Im a big Altman fan myself, but looking at his resume year by year and the films theyre going against, he wouldnt win too many Oscars even if the Academy was me - from the 70s, only The Long Goodbye is a serious contender, but 1973 also happens be the greatest year for film ever, itd have to deal with the likes of Badlands, Dont Look Now, Papillon, The Exorcist, The Day Of The Jackal, Mean Streets, The Last Detail and Id probably pick Badlands.
The 80s of course were a big slump, but to start off the 90s, Vincent & Theo would be the winner of 1990 if it werent for the Goodfellas factor. The Player comes even closer in 1992, perhaps indeed beating out Fire Walk With Me & Glengarry Glen Ross. Ultimately though the only sure winner would be Short Cuts in 1993. And thats that.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

Altman is one of my favorite directors if not my absolute favorite, but you have him winning an Oscar for Fool for Love? Really? It's not a horrible film but not anywhere near his best. Also I disagree with your assertion that 1985 was a terrible year in film. Just looking at the films whose directors were nominated for Oscars you have Out of Africa (haven't seen it but it's fairly highly regarded), Kiss of the Spider Woman (very good movie from a fine director in Hector Babenco), Prizzi's Honor (decent enough comedy possibly overrated because it was a late-period hit for the legendary John Huston), Witness (very enjoyable thriller from the always dependable Peter Weir) and Ran (one of Kurosawa's greatest films in my opinion). Even as a huge Altman fan I wouldn't say he deserved an Oscar that year if he had somewhow been nominated for one. I think Kurosawa deserved it that year.
Anyway, you could probably make a convincing argument that he should've won at least one Oscar at some point in his career but Altman is hardly the only great director (or actor; Peter O'Toole anyone?) to have never won an Academy Award.

'The author of that horribly misguided blog lost me when he referred to Louise Fletcher's performance in Cuckoo's Nest as "one-note." What an idiot.'

Have to be honest with you, I'm not so sure2000 she deserved to win. I felt that part of it was the sweeps-thing with Cuckoo's Nest,and thought she was the dark horse that year. And was it a lead role, or supporting?
I know what she did: playing sweet on the outside/ mean on the inside, but what if the playing mean on the outside is more realistic(at least some of the time)

The author of that horribly misguided blog lost me when he referred to Louise Fletcher's performance in Cuckoo's Nest as "one-note." What an idiot.
Count each day as a gift; you never know when the wrapping paper's going to run out.

What exactly are we supposed to agree upon? It's an actual fact that Altman never won a competitive Oscar. There's no question or opinion for us to agree or disagree with.
Also, I find it hard to take the blog you linked to seriously. Whoever wrote this article (not sure if it was you or someone else) clearly had a biased opinion towards Altman. They give him the award in every head-to-head match-up, unless he's against a cinamatic classic. (They also completely overlooked every other nominated film, thus turning every year into a two-sided race that it clearly wasn't.)
Altman made some great films, don't get me wrong, but I'm not going to even bother wasting my time listening to someone so clearly one-sided on the matter. How can anyone possibly hope to do so, when the author describes Altman as "the most innovative, daring, humanistic, brilliant writer/director in movie history"? If that's not a statement from a biased writer, then I honestly don't know what is.