Friday, March 02, 2007

Why Gore (And America) Lost in 2000

Media hypocrisy ... Maureen Dowd ... and the mainstream media savaging (by ridicule) of Al Gore in 2000.

Mix it all together and you have exactly who holds at least partial blame for the ascendency of the worst president in the history of the United States.

Joe Conason, in a piece for Salon, seeks to answer the question: Why Do Journalists Suddenly Love Al Gore?

This is best thing I've read all week.

But whether we are talking about Ralph Nadar, Maureen Dowd (who used to love to ridicule Gore's pro-environment stances before they were the fashion), or any of the shouting head phonies on the cable TV news channels, nobody will acknowledge that they did anything wrong in their behavior running up to the 2000 election. Which means that nobody has learned a damn thing. And this thought is truly horrifying.

"Democracy," wrote E.B. white in 1944, "is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time."

This was certainly true in 2000, when Al Gore received half a million more votes than George Bush, who eventually was elected president by the Supreme Court, proving that Democracy is not the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the members of the Supreme Court are right more than half of the time.

Imagine what the world would be like if Gore -- he of moderation on many issues -- had won in 2000.

Would he have squandered the good will of the world following 9/11? Would he have ignored the intelligence warnings about bin Laden? Would he have sought to divide America along social issues? Would America be leading the world in environmental issues, health care and stem cell research?



I realize (despite the headline) that Gore really didn't lose in 2000, and that he was elected by the people, as reflected in the popular vote, and that Bush was elected by a popular vote (5-4) of the Supreme Court.

Seven years later: Have we learned anything at all from this? Has it changed anything about our antiquidated electoral college? Do we still have ballot problems in communities all across the country, whether it's faulty touch-screen systems or too few machines at certain precincts (usually in the poor regions)? Do we even care that "swift-boated" is now not just a word, but a way of life?

Is this mic on?


Click here for a quote from somebody who did
learn something, and thoughtfully reflects on it.


jercwe said...

You failed to note the one thing that Gore did wrong in the election: Distanced himself from the man who would have helped him win (since he didn't) the election.

Anonymous said...

Timmy 2 Shirts Says:

Gore lost for one single reason, he didn't win his own state. I was a Gore fan, but if your own people don't like you, you have a lot to learn.

... Joey P. said...

Jer and Timmy: You betcha Gore would have won Tennessee with the help of Clinton.

Bobby M. said...

Here we go again... let's blame the media...let's blame the Supreme Court..let's blame anyone but ourselves.

Did you (collective "you"...not specifically Joey P. or anyone else at TCOJ) canvass or campaign for Gore? Did I? How much did any of us do to (except sit around an bitch to like-minded friends) to change the outcome of the election. The real reason Gore lost is apathy.

Apathy is not the sole possesion of those that stay away from the polls on election day. Many of us that vote in every election can still be guilty of it. Voting is easy. Action is difficult.