Saturday, August 1, 2015

On Al Gore Being Elected President In 2000 #2

The following is an excerpt from the 7/18/2011 transcript from the Progressive personality Thom Hartmann's TV Program, The Big Picture.

In this segment (see video below) Thom asks "can Republican get elected without fraud & treason?". The answer according to Thom is NO. Thom says that "since Dwight Eisenhower left the presidency in 1961 - 5 different Republicans have been President of the United States. And every single one of them - from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush - have been illegitimate".

Watch the video for Thom's reasoning regarding the other frauds... my commentary here concerns only George W. bush's theft of the 2000 election from the rightful president, Al Gore.

Thom Hartmann: ...the most recent illegitimate Republican president - George W. Bush - the man who was given the White House by five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court. In the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision in 2000 that stopped the Florida recount and handed George W. Bush the presidency - Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion:

The counting of votes ... does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election".

I guess denying the guy who ACTUALLY won the most votes in Florida - Al Gore - the presidency - did not constitute "irreparable harm" to Scalia. And I guess it wasn't important to mention that Scalia's son worked for the law firm that was defending George W. Bush before the high court.

Just like it wasn't important to mention that Justice Clarence Thomas's wife worked on the Bush transition team and was busy accepting resumes from people who would serve in the Bush White House as long as her husband stopped the recount in Florida... which he did.

And more than a year after the election - a consortium of newspapers including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today did their own recount in Florida - manually counting every vote in a process that took almost a year - and concluded that Al Gore did indeed win the presidency in 2000.

As the November 12th, 2001 article in The New York Times read:

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won.

That little bit of info was slipped into the seventeenth paragraph of the Times story on purpose so that it would attract as little attention as possible around the nation.

Why? because the 9/11 attacks had just happened - and journalists feared that hitting people with the plain truth that George W. Bush actually lost the election would further hurt a nation that was already in crisis.

[End Transcript from The Big Picture]

The NYT article referenced above is not available online, although a Google search reveals MANY references to it. One example would be a 5/28/2008 Alternet Article titled "New York Times Perpetuates the Myth that George Bush Won the 2000 Election" which reveals that the original NYT article was by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder... and YES, says Gore won.

Although 7 years (and change) later a movie reviewer for the NYT got it wrong. Alessandra Stanley, in a 5/23/2008 review of the HBO television movie Recount, wrote "Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied".

Nope. Under FL law a recount should have been performed. Larry Beinhart of AlterNet writes "the Florida court... ordered a recount. Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down".

But the votes were recounted later by a consortium of newspapers (as Thom recounts)... and, concerning that recount, Larry Beinhart wrote "it took almost a year and cost more than a million dollars. [In the end the conclusion was that] Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush".

There you have it... Al Gore was elected to the White House as our 43rd POTUS. But he did not serve because the Conservative justices of the SCOTUS stopped the recount and anointed George W. bush.

Video: Excerpt from the 7/18/2011 airing of Thom Hartmann's "The Big Picture"... Thom asks "can Republicans get elected without fraud & treason? (9:01). Section concerning the theft of the 2000 election starts at 4:45... and ends at 6:58.

SWTD Tags: Al Gore.

DSB #15


  1. The "other 4 circumstances" aside this certainly fits the narrative. Unfortunately the truth to this narrative is water over the dam.

    There are certainly things to dislike about
    Gore (hypocrisy being one) but it's a good bet there would be less instability in the ME, ISIS likely would not exist, our taxes would have been higher, and Obama may not have had the opportunity to see ObamaCare become a reality.

    But as some would say, things are what they are, or, it is what it is. Brighter days are on the way and it looks more like Biden may jump into the fray. If he does, and Obama backs his VP, HRC may quite likely be toast. A good thing methinks.

    1. RN: There are certainly things to dislike about Gore... but it's a good bet there would be less instability in the ME, ISIS likely would not exist... [had Gore assumed the presidency in 2000]

      I agree with your above comment, RN. But I disagree with your most recent comment on the issue. On 8/13/2016 you write (on RNUSA) "ISIS would likely came into existence with or without George W. Bush".

      You were right the first time.

  2. BTW, John Bolton says there is no difference between democrats and Wasserman-Shultz doesn't know.

    What say you?

    1. It should read no difference btn democrats and socialists.

  3. Hillary toast? I'll believe it when it happens. Biden might have waited too long. Hillary has already raised a mountain of cash. This scenario sounds more like wishful thinking by you, IMO. Gore, hypocrite or not, wouldn't have gone into Iraq and therefore ISIS would not exist. I agree with you on that.

    As for what John Bolton sez, he is full of poop. There is a HUGE difference between Democrats and Socialists. See my latest SWTD commentary for my explanation.

  4. Wasserman-Shultz should read it. Then she would be able to at least field a question like the one asked by Mathews. W-S is no help to democrats.

    1. It was a BS question asked by Matthews to get DWS to endorse Hillary by dissing Bernie Sanders. She didn't answer because she did not want to alienate Bernie supporters (because she, as the DNC chair) wants them to vote for Hillary. Matthews was wrong about what a Democratic Socialist is, BTW. Yet only DWS is being criticized. Matthews and Chuck Todd are both tools. That a summary of my post that you didn't want to read, BTW.

  5. I anticipated your response would be along such lines.

    There are many "tools" BTW.


Comment moderation is currently NOT in effect. Although I may have to reinstate it. We'll see how it goes.