You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Bush v. Gore's Dark American Decade [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 03:44 AM
Original message
Bush v. Gore's Dark American Decade
Advertisements [?]
Bush v. Gore's Dark American Decade

By Robert Parry
December 12, 2010

- snip -

Everyone immediately understood what the five partisan Republicans William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day OConnor and Anthony Kennedy had done: they had awarded the presidency to George W. Bush.

- snip -

By virtually all objective measures, the consequences of Bushs eight-year presidency were disastrous, including massive federal deficits, an economy ravaged by reckless gambling on Wall Street, and two costly wars still hemorrhaging money and blood.

However, after two years of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress undertaking emergency (and often unpopular) steps to stabilize the collapsing economy, the Republicans pounded a campaign drum of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, deriding Obamas modest stimulus efforts and health-care reform as costly failures.

In their comeback, the Republicans also were aided by another Supreme Court ruling in early 2010, the Citizens United case, in which two right-wing appointees of President Bush John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy to strike down restrictions on corporate spending for political ads.

- snip -

Justice Scalia made clear that the purpose of the courts action was to prevent Bush from falling behind in the tally and thus raising questions about his legitimacy should the Supreme Court later declare him the winner. That outcome would cast a cloud over the legitimacy of an eventual Bush presidency, explained Scalia. Count first, and rule upon the legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires, Scalia wrote.

- snip -

A decade after the fateful court ruling with the results of Bushs presidency now painfully apparent and his own appointed justices helping to open the floodgates of special-interest money to further distort the democratic process Bush v. Gore must be viewed as a moment when the United States started down a very dark road.


Posted by: Hissyspit

Refresh | +13 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC