posted on November 12, 2000 02:47:51 PM new
feduprepublican - I saw this thread yesterday, but wanted to add something today. Hope you won't mind me using your thread to do so.
I just finished watching John Gibson, Fox News Channel, interview Ralph Nadar (4:00 PM CDT). One of the many questions Mr. Gibson asked Nadar was how he felt about the Democrats feeling he took votes that would have gone to Gore. He answered, and I'm paraphrasing here, that he felt competition in American was good AND then Nadar stated that 10 times more Democrats voted for Bush than had voted for him (Nadar).
Just wanted to share as I thought it was interesting.
posted on November 12, 2000 04:02:21 PM new
This whole thing is so fascinating, and that's the only feeling that I have about it all that I'm certain about.
Ralph Nader sure is an interesting addition. When I was a kid, I had the impression he was the most honorable and incorruptible of the public figures I was aware of. But, then, my childhood was the time of Watergate, so maybe my impressions were skewed.
I haven't paid much attention to him lately, and didn't pay any attention to him during the campaigning. After the election, he made me laugh out loud when he said that Gore had stolen the election from him, especially in Florida. But he's also kind of strange, and I started thinking maybe he's insane, the way his eye kept twitching. Also, I was shocked to see he looked exactly the same, to me, as he had about 30 years ago. When I shared this observation with a friend, he said it was because Nader's still wearing the same suit.
Bless his heart, he's still fighting the good fight he's been fighting since my childhood, and I think that's a great thing.
I happened on Michael Moore's website the other day, the "Roger and Me" guy who's a big Nader supporter. What I found hilarious was the panicked switch in Moore's tone the day after when he found Bush had (maybe) won. Moore was calling to do away with the electoral college right now and declare Gore president.
I followed a link to a threaded chatboard Michael Moore had set up. Most of the chat there had been about their support of Nader, including some posts about how they had just come from the ballot box, had voted their ideals (Nader) and felt great about it.
But the day after, what angst and bitterness! And who did they blame for the Bush (possible) win? They blamed Gore supporters and Democrats. Why didn't you Democrats get out the vote more, why weren't you more assiduous in voter registration drives, etc. etc. etc.! This doesn't speak for all Nader supporters, of course, but these groups of folks sure did seem horrified that Bush had (maybe) won, and they didn't blame themselves for it. It's amazing to me that these chatboard people can blame Gore voters and not blame themselves. Heck, at least the Gore voters actually voted for Gore. But, there you go.
This next part doesn't have anything to do with Nader, but the most amazing thing I've seen out of all of this is the rehabilition of Richard Nixon. My God, I never thought I'd see the day when Nixon was held up as an example to follow of good sportsmanship, patriotism, and statesmanship.
This claim that Nixon didn't challenge the results of the Illinois vote count in the 1960 election is one of the most bizarre pieces of misinformation I've yet seen put forward, and surely one of the cleverest. And nearly everyone seems to be buying this completely. Republican spokespeople are saying it, news media people are saying it, people on the street are saying it. And what a flat out lie it is.
Nixon most certainly did challenge the Illinois vote count, aggresively, as well as the vote counts of several other states, with appeals up through the courts. But Tricky Dick did it behind the scenes. Publically, he conceeded early. Privately, he organized count challenges and court actions in several states, including Illinois.
If anyone's interested, Gerald Posner's article, "The fallacy of Nixon's graceful exit" -
