radically different.
Todd
>
>- -- Nathan Newman
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail