The choices made by voters and the consequences thereof

[Walt Starr]

Well, time has come to pay the piper.

Bush won in 2004, in no small part due to security concerns. He won a larger portion of the woman's vote than previously, 48%.

This says something. Everybody knew SCOTUS seats were up for grabs in that election. What a significant portion of the female population in this country decided when they cast their vote for George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 was that a little security was more important than the essential liberty of reproductive freedom.

Benjamin Franklin warned of such choices, but the choice was made.

Roberts is a wild card. We cannot be certain he will or will not overturn Roe. What is certain is this, the choice was made on November 2, 2004 and nothing we do say or feel now will alter that fact.

The time has come to pay the piper. The American people are about to experience the consequences of the collective choices made on November 2, 2004. Ony time will tell if the consequences are as dire as has been predicted.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Considering the immense difficulty in defeating an incumbent

I would like to point out that the die had been cast in November 2000, by a large group of progressive voters who decided to vote against their own interests for a third party candidate. Roe v. Wade was every bit an issue then as it is now and national security was not. We could've nipped this in the bud 5 years ago.

[punpirate]

4. It's time to stop blaming Nader and to stop blaming the voters who...

... went with their consciences in 2000. Did Democrats help themselves in 2002, or 2004, long after that 2000 election? No. Their standing in Congress and in the Executive deteriorated, election by election.

If you persist in blaming the victims because they were not faithful to a party which has become the Republican-Lite of the age, then you miss the point. Entirely.

The Democratic Party has failed its natural constituency, and that's why it has failed to prevail, Nader or no. It cannot move ever rightward in an attempt to garner a diminishing number of undecided voters. It has to return to its base to be successful.

And if you doubt that, simply go on blaming Nader, and see where that gets you.

The Democrats today are a hollow shell of their former selves. They continue to be, with a few exceptions, more interested in appealing to the wealthy aristocracy of this country (corporate and individual) than the ordinary citizen. They continue to vote with their new friends, the Republican rich, and not for their steadfast supporters.

That's why they're in trouble, and increasingly so.

You can blame Nader if you must, but that doesn't mean he's the problem, or are the people who became so chagrined with the poor performance of the Democrats that they embraced the campaign of someone who promised to right elemental wrongs ignored or furthered by the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party as a whole is not progressive. In fact, it's becoming more and more regressive with time. Why should progressives give it their support, when it is less and less responsive to progressive issues?

Blaming the victim is a Republican tactic and is beneath you.

Cheers.

[DU9598]

6. I blame Nader too

He was a fraud and a prop. It is time we realize that and stop that from happening again.

[punpirate]

10. If so, you're missing the point, too...

... entirely. The Democrats are not blameless here. Blind devotion to corrupt people creates a corrupt government. Look at the voting records that count--more with the Republicans than against them for legislation that is fundamentally favoring the rich. And Nader said that was wrong.

And, whatever you may think of him, he's right on that point. Your government is being run of, by and for the powerful, and not for you. And, sad to say, Democrats are complicit in that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Then change the system.

Don't allow people antithetical to your beliefs to obtain power. Talk about an ass-backwards way to do things.

[punpirate]

14. Change candidates.

It's not ass-backwards. It's democracy. You haven't seen it for so long, you don't know what it is.

Cheers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. You can't change the candidates until you change the system.

You have to first get money out of the system, and then make it more amenable for third and fourth party candidates. Otherwise, the candidates will never change. Slitting your own throat on the vast majority of issues for the sake of one or two is hardly a wise move.

[SemperEadem]

18. The fact is:

If Nader had the juice to pull the election off and win it, it would have been one thing. He didn't. He had nothing close in this lifetime.

Had Nader not been so narcissistic, self centered, self absorbed and self interested, he would have seen that a greater evil had amassed oppostite him in the thug camp of the election and he didn't have the weaponry or the numbers behind him to defeat *... he needed to 'take one for the team' and put his energy behind getting Gore--who did have the weaponry and the numbers--elected... then he could have waited until the next election--or perhaps, run for a different office so he'd have some experience in an elected position under his belt.

It's one thing to be idealistic. It's another thing to have a firm grasp on reality while floating ideas around in one's head. The 2000 election was not a time to have an "I'd like to teach the world to sing...." moment.

[Tesha]

9. I don't believe that.

Even if we'd won in 2000, the Vast Republican Smear Machine would simply
have ensured that the Gore presidency was perceived as a failure. After
all, the economy *HAS* crashed, hasn't it? You simply don't hear much
about it because the Republicans have been steering the ship as it as
run aground. If it were Gore as President, you'd be reading about the
economic disasters with every fresh news cycle.

And in that environment, the 2002 mid-terms would have been an even-
bigger blow-out for the Republicans and they would have captured the
presidency in 2004 instead of 2002.

(But voting for Nader was still stupid, tactically and strategically.)

Tesha

[annabanana]

2. damn it and fry it...

bad machines bad machines bad machines...

Exactly HOW MUCH of a plurality will be required to counteract machines that can manufacture and vaporize votes by the thousands with the click of a mouse?

edit for furious typing trip up

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. They've been paying in blood and treasure

Now it's time to pay in rights and daily life for everybody.

I continue to assert that Bush will be the most hated President in history by the time the next President takes the oath.

But we'll have to pay more before then.

[wli]

5. you mean the choices made by Diebold

[southernleftylady]

7. I agree... millions screwed us and now we are just along for the ride! nt

[Tesha]

8. It would actually be good for us if Roe finally *WERE* overturned.

An awful lot of people *STILL* have no idea how deeply in jeopardy
are their fundamental rights as Americans, and the faster they are
hit in the head with a metaphorical 2x10, the faster they'll wake up.

When people start spitting at the commentators and politicians who
use the phrase "activist judges" as a bludgeon, then you'll know
that we're finally starting to make some progress in re-establishing
democracy in America.

Tesha

[Ganja Ninja]

11. Yup that's what it'll take.

People need to experience the consequences of their actions before they wake up.

[Walt Starr]

15. We've warned of the consequences for thirty years while being ignored

the further we got away from the actual decision, the more the REpublicans have been stacking the SCOTUS cards and the more people have ignored our warnings.

Fact is, this is one big "I told you so" for the Democratic PArty.

Problem is, it'll take at least another thirty years to reverse course.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin

[Tesha]

20. No, it would only take a Congress with enough nerve.

Imagine:

The Congress would pass legislation guaranteeing that women have
the necessary rights to control their own bodies. And if a bunch
of "activist judges" struck that down, the Congress could pass a
Constitutional Amendment such as the ERA. (Remember the ERA?)

Yes, if you were to depend on the "unstacking" of the Supreme Court,
it might take a long time to gain back these rights. But back in "the
good old days", there used to be several other branches of the
government that occasionally worked for the people as well.

Of course, political nerve is in short supply these days, especially
among Democrats.

Tesha

[Swamp Rat]

12. The election was stolen in 2004.

I agree that we, nonetheless, are going to experience the consequences. That's why I try to enjoy every day as much as possible.

[Walt Starr]

16. Prove it

Sorry, I don't see evidence of that.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Disprove it.

You can't and neither can I.

I'm going on gut instinct since we're dealing with fascists who already stole one election.

Not only is the elephant sitting on the living room couch, he just took a huge dump and is laughing at us.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. You're asking someone to disprove an allegation you made.

Sorry, but the vast majority of this country doesn't buy that this election was rigged. The burden of evidence is on those who think it was.

On edit - I think it was rigged to, but that's not the reality we're living in. You fight to prove it, but if you can't to the satisfaction of enough people, you're not going to get anywhere saying this every time an issue like this comes up. You're just going to look insane.

[Swamp Rat]

22. poop

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

24. since there are no ways to falsify your hypothesis, it is illegitimate

requiring me to disprove it proves your "theory" is bogus.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

26. The honesty should be transparent. It's not.

[mod mom]

27. Give us a fair court with full subpoena power and we will. If we convinced

the Democratic members of the House Judiciary, who were willing to review the mounds of evidence, we could convince a FAIR court.

[RPM]

28. are you blaiming the women for bush being elected?

kinda sounded that way...

[Walt Starr]

29. Clearly 48% of those women who voted in 2004

are responsible for Bush.

clearly 51% of those men who voted are responsible for Bush.

Add to that, every last male and female eligible to vote in 2004 who chose not to.