Whatever

Damn, that was quick. Who won the betting pool?

I didn't think that when his approval was at 26% he would pull something as outrageous as he would have when his ratings were at 60%.

Theses batsards are rewriting things for themselves. Can we impeach everyone yet?

I am glad Scooter was pardoned.

Chang:

"I didn't think that when his approval was at 26% he would pull something as outrageous as he would have when his ratings were at 60%."

They don't particularly care any more now what anyone thinks about what they do then they did before, Chang.

Also, as Instapundit noted, this will probably get him an uptick in support from some conservatives, since (this is me talking, not Instapundit) there are some conservatives who are more worried about their side winning (and the other side losing) than pretty much anything else.

Jerry:

He wasn't pardoned, although your comment brings up a good point, which is that most people won't differentiate between commutation and a pardon, and ultimately I think that's going to bite Bush on the ass more than help him.

Free shit brings out the trolls apparently.

What kills me is NYT and CNN are saying he still faces fines and probation. Like that means anything to these people.

Chang, if that last comment was re: Jerry post, don't be calling people trolls just because they have a differing opinion. That's rude. Wait until they engage in troll-like behavior.

Sorry. It wasn't the differing opinion that I was calling trollish. Saying something like that - confusing the commutation with pardon, and then saying it on your site. Seemed a bit trollish to me. I'll leave the administration of cuss words and all that to you.

I will now go back to watchign "John Tucker Must Die" and listen to the cat wheeze.

Again, my apologies.

Well, I guess after the appeal got such a nice reception, W. couldn't go for the full appeal. But, really, he should have done this before the appeals ruling came out. Now this looks worse than it would have.

An aside in response to yours: If you want democracy to matter, don't blame the Greens. The Republicans have taken the presidency from the Democrats via the electoral college three times now, and the reverse has never happened, yet the Democrats prefer to lose, so long as they get to stay in a system that squeezes out third parties.

As for your main point: Is anyone surprised?

Will Shetterly:

"If you want democracy to matter, don't blame the Greens."

Ah, bullshit, Will. Anyone with an IQ higher than the temperature of lukewarm water knew how close the 2000 election was going to be, and that in the real world the US has a two party system. Moreover, only a credulous moron swallowed the line that there was no substantial difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Nader voters should have voted with some understanding that their vote had an impact in the world. But they didn't, and we got eight years of Bush in charge. Yes, that was so useful for the Green Party agenda, wasn't it. And, of course, the Bush administration has been so good for democracy, too.

So don't peddle that "golly, who will think of democracy?" crap here, Will. If the Nader voters would have actually voted in a way that did not suggest they were snorting fairy dust in the ballot box, we wouldn't be in the position we're in today. They ought to have sucked it up and cast an intelligent vote that took the context of the actual world into consideration. They didn't. I'm sure many of them regret that vote today, and that's nice, but I have to regret their vote, too, and I don't like that at all.

About his 'fine' -- there is speculation that the big legal defense fund his fundie buddies set up for him will cover that. He still loses his law license (whoop-de-do) and has to serve probation (slap on the wrist). I'm sure he'll land on the board of Halliburton or the Carlyle Group and start raking in the dough -- all to keep him from talking.

So glad Bush ran on bringing integrity back to the White House...

First off, he wasn't pardoned, only his sentence was commuted. He still has fines to pay, he's still a felon.

What upsets me is that waaay back a year ago, I grabbed freescooter.blogspot.com, and now it's worthless. :(

Even though this is the George W. Bush Administration, I am still amazed and aghast. I must be more credulous than Mr. Scalzi et al.

Rob Thornton:

Heh. Well, to be fair, I stopped expecting ethical behavior out of this Administration so long ago that I can't actually remember when I stopped expecting it. I'm pretty jaded by this point.

Of course, "jaded" doesn't mean that we can't still be appalled. And John, thanks for the reality check for our Green friend. I'm so tired of the Naderite garbage.

Tom:

Well, to be clear, Will is a friend of mine, and I know him to be principled and thoughtful fellow. But I do believe that while every citizen must vote his or her conscience, he or she should also recognize that votes have consequences. Nader voters should have known they weren't taking votes out of Bush's pool, and that Gore (who was far more philosophically aligned with the Green point of view than Bush) needed every vote he could get.

First off, he wasn't pardoned, only his sentence was commuted. He still has fines to pay, he's still a felon.

Yeah and that pesky remainder will be taken care of in early January 2009. As John alluded, this wasn't surprising but it is still depressing.

George

I remember seeing a poll shortly after the 2000 election, in which Nader voters were asked who they would have voted for had Nader withdrawn from the race. Forty-seven percent said Gore, 21% said Bush, and 30% said they would have stayed home. With, what, 80,000 Nader votes in Florida, where would that have put us? Well, not in Iraq, for one thing.

Nader told the biggest lie in the 2000 election, that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Does anyone in his right mind still believe that?

Yes! Bravo for reminding us it was really those Nader voters who put Bush in the White House. Ralph Nader once again proving the one vote that really counts is the decision for some bonehead third party guy who'll never get more than 20 percent. Nader, the other guy who started the Iraq War.

I was just thinking of the wonderful service the Nader voters did us in 2000 the other day. Is it OK if we call them trolls?

Nader apologists overlook the fact that the only states Nader actively campaigned in were the ones where everyone knew ahead of time that the vote was going to be close, where Gore needed every vote he could get.

But I've gotten tired of trying to talk sense into Naderites. They never learn - they're out there again, saying that if Clinton gets the nomination, they're not going to vote for her, because she's (altogether now!): "No different than the Republican will be."

Bush has showed us that about 30% of the electorate would be perfectly happy in a fascist state.

Nader has shown us that about another 5% have all the political acumen of a potato.

The reason I generally think it's a bad idea to blame Nader for the Florida election is that it overlooks one crucial point:

Gore won Florida.

Whether or not Nader voters were throwing their ballot away is irrelevant, because Bush's Florida campaign manager threw away plenty of ballots that were for Gore. And even after she was done doing that, her guy still lost when the ballots were recounted under Florida's sunshine law.

Blaming the greens lets the republicans off for election fraud, and personally, this is one of those cases where I'm not willing to dismiss as stupidity what malice can adequately explain.

will shetterly, "and the reverse has never happened"

Well, from the Green Party side you're right. The Green Party never distracted enough conservatives to throw the election the other way. However, you may have heard the story about a man named Ross Perot and the Reform Party during the 1992 elections.

Annalee, thanks! I was about to mention that little detail. But some people would rather blame Greens than Republicans.

I'll never forget Gore telling the Black Caucus members to shut up and sit down.

Steve, sorry I wasn't clear there: The Republicans have never had a candidate win the popular vote and lose in the Electoral College. The Democrats have had this happen to them three times now.

The question is, what's next for Libby? I say he will be on Hannity's radio show before the end of the week as a "great American" followed by an appearance at the "freedom concert". Next he'll probably have his own show on Fox News, just like Ollie North. It makes me sick.

I feel sooo bad for Libby's family. Give me a break.

Annalee:

"Gore won Florida."

However, had Gore won Florida with the additiona; 97k votes Nader had accrued (or even 47% of those), then there would have been no chance the the Republicans could have walked off with it at all. Nader voters made it close enough for the GOP to press the issue. So it's on the Naderites again, I'm afraid.

"I'll never forget Gore telling the Black Caucus members to shut up and sit down."

I'm sure eight years of Bush were worth paying that back.

Oh the heck with Libby. Fred Saberhagen has died. We've lost another good one.

strugglingwriter, you forgot the Medal of Freedom presentation, sometime around Labor Day.

I still can't believe he had the gall to do this: There's just no limit. Even pathetic little Paris Hilton was man enough to do her time.

Anyway, if we're going to blast sections of the 2000 electorate, can we do it in this order please:
FIRST - Those who voted for Bush and *understood* what they were doing.
SECOND - Those who voted for Bush and didn't understand what they were doing.
THIRD - All those who didn't even bother to get off their backsides and vote.
FOURTH - The rest, including head-in-the-clouds idealists.

And this from Fred Thompson, Reagan 2.0 playing the "wife and family" card:

Former GOP Sen. Fred Thompson, likely presidential candidate
I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President’s decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.

Hurl!

I was flabbergasted by this. *Am* flabbergasted, to the point of swearing.

Thanks, John, for bringing up the Nader issue. Oregon was one of the states he campaigned heavily in, and pulled a big draw. I voted for Gore--and was down in Florida immediately after the election.

Let me tell you, stuff was being covered in the _Orlando Sentinel_ that did not appear in our excuse of a fishwrapper daily here in PDX. I compared notes with other political sorts, and the stuff I heard about vote stealing and the like raised my hair.

I mean, come on. The same frickin counties that were screwy in the Hayes-Tilden election were screwy in the Bush-Gore election. *The.* *Same* *Fricken* *Ones* (except for Palm Beach and a few others that were mostly swampland in Southern Florida). There were also issues with absentee ballots and...oh well, the notes I took were from three computers back, and I disposed of them, finally.

Grr.

But if anyone wants to do the research, I strongly suggest looking at the _Orlando Sentinel_ from November, 2000.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised Bush had the balls to do this. He SHOULD have gone for a full pardon, but I imagine the keening of the Democrats would've been too high-pitched at this point. They'll surely be screeching now, but let's face it, the Democrats would screech at this point if Bush dared to even use 2-ply toilet paper, let alone exercise the powers delegated to his office by the Constitution...

This was a politically-motivated prosecution from Day One, and Bush knows it. Thankfully, he found it within himself to, at least partly, Do The Right Thing and ameliorate the effects of Libby's being used as a scapegoat for the Left's "smear-Bush-at-all-costs" mentality.

You’re welcome, and to tell the truth, I’d do it again. It was the only election and candidate I felt excited about then or since. I voted out of hope (as opposed to fear, which is why by birth family voted for Bush, twice). As a gay lefty, I’ve felt taken for granted by the Dems and to tell you the truth, Gore just didn’t appeal to me. I wanted to give the party that was closest to my personal beliefs something of a showing, and honestly I didn’t think the country (or my family!) was going to be quite that misled as to vote the way they did. So blame my idealism, stupidity, or sheer bloodymindedness for Iraq, the present composition of the Court, and everything else that’s gone wrong the last two terms. I’ll eat the blame and the sin. At least I’ll be hated and scorned for what I actually did than just for who I am.

P.S. That's sad about Saberhagen. Growing up I went through a lot of his work and enjoyed it very much. I don't know if it would hold up to a reread, but it was great fun for a younger me.

Mike Carlson:

"At least I’ll be hated and scorned for what I actually did than just for who I am."

Well, that's an interesting interpretation. So, as someone who celebrates your gay leftyness, allow me to say: Idiot! It's all your fault!

Ah, I feel better.

Full-on pardon would leave Scooter unable to plead the fifth were he to be put in front of a grand jury again. Instead he would have to testify fully 'cause he'd be altogether without jeopardy.

Commutation prolongs the, "I can't recall" scenario indefinitely should Fitz pursue Cheney, or until sometime in January, 2009, whichever's sooner.

(IANAL, but I slept in a Holiday Inn last nite.)

In 2000, I lived in California and it was already damn clear that California was going to Gore. So I voted for Nader because I was hoping to encourage the notion that third parties could be real and viable. I thought Gore was going to win it, and my vote wasn't going to change that.

Had I lived in Ohio or anywhere else where it was going to be close, Gore would have had my vote. I voted for Kerry in Ohio in 2004 even though I thought he was a weak candidate. His victory was better than the only other possible outcome.

So I happen to agree with John here, despite having voted for Nader in 2000. This election mattered, and people who should have known better enabled a tragic period in our history.

Perhaps the Greens should change their name to the "Credulous Moron" party. It won't win elections, but it will at least be an honest defeat, and winning wasn't happening anyway.

Whoa. Blaming the voters?

Look, it's hard enough getting us to give a shit enough to pull a lever or place a mark on a ballot.

If US politics is failing so hard that your recent foray into faith-based leadership was caused by a few people swayed by a candidate who occasionally made some sense when he spoke, then you have much bigger problems.

Look at it this way: maybe the fake dichotomy of Dems vs. Reps is no longer a satisfying enough crunch for some people.

Clvrmnky:

"If US politics is failing so hard that your recent foray into faith-based leadership was caused by a few people swayed by a candidate who occasionally made some sense when he spoke, then you have much bigger problems."

2.9 million is not a "few" people, particularly in the context of that election. And it's nice that Nader made sense from time to time (although I don't particularly remember him making more sense to me than Gore, and generally rather less), Nader voters should have pulled their heads out in the voting booth and realized that in real-world terms and in the short term, voting for Gore would have been far more likely to get their agenda closer to implementation than depriving Gore of their vote.

So, no, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Nader voters cost Gore the election, and that the responsibility for the last eight years rest heavily on their shoulders. They could have made a real difference, instead of a pointless one.

"Whoa. Blaming the voters?

Look, it's hard enough getting us to give a shit enough to pull a lever or place a mark on a ballot."

No kidding. Why do party loyalist Democrats blame people who voted their conscience, instead of all the folks who didn't vote at all? As if we owe our votes to your party. If you want 'em, earn 'em. If you want someone to blame, blame the people who agreed with you but were too lazy to get off the sofa.

Pissed as I am, I've got to admit that coming within 48 hours on the pool gives me a bit of satisfaction. (And gloating rights, didja notice?)

Right here I said:

"If sentencing is in June, put me down for something in July. Let's say noon on July 4, 2007; just for extra effect."

Bush didn't quite have the balls to go for the 4th, but he came damn close. The "Impeach Bush" groups are looking less insane all the time...

Ah, the DNC party line: Blame Nader!
Reminds me of the RNC party line: Blame Clinton!

Gore won the election despite Nader and folded when voting fraud and intentional disenfranchisement became an issue in the Senate. If Gore had not parked the black caucus, the US might have seen some actual work done in electoral reforms. Those electoral reforms might have prevented Bush & Co. from stealing the next election, or at the least would have given Kerry a reason not to fold on the Ohio vote tampering.

I'm sorry I voted for Nader, even though it was in a state that did not matter.

Gore (and all you loyal Democrats) should apologize for his cowardice in the Senate.

Kerry (et al) should apologize for backing down in Ohio.

Maybe then we can focus on current screw-ups like our Congress-which-dares-not-impeach?

Pretty please with coconut-scented dinosaur-breath on top?

I have never been truly politically "active". I first voted in 1992, for Bush the Elder. Even though Clinton had some sort of appeal, there was this old west snakeoil salesman charm about him I just couldn't get over. That and between him and Hillary I was never quite sure who exactly the balls of the family. At this point in time I'd swear they were detachable, and transferred between the two for use as needed.
Anyways, 96 started a trend, for me anyways. Clinton still had the huckster charm about him, and Dole reminded me of my granddad before he took his morning pills. The best line of reasoning I could come up with when I voted was saying "Well, Bill's had four years, and he hasn't screwed up to badly..."
Then 2000 rolled around, and I was forced to choose between the evil of two lessers. Gore tried to hard for my tastes, and while I think he was an OK candidate, you have to admit the specter of Clinton hung around his neck...Florida opened my eyes to what a politician will resort to to win, and ultimately reminded me of a 2nd grade playground fight of "Well, he did this" "You did that" sort of argument. I think theres plenty of blame to go around for 2000, Nader, Gore, the Democratic party in general...all the Republicans had to do in 2000 was not screw up, and even though they tried really hard, Bush was elected.
Frankly, he looked like a 1 term president to me. Now, I'll be honest, I like Bush the guy. Bush the politician,not so much. He originally, to me anyways, came across as one of the few politicians who tries not to be more than what he is...which of course in Washington is the death knell of a politician. You have to be urbane, erudite, and preferably with out such a harsh accent, and by god if you don't look like the smartest man in the room, you better act like it. Forget whats outside the beltway, they only matter every 36 months or so. The people you have to impress all work on K street and in the press corps, and if you lose them , your screwed...You have to appear to be common, without actually being common. Bush Jr. strikes me as the sort of guy who was sitting in the governors office one day and said "Shewt...what the hell can I do next in life..." and the phone rang and it was Karl Rove on line two...and he said "Well, OK..."
Anyways, if 2000 was a debacle for the Dems, I am not sure what 2004 was. Here you have an incumbent president, trapped in an unpopular conflict, the head of an administration that has the worst time ever communicating a basic message to the people, and you find John Kerry?
Tiger Woods himself could not have teed it up better, and the Democratic party still managed to lose. I think 2004 may have been the election where Democrats wished the name on the ticket was "Bartlett, Jedidiah D-NH" in real life, and not on NBC...
Try as I might to ignore the current election cycle, noone running out there right now impresses me. Its going to come down to who I think is going to screw up the next four years the least. I am not sure if that means I have lowered my expectations to low, or the current crop of politicians out there is just that bad...

As for commuting Libby, its the presidents prerogative. I think leaving the rest of the penalties in place was the right thing to do as well. Somewhere I think Mark Rich is doing a happy dance, he did manage to get away with a full pardon. The key is to see what Bush does his last few days in office, thats usually when the pardons start flying off the desk...

Todd

Look at it this way: maybe the fake dichotomy of Dems vs. Reps is no longer a satisfying enough crunch for some people.

Satisfying crunch, eh? Nice to see you reduce the one of the most vital civic responsibilities a citizen has to taste-testing a bag of Cheetohs.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but "Dems vs. Reps" is what we had in 2000.

And 7 years after just enough people figured that wasn't good enough for 'em, and voted for Nader "to help make 3rd Parties viable," how are those 3rd Parties doing, anyway?

The Greens got fewer votes in 2004 than they did in 2000. Today, the National Green Party is a joke, and not a funny one at that.

Y'all keep talking about how you don't like the choices we have, and how much you wish there was a 3rd Party, or how much you'd like to see IRV or some variation thereof... and yet, oddly enough, the 3rd Parties are in worse shape now than they were; we are nowhere near phasing out the Electoral College, much less instituting some form of IRV; and we still have two Parties to pick from.

Dems vs. Reps, kids. You haven't done a damn thing in 7 years to change that; all you've done is bitch about how awful the world is for not giving you the smorgasbord of your dreams.

"False dicotomy"?! !!!!11!@!

"Some people" need to read the papers... Which would first require them to get their heads out of their asses.

Halcyon:

"Ah, the DNC party line: Blame Nader!"

Well, I've been registered independent for as long as I could vote, so this doesn't apply in my case. And as it happens, I do blame Gore, et al., for not doing a better job of grabbing back the Presidency. So there.

However, it takes nothing from the fact that first, the Nader voters gave the Bushies the contested election they needed to grab the presidency. If they'd just sucked it up and voted with their brains, Bush couldn't have made his snatch grab ploy in the first place.

More than a few people take issue with the idea that there are two parties to choose from as well.

When's the last time a credible 3rd party candidate was a factor? Wallace? TR?

Todd

Why is it that people scoff at the idea that there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans? While I grant you that there are wide divides amongst the rank and file, the true believers (which many of the posters qualify as) there isn't, IMO, much difference between the party politicians, especially in the Senate. And this cuts both ways. Each group of elected officials, Republican and Democrat, appear more interested in keeping thier seats than they are in any philospohical agenda or political ideology.

Earmarks is a current example of this mindset. Republicans avow that their for limited government and a balanced budget, then promptly increase the size and cist of government past Clinton's wildest wet dream. Democrats take the Congress in 2006 vowing transparency and promptly play a shell game to keep the old rules in place, but with a surface gloss to hide the fact that its business as usual.

While I'm generally conservative, I frequently (almost 50%) cast my vote for Libertarians (despite certain of their inane policies, such as returning to a gold standard [the intrinsic value of gold is every bit as much an illusion as that of paper] or selling the National Parks and Forests to retire the national debt (we'd soon have a paved over world). I'm fairly sure that others think the same way.

And I do it as it appears to me that Big Business controls both parties, not the actual voters. While we debate (i.e. are distracted by) the politicians on "non-business" issues, such as abortion, gun control, etc., being issues Big Business could care less about, heaven forbid we debate issues near and dear to the international corporations hearts.

So Democrats can blame Nader for their loss in Florida (and from what I've seen it was a legitimate loss) but what they should be doing, as should the Republicans, is looking into a mirror and deciding on what they believe in, other than their reelection prospects as judged by the size of their campaign coffers.

Scalzi said:

"However, it takes nothing from the fact that first, the Nader voters gave the Bushies the contested election they needed to grab the presidency."

So, this is all about not who fucked up that last eight years the hardest, but who queued up first?

Eh. So what? This might be a bigger deal if the Congressional Democrats had a collective backbone, but they don't. They proved that already with the war funding bill and the Alberto Gonzales thing. Odds are key Democratic leaders will release thunderously stern press releases, and then continue to do absolutely nothing.

I suspect they want to run down the clock to Nov 2008 without rocking the boat too much, and hope to land some combination of Hillary/Obama/Edwards into the White House on the strength of anti-Administration animus, rather than any accomplishments of substance.

JS:
"So there."

Apology accepted. Now let the healing begin.

Free-at-last.

Subspace:

"So, this is all about not who fucked up that last eight years the hardest, but who queued up first?"

Well, yes. If someone opens the door and lets the wolves in, you can berate them for opening the door.

To be clear, Bush owns his follies. But the Nader voters own the folly of allowing him the chance to make mischief.

John, the assumption that all of Florida's Nader voters would have voted for Gore is curious; they may not have voted, or they may have voted for a Libertarian or a socialist--

The Republicans planned to game the system. Why Democrats don't want to blame Republicans I don't-- Well, okay, I do understand. They want a scapegoat, and Nader's it.

As for the folks who say the third parties continue to be irrelevant--that's how the system is designed. That's why the Democrats would rather lose three times under the system than open it up to give third parties a chance.

People seem to have forgotten that remarkably accurate polls said Florida was going to go Democrat. They forget that 5% of the voters planned to vote for Nader, and half of them changed their vote at the last minute when they saw how badly Gore was doing. They forget that Clinton-Gore was the party of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and NAFTA and continual bombing of Iraq. The voter's choice in 2000 was between Republican and Republican Lite.

That changed with 9/11. I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I think the Bush administration was just incredibly incompetent, so it happened, and then they were incredibly opportunistic, because they knew the Democrats would roll over and let them do what they pleased, so they did it.

And the Democrats let them.

And they blamed Nader voters for what they did.

Because blaming Bush would suggest that their opponent was too difficult for them.

And blaming themselves would suggest they should've had spines.

Scalzi:

"Well, yes. If someone opens the door and lets the wolves in, you can berate them for opening the door."

Agreed. And then you shoot the wolves.

Will Shetterly:

"John, the assumption that all of Florida's Nader voters would have voted for Gore is curious; they may not have voted, or they may have voted for a Libertarian or a socialist--"

You know, let's review again how close the Florida vote was. Do you think even a fraction of those Nader votes -- even just 20,000 -- wouldn't have made a difference? And do you honestly believe 25% or so of the Nader voters wouldn't have voted for Gore? Because, really, I don't. Bobarino anecdotally recalled that nearly half of Nader voters suggested they've voted for Gore if they hadn't had voted for Nader. If that would have held in Florida, that would have been more than enough.

Again, I'm not a Democrat, so my reasons for blaming the Naderites for their ill-advised votes are not theirs. That said, yet again, if the Naderites -- or even some of them -- had voted sensibly, they'd've not only spared us the Bush administration, but would have likely gotten an amdinistration far more amenable to their policy goals.

Not that it'll ever happen, but I'll vote green when we have fusion voting.

John, half of the Nader supporters *did* vote for Gore, if my admittedly imperfect memory is close to accurate on that projected 5% for Nader shortly before election day and actual 2.5% on election day. So, if that's right, we know that half of his supporters held their nose and voted for the lesser evil. (If that sounds harsh, remember that Gore was a much more conservative figure in 2000 than he's become.)

So the question is whether the other half of his voters were potential Democrats. I don't think they were. I think they voted because they had a candidate who did not seem like a multimillionaire tool of corporate America.

And I continue to think that Gore won in Florida, and the Democrats did then what they did just a little while ago, when Bush said, "Give me another 120 billion dollars for my war"--They said, "No, no, no, okay."

Will Shetterly:

"So, if that's right, we know that half of his supporters held their nose and voted for the lesser evil."

How lovely for them that they came to their senses. Would that a significant portion of the 90+k Flordia voters who voted for Nader did so. I'm not precisely sure why you can assume that some of those who did vote for Nader would not have voted have voted for Gore in Nader absence; nor that voting for Gore meant being potential Democrats. I voted for Gore; I'm not a Democrat.

Oh, a few Florida Nader voters have said they wish they'd voted for Gore. But were there enough of them to defeat the Republican promise to deliver the state to their boy? I think you underestimate the Republicans. Jeb and Kathleen Harris were going to jigger the vote however they could, and they did, because they knew what mattered was not democracy. It was the electoral college. That's why the Republicans sent their fake protesters to Miami, to scare the Democrats.

And when Gore should've told people to go into the streets and demand democracy, he told them to go home and let the system work. That's what Democrats did then, and that's what we saw them do with the recent vote to fund the war.

I've probably said more than enough about this now. If putting the blame on Greens in 2000 makes it easier for you to be optimistic about the Democrats in 2008, go for it. I want a happy Scalzi!

And I really want to hope that the Democrats may have finally learned enough to change this country's direction.

Maybe if I curse Nader voters enough, I'll find that hope. The older I get, the harder it is for me to listen to what Democrats say and ignore what they do.

Bad Nader. Bad Nader. Bad--

Will:

Come off it. All the Republican tricks in the world would not have been able to erase a significant vote lead. It only became possible because the vote was close. Not to mention we're only talking about Florida here; rumor has it, there are other states where extra votes might have made a difference on election night.

Also, you and everyone else here needs to get past the idea that my goals and the goals of the Democrats are congruent. I have significant problems with how the Democrats dealt with 2000; however, those problems would not have arisen without Nader voters. Simple.

"And when Gore should've told people to go into the streets and demand democracy, he told them to go home and let the system work. That's what Democrats did then, and that's what we saw them do with the recent vote to fund the war."

Gore was the leader of the Senate, and he had to preside over his own loss. When he asked if any Senator had signed his name to the objections to the election, there was not one, and he had to rule, by law, that the reps were out of order. Anything different and he would be just as bad as the people in office.

If he would have put up a fuss, there would have been complaints about him abusing his office. The guy couldn't win regardless. Someone above said they will never forget him telling the Black Caucus to sit down. Do you think Gore will?

While I agree that Nader voters may have made the win of Florida overwhelming, Gore still won Florida. The Supreme Court screwed America by stopping the legal recounting of votes, as soon as it had the result it wanted.

There is much blame to go around, but blaming Gore for following the rules, and sucking up the loss without complaining, and being the bigger, honorable man, well, that just shows a lack of character IMO.

"But I do believe that while every citizen must vote his or her conscience, he or she should also recognize that votes have consequences."

If there is such a responsibility, it also extends to Republican voters.

About the third parties and their nonviability in the US: why not start small and concentrate on winning elections on the county and state level at first? That's where an independent / third-party candidate could succeed, after all. Then, once your party has built a presence, you can aim higher and higher.

Going into the presidential election without at least multiple state-level officeholders across the country is IMO very much like trying to run a marathon when you haven't yet managed to run ten miles without keeling over in exhaustion.

Can we please stop bashing the Republicans as the only party who engages in electoral fraud?