Ralph Nader in Oregon in 2004: A recap of what happened.
Ralph Nader's lawsuit against the Democratic Party alleges, in part, that DNC officials conspired to keep him off the ballot in Oregon in 2004.
Here at BlueOregon, back in 2004, we covered Nader's attempts to get on the ballot in intricate detail. Here's a recap...
On the day that BlueOregon launched - July 17, 2004 - Jeff Alworth noted Nader's trouble getting on the ballot in Oregon:
Poor Ralph. Just four years ago, he was running as the Lefty King, and Oregon was his spiritual homeland. He had rock-star appeal, able to muster large hordes with a single press release. Now, even with the help of the hard right, he can't get a thousand people to attend his speeches.
On August 11, 2004, Alworth noted that the right-wing anti-tax group FreedomWorks had offered its help to Nader. Quoting the Statesman-Journal:
Citizens for a Sound Economy/FreedomWorks, a conservative group that helped overturn the Measure 30 tax package in February, has sought to help Nader in an open effort to help President Bush’s prospects in Oregon. But the group’s Oregon director, Russ Walker of Keizer, said that the Nader campaign hasn’t exactly embraced his offer of support. "What we’re doing is directing our volunteer members to request petitions directly from the Nader campaign," Walker said.
On August 15, BlueOregon posted a press release from SEIU 49 alleging "widespread fraud and forgery" on Nader's petitions. In particular, they found that only 32% of the people whose names appeared on Nader's petitions reported that they had actually signed their name.
On August 19, Medford's KTVL-10 found a Nader petition circulator - who admitted that he was hired by the REPUBLICAN National Committee. Quoting KTVL:
Reporter: Rhodes says his company, called APC, was hired by the Republican National Committee to get people to sign his petition to re-elect President Bush, however what Rhodes was asking voters and what voters were actually signing seem to be two different things.Reporter: “You’re saying you’re here to re-elect Bush but the signatures don’t go for that, they go for Nader? Is that true?”
Rhodes: “Yes.”
Reporter: “It is true? So you’re saying its really for Nader?”
Rhodes: “Correct.”
Then, in September, we saw a series of rulings on Nader's petition drive. On September 1, BlueOregon broke the story that Nader had been denied ballot access - because he fell 218 signatures short (out of 15306 required.)
In a turnabout on September 9, a Marion County judge ruled that he should be on the ballot.
Finally, on September 22, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Nader was off for good.
Nothing like a blast from the past. Thanks, Ralph.
|
November 1, 2007 |
open discussion | Comments (104 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeanette Doney | Nov 1, 2007 2:28:55 PM
I'm glad Nader is suing and like his being blocked from the debates in 2000, he's going to win. An Independent candidate has the RIGHT to be on the ballot.
Posted by: JHL | Nov 1, 2007 3:04:25 PM
An Independent candidate has the RIGHT to be on the ballot.
Yes, and when a candidate calls an assembly of electors, I have a RIGHT to attend. But Nader apparently thinks it's ok to (literally) shut the doors on people that want to participate so that he can skew the results in his favor.
Explain, please, how that's in accordance with Nader's professed beliefs. (?)
Posted by: Travis Diskin | Nov 1, 2007 3:08:45 PM
I repost here from the other Nader thread....
Let's be completely honest here. Regardless of the factuality of the historical "coverage" of what happened here are two things you should know:
1> Well over 1200 people were in the room for the nominating convention. The SoS REQUIRES that you shut the doors at some point and move forward with the signing. It took over 45 minutes to get people into that room and they were getting cranky. So, when there were over 1200 people in the room, the doors were shut and the signing started with full confidence that the 1200 people were enough. [by the way, I was locked out and there were about 12 others that didn't make it in.] But....
Some people didn't sign. Well over 200 came to that nominating convention. Filled the seats and did not sign. Why would they do that?
2> The Nader campaign collected well over 22,000 signatures to put Ralph on the ballot. But 3,000+ were thrown out because of unwritten rules on the numbering of the petitions. Not that the signatures of Oregonians were invalid, but that the clerical numbering of them did not meet some unwritten rule. In the first ruling in favor of the Nader campaign, Judge Lipscombe did not rule on the numbering issue because his ruling on other unwritten rules put enough signatures back in the mix to qualify the candidate. Later appeals then removed those signatures. All the legal actions to prevent access were undertaken by union lawyers with interceders from the DPO.
So there are the facts.
I'll leave it to others to discuss the merits of those attacks on our democracy.
Posted by: Undemocratic | Nov 1, 2007 3:12:58 PM
Nice recap!
Too bad you're skipping over the lawyerly intimidation of signature gatherers, and the seat-stealing plan for the nominating convention.
I stopped by that convention after hearing about the email from the Democratic Party Chair, and was so disgusted by what I saw that I have had a hard time voting Democrat ever since.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 1, 2007 3:22:32 PM
The Democratic Party got what it wanted for the 2004 election. Essentially a one-on-one with Bush against Kerry wearing the Anybody-But-Bush mantle, the only thing he had going for him to give him a chance of winning. No Nader to split the vote. Kerry lost and deserved to lose for the sorry campaign he ran and for coming across as a phony - and proving he was a phony when he reneged on his promises to fight vote rigging that occurred in spades in Ohio and New Mexico.
If we are stop the collapse of the American republic we need another party to oppose the Demopublican duopoly.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 1, 2007 3:31:16 PM
The accounting is incomplete without also mentioning HB 2614 in 2005 as that sprang directly out of the Nader experience in 2004.
Huh? How can a bill that was introduced in 2005 have had an effect on whether he got on the ballot in 2004?
To be sure, the experience of 2004 influenced what happened in 2005 - but not the other way around. There are no time machines in politics.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 1, 2007 3:51:20 PM
Huh? How can a bill that was introduced in 2005 have had an effect on whether he got on the ballot in 2004?
Nader's alledging that the Dems deliberately tried to foil a candidate - him - from outside of the Duopoly. The DPO/RPO proved that's exactly what they wanted with HB 2614 the very next year and citing Nader's convention as the excuse. Of course it's part of the picture. Paring it out strikes me as an attempt to frame the situation in the best possible light for your side - the DPO.
Posted by: Secret Conspiracy Theorist | Nov 1, 2007 4:50:40 PM
Nader's alledging that the Dems deliberately tried to foil a candidate
That's nothing... I heard that in 2008, the national Democratic Party is going to deliberately try and foil the candidacy of whoever gets the Republican nomination for President! Shocking.
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 1, 2007 6:57:13 PM
Really? What did you hear that the DNC is going to do to prevent any Republican from making the ballot?
LOL - if you're gonna try your hand at snark you ought to at least think it through first.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 1, 2007 7:05:51 PM
If Nader had run in 2004 Kerry and the DLC could have blamed him for losing just as Gore's supporters and the Democratic Party blamed Nader for Gore's loss in 2000. I hate the thought of Hillary being the Democratic candidate, but to give her and her campaign credit they appear to be much more competent than Gore, Kerry and their campaigns.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 1, 2007 10:18:48 PM
Does any of this chatter change the fact that two years after drawing 10,000 paid attendees to the Rose Garden, Nader was unable to draw 1000 fans to a free event at Benson High to put him on the ballot?
If he'd had just 25% of the people who showed up at the Rose Garden, no amount of "seat grabbing" would have made a difference.
In 2000, he claimed that Gore and Bush were exactly the same. Whether you're a Nader guy, a Bush guy, or a Gore guy, I'm pretty sure you can't plausibly argue that the world today would look the same after nearly seven years of President Gore.
Posted by: LT | Nov 1, 2007 11:26:11 PM
Right on Kari!
I am so tired of hearing about the great and powerful OZ NADER.
And this:
"But 3,000+ were thrown out because of unwritten rules on the numbering of the petitions. Not that the signatures of Oregonians were invalid, but that the clerical numbering of them did not meet some unwritten rule"
So, this was the only time in history that numbering of petitions changed an outcome? Seems to me that there were some long time initiative people involved in the Nader campaign, but they didn't know it was important to number the petitions correctly, and that lack of knowledge is the only thing which kept Nader off the ballot?
Do you Naderites really believe that Citizens for a Sound Economy/Freedomworks (the same groups which appear in that Yes on 50 ad so well satirized in the YOU TUBE underground ad) would have said nothing but nice things about Ralph if he had gotten on the ballot?
Or maybe were so scared Bush would lose that this was the only way they thought they could win?
For all you Naderites, there is an Eagles song I'd like to dedicate to you.
GET OVER IT!
Posted by: Conspiracy Theorist (JHL) | Nov 2, 2007 12:09:00 AM
"LOL - if you're gonna try your hand at snark you ought to at least think it through first."
Kevin, if Ralphie had applied the same thought process to running for the Presidency that you advocate for mere snark, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Fact is, your boy Ralphie ran a piss-poor campaign and blamed everyone for its shortcomings but himself. It's not a particularly unique story in the history of politics.
Posted by: LT | Nov 2, 2007 12:25:08 AM
CT(JHL), you and I agree. With all the skill and experience Nader has had, to have made such a mess of the process that people complain about seat stealing shows he is losing his touch.
Any campaign which puts people's names on petitions rather than getting them to sign themselves deserves to lose.
"In particular, they found that only 32% of the people whose names appeared on Nader's petitions reported that they had actually signed their name."
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Nov 2, 2007 9:17:07 AM
Bill Bodden The Democratic Party got what it wanted for the 2004 election ... a one-on-one with Bush against Kerry ... No Nader to split the vote. Kerry lost
Not in Oregon, he didn't.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 2, 2007 9:22:10 AM
Does any of this chatter change the fact that two years after drawing 10,000 paid attendees to the Rose Garden, Nader was unable to draw 1000 fans to a free event at Benson High to put him on the ballot?
This was 2004 when non-Republicans were in an anybody-but-Bush mode and otherwise loyal Naderites were urging him to not run to give Kerry a chance of winning even though Kerry proved to be an incompetent loser as many of us thought he would.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 2, 2007 10:48:18 AM
For all you Naderites, there is an Eagles song I'd like to dedicate to you.
GET OVER IT!
The same point can be applied with more accuracy to the pro-Gore/anti-Nader camp. Gore lost because of his and his campaign's incompetence and obvious flaws in his character. This latter point suggests that the proposition that things would be different today is, at least, in part wishful thinking. Gore was part of the Clinton team that that kicked UN inspectors under Rolf Ekeus out of Iraq in 1998 because they were getting close to proving Iraq did not have WMDs. The same gang then initiated unnecessary bombing of Iraq in 1998, the year the Project for the New American Century wrote Clinton urging war on Iraq.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 2, 2007 11:54:33 AM
Wow. I can agree with just about everybody on this one!
First off, I heartily agree with Bill Bodden, Tom Civiletti (from the other comment thread) and others who allege a conspiracy to supress Nader. I was part of that conspiracy. I also agree, that this is unhealth and leads to Corporatist supporter "A" on the Dem side over Corporatist supporter "B" on the Repub side.
IMO all candidates for public office are required to have an ego that is ...shall we say....differently developed than the rest of us who don't run for office. Inside that subgroup, no one surpasses Nader on the self-love meter. No one.
This will always lead to a vision that veers from reality, colored as it is by self-righteousness.
**********
Ultimately, there is not a one-to-one trade off between corporate shills like Hillary or Kerry and truly malignant power grabbers like Bush and Cheney. The latter are much, much worse, and Naderites need to get a clue about moral purity when the rubber meets the road in these desperate times.
**********
Hara Kiri has never been considered an honorable or practical solution for the American political Samurai, and I see no reason to try to make that the new reality.
Posted by: Michal | Nov 2, 2007 2:47:12 PM
While our people are dying ostensibly to bring democracy to Iraq it should be considered simply treasonous for any dirty politics or Democratic conspiracies to keep Greens or any other candidates off of any ballot.
Here in New Mexico the Greens have been "threatened" with ballot disqualification BUT the Secretary of State and Attorney General won't make up their mind. It's been months now, since August in fact, that our party has been demanding an answer and they will not rule one way or the other, nor will they answer queries from county clerks! The election season has started, possible candidates want to know if a ballot line exists and to start collecting signatures themselves since we have a double collection process here but the Dems are stalling, probably hoping we will run out of time or patience. Is this any way to practice democracy? Do they/you still believe that you have a monopoly on progressive politics whilst you squander any number of chances to make good on your promises to the electorate?
Posted by: Michal | Nov 2, 2007 2:47:37 PM
While our people are dying ostensibly to bring democracy to Iraq it should be considered simply treasonous for any dirty politics or Democratic conspiracies to keep Greens or any other candidates off of any ballot.
Here in New Mexico the Greens have been "threatened" with ballot disqualification BUT the Secretary of State and Attorney General won't make up their mind. It's been months now, since August in fact, that our party has been demanding an answer and they will not rule one way or the other, nor will they answer queries from county clerks! The election season has started, possible candidates want to know if a ballot line exists and to start collecting signatures themselves since we have a double collection process here but the Dems are stalling, probably hoping we will run out of time or patience. Is this any way to practice democracy? Do they/you still believe that you have a monopoly on progressive politics whilst you squander any number of chances to make good on your promises to the electorate?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 2, 2007 3:15:54 PM
No Nader to split the vote. Kerry lost
Not in Oregon, he didn't.
Just in case you missed it, Steven, we were talking about a national election for president, not a state election for governor or dog catcher. Kerry not only lost the election he lost most of whatever respect he might have held before the election.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Nov 2, 2007 3:38:58 PM
Bill Bodden Steven, we were talking about a national election for president, not a state election for governor or dog catcher.
And in case you missed it, Bill, the Presidential election is run 50 separate State elections, each which are tallied individually prior to being added together. And today's subject is Nader whining about not qualifying to be a spoiler in Oregon State, not kicked off some mythical national ballot.
The irony is that the people whining that Oregon Democrats played old-school hardball are exactly the same guys who whine that Florida/Ohio Democrats didn't.
Make up your mind, OK?
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 2, 2007 3:44:12 PM
The irony is that the people whining that Oregon Democrats played old-school hardball are exactly the same guys who whine that Florida/Ohio Democrats didn't.
Woah! I've never advocated that anyone anywhere hamstring democracy. And that's exactly what the DPO did in Oregon.
Besides which, aren't you proffering irony of the same flavor here, Steve?
Posted by: JHL | Nov 2, 2007 7:23:21 PM
While our people are dying ostensibly to bring democracy to Iraq
You know, I just decided that Greens don't get to argue along these lines.
Because while the rest of the country was being reasonable about their ballot and looking to elect the best candidate (not the perfect candidate), the Greens were looking to put George Bush in the White House so they'd be noticed by the Democrats.
Or maybe some Raider would like to explain to us what the phrase "crashing the party" means? Or why, in 2000, after promising the Democrats that he would not campaign in Florida, he went and campaigned in Florida?
I'm not blaming Nader for the war in Iraq... but it's obvious to me that he doesn't care enough about ending it (or having not started it) to get on the train with the most chance of ending it.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 2, 2007 9:05:11 PM
Ultimately, there is not a one-to-one trade off between corporate shills like Hillary or Kerry and truly malignant power grabbers like Bush and Cheney. The latter are much, much worse, and Naderites need to get a clue about moral purity when the rubber meets the road in these desperate times.
I don't agree with Pat Ryan on this, but I can well understand his point which basically has been and remains very persuasive. The trouble is the American people have been going along with it for generations, and look at where it has us - choose between Hillary and Rudy. Basically, they are the same, both owned by corporations, including the military-industrial-media complex, which has no limits to its desire for more power and wealth regardless of the destructive consequences. If the winner of the 2008 contest doesn't become a dictator building on the Bush/Cheney consolidation of power then look out in 2016. Truthdig has an excellent article by Chris Hedges on Nader - An Unreasonable Man that is well worth reading.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 2, 2007 9:21:32 PM
Ultimately, there is not a one-to-one trade off between corporate shills like Hillary or Kerry and truly malignant power grabbers like Bush and Cheney. The latter are much, much worse, and Naderites need to get a clue about moral purity when the rubber meets the road in these desperate times.
As above, I maintain there is little choice between Hillary and Rudy. The only practical possibility that offers any hope, albeit slim, is for the people to elect enough senators and representatives in Congress to put a brake on the collapse of the republic; that is, what is left of it. That is one reason I am for Steve Novick and why I would like to see more of his type be elected to Congress and for more already in Congress to get some spine and live up to their oaths to defend the Constitution - like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
Posted by: LT | Nov 2, 2007 9:25:55 PM
May I remind Bill and others that in 1968 some of us voting for the first time for president were discouraged and didn't see much diff. between Humphrey and Nixon. But simply by who they would have appointed to cabinet and lower offices there was a big difference.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 2, 2007 9:48:41 PM
>But simply by who they would have appointed to cabinet and lower offices there was a big difference.
EXACTLY. The President doesn't run the Federal government. The President's executive branch appointees run the Federal government. Democratic Presidents fish in a far different pond for those appointees than Republican Presidents do.
Then start thinking about the Federal bench.
There is no reason EVER to vote for a Republican for President, no matter how suboptimal the Democratic nominee may be.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 3, 2007 9:17:51 AM
There is no reason EVER to vote for a Republican for President, no matter how suboptimal the Democratic nominee may be.
This is one of the most absurd statements made in a long time on Blue Oregon. In other words, my party right or wrong. I have reservations about Ron Paul, but if I had to choose between him and Hillary there is no question that I would vote for Ron Paul for the simple reason he has demonstrated that he takes his vote to defend the Constitution seriously while for Hillary (and all those who voted for the war on Iraq) the Constitution is meaningless. With Hillary getting support from Rupert Murdoch and in debt to him, Stephanie, you will find out to the nation's detriment how suboptimal she can be if she becomes president. How about Hillary appointing Murdoch to be our Orwellian Minister of Truth with more FoxNews hacks like Tony Snow in charge of the White House stenography pool?
Posted by: Ted | Nov 3, 2007 11:09:27 AM
I went through a phase where I really struggled with Nader. Good guy or agent provacateur? Nader's self propogated image is one of somebody who rents an apartment and lives simply so he can fight for the poor. The reality is that he lives in a multimillion dollar house in the DC area which he "bought for his brother." Nader has never publicly disclosed his investments. Those are not good signs.
But what I find most odd is that, with all the things he could rail about and use his public image to draw attention to, he's always biased against the Dems and spends about 75% of his energy attacking Dems. Clinton refused the PNAC guys when they wanted him to attack Iraq in the 90s. Clinton didn't authorize torture, CIA renditions, illegal wiretaps, etc. So with all those serious threats to democracy and the civil liberties Nader professes to support, he's decided to draw national attention to this issue in Oregon. It's hard to see how he sees getting the most return on his efforts by doing so.
I must agree with Kari, too. The world would look a lot different if Gore had been elected in 2000. I don't think 911 would have happened, no war, no private computers taking/counting our votes, no Gitmo torture-mart, no additional $5 trillion in national debt, no plummet in the US dollar, etc, etc, etc. What we really need is a constitutional ammendment that allows Americans to opt out of insane policies so that those who vote for them are responsible for them. All those red-white-and-blue cool aide drinkers who wanted to bomb the world after 911 should be the ones paying for this mess.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 3, 2007 11:24:30 AM
Bill,
Can't disagreee with any of your points.....well....except for you senatorial choice.......but what happens when some single digit or low double digit number of us vote for the pure play candidate? (Not talking about the Dem primary here)
a trap question of course, for the specific election.....'cause I think we can agree that it will always be the "worst" candidate that gets the initial boost from the altruistic pick by the informed voter.
So I guess the real question is can anyone demonstrate an accrued benefit over time?
I tend to think not, but that's only based on evidence from the last half of the 20th century. I do know that both of the two big parties, were not around in early US history but have evolved out of earlier iterations.
That said, I think that the current level of tech makes it harder rather than easier to pull off.
I'd like to be wrong........
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 3, 2007 11:34:41 AM
There is no reason EVER to vote for a Republican for President, no matter how suboptimal the Democratic nominee may be.
Here is another reason why this statement is absurd. Both parties have been around for a long time which means means that people who determine the character and other qualities of these parties have come and gone with the consequence that both parties have changed. Today's Democratic party is no longer the party of FDR, nor is the Republican party that of Barry Goldwater. So for Democrats who adhere to the credo expressed above, what would you do if a Mussolini, a Franco or a Cheney became the head of the Democratic Party and a John Kennedy, a Howard Dean or a George McGovern became the head of the Republican party? Would you still adhere mindlessly to voting the label or would you come to your senses and vote principle and what is best for the nation? There have been some Republicans and Democrats that have abandoned their former parties because of principle. What are your opinions of them? The ex-Republicans are good guys for raising their standards and rejecting the Republican party but the ex-Democrats are traitors?
Posted by: LT | Nov 3, 2007 1:30:00 PM
Bill, there are instances of that happening. Moderate Republican Wm. Weld was elected Gov. of Mass. after Silber (annoying, preachy right wing type) got the Democratic nomination.
That was a little over a decade and a half ago.
Longer ago than that (closer to a 1/4 century) the guy who got the Democratic nomination for State Senate in a district incl. part of Salem had a lot of local friends who turned out to be friendly to Republicans. More importantly, when it was learned that the Dem. nominee had previously served in the House when Norma Paulus was there and consistently voted to the right of Paulus, local people sprang into action.
This led to billboards and a radio commercial with famous local Democrats with the tagline "And that is why we say, vote for LB Day".
Whatever anyone thought of ol' LB (and I worked on a campaign against him at a later date), he had worked with Tom McCall and was a better person/better legislator than the Dem. nominee would have been.
And if, by some fluke, the Republican nominee in 2008 were Huckabee (or something like a Huckabee - Hagel ticket) and the Dem. ticket sounded like 2 Lieberman types, I would have to think long and hard.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 3, 2007 2:14:08 PM
local people sprang into action.
If ever we needed more of that, the time is now. I stick by my positions that the American electorate needs to vote on principle and voting for the lesser evil begets evil. However, I'm sufficiently realistic to recognize that it is unlikely that the average American voter will raise his or her ethical and moral standards and we'll get more of the same in 2008 with Democrats and Republicans voting for their particular crook. My theories suggest a badly needed cure, but I have no illusions that the patient will pay attention to my prescription. I'll vote my conscience which means a vote for Steve Novick. As for president, that is a year away and remains to be seen. As for the Democrats and Republicans if they give us Hillary and Rudy it doesn't say much for their standards.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 3, 2007 2:52:35 PM
My time is limited just now, but here is a quickie in response to those using examples of what happens when the greater evil gets elected - Nixon and Bush.
Humphrey was a strong supporter of the Vietnam war so in that regard he offered no advantage over Nixon. If I recall correctly Lyndon Johnson was not enthused about Humphrey becoming president.
Obviously, the election of Bush and Cheney has been a monumental disaster, but two points should be noted. Nobody outside the Bush/Cheney inner circle, including maybe Bush, had any idea that they would promote a war on Iraq. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Gore/Lieberman campaign ever suggested anything along that line. Had they made a plausible case, those of us who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. As for Gore, there is no guarantee that he would not have gone to war with Iraq. He had a lot to do with anti-Iraq hostilities while working with co-presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton, including maintaining the sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives. Madeleine Albright said, "We thought it was worth it." "We" must have included Gore. And with the Likud party's man in Washington, Joseph Lieberman, as his vice-president in what is now Cheney's office Gore would certainly have been encouraged to attack Iraq. I can't say with certainty that Gore would have gone to war, but others are in no better position to guarantee he wouldn't.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 3, 2007 4:02:40 PM
Humphrey was a strong supporter of the Vietnam war so in that regard he offered no advantage over Nixon.
Maybe not with regard to Vietnam, but certainly for many, many, many other reasons, he would have been better than Nixon.
As for Gore, there is no guarantee that he would not have gone to war with Iraq.
Sure. It's a parallel universe. Everything is speculative. But knowing Gore's character, you can bet it would have been a different kind of war, with a different attitude toward civil liberties, etc.
And beyond the war, there are many reasons why Gore would have been vastly better than Bush. Judicial appointments, tax policy, environmental stuff, the list is nearly infinitely long.
You simply cannot make the case that Gore and Bush would have been the same sort of presidents. Maybe on one issue here or there (free trade?) but hardly across the board.
There are many of us (millions of us) who knew that Gore and Bush were fundamentally different from each other, both ideologically and by character.
But the Naderites liked to claim that they were two branches of one political party. That there would be no difference between the two.
In the late 1990s and the year 2000, America was prosperous and at peace. (Thank you, Bill!) We thought the prosperity and peace would last forever. Our politics was small. Pop culture dominated politics, and even in our politics, we spent our time worrying about blow jobs, rather than war.
In that context, maybe it was to be expected that ideological liberals would treat a presidential election like a vanity contest dominated by "message sending" instead of "leadership electing".
But you can never know the future. One should never, ever vote to "send a message" when that vote will result in a substantially worse leader being elected to high office.
The fact remains that the voters in Florida who would have voted for Gore over Bush, but instead chose to vote Nader to "send a message" handed the White House to George Bush. If they had voted for Gore, it wouldn't have been close, we'd never have learned all about hanging chads, and the Supreme Court would have never gotten involved.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 3, 2007 4:06:17 PM
The world would look a lot different if Gore had been elected in 2000. I don't think 911 would have happened, no war, no private computers taking/counting our votes, no Gitmo torture-mart, no additional $5 trillion in national debt, no plummet in the US dollar, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sorry, but this is just fantasyland thinking.
Training and planning for the 9/11 attacks were well under way before the outcome of the 2000 election was decided. They weren't thrown together in just a few months after George Bush took office. The people at the operational levels of the various US security agencies were career professionals, they didn't come into existence between late January 2001 and mid-September 2001. The dysfunctional computer systems, the problems with sharing intelligence, inter-departmental squabbling -- all of that's been a part of the national security apparatus for so many years it's the stuff of spy novels going back decades. It's possible that with a more attentive president the 9/11 plot might have been exposed, but there's no guarantee that it would have been or that all four groups of highjackers would have been discovered.
As Bill points out above, one of the primary pushers of the Iraq war was Ahmed Chalabi's good buddy Joe Lieberman, who would have had Gore's ear. Lieberman was brought onto the ticket precisely because he was seen as an aggressive proponent of American power overseas. It's obvious that the Iraq war was something a large part of the foreign policy establishment in the US supported even before the 2000 election. There would have been "evidence" leaked through Republican members of Congress, calls by the GOP to take out Saddam because he was building WMD, and the same people who supported the war in 2002 and support action against Iran now in the face of a lack of hard evidence of any actual threat would have been pressing Gore to take action.
A Gore/Lieberman war in Iraq might have been different than a Bush/Cheney war, but a lot of Iraqis would have died, people would have been tortured (can you name a war where they weren't?) and there would have been a clampdown on the rights of American citizens. Just look at the way a number of Democrats in Congress have been more than happy to team up with Republicans to enact restrictive legislation.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 3, 2007 4:10:56 PM
Darrel - looks like you and I were typing at the same time.
I'd be curious about your thoughts on the above. To me, it's not just about the war.
And even on the war, where you're mostly right above, I do think that the character of the war would be fundamentally different.
As a child, George Bush liked to torture animals. As a fraternity president, George Bush liked to torture freshmen. As a Governor, George Bush mocked a woman sitting on death row. I am, for one, not surprised that he condones torture as president.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 3, 2007 5:18:25 PM
>As a fraternity president, George Bush liked to torture freshmen.
In my day (which was a few years later than GWB's day) there was also a persistent legend in New Haven involving the historical abuse of livestock (specifically sheep; yes, ladies and gentlemen, I said sheep) in the pledging rituals of that fraternity.
I always wondered what farmer in his right mind would rent a sheep to a fraternity.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 3, 2007 8:36:13 PM
But you can never know the future. One should never, ever vote to "send a message" when that vote will result in a substantially worse leader being elected to high office.
The thing about electing a president is that you never really know what you will get. It is like someone once told a prospective bridegroom to not worry about the woman he was going to marry because she would be a different person after they were married. Who would have thought Lyndon Johnson would have escalated the Vietnam War? And, since no one has called me on an earlier comment, who would have thought Bush and Cheney would have gotten us into this war.
The world would look a lot different if Gore had been elected in 2000. I don't think 911 would have happened, no war, no private computers taking/counting our votes, no Gitmo torture-mart, no additional $5 trillion in national debt, no plummet in the US dollar, etc, etc, etc.
I'm sorry, but this is just fantasyland thinking.
Darrel is exactly right calling the preceding comment fantasyland thinking. Let's recall a comment I made but had to be ignored for anyone to think 9/11 would not have occurred. Gore was part of the troika in the White House maintaining sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million children their lives. Arabs are strange people. They are not like Americans who might see this as an opportunity to sue the killers for a bundle of money. Arabs tend to be more primitive, and as Mike Scheuer, a former CIA analyst in the bin Laden unit, indicated the deaths of these children was one of several reasons for 9/11. So, with Gore, one of the troika in charge of the sanctions in the White House as president you could have bet your last nickel that bin Laden would have continued with his plans for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and probably the U.S. Capitol.
And even on the war, where you're mostly right above, I do think that the character of the war would be fundamentally different.
War is war and it is always hell. Gore's and Lieberman's war, if it took place, would have been just as barbarous as the Bush/Cheney war. The Air Force would not have replaced the cluster bombs in their bomb bays with Halloween candy, and the poorly trained and scared soldiers and marines would have broken down doors to homes and humiliated the men, women and children in them. Corporal Graner and his team of jerks would have abused their prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo might not have existed as a torture/concentration camp, but that would not have made it a "nice" war.
Just look at the way a number of Democrats in Congress have been more than happy to team up with Republicans to enact restrictive legislation.
The pro-war wing of the House Democrats got pro-war Steny Hoyer elected as majority leader over end-the-war-but-keep-the-pork-flowing-to-Pennsylvania Jack Murtha.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 3, 2007 9:27:24 PM
The thing about electing a president is that you never really know what you will get. It is like someone once told a prospective bridegroom to not worry about the woman he was going to marry because she would be a different person after they were married. Who would have thought Lyndon Johnson would have escalated the Vietnam War? And, since no one has called me on an earlier comment, who would have thought Bush and Cheney would have gotten us into this war.
I just have to respectfully disagree. It's true that none of us here are Jeanne Dixon or Nostradamus and have an ability to predict the future with much certainty, but by the time someone runs for President we generally know enough about him or her to make some very educated guesses about the way he or she is likely to respond to different kinds of events and stimuli or provocations.
I would also submit that active members of the Democratic Party generally, as a pool of talent, are far more closely aligned with my own values than active members of the Republican Party. This is as close to a sure thing as there is in politics these days, and I will always vote for the Presidential candidate who is fishing in the former pool for executive branch and judicial appointees. Even if an individual with progressive values managed to get nominated by the Republican Party as a Presidential candidate, and win, that president-elect would still be a Republican, and would be surrounded by Republican supporters with home-state friends and associates waiting to jump on all the political jobs in the executive branch ... most of whom would by definition NOT share the president-elect's progressive values.
And to say you would vote for RON PAUL over Hillary Clinton is very disturbing to me. Ron Paul would like to abolish every Federal agency that progressives care about. He's against the war, and good for him. He is an honest man of principle. I'll give you that. But they are not our principles. I'm not sure I could vote for Ron Paul unless he was running against Sam Brownback, and even then I'd strongly consider selling my house and moving to Holland first.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Nov 3, 2007 9:29:31 PM
I have strongly criticized the foreign policy actions of Democrats as well as Republicans on BlueOregon and elsewhere, but Democrats have never behaved with the level of disregard for international consensus, international law, and civil liberties that the Shrubbery has displayed.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 4, 2007 1:14:45 AM
The thing about electing a president is that you never really know what you will get.
If that were actually true - that the candidate, pre-election, has zero correlation with the president, post-election, then there would be no point to a democracy.
More specifically, if YOU believe the above, then there's no point in voting.
Which is absurd on its face.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 4, 2007 9:31:55 AM
The thing about electing a president is that you never really know what you will get.
If that were actually true - that the candidate, pre-election, has zero correlation with the president, post-election, then there would be no point to a democracy.
Perhaps I should have added some emphasis to "know" to preclude the above response which seems to have interpreted my point to mean "you can't believe" or something of that nature. And the term "zero correlation" is carrying that rebuttal point much too far.
The history books suggest that many people had no idea that Truman would be the president he became. Prior to that he was considered little more than a potted plant filling the vice-president's office. Some in the Democratic party didn't believe he was worthy of that office in the first place.
Voters were led to believe that between Goldwater and Johnson, Goldwater would be the warmonger, but it was Johnson who expanded the war in Vietnam.
People voting for Carter believed he would become a force for good, but his presidency was noted more for its failures, thanks in great part to the Democratic party leaders and his national security adviser, Zbig, undermining him.
Did anyone on this thread ever suspect and warn the American people that Bush and Cheney would start an illegal war, shred the Constitution and make the imperial presidency more imperial than ever?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 4, 2007 10:32:12 AM
Let's get back to Gore losing the election for president.
There is a consensus among many people, including some Democrats, that Gore ran a pathetic and incompetent campaign. Now let's consider the last days of that campaign after the votes were in and it became obvious that Jeb Bush, Kathleen Harris and the Republican party in Florida had been playing dirty politics by, among other vile acts, denying thousands of African-American (and mostly Democratic voters) their civil right to vote and have their votes counted. Gore, his campaign staff and the Democratic party stood by and let the Florida branch of the Bush Mafia get away with it.
The Democrats and the Republicans entered into a Kabuki dance in the courts where justice is raped every day, but only Republicans took the fight in noticeable numbers to the streets - or more specifically to the county courthouses where votes were being counted.
Hell should have been raised by Democrats over the obvious dirty tricks to deny African-Americans (therefore mostly Democrats) their votes, but Gore and the Democratic Party chose instead to surrender. This was the Bush Mafia’s first move to shred the Constitution, and Gore and the Democratic Party “leadership” stood by and let them get away with it setting the pattern for the Bush presidency and Democratic complicity.
Clearly, Florida was no Ukraine and Al Gore was no Viktor Yushchenko who led his people in protests against a corrupt dictator favored by the Russian giant. Similarly, the Democrats had nothing in common with the Ukrainians who supported their challenger and took to the plazas. But, then, the Democrats didn’t have a leader. Maybe the difference is that Ukrainians believed in a democratic republic and were willing to fight for one while Americans, Democrats and Republicans, just talk about what’s left of theirs as if it were still alive and well.
Instead, the decision was finally turned over to the Supreme Court with its long history of supporting slavery, segregation and other abuses of human rights. To the surprise of no one with a clue of how that court and its role in the system works five of the Republican "justices" awarded the prize to the Republican candidates.
Then, when Congress assembled in January 2001 to put its seal of approval on the election members of the Black Congressional Caucus rose to protest the outrages against their fellow African-Americans in Florida, not one senator, not one Democratic senator rose to give them the support they needed. Gore as president of the senate forcefully gaveled the protesters down hammering the final nail into his own presidential coffin.
Why did the Democratic leadership not encourage the people to rise up in protest? Because they are like their counterparts in the Republican party. They don't want to turn their power over to the people because it may be habit-forming and they prefer the people to continue behaving like sheep.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 4, 2007 10:32:42 AM
And even on the war, where you're mostly right above, I do think that the character of the war would be fundamentally different.
I think the character of the war in Iraq would have been different, but the main point is I still think there would have been a war in Iraq. Sure, it might have been more competently executed, but that wouldn't have changed the basic facts that Iraq didn't have any WMDs, didn't have any anthrax-spreading drone aircraft, didn't have any ties to al Qaeda, and posed no threat to the United States. So maybe only a half a million Iraqis die in a campaign of aerial bombardment in one version of the war instead of a million in a multi-year occupation. That's not a significant improvement.
Don't forget that all of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates who were senators in 2002 supported giving George Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. 60% of the Democrats in the Senate and 40% of the Democrats in the House voted to give George Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq.
For whatever reasons -- because they believed Iraq was a threat, had WMD, or because they thought it was time for a change in the Middle East -- most of the Democratic foreign policy establishment supported the Iraq war. That's the only way that so many of the most influential people in the party -- including all but one of the of the DLC-affiliated senators -- voted to give George Bush a go-ahead in Iraq. Lieberman was the DLC chair until he was nominated for VP. Gore was a founding member. The fact that Bill Clinton had spent eight years in office meant that many of the top party leadership positions were affiliated with the group.
While everyone's whining about how Nader spoiled everything and let a dangerous nutjob like Bush into the White House, let's not forget that it was a Democratically-controlled Senate that loaded the gun in his hand and opened the door for him in Iraq. That story about torturing frogs dates back to before November 2000, it doesn't seem to have influenced the opinions of the portion of Democrats who were eager to get into Iraq.
On civil liberties, you know the story about the warrantless wiretapping supposedly having started before 9/11? Like February 2001, less than a month after Bush's inauguration? That would only have been possible if the government had plans drawn up already. Sort of like how the bombing of Cambodia was planned during LBJ's term but dusted off and implemented by Nixon in his first month. These things don't happen overnight. In all likelihood, those plans were waiting for implementation during the Clinton administration in the case of, say, a national emergency, and the Bush people decided to run with them. If Gore had faced an emergency, he might well have taken the same tack. Certainly nobody on the Democratic side kicked up any fuss about it until it was exposed, and even now with a Democratic Congress the rules are just getting more and more bent.
So, yeah, I think the war and civil liberties situation would have been different, but I think there still would have been a war. You tell me whether a pointless war run by a bunch of incompetents is better than a pointless war run by people who were willing to give the incompetents free rein.
Posted by: darrelplant | Nov 4, 2007 10:47:01 AM
People voting for Carter believed he would become a force for good, but his presidency was noted more for its failures, thanks in great part to the Democratic party leaders and his national security adviser, Zbig, undermining him.
The funny thing is, Carter was one of the leaders of the Anyone But McGovern movement of party stalwarts at the 1972 Democratic convention. Carter was a die-hard supporter of the Vietnam War and thought McGovern was a big pansy because he'd had been arguing the war was a mistake since 1965.
Carter and Brzezinski were the bright minds behind funding the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in an attempt to draw the Soviets into their own private Vietnam. When the Soviets complained about CIA influence, Carter denied it, then when the Soviets invaded he could get all huffy and denounce the invasion, boycott the Moscow Olympics, and cut off US grain shipments. Then again, as Brzezinski says: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
Or three decades (so far) of chaos in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 4, 2007 11:32:56 AM
I find it bizarre that y'all think that there would have been a War in Iraq if Al Gore had been president.
Remember, this was a war of choice. We weren't attacked by Iraq. There was nothing urgent about the timing of our choice for war.
I find it hard to believe that Richard Perle and his neo-con friends would have found much favor in a Gore White House.
And as for all of that Florida stuff - Gore's dumb choices, Kathleen Harris's perfidy - none of it would have mattered if Nader's Florida voters, or even just a small percentage of them, would have voted for Gore.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 4, 2007 11:43:42 AM
The funny thing is, Carter was one of the leaders of the Anyone But McGovern movement of party stalwarts at the 1972 Democratic convention.
Darrel: Thanks for this info. I was out of the country most of 1972 and missed this. I hope my comment about Carter doesn't put me with both feet in his camp. I have mixed feelings about him seeing both sides of his presidency.
And to say you would vote for RON PAUL over Hillary Clinton is very disturbing to me. Ron Paul would like to abolish every Federal agency that progressives care about.
Stephanie: I presume from this statement that you are like Hillary and don't care about shredding of the Constitution. Ron Paul may "like to abolish every Federal agency that progressives care about" but he wouldn't do any of that as president unless Democrats in Congress went along with him. (I believe your "every" is exaggerating.) I would say it is a safe bet that President Hillary would do more damage to this nation shredding the Constitution in alliance with Rupert Murdoch and other branches of corporate Amerika than Ron Paul could ever think of doing.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kevin | Nov 1, 2007 1:31:58 PM
The accounting is incomplete without also mentioning HB 2614 in 2005 as that sprang directly out of the Nader experience in 2004.