"GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you one final question, which is, as you were putting this book together and assembling your thoughts about what you see as a broad-based collapse in a lot of the way we think and reason in our society, did you ever think to yourself, based specifically on the indictment that you make against the Bush administration, that perhaps you conceded too soon in 2000?Gore has used a similar formulation in the past. In an interview in New York Magazine, May 06:
AL GORE: Well, there was -- I took it all the way to a final Supreme Court decision. And in our system, there is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.
So, at that point, having taken it as far as one could, then the question becomes, are we going to be a nation of laws and not people? Do I support the rule of law, even though I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision? I did disagree with it, and I think that those of us who disagreed with it will have the better of the argument in history."
"Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?SteveA sez:
Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”
Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. “He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political,” Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? “I think he does—and he’s right.”"
"I did not see Gore on Lehrer. From what you said here, though, it seemed he understood that the election had been stolen. He might have been able to make a case if he had wanted. But, he figured he had two options only. He could either go along with the result as he was given it by the Bush people, knowing they had stolen the election, or he could have taken a course that would have inevitably lead to violence in the streets.Good questions, all.
Is this why politicians on the left never do anything in this country?
They always think that doing something will get lots of people killed?
So, people on the Warren Commission planned to cover it up because if the general population knew that the assassination of their President was an inside job, then, they figured, there would be blood in the streets and we can't have that.
We can't challenge the efforts of republican operatives to steal elections because why? Democrats do the same things? The people who steal elections whether dem or rep are not against killing large numbers of Americans if it means preserving their hold on power?
Do we go along with making the 9-11 murders into some bogus act of war by foreigners when there were obvious questions about who had to be involved on the inside because to open up those questions would have lead to blood in the streets?
I do not think that fighting in the streets can get us anywhere where we want to be. So, I am very interested in finding some third alternative between "rule by gangsters" and the "blood in the streets" options Gore sees for us.
Did anyone ask Gore whether he thought the consequences to the country of his acquiecence to the coup would be worse than if he had decided to stand up for something? He could have just stated the facts as he saw them. Maybe he could have argued that we should not let the coup stand, nor should we start shooting up the place.
Did anyone ask him whether he thought that if the Bush people could have stolen the election, as he seems to have conceded, that they could have planned and carried out all that came afterward?
When the election in Mexico was stolen just recently, and the people were in the streets, there was not great bloodshed. Did Gore think that he couldn't risk even that kind of confrontation? What would he have been afraid of, that the government and the gangsters would have capitulated? That there would not have been enough people concerned about an honest election showing up. Does he think people basically go along with gangster rule and he doesn't want to expose that fact?
I could go on with my questioning. I will not consider Gore for any elected office unless I hear some kind of better excuse for what he did."
OTOH, I'd be happy to forgive Gore for 2000. Compared to the alternatives, he seems like a giant. Is there another Dem candidate that would even dare mention the theft of 2000? (or 2004 for that matter.) The theft in 2000 didn't 'happen to Gore' - it happened to all of us.