It's actually quite simple why Republicans are so mean spirited when they're out of office: they view politics as a war to be fought and won by any and all means necessary. By contrast, Democrats by and large view the political process as the manner in which the American People decide how they want to be governed.

This explains why Al Gore conceeded to George Bush in Florida in 2000 (and why a partisan GOP appointed majority in the Supreme Court violated its own Federalist credo to overrule the Florida Supremem court and stop the ballot recount) and why Norm Coleman in Minnessotta is fighting a protracted, but by all accounts hopeless legal battle to delay the confirmation of Al Franken. In Florida Gore saw a fight that he was likely to lose (because the Supreme Court was ideologically stacked against him) as detrimental to the country as a whole, and so he conceeded. In Minnessotta, on the other hand, we see that the only principle that matters to the GOP is the principle of "deny your opponent and and all advantges you can, any way you can."

This also explains the remarkable unity of message that the GOP displays whenever a controvery erupts. Turn to a dozen different talk shows and you'll find a dozen different GOP pols saying exactly the same thing, a message that was carefully studied and crafted by a central committe more concerned with its effectiveness than its truth. The GOP is like an army, admirably coordinated and centralized. This is partly why the GOP lost Arlen Specter and why it's having such a hard time holding on to "moderates." You can't have both a tightly scripted message and multiple ideological predispositions and points of view at the same time. It's one or the other. Democrats, on the other hand, are far more democratic in their approach to governance. It's part of the reason they've managed to remain a national party whereas the GOP is now largely restricted to its Southern, Bible belt strongholds.

In 1960 Kennedy blatantly stole the Presidential election, both through bribery adn through collaboration with mobster Ssam Giancana. Nixon knew hed been robber of the lection yet, for the good of the country he didnt object. No demand for a recount, no investigation. He juts stepped aside. He then swored to his intimates that he'd never be outgamed by his adversaries again. we all know how that that watershed moment colored his psyche and how that turned out.

Gore did NOT passively accept the results. Remember the "hanging chad" ? That argument was from GORE- that his base of elderly and minority had ballots which were misreead. He proceeeded with addition recounts - only in friendly precincts to try and overturn the results of the election. Thank God the Supreme Court stopped the madness.

Coleman was ahead the mornning after the election. Stuart Smalley- er- Al Franken- had to raise a ballot challenge.

Its dems who raise specious claims of rigged voting machines when they lose which somehow worked just fine in Novemeber when Obama and dems won. Last time I heard Diebold was still owned by the same investors. Yours is the party which round up mentally ill and incoherant homeless people and tells them who to vote for then when confronted claism that Republicans want to "disenfrancise" this mindless source of cheap votes..

The Democrat party: all dishonest, all the time

In 1960 Kennedy blatantly stole the Presidential election, both through bribery and through collaboration with mobster Sam Giancana. Nixon knew hed been robbed of the election yet, for the good of the country he didnt object. No demand for a recount, no investigation. He just stepped aside. He then swore to his intimates that he'd never be outgamed by his adversaries again. We all know how that that watershed moment colored his psyche and how that turned out.

Gore did NOT passively accept the results. Remember the "hanging chad" ? That argument was from GORE- that his base of elderly and minorities had ballots which were misread. He proceeeded with addition recounts - only in friendly precincts to try and overturn the results of the election. Thank God the Supreme Court stopped the madness.

Coleman was ahead the mornning after the election. Stuart Smalley- er- Al Franken- had to raise a ballot challenge.

Its dems who raise specious claims of rigged voting machines when they lose which somehow worked just fine in Novemeber when Obama and dems won. Last time I heard Diebold was still owned by the same investors. Yours is the party which round up mentally ill and incoherent homeless people and tell them who to vote for then when confronted claim that Republicans want to "disenfrancise" this mindless source of cheap votes..

The Democrat party: all dishonest, all the time

Great response by Bill. I'll just add to the laughable line about Gore conceding the election. Gore was using the the almost entirely Democrat-appointed Florida Supreme Court to sanction an extremely partisan and unconstitutional recount. The madness was finally stopped by the US Supreme Court, where SEVEN Justices found the recount to be in violation of the Equal Protection clause - not 5, but 7.

Reweritting history Bill, like a good Republican lap-dog.

McCain accepte defeat, deal with it!

The Minn. recount is Constitutionally mandated and had only that as a cause for Coleman's LOSS!

What you call "madness" from Gore to pursue a recount was in fact originally mandated by Florida law for close elections. Though the Secretary of State, Harris tried to stop Gore from pursuing his legal right to challenge three counties which make up the majority of the Florida population, and had cause for a lot of controversy, she made an effort to block due process. The Florida Supreme Court extended a deadline that Harris imposed by the state statutory deadline. She could have, but sought to obstruct rather than allow due process. That's why the Florida Supreme Court saw fit to extend the deadline. However, the U.S. Supreme Court medled in an affair of state's rights and overturned the decision. So, as you state's rights defenders blather on and on, you only choose the time when you lose to act.

Kennedy "stole" the election? Nixon was a wax zombie in the televised debates and lost because of it. Tough! Maybe you know something about why Kennedy was assassinated that needs to be told today?

Do you enjoy smearing an assassinated Commander in Chief?

The "Kennedy Stole the Election" urban legend has been debunked. It was a close election, but the recounts and investigations that followed found no evidence of widespread fraud that would have tilted the election to Kennedy.

Leave aside the fact that 1963 was 46 years ago. That was a completely different era. We're talking about the parties as they exist today.

Nice try, Bill. You ought to talk to a shrink about your anal retentiveness.

"The Democrat party: all dishonest, all the time." I have to disagree with you at least for the last 56 years of my observations of politics. I would have to say it's the other way around considering Watergate, Gingrich's Breach of Contract with America, not to mention all of the clandestine extramarital affairs he and his republican cohorts were having while crucifying Clinton for a blowjob; and there is simply not enough space to describe the terrors wroaght by Rove, Bush and Company and now Cheney, the Torturer and his crew of babbling slanderers wish to continue down the same slippery slope to oblivion that cost them the election. Actually putting Rush Limbaugh on a pedastal that he knocked General Colin Powell from! There is another difference between Democrats and Republicans. You will find most Democrats show a genuine respect for Republicans who earn it.

I even heard not long ago on TV, I think it was Boner or whatever you call his lying ass as saying that they will declare war on the Democrats? Good. Try it. Keep it up. We want you too. Because for every moment you right wing traitors choose to destroy this administrations attempts to heal the country from the last eight years of deliberate destruction and havoc the Republicans created, the deeper you all sink yourselves into a mire you will never shake off.

What is it? Less than 21% of Americans will admit to being Republican? Gee, I wonder why?

Liberal Patriot:

Nice try, Bill. You ought to talk to a shrink about your anal retentiveness.

"The Democrat party: all dishonest, all the time." I have to disagree with you at least for the last 56 years of my observations of politics. I would have to say it's the other way around considering Watergate, Gingrich's Breach of Contract with America, not to mention all of the clandestine extramarital affairs he and his republican cohorts were having while crucifying Clinton for a blowjob; and there is simply not enough space to describe the terrors wroaght by Rove, Bush and Company and now Cheney, the Torturer and his crew of babbling slanderers wish to continue down the same slippery slope to oblivion that cost them the election. Actually putting Rush Limbaugh on a pedastal that he knocked General Colin Powell from! There is another difference between Democrats and Republicans. You will find most Democrats show a genuine respect for Republicans who earn it.

I even heard not long ago on TV, I think it was Boner or whatever you call his lying ass as saying that they will declare war on the Democrats? Good. Try it. Keep it up. We want you too. Because for every moment you right wing traitors choose to destroy this administrations attempts to heal the country from the last eight years of deliberate destruction and havoc the Republicans created, the deeper you all sink yourselves into a mire you will never shake off.

What is it? Less than 21% of Americans will admit to being Republican? Gee, I wonder why?

wHEN TRUTH AND FACTS aren't ones friend eventually people catch on to it and you end up with 21%(although that has fallen to 19%) of the population with you.And since about 2 out of 10 people have little respect for truth, 20% seems right for those who still look the other way .

Bill is a fascist moron. Ignore him.

bill sullivan:

In 1960 Kennedy blatantly stole the Presidential election, both through bribery adn through collaboration with mobster Ssam Giancana. Nixon knew hed been robber of the lection yet, for the good of the country he didnt object. No demand for a recount, no investigation. He juts stepped aside. He then swored to his intimates that he'd never be outgamed by his adversaries again. we all know how that that watershed moment colored his psyche and how that turned out.

Gore did NOT passively accept the results. Remember the "hanging chad" ? That argument was from GORE- that his base of elderly and minority had ballots which were misreead. He proceeeded with addition recounts - only in friendly precincts to try and overturn the results of the election. Thank God the Supreme Court stopped the madness.

Coleman was ahead the mornning after the election. Stuart Smalley- er- Al Franken- had to raise a ballot challenge.

Its dems who raise specious claims of rigged voting machines when they lose which somehow worked just fine in Novemeber when Obama and dems won. Last time I heard Diebold was still owned by the same investors. Yours is the party which round up mentally ill and incoherant homeless people and tells them who to vote for then when confronted claism that Republicans want to "disenfrancise" this mindless source of cheap votes..

The Democrat party: all dishonest, all the time

1) Nixon accepted the Illinois result because he knew he had his own vote-fixing can of worms, and that he probably would not win by pushing it.

2) It's quite telling that you find it somehow "unfair" for a candidate to avail himself of the legal provisions for vote recounts and appeals (oh! wait! You DO like it when it's a Minnesota Republican). Remind us... Which republicans have suggested modifying those laws providing for legal vote recounts? Apparently, they're fine with the law... they just don't want it followed when the outcome might not be Republican. You state it quite clearly: You HATED the initial legal recount in Minnesota, yet you LOVE the Coleman challenges after he lost.

3) The "hanging chad" was contested just as vociferously by Republican observers as by Democratic observers. It was a real question about how to evaluate a punchcard ballot. In fact, it's a large part of the argument Bush's people advanced, at great expense, to halt the vote count.

4) Could you tell us about any Democratic leader (political leader or media pundit) who's claimed "rigged voting machines"?

5) Do you believe a citizen's right to vote should be denied on the basis of his housing? Or even his intellience? (Surely, after decades of sneering at education, Republicans don't want to go THERE?)

If you think Gore's conduct in the days following the 2000 election was disgraceful, but you approve of what Norm Coleman is doing in Minnesota now, congratulations: you've proven yourself to be a complete sellout, with absolutely no discernible ideology other than, "Whatever my party wants is good, whatever the other party wants is bad."

I would argue that it's even simpler than you make it out to be. The politics-as-war analogy is true, but even in war, the troops and the generals are expected to lose with a modicum of dignity, so that doesn't really offer much of an explanation.

The real explanation is that the people who make up the GOP simply have less character than the Democrats. Losing gracefully is not something that comes naturally to anyone. Nobody likes losing. It takes character, even when you lose at hopscotch, to offer your hand to the person who beat you and say "good game" and not to be bitter about it. Today's GOP simply does not possess the good character necessary to lose with dignity.

bill sullivan:

In 1960 Kennedy blatantly stole the Presidential election, both through bribery adn through collaboration with mobster Ssam Giancana. Nixon knew hed been robber of the lection yet, for the good of the country he didnt object. No demand for a recount, no investigation. He juts stepped aside. He then swored to his intimates that he'd never be outgamed by his adversaries again. we all know how that that watershed moment colored his psyche and how that turned out.

Kennedy would have won without Illinois. Look it up. That point ruins your argument.

You also leave out that Nixon's side was hardly on the up and up either.

Gore did NOT passively accept the results. Remember the "hanging chad" ? That argument was from GORE- that his base of elderly and minority had ballots which were misreead. He proceeeded with addition recounts - only in friendly precincts to try and overturn the results of the election. Thank God the Supreme Court stopped the madness.

Stopped the madness? The republican biased supreme court violated its own principles by overruling a state and stopping a legitimate recount. The only mistake Gore really made was not demanding a statewide recount.

Coleman was ahead the mornning after the election. Stuart Smalley- er- Al Franken- had to raise a ballot challenge.

This is a blatant lie. The recount was mandated by law.

The Democrat party: all dishonest, all the time

actually, I've shown that even if there was dishonesty in 1960 chicago, it was utterly moot was Kennedy was an electoral victor without that state, that you violate your own principles by 'thanking god the supreme court over ruled a state" and finally, you blatantly lie about Franken.

Guess that makes you both a liar and a historical illiterate.

prorixum:

Great response by Bill.

Only if you are equaly ignorant.

I'll just add to the laughable line about Gore conceding the election. Gore was using the the almost entirely Democrat-appointed Florida Supreme Court to sanction an extremely partisan and unconstitutional recount. The madness was finally stopped by the US Supreme Court, where SEVEN Justices found the recount to be in violation of the Equal Protection clause - not 5, but 7.

which means that an equally partisan supreme court violated its mainly republican federalist principles to stop a recount, when in fact, what should have occurred is a statewide recount.

But to ask for that, you'd have to be something other than a partisan hack....

Maybe there's some truth to the article, but I spent 2002 to 2005 on a university campus... you wanna talk about sore losers...