Third-Rate Broderian Bromance

Here’s Ybor City, which is Tampa’s smaller-scale answer to NOLA’s French Quarter:

20140728-123556-45356449.jpg

People used to call it the “Latin Quarter,” but now it’s just Ybor, a fun spot, except for the people who have to rise at 5:00 AM to hose the vomit off the sidewalks.

Speaking of Tampa, this article, entitled “Scott, Crist ads malign, mislead,” published in today’s Tampa Tribune, is a textbook case of both-sides-do-it-ism. The author describes and analyzes a handful of attack ads run by the campaigns and supporters of Governor Rick “Voldemort” Scott and the likely Democratic challenger, former Governor Charlie “Changeling” Crist. Then the author concludes that everyone is maligning and misleading to beat the band, you guys! At least, that’s what the headline, intro and outro imply.

But if you actually read the article, it’s pretty clear that the ads run by Voldy and crew are based mostly on made-up shit, such as Crist is responsible for all the ills that befell Florida after economy shit the bed. Whereas the article scolds Team Charlie for implying that Voldy took the Fifth 400 times during a deposition because he’s a crook, which they deem unfair since Voldy was never actually convicted. (He had floated away on his golden parachute after paying out the largest settlement for corporate malfeasance in history.) It’s not the same thing, and the reporter must know that.

Also, speaking of vomit, there’s this lament at Salon: “My party has lost its soul: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the victory of Wall Street Democrats.” I have enough sympathy with that view that I occasionally run afoul of the “My Obama, Right or Wrong” peeps on this here blog, but the author of that piece lays some steaming turds alongside the sprinkling of valid points. Here’s one such dropping:

In America the Tea Party has been crying crony capitalism since the Bush bailout and Obama stimulus.

Bullshit and more bullshit. The loose confederation of Koch-funded, Astro-Turf groups known as “the tea party” didn’t give a flying fuck about the “Bush bailout” until Obama started administering it. I’ll believe they’re serious about crony capitalism the day they can demonstrate that they questioned the hundreds of billions poured down the Iraq rathole via the Halliburton funnel with the same intensity with which they screeched about Solyndra.

Obama’s economic team is a bit Wall Street heavy for my tastes too, and too many Dems are in the tank for local financial industry concerns (NY, DE), but there’s a reason the hedge fund barons have turned on Obama: The administration and the Democrats did toughen financial regulations despite the hysterical opposition they faced every goddamn step of the way, and from those self-same crony capitalism-fighting “tea party” types.

I’m all for beating the tea party to the “populism” punch — I think it’s really important, in fact — but let’s not pretend those so-cons in patriot drag are sincere about it. If the author of that piece doesn’t get that, there’s little point in crediting the rest of his analysis.

148 replies
  1. 1
    prufrock says:

    Forget it Betty, it’s the Tampa Tribune.

  2. 2
    srv says:

    OMG OMG OMG!

    Five years out of office, Sarah Palin has proven she can still grab headlines for her often-polarizing views.

    Until now, she’s had no major media platform all her own to share those views. But that’s all about to change.

    “Are you tired of the media filters? Well, I am. I always have been. So we’re going to do something about it. I want to talk to you directly on my channel … on my terms.”

    Access to the Sarah Palin Channel can be yours for just $9.95 a month. The online channel — which went live Sunday — gives subscribers a chance to hear Palin’s political commentary and to interact with her directly through group video chats.

    Other features include a national debt clock and a countdown to President Barack Obama’s last day in the Oval Office.

    What more could you people want?

  3. 3
    cleek says:

    a paean to Nader!

    just what we need, more PUMA 3rd party chin stroking.

  4. 4
    Botsplainer says:

    I’m in Montego Bay. Dived this morning, and am getting my advanced open water certification with Mrs Botsplainer this week. When we’re not diving, we’re drunk and either eating, connubiling or hanging out on the nekkid beach side of the resort with the other middle aged perverts.

    Did I mention this trip was free, including mileage-freebie airfares?

  5. 5
    dedc79 says:

    If DougJ was still around, he’d probably be telling you to hold steady, Ybor City

  6. 6
    MomSense says:

    I’m sitting at a desk dealing with other people’s problems. And it’s too cold and rainy for the beach–nekkid or otherwise.

    FML.

  7. 7

    Democrats are not perfect but Republicans are pathological, there is really no comparison.

  8. 8

    Dems have to beat the teabillies and the “liberaltarians” to the punch or they’ll get votes peeled off/ratfucked into oblivion.

  9. 9
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Botsplainer: I hate you

  10. 10
    Craig Finn says:

    Ybor City is tres speedy.

  11. 11
    KG says:

    this is kinda sorta tangentially related to something that made me laugh on FB today. Someone liked or posted a link to a Herman Cain page about a CNN poll that says that if the 2012 election were done over today, Romney would win like 54-45 or something. My first thought was “well, that’s because we haven’t heard Mitt in two years, so everyone forgot how much they didn’t like him to begin with.” But it reminded me of last night’s conversation when I mentioned Mitt running on “Told ya so” wasn’t out of the realm of possibilities.

  12. 12
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Remind me, what was the period during which Democrats “had a soul” before selling out, man? Was it when they still had stone cold racists in the party? Because pro-civil rights middle-class-and-higher people used to support Republicans, and now they don’t, and that’s who replaced the segregationists in the Democratic coalition. This halcyon soul-having time is like The Olden Days. Made up.

  13. 13
    Thomas F says:

    Many here appear motivated to “beat[] the tea party to the populism punch,” and yet — like the idiotic TBogg — seem lazily resigned to the coronation of Hillary Clinton. This despite the incontestable fact that her and her loathsome husband were and are grotesquely obedient to Wall Street.

  14. 14
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @ranchandsyrup: There’s no “punch” that those other segments are going to throw, though. They don’t care about the issue and won’t do anything about it.

  15. 15
    gratuitous says:

    It’s a bit of a mystery to me why the financial community is upset with the Obama administration. Yes, they put a smidgen of additional regulation back on the system. But for one that had been running wide open with no brakes, I would think that responsible investment counselors would welcome a little law and order to provide some stability and predictability. Who knows when you’re going to get dry-gulched by someone else’s too-cute-by-half trimming of the regulations?

    Also, when Bush the stupider took office, the DJIA stood at 10,578.24 and when he left it was 8,279.63. Not exactly stellar growth there. Since Obama took office, the DJIA has been moving steadily up, and closed Friday at 16,960.57, more than double where it was when Obama took the oath of office.

  16. 16
    mark says:

    I grew up in Tampa and both my parents were born there. I considered the late great Tom McEwen a friend. The Tribune SUCKS. It endorsed Scott when he ran last time and I won’t be surprised if they do it again. That paper used to be great. Now, I wouldn’t wrap mullet in it.

    I could sure use a Cuban sandwich and some flan right now.

  17. 17

    @FlipYrWhig: I agree there’s no actual “punch”, but there is a ton of bleating about populism which can serve the same purpose (esp. when combined with ratfucking), to peel off votes.

  18. 18
    WereBear says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: Democrats are not perfect but Republicans are pathological, there is really no comparison.

    Yeah, it’s like “Do you want to visit the drunken abusive grandparents or the somewhat eccentric ones?”

  19. 19
    Helen says:

    @gratuitous: What a coincidence. Just the other day I asked that of a teabagging relative. And I used the same number you just did. The answer? “Those numbers are fake.” What make you say that I asked. “Because Obama bailed out the banks.”

    There is no rhyme or reason to their beliefs. I have stopped trying to apply logic. Or facts.

  20. 20
    Cacti says:

    @KG:

    My first thought was “well, that’s because we haven’t heard Mitt in two years, so everyone forgot how much they didn’t like him to begin with.” But it reminded me of last night’s conversation when I mentioned Mitt running on “Told ya so” wasn’t out of the realm of possibilities.

    The bad news for Willard about that poll was, Obama isn’t running for a third term, and it showed Hillary walloping him handily.

  21. 21
    Betty Cracker says:

    @mark: Yeah, it was always the “conservative” paper, but the Trib has become more wingnutty than ever over the last several years. They’ve got a couple of home-grown columnists that give Ann Coulter a run for her money (but lack her marketing savvy). Like I’m gonna pay for that shit now that McEwen is gone!

  22. 22
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @gratuitous: IMHO one reason is because there’s a segment of the “financial community” that thinks of itself as more like high-tech or Hollywood: open-minded, innovative, and wealthy for it, and they want to be the cosmopolitan golden boys of finance, not lumped in with traditional/corrupt banking, fat-cats, tycoons, etc. I know a guy who was recruited to a hedge fund straight out of college and one of the reasons he liked the place was that the people who ran the place were like math professors and scientists, down to the scruffy beards and beat-up clothes. There are few liberal bankers, but there are liberal non-bank financial sector people, and they want to have some pull in Democratic/liberal circles, and they don’t like being picked on as part of the problem. (Of course they are part of the problem if the problem is inequality and vaporous, fictitious economic activity, but that’s not what they want us to think.)

  23. 23
    catclub says:

    @KG:

    But it reminded me of last night’s conversation when I mentioned Mitt running on “Told ya so” wasn’t out of the realm of possibilities.

    and just think how much better the economy is now than in 2012 and that fact is still not being absorbed in the general media. It is still horrible. Except unemployment has dropped from 8% to 6%.
    The stock market is doing ever better. The housing market is doing a little better, but still the media reports that things are horrible. Ask them how much worse things are here than in Spain.

    A lot of intense NOT paying attention to real improvements.

  24. 24
    NonyNony says:

    @KG:

    Someone liked or posted a link to a Herman Cain page about a CNN poll that says that if the 2012 election were done over today, Romney would win like 54-45 or something.

    Same poll where Hillary Clinton beat Mitt Romney 55-42 I suspect.

    So yeah – what this poll shows is that there are a lot of people who don’t like Obama right now, but that given the choice between a Republican not in office and a Democrat not in office with equal name recognition they prefer the Democrat.

    (Weigel suggests that racism is the underlying cause for the disparity between Clinton and Obama’s numbers. I would say that’s half the story – the other half the story is that Obama is in office right now and so there isn’t room for Fantasy Obama of people’s imaginations to be better than Real Obama. Meanwhile Fantasy Clinton can be a better president in people’s imaginations than Real Obama. As apparently can Fantasy Mitt Romney – though I can’t imagine what kind of imagination you have to have to pretend that both Fantasy Mitt Romney AND Fantasy Hillary Clinton would be equally better – and I guess that’s where the racism comes into play…)

  25. 25
    Eric U. says:

    @Helen: I remember the first time I heard Rush Limbaugh and he fully contradicted himself in two subsequent utterances. Granted, they were separated by a commercial break, but that was stark evidence that republicans can easily hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time.

  26. 26
    Mike in NC says:

    We visited Ybor City in January. The food at the Tampa Bay Brewing Company was awesome. We were just strolling around the area and it looked really inviting.

  27. 27
  28. 28
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NonyNony: “Fantasy Mitt Romney” reminds me of this:

    Bart: I know: I’ll just do like Lisa and escape into fantasy!

    [Bart imagines Seymour]

    Skinner: Class, instead of going to the box factory today, we’ll be going to the…box factory!

    Bart: Damn TV, you’ve ruined my imagination.

  29. 29
    Betty Cracker says:

    @catclub: Things are definitely better, and certainly they’d be even better if the Republican hadn’t spent the last six years vandalizing the recovery to score points against Obama. But I sure hope the Dems don’t go with a “Hey look, we made everything better!” strategy for 2014 and 2016 because so many working class people have lost ground over the past few decades. I want the Dems to keep pounding that wealth inequality message.

  30. 30
    cleek says:

    i can be unmoderated, s’il vous plaits ?

  31. 31
    Violet says:

    @Betty Cracker: Better yet if the Dems pound the “Republicans don’t want you to have nice things” message. They don’t want people to have a fair wage. They don’t want people to have healthcare. They don’t want people to vote. Etc.

  32. 32
    Mnemosyne says:

    @gratuitous:

    But for one that had been running wide open with no brakes, I would think that responsible investment counselors would welcome a little law and order to provide some stability and predictability. Who knows when you’re going to get dry-gulched by someone else’s too-cute-by-half trimming of the regulations?

    You miss the fact that they all assume that it’s only the other guy who’s going to get screwed. They’re always going to be too smart to get caught in that trap. And if they do, they know they can go screaming to Congress and get bailed out.

  33. 33
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    But I sure hope the Dems don’t go with a “Hey look, we made everything better!” strategy for 2014 and 2016 because so many working class people have lost ground over the past few decades. I want the Dems to keep pounding that wealth inequality message.

    I think they could quite easily run on a “Look how much we’ve made better already, and here’s what we want to do next” message since they now have a track record to run on.

  34. 34
    catclub says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    I want the Dems to keep pounding that wealth inequality message.

    I do, too. But there is still not enough talk about:

    unemployment was 9.8% when we came in and now it is LOWER by a third. It is still not good enough but it is not worse. The economy was losing 600k jobs a month and now is growing. This is important.

  35. 35
    KG says:

    @NonyNony: yeah, that’s the one. Cain, of course, calls people crazy for liking Hillary now over Romney because something something, insanity repeating itself.

    @catclub: it’s really simple, there’s no bubble right now, so the economy must not be working. 90s were great because there was the dotcom bubble. Aughts were great because there was the real estate bubble. Today? No bubble, just a functioning (mostly) economy. So, therefore, the economy isn’t working.

  36. 36
    Patrick says:

    @KG:

    a CNN poll that says that if the 2012 election were done over today, Romney would win like 54-45 or something.

    Which means that a fair portion of the 47%ers that Romney insulted and claimed didn’t add much to society, now wants Romney as President…I think I just want to go and scream.

  37. 37

    @Botsplainer: I think the word is canoodling. Your word might be a thing as well, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never done it or would admit to it.

  38. 38
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Helen: All the teatards know is that they hate the ni*CLANG*. That’s all they need to know. Nothing else is important.

  39. 39
    dedc79 says:

    @cleek: Yeah, good stuff. Well, except Constructive Summer – not such a fan of that one, but love the others.

    New album is growing on me too.

  40. 40
    Betty Cracker says:

    @KG: Bubble or not, people aren’t wrong to feel like they’re still getting shafted despite the lower unemployment rate. Many of the new jobs are shitty minimum wage service gigs. Most of the gains have accrued to the 1%.

  41. 41
    Samuel Knight says:

    The Salon story was kind of sad. Nader did more than sabotage Gore – he chose to go campaign there in the final days. Also he left un-mentioned that a lot of folks thought that Nader was starting to go off the rails in the years leading up to 2000. Second, the article blithely lists all these things that should have been done instead of the stimulus, forgetting the basic fact is that every macro model says that the economy had to have a direct fiscal jolt immediately.

    The Romney – Obama poll is an interesting test. Prior gap is that Obama has to govern, but also he’s caught. Since he chose the middle route, he’s now got the right that still hates him, and his base which is disappointed. Like it or not, Hillary gets a break on 3 counts – everyone knows she’s establishment, she’s a woman who’ll break a mold, and well yes that race thing too….

  42. 42
    raven says:

    The Southern Dragon was from Tampa. He was one bad ass lefty activist.

  43. 43
    KG says:

    @Betty Cracker: I’m on board with pointing out that there are serious structural problems with our economy. I was talking more about the media’s view of the economy.

  44. 44
    danielx says:

    The loose confederation of Koch-funded, Astro-Turf groups known as “the tea party” didn’t give a flying fuck about the “Bush bailout” until Obama started administering it. I’ll believe they’re serious about crony capitalism the day they can demonstrate that they questioned the hundreds of billions poured down the Iraq rathole via the Halliburton funnel with the same intensity with which they screeched about Solyndra.

    Yes, yes and yes.

    They didn’t want to be associated with He Who Must Not Be Named any longer, but….there is no Tea Party, there’s just the Republican Party.

  45. 45
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: It’s the over-the-top irrationality that drives me to conclude that racism is at the bottom of a lot of this because there seems to be no rational explanation.

  46. 46
    MomSense says:

    @⚽️ Martin:

    Your word might be a thing as well, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never done it or would admit to it.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the devices he linked to the other evening.

  47. 47
    charluckles says:

    There is also a brilliant piece of “both side do it” in the NYT today. In this case it’s Virginia and of the can’t we all just get along variety. I mention it because the very last paragraph is an honest statement that I thought both explained a lot about the Tea Party and also shot a huge whole in the entire premise of the article.

    “They’re not interested in governance,” he added. “They want somebody to express their anger.”

    The he in this case is a Republican ex-congresscritter and the they’re in this case is the Tea Party.

  48. 48
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Samuel Knight: I have yet to see a poll that suggests Obama has lost significant support among self-described liberals, presuming that’s what you mean by “base” — and I’m not sure that’s what the Democratic base even is. Left disaffection is a phenomenon we hear a lot about, but has anyone seen it in polling?

  49. 49
    SatanicPanic says:

    Salon managed to pull off the rare feat of losing Greenwald from its roster AND getting worse.

  50. 50
    Mandalay says:

    @Samuel Knight:

    Nader did more than sabotage Gore – he chose to go campaign there in the final days.

    Don’t blame Nader for Gore’s failings. Gore had victory staring him in the face, and the loser blew it. He shunned Bill Clinton, and distanced himself from the booming economy. He was pompous and condescending. He was wooden. He was running against a clown, and came off second best. He was a lethargic and lousy campaigner. I’m not glad he lost, but he just didn’t do enough to win, and Nader wasn’t the reason for his defeat.

    I can’t prove it, but I think that deep down he didn’t really want the job, and that manifested itself time after time during the campaign.

  51. 51
    burnspbesq says:

    Thrid rate Broderian romance.

    I would respectfully submit that any rendezvous having to do with Broder is, by definition, low-rent.

  52. 52
    rikyrah says:

    George Bush lied us into 2 WARS OFF THE BOOKS.

    The ‘ Tea Party’ didn’t say shyt.

    Unfunded tax cuts for the rich.

    The Tea Party didn’t say shyt.

    Medicare Part D that didn’t strongarm negotiate lower prices with Big Pharma.

    The Tea Party didn’t say shyt.

    The Evil One said ‘ Deficits don’t matter’.

    The Tea Party didn’t say shyt.

    They became ‘fiscally responsible’ when a Black Man became President.

    Phuck those phonies.

  53. 53
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @SatanicPanic: That whole operation is kind of like a version of _Wine Spectator_ for people who don’t like wine. “Hints of melon with a bright finish, if you must, which I hope you don’t.” “Notes of oak and sandalwood — what’s the point.” It’s all movies and albums they hate and politicians that let them down.

  54. 54
    KG says:

    @rikyrah: in a limited bit of fairness, they’d have become “fiscally responsible” the moment any Democrat became president.

  55. 55
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mandalay: Except that he actually won, but, you know, six of one, etc.

  56. 56
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay: I agree with everything you said except its basic premise. Nader was enough for Gore to lose. There were a lot of things that could have happened differently that would have led Gore to win. Each one of those things is was necessary for the loss to happen and each and every one of them is responsible for it happening.

    That includes Nader. Without him running in Florida, Gore wins. And that means he caused the loss.

  57. 57
    cleek says:

    FTF2A:

    In 2009, when he had the votes in Congress, Obama chose not to raise the minimum wage.

    list those 60 Senators who would’ve voted for it.

    i’ll wait.

  58. 58
    burnspbesq says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It’s all movies and albums they hate and politicians that let them down.

    Are there any other kind?

  59. 59
    Suffern ACE says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Polling in ways that would lead one to think it would benefit Romney? Seriously. Wasn’t John Bolton supposed to part of the Romney foreign policy team? I guess the foreign policy “crisis” could be better, but would the left really think “Yeah. Bolton! He’d advocate for stopping the spying. He’d know what to do about Boko Haram and ISIS.”

  60. 60
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @cleek: I will never understand how it comes to pass that the same people who (rightly) begrudge the existence of center-right Democrats like Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Pryor, Webb, and so forth _also_ have this thing they do where they act like _those very same people_ would happily take up liberal causes, if not for that awful Obama choosing not to try hard enough.

  61. 61
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @burnspbesq: Movies that no one sees and politicians that can’t get elected.

  62. 62
    SatanicPanic says:

    @FlipYrWhig: haha, you’re right. That site just goes out of its way to bum you out. “Oh you like this movie? Here’s why it’s racist!”

  63. 63
    SatanicPanic says:

    @SatanicPanic: It’s like a Salon full of annoying undergrads.

  64. 64
    Suffern ACE says:

    @SatanicPanic: The culture section at Salon is equivalent to the NR. It really is. “Why you shouldn’t be enjoying this pop cultural thing that other people are.” It makes being a critic rather tough. “Why you should hate this” isn’t all that different than “Once again, this movie proves why the liberal values lead to nothing but cultural decay.”

  65. 65
    kc says:

    @Botsplainer:

    Sounds like dudebro paradise.

  66. 66
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Suffern ACE: I was trying to make a more general point about the suggestion that Obama’s “base” is disappointed in him. But great point about the Romney-related poll. No one regretting having not voted for Romney is a left critic of Obama.

  67. 67
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @SatanicPanic: @Suffern ACE: One of the writers at Bob Cesca’s site has a character called Sam Doloncot who emulates Salon.com writing/reviewing style. I find the shtick fairly amusing.

  68. 68
    CDW says:

    ““the tea party” didn’t give a flying fuck about the “Bush bailout” until Obama started administering it.”

    You’ve forgotten that before the 2008 election when the bailout was proposed, it took a lot of republican arm twisting to get it passed. Even John McCain was against it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....29438.html

  69. 69
    boatboy_srq says:

    @prufrock: Ditto. Why are you reading that Teahadist rag in the first place except to scope out the competition? These were the ones swearing that Buddy hadn’t done a thing wrong, that Katherine Harris was a conscientious civil servant, and that Bondi was a librul sellout in good Republican colors (and yes I know I’m all over the calendar: what the Trib is doing here ain’t new). I’m actually surprised they thought Voldemort had done anything wrong

  70. 70
    Trollhattan says:

    @Botsplainer: Gosh, is that all? You neglected to mention the free Masarati whilst on the island and the naked Pilates instruction from Rebecca Romijn.

  71. 71
    boatboy_srq says:

    @rikyrah: Fiscal Responsibility is for Democrats, because wars/bombs/tax-breaks/goodies don’t cost money but feeding Teh Poorz does. Because they say so.

    /snark

  72. 72
    bemused says:

    @srv:

    I can’t bear to listen to even one sentence uttered by Palin. Her voice and delivery is excruciating, fingernails scraping a chalkboard and her “messages” are nothing but argle bargle. C&L had a condensed 9 min video of her latest 30 min talk and on impulse I attempted to listen but just couldn’t do it. I was actually kind of embarrassed for her. People who actually pay to listen to her have to be masochists.

  73. 73
    Marc says:

    @cleek: Yeah, Betty, you could have saved me some time (and denied the Salon clickbait a click) if you’d just mentioned the author’s big idea is for liberals to “break up with Obama or make up with Nader.”

    Shorter version: firebagger is convinced that this time, the tea partiers will work with him!

  74. 74
    Mandalay says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    That includes Nader. Without him running in Florida, Gore wins. And that means he caused the loss.

    So what? If Bush hadn’t run in Florida then Gore wins as well, but nobody blames Bush for Gore’s defeat. The idea that Nader bears any culpability in Gore’s defeat is just as absurd as “blaming” rich white voters, or evangelical voters, who voted for Bush. Or blaming voters in Florida who preferred Nader to Gore or Bush.

    It’s a free country, and anyone who wants the presidency is free to run. Nader did nothing wrong, and was under no obligation to step aside for the benefit of President Gore. The reason Gore lost is Gore. He was a lousy candidate, and he blew it.

    There’s an ugly stench of entitlement that surfaces whenever Nader is given the blame for Gore’s loss.

  75. 75
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Mandalay: “nobody blames Bush for Gore’s defeat” uhhh I do

  76. 76
    ruemara says:

    @Botsplainer: I say this in the best possible of girlfriend manner, “shut up, whore”. Because the jealous is burning my soul.

  77. 77
    Mandalay says:

    @SatanicPanic: “nobody blames Bush for Gore’s defeat” uhhh I do Why? That’s just silly. To blame Bush for Gore’s defeat is just as meaningless as “blaming” Obama for defeating Hillary Clinton. These people are competing with each other FFS. There’s no blame involved.

  78. 78
    James E. Powell says:

    @Mandalay:

    Nader did nothing wrong, and was under no obligation to step aside for the benefit of President Gore.

    Did Nader have any obligation to do anything for the benefit of the people of the United States?

  79. 79
    Patrick says:

    @CDW: @CDW:

    ““the tea party” didn’t give a flying fuck about the “Bush bailout” until Obama started administering it.”

    You’ve forgotten that before the 2008 election when the bailout was proposed, it took a lot of republican arm twisting to get it passed. Even John McCain was against it.

    Just a quibble. There was no tea party in 2008. Rich Santelli and FoxNews decided to get that going as soon as Republicans were out of power.

  80. 80
    GHayduke (formerly lojasmo) says:

    @KG:

    I believe Corner Stone was involved, so “conversation” is a bit of a misnomer.

  81. 81
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Mandalay: I blame myself for buying into Nader’s “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” shtick and for being one of the voters who made the election close enough for Bush to steal. I will regret that vote until the day I die. And yes, I blame Nader, in addition to my own stupidity, for framing it that way. Yes, there WAS a goddamned dime’s worth of difference. Ask all the dead Iraqis.

  82. 82
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mandalay:

    There’s an ugly stench of entitlement that surfaces whenever Nader is given the blame for Gore’s loss.

    How about Nader voters? Can we blame them? Because if anyone emanates a miasma of entitlement, it’s those guys. And I say that having voted Nader in ’96.

  83. 83
    Corner Stone says:

    @GHayduke (formerly lojasmo): Such a sad little man.
    Stop obsessing on me, stalker. It’s not healthy for your attempt at recovery.

  84. 84
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Mandalay: If you consider the question so preposterous then why did you ask it?

  85. 85
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay:

    So what? If Bush hadn’t run in Florida then Gore wins as well, but nobody blames Bush for Gore’s defeat. The idea that Nader bears any culpability in Gore’s defeat is just as absurd as “blaming” rich white voters, or evangelical voters, who voted for Bush. Or blaming voters in Florida who preferred Nader to Gore or Bush.

    Yes, it’s just as absurd to blame all of these people, which is to say that it isn’t absurd at all. I blame Bush. I blame people who voted for Bush, whether they’re rich, evangelical, or part of any other ethnic group. I’ll be happy to blame black people who voted for Bush since there probably were enough of those loons to tip Florida, given how close it was.

    It’s a free country, and anyone who wants the presidency is free to run. Nader did nothing wrong, and was under no obligation to step aside for the benefit of President Gore. The reason Gore lost is Gore. He was a lousy candidate, and he blew it.

    Sure, it’s a free country and Nader had a right to run. However, having the right to do something does not absolve you from the blame for the consequences of your actions if it goes horribly wrong.

    There’s an ugly stench of entitlement that surfaces whenever Nader is given the blame for Gore’s loss.

    The only entitlement on display here is the whining that people should be free to do whatever they want and be free of any responsibility for those actions. If Nader doesn’t run, Gore gets elected. The fact that there are a number of other plausible What If scenarios that result in Gore winning doesn’t change that simple fact. No Candidate Nader means we get President Gore.

    Learn to live with your guilty conscience.

  86. 86
    Corner Stone says:

    @Botsplainer: I have to tell you. Your repetitive stories about empty nest sexual revival are just flat out fucking freaky.

  87. 87
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay:

    To blame Bush for Gore’s defeat is just as meaningless as “blaming” Obama for defeating Hillary Clinton. These people are competing with each other FFS. There’s no blame involved.

    I don’t blame Obama for beating Clinton because I think that was a good outcome. That doesn’t mean that I deny that Obama was responsible for Clinton’s defeat because he most certainly was. I accept my portion of that responsibility since I voted for him. So if you want to blame Clinton’s loss on me, go right ahead. Hit me on the chin, buddy.

  88. 88
    Mandalay says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Ask all the dead Iraqis.

    So now Nader gets the blame for dead Iraqis as well? Jesus.

    Nader owed Gore absolutely nothing. They were in competition. Blame yourself for voting for Nader if you want, but don’t blame Nader for Gore’s loss.

    The desperate need from some to accord blame to Nader rather than Gore for Bush’s victory displays a staggering level of cognitive dissonance. Gore was a lousy candidate who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s where the responsibility for his defeat starts and ends.

  89. 89
    cmorenc says:

    @Thomas F:

    Many here appear motivated to “beat[] the tea party to the populism punch,” and yet — like the idiotic TBogg — seem lazily resigned to the coronation of Hillary Clinton. This despite the incontestable fact that her and her loathsome husband were and are grotesquely obedient to Wall Street.

    You’re misreading the sentiments of a vast proportion of people supporting Hillary, who are behind her because she appears by far the strongest, safest bet to keep the White House in democratic hands at a moment in US history when the GOP, if they succeeded in gaining four years control of both White House (especially if they also control Congress) is near-certain to ruthlessly pursue an agenda dedicated not only to tearing down every progressive accomplishment all the way back to the New Deal, but to structurally make it impossible to even attempt to revive them for many decades to come, and while they’re about it fill any Supreme Court vacancies with Scalia/Alito/Thomas clones (or worse, if that’s possible) to insure an impenetrable seal over progressivism’s grave. At the same time, by far the strongest motivation for the fierce right-wing/tea party nihlistic resistance to anything Obama and the democrats try to accomplish (and also their fierce efforts to suppress democratic-inclined voters) is the realization that unless they decisively reverse the nation’s course fairly soon, their window of opportunity will be forever lost due to the nation’s changing demographics, if nothing else. Many of them are coming at least privately to the realization that already, it will be politically impossible to truly repeal Obamacare root-and-branch, something that seemed possible as recently as last winter. There’s probably never been a more critical pivotal point in American domestic history since the Civil War.

    I would also much prefer someone with the populist/progressive approach of Elizabeth Warren, but what I want, what the democrats and the country desperately is most in need of in 2016 is a winner in the white house, and someone intimately knowledged and skilled at using the levers of power effectively to pass legislation and govern. Warren is excellently on her way to becoming a key, powerful US Senator, but she’s frankly not ready for prime time as a POTUS candidate or President, should she win. Obama himself would have likely much better-handled the GOP, legislation, and even his cabinet choices (lookin at you Tim Geithner) if he had another six years experience as Senator before he ran instead of just three-and-a-half.

    Now the advice Ted Kennedy gave Obama is true: sometimes you have to seize your chance to run for POTUS when your favorable window of opportunity comes by, rather than waiting for the time when you are most suitably ready to pursue it. That same advice could potentially apply just as well to Elizabeth Warren. However, what the country by far most needs from a democratic POTUS candidate in 2016 isn’t the most ideal candidate, but rather one who is most likely to win and effectively handle congress. As much as I like and agree with Elizabeth Warren and admire her talents, Hillary Clinton is by far the stronger candidate against any potential GOP nominee, so long as she learned a thing or two from her unsuccessful run in 2008. If Mark Penn is allowed to have anything to do with her campaign beyond licking stamps on envelopes, I’ll quickly change my mind about HRC’s suitability as a candidate.

  90. 90
    lethargytartare says:

    @Mandalay:

    Don’t blame Nader for Gore’s failings. Gore had victory staring him in the face, and the loser blew it. He shunned Bill Clinton, and distanced himself from the booming economy. He was pompous and condescending. He was wooden. He was running against a clown, and came off second best. He was a lethargic and lousy campaigner. I’m not glad he lost, but he just didn’t do enough to win, and Nader wasn’t the reason for his defeat.

    I can’t prove it, but I think that deep down he didn’t really want the job, and that manifested itself time after time during the campaign.

    thanks for your input, but I’ll continue to blame the jackass that spent his entire campaign saying both candidates were the same, and purposefully tried to undermine Gore in Florida.

    FYI, your premise might have some weight if it wasn’t entirely made up of regurgitated BS from the DC press corps, and if Gore had actually lost the election on votes instead of a bizarre SCOTUS decision.

  91. 91
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay:

    The desperate need from some to accord blame to Nader rather than Gore for Bush’s victory displays a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.

    You’re assuming that I can’t do both at the same time. Your need for a monocausal universe is pretty pathetic.

  92. 92
    El Caganer says:

    @Mandalay: Personally I think it was the reptilians, although it’s quite possible that Nader himself is a reptilian. There’s no percentage in beating up on the Supreme Court or Katherine Harris or the Florida Democrats who voted for Bush; they just don’t fill the bill as villains in the cautionary tale Why We Must Never Support Anybody But A Democrat Ever. I’m a little surprised (not really) that there are still bloggers dining out on thanksralph 14 years later.

  93. 93
    SatanicPanic says:

    Man, you’d think after 14 years the Naderites would have chilled out. No such luck

  94. 94
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    I’m one of the few who appreciated Nader in 2000 and don’t blame him for the supreme court’s selection of bush. He continues to eloquenyly raise good issues. Addressing climate change requires we evolve beyond capitalism as its practiced today. Who is talking about worker owned enterprises? B-corps? Sustainability? The changes in law to make these possible? The article is spot on on a number of topics. Its easy to portray many of these ideas as conservative and create the coalitions that support local communities. I’d rather create a better future than be a party purist.

  95. 95
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @catclub: No, Betty’s right. You can’t run on “the shit you are standing in is now two feet deep instead of three feet deep.”

    “Get rid of the assholes dumping the shit” is a much, much better message.

  96. 96
    James E. Powell says:

    @Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:

    I’d rather create a better future than be a party purist.

    And, in your view apparently, helping Republicans get power is one good way to create that better future.

  97. 97
    Mandalay says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    Your need for a monocausal universe is pretty pathetic.

    Heh – that’s exactly what I think about the folks who want to blame Nader for Gore’s defeat.

  98. 98
    SatanicPanic says:

    Also, it occurs to me that if Nader didn’t have the power to throw the election to Bush, then the third party dream is further off than I thought.

  99. 99
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mandalay:

    If Bush hadn’t run in Florida then Gore wins as well, but nobody blames Bush for Gore’s defeat.

    Um, yeah, lots of us blame Bush’s cheating for “defeating” Gore. There are several studies showing that, if the recount had not been stopped by the Supreme Court, Gore probably would have won it.

  100. 100
    geg6 says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    This, this, and this. Other than Republicans and libertarians, Nader voters are whiniest, most entitled assholes on earth. No Nader campaign = no (or many fewer) Nader voters = no Brooks Brothers riot = no Supreme Court stealing the election for the C+ Augustus = no Iraq (and possibly no 9/11 at all).

    I have no qualms about holding them responsible for their share of all of that. Same as I hold all people who voted for Bush responsible. For once in my life, I am completely blameless and glad to point that out when the entitled whiners start refusing to stand up and admit their terrible, fatal mistakes.

  101. 101
    kindness says:

    Gosh Betty, I figured you took Fla craziness in stride. Funny how what’s perceived as normal and what’s nuts has changed since the 80’s. I blame Reagan. Start with Lee Atwater and we’ve now come to this. They say things are cyclical but how did we end up in the 20’s?

  102. 102
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Mandalay: No. The point is, contra fucking Nader, there sure as hell was a dime’s worth of difference. Nader was wrong, and I was dumb to believe him.

  103. 103
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:

    I’d rather create a better future than be a party purist.

    I’d rather shit rainbows, but, as with your scenario, there’s a bit of a problem in translating Things I Like into Things That Happen.

  104. 104
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay: And yet you are the only one here insisting that one thing and one thing only is to blame for Gore’s loss.

    Self-awareness doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

  105. 105
    Gene108 says:

    @Mandalay:

    Senator Al Franken, in his 2003 book “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”, pointed out the media coverage was really in the tank for Bush, Jr and hostile to Gore. The media took up right wing themes and ran with it, such as “Gore exaggerates his accomplishments in x,y,z Just look at what he said about ‘inventing the internet'”.

    You prove Framken’s point. You buy into the right wing narrative of Gore being aloof, wooden, etc.

    But where were the media statements of “Jesus fucking Christ, Bush can’t fucking talk in complete sentences!”

    Bush inability to speak coherently was smoothed over as part of his “one of the guys” charm. Gore’s ability to go into detail on policy was proof he was aloof and wooden.

    Those narratives did not create themselves. They were pushed hard by a right-wing media and complicit MSM.

    There was a lot Gore did not have going for him, WRT to the 2000 campaign that were beyond his control.

    P. S. People who lose generally do a few things worse than the winner. Gore’s mistake was thinking Bush&Co cared about the electoral process and wanted a fair outcome, rather than the reality they would kill babies if it could help them win; that winning was the only thing that mattered. It showed in Gore’s legal handling of the Florida recount versus Bush & Co.

  106. 106
    Roger Moore says:

    @FlipYrWhig:
    People who want to be disappointed will find a way, whether it’s reasonable or not. They aren’t happy with the way things are, and they need a single thing to blame. Obama is in charge, so he’s going to be their target, whether that’s justified by the facts or not.

  107. 107
    raven says:

    The National Review got hold of a 144-page internal document drafted for the Michelle Nunn campaign in December. It includes plenty of juicy revelations on campaign strategy, including a potentially serious issue with a Points of Light connection to a charity that has ties to Hamas, which is now at war with Israel.
    The revelation came from an internal examination of the nascent campaign’s potential weaknesses and how Republicans could attack them.

  108. 108
    D58826 says:

    I thought that the Kardashians were at the absolute bottom of the TV barrel but now we have Sarah. As the guy said all she has to do is flip a switch and she can share her wisdom with the world. Let me get the barf bag.

  109. 109
    Mandalay says:

    @geg6:

    Nader voters are whiniest, most entitled assholes on earth.

    Er, no; Gore supporters who believe that Nader was obliged to genuflect to Gore, and step aside, are the most entitled assholes on earth. As I posted earlier, there is a real stench of entitlement from those who believe that Nader owed Gore anything. Nader didn’t owe Gore the steam off his shit.

    FWIW, I live in Florida, and voted for Gore, but I don’t blame Nader for what happened at all. Gore was decent man, but was a mediocre candidate, and he blew it. The fucker should have won in a landslide, but he lost to a clown. Yet all some folks can do is blame it all on Nader? Jesus.

  110. 110
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bobby Thomson:

    You can’t run on “the shit you are standing in is now two feet deep instead of three feet deep.”

    Again, depends on how you word it. If it’s, “We’re successfully shoveling through the shit but need more time,” that’s workable. Pretending everything is A-OK is a bad strategy, but something along the lines of We’re on the right path, let’s keep going is probably a good one.

  111. 111
    raven says:

    @Mandalay: He’s a fucking asshole.

  112. 112
    srv says:

    There is no evidence that Nader wanted to do anything other than ratfuck Gore at the end of the campaign. He spent all his time in PA, OH and FL for a fucking reason.

    Clue, Naderbots. You all voted for a douchebag, and the rest of us will always hold you accountable for being douchebagbros.

  113. 113
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay:

    Yet all some folks can do is blame it all on Nader?

    Apparently reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, either.

  114. 114
    Corner Stone says:

    @srv: No links to the archives?
    Sad face.

  115. 115
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mandalay:

    Gore was decent man, but was a mediocre candidate, and he blew it

    Gore *was* a decent man, but he was a very subpar candidate. He ran screaming away from the only positives the Clinton presidency had to offer him. And he chose Joey FUCKING Lieberman as VP.
    That wasn’t a Freudian thing. At all.
    I used to have some modicum of respect for Gore but he’s just as much of a fucking phony and asshole as every other piker.
    He deserves nothing but scorn.

  116. 116
    Mandalay says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    I don’t blame Obama for beating Clinton because I think that was a good outcome.

    And there’s the nub of the matter. If your guy (Obama) wins he is not to blame for the other person losing. But if your guy loses (Gore) then someone else is to blame.

    Keep fucking that chicken.

  117. 117
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Mnemosyne: Don’t change horses in midstream

  118. 118
    Schlemizel says:

    @SatanicPanic:
    Me too!

  119. 119
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mandalay:

    If your guy (Obama) wins he is not to blame for the other person losing. But if your guy loses (Gore) then someone else is to blame.

    Dude (or dudette, sorry, can’t remember): Bush cheated. He’s documented as cheating. Several studies have shown that, if the recount hadn’t been halted, Gore would have won it.

    So, yes, I blame the guy who cheated for Gore’s defeat. If you can show that Obama cheated his way to the nomination, please present your evidence.

  120. 120
    Botsplainer says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Jealous, you are…

  121. 121
    Roger Moore says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Don’t change horses in midstream

    Especially when the “stream” is a sewer.

  122. 122
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Roger Moore: Don’t change rats in mid-sewer!

    What do you think, can I get a campaign job somewhere?

  123. 123
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @Mandalay: I’ll grant you that Nader did not owe Gore anything. But let me ask this: What was Nader’s goal in running and running the exact way he did? Was this a goal that you support? Was it a goal that find laudable?

    I think he intentionally was acting as a spoiler on the left. I think he was happy to be a factor in Bush being inaugurated. In my view, he had no chance of winning the presidency and he knew it. He was, however satisfied to help create a situation in which the candidate most antithetical to his view ended up in office. I do judge him for that, and I find him wanting.

  124. 124
    Schlemizel says:

    @Mandalay:
    Yes, because without the ego boy there are no dead Iraqis.

    The desperate need from some to accord blame to Nader rather than Gore for Bush’s victory displays a staggering level of cognitive dissonance. Gore was a lousy candidate who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. That’s where the responsibility for his defeat starts and ends.

    I am a bit tired of that meme too. Yeah, Gore made mistakes but he still wins without ego boy who told reporters he wanted Bush to win. He got what he wanted, how did that work out for him? How did it work out for the Greens? How did it work out for the nation? If you think this was all unknowable in fall of ’99 I suggest you find the Onion article from the inauguration week, the one with the headline “Bush: The national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over”

  125. 125
    Mandalay says:

    @Corner Stone:

    And he chose Joey FUCKING Lieberman as VP.

    Presumably most folks here think that was vote winner since nobody else mentioned it!

    Or maybe Nader somehow forced Gore to pick Lieberman?…

  126. 126
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay:

    And there’s the nub of the matter. If your guy (Obama) wins he is not to blame for the other person losing. But if your guy loses (Gore) then someone else is to blame.

    Yeah, as I said, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Try that sentence again, keeping in mind that it was a part of a complete paragraph that clearly establishes that it meant something other than what you’re claiming it did.

  127. 127
    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN) says:

    @Mandalay:

    Presumably most folks here think that was vote winner since nobody else mentioned it!

    Or, you know, maybe it was because no one had claimed that it was a good idea.

  128. 128
    tybee says:

    if gore had won his home state we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    if you can’t get your own state to vote for you….

  129. 129
    ThresherK says:

    Did I miss anyone picking up that ’70s song title from the Amazing Rhythm Aces?

  130. 130
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Of course we don’t mention Lieberman. Because we at Balloon Juice are only in the business of blaming Naders, seeing as we’re a bunch of Gorebots.

  131. 131
    Roger Moore says:

    @Schlemizel:

    If you think this was all unknowable in fall of ’99 I suggest you find the Onion article from the inauguration week, the one with the headline “Bush: The national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over”

    That’s “Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over‘”. It’s hard to imagine a more prescient article. Too bad it came from a satire site and only after the election was over, rather than a serious news outfit when it might have done some good.

  132. 132
    CTVoter says:

    Bill Curry, two time loser for governor, member of the Clinton administration for two years, finally gets some respect for being contrarian in Salon.

    Oh.

  133. 133
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @CTVoter: I almost joined twitter so I could ask Joan Walsh why she keeps publishing this crap (Thomas Franks thumbsucker last week, this) but maybe it is generating hits and driving up their ad revenue? And Camille Paglia’s family have finally had her sent to the nervous hospital ?

  134. 134
    Mandalay says:

    @Schlemizel:

    Yes, because without the ego boy there are no dead Iraqis.

    And perhaps without the votes of Kerry and Clinton and Biden and Reid and Schumer and Edwards and Lieberman et al there also might be no dead Iraqis. Do you want to blame Nader for their votes as well?

    And in the context of Iraq it’s also worth pointing out that Joe Lieberman was Gore’s choice for VP. Bear in mind that Cheney was also “only” the VP.

  135. 135
    CTVoter says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: But Thomas Franks is always right because he asked about Kansas, and got lots of attention! Also, calling Obama “gutless” and “ineffective”? BONUS POINTS. WHERE IS THE PUBLIC OPTION?

    Salon/Slate Alas El Snot http://wordsmith.org/anagram/a.....0&a=n

  136. 136
    burnspbesq says:

    @Mandalay:

    The data don’t lie. Go back and look at CNN’s exit polling, and see if you want to cling to the absurd idea that Nader’s presence in the race didn’t deliver Florida (and with it the Presidency) to Bush.

    You’ve been beating this particular plaque, which marks the former location of a dead horse, for at least five years. Mistah Horsey, he still dead. Learn from your mistake.

  137. 137
    burnspbesq says:

    @ThresherK:

    Did I miss anyone picking up that ’70s song title from the Amazing Rhythm Aces

    See comment 51.

  138. 138
    burnspbesq says:

    @CTVoter:

    BONUS POINTS. WHERE IS THE PUBLIC OPTION?

    By the time Obummer is done accommodating Notre Dame, the Little Sisters of the Poor, et al, we’ll have single-payer for contraceptives.

  139. 139
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mandalay: Bullshit.

    Nader is fully to blame for his own despicable actions. There were two outright megalomaniacs running for President in 2000…the deserting coward, and Nader.

    Nader has destroyed whatever is left of his legacy. He’s dogshit. Fuck him.

  140. 140
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name): The utterly idiotic “nach Hitler, Uns” meme.

    Nader was soaking in it.

  141. 141
    Mike E says:

    Losing to a Bush is its own ignominy. Fuck Nader with rusty Pinto, the egomaniac lost all sense of proportion, but Gore ran not to lose and let FL slip so close that it could be stolen. That asshole. He sucked so bad that I had to hold my nose while casting my vote for him (this, after vowing never to withhold my vote for pres again when I filled out the rest of the ’88 ballot instead of voting for Dukakis)

    So, Raven is correct, and I would add that Joe Lieberman makes Geraldine Ferraro look like a human being, almost. Also.

  142. 142
    J R in WV says:

    @raven:

    What the Fuck are you “quoting” and what is the link to it>??

  143. 143
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Mike E:

    Gore ran not to lose and let FL slip so close that it could be stolen.

    Yup.

    My wife J and I attended Nader’s “Super Rally” in DC with Phil Donahue. “You go back there and you tell them you wear short pants!” ;-) It was interesting (but I didn’t find it terribly persuasive at the time). We voted for Nader but we lived in VA so it didn’t matter.

    Florida was basically a tie and the state law had no procedures for such a case. The way the state law was written, it would have been almost impossible for Gore to win it after the initial count because the Republicans controlled the statewide offices and had the discretion to twist the various requirements the way they did. This story from 2000 list lots of factors during the runup and post-election aftermath that affected the outcome – http://www.sptimes.com/News/12....._Gor.shtml

    As you say, the problem was that Gore made too many mistakes in his campaign. Picking Lieberman was a huge mistake, IMO. Running from Clinton was a huge mistake. Not having an effective counter to the press’s marginalization of his proposed policies and character (“Lock Box!!” “Invented the Internet!!” “Love Story was about me!!”) was a huge mistake.

    Ultimately, Gore’s loss was his fault. Nader was a spoiler, and delusional, and slimy in the way that he twisted the reality of Bush and Gore’s policies and confused too many idealistic people into voting against their interests, but the result would have been different if Gore had made only a few different choices.

    Here’s hoping that people thinking about running in the future learn the right lessons from Gore’s loss and don’t just think that the way to win is to marginalize 3rd party challengers.

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  144. 144
    cleek says:

    but the result would have been different if Gore had made only a few different choices

    or if Nader had made a few different choices.

  145. 145
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @Mandalay:

    And perhaps without the votes of Kerry and Clinton and Biden and Reid and Schumer and Edwards and Lieberman et al there also might be no dead Iraqis. Do you want to blame Nader for their votes as well?

    I blame Nader for there being something to vote on, yes.

  146. 146
    Aardvark Cheeselog says:

    @gratuitous:
    Because of you’re really rich, you make a lot of your money collecting interest. And those pickings have gotten slimmer because of Obama’s refusal to buy into the “ZOMG IT’S GOING TO BE WEIMAR HYPERINFLATION!!1” meme, and his consequent failure to raise interest rates.

    As always, follow the money.

  147. 147
    ThresherK says:

    @burnspbesq: Rats. Well done. (And no, I didn’t read the whole thread.)

  148. 148
    Berial says:

    In America the Tea Party has been crying crony capitalism since the Bush bailout and Obama stimulus.

    Bullshit and more bullshit. The loose confederation of Koch-funded, Astro-Turf groups known as “the tea party” didn’t give a flying fuck about the “Bush bailout” until Obama started administering it. I’ll believe they’re serious about crony capitalism the day they can demonstrate that they questioned the hundreds of billions poured down the Iraq rathole via the Halliburton funnel with the same intensity with which they screeched about Solyndra.

    I’d say you are wrong but not in a direct way. YOU think the complaint is about ‘crony capitalism’ being bad in general. THAT isn’t what bothers the ‘Tea Party’ types. NO! Their problem with crony capitalism is that the WRONG CRONIES are getting payed.

Comments are closed.