Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
Justin Emsoff

Donate

Politics

Quote o' the Day

Jesse Walker | 4.3.2009 2:07 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

John Cole on the Alaska Republicans' call for a do-over election:

I sometimes wish these guys would man up and look at their Sore/Loserman t-shirts from 2000 and think for a minute.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Recently at Reason.tv (and Fox News): Introducing the DMV Automotive Repair Center

Jesse Walker is books editor at Reason and the author of Rebels on the Air and The United States of Paranoia.

PoliticsCampaigns/ElectionsSarah Palin
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (25)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Naga Sadow   17 years ago

    Great quote but not surprising.

    "Nothing that is expedient is inconsistent"

  2. Nick   17 years ago

    Isn't there a tiered voting system that allows you to rank your preferences? I strongly favor the idea that we can vote for the best candidate and then cast a second choice for lesser of # evils, and then put our most hated Turd Sandwich in last. A Gore victory in 2000 while certainly not great would have spared us from the Iraq War and Obama presidency (cuz ain't no way anyone would vote for a Dem in 08 if Gore had two terms. Even if he had only 1, chances are the incumbent who won in 04 would be re-elected in 08).

  3. ChicagoTom   17 years ago

    Isn't there a tiered voting system that allows you to rank your preferences?

    IRV -- Instant Run-off voting...The Green party has been calling for this for a while. It essentially allows one to vote for a 3rd party candidate without feeling like "throwing your vote away" because your second choices would count as votes once your first choices is mathematically elminated.

    It isn't perfect. It's a more complicated system that at times has odd results. i have seen analyses of it that showed some of the complexities years ago,

  4. Nick   17 years ago

    Does it count your second vote as a first vote when your first vote is determined to finish out of the top two, or does it count them as a ranking, like if there are 5 candidate, your top vote gets 5 points, your second vote gets 4 points, and your last vote gets 1 point? And if that's the case, what if you only selected 2 out of 5? How then, does the computer award places to 3rd to 5th?

  5. Isaac Bartram   17 years ago

    A Gore victory in 2000 while certainly not great would have spared us from the Iraq War...

    Ya think?

    The only thing I'm sure a Gore victory in 2000 would have given us was a bailout for Enron.

  6. Isaac Bartram   17 years ago

    IRV -- Instant Run-off voting...

    Australia uses it to elect the members of the Federal House of Representatives.

  7. Kid Blast   17 years ago

    "The only thing I'm sure a Gore victory in 2000 would have given us was a bailout for Enron."

    And all this bullshit global warming legislation 8 years sooner.

  8. Mike D   17 years ago

    "The only thing I'm sure a Gore victory in 2000 would have given us was a bailout for Enron."

    Stupidest comment I've read all week. Well done.

  9. kwais   17 years ago

    Wasn't Gore advocating for the invasion of Iraq before everyone?

    I thought that Rumsfeld and Cheney were just followers in that regard.

  10. kwais   17 years ago

    The only good thing I can think of that would have come from an Al Gore victory, would be final abatement of the threat of ManBearPig.

  11. Isaac Bartram   17 years ago

    Mike D

    It was Bob Rubin who lobbied the Bush Treasury Dept for a bailout.

    I'm certain he would have gotten a more sympathetic hearing at a Gore Treasury Dept.

    Also Enron was considered important in "clean energy" being heavily invested natural gas and hydro. They already had important connections in the Clinton Admin.

    The only mystery to me was why Ken Lay gave so much money to Bush when his real ally was Gore.

    Naturally the bailout would have been to save the jobs and 401(k) plans of Enron's enployees not for the fatcat shareholders.

  12. Nick   17 years ago

    Gore wouldn't have gotten any global warming legislation through with the GOP congress. Maybe he would have sucked at going after al Qaeda but that's just par for the course anyway.

  13. Isaac Bartram   17 years ago

    Also, while the foregoing is essentilly accurate i was (partly) kiiding.

  14. Episiarch   17 years ago

    The only good thing I can think of that would have come from an Al Gore victory, would be final abatement of the threat of ManBearPig.

    Nobody takes you serial, kwais.

  15. matt   17 years ago

    "The only thing I'm sure a Gore victory in 2000 would have given us was a bailout for Enron."

    You make the classic mistake of thinking that politicians care most about the issues they talk most about. The global warming issue was Gore's strategy to make the left wing of the Democratic Party forget that he was a southern moderate and recently retired culture warrior.

    It worked, but his campaign didn't, so now he's sort of stuck with it since he's done politically and it's the only way he can get attention.

  16. matt   17 years ago

    I meant to quote the line below, not the one I italicized above. My bad.

    And all this bullshit global warming legislation 8 years sooner.

  17. John   17 years ago

    This is really problematic. I don't care that Stevens is a bad guy and was a bad Senator. He was. But just because he was a bad guy doesn't excuse prosecutorial misconduct. Think about what happened here. DOJ engaged in prosecutorial misconduct to get a conviction against a sitting Senator right before the election, a conviction which is now so tainted with misconduct even DOJ is refusing to defend it on appeal. That is disturbing as hell.

  18. TrickyVic   17 years ago

    Bush's DOJ playing politics? No.

    I don't know, but I have a idea that this has to do with who is the most connected to bring the bacon back to AK. A Jr. Senator will not have the clout or connections that a senior Senator has. Stevens will be able to get more pork projects than the new guy. Palin knows it, she admited that part of her job is to get federal money.

  19. D.R.M.   17 years ago

    IRV? Oh, sure. Because, who needs monotonicity and Condorcet conformance?

    IRV had some justification when nobody had come up with anything better, but we now have Schulze.

  20. Mo   17 years ago

    Can someone send those shirts to Norm Coleman.

  21. KL Wells   17 years ago

    The justice dept. successfully interfered with a federal election.

    It's very telling that so few people seem to mind that at all.

  22. J sub D   17 years ago

    DOJ engaged in prosecutorial misconduct to get a conviction against a sitting Senator right before the election, a conviction which is now so tainted with misconduct even DOJ is refusing to defend it on appeal. That is disturbing as hell.

    A GOP DOJ persecuted a GOP senator with filibuster numbers in doubt? That seems very unlikely on it's face. It also seems to be true.

    Oh well, I've never accused either of the major parties of competence in politicking or governing.

  23. John   17 years ago

    J Sub D,

    the career lawyers at DOJ are liberal as hell. What seems to have happened is a liberal hack at DOJ went after a Republican and a Republican AG was unable to stop him without looking like he was playing politics.

  24. David T   17 years ago

    Several Republicans may have won close Senate races in 2002 because the Bush administration led the American people to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Should the Democrats have called for all Republicans who arguably won because of such representations to face a re-vote once it became clear after the invasion of Iraq that the representations were false?

    (Come to think of it, if the extent of the corruption in Governor Taft's administration in Ohio had been known in November 2004, John Kerry might have won that state and therefore the presidency. Re-vote of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, anyone?)

    Unless Begich himself was involved in misconduct, I see no moral, let alone legal, reason for him to step down and agree to a re-vote.

  25. Peter   17 years ago

    There is an election every couple years, if he really wants to get back into congress he can run in 2010.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Webathon 2025: Dec. 2 - Dec. 9 Thanks to 760 donors, we've reached $533,101 of our $400,000 $600,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

Donate Now

Latest

Virginia's New Blue Trifecta Puts Right-To-Work on the Line

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 12.6.2025 7:00 AM

Ayn Rand Denounced the FCC's 'Public Interest' Censorship More Than 60 Years Ago

Robby Soave | From the January 2026 issue

Review: Progressive Myths Rebuts the Left's Histrionic Takes

Jack Nicastro | From the January 2025 issue

French Study on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Finds a Drop in Severe COVID—and No Increase in Deaths

Ronald Bailey | 12.5.2025 4:25 PM

Warner Bros. Accepts Netflix's $83 Billion Bid, but Antitrust Threats Still Loom

Jack Nicastro | 12.5.2025 3:36 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks