MS Fowler - 10/18/2005 10:30 PM
The irony in my response was that Nixon, chose to put the good of the country above his own, admitedly huge, political ambition. I never said that Nixon was some honorable individual--thats the irony. Even he, saw the damage to be done to the country if he had contested the election--and he refused to go down that path. Dems have yet to show that kind of fortitude.
But the point is that, republicans did not whine about the "stolen" election. The result was accepted, and then everyone went to work to win in the future.
You guys still have no positive agenda of what would be different in a democrat administration, other than to say--" Not like Bush".
Democrats can't even agree on how to portry themselves--are they liberals, moderates, or progressives?
Well, that's your interpretation. I believe Nixon acted pragmatically in 1960--that is to say, he realized that the margin in Illinois that he would have had to overcome in a recount was in all likelihood unreachable. It has been a well-crafted piece of Republican political fiction that the 1960 election was stolen by Richard Daley. The only trouble with that concept is that it was proven by at least as many sources as you now say "prove" that Bush won Florida that, in fact, John F. Kennedy carried Illinois by a margin that would have not likely been overturned in a recount. It is ironic that you now complain of Democrats "whining" about the 2000 election, five years after the fact, while you're still bringing up 1960, 45 years after the fact. If you "never said that Nixon was some sort of honorable individual," you certainly said that he was a "classy" one, unlike me and the Democratic candidate for President in 2004, both of whom you have deemed as lacking class.
As for a political agenda to be "not like Bush"--that says a lot. I agree that the Democrats are pathetic in their inability to distinguish themselves from the Republicans. That is their greatest failing. In trying to out-Republican the Republicans, they will lose every time.
Currently, less than 40% of the American public approves of Bush's policies. There's lots to disapprove of--the Iraq war; the lack of a plan to exit Iraq; the preponderance of cronyism in making important appointments; the enormous deficit spending; tax breaks for the richest of our citizenry, while the working class faces a shrinking standard of living; our continued lack of preparedness for natural and terrorist inflicted disasters. So in favoring a policy of being "not like Bush" a Democrat, or Independent, could make a very appealing case to the American electorate.
Now--as far as your allegation that Gore was "contesting the election," you have it backwards. This is precisely what Bush did. Remember: national elections are actually the province of the states. In other words, Florida runs Florida's election. Florida law calls for an automatic recount in cases where the margin is small; the margin in 2000 was the smallest in memory. State powers in Florida, namely the Supreme Court there, had granted the recount. It was Bush who contested that decision in the United States Supreme Court. It was Bush, the Republican (supposedly the party of states rights) who flipped the bird to the concept of states rights and forced the matter to the federal level. It was Bush, the great hater of everything that smacks of the power of Washington, who went to the seat of that power to reverse the will of a state.