Al Gore Says He Could Have Started A “Violent Revolution” In 2000
Yes, Al Gore, the man who “took the initiative in creating the Internet” is back and giving himself credit for avoiding a “violent revolution” by admitting that he lost an election that he actually lost.
“I made the decision in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision 12 or 13 years ago to respect the rule of law,” said the former vice president. “I strongly disagreed with their opinion, said so, but the rule of law is the bedrock of American democracy. There is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and a violent revolution. What was best for the country, the answer was very simple, to respect the rule of law and avoid undermining it and dragging the court into a partisan squabble where the outcome would not change in any case. So I am going to stand by my decision to respect the judiciary.”
Al Gore tried to steal an election that he lost in 2000. Nothing more and nothing less.
As I noted back in 2002,
Here’s a question that the Democrats never really answer; how many times do the exact same ballots have to be recounted before the Democrats will concede that Bush won? Let’s recap shall we?
– Bush won the first machine recount.
– Bush won the 2nd machine recount.
– Bush won when the absentee votes were added in. Incidentally, this should have been the end of it according to Florida law written before the election.
– Bush won the recount mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court that was ruled unconstitutional by the USSC 9-0. The USSC then ruled another FSSC recount unconstitutional 7-2 and stopped any further recounts via a 5-4 vote.
– Bush won the recount after the election done by the Miami Herald. Here’s a headline and the first paragraph…
“REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH
Republican George W. Bush’s victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward.”
– Bush also won a 2nd recount done after the election by eight media groups. Here’s what the New York Times, certainly not a Bush supporting paper, had to say about that. I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph…
“Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward”
Now again I’ll ask the question; how many times do the exact same ballots have to be recounted before the Democrats will concede that Bush won? Bush won, Gore lost, and it’s time to admit that and go on. Maybe the Democrats should take a lesson from Richard Nixon since he showed a lot more class and grace back in 1960 than the Democrats are showing today. Here’s why he didn’t challenge the election results of that controversial race…
“I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.”
Leave it to Al Gore and today’s Democratic party to look small and petty compared to ‘Tricky Dick.”
Al Gore lost in 2000; he knows he lost. People who try and fail to throw violent revolutions end up in prison or the gallows. So, he didn’t do the rest of us any favors by accepting the Supreme Court decision; he did himself a favor. It’s too bad that after all these years, he doesn’t even have the class to admit that he lost fair and square.
Time For The First Military Tribunal: Remember this ugly face? When last we heard from Ramzi Binalshibh, he was claiming
The Flight 93 Conspiracy: Like most tragic events of recent times, a myriad of conspiracy theories have sprung up about
W. And The Upside-Down Book: I received an email today from RWN reader Doug Weinberg commenting on the doctored photo