May 26, 2006:
It was hard to watch Al and not think about how he was robbed in 2000....
Septmber 21, 2006:
He [Broder] also makes the factual error of stating that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election, when everybody who knows anything knows that Gore won the national popular vote, and that more people voting in Florida wanted Gore rather than Bush.
April 22, 2008:
First, Gore didn't lose the national popular vote (he won 48.4% to 47.9%) and probably should have won Florida.
In a "fair" election without Nader and a media that didn't personally loathe Al Gore, Gore probably would have won a fairly comfortable 51.6% to 47.4% victory.
February 10, 2009:
And I remember giving people crap for paying more attention to what happened in Florida than the fact that Gore had won the national popular vote and wouldn't be president. Stupid electoral college.
While the precise wording I used about 2000 wasn't what Marriah would have liked, in each instance I argue that the election of 2000 was improper, that the wrong person became President.
One would hope that one's friends would offer the most charitable interpretation of one's actions and words, rather than nitpick like an opposition researcher.
Thanks for taking the time to look up you previous posts regarding my comments.By Marriah, at 12:22 AM
So we agree that you never used the precise wording "2000 was stolen", even though you implied that the wrong person won.
That's fine with me. I am just asking you to recognize that precise words get people out onto the street, willing to die in order to get democracy. That's what the Iranians are doing, and they are being killed for it daily.
Your words, in contrast, do not have the same emotional push. I cannot imagine people marching onto the streets and sacrificing their lives in response to your posts.
If you wanted Americans to rise up and protest, even get killed, I think you had to be a bit more inflammatory in your rhetoric than these posts demonstrate.
I don't want people to have to die for democracy - that certainly wasn't necessary in 2000. And as a blogger writing about AN EVENT IN THE PAST the character of my words isn't going to have much effect, is it? In 2000 I was frustrated by was the willingness of many citizens and the political class in general to easily accept what I and many others viewed as an antidemocratic outcome. People got so distracted by the confusion in Florida that they missed the bigger and more incontestable problem - that we have a system in which the candidate who wins more people's votes can lose the election. There was no sustained attention on that question, and the matter was simply dropped. The situation in Iran, where there is blatant fraud and a de facto coup, rises to a quiet different level.By Arbitrista, at 7:54 AM
"I don't want people to have to die for democracy - that certainly wasn't necessary in 2000."By Marriah, at 8:27 AM
That's the key difference between us then. Not only do I want people to die for democracy, I think it is absolutely necessary to die for democracy. Otherwise we would never have fought World War I (supposedly making the world safe for democracy) or World War II, and we certainly never would have had a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Independence Day is coming in 5 days, and that certainly required people to die for democracy.
Thus, it is difficult for me to understand your perspective when you seem to ignore a bedrock foundation of American history and politics. If you don't die for democracy, democracy will vanish.
I believe dying for democracy was certainly necessary in 2000. The situation in Iran is not on a different level. There was blatant fraud and a de facto coup in the U.S.
Hence, my initial response. Your arguments are just too tepid for my taste. And if your arguments, as an educated, passionate student of political science, are tepid, you can hardly expect people to be protesting and dying in the streets after 2000.