Jimmy Carter: Gore beat Bush in 2000

Jimmy Carter: Gore beat Bush in 2000 (WND)

“Well I would say that in the year 2000, the country failed abysmally in the presidential election process,” Carter told a panel Monday at American University in Washington, D.C. “There’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.”

What’s worse, he goes on to say that we don’t really know what went on in Ohio in 2004 — implying that Kerry may have really won the last election.

How can anyone take this silly man seriously anymore?

FILED UNDER: US Politics
Leopold Stotch
About Leopold Stotch
“Dr. Leopold Stotch” was the pseudonym of political science professor then at a major research university inside the beltway. He has a PhD in International Relations. He contributed 165 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and February 2006.

Comments

  1. Rodney Dill says:

    Whaddya expect. Give the man a stick and he’ll go off and hit a rabbit.

  2. Eneils Bailey says:

    He may not know what went on in Ohio in 2004, but I certainity know what is going on in this Twerp’s brain, Zilch…point…shit.

  3. Sgt Fluffy says:

    2 words…Hugo Chavez

  4. ken says:

    When the history of this era is written it will go down as the era of corrupt Republicans polititians betraying America. There is no doubt that more Floridians voted for Gore in 2000 than for the other guy. But with Republicans in charge of the process they gave the election to Bush. That is non-controversially true.

  5. odograph says:

    Democracy works best when majorities are strong enough to flood out any error. It’s just a sad byproduct of near 50:50 splits that such worries have a following.

    Personally I think the biggest problem of the 2000 election was the game Bush and Gore both played – trying to be more moderate than the other guy. Both were faking, but given the act, the 50:50 split is not that surprising.

    Even this last time we saw a strange reversal and blend between Bush and Kerry, with both adopting positions “flavored” by the opposing side.

    If those guys were a little more honest about how non-moderate they were, or if there were a way for a genuine moderate to get in there, then we might have had a better vote, and a result far enough from 50:50 to leave little room for worry or doubt.

  6. steve says:

    “non-controversial true”…I’m not sure what that means. controversy is what liberals chant when they lose close elections/votes. The democratic party has a history of fraud dealing with voting…Daily in Chicago and the tainted and historically proved mob involvement when Kennedy stole Ill. from Nixon, Johnson’s fraud in Texas and criminal actions that his henchmen engaged in…so don’t project your parties flaws onto the republicans. There were at least 3 recounts before the courts came in and ruled that the election was over…can’t you liberals deal with the reality that the election is over???

  7. Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet) says:

    “What is your “non-controversial” evidence, Ken, that more Floridians voted for Gore than for any other guy in 2000?

    This sounds mighty like partisan rhetoric rather than rational analysis of evidence. That has been a recurring problem with Mr. Carter as well (an individual, I blush to say, for whom I voted in 1976 and 1980).

    My recollection is that several newspapers conducted minute studies of the ballots which were at issue in Florida and the result was, on balance, in Bush’s favor. Links, please, to a “non-controversial” source backing up your bold statement.

  8. Marc says:

    You guys won’t get a response from ken. He spewed his fetid feces and is gone content in thinking he did something of value.

    As for Jimmy, don’t you have to have a brain to have doubts within it?

  9. ken says:

    Once all the ballots were recounted, and I mean all of them, Gore got more. That is the result of the nonpartisan and audited recount done by some of the papers.

  10. Aidan Maconachy says:

    Jimmy Carter always looked sick to me … and this proves it!

  11. john cooke says:

    ah yes, this from the man who all by himself and his party almost put the United States in bankruptcy and caused the problems we now enjoy in the middle-east. thanks a lot cotton brain.

    john cooke

  12. Bachbone says:

    Is there documented evidence that wascally wabid wabbit did not actually bite Jimmy?

  13. Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet) says:

    Thanks for the link, Ken. Your evidence is really impressive.

  14. ron says:

    If someone said that more people casting ballots in Florida in 2000 meant to vote for Gore, I won’t argue. However, I would not be surprised if more voters in the state were going to vote for Bush that day. Afterall, some in the panhandle went home after the networks called the race for Gore before the poles closed. I have no sympathy for either group — follow directions, and don’t trust the networks.

    Another question, why is there a question about Ohio in 2004 where Bush beat Kerry by 2%, but Wisconsin is ignored where Kerry beat Bush by only 0.4%? If Bush had won Wisconsin, it would have negated the need for him to win Ohio.

  15. Sam Jones says:

    Well, I just hit Google, and my first two references were an academic paper and a reference to an independent study. Both said Gore won the election. Neither shows any sign of having been set up by Al Gore or the Democratic party. One was specifically independent, funded by some of the more conservative news services out there.

    I can understand thinking that Bush won the Florida count. I don’t understand being this certain of it that you think anyone on the other side are idiots. If you don’t see that the electoral process in Florida is in doubt, you haven’t looked at it objectively at all.

    I can’t find it, but I remember hearing that most Americans think Gore got the most Floridian votes. That has no strong bearing, but if you think this belief is evidence of brainlessness, than you think most of your countrymen are brainless. I must admit the thought crossed my mind after the 2004 election.

  16. Herb says:

    BUSH BEAT GORE IN 2000

    Democrats, GET OVER IT

    BUSH BEAT KERRY IN 2004

    Democrats, GET OVER IT

    It’s over, It’s done with, It’s finished. ka poot.

    Democrats, Take you wishful garbage elsewhere and

    GET OVER IT

  17. Shala says:

    lol ……….stay on that Thorazine drip with Carter !!!!!!! Pleaseeeeeeeeeee Who Takes Carter seriously…………the senile hardly proves anything!!!!

  18. dutchmarbel says:
  19. DL says:

    The problem with Jimmy is that we should have elected his mother – ‘Miss Lillian” then impeached her for having such an idiot son!
    Jimmy that is – Billy had some likable qualities!

  20. DL says:

    Let’s be fair!
    Ken may be gone but he’s right!
    “When the history of this era is written it will go down as the era of corrupt Republicans polititians betraying America.”

    That’s because while liberals are (re-)writing history – conservatives are make history!

  21. odograph says:

    I think the bigger issue is what should happen, in honest government, when you have a 50:50 vote split. I think an honest and moral leader would take that as a mandate for moderation. He would recognize the basic division in the country and attempt to find a path acceptable to the bulk of the nation. He would not pretend he had an extremist mandate, and run with it.

  22. Bithead says:

    The only way the Democrats can gain any power is to deleigimize, by any means to hand, incluing lying, the Bush victories.

    Sgt Fluffy’s point is right on the money, and reveals Carter as just another socialist hack.

  23. Sneem says:

    The only reason anyone would follow Jimmy Carter is strictly out of curiosity. He may be the most failed President of the 20th Century. When faced with a crisis, he hid out at Camp David for two weeks and came down and announced the government was OK. It was the people of the country that were wrong. Double digit unemployment. Interest rates approaching 20%, and a President trapped in the Rose Garden with no idea for a solution. Why does anyone pay any attention to this man? Oh, I forgot. He is an amateur carpenter.

  24. Joel says:

    Well now, besides the whimsical patrons of republican lovers crying “partisan””calling jimmy brainless”, and the ever so “get over it” edit, we must realize that we are in a time of trouble overseas, dishonesty, a possibility that tax cuts will have to be scrapped, along with all the other things, so we can borrow and spend due to a failed administration plan. …ah them plans of ours…

    And you take time to tally who won. With so much pride at that…that dear republican pride…

    Especially the one claiming Jimmy is responsible for the trouble in the middle east.

    hmm, yeah there is a change a coming. I believe it will be for the better…dem-de-la- rim-me

    REPUBLICANISM
    NONSENSE WITH CONSEQUENCES

  25. buzz says:

    “How can anyone take this silly man seriously anymore?” When did anyone take him seriously before? Since those 5-8 months in 1976, anyway.
    “There is no doubt that more Floridians voted for Gore in 2000 than for the other guy.” Actually, there is considerable doubt. One of many problems in the recounts is that the recounters dont just add up the votes again. There were double votes, no votes, votes not punched through, etc. Could it be said that most people who did vote, MEANT to vote for Gore? Maybe. Could it also be said with the same accuracy that most of the people in the panhandle who didnt vote because the media said the polls were closed would have voted for Bush? Maybe. “But with Republicans in charge of the process they gave the election to Bush. That is non-controversially true.” Actually, Democrats were in charge of the process, at least in Florida, especially in the disputed counties. If the rules said only a VALID vote counted, there wouldnt have been so many problems. After the election was said and done, a number of newspapers got together and did recounts themselves under a number of different conditions. Most times, Bush still won. Less times, Gore won. Which condition should have counted should there have been a actual recount? Depends on who your for, I guess. Another truism is that one says something like “That is non-controversially true.” it usually isnt.

  26. Jeez, not a single reference to history’s greatest monster yet.

  27. Leopold Stotch says:

    Charles: are you thinking about Dick Cheney or Karl Rove?

  28. Marko says:

    Jimmy Carter monitors elections though out the third world. He should know a rigged election when he sees one.

  29. lenny kohm says:

    the current administration has (not almost) put the country in bankruptcy. just look at the unprecedented rise in in the national debt during the less than five years this administration has been in office.

    were the problems in the mid-east caused by bringing pres. anwar sadat of egypt, and menachim begin together for the camp david accords in 1977?

    and yes mr. cooke, jimmy carter deserves lots of thanks for being a great american!

    ah yes, this from the man who all by himself and his party almost put the United States in bankruptcy and caused the problems we now enjoy in the middle-east. thanks a lot cotton brain.

    john cooke
    Posted by: john cooke at September 24, 2005 21:09 Permalink

  30. McGehee says:

    Charles: are you thinking about Dick Cheney or Karl Rove?

    Damn, but that’s disappointing.

  31. Roger says:

    Anytime I read Jimmy Carter’s opinions I just think back to when he lit the White House Christmas tree for 417 seconds, one second for each day the hostages were held in Iran. Nice Foreign Policy, Jimmy!

    I also think of the Saturday Night Live sketch in which Dan Ackroyd played Jimmy doing a call-in radio show.

    Personally, I think Jimmy is bitter for not being asked by Bush to be part of the tsunami/hurricane relief efforts.

  32. Mario Mirarchi says:

    Does this mean Bush can run again in 2008?

  33. dr rw says:

    insipid, banal and generally kinda stupid

    first thoughts on first trip to a republican discussion.

    But don’t worry, I won’t sully your ‘conversations’ again. One can only take just so much of simply another of the failed branches of humanity.

  34. Disbelief says:

    Jimmy Carter has accomplished more in his lifetime than all of the posters on this board combined, including myself, will ever accomplish.

    Take a good look at yourself before you start criticizing this man.