>Talking about the election on MSNBC on November 22, 2000, Jesse Jackson
>said:
>"African-Americans were targeted, many of whom stood in long lines, and
the
>polls closed on them in line. That was illegal.. . I think that
>it's--deserves more than a recount. It deserves an investigation."
-Of course they didn't shut JJ up completely-- -noone could dream of doing that. But the only thing NN's quote shows -is--absence of the word "steal" in any of its forms or synonyms. And -that "mass lawsuit" vanished without a trace, of course.
I'd think that "illegal" and "investigation" are pretty good synonyms. So if Jesse Jackson doesn't follow your talking points down to the proper word, it's a sellout?
This is just bizarre.
> The Dems didn't have the votes to win the
>vote. It's delusionary to claim that the Democrats had 51 votes that
could
>have changed the outcome.
> Remember, even if they rejected the Florida
ballots, that would have just thrown the election into the House where the
>Republicans still would have won.
-In fact they had 50 Senators plus the Senate's President (Gore).
No they had some Democrats plus a few folks like Zell Miller. If you think that Ben Nelson and Zell Miller would have joined Al Gore in launching a civil war, you are ignoring any version of reality. They didn't have the votes.
-That's as maybe. But at worst a real fight would have effectively -discredited the Republicons politically and deprived the Bushits of -any legitimacy whatsoever, internationally and even domestically.
Why wouldn't it have just as likely have discredited the Democrats and cost them control of the Senate-- which they managed to share for the first few months and then take control of after Jeffords switched? You assume that you're strategy would have been more effective with little evidence. Now, it's fine to have that opinion, but accusing everyone who has a different strategy-- especially one that actually worked -- of being a sellout is just ridiculous.
-- Nathan Newman