Tuesday, October 19, 2004
2000 Election Result: We were Gored
Final result of the 2000 election: America was Gored
Yes, whatever else happened in 2000, and whatever the long-term or short-term results, America was Gored in 2000, by the man himself, the one so many thought was so smart, but who turned out so dumb, Albert Arnold Gore, Junior.
Think about comments John F. Kerry made this weekend (loosequotes from memory):
"We are not going to allow what happened in 2000 to happen this year."
"We are not going to allow a million African-American voters to bedisenfranchised this year."
The implication is not that Kerry will win so big that such matters are trivial, but that, faced with a close election, Kerry will turn to the courts to right the wrongs the dastardly Republicans will obviously perpetrate on America. There is no waiting for the outcome. There is no reliance on poll watchers, or the overall integrity of the system. No, Kerry and his minions are assuming it will be close, and that the courts will decide the election (as they mistakenly believe they decided the last one).
And the national media barely bats an eye. It is understood that this will happen. It is accepted by them, and hence by Americans who will be like sheep watching a wolf lurking at the edges of the pasture. And whom do wehave to thank for this? When was the precedent set that should make this so calmly accepted today? It was set in 2000, by Al Gore and his campaign staff, who refused to believe they could possibly have lost in Florida, and so attempted to structure a four-county recall that would favor themselves, over an all-state recall that would definitively confirm the outcome. It was Al Gore who, feeling the sting of criticism for his unbalanced recall request, urged George W. Bush to join him in asking for an illegal recall (after the deadline for requesting a recall had passed). Al Gore wanted to win so badly he lost sight of precedents, and the effect on America then and forever, and tried to undermine Bush's razor think victory.
Had Gore looked toward earlier precedents, instead of believing he should be president simply because his daddy had raised him to be president, he would have looked to the 1960 election, when John F. Kennedy "won" a razor thin victory over Richard Nixon. It wasn't as close as in 2000, but a change of 7,500 votes in Illinois would have tipped that state to Nixon, and thus the election. On election day, there was documented fraud in massive proportions in the Chicago area, as the dead were temporarily resurrected to do their civic duty and vote en-mass for Kennedy. How many votes were fraudulently cast in Richard Daly's city? Accounts I have read say it was well over that 7,500 threshold. In fact, Nixon won Illinois, and the election. Nixon knew it too. On Wednesday morning, he considered what to do. A court challenge would probably prove the fraud, overturn the Illinois results, and make Nixon the winner. Nixon didn't think too long about it. He decided that America did not need the election results challenged in court. He did not want to be president badly enough to put America through that crisis (and we know how badly he wanted to be president). So he accepted the fraud, conceded to Kennedy, and the Daly machine stole an election.
So I ask, who was the more honorable man: the despised Nixon, or the"genius" Gore? Nixon's precedent stood through nine presidential election cycles (admittedly none close enough to be decided by a court challenge), until America was Gored in 2000. Gore made it easy for Kerry to go into this election assuming that a court action would be necessary, and planning for it.
Shame on you, Al Gore. How dare you put your own good ahead of what's good for America! You proved you were not fit to lead us. I don't want someone who puts himself first, and America second to be my president. And nowJohn F. Kerry is your ideological and political heir. We have truly been Gored.
Yes, whatever else happened in 2000, and whatever the long-term or short-term results, America was Gored in 2000, by the man himself, the one so many thought was so smart, but who turned out so dumb, Albert Arnold Gore, Junior.
Think about comments John F. Kerry made this weekend (loosequotes from memory):
"We are not going to allow what happened in 2000 to happen this year."
"We are not going to allow a million African-American voters to bedisenfranchised this year."
The implication is not that Kerry will win so big that such matters are trivial, but that, faced with a close election, Kerry will turn to the courts to right the wrongs the dastardly Republicans will obviously perpetrate on America. There is no waiting for the outcome. There is no reliance on poll watchers, or the overall integrity of the system. No, Kerry and his minions are assuming it will be close, and that the courts will decide the election (as they mistakenly believe they decided the last one).
And the national media barely bats an eye. It is understood that this will happen. It is accepted by them, and hence by Americans who will be like sheep watching a wolf lurking at the edges of the pasture. And whom do wehave to thank for this? When was the precedent set that should make this so calmly accepted today? It was set in 2000, by Al Gore and his campaign staff, who refused to believe they could possibly have lost in Florida, and so attempted to structure a four-county recall that would favor themselves, over an all-state recall that would definitively confirm the outcome. It was Al Gore who, feeling the sting of criticism for his unbalanced recall request, urged George W. Bush to join him in asking for an illegal recall (after the deadline for requesting a recall had passed). Al Gore wanted to win so badly he lost sight of precedents, and the effect on America then and forever, and tried to undermine Bush's razor think victory.
Had Gore looked toward earlier precedents, instead of believing he should be president simply because his daddy had raised him to be president, he would have looked to the 1960 election, when John F. Kennedy "won" a razor thin victory over Richard Nixon. It wasn't as close as in 2000, but a change of 7,500 votes in Illinois would have tipped that state to Nixon, and thus the election. On election day, there was documented fraud in massive proportions in the Chicago area, as the dead were temporarily resurrected to do their civic duty and vote en-mass for Kennedy. How many votes were fraudulently cast in Richard Daly's city? Accounts I have read say it was well over that 7,500 threshold. In fact, Nixon won Illinois, and the election. Nixon knew it too. On Wednesday morning, he considered what to do. A court challenge would probably prove the fraud, overturn the Illinois results, and make Nixon the winner. Nixon didn't think too long about it. He decided that America did not need the election results challenged in court. He did not want to be president badly enough to put America through that crisis (and we know how badly he wanted to be president). So he accepted the fraud, conceded to Kennedy, and the Daly machine stole an election.
So I ask, who was the more honorable man: the despised Nixon, or the"genius" Gore? Nixon's precedent stood through nine presidential election cycles (admittedly none close enough to be decided by a court challenge), until America was Gored in 2000. Gore made it easy for Kerry to go into this election assuming that a court action would be necessary, and planning for it.
Shame on you, Al Gore. How dare you put your own good ahead of what's good for America! You proved you were not fit to lead us. I don't want someone who puts himself first, and America second to be my president. And nowJohn F. Kerry is your ideological and political heir. We have truly been Gored.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]