|It Was And Is the Theft of the Election Stupid.
By Lloyd Hart 10/16/04
Could somebody please tell me how this alternate reality appeared totally blotting out the well-documented history of election 2000. The alternate reality I am speaking of is the one that seems to have taken over the minds of the Democratic Party and their party hacks like Paul Bagala a host on CNN's Croosfire who up until Nader announced his candidacy to run for the presidency in 2004 claimed over and over and over again on the air that George Bush and the Republican dominated Supreme Court stole the presidential election in 2000. All across America Democrats screamed about the theft of the election over over and over again.
And now, all across America Democrats are embarrassing themselves and risking their futures by blaming Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss in the presidential election in 2000. Many elected Democratic Party election officials are actually committing crimes by purposely disqualifying legitimate signatures on ballot petitions submitted by Ralph Nader's campaign in states like Oregon. I suspect that other Democrats are going out and collecting or should I say creating fraudulent signatures that are then submitted to election officials which then become evidence of election fraud a judge in Pennsylvania just recently claimed Ralph Nader was committing. Get Fucking Real Democrats.
The latest in the twisted alternate reality game the Democrats are playing has come from TomPaine.com which claims to be all about common sense right there in their website logo. There is absolutely nothing commonsensical about the article that they sent out in their E-mail dispatch written by David Corn who writes for The Nation magazine a so-called progress left-wing publication.
David Corn needs to drop the pretense of the title journalist and in fact he needs to resign from the magazine the Nation and join the rest of the party hacks at the Democratic National Committee who have taken up this alternate reality that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore to lose election 2000. When George Bush was asked about Florida being called for Al Gore on national television on election night in 2000 Dubya responded in a most telling expression "I don't think we're out of the woods yet, in Florida Heh heh heh".
Let's say Ralph had not run in 2000 and just for kicks let's believe momentarily that the 92,000 people in Florida that voted for Ralph actually voted for Al Gore, just for a minute. Does David Corn actually believe that the Republicans would not have stolen the election regardless. If this is the case and I think David Corn and the Democrats that support his position are terribly naive and in fact stupid, ok maybe just desperate.
What part of the Republicans stole the election does David Corn not get? Even this week Paul Krugman editorialized in York Times that the ethnic and political cleansing of the voter list in Florida was not an accident but rather a deliberate act when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris created the broader criteria by which felons would be removed from the voter rolls that swept the hundred and 140,000 non felons from the voter lists including a sitting black judge.
Hell, Democrats even helped to write HAVA the "Help America Vote Act" which would distribute billions of dollars for the renewal of America's elections systems that George Bush gleefully signed into law and which by the way Republican dominated States and Counties used to purchase electronic touchscreen voting machines that funny enough have no paper trail and no way to verify or recount the results of an election.
What part of the Republican dominated Senate in Florida voting to ban a paper trail on the computerized touchscreen voting machines that will be used in 62% of polling precincts in Florida does David Corn not get. Maybe if David Corn spent some time doing some real journalism he might discover that Jim Crow has joined the electronic age and that the very same stream of thought that created the Jim-Crow laws that prevented blacks from voting in the South, hell the same people is and are behind the new age of "Electronic Jim Crow". Why does David Corn not work on this issue instead of wasting his time and embarrassing the majority of Democrats by beating up one of America's greatest Democrats ever, Ralph Nader. The single greatest reason Democrats held on to the House and Senate all through the '70s and into the 80s was the policy work of Ralph Nader and the many wonderful people Ralph Nader touched through the many groups that came out of his beautiful sphere of influence.
Doesn't David Corn realize the terrible disservice he is doing to the reputation of the Democratic Party? It took 70 years for the Democrats to repair the damage that was caused by the Dixiecrats opposing the abolition of slavery by later turning around and becoming the Party of Civil Rights in the 20th-century. So now David Corn wants Democrats to support limiting democracy again.
David Corn refers to Ralph Nader's run as a tactical error and attempts to paint Ralph Nader as a vengeful jilted lover when fact it is the Democratic Party that David Corn is hurting. It is the Democratic Party that is being painted as the vengeful lover and it is David Corn who has made the tactical error of criticizing Ralph Nader's very brave and tactically brilliant effort to cause civic arousal which by the way is the name of the booklet Ralph Nader has just put out explaining the things that David Corn should be spending more time on instead of focusing on limiting democracy to those David Corn thinks are better suited for the job.
Like David Corn I was touched by Ralph Nader's beautiful mind when I canvassed door to door in Massachusetts for Clean Water Action and when I met Ralph in election 2000 but unlike David Corn I could never view Ralph Nader's run for president and the challenge Ralph is putting up to the draconian candidate ballot access process in America that even Senator John Kerry himself criticized in the last debate, as any thing but the same pioneering spirit that Ralph has always stubbornly used to guide us to the future of a better America. An America where a third-party keeps the other two parties honest on election day.