Sore loser Gore hurts Democrats 8 years later

By Rick Morris

It's commonly accepted that the Democratic battle for president is the messiest since 1980, if not 1968 (and folks, we're headed for some Days of Rage out in Denver if Obama gets this nomination ripped from him). Everyone attributes two factors for this state of affairs:

1. The volatility of the usual Democratic obsession with identity politics being mixed with the certainty that either the first black or first woman candidate will be nominated.

2. The unparalleled ambition and ruthlessness of the Clintons.

But everyone's forgetting the vital third element in the equation, and this amnesia is surprising because it related directly to the rage Democrats have felt against George W. Bush since his first national campaign:

3. The legacy of the tactics deployed by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election -- or rather, his refusal to accept the outcome of the 2000 election.

You remember the conduct of Sore-Loserman in the aftermath of the vote, don't you? The transformation of infantile drivel such as "the will of the people" becoming the official mantra of the Democrat party?

[Side note, Dick Nixon legitimately had the 1960 election stolen from him by crooks manipulating the "graveyard vote" in Illinois and Texas. Four decades later, Gore lost primarily because some of his core voters were illiterates who couldn't understand a simple butterfly ballot. Nixon refused to contest the election and conceded so our country wouldn't be divided at a time of peril in the Cold War. Regardless of what voters intended in their hearts, Gore lost the election by losing Florida and yet divided our country with relish at a vulnerable time when his president had spent eight years not facing up to the terrorist threat plaguing our nation. And yet it's Gore who gets made into a secular saint by the simpletons who comprise the ranks of "opinion leaders" in the U.S.A.]

Gore ran around the country trumpeting the fact that he won the popular vote, which is Constitutionally irrelevant under our system of government. Democrats demagogued the Electoral College, pronouncing it an anachronism when it suited their purposes. One of the chief phonies at the time was Hillary Clinton, who pronounced it undemocratic and who is now being blocked from the nomination by other phonies who pronounce her efforts undemocratic. Yes, there is a God and He has a sense of Karmic humor!

Gore picked a fight in a game of chicken he knew he could not possibly win, for it was certain that even if the U.S. Supreme Court backed the partisan hacks on the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the little old ladies with hatpins surreptitiously poking holes in the chads to steal the election that the House of Representatives would vote to recognize the legal Katherine Harris slate of electors. So he had no chance -- not immediately that is, as the clear endgame was to bloody up Bush for a rematch four years later and that scenario would have played out had Gore not chickened out when Bush was still in his post-9/11 popularity phase.

By posing as if they were the only ones concerned with "counting all the votes," Democrats ended up creating an extra standard in all elections. Now, even though the rules don't give Barack Obama any edge whatsoever because of it, he can claim a Divine Mandate because he's ahead in the popular vote and elected delegate count. Hillary has to augment her logical argument with "the rules say nothing about those factors" with more of her patented say-anything drivel like "caucuses are undemocratic."

By working so hard to delegitimize the winner of the 2000 presidential election (and I pronounce Bush the rightful winner of the election despite the fact that I did not vote for him, but rather, Patrick J. Buchanan), Democrats created a set of circumstances where tactics unexceptional by historical standards would call for the language of delegitimization to be invoked. The bitter fruit they are now choking on can best be called their just desserts.