MoveOn.org needs to Move On!

from JoeUser Forums
Below is a statement I just received as an email alert encouraging me and others on MoveOn.org's email list to register to vote.

If only 538 more Floridians had voted for Al Gore in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq. 130,000 of our brave men and women would be safer, deployed elsewhere. 37,000 reservists would still be here at home.

I usually skim the emails I receive from them, but at this statement I had to express my outrage and sent an email similar to what I've stated below.

Some background information:
I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat. Traditionally (in my short voting career) I've voted Green. Though my voting choices have been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, it shouldn't come as any surprise that I tend to agree with Democrats. MoveOn.org is directly endorsing John Kerry despite not officially representing him or any other candidate. I don't see anything wrong with this, but what I am quite tired of is MoveOn.org's, and other so-called progressive websites, suggesting that we would be living in some progressive-utopic state had Al Gore not failed to be elected.....that's right FAILED, not stolen, or any other conspiracy. I don't think the Bush administration needed to use half of the tricks they probably had up their sleaves with all the bumbling the DFL and Al Gore were doing during the 2000 Presidential Election.

So listen up Democrats and Progressives...Al Gore was not a saint. Sure, he may appear as such in the shadow of GW, but to suggest that we wouldn't be at war is wishful thinking at best. John Kerry is also not a saint, nor is he the answer to our prayers. Is he better than GW in terms of progressive politics? Sure. But is he the saint he's made out to be? No.

So MoveOn.org and everyone else who is trying to get third party voters like myself to "see the light," see my middle finger? That's for you. Cause until I see some real honesty coming from the DFL or the GOP I will continue to throw my votes away on third party candidates thereby continuing to give the DFL a scapegoat to offer their middle fingers too in case they fail.

Al Gore Lost...let's MoveOn,
Suspeckted
politics
13,964 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
If only 538 more Floridians had voted for Al Gore in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq.


Well, I don't like "if only." But I do think it's important to remember that Gore won the overall popular vote yet still lost the election. Sure, it's not the first time that something like that has happened, but it's an annoying flaw in the system. What if, in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai got 500,000 fewer votes than Joe Taliban, yet Joe Taliban was made president instead? We'd be crying bloody foul. It's a flawed system, and I'm not ready to "move on" from that at all. We've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about "getting on with our lives," and "moving on," but they seem to me to be attempts to get us to forget the wrong things that have happened in a "sun will com out tomorrow" society.

I don't think Gore was some sort of saint. And I don't think he had anything "stolen" from him. He lost fair and square -- under a flawed system. But by all means, show me your "middle finger." If that's the best answer you've got, so be it. Instead, why don't we try to fix the system to be a bit more fair. Then perhaps we can all "move on."
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: jesusstayscrunchy - 9/20/2004 1:56:40 PM
If only 538 more Floridians had voted for Al Gore in 2000, we wouldn't be in Iraq.


Well, I don't like "if only." But I do think it's important to remember that Gore won the overall popular vote yet still lost the election. Sure, it's not the first time that something like that has happened, but it's an annoying flaw in the system. What if, in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai got 500,000 fewer votes than Joe Taliban, yet Joe Taliban was made president instead? We'd be crying bloody foul. It's a flawed system, and I'm not ready to "move on" from that at all. We've been hearing a lot of rhetoric about "getting on with our lives," and "moving on," but they seem to me to be attempts to get us to forget the wrong things that have happened in a "sun will com out tomorrow" society.

I don't think Gore was some sort of saint. And I don't think he had anything "stolen" from him. He lost fair and square -- under a flawed system. But by all means, show me your "middle finger." If that's the best answer you've got, so be it. Instead, why don't we try to fix the system to be a bit more fair. Then perhaps we can all "move on."


See therein lies the problem. Up until Gore lost in 2000 the system was fine with "everybody". Since 2000 now it's somehow in need of being fixed?
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
If Kerry wins, Bush supporters will say..."oh well, thats too bad, we're just gonna have to sit back, hope for the best, and try again in 2008."


mm hmm That's why the right went after Clinton so hard in the 90's. Because they weren't upset a bit about losing the White House. Whitewater, "travelgate," etc. etc. etc. They finally pegged him for lying about an embarrassing blow job. *laugh* That's because the right weren't sore losers a bit. What the left is sore about is that our guy actually got more votes. More living, breathing human beings cast votes for Al Gore than for George Bush. Those of us who wish we lived in something a bit closer to an actual democracy think that makes Gore the real winner.

But I'll monitor the boards and blogs in November when Bush starts packing to go back to Crawford. We'll see how well you republo-facists take it.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
See therein lies the problem. Up until Gore lost in 2000 the system was fine with "everybody". Since 2000 now it's somehow in need of being fixed?


No, that's not true. I wrote my first article against the Electoral College in 1992, after reading about the election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. It was a flawed system then, and it's a flawed system now. I've always been a vocal critic of the electoral college -- and I maintain that if such an election happened elsewhere -- where one person got 500 000 fewer votes and still became the leader -- the US would call foul and want UN monitors to watch the next election.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, I don't like "if only." But I do think it's important to remember that Gore won the overall popular vote yet still lost the election. Sure, it's not the first time that something like that has happened, but it's an annoying flaw in the system.


There is no flaw in the system. The system was designed to allow the people to vote for how their state would vote, and than whoever got the most states, with weight being given to high populus states, would win. No design flaw, after all the office that person is running for is President of THE UNITED STATES, i.e. all states that are united under one flag, i.e. us. not President of the Popularity Contest. I argued time and time again the system of the electoral college is not inherently flawed the people complaining about it are. Stricter laws should be maintained so that Electors vote by the way of their state's popular vote, but the system should not be abolished for the system is NOT or has ever BEEN FLAWED. Look at countries with a straight popular vote, and look how many have had dictators or presidents come in and rule, the Electoral College was just another check and balance put into place to guard against that.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Stricter laws should be maintained so that Electors vote by the way of their state's popular vote


I never said the system should be abolished. If you feel there need to be stricter laws to split the electoral votes along popular vote percentages, well, that's a way to perhaps fix what I consider to be a flaw.

Don't say something is flawless and then advocate laws to change it. If it's flawless, it doesn't NEED to be changed. Fixing the system doesn't mean jettisoning the whole shebang in favor of something new.

Look at countries with a straight popular vote, and look how many have had dictators


Well, I think it would be rather hard for a dictator to circumvent the US Constitution's checks and balances. No, the real worry here is that in a case such as the election of 1992, we would have had to hold a run-off because no candidate got a majority of votes. Run-offs cost time and money, and the government doesn't want the headache of a nation-wide run-off. While this argument has its good points, I feel that keeping a flawed system in place just because it's easier is not a good solution.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
mm hmm That's why the right went after Clinton so hard in the 90's. Because they weren't upset a bit about losing the White House. Whitewater, "travelgate," etc. etc. etc. They finally pegged him for lying about an embarrassing blow job. *laugh* That's because the right weren't sore losers a bit.


No I believe that to have been a check and balance, a President should not ly to the American people while under oath period (i.e. Nixon).

Now before you say well Bush lied, no he did not, he used what intelligence was handed to him by the CIA and FBI (the entire Congress received the same info and backed the war) to decide on the war with Iraq, and that is all there is to it. Now that they are running against a War Time President they have done a 180 to show that the war was wrong and unjustified. Even if that was the case with the supposed bad Intel from the CIA and FBI, it is the Intelligence Agency's fault not the President, and also the UN or parts of it supplied Saddam with money in trade for cheap barrels of Oil, not to mention the amount of money Saddam made with that Oil For Food Program, not to mention that money helped to fund Al Qaida, not to mention the insurgents are using that same money, not to mention there are still shell companies set up by Saddam that still exist and still funneling money into terrorist and illegal bank accounts, AND also not to mention that the biggest benefactors of this corrupt program that have been so far identified are China, France and Russia. Check into that Oil for Food Program why don't you? The damn UN allows corruption in its house so that nobody's feelings are hurt, why do you think they bombed the UN Buildings first, those were not insurgents, those were some PISSED OFF IRAQI Citizens who hate and still HATE the UN for it's corruption and allowing Saddam to get away with what he did for SO long.

As for other Bush lies, where is the solid proof, where is the stained blue dress ( )? Where is the COLD HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, so far I have seen none. Though I dislike Bush, I would focus on things he has failed to do, instead of things he has done, and because of that Kerry is in a world of hurt, they would have done better and would have won if only they had used Lieberman instead. Though I think they picked Kerry is so that he would lose allowing the possibility of Hillary to run in '08, though Gideon made some good points about the seats that were up in 2002, Democrats did not field challengers to 90% of the incumbent Republicans who were up for re-election, so what is with that?
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
I never said the system should be abolished. If you feel there need to be stricter laws to split the electoral votes along popular vote percentages, well, that's a way to perhaps fix what I consider to be a flaw.

Don't say something is flawless and then advocate laws to change it. If it's flawless, it doesn't NEED to be changed. Fixing the system doesn't mean jettisoning the whole shebang in favor of something new.


No I don't favor splitting electoral votes, because that would cause more problems there, can't you hear it than? Well if I had the entire state of California like it used to be I would have won, BOO HOO.

No what I mean is enforcing electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, and most problems with the system stem from the Two Party System, that and we should cut down on terms across the board, like Carter suggested (I think) one six year term for a President that way its a new candidate each election, and by cutting down terms for Senators and Representatives, we can get some of the old hands at politics out of there and have new thinkers / fresh faces in Congress.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
"So listen up Democrats and Progressives...Al Gore was not a saint. Sure, he may appear as such in the shadow of GW, but to suggest that we wouldn't be at war is wishful thinking at best. John Kerry is also not a saint, nor is he the answer to our prayers. Is he better than GW in terms of progressive politics? Sure. But is he the saint he's made out to be? No.

So MoveOn.org and everyone else who is trying to get third party voters like myself to "see the light," see my middle finger? That's for you. Cause until I see some real honesty coming from the DFL or the GOP I will continue to throw my votes away on third party candidates thereby continuing to give the DFL a scapegoat to offer their middle fingers too in case they fail."

You are right in saying this, my friend. It seems that Kerry or Gore wasn't the 'hot spot'. They still don't really impress me. Democrats are my party, and I believe in them, but Kerry and Gore aren't appealing to me...I'm talking Clinton, Carter, and Dean..people who've appealed to me. Clark would've even appealed to me (I really enjoyed his speech criticizing Bush's 527-Swift Vet jumbo mess). I think Kerry taking the aggressive stance in the end is actually showing us that for most of his early campaign days, he was just floating along, while Bush was paddling.

The Kerry campaign needs to catch up if they hope to do anything. I hope that the Kerry camp will win...because I'm sick and tired of seeing Bush terrorizing (yep, terrorizing) this United States of America. If Dean was the candidate..Clark..or even Gephardt, we would've seen the reverse. Dean would've played the aggressive, offensive stance and still be defensive enough to block his ongoing attacks. He would've most likely picked someone like Clark or Edwards to be the V.P. candidate, since Dean is weak on getting Southern Democrats, etc. votes, but he could've most likely won the election.

Good post.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Another point of criticism is that the electoral vote distribution is not proportional to the popular vote distribution because of the automatic two votes per state provision. If you contrast the number of electoral votes per person in California and Alaska, this point is clear.

And yeah, sure, lying about a blow job fits MY definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything on this thread. I could just as easily take the weasel way out for Clinton like you are doing for Bush -- he DIDN'T in fact have sex with Monica Lewinsky. But hey, I'm from Arkansas, and we here could have TOLD you Clinton liked to get his rocks off now and again. *laugh* I still maintain that the whole Whitewater witch hunt was sore loser Republicans trying their damndest to fry the boy who beat Bush 41. They tried for years and found NO EVIDENCE of wrong doing there.

Even if you want to think Clinton is a black liar and Bush is a shining example of honesty, Clinton's blowjob and subsequent lie about it didn't kill anyone. Bush's "reliance on false intelligence" has killed thousands. So which is worse, the lie or the truth that turns out to be wrong? You see, that's our whole problem over here on the left with Bush. We think he wanted his war, and it really didn't matter WHAT the intelligence said, he was going to fight the damn thing. That's why up until 9/11 there was only ONE briefing about al'Qaeda and over 100 on Iraq. They were after Iraq from day one. To me, going to war without the facts is bad. But I don't even consider THAT to be a high crime or misdemeanor.

But back to that pesky electoral college. Florida has about 32 times the voters as Wyoming (11.8 million vs 360,000). But Florida only has about 8 times more electoral votes (25 to 3). How then is "weight given to the most populous states?"
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
But back to that pesky electoral college. Florida has about 32 times the voters as Wyoming (11.8 million vs 360,000). But Florida only has about 8 times more electoral votes (25 to 3). How then is "weight given to the most populous states?"


That could be worked on, and the original definition of how to give weight is wrong (check the Constitution), but they could sit down with an Independent commission and work on solving that problem.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
I will continue to throw my votes away on third party candidates


I submit that Third Party votes (I like the Constitution Party and also the Libertarians myself) are not wasted at all.
They do two things:
1st - They make the major parties sweat and force them to choose between moving their platform to include these extra party platforms, thus accomplishing the 3rd party agenda AND/OR
2nd- They make the small party a more viable force and gain publicity, which will only grow the party. We have been a 2 party system for a (too) long time but it has not always been that way. A third party can and will rise again. Which will it be? Your vote matters!
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Independent commission


Sure, I don't think jettisoning the system is the answer if it can be fixed (and I think it can).

I don't think 3rd party votes are wasted, either. The Greens made the Dems notice them back in 2000 -- and the Dems NEEDED that kick in that pants. Actually, they need a BIGGER kick in the pants. In the same way, Perot made the Republicans wake up in '92, and i think it was a big part of why they came on so strong in '94.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Still think the idea of One Term Per One President is needed, that would solve all the problems right quick, or be a quick fix. Turn the Presidency into one six year term and that is it. Game Over. Next!
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
and by cutting down terms for Senators and Representatives, we can get some of the old hands at politics out of there and have new thinkers / fresh faces in Congress.


I agree wholeheartedly jesusstayscrunchy even in milk.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #16 By: ShoZan - 9/20/2004 7:52:01 PM
Still think the idea of One Term Per One President is needed, that would solve all the problems right quick, or be a quick fix. Turn the Presidency into one six year term and that is it. Game Over. Next!


Reply #17 By: jesusstayscrunchy - 9/20/2004 8:03:14 PM
Hmmmm...you might have something there, ShoZan. And term limits for Congress, too.



Reply #18 By: ShoZan - 9/20/2004 8:13:51 PM
and by cutting down terms for Senators and Representatives, we can get some of the old hands at politics out of there and have new thinkers / fresh faces in Congress.


I agree wholeheartedly jesusstayscrunchy even in milk.


I also AGREE!!! Sounds GREAT! Now all we have to do is sell the idea to the American public!
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
*laughs again*

Damn, me and drmiler are two for two today. I'm telling you, we need the Multi-Partisan Council of Pissed Off Folks, we can start it here on Joe User.

president for one six year term, and I wouldn't be against extending the terms for senators and representatives, 10 years and 4 years perhaps, but everybody gets one term and then gets tossed...

you ladies and gentlemen want to leave the Supreme Court alone?
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates agreeing on one issue without question, this MUST BE a miracle, damn only need two more and we can be saints.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
you ladies and gentlemen want to leave the Supreme Court alone?


Nah, it's a place for old judges to retire,
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: jesusstayscrunchy - 9/20/2004 8:49:32 PM
*laughs again*

Damn, me and drmiler are two for two today. I'm telling you, we need the Multi-Partisan Council of Pissed Off Folks, we can start it here on Joe User.

president for one six year term, and I wouldn't be against extending the terms for senators and representatives, 10 years and 4 years perhaps, but everybody gets one term and then gets tossed...

you ladies and gentlemen want to leave the Supreme Court alone?


Hell NO!!! Get them too!
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
Hell NO!!! Get them too!


You heard the Doc, but how short of a term and would they still be appointed (probably best way)?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #24 By: ShoZan - 9/20/2004 8:57:57 PM
Hell NO!!! Get them too!


You head the Doc, but how short of a term and would they still be appointed (probably best way)?


6 years and then OUT you go!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
A little disappointed that no one responded to MoveOn.org directly and turned this into a electoral college debate, but hey, what can you
do? Thank you all for your replies and I've tried to touch upon those I had any reasonable convictions with.

I don't think Gore was some sort of saint. And I don't think he had anything "stolen" from him. He lost fair and square -- under a flawed system. But by all means, show me your "middle finger." If that's the best answer you've got, so be it. Instead, why don't we try to fix the system to be a bit more fair. Then perhaps we can all "move on."


The Electoral College doesn't begin to address the main issue in our flawed electoral system.

. If Dean was the candidate..Clark..or even Gephardt, we would've seen the reverse. Dean would've played the aggressive, offensive stance and still be defensive enough to block his ongoing attacks.


I had hopes in Kucinich, but he just didn't have celebrity charisma...he was far too honest, and wore to much black...The Johnny Cash of politics...I would have loved to see Kucinich in the debates, he would've ripped both Kerry and Bush a new one.

Reply By: Wingman412Posted: Monday, September 20, 2004I will continue to throw my votes away on third party candidates I submit that Third Party votes (I like the Constitution Party and also the Libertarians myself) are not wasted at all.They do two things: 1st - They make the major parties sweat and force them to choose between moving their platform to include these extra party platforms, thus accomplishing the 3rd party agenda AND/OR2nd- They make the small party a more viable force and gain publicity, which will only grow the party. We have been a 2 party system for a (too) long time but it has not always been that way. A third party can and will rise again. Which will it be? Your vote matters!


I 100% agree Wingman, I was referring to the reaction I receive by my so-called progressive allies when I choose to seek third party candidates.

Reply By: jesusstayscrunchyPosted: Monday, September 20, 2004Independent commission Sure, I don't think jettisoning the system is the answer if it can be fixed (and I think it can).I don't think 3rd party votes are wasted, either. The Greens made the Dems notice them back in 2000 -- and the Dems NEEDED that kick in that pants. Actually, they need a BIGGER kick in the pants. In the same way, Perot made the Republicans wake up in '92, and i think it was a big part of why they came on so strong in '94.


In fact, I may have even voted for Perot (had I been eligible) simply because he was an independent. But the only reason he was a major contender is because of finances...and that's pretty tragic to me. This is the "flaw" I see in our system.

Reply By: little_whipPosted: Monday, September 20, 2004The only third party thats really necessary is the NOTA party that ive often considered starting a grass roots movement to encourage.None Of The Above.Start over. Do not pass go. Do not proceed to the White House for 4 more years of the same bullshit and gridlock. We dont like any of the candidates. Give us better ones.


Thank you little_whip, I'll add this to the growing list of things we agree on. I think an awful lot of people would like to voice their "you both suck" voice to the election process.

And term limits for Congress, too


I'm not as interested in term limits as I am in capping salaries. My Bill would state that for every $1000 Congress raises their own paychecks minimum wage must be increased $0.05...how's that for a check and balance?