HBO Films presents 'Recount'
Starring Kevin Spacey, Bob Balaban, Ed Begley, Jr., Laura Dern, John Hurt, Denis Leary, Bruce McGill, and Tom Wilkinson, Recount brings viewers behind the scenes at the controversial Florida recount. This illuminating, hugely entertaining film pulls back the veil on the headlines to explore the human drama surrounding the most controversial presidential election in U.S. history.

Read a review of the film here (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20200518,00.html).

Premiering 9 p.m. EDT Sunday May 25, 2008

Well, this should certainly be a fun thread.

I've got the over/under on the lockdown at 18 posts. Any takers? :D

I think it lasted only 4 posts in the 'DVD/Movie section. But it was locked for being Off Topic in that particular forum.

Good Luck Airboss! :D

I do plan on watching this though.

I'm going to post before -- not to name names -- somebody's excessive zeal causes it to be locked.

It seems to me that Recount's producers are a little premature in coming out with a show like this, although its outstanding cast does make it look interesting. My problem with having it now is that passions ran so high as a result of the Florida recount and Supreme Court decision that finally ended the 2000 election, some of them have not subsided yet. Thus, its almost guaranteed that some who are still decrying what happened and those who still passionately support it are, inevitably going to cry, "BIAS!" For just that reason, I'm not at all sure that I will watch it.

I think both art and history might be better served by putting all of this off for another 10 years -- at least.

Yeah, looks like the OP's original post has already been edited. That might be a record. :D

Anyway, thanks as usual to Airboss for alerting us to these documentaries. I'll watch this one for sure, and try to keep my blood pressure in check. Certainly, this was a pivotal event in U.S. history and one which shouldn't be forgotten.

I think both art and history might be better served by putting all of this off for another 10 years -- at least.

Like I said, I plan on watching it. But I'm sure it will rub me the wrong way in some sort or another. I do agree that it is a little soon for something like this to be made without bias creeping it's way into the doc. And it's also probably not the best timing considering the on-going election. At the very least, they probably should have waited until after November, to air this.

BTW: There's also another pretty good Documentary out that already covers some of this called 'Hacking Democracy'. It's primary focus is the flaws in electronic voting machines.

...documentaries....

?????? :D

And it's also probably not the best timing considering the on-going election.



I can’t think of a better time to air it. Everybody should be concerned and informed about electronic voting and its many flaws. If anyone thinks there wouldn’t have been an outcry if the shoe were on the other foot in the Florida debacle of 2000, they live in another universe. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue; it should be an American issue.

Come on guys, this'll be about as much of a documentary as anything Michael Moore has put on film.

With that cast, I'll be sure to watch though.

Also, and maybe I missed it, but at least the current administration isn't trying to throw up roadblocks against having this aired - unlike a certain Slick fella and his buddies tried when the 9/11 mini-series came out last year.

I can’t think of a better time to air it. Everybody should be concerned and informed about electronic voting and its many flaws. If anyone thinks there wouldn’t have been an outcry if the shoe were on the other foot in the Florida debacle of 2004, they live in another universe. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue; it should be an American issue.

Well, I was simply refering to the current situation in Florida. Electronic voting machines are an entirely different issue. But you're correct. Accurate vote taking and counting should be a concern for us all.

Come on guys, this'll be about as much of a documentary as anything Michael Moore has put on film.



And you could very well be right. But I'm going to wait until I've seen it before making a judgment.

It is obviously NOT a documentary. It seems, from seeing the promos, to be a dramatization with a bit of black comedy built into the telling of the story. I would hope that this thread is allowed to continue and I also hope that pro and con views are on hold at least till after the movie is shown once.

I plan on watching it.As will I.

And it's also probably not the best timing considering the on-going election.Seems I've heard that same sentiment clothed in many different costumes many times over the past 8 years. There's always some "ongoing investigation..." or something, which is used to somehow justify not dealing with reality or answering any questions about subjects (and usurptions) affecting all of us.

I hope this rips the scab off that wound yet again, and gets some blood boiling again. It happened in Florida in 2000, and it happened again in Ohio in 2004 (http://www.witnesstoacrime.com/), and if this dramatization (with a wonderful cast) sticks reasonably to the facts of the case maybe it will not happen again.

It is obviously NOT a documentary. It seems, from seeing the promos, to be a dramatization with a bit of black comedy built into the telling of the story. I would hope that this thread is allowed to continue and I also hope that pro and con views are on hold at least till after the movie is shown once.
I hope that Recount does have a lot of humor, that could help. One of the best black comedies about politics ever made was Primary Colors, a thinly disguised retelling of Bill Clinton’s winning 1992 presidential campaign. The main thing it had going for it was that it was based on Joe Klein’s brilliant book of the same name, published under the pseudonym, Anonymous.

The concern I have about Recount is that the 2000 Florida recount and its aftermath are exponentially more controversial and emotionally charged than the 1992 campaign. Further, it isn’t based on an outstanding book, so we have no idea what approach its writers may have taken. Still, I am encouraged that Recount may be funny because of the track record of its director, Jay Roach, who directed the first two Austin Powers movies and Meet the Parents.

Despite my reservations, I have decided to watch Recount anyway because of Roach’s presence and its incredibly talented cast.

"Recount" is not a documentary, it is a movie based upon historical events.

"Recount - This movie will chronicle five weeks between the Nov. 7, 2000, presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore and the December Supreme Court ruling that upheld Florida's count and gave Bush the White House."

I hope that Recount does have a lot of humor, that could help.

Still, I am encouraged that Recount may be funny because of the track record of its director, Jay Roach, who directed the first two Austin Powers movies and Meet the Parents.




I just hope that they stay away from over-the-top caricature and cheese factor. HBO has pretty good track record. But some of the past 'Made for TV' Docu-dramas have been pretty bad when it comes to those sorts of things.

Kevin Spacey was on Morning Joe today and discussed Recount. There is definite humor, and you need it when partaking in this kind of endeavor, and they were as accurate as history allowed them to be. Even Pat Buchanan said it was a good presentation. :eek: :)

Dan Rather did a report on HDNet last fall called “The Trouble with Touch Screens." Very disturbing and something every voter should see. You can watch it here (http://www.hd.net/drr227.html) if you are interested – and you should be.

Serioulsy though, that's some voting legacy we have - touch screens, hanging chads, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, etc. Something to be very proud of.

Guys, you had better lay off of the partisan, political BS you have been exchanging in recent posts, or the moderators are almost certainly going to shut this thread down. I, for one, am tiring of it, and I can't imagine that others aren't, too. A word to the wise.

Guys, you had better lay off of the partisan, political BS you have been exchanging in recent posts, or the moderators are almost certainly going to shut this thread down. I, for one, am tiring of it, and I can't imagine that others aren't, too. A word to the wise.

I would ask the same as gwsat. I'd like to see this thread stay open at least until after the movie airs. :)

Look, it's OK - I understand what everybody's saying. I've been in those threads that spiral into name calling and the like. And I'm sure I've guilty of it at some point. I just don't think they all need to take that path.

Here's my question though - AFTER the movie airs will it be OK to engage in heated debates of the content? I'm guessing not, but again, sure seems kind of silly considering the topic. Maybe I'll throw some compression rate stats or other mind numbingly bland numbers into the discussion to keep it "on topic." :)

Look, it's OK - I understand what everybody's saying. I've been in those threads that spiral into name calling and the like. And I'm sure I've guilty of it at some point. I just don't think they all need to take that path.

Here's my question though - AFTER the movie airs will it be OK to engage in heated debates of the content? I'm guessing not, but again, sure seems kind of silly considering the topic. Maybe I'll throw some compression rate stats or other mind numbingly bland numbers into the discussion to keep it "on topic." :)

sangs, I would love to engage in heated debates of the content. I think we could have some very good dialog on this subject (as long as it did not revert to name calling, etc.). Who knows, the "Expelled" thread last for over 300 posts.

I'm with you on this, lets give it a shot and see what happens. If we keep within forum rules (and perhaps the monitors will (please) allow us a little leaway as they have in other forums and posts) we should be able to have a good debate.

I'm with you on this, lets give it a shot and see what happens. If we keep within forum rules (and perhaps the monitors will (please) allow us a little leaway as they have in other forums and posts) we should be able to have a good debate.

Judging by this last batch of posts here that were just flushed, I doubt it. This is clearly a "No Debate" zone. In fact, we can't even debate about debating. Unless it's about resolution rates or subwoofer levels, of course. And anyone who says otherwise is a dirty, rotten, *bleep!* ;)

It's a fine line, but the content of the movie can be discussed so long as one doesn't go off on a tangent or present an argument with a political bias.

CORRECT: "The movie fails to mention counting of absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

WRONG: "The movie fails to show how the crooked (party) tards rigged the counting of the absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

Both statements say the same thing, but the second one will get tossed.

Bottom line: if the thread can't stay within the markers, we'll probably lock it.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24779246#24779246) is that 9-minute interview with Kevin Spacey on Morning Joe I mentioned earlier.

It's a fine line, but the content of the movie can be discussed so long as one doesn't go off on a tangent or present an argument with a political bias.

CORRECT: "The movie fails to mention counting of absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

WRONG: "The movie fails to show how the crooked (party) tards rigged the counting of the absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

Both statements say the same thing, but the second one will get tossed.

Bottom line: if the thread can't stay within the markers, we'll probably lock it.

Sounds reasonable to me.

WRONG: "The movie fails to show how the crooked (party) tards rigged the counting of the absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

That made me laugh out loud Dr.

ib4tl

It's certain to be over the top and cheesy, that's the appeal. Some subject can only be looked at comfortably by adding in some silly humor to lighten things up. A great example, an HBO movie called 'The Pentagon Wars'. It was about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and graft, cover-up, and dirty tricks that go into creating a new piece of major military hardware for the US in the 1980's. Had it been made in a documentary form it would just be a boring, depressing movie that throws bombs at dozens of prominent 1980s politicians. Instead they made it into a dark, sarcastic comedy--very watchable, I highly recommend it.

I have a feeling this movie will be in the same manner, cartoonish and silly but anchored by a bit of history.

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24779246#24779246) is that 9-minute interview with Kevin Spacey on Morning Joe I mentioned earlier.

Aliens, thanks for the link! Interesting interview, can't wait to see the movie.

It's a fine line, but the content of the movie can be discussed so long as one doesn't go off on a tangent or present an argument with a political bias.

CORRECT: "The movie fails to mention counting of absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

WRONG: "The movie fails to show how the crooked (party) tards rigged the counting of the absentee ballots that came in past the deadline"

Both statements say the same thing, but the second one will get tossed.

Bottom line: if the thread can't stay within the markers, we'll probably lock it.
DrDon -- those are sensible ground rules, it seems to me. The need for them should have been obvious but clearly was not, at least to some posters. Thanks for introducing a bit of adult supervision into the process. :)

On the merits of the film, I have high hopes that it will be a funny look at the political process through the prism of one of the most improbable events in American political history. That’s a fertile field for comedy, it seems to me. I am looking forward to seeing it and to reading what everybody has to say about its merits. This sort of thing has been done well before, think Primary Colors and Bulworth, so maybe Recount will be in a class with those very funny films.

For those who are interested. "Hacking Democracy" will also be on HBO at 10:30am Central time on Sunday as well.

As we approach this movie about the 2000 Florida controversy, it’s well to keep in mind that the only reason the Florida contretemps ever came up is that Bush v. Gore was the closest presidential election in U.S. history. Gore got 48.38% of the vote and Bush 47.87% and the electoral vote was Bush 271, Gore 266. Gore was the first major party candidate since George McGovern to lose his home state, Tennessee. Had Gore won Tennessee, he would not have needed Florida to win the election. There are a bunch of other oddities about the 2000 election but the only reason anybody cares is the extraordinary closeness of the vote.

A few elections have been closer than 2000’s in terms of popular vote but in the only vote that counts, the Electoral College’s, the 2000 election was in a class by itself. The election of 1876, won by Hayes, the Republican, over Tilden, the Democrat, was finally decided by a commission appointed by the Congress. Neither party had an Electoral College majority without the 22 contested votes of several southern states. It’s the only election in U.S. history that’s really in a class with 2000’s. The Congress refused to undertake to resolve the matter itself because the outcome turned upon which of the disputed panels of electoral voters should be declared to be legitimate. Speaking of legitimacy, after the 1876 election was decided in Hayes’ favor, Hayes’ political enemies referred to him as “His Illegitimacy.”

Any chance HBO is having a free preview this weekend?? :D

The real story behind this movie unfolded within living memory of all of us, and I am sure that many here felt as I did with each passing day's revelation of events over the months before SCOTUS' final resolution, what a great script was being laid down if only someone could put it together reasonably. I hope this one will, but judging from the partisans involved, I have my doubts.

The story nearest in terms of numbers of twists and turns which played out in the news in my memory was the OJ criminal trial, although not nearly of the same import, of course. Speaking of the OJ trial, where is that movie anyway?

Speaking of the OJ trial, where is that movie anyway?

They must not be able to find an actor willing to take a stab at the role.


*gets cap and coat, leaves room amid booing. :p

I predict that the movie will NOT point out that an independent group of journalists counted all the Florida ballots using the Gore team's method and Bush won, and then they counted all the ballots using the Bush team's method and Gore won.

I predict that the movie will NOT point out that an independent group of journalists counted all the Florida ballots using the Gore team's method and Bush won, and then they counted all the ballots using the Bush team's method and Gore won.
That’s correct as far as it goes but there were other studies, too. A number of independent studies were conducted after the election and the results varied. There’s a rather decent Wikipedia article about the 2000 election, which tells about the post election independent recounts:

“In the aftermath of the election, independent recounts were conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today, concluding that Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios, but that a statewide recount under the most generous standards would have given Gore a narrow victory. This count considered only "undervotes" where no vote is detected by machine, and did not consider "overvotes", such as when a voter marks a ballot for the same candidate using both the labeled space or punch-out and via the write-in space.

“Additionally, The Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center to examine 175,010 ballots that were never counted in Florida. The investigation took 8 months and cost $900,000. Their results showed that the winning candidate varied based on the method used to include or interpret ballots. For cases where all of their examiners agreed, the nine different recount scenarios resulted in Bush prevailing four times, and Gore prevailing in the other five. Ironically enough, under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

All of this just goes to show that in an election, like 2000’s, that is so close the difference in votes between the winning and losing candidates is less than the statistical margin of error, the inevitable mistakes that are made will look far worse than they would in an election that wasn’t as close. The Florida ballots alone were never going to definitively reveal who won. The winner could be determined only by applying rules as to how contested ballots would be counted and when recounting should stop. In short somebody, either The Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, had to make a more or less arbitrary decision and we know how that turned out.

The silver lining to the Florida mess and its aftermath is that despite its horrors, including terminal stupidity and, maybe, fraud the Republic muddled through just as it always has. That says a lot about us and it ought to make us proud.

DrDon -- those are sensible ground rules, it seems to me. The need for them should have been obvious but clearly was not, at least to some posters. Thanks for introducing a bit of adult supervision into the process. :)Thanks for proving that this movie and its subject matter can easily be discussed without crossing the political line. Excellent posts!!!

After reading through all of that, I couldn't help but think of the Space Program (another Government Operation ;)). Emphatically, the things that go wrong are contingencies that not even the most forward thinking people would have ever thought to go wrong. So planning on dealing with such events, never crossed anyone's mind. At least not until it was too late, and they were in the middle of one big mess!

I will watch it and the comedy should help to quell the ire....I knew of it but not when it aired.
Thank you Airboss.

After reading through all of that, I couldn't help but think of the Space Program (another Government Operation ;)). Emphatically, the things that go wrong are contingencies that not even the most forward thinking people would have ever thought to go wrong. So planning on dealing with such events, never crossed anyone's mind. At least not until it was too late, and they were in the middle of one big mess!
Yeah, that’s the immutable law that unintended consequences are inevitable. That’s why the second guess is so much more accurate than the first. In that connection, I used to know an old federal judge who was fond of saying, “Foresight is veiled and dim but hindsight is 20/20.” Indeed!

I will watch it and the comedy should help to quell the ire....I knew of it but not when it aired.
Thank you Airboss.
I agree, thank you Airboss. I also agree that there is nothing like laughing together to take the fire out of an uncomfortable situation. For example, I love the VERY liberal David E. Kelley's Boston Legal, although his politics and mine are profoundly different. Kelley's magic is that he uses his liberal political jabs to make us laugh, not in an attempt to instruct. Jay Roach, who directed Recount has an excellent comedy record, too. He directed the Austin Powers movies, Meet the Parents, and Meet the Fockers, all pretty funny films.

Here's a link to a positive review of Recount:

http://www.thefilmchair.com/wordpress/index.php/2008/05/19/tv-review-recount/

The nice thing about this flick is that you don't have to worry about spoilers. :) Did anybody else know that Sydney Pollack had signed to direct the film but had to withdraw because of health concerns? I certainly had not.

It's on in 3 hours on hdo-hd. Roeper loved it. There's also a documentary that's been on called 'Hacking Democracy' about the security of the voting machines.

Just watched the movie (Time Warner Cable in NYC) and its as good as advertised. PQ is a little grainy but passable, and for a movie about current events the soundtrack is surprisingly lively (good, unintrussive music).

I don't know if it was meant to be funny like Roeper said but to me it was riveting stuff. The star power and heart of the movie (Spacey, Leary, etc.) is clearly with the Dems but the GOP (especially Tom Wilkinson's portrayal of James Baker) is shown as more street savvy and wanting the presidency more than the other team... I'd say these discrepancies even each other out in the final product. The best complement I can pay this movie is that the air conditioner is broken in my apartment and its hot as hell, but while the flick was on I didn't even pay attention to the heat because I was so riveted by the story/acting (even though we all know how things ended up). Emmy love is sure to come "Recount's" way this September, and unlike Florida there will be no disputing of the TV Academy ballots when it comes time to choose. I give two hanging chads... I mean, hanging chad, UP! :)

Great acting, and a very clever script that managed to enforce one theory (or fact if you will) and not blame the other side at the same time (by today's fine standards of course)
What ever your point of view, you can come away thinking they got it right.

I don't think it's a big stretch to love the way they skewered Katherine Harris. Mr. Baker's treatment was more subtle.

Finally, a decent HBO flick.

I predict that the movie will NOT point out that an independent group of journalists counted all the Florida ballots using the Gore team's method and Bush won, and then they counted all the ballots using the Bush team's method and Gore won.

Interesting note, as mentioned by Leary toward the end of the movie (should have asked for a statewide recount). However, if all the ballots were counted, something that did not occur because the Supreme Court stayed the recount and then said not enough time existed for the recount (because of the Supreme Court stay!), Gore won the election.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Very enjoyable two hours - no matter which way you lean.

Although at the end, my still-wounded wife said to me, "You know what? Turns out it's too soon." Then she went on her rant against chad(s :D), SCOTUS, Gore not winning Tennessee and Bush. Of course she had no problem with all the shenanigans the Florida Supreme Court gave us - but that was expected.

BTW, Jay Roach was quoted in the Post this morning as saying there was plenty of dramatization in "Recount." He didn't say what, but said it was needed for the story. Just wanted to point that out before everybody starts citing it as gospel.

I don't think it's a big stretch to love the way they skewered Katherine Harris. Mr. Baker's treatment was more subtle.

Finally, a decent HBO flick.

Actually, the Katherine Harris portrayal was my only real nit for this film. It was the exact sort of over-the-top caricature type of performance I hoped they would have stayed away from. I felt like I was watching a SNL skit every time Laura Dern was on camera. But all in all, I thought it was a pretty good film. And I thought all of the rest of the actors played it pretty straight down the line. Kevin Spacey and Tom Wilkinson were both brilliant as Ron Klain and James Baker respectively. As the film went through it's paces it brought back a flood of memories of all those events as they played out on a day to day basis. Great little film.

First off, I LOVED Recount. It was funny, cynical, sad, and at the end moving. The performances were remarkable from top to bottom, especially Kevin Spacey’s Ron Klain and Tom Wilkinson’s Jim Baker.

Jim Baker is a complicated guy who has always interested me. He is smooth, good looking, and brilliant, but also pugnacious and a bit of a bully. I thought that Wilkinson captured all that. I also liked the way the writers told us a bit about the sadness in Baker’s life, his loyalty to his friends, and theirs to him.

I even liked Laura Dern’s portrayal of Katherine Harris. Harris was simply a pretty ex-schoolteacher from a wealthy and politically well connected family who got promoted way above her pay grade -- twice. She was as much victim as victimizer, it seems to me.

I was reminded again that Gore’s appointment of the weak and ineffectual Warren Christopher was a mistake. To its credit, the movie pulled no punches on that score. In the movie, when the Christopher appointment becomes public, Ben Ginsberg (Bob Balaban) asks, “Who are we thinking about?” At first I thought I had heard him ask, “What were they thinking?”

In the end what I liked best about the film was how its writers celebrated that, despite the brutal political infighting that went on during the Florida dispute, there were no shots fired nor troops in the streets. Once again, the system worked, although, also once again, God knows how.

The only presidential election as controversial as 2000’s was 1876. Let’s hope that something this weird won’t happen again for another 124 years.

I enjoyed the movie. I thought it leaned a bit to the left's persective and it was a bit over the top on the Harris protrayal.

A good flick. One thing for sure is that it was a very good cast and Kevin Spacey is a great actor.

Very enjoyable two hours - no matter which way you lean......

BTW, Jay Roach was quoted in the Post this morning as saying there was plenty of dramatization in "Recount." He didn't say what, but said it was needed for the story. Just wanted to point that out before everybody starts citing it as gospel.


Without a doubt! Excellent movie regardless of your politics; even thought as you mentioned there was some dramatization.

A pivotal point in the history of our country which invokes very strong emotional reponses on all sides pleasantly presented in an as unbiasis manner as possible. Enlightning, entertaining and with an exceptional cast; what more could you ask for?

Before watching 'Recount' last night I rewatched a certain 2002 documentary which covered the same event but in more detail. One area covered in much more detail was the "felony list". For anyone interested in more information pertaining to that particular incident I would suggest watching the documentary.

Thanks to Ken H for allowing this thread to continue and to everyone else for playing nicely (a least so far). I hope everyone that watched enjoyed the movie as much as I did.

First off, I LOVED Recount. It was funny, cynical, sad, and at the end moving. The performances were remarkable from top to bottom, especially Kevin Spacey’s Ron Klain and Tom Wilkinson’s Jim Baker.

Jim Baker is a complicated guy who has always interested me. He is smooth, good looking, and brilliant, but also pugnacious and a bit of a bully. I thought that Wilkinson captured all that. I also liked the way the writers told us a bit about the sadness in Baker’s life, his loyalty to his friends, and theirs to him.

I even liked Laura Dern’s portrayal of Katherine Harris. Harris was simply a pretty ex-schoolteacher from a wealthy and politically well connected family who got promoted way above her pay grade -- twice. She was as much victim as victimizer, it seems to me.

I was reminded again that Gore’s appointment of the weak and ineffectual Warren Christopher was a mistake. To its credit, the movie pulled no punches on that score. In the movie, when the Christopher appointment becomes public, Ben Ginsberg (Bob Balaban) asks, “Who are we thinking about?” At first I thought I had heard him ask, “What were they thinking?”

In the end what I liked best about the film was how its writers celebrated that, despite the brutal political infighting that went on during the Florida dispute, there were no shots fired nor troops in the streets. Once again, the system worked, although, also once again, God knows how.

The only presidential election as controversial as 2000’s was 1876. Let’s hope that something this weird won’t happen again for another 124 years.

gwsat, nicely put! I completely agree with your assessment of the movie and particularly with your comments concerning Laura Dern’s performance and your narrative of Katherine Harris.

In the end what I liked best about the film was how its writers celebrated that, despite the brutal political infighting that went on during the Florida dispute, there were no shots fired nor troops in the streets. Once again, the system worked, although, also once again, God knows how.



I would have to give the Founding Fathers full credit for this one. I think time and time again, their forsight and genius is ever present through all of our political processes.

I would have to give the Founding Fathers full credit for this one. I think time and time again, their forsight and genius is ever present through all of our political processes.
Yes, the genius of our system is that power is so diffused, no politician with some power can get away with acquiring the rest. We the People have developed such faith in the system that even in the face of the stupidity of individual politicians, we patiently let it all play out and – somehow, messy as it is – it works.

The Florida controversy reminds me of a couple of aphorisms. Finley Peter Dunn’s Mr. Dooley, famously said, “Politics ain’t beanbag,” and Otto von Bismarck equally famously said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” He was talking about legislation but his warning certainly applies to Florida in 2000.

I loved Recount. I loved Laura Dern's Katherine Harris, but I think the film makers take on her was over the top. No one THAT ditzy could be Sec of State, but then............... I LOVED her makeup for the first news conference!!!!

I loved Recount. I loved Laura Dern's Katherine Harris, but I think the film makers take on her was over the top. No one THAT ditzy could be Sec of State, but then............... I LOVED her makeup for the first news conference!!!!

I've seen Katherine Harris numerous times on TV in the past few years. And I've never seen her act like the ditz that Laura Dern portrayed her as. But I will admit, that Dern's performance was entertaining even if wholly inaccurate. In all fairness, Ms. Dern did admit that she was unable to meet and interview Katherine Harris for the role.

I've only watched the first half, but so far I'm finding it extremely entertaining. It certainly has a slight lean sympathetically towards the left, however, any political "documentary" that attempts to be wholly unpolitical is guaranteed to be a mind-numbingly boring waste of film.

Harris is over the top, but it serves to encompass her role in the process and what she represented to those pro-Gore constituents who looked at her with disbelief that she was in a position to potentially decide the leader of the free world. If it was a 2 hour movie about Harris, they could afford to be more subtle with the character - but I think in this case, the character serves its purpose.

Looking forward to watching the rest tonight.

I've seen Katherine Harris numerous times on TV in the past few years. And I've never seen her act like the ditz that Laura Dern portrayed her as. But I will admit, that Dern's performance was entertaining even if wholly inaccurate. In all fairness, Ms. Dern did admit that she was unable to meet and interview Katherine Harris for the role.
I hear you, Dern’s performance was borderline farcical but then Kathryn Harris’s conduct during the 2000 recount was borderline farcical, too, or so I thought. She was an essentially sweet lady, with only moderate political skills and fewer smarts. Thus, I think the pressure got to her with the result that she simpered and grinned a little too much, which opened her up to being skewered by every Gore campaign mouthpiece.

The viciousness of the attacks on her by Gore sympathizers is why, in an earlier post, I said that I thought she was a victim in some ways. Let me hasten to add, though, that she had some of it coming, maybe most of it.

Harris learned the hard way that “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Baker had it right when he said the dispute was going to be, “a political street fight.” There was a LOT of nastiness, on both sides. What the hell, though, Harris ended up with a couple of terms in congress, which she would never have had a shot at but for the notoriety she had in 2000.

I can’t imagine that Harris’ always seemed so silly as she did in 2000, although by the time she ran for the senate in 2006 she was so unpopular that she was openly criticized by many Republicans and in the general election her Democratic opponent won by more than a million votes.

After the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling to count all the votes, Bush's lead fell from the certified 537 to 154, and less than a full day into the recount, Scalia and four other justices decide to halt the recount with Scalia giving the reason for the action that the court is becoming "concerned that the recount may threaten irreparable harm to petitioner George Bush". WTF? Explain that reasoning. Sandra Day O'Conner was quoted by multiple witnesses as expressing great chagrin "That's Just Terrible" when at a cocktail party on election night she heard that Florida was going to Gore (Sources: Wall Street Journal; Newsweek). After the 2000 election George Bush appointed Scalia's son and Rehnquist's daughter to positions in the administration. Now wouldn't it have been interesting if "Recount" had included the preceding in the movie?

I hear you, Dern’s performance was borderline farcical but then Kathryn Harris’s conduct during the 2000 recount was borderline farcical, too, or so I thought. She was an essentially sweet lady, with only moderate political skills and fewer smarts. Thus, I think the pressure got to her with the result that she simpered and grinned a little too much, which opened her up to being skewered by every Gore campaign mouthpiece.

The viciousness of the attacks on her by Gore sympathizers is why, in an earlier post, I said that I thought she was a victim in some ways. Let me hasten to add, though, that she had some of it coming, maybe most of it.

Harris learned the hard way that “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Baker had it right when he said the dispute was going to be, “a political street fight.” There was a LOT of nastiness, on both sides. What the hell, though, Harris ended up with a couple of terms in congress, which she would never have had a shot at but for the notoriety she had in 2000.

I can’t imagine that Harris’ always seemed so silly as she did in 2000, although by the time she ran for the senate in 2006 she was so unpopular that she was openly criticized by many Republicans and in the general election her Democratic opponent won by more than a million votes.

I think we can all agree that initially, Harris was out of her league. But being in the middle of that political firestorm, it didn't take very long for her grow a pair. And at least according to the movie, it also helped that she had 'Mac the Knife' Stipanovich (played by Bruce McGill).

it also helped that she had 'Mac the Knife' Stipanovich (played by Bruce McGill).

Bruce McGill is always great. Too little screen time IMO.

After the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling to count all the votes, Bush's lead fell from the certified 537 to 154, and less than a full day into the recount, Scalia and four other justices decide to halt the recount with Scalia giving the reason for the action that the court is becoming "concerned that the recount may threaten irreparable harm to petitioner George Bush". WTF? Explain that reasoning. Sandra Day O'Conner was quoted by multiple witnesses as expressing great chagrin "That's Just Terrible" when at a cocktail party on election night she heard that Florida was going to Gore (Sources: Wall Street Journal; Newsweek). After the 2000 election George Bush appointed Scalia's son and Rehnquist's daughter to positions in the administration. Now wouldn't it have been interesting if "Recount" had included the preceding in the movie?
How one views the wisdom and intellectual honesty of what either the Florida or the US Supreme Court did really turns upon who one wanted to win the election. One side said “count all the votes,” while the other argued, “an ambiguous ballot is not a ’vote’ unless it qualifies as a vote under the law.” The arguments are equally plausible – and equally flawed.

The sad fact is that neither candidate really “won,” as we usually understand the word. Thus, election officials, the state courts, and, finally, the Supreme Court had to figure out a way to end the dispute. The losers didn’t like it but if it had ended the other way the other side would have been equally unhappy. It’s a natural reaction for those on the losing side of an emotional and hotly contested lawsuit to accuse the court that ultimately ends the dispute of stupidity, fraud, nepotism, or worse. The job of the Supreme Court is to end disputes and that’s what it did. Sometimes even the dissenting justices are mad. :)

The sad fact is that neither candidate really “won,” as we usually understand the word. Thus, election officials, the state courts, and, finally, the Supreme Court had to figure out a way to end the dispute. The losers didn’t like it but if it had ended the other way the other side would have been equally unhappy. It’s a natural reaction for those on the losing side of an emotional and hotly contested lawsuit to accuse the court that ultimately ends the dispute of stupidity, fraud, nepotism, or worse. The job of the Supreme Court is to end disputes and that’s what it did. Sometimes even the dissenting justices are mad. :)

Yeah, it is a flawed system, but it works (mostly) and it is ours and as my wife pointed out, there was no rioting in the streets or attempted armed coup as you see in other countries. Guess we can be thankful for that. Of course hanky-panky was pulled on sides. That's American politics!! Been that way for 230 years! Why stop now?! :D

Did the DNC produce that?

I have to laugh, it made the Democratic Party look like the greatest fighters of freedom since the founding fathers, and depicted the Republicans as nothing more than goose-stepping Nazi thugs.

I will say this, after watching that I am glad there was no manual recount, simply because it is very flawed. There were a lot of variables that need to be consdiered about the 2000 election, one of which is you need to take out the current situation and focus strictly on that election, looking back I wonder if it would of even mattered who really won.

Did the DNC produce that?

I have to laugh, it made the Democratic Party look like the greatest fighters of freedom since the founding fathers, and depicted the Republicans as nothing more than goose-stepping Nazi thugs.

I will say this, after watching that I am glad there was no manual recount, simply because it is very flawed. There were a lot of variables that need to be consdiered about the 2000 election, one of which is you need to take out the current situation and focus strictly on that election, looking back I wonder if it would of even mattered who really won.

I believe it would have mattered, but who knows if it would have been for the better or for the worst. There's can be no doubt thought, things would be different.

Well done. Its funny, even when you know the outcome, in a well-produced and directed movie you can still feel the tension. When they were trying to catch Gore to stop him from conceding, it was like; they’re not going to make it in time. :D

After going to YouTube and watching videos of Katherine Harris, I don’t think Laura Dern’s portrayal was that far from reality. Harris is a very dramatic and expressive person and it really stands out in debates. Here is what Laura Dern did to prepare for that role.

From the first look of shock as she emerges from the elevator to face a phalanx of cameras, Dern captures Harris's deer-in-the-headlights experience — while simultaneously making you fear for the driver of the 4x4 headed her way. But the actress never met her doppelganger. Instead, Dern relied on Danny Strong's script and Harris's autobiography, along with news footage of the secretary from the recount. "It was like twenty different people showed up in one press conference," Dern says. "There was the person presenting, 'I'm on top of my game,' with this sort of armor that she'd created with her makeup and hair. But, then there was a person that seemed deeply terrified, and didn't really understand that people were going to be able to ask questions. She'd move from covering, to blank face, to emotional, to triumphant, to terrified in a second. I had never seen so many gestures and mannerisms. It was a field day for an actor.... I couldn't believe that was legal to have that much fun."



http://www.hbo.com/films/recount/lauradern.html

I had a small checklist of things each side would hope were not in the movie. To my surprise, all were included. That made this a great movie from a "fairness" standpoint.

And I don't think the portrayal of Harris' appearance was too unfair.

Caught most of the movie and will see it all if for nothing else to learn what new propaganda will be spouted by the Sore-Loserman team.

The reality is that they got one thing right in the film, Gore had the election called for him by the media WHILE polls were open in the Florida panhandle, and despite this no matter how many ways the ballots were counted he didn't win.

Funny the media consortium including the NY Times went down and counted the whole state's ballots nine ways to Sunday and in almost every count, Gore lost.

But the movie didn't even toss in a little blurb about that in the credits. Wouldn't fit their "desired" ending how the better man didn't get the job.

And by cherry picking only pro-Gore areas for the recount, the casting of the Democrat operatives/lawyers as heroes is less than reality.

If you were a voter in any other county, the military, or Hispanic outside of their desired area, they wanted nothing to do with your vote.

And the movie completely distorted the 7-2 decision that addressed that blatant approach. Made the 7-2 vote under equal protection to be something different than what it was.

In the Hollyweird reality, Gore wins. Well you have to expect that I guess.

Since I didn't vote for either candidate I find it humorous and always think of the joke, "The Search for Gore votes continues." It seems the search will go on forever but he still loses.
Pretty amazing how close and some of the smaller tight races in other state races since.

.

Caught most of the movie and will see it all if for nothing else to learn what new propaganda will be spouted by the Sore-Loserman team.

The reality is that they got one thing right in the film, Gore had the election called for him by the media WHILE polls were open in the Florida panhandle, and despite this no matter how many ways the ballots were counted he didn't win.

Funny the media consortium including the NY Times went down and counted the whole state's ballots nine ways to Sunday and in almost every count, Gore lost.

But the movie didn't even toss in a little blurb about that in the credits. Wouldn't fit their "desired" ending how the better man didn't get the job.

And by cherry picking only pro-Gore areas for the recount, the casting of the Democrat operatives/lawyers as heroes is less than reality.

If you were a voter in any other county, the military, or Hispanic outside of their desired area, they wanted nothing to do with your vote.

And the movie completely distorted the 7-2 decision that addressed that blatant approach. Made the 7-2 vote under equal protection to be something different than what it was.

In the Hollyweird reality, Gore wins. Well you have to expect that I guess.

Since I didn't vote for either candidate I find it humorous and always think of the joke, "The Search for Gore votes continues." It seems the search will go on forever but he still loses.
Pretty amazing how close and some of the smaller tight races in other state races since.All good points and probably the reason why I couldn’t get myself to tune in... but after reading some of the opinions here, I’ll give it a shot.

the media consortium including the NY Times went down and counted the whole state's ballots nine ways to Sunday and in almost every count, Gore lost.

But the movie didn't even toss in a little blurb about that in the credits. Wouldn't fit their "desired" ending how the better man didn't get the job. I was very curious as to whether they would remind (or inform) viewers of this little tidbit of verification. It is unfortunate they didn’t include this but it doesn’t surprise me.

This movie could have been four hours and still not be able to cover everything that went on.

We all have to rememeber that this was not a documentary film, but a "based on a real event" film. That means that some relavent info will be left out and opinion will be inserted as fact. As long as you remember that and don't read anything more into it, it is an entertaining film.

I did think it was interesting that the actors playing James Baker and Warren Christorpher are both well known ENGLISH actors. It was a good cast overall and shows how both sides can "get dirty" when they have too.

Caught most of the movie and will see it all if for nothing else to learn what new propaganda will be spouted by the Sore-Loserman team.

The reality is that they got one thing right in the film, Gore had the election called for him by the media WHILE polls were open in the Florida panhandle, and despite this no matter how many ways the ballots were counted he didn't win.

Funny the media consortium including the NY Times went down and counted the whole state's ballots nine ways to Sunday and in almost every count, Gore lost.

But the movie didn't even toss in a little blurb about that in the credits. Wouldn't fit their "desired" ending how the better man didn't get the job.

And by cherry picking only pro-Gore areas for the recount, the casting of the Democrat operatives/lawyers as heroes is less than reality.

If you were a voter in any other county, the military, or Hispanic outside of their desired area, they wanted nothing to do with your vote.

And the movie completely distorted the 7-2 decision that addressed that blatant approach. Made the 7-2 vote under equal protection to be something different than what it was.

In the Hollyweird reality, Gore wins. Well you have to expect that I guess.

Since I didn't vote for either candidate I find it humorous and always think of the joke, "The Search for Gore votes continues." It seems the search will go on forever but he still loses.
Pretty amazing how close and some of the smaller tight races in other state races since.

I think that is an unfair summation.

There was very little to do with passing judgement on who was the "better" man deserving of the Presidency. The whole movie was primarily focused on the post-vote legal battle and political maneuverings on both sides. Very little hiding of the fact that both sides were only interested in "doing the right thing" defined by what was most beneficial to their side. The showed the Dems coming up with the "We want all votes counted" as a talking point while only targeting specific counties. And they certainly didn't portray the Repubs as the "villians" opposite Spacey the "hero".

I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it. I don't believe even the most Red viewers would find it as lopsided as some had originally feared (before even seeing it).

I think that is an unfair summation.

There was very little to do with passing judgement on who was the "better" man deserving of the Presidency. The whole movie was primarily focused on the post-vote legal battle and political maneuverings on both sides. Very little hiding of the fact that both sides were only interested in "doing the right thing" defined by what was most beneficial to their side. The showed the Dems coming up with the "We want all votes counted" as a talking point while only targeting specific counties. And they certainly didn't portray the Repubs as the "villians" opposite Spacey the "hero".

I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it. I don't believe even the most Red viewers would find it as lopsided as some had originally feared (before even seeing it).

+1

I did think it was interesting that the actors playing James Baker and Warren Christorpher are both well known ENGLISH actors. It was a good cast overall and shows how both sides can "get dirty" when they have too.

At first I had a hard time getting the image of that bastard Redcoat General out of my head whenever I saw Baker. Perhaps that was the intent. ;)

And I don't think the portrayal of Harris' appearance was too unfair.

Nice T shirt ;)

http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2006/08/whose-side-is-god-on.html

I don't believe even the most Red viewers would find it as lopsided as some had originally feared (before even seeing it).;) It’s opinions like this (in response to a post I agree with) that spurs my curiosity and motivates me to reevaluate my initial fears-- of not wanting to watch it. As I said, I will definitely check it out.

It's a small point, but they cast so many actors who resembled the actual participants that it was easier to watch w/o wondering who everybody was. If casting is an EMMY category, I hope this get nominated.

I forgot to respond to one other thing in romanesq's post. He made reference to "Sore-Loserman" and I have to say that was the only thing that I thought they must have deliberately tried to avoid. Those signs were everywhere during the actual protests, but none were seen in the film.

Perhaps it is a copyright issue?

At first I had a hard time getting the image of that bastard Redcoat General out of my head whenever I saw Baker. Perhaps that was the intent. ;)

Or getting the image of him out of my head from 'Michael Clayton'. Which I had just watched again on Saturday with my brother (he hadn't seen it yet).

It was truly ironic and sad that Sydney Pollack (who executive produced "Recount" along with director Jay Roach) passed away around the time the movie aired on HBO. Even in death Pollack's film work had a social relevance and class that eludes most mainstream entertainment. :(

Caught most of the movie and will see it all if for nothing else to learn what new propaganda will be spouted by the Sore-Loserman team.

Funny the media consortium including the NY Times went down and counted the whole state's ballots nine ways to Sunday and in almost every count, Gore lost.

But the movie didn't even toss in a little blurb about that in the credits. Wouldn't fit their "desired" ending how the better man didn't get the job.

And by cherry picking only pro-Gore areas for the recount, the casting of the Democrat operatives/lawyers as heroes is less than reality.



Wow, the difference in perception. And they say the Dems are still angry. ;)

To quote the Times accurately...

“Recount” does not claim that Mr. Gore was robbed of the presidency. In 2001 painstaking postmortems of the Florida count, one by The New York Times and another by a consortium of newspapers, concluded that Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied. But both studies also issued caveats about the varying standards used in different counties to count and reject ballots, including late-arriving votes from abroad, noting that had they been included and counted accurately and by the same standard, they probably would have given Mr. Gore the edge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/arts/television/23reco.html?ref=television

It was truly ironic and sad that Sydney Pollack (who executive produced "Recount" along with director Jay Roach) passed away around the time the movie aired on HBO. Even in death Pollack's film work had a social relevance and class that eludes most mainstream entertainment. :(

Sidney Pollack was in Michael Clayton as well.

At first I had a hard time getting the image of that bastard Redcoat General out of my head whenever I saw Baker. Perhaps that was the intent. ;)

You mean Ben Franklin!! :D

I didn't see this, but I wonder if it mentioned anything about the Gore campaign's pre-election (and then post-election) strategy to contest and eliminate as many as possible from the military absentee ballots? I read in 2000 their campaign's 5-page memo regarding how they could accomplish this, and being a military absentee Florida voter that year, I was quite upset by it.

To quote the Times accurately...
:D Ha! Now that sounds funny. Quoting a source accurately does not necessarily mean the statement is accurate. :p:D But in all seriousness, should that little blurb (you quoted) have been shown at the ends as a post script? I will try and refrain from commenting until I view this but I’m curious. Those that already watched it, do you think that this information should have been shown at the end?

You mean Ben Franklin!! :D

Forgot about that - a much more likable character in "John Adams".

...should that little blurb (you quoted) have been shown at the ends as a post script? I will try and refrain from commenting until I view this but I’m curious. Those that already watched it, do you think that this information should have been shown at the end?
I don’t think it was necessary because it was just chronicling the events of those 36 days. I didn’t see it as saying that Gore was cheated and should have won. You could probably cite 30 other studies about the election and then you’d have 20 minutes of endnotes at the films completion. :) There will always be somebody that will complain about something. BTW, I didn’t vote for either candidate, I chose not to vote. ;)

I didn't see this, but I wonder if it mentioned anything about the Gore campaign's pre-election (and then post-election) strategy to contest and eliminate as many as possible from the military absentee ballots? I read in 2000 their campaign's 5-page memo regarding how they could accomplish this, and being a military absentee Florida voter that year, I was quite upset by it.

Yes, that was covered.

I thought the movie was about as balanced as it could have been, given that the drama had to be told from the point of view of a protagonist. The screenwriters chose Ron Klaim, which made sense because the Gore campaign had an uphill struggle and Klaim was its point man. Gore had lost the election and the levers of power over Florida’s election machinery that would deal with the recount were mostly in the hands of George W. Bush’s brother, Jeb, and his fellow Republicans. In short, I think the tone of the film was fair.

The movie made the point early on that when Al Gore thought he had lost the popular vote, he had observed that the election would be decided by the Electoral College, not by the popular vote but a lot of his people later claimed that Bush had somehow lost the high ground by claiming the presidency after having lost the popular vote.

There was a lot of despicable conduct in the Florida election dispute that both sides should have felt less than proud about and I thought the film skewered them, pretty much without fear or favor.

Caught most of the movie and will see it all if for nothing else to learn what new propaganda will be spouted by the Sore-Loserman team.

The reality is that they got one thing right in the film, Gore had the election called for him by the media WHILE polls were open in the Florida panhandle, and despite this no matter how many ways the ballots were counted he didn't win.

Funny the media consortium including the NY Times went down and counted the whole state's ballots nine ways to Sunday and in almost every count, Gore lost.

But the movie didn't even toss in a little blurb about that in the credits. Wouldn't fit their "desired" ending how the better man didn't get the job.

And by cherry picking only pro-Gore areas for the recount, the casting of the Democrat operatives/lawyers as heroes is less than reality.

If you were a voter in any other county, the military, or Hispanic outside of their desired area, they wanted nothing to do with your vote.

And the movie completely distorted the 7-2 decision that addressed that blatant approach. Made the 7-2 vote under equal protection to be something different than what it was.

In the Hollyweird reality, Gore wins. Well you have to expect that I guess.

Since I didn't vote for either candidate I find it humorous and always think of the joke, "The Search for Gore votes continues." It seems the search will go on forever but he still loses.
Pretty amazing how close and some of the smaller tight races in other state races since.

Actually Gore won in every case where the votes were recounted statewide.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

...the casting of the Democrat operatives/lawyersThere is no such proper English phrase as "Democrat operatives/lawyers".

When used as an adjective, the proper English word for the above usage is "Democratic", not "Democrat" which is a noun.

The use of the truncated form is, as you no doubt well know, a fairly recent intentional "insult" created/invented over the past few years by Karl Rove and picked up and used by all on that side who follow him. There is no other reason to use it in such improper ways other than to demean and insult, and kick up the neck hairs of Democrats as a needle.

Democratic candidate, Democratic operatives/lawyers, whatever you care to use it along with... the proper adjective usage is "Democratic". There has never been a "Democrat party" usage in the English language... until recently... and for good reason. It's not correct, and it doesn't exist. It is the "Democratic party".


And the movie completely distorted the 7-2 decision that addressed that blatant approach. Made the 7-2 vote under equal protection to be something different than what it was.I believe the paragraph in their decision which stated "this decision is NOT to be used for any other case aside from this one" speaks for itself. This was a state's rights voter law issue and should have stayed in Florida.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the general consensus was that this "decision" was NOT good law.

Actually Gore won in every case where the votes were recounted statewide.Actually... if wishes were horses...

:rolleyes: It's posts like that with links that fit that makes me tune to the basketball game instead.


Here's another take on the NORC findings..
NORC reported serious problems with record keeping at many local election offices. NORC relied on these offices to produce the rejected ballots, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

and so it goes... get over it.

Maybe it's just me getting older and seeing politics more cynically, but is there anyone else here who feels as I do that there is hardly a less interesting subject than this to do a movie on?

In Florida, state supreme court justices can be recalled. I remember well searching for the names of any of those on that court who voted to ignore the existing FL statutes and re-write their own rules on-the-spot...I voted to recall everyone who did that, the first chance I got.

I laughed when the FL supreme court chief justice finally chided the others on the court for one of their decisions that effectively re-wrote the statute (he had voted with them the first time)--he told them that they were just begging the USSC to engage the issue. Perhaps they were? Wash their hands of the whole situation, and let the USSC take the heat for "selecting" a president? Who knows?

When used as an adjective, the proper English word for the above usage is "Democratic", not "Democrat" which is a noun.


I don't view the name of a political party as an adjective; rather, it is a proper noun.

Since you're picking over grammar...

I believe the paragraph in their decision which stated "this decision is NOT to be used for any other case aside from this one" speaks for itself. This was a state's rights voter law issue and should have stayed in Florida.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the general consensus was that this "decision" was NOT good law.
This was neither the Florida Supreme Court’s nor the US Supreme Court’s finest hour. The litigation was about resolving the dispute and, if possible, avoiding a constitutional crises. The US Supreme Court’s opinion, questionable though it was, did just that. The Florida court couldn’t have.

Here’s my take on what would have happened if the US Supreme Court had allowed the matter before the Florida Supreme Court to continue. If, after the days or perhaps weeks that would have passed, while the Florida court’s mandated recount was taking place the Republican majority in the Florida legislature, who had already called a special session to name electors, was poised to name its own slate of electors. What this means is that if, as cynics claimed, the Florida court was intent on having the recounts continue until Gore won, then there would have been two competing sets of electors. The legislature’s electors would argue that the recount results should be ignored because they came long after the time limit allowed by both state and federal law. Neither Bush nor Gore would have had an Electoral College majority. Thus, much later, the matter would have been decided by the US Congress where its Republican majority would, almost certainly, have given the election to Bush anyway.

Jesus, what a mess! :)

Actually... if wishes were horses...

:rolleyes: It's posts like that with links that fit that makes me tune to the basketball game instead.



Here's another take on the NORC findings..

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

and so it goes... get over it.

Huh? It's not a wish; it's a fact. Check out the report referenced by the link rather than tuning into the basketball game.


Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000

Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)

Review Method Winner Margin of Victory

Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore 171 votes
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore 115 votes
Any dimples or optical mark Gore 107 votes
One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore 60 votes

Tread lightly folks. Don't stray too far from the movie.

Maybe it's just me getting older and seeing politics more cynically, but is there anyone else here who feels as I do that there is hardly a less interesting subject than this to do a movie on?
I'm a politics junkie so I loved it. Nevertheless, I, too, am surprised at how many people here, on both sides of the political spectrum, thought that Recount was a terrific film.

Actually... if wishes were horses...

:rolleyes: It's posts like that with links that fit that makes me tune to the basketball game instead.


Here's another take on the NORC findings..

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

and so it goes... get over it.

and so it goes....

It seems many here are forgetting the thousands of people that were not allowed to vote due to the flawed Florida list of purged voters (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DEEDC103BF933A25754C0A9629C8B63). There were thousands of people on that list that should not have been and therefore were not allowed to vote; the majority of which would have voted Democratic.

Huh? It's not a wish; it's a fact. Check out the report referenced rather than tuning into the basketball game.
I did read it, which is why I posted the follow up article. There are countless studies out there to reference a point.

Hopefully this film will be a reminder that voting irregularities have not been dealt with—and should be.

It's a small point, but they cast so many actors who resembled the actual participants that it was easier to watch w/o wondering who everybody was. If casting is an EMMY category, I hope this get nominated.

I also thought this. For example, I was waiting for Gore's attorney when the the scene shifted to the kitchen scene, and I knew it was him just by his appearance. Excellent job.

I also thought this. For example, I was waiting for Gore's attorney when the the scene shifted to the kitchen scene, and I knew it was him just by his appearance. Excellent job.
I agree that Ed Begley Jr. looked eerily like the real life David Boies. In fact, Begley looked more like Boies than he did himself. I thought that Tom Wilkinson, as Jim Baker, and John Hurt, as Warren Christopher, captured the essence of each man almost perfectly, although neither particularly resembles in real life the character he played in the film.

I did read it, which is why I posted the follow up article. There are countless studies out there to reference a point.

Hopefully this film will be a reminder that voting irregularities have not been dealt with—and should be.

Even your linked article shows that Gore won if the all the votes (undervotes and overvotes) were counted.

I hope igreg can give it a rest. As the NYTimes said,
"Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63

No need to delve further into the media recounts - it will only take the thread to a dark place. ;)

Additional comments will be deleted.

I don't view the name of a political party as an adjective; rather, it is a proper noun.Agreed completely, with respect to the polictical party's name. It is the "Democratic Party"... a 2-word phrase. Calling it the "Democrat Party" is wrong, but clearly intentional mis-speak. Noun-phrase.

Members of that party are Democrats, singular Democrat. Noun.

Agents and representatives of that party are, however, Democratic lawyers, Democratic operatives, Democratic candidates, Democratic nominee, Democratic delegates, whatever. When used as an adjective, the only real and correct word to use is "Democratic" (capital "D"). Adjective.

===> There is no proper usage "Democrat operative/lawyers" (or "Democrat anything..."), which is a recently coined intentional grammatically incorrect mis-structure with a very clear and obvious agenda (and which I find offensive, hence I speak out against it).

Anyway, that's just how I see it.


Regarding the movie itself, I did think it was reasonably fair to both sides. I think it accurately portrayed things as I had viewed them myself 8 years ago... that the Republicans had better "shark-like" lawyers than the Democrats did. Also, the fleeting reference to the 18 counties which did not actually re-read the ballots through the machines, but merely re-submitted the totals already submitted, drove me crazy.

I was particularly riled [again] by the portrayal (and resulting reminder) of the "storming" Miami Dade County Courthouse by the out-of-state "operatives" brought in to "exercise some First Amendment rights" as Jim Baker verbalized in the film, resulting in the successful intimidation of the hand-counters and the subsequent decision by the board to shut down the process before it completed.


In my opinion in the real world (and in this film dramatization as well) David Boies never made convincing arguments, nor did Lawrence Tribe up at the Supreme Court in Washington. The Democrats were poorly represented.

No matter what I felt about the whole case, I remember observing that even starting down at the lower levels all lawyers argued poorly and inconvincingly and didn't make the points I would have made (had I been arguing). Hence the continuing series of defeats (even after earlier victories).

And as much as Ed Begley looked like David Boies, his performance was even more realistic to me... reinforcing one more time for me that for "the top lawyer in the country" he was suprisingly disappointing in making killing points to the Court. Just much as Warren Christopher was an early liability to the whole action resulting in unfortunate and fatal delays, the Democrats were simply out-gunned.

Bob Balaban's Ben Ginsburg was excellent and accurate (yes, back-handed compliment).

I believe the paragraph in their decision which stated "this decision is NOT to be used for any other case aside from this one" speaks for itself. This was a state's rights voter law issue and should have stayed in Florida.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the general consensus was that this "decision" was NOT good law.

I am a lawyer, so I could not resist commenting. The actual quote in the USSC opinion is:

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It was clear from the outset that, although the film was unquestionably partisan toward the Gore point of view, the writers made an effort to be reasonable in their portrayal. For me, they only "jumped the shark" on two points - the first being Dern's over-the-top performance of Harris. I mean, really, it strains credulity that anyone so vacuous could rise to statewide office. On the other hand, the character was fun to watch and the essence of the point, that Harris was probably controlled by Republican advisers, I thought was fair.

What was unfair, however, is the hand-wringing over the above quoted language, and the bold but manifestly untrue comment that the USSC never limits cases to their specific facts. The truth is, this is almost always done in legal opinions. For the writers to claim that competent lawyers thought otherwise ruined the believability of the movie for me.

There was no "general consensus" that the USSC opinion was not good law that I'm aware of. Indeed, the fact that the equal protection issue (which, by the way, is a federal 14th Amendment issue, not a state law claim) was decided 7-2 demonstrates that, to the extent any consensus existed, it was that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was fatally flawed.

In any event, if you take out the mis-characterization of the USSC decision, and treat Dern's performance as "fun", the film was only somewhat biased and worth a watch.

I know this is straying off topic, but I must ask. If Democrat is a noun. Then isn't it proper to say Democrat Lawyer? After all, in the strictest sense, a Lawyer can be democratic, but not be a Democrat. Besides, no one says 'Republicanic' Lawyers, now do they? :p

I was hoping to catch it tonight, since HBO repeats things ad nauseam, but I have to wait until Thursday for it, in HD of course.

I assumed from all your posts in the thread you had already viewed it.

I assumed from all your posts in the thread you had already viewed it. No, in fact I stated repeatedly in those posts that I haven’t. ;) I’ll have to wait a couple of more days. No biggie, what’s a couple of days to wait when we’re dealing with 36? :cool:

Besides, no one says 'Republicanic' Lawyers, now do they? :pWell, why is "chad" the plural of "chad"?

English is a highly irregular language. And the word "Republican" wears many costumes.

You are a Republican, amongst Republicans. Republican here is a noun.

It is the Republican Party (not Republic Party, or Republicanic Party). 2-word noun phrase, based around the word Republican.

John McCain is the Republican candidate (not Republic candidate or Republicanic candidate). Republican is used here as an adjective.

The same is not the case with the word and usage for Democrat and Democratic. It's just different.

And I maintain that there's still no excuse to invent a mis-usage of the word "Democrat" for pure spite and venom. There has never been a "Democrat Party", or "Democrat convention", or "Democrat Congress", or "Democrat nominee", until the last few years (mostly post-2006).

For me, they only "jumped the shark" on two points - the first being Dern's over-the-top performance of Harris. I mean, really, it strains credulity that anyone so vacuous could rise to statewide office.

Dern's performance of Harris was not that far "over-the-top" and if you don't think KH could be so inane just do a search on youtube.com for "Katherine Harris (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=katherine+harris&search_type=)" and watch some of her live interviews. This IS Katherine Harris being Katherine Harris and from the videos I've viewed Dern was not that far off base!

...And I maintain that there's still no excuse to invent a mis-usage of the word "Democrat" for pure spite and venom. ...I am sure that there are some who say it to irk (just like the words Liberal or Neocon are thrown around with such vitriol) but I believe there are plenty more people who use the incorrect version with no malicious intent. I’ve heard that version long before Mr. Rove hit the scene.

I am a lawyer, so I could not resist commenting. The actual quote in the USSC opinion is:

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It was clear from the outset that, although the film was unquestionably partisan toward the Gore point of view, the writers made an effort to be reasonable in their portrayal. For me, they only "jumped the shark" on two points - the first being Dern's over-the-top performance of Harris. I mean, really, it strains credulity that anyone so vacuous could rise to statewide office. On the other hand, the character was fun to watch and the essence of the point, that Harris was probably controlled by Republican advisers, I thought was fair.

What was unfair, however, is the hand-wringing over the above quoted language, and the bold but manifestly untrue comment that the USSC never limits cases to their specific facts. The truth is, this is almost always done in legal opinions. For the writers to claim that competent lawyers thought otherwise ruined the believability of the movie for me.

There was no "general consensus" that the USSC opinion was not good law that I'm aware of. Indeed, the fact that the equal protection issue (which, by the way, is a federal 14th Amendment issue, not a state law claim) was decided 7-2 demonstrates that, to the extent any consensus existed, it was that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was fatally flawed.

In any event, if you take out the mis-characterization of the USSC decision, and treat Dern's performance as "fun", the film was only somewhat biased and worth a watch.


NY Times (8/16/06): The majority opinion announced that the ruling was “limited to the present circumstances” and could not be cited as precedent. But many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum — the part of a legal opinion that is nonbinding — and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case.

No concerns on bad law? Constitutional Law Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, Harry L. Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago:

"The majority's five-to-four decision not to remand the case to enable Florida to conduct a constitutionally appropriate recount with a more specific definition of "intent of the voter" has been attacked by almost everyone (emphasis added). The majority asserted that because the Florida legislature may have intended to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provision of federal law, which required a selection of electors by December 12--the date of the Supreme Court's decision, there was simply no time left for any further recount. There is virtually no one (emphasis added) who will defend this conclusion as a matter of law. Even as respected a conservative legal scholar as Michael McConnell has strongly chastised the Court on this count, noting that although the Florida legislature could theoretically have adopted such a statute, in fact it never did so."

"The majority were concerned that, in searching for the "intent of the voter," and in giving meaning to ballots with dimpled and hanging chads, "the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but [even] within a single county." The majority therefore concluded that the "recount mechanisms implemented [by] the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right" to equal protection. Although this argument was endorsed by seven of the nine Justices--all but Stevens and Ginsburg--it has generally been treated with derision by liberal and conservative commentators alike. As my liberal colleague Cass Sunstein has noted, the Court's Equal Protection conclusion "lacked all support in precedent and history . . . and clearly ignored a host of problems as serious as those it addressed." Not to be outdone, my conservative colleague Richard Epstein has sniped that the Court's equal protection argument is "a confused nonstarter at best, which deserves much of the scorn that has been heaped upon it."

Professor Pam Karlan of the Stanford Law School has observed: "A court that believes that the real problem in Florida was the disparities in the manual recount standards, rather than the disparities in a voter's overall chance of casting a ballot that is actually counted, has strained at a gnat only to ignore an elephant."

And you can find literally hundreds of attorneys that speak similar of the Supreme Court's actions. In fact, a consensus.

And the above doesn't even take into account the inexplicable stopping of the recount by the Supreme Court with the justification that, "if the recount is not stopped it will threaten irreparable harm to George Bush". Nobody on this forum has been able to explain that one. Anybody want to try?

Last warning. Keep on topic and off political issues.

I liked this movie and took it for what its worth, which is a movie loosely based on factual happenings....I watched it with the fiancee and she was even getting "heated" and "falling for the "suspense" of the scene where they try to catch Gore in the beginning.

While I did vote for one party, I thought they did a good job on showing the good\bad of both sides. I did see a "slant" but it was ever so slight and probably needed for this type of movie. As it was said before, if this movie did this story without slant it might have been not as entertaining as it was.

IMO I thought Spacey did a brilliant job, and I hope that when the Emmys come out this movie gets a few nods......

Ron Klain is still trying to devise a strategy, if even a long-shot, for Gore to win after the Supreme Court decision, until Gore tells him to quit. What type of strategy was he trying to employ? I thought the Supreme Court decision made it unequivocal that Bush won the election, with no options remaining.

I think that is an unfair summation.

There was very little to do with passing judgement on who was the "better" man deserving of the Presidency. The whole movie was primarily focused on the post-vote legal battle and political maneuverings on both sides. Very little hiding of the fact that both sides were only interested in "doing the right thing" defined by what was most beneficial to their side. The showed the Dems coming up with the "We want all votes counted" as a talking point while only targeting specific counties. And they certainly didn't portray the Repubs as the "villians" opposite Spacey the "hero".

I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it. I don't believe even the most Red viewers would find it as lopsided as some had originally feared (before even seeing it).

Sorry but the choice of words on the "better man" is how the movie itself chose to end, not mine.

And again, they did not even insert a blurb on the various media recounts that again showed Gore did not win.

So how one concludes differently is entirely up to you. But I've stated my summary based on the facts and the movie, nothing more.

I voted for a third party candidate so I didn't have a pony in the race. But I still have common sense. :cool:

I think the real lesson learned from the whole experience is that the vote-casting mechanisms (and counting mechanisms), eligible/disqualified voter lists, etc., as instituted by laws and legislators all over the country, were inconsistent and totally inadequate to deal with resolving even a reasonably close election to the satisfaction of the citizenry.

Landslides, or 60-40, 55-45... fine. No one's going to claim "foul". But make it really close (like 1,000 votes out of 5,000,000) and politics rears its ugly head and and the fatal flaws in the whole voting system as of year 2000 become obvious.

What if the appropriate statewide manual recount of all counties had taken place, and the results put one side or the other up by 10 votes? Would that have satisfied everyone, or would there still have been screams from both sides about votes/non-votes? How close does it have to be, or how one-sided does the result have to be, before a true "victor" can be agreed upon?

It is (or was, and apparently still is) simply impossible to perform two consecutive counts and get the same numbers using the machine-recount voting mechanisms in place. And when you're looking for 95 miscounted votes here, or 25 miscounted votes there, and human judgment in a manual-recount is then involved as opposed to 100% foolproof indisputable totalizers of some sort... well some better system is really needed.

Would we allow this kind of "close enough" result on our monthly bank or credit card statements? Would we tolerate it?

So here we are, 8 years later, and what have we learned? How have we progressed?

Seems like if there had been a genuine bi-partisan and honest national desire to have this situation resolved so that an incident like it could truly never happen again, there would have been proper Federal legislation passed by now to prevent its ever happening again and to require 100% foolproof mechanisms for casting votes that we all trust 100% (as we do with the millions of ATM machines around the planet).

Obviously, 8 years later (6 of them under the bulletproof control of one party), it's clear "the powers that be" and the citizenry have no genuine interest (or ability) to force the apolitical guaranteeing that every vote cast will be accurately counted and that there's zero "wiggle room". Astonishingly, partisan politics has seemingly won out despite this issue that affects 100% of us as Americans.

Perhaps some day that will change.

Off topic comments deleted.

How in the world can this program be discussed without getting into "political issues" when the subject was completely about politics? There's only so much to be said about the HD resolution or 16:9 camera angles.

You can discuss the political aspects of the movie.

How in the world can this program be discussed without getting into "political issues" when the subject was completely about politics? There's only so much to be said about the HD resolution or 16:9 camera angles.Of course these things can be discussed. Threads usually stay open as long as we stay focused on the topic, respect each others views, avoid personal attacks, and refrain from petulant rants. I am glad this thread is here because the film’s theme is not my style of entertainment—but-- after reading post by several folks whose opinions I respect, though not necessarily always agree with, I now have a different outlook.

I think the real lesson learned from the whole experience is that the vote-casting mechanisms (and counting mechanisms), eligible/disqualified voter lists, etc., as instituted by laws and legislators all over the country, were inconsistent and totally inadequate to deal with resolving even a reasonably close election to the satisfaction of the citizenry.

Landslides, or 60-40, 55-45... fine. No one's going to claim "foul". But make it really close (like 1,000 votes out of 5,000,000) and politics rears its ugly head and and the fatal flaws in the whole voting system as of year 2000 become obvious.

What if the appropriate statewide manual recount of all counties had taken place, and the results put one side or the other up by 10 votes? Would that have satisfied everyone, or would there still have been screams from both sides about votes/non-votes? How close does it have to be, or how one-sided does the result have to be, before a true "victor" can be agreed upon?

It is (or was, and apparently still is) simply impossible to perform two consecutive counts and get the same numbers using the machine-recount voting mechanisms in place. And when you're looking for 95 miscounted votes here, or 25 miscounted votes there, and human judgment in a manual-recount is then involved as opposed to 100% foolproof indisputable totalizers of some sort... well some better system is really needed.

Would we allow this kind of "close enough" result on our monthly bank or credit card statements? Would we tolerate it?

So here we are, 8 years later, and what have we learned? How have we progressed?

Seems like if there had been a genuine bi-partisan and honest national desire to have this situation resolved so that an incident like it could truly never happen again, there would have been proper Federal legislation passed by now to prevent its ever happening again and to require 100% foolproof mechanisms for casting votes that we all trust 100% (as we do with the millions of ATM machines around the planet).

Obviously, 8 years later (6 of them under the bulletproof control of one party), it's clear "the powers that be" and the citizenry have no genuine interest (or ability) to force the apolitical guaranteeing that every vote cast will be accurately counted and that there's zero "wiggle room". Astonishingly, partisan politics has seemingly won out despite this issue that affects 100% of us as Americans.

Perhaps some day that will change.


That pretty much hits the nail on the head! I agree with DSperber, why haven't we learned from the mistakes made in 2000 and taken action to correct them? Why isn't voter protection (in the form of everyones vote counts) taken more seriously?

I think above all else the movie provides us with enough evidence that something needs to be done to 'fix' the system; perhaps it's time to replace the 'Electoral College' with a direct popular vote.

I think above all else the movie provides us with enough evidence that something needs to be done to 'fix' the system; perhaps it's time to replace the 'Electoral College' with a direct popular vote.Making sure votes count is the paramount concern, as in the “physical” process—chads, faulty machines, proper identification, etc. The Electoral College is an entire different discussion. We have one party with their own unique mini Electoral College thing going on with their super delegates. Not to mention that some states allow open elections for primaries. Yes, I think there is much to fix.

Making sure votes count is the paramount concern, as in the “physical” process—chads, faulty machines, proper identification, etc. The Electoral College is an entire different discussion. We have one party with their own unique mini Electoral College thing going on with their super delegates. Not to mention that some states allow open elections for primaries. Yes, I think there is much to fix.

While I agree there is much to be done, and Recount just reminds us of that, until it becomes a NATIONAL issue and not a state issue, we can enjoy more films like Recount. Sad, but true.

Making sure votes count is the paramount concern, as in the “physical” process—chads, faulty machines, proper identification, etc. The Electoral College is an entire different discussion. We have one party with their own unique mini Electoral College thing going on with their super delegates. Not to mention that some states allow open elections for primaries. Yes, I think there is much to fix.

Yes, the Electoral College is a completely different matter from the focus of 'Recount'. The primaries aren't really on topic either, since those rules are decided by the individual parties themselves.

As far as 'fixing' things due to the issues which cropped up in the 2000 Election; I don't know if those sorts of things can ever be fixed. It seems that we're a long way off from having any sort of voting system that is ever going to be 100% accurate and 100% verifiable. And 'Recount' just showed how complex of a task achieving such accuracy would be.

While I agree there is much to be done, and Recount just reminds us of that, until it becomes a NATIONAL issue and not a state issue, we can enjoy more films like Recount. Sad, but true.
Florida made it a national issue.

The problem is, Americans suffer from national amnesia. What we’re pissed at one day, we forget about the next. Too many things going on in our daily lives and too many things that are good about those lives that we tend to let things slide. Remember the oil shortages and prices of the 70’s? And where are we now?

No need to delve further into the media recounts - it will only take the thread to a dark place. ;)

Additional comments will be deleted.
That’s a good idea because at least as many ambiguities inhere in the unofficial post-election recounts as there were in the official recounts. In short, it’s an arid exercise because the election was and remains, “too close to call,” no matter how many recounts there are.

I am a lawyer, so I could not resist commenting. The actual quote in the USSC opinion is:

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. It was clear from the outset that, although the film was unquestionably partisan toward the Gore point of view, the writers made an effort to be reasonable in their portrayal. For me, they only "jumped the shark" on two points - the first being Dern's over-the-top performance of Harris. I mean, really, it strains credulity that anyone so vacuous could rise to statewide office. On the other hand, the character was fun to watch and the essence of the point, that Harris was probably controlled by Republican advisers, I thought was fair.

What was unfair, however, is the hand-wringing over the above quoted language, and the bold but manifestly untrue comment that the USSC never limits cases to their specific facts. The truth is, this is almost always done in legal opinions. For the writers to claim that competent lawyers thought otherwise ruined the believability of the movie for me.

There was no "general consensus" that the USSC opinion was not good law that I'm aware of. Indeed, the fact that the equal protection issue (which, by the way, is a federal 14th Amendment issue, not a state law claim) was decided 7-2 demonstrates that, to the extent any consensus existed, it was that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was fatally flawed.

In any event, if you take out the mis-characterization of the USSC decision, and treat Dern's performance as "fun", the film was only somewhat biased and worth a watch.
I am a lawyer, too, and I agree that it’s far from unprecedented for an appellate court to limit one of its opinions, “to its facts.” Nevertheless, doing so is pretty rare and does, indeed, raise questions about how much confidence the court has in its legal reasoning. My feeling is that the Supreme Court’s majority ruled as it did because it feared a constitutional crises if it didn’t end the dispute immediately so that’s what it did, despite the shaky legal underpinning for its opinion. The wisdom of that, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

As noted in earlier posts, I recall watching the 2000 Florida recount drama play out and thinking that Kathryn Harris came across as being remarkably insubstantial and insincere. Thus, I thought that Laura Dern’s take on Harris’ persona was both fair and funny. That said, I still sympathize with Harris. She had no idea what she was getting herself into when she became Secretary of State and she was profoundly unprepared to preside over the political firestorm of historic proportions that the 2000 Florida recount became. It could have happened to anyone who had just been thrown off a cliff. :)

[

I am a lawyer, too, and I agree that it’s far from unprecedented for an appellate court to limit one of its opinions, “to its facts.” Nevertheless, doing so is pretty rare and does, indeed, raise questions about how much confidence the court has in its legal reasoning. My feeling is that the Supreme Court’s majority ruled as it did because it feared a constitutional crises if it didn’t end the dispute immediately so that’s what it did, despite the shaky legal underpinning for its opinion. The wisdom of that, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

As noted in earlier posts, I recall watching the 2000 Florida recount drama play out and thinking that Kathryn Harris came across as being remarkably insubstantial and insincere. Thus, I thought that Laura Dern’s take on Harris’ persona was both fair and funny. That said, I still sympathize with Harris. She had no idea what she was getting herself into when she became Secretary of State and she was profoundly unprepared to preside over the political firestorm of historic proportions that the 2000 Florida recount became. It could have happened to anyone who had just been thrown off a cliff. :)

Fair points you make. As we know, all appellate decisions are, in effect, "limited to their facts". Indeed, it is the job of appellate lawyers to distinguish unfavorable cases by bringing up the differences in factual background. Nevertheless, I do agree that it is relatively uncommon for judges to highlight this point in their opinion, and it is typically done only where the facts are particularly eggregious or where the legal conclusions will be controversial. "Bad facts make bad law", so it is said. My point remains though, for the writers to add the dialog "This is never done!!!" is more than a stretch, and shows that their legal consultants were either asleep at the wheel or overruled for the sake of a better story.

I also completely agree that Kathryn Harris was out of her depth, and as I said earlier, believe that she allowed herself to be controlled by operatives from her party. Dern's performance "fair"? Not sure, I guess I'd have to meet the lady. Funny? Definately! Appropriate? I'd have to say yes, in the context of the story. Even if the story was told from a Republican slant, Harris would have to be portreyed as a lightweight, but you'd perhaps be shown a little more of her human side (i.e., toiling over the magnitude of her task).

Fair points you make. As we know, all appellate decisions are, in effect, "limited to their facts". Indeed, it is the job of appellate lawyers to distinguish unfavorable cases by bringing up the differences in factual background. Nevertheless, I do agree that it is relatively uncommon for judges to highlight this point in their opinion, and it is typically done only where the facts are particularly eggregious or where the legal conclusions will be controversial. "Bad facts make bad law", so it is said. My point remains though, for the writers to add the dialog "This is never done!!!" is more than a stretch, and shows that their legal consultants were either asleep at the wheel or overruled for the sake of a better story.

I also completely agree that Kathryn Harris was out of her depth, and as I said earlier, believe that she allowed herself to be controlled by operatives from her party. Dern's performance "fair"? Not sure, I guess I'd have to meet the lady. Funny? Definately! Appropriate? I'd have to say yes, in the context of the story. Even if the story was told from a Republican slant, Harris would have to be portreyed as a lightweight, but you'd perhaps be shown a little more of her human side (i.e., toiling over the magnitude of her task).
I agree with your analysis that many, perhaps most, opinions that end up being “limited to their facts” fall in the well known, “Bad cases make bad law,” category. I had failed to appreciate the “This is never done!” line from the film. Now, though, I agree that, as often the case fact-based dramas, factual accuracy gave place to good storytelling.

You have a point in suggesting that the writers could have shown a bit more of the human side of Harris. If she were actually one-hundred percent as ditzy one-hundred percent of the time, as she was portrayed by Dern, she couldn’t have been elected dogcatcher, much less been sent to congress, it seems to me.

If she were actually one-hundred percent as ditzy one-hundred percent of the time, as she was portrayed by Dern, she couldn’t have been elected dogcatcher, much less been sent to congress, it seems to me.

If you have not already done so please take the time to view some of her interviews on youtube and see if that does not change your mind.

Not saying she is 100% ditzy 100% of the time nor am I disagreeing that Dern did play her "a little" over the top but after viewing her in action it should make you wonder how she ever made it to congress.

Make your own caption.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/10/us/10bush2.450.jpg

If you have not already done so please take the time to view some of her interviews on youtube and see if that does not change your mind.

Not saying she is 100% ditzy 100% of the time nor am I disagreeing that Dern did play her "a little" over the top but after viewing her in action it should make you wonder how she ever made it to congress.

Some people just don't interview or come across well. But that doesn't mean that they're not intelligent. Many people in Congress are like this... and... uh... oh... nevermind. I just realized that in a round-about way, I'm trying to say Congress is intelligent. ;)

Make your own caption.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/10/us/10bush2.450.jpg

"What a BEEEE-UUUUTEEEE-FULL morning!!"

Make your own caption.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/10/us/10bush2.450.jpg

"Pardon me Jeb while I catch some rays!"

I suspect that Harris' election to congress had as much to do with the people sympathizing with her over the vicious attacks the Gore spin machine mounted against her as it did with competence. Further, from all indications she wasn't stupid, she was just ditzy. :) In the interests of fairness, I should observe that I am sure the Bush spin machine would have been equally vicious if he had found itself in Gore's situation.

Florida made it a national issue.

The problem is, Americans suffer from national amnesia. What we’re pissed at one day, we forget about the next. Too many things going on in our daily lives and too many things that are good about those lives that we tend to let things slide. Remember the oil shortages and prices of the 70’s? And where are we now?

Not only that, but if you do pursue it you get hit with comments like ..."Get Over It" by Justice Scalia, or "put it to rest", and then there is the ubiquitous "Get a Life" retort....an on and on. You only have to look at this thread to see plenty of examples.

Fair points you make. As we know, all appellate decisions are, in effect, "limited to their facts". Indeed, it is the job of appellate lawyers to distinguish unfavorable cases by bringing up the differences in factual background. Nevertheless, I do agree that it is relatively uncommon for judges to highlight this point in their opinion, and it is typically done only where the facts are particularly eggregious or where the legal conclusions will be controversial. "Bad facts make bad law", so it is said. My point remains though, for the writers to add the dialog "This is never done!!!" is more than a stretch, and shows that their legal consultants were either asleep at the wheel or overruled for the sake of a better story.

I also completely agree that Kathryn Harris was out of her depth, and as I said earlier, believe that she allowed herself to be controlled by operatives from her party. Dern's performance "fair"? Not sure, I guess I'd have to meet the lady. Funny? Definately! Appropriate? I'd have to say yes, in the context of the story. Even if the story was told from a Republican slant, Harris would have to be portreyed as a lightweight, but you'd perhaps be shown a little more of her human side (i.e., toiling over the magnitude of her task).

Ok, how many times has the Supreme Court issued a similar statement, "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances?" The answer to that question should settle the issue of whether "Recount's" legal consultants were either "asleep at the wheel or overruled for the sake of a better story". Anyone know?

Originally Posted by Aliens
The problem is, Americans suffer from national amnesia. What we’re pissed at one day, we forget about the next. Too many things going on in our daily lives and too many things that are good about those lives that we tend to let things slide. Remember the oil shortages and prices of the 70’s? And where are we now?
Not only that, but if you do pursue it you get hit with comments like ..."Get Over It" by Justice Scalia, or "put it to rest", and then there is the ubiquitous "Get a Life" retort....an on and on. You only have to look at this thread to see plenty of examples. I agree with Aliens regarding the oil situation. 30 years ago we got a taste of it and now here we are choking on it. This is something (for me, in my opinion) to be upset about when hearing phrases like “get over it… etc.” I don’t equate the oil crises and the theme of Recount as similar failed obsessions.

Making sure votes count is the paramount concern, as in the “physical” process—chads, faulty machines, proper identification, etc.This really is the point.

In reading that Keating study PDF it was made plain that the major source of the spoiled ballots was mis-design in individual counties, causing confusion and inducing all kinds of unintentional mistakes and overvotes on the part of the voters. So why do individual counties still have the right to establish their own ballot design in a national election? Why doesn't the Federal government provide a national template for ballots to be used in all voting precincts across the country, at least for the national offices?

Also, concerning a second point made in the Keating study, I was very impressed with something in my polling place that I'd never seen before in the recent California primary. Many Florida ballots were "spoiled" (undervotes or overvotes), but if those ballots were at least pre-verified before the voter left the polling place by having it passed through some kind of a ballot-reader right there, then errors could be caught and corrected and the voter given an opportunity to correct things right then and there.

Well this precise pre-read of ballots was done in my California polling place, as I walked out the door. I don't know if this was actually the counting/verifying while I was still there, or whether it was just a pre-read and the ballots would truly be counted later after the polls closed, but whichever the explanation there was no doubt that my ballot was being "proofread" for 100% validity. I'm sure that if I'd screwed up they would have trashed it and given me a new ballot to mark. EXCELLENT!!

Now, if the machine also printed a receipt, showing me all of my choices in English which I could then review to ensure that my ballot marks reflected my actual intent, then we'd be absolutely sure my ballot was cast 100% validly and 100% reflective of my intent. Otherwise, I'd ask them to trash it and mark another ballot. EXCELLENT IDEA.

NOTE: we did have touch-screen voting a few years back, and before you pushed "OK" to finalize your vote you were presented with a recap on the screen of all of your votes, which you could change. Reviewing a paper receipt printed by the paper/card ballot pre-reader before you leave the polling place is the paper equivalent. This is not a test, and you only get one chance to "fill in your answers". This is a voting process, and the goal is to allow the voter to correctly cast the votes of his/her choice, and to have every one of those votes counted 100% accurately.

Of course we all have absolute faith that the counting itself is never tampered with or easily screwed up. It would indeed be a sorry mess if after all of the safeguards and technology/methodology improvements were implemented that ensured the correct casting of votes, that it was still possible to "lose" whole bunches of ballots, or machines, or precincts.

I have always believed that Florida was the issue in 2000 for the same reason that Ohio was the issue in 2004, and that it was the final state to declare a winner in a close national election and thus "decided" who would be president.

I don't recall Florida elections having been an "issue" before 2000 or Ohio before 2004.

Just look at the closeness of the presidential vote in many states in 2000. Are we to believe that those state results were more reliable than Florida's? I don't know, but I'll bet that if another state other than Florida had been last to report then that is where the result would have been questioned.

I remember the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race in 1960. Illinois took the heat that year as I recall.

I caught about 15 minutes of this, I was expecting a funnier vibe to the whole thing, but honestly it was a boring 15 minutes. Maybe I'll give it another chance some other day. For those who saw it, was it funny or is the whole thing kind of serious/historical/soap opera-ish?

I have always believed that Florida was the issue in 2000 for the same reason that Ohio was the issue in 2004, and that it was the final state to declare a winner in a close national election and thus "decided" who would be president.

I don't recall Florida elections having been an "issue" before 2000 or Ohio before 2004.

Just look at the closeness of the presidential vote in many states in 2000. Are we to believe that those state results were more reliable than Florida's? I don't know, but I'll bet that if another state other than Florida had been last to report then that is where the result would have been questioned.

I remember the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race in 1960. Illinois took the heat that year as I recall.

What a sad commentary that is.......if any state that had a close result, and as a result received similar scrutiny as Florida, would reveal the same degree of problems.

I think this photo says it all!

What a sad commentary that is.......if any state that had a close result, and as a result received similar scrutiny as Florida, would reveal the same degree of problems.

I don't know how sad it is. There will always be some margin of error when it comes to these sorts of things. And that's just a simple fact. I believe people do the best they can. But as long as people are involved with anything, it won't be perfect. Although this film leaned 'slightly' left, I don't think it revealed anything dubious on either side. The system worked, and we got a President. And in the process, we had some great moments in Politics... and no one got hurt.

... and no one got hurt.

?????? Really? I would have to disagree with that statement. But any further discussion of this I guess would be considered off topic since it does not directly deal with the movie but more with the results.

I remember the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race in 1960. Illinois took the heat that year as I recall.If Recount is your thing, then the 1960 story is worth revisiting.
Here’s a good read..
http://www.slate.com/id/91350/
...some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.

I think this photo says it all!
:D:rolleyes::confused::D Yes it does. That gentleman looks like he couldn’t see the Pacific Ocean if he were in a rowboat 30 miles west of Honolulu.:p

?????? Really? I would have to disagree with that statement. But any further discussion of this I guess would be considered off topic since it does not directly deal with the movie but more with the results.

I'm talking no one physically got hurt (or killed). And I'm talking about the process and settlement of the Florida election results. All which was shown in the film. As someone mentioned earlier, we didn't see tanks in the street. So I don't see what there is to disagree with.

?????? Really? I would have to disagree with that statement. But any further discussion of this I guess would be considered off topic since it does not directly deal with the movie but more with the results.
The emotional pain was certainly there for the Gore voters but compared to actual bloodshed, that’s a small price to pay for an election in which, once again, power passed in a peaceful if not particularly orderly manner. In an election this close, the losers are inevitably going to be bitterly disappointed – but not incarcerated or dead. :)

I don't know how sad it is. There will always be some margin of error when it comes to these sorts of things. And that's just a simple fact. I believe people do the best they can. But as long as people are involved with anything, it won't be perfect. Although this film leaned 'slightly' left, I don't think it revealed anything dubious on either side. The system worked, and we got a President. And in the process, we had some great moments in Politics... and no one got hurt.



I'm referring to the poor ballot design, the bad paper, the faulty machines, the illegal military ballots, the decision that led to the barring of people whose name just happened to sound like ex-felons, the calling of the election before all the polls had closed, the illegal politcally organized intimadating protests, the failure to do a complete recount, etcetera.

I'm referring to the poor ballot design, the bad paper, the faulty machines, the illegal military ballots, the decision that led to the barring of people whose name just happened to sound like ex-felons, the calling of the election before all the polls had closed, the illegal politcally organized intimadating protests, the failure to do a complete recount, etcetera.

Um... yes I got that. I saw the movie too.

Actually, I believe there was at least one "complete recount".

Um... yes I got that. I saw the movie too.

And you think what happened in Florida is commonplace and not sad if this was the status in every state that had scrutiny???

Actually, I believe there was at least one "complete recount".


I recall in the movie that many districts did not due a full recount, just checking the memory cards. And all the ballots were not checked properly for voter intent as they should have been during a mandatory recount given the problems with Florida's equipment and ballot design.

?????? Really? I would have to disagree with that statement. But any further discussion of this I guess would be considered off topic since it does not directly deal with the movie but more with the results.

As someone mentioned earlier, we didn't see tanks in the street. So I don't see what there is to disagree with.

Well, at least not in this country.

And you think what happened in Florida is commonplace and not sad if this was the status in every state that had scrutiny???

Read what I wrote. I'm saying that as long as people are involved with 'anything', things will never be perfect. There is no Nirvana. No sense in being sad about something that's a simple fact.

Well, at least not in this country.

And what country had tanks in the streets due to the Florida election dispute?

Read what I wrote. I'm saying that as long as people are involved with 'anything', things will never be perfect. There is no Nirvana. No sense in being sad about something that's a simple fact.


If you want to set standards so low that what happened in Florida is the acceptable as the status quo "because people are involved", than I think that is pretty sad. Better oversight, planning and controls need to be implemented to improve the situation and mitigate the influence of people both intentionally and nonintentionally subverting the voting process.

If you want to set standards so low that what happened in Florida is the acceptable as the status quo "because people are involved", than I think that is pretty sad. Better oversight, planning and controls need to be implemented to improve the situation and mitigate the influence of people both intentionally and nonintentionally subverting the voting process.

Okay, let's back up a little bit. I will surprise you and say that I agree with all of that. I'm not saying we should set low standards. Nothing wrong with trying to do things the absolute best we can. I'm just content at this point in my life to accept that if there's a way to screw things up, we will find a way. Especially in something as volatile as politics.

More political comments deleted.

Further comments will result in infractions.

What I can't understand is why here in the 21st century, when we put a man on the moon 30 years ago (just to give some perspective), and every ATM machine in the land can spit out all manner of transaction receipts, why oh why can't we invent and widely distribute voting machines that will 1) leave a legitimate, verifiable paper trail, and 2) have circuitry and programming that is secure and open to scrutiny if the request is made....? If the technology is sufficiently transparent, and hiding the programming code under the guise of "protecting company secrets" is banished, as it should be, from this important mission, then maybe the citizenry can finally have confidence that their votes will actually be counted properly, and the democracy can function as intended. I don't believe a lot of people have that kind of confidence in the system after the elections of '00 and '04.

What I can't understand is why .... can't we invent and widely distribute voting machines...I think it’s because "they" don’t want to. And “they” covers all concerned. ;)

By the way Archie, how did you avoid this thread for so long? :D

Maybe the UN elections board that goes to poorer countries to check elections should come here in 2008 to make sure that a Florida or Ohio doesn't happen. I believe that would have solved everything involving this movie and the facts it was based on.

Finally got to see it and I have to say it was very good. Thanks to this thread I gave it a chance. When the hype first started on this film, I certainly had no plans to relive that drama. Everywhere I turn in the City, I see promos for the movie. I would have preferred to sit through a French production of those events rather than Hollywoods—but it was fair.
Great casting and performances-- I especially liked Dennis Leary, Ben Franklin ;), -- ah, they were all very good.

By the way Archie, how did you avoid this thread for so long? :D

Self preservation. Can't get suspended this close to the LOST finale. (And it was a doozy; much to discuss with my peeps.) :D

Seriously, I haven't seen it yet. It's sitting on the DVR for this weekend, hopefully. Didn't make much sense to jump into a thread before I've seen the flick. But it's nice to see all the positive comments. When everybody likes it, chances are I will too.

Maybe the UN elections board that goes to poorer countries to check elections should come here in 2008 to make sure that a Florida or Ohio doesn't happen. I believe that would have solved everything involving this movie and the facts it was based on.
I suspect that the foregoing was a joke but in the event that it was not I will continue. It’s important to bear in mind, it seems to me, that the Florida election controversy could not have arisen in the first place, IF the outcome of the entire presidential election had not come down to Florida, and IF the difference in the Bush, Gore vote in Florida had not been less than .01% (!). In short, it was a perfect storm, which could not have been avoided by the most perfect system in the world, presided over by the wisest election officials. Thus, focusing on the awful butterfly punch card ballots in the hope that improvements in ballot design would allow the avoidance of similar problems in the future is an exercise in futility because hyper-close elections breed controversy, no matter how you keep score.

I suspect that the foregoing was a joke but in the event that it was not I will continue. It’s important to bear in mind, it seems to me, that the Florida election controversy could not have arisen in the first place, IF the outcome of the entire presidential election had not come down to Florida, and IF the difference in the Bush, Gore vote in Florida had not been less than .01% (!). In short, it was a perfect storm, which could not have been avoided by the most perfect system in the world, presided over by the wisest election officials. Thus, focusing on the awful butterfly punch card ballots in the hope that improvements in ballot design would allow the avoidance of similar problems in the future is an exercise in futility because hyper-close elections breed controversy, no matter how you keep score.

I couldn't agree more. Thanks gwsat for framing that so well. You expressed what I was trying to say earlier with my 'people' reference. I suppose I wouldn't have made a very good litigator. So it's a good thing I went into the medical field. ;)

I agree with gwsat's post as well, but that's why I make the argument for "foolproof" electronic voting machines. It would probably cost billions, but considering how we as a nation elect to spend other billions on far less important stuff, why not? It's certainly doable. Nothing, seems to me, is more important to a healthy democracy than the confidence in the electorate that the process is fair and unimpeachable.

HBO might want to ask for a ratings recount.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/05/hbos-recount.html

I think many would watch and enjoy it, unfortunately, the topic is like Kryptonite and Superman.

Actually, I believe there was at least one "complete recount".
Yes, but the tabulation methodology and the question of "undervotes" and other irregularities was never settled, so none of the post Supreme Court decision recount(s) by news organizations really resolved anything. The fact that the official final tally certified by Katherine Harris after she denied an extension of the deadline was only a 537 vote difference, demonstrates the obvious point that this was one flawed election.
Also, with regard to the comparisons and claims surrounding the Illinois vote in the 1960 election, JFK still had enough electoral votes to win the election after the results in Texas and California came in, and he still would have won the national popular vote (unlike Bush) even if Illinois had gone the other way.

HBO might want to ask for a ratings recount.

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/05/hbos-recount.html

I think many would watch and enjoy it, unfortunately, the topic is like Kryptonite and Superman.
I think this thread shows that intelligent, mature, and reasonable people, can discuss differing thoughts and ideas without getting personal. Unlike the irrational, radical, close-minded extremists that posted in that link.

I agree with gwsat's post as well, but that's why I make the argument for "foolproof" electronic voting machines. It would probably cost billions, but considering how we as a nation elect to spend other billions on far less important stuff, why not? It's certainly doable. Nothing, seems to me, is more important to a healthy democracy than the confidence in the electorate that the process is fair and unimpeachable.
I agree that better designed ballots would have at least avoided the “hanging chad” issue. Our system in Oklahoma has remained free of controversy. Here, we use conventional ballots but mark them with magnetic ink, which allows machines to read and instantly tabulate each ballot but if there is a contest, the hard copies of the ballots are still available. Of course, there is nothing to be done about the rocket scientists who vote for more than one candidate. Inevitably, in a close election the losing party is going to claim that such mismarked ballots should be counted for their guy. That’s why I said that the most perfect system in the world wouldn’t guarantee freedom from controversy in an extraordinarily close election.

I think this thread shows that intelligent, mature, and reasonable people, can discuss differing thoughts and ideas without getting personal. Unlike the irrational, radical, close-minded extremists that posted in that link.It’s definitely a contentious topic that strokes the ire on even the most civil and urbane... and the not so. ;)

Of course, there is nothing to be done about the rocket scientists who vote for more than one candidate. Inevitably, in a close election the losing party is going to claim that such mismarked ballots should be counted for their guy. That’s why I said that the most perfect system in the world wouldn’t guarantee freedom from controversy in an extraordinarily close election.

But would not these mythical foolproof voting machines I long for take care of that issue by preventing multiple votes? Kinda' help those poor rocket scientists along? They could pop up a message that says something like "Sorry bonehead, but you already voted in this race. Make up your mind." :p

First off, I LOVED Recount. It was funny, cynical, sad, and at the end moving. The performances were remarkable from top to bottom, especially Kevin Spacey’s Ron Klain and Tom Wilkinson’s Jim Baker.

Jim Baker is a complicated guy who has always interested me. He is smooth, good looking, and brilliant, but also pugnacious and a bit of a bully. I thought that Wilkinson captured all that. I also liked the way the writers told us a bit about the sadness in Baker’s life, his loyalty to his friends, and theirs to him.

I even liked Laura Dern’s portrayal of Katherine Harris. Harris was simply a pretty ex-schoolteacher from a wealthy and politically well connected family who got promoted way above her pay grade -- twice. She was as much victim as victimizer, it seems to me.

I was reminded again that Gore’s appointment of the weak and ineffectual Warren Christopher was a mistake. To its credit, the movie pulled no punches on that score. In the movie, when the Christopher appointment becomes public, Ben Ginsberg (Bob Balaban) asks, “Who are we thinking about?” At first I thought I had heard him ask, “What were they thinking?”

In the end what I liked best about the film was how its writers celebrated that, despite the brutal political infighting that went on during the Florida dispute, there were no shots fired nor troops in the streets. Once again, the system worked, although, also once again, God knows how.

The only presidential election as controversial as 2000’s was 1876. Let’s hope that something this weird won’t happen again for another 124 years.Agree, great review... and to add... Kevin Spacey was probably the only actor that didn’t morph into his real life character-- but that didn’t matter. His performance was excellent. I loved his scenes with little dialogue just perfect expressions... and his dry delivery during his humorous moments.

gwsat: I guess then it comes down to the stupid human trick of voting.

How long will this be on HBO?

I suspect that the foregoing was a joke but in the event that it was not I will continue. It’s important to bear in mind, it seems to me, that the Florida election controversy could not have arisen in the first place, IF the outcome of the entire presidential election had not come down to Florida, and IF the difference in the Bush, Gore vote in Florida had not been less than .01% (!). In short, it was a perfect storm, which could not have been avoided by the most perfect system in the world, presided over by the wisest election officials. Thus, focusing on the awful butterfly punch card ballots in the hope that improvements in ballot design would allow the avoidance of similar problems in the future is an exercise in futility because hyper-close elections breed controversy, no matter how you keep score.

Yet it is not a bad idea.

They could pop up a message that says something like "Sorry bonehead, but you already voted in this race. Make up your mind." :p

http://img.thedailywtf.com/images/200801/fatalError.png

How long will this be on HBO?
It looks like it will be on through June 27th...
http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ScheduleServlet

I agree with gwsat's post as well, but that's why I make the argument for "foolproof" electronic voting machines. It would probably cost billions, but considering how we as a nation elect to spend other billions on far less important stuff, why not? It's certainly doable. Nothing, seems to me, is more important to a healthy democracy than the confidence in the electorate that the process is fair and unimpeachable.
I agree that despite the inability of any system of balloting to prevent controversy in close elections, a reform that would give folks a heads up when they were about to vote for more than one candidate in the same race would be an improvement. It’s not possible to completely insulate voters from their own stupidity, of course, but every little bit helps. :)

Darned entertaining movie. Not quite as neutral as some other posters have suggested, but still managed to get a few good digs in on both parties.

I thought Spacy did a good job (as Kevin Spacy), Laura Dern did a lousy job, and both of the British actors who played former Secretaries of State did an absolutely outstanding job.

All in all, good entertainment and a good reminder about the importance of getting out and voting because you never know how close the next election will be.

I just read a column by Rich Lowry, a political pundit, which talks about the differences in attitudes of the Democratic establishment in 2000, in the aftermath of the Florida presidential election, and now, with respect to the Michigan Democratic primary vote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/hillary_agonistes_dont_count_e.html

Lowry is usually a little too conservative for my tastes but he is a smart guy and makes some good points in his piece. Its lesson is that political operatives don’t always care about “Let every vote count, the will of the people must prevail!” If strictly adhering to the rules means that their candidate wins, then that’s what they insist on.

In short, circumstances alter cases. It’s not about fairness, it’s about winning. That’s an important lesson to keep in mind every time we hear a politician who didn’t like the way an election turned out keening about how the process was “unfair.”

I just read a column by Rich Lowry, a political pundit, which talks about the differences in attitudes of the Democratic establishment in 2000, in the aftermath of the Florida presidential election, and now, with respect to the Michigan Democratic primary vote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/hillary_agonistes_dont_count_e.html

Lowry is usually a little too conservative for my tastes but he is a smart guy and makes some good points in his piece. Its lesson is that political operatives don’t always care about “Let every vote count, the will of the people must prevail!” If strictly adhering to the rules means that their candidate wins, then that’s what they insist on.

In short, circumstances alter cases. It’s not about fairness, it’s about winning. That’s an important lesson to keep in mind every time we hear a politician who didn’t like the way an election turned out keening about how the process was “unfair.”


Interesting article, thanks for the link.

I just read a column by Rich Lowry, a political pundit, which talks about the differences in attitudes of the Democratic establishment in 2000, in the aftermath of the Florida presidential election, and now, with respect to the Michigan Democratic primary vote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/hillary_agonistes_dont_count_e.html

Lowry is usually a little too conservative for my tastes but he is a smart guy and makes some good points in his piece. Its lesson is that political operatives don’t always care about “Let every vote count, the will of the people must prevail!” If strictly adhering to the rules means that their candidate wins, then that’s what they insist on.

In short, circumstances alter cases. It’s not about fairness, it’s about winning. That’s an important lesson to keep in mind every time we hear a politician who didn’t like the way an election turned out keening about how the process was “unfair.”

Thanks for the link. Interesting article.

I guess I am just old fashioned. I think every vote should count and let the chips fall where they may.

I guess I am just old fashioned. I think every vote should count and let the chips fall where they may.
I think that everyone would agree that every vote should count but a problem arises when you try to decide what is a “vote.” Suppose a blank ballot is cast. Obviously that’s not a vote, even if someone later claims that he accidentally left his ballot blank and that he should get to vote anyway by telling officials what he had intended.

No system can survive without standards as to what is – and what is not – a “vote.” Folks who go to the polls need to understand up front that if they don’t mark their ballots in accordance with the rules it won’t count. There is nothing unfair about that, it seems to me. Fortunately, in most elections the winning margin is enough larger than the margin of error that fine distinctions as to what is a vote don’t effect the outcome.

Lowry is usually a little too conservative for my tastes but he is a smart guy and makes some good points in his piece. Its lesson is that political operatives don’t always care about “Let every vote count, the will of the people must prevail!” If strictly adhering to the rules means that their candidate wins, then that’s what they insist on.

In short, circumstances alter cases. It’s not about fairness, it’s about winning. That’s an important lesson to keep in mind every time we hear a politician who didn’t like the way an election turned out keening about how the process was “unfair.”

Maybe it’s just my cynicism, but this isn’t news to me. What I would find truly amazing is that it would be a revelation to anyone else.

I just read a column by Rich Lowry, a political pundit, which talks about the differences in attitudes of the Democratic establishment in 2000, in the aftermath of the Florida presidential election, and now, with respect to the Michigan Democratic primary vote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/hillary_agonistes_dont_count_e.html
...It’s not about fairness, it’s about winning. That’s an important lesson to keep in mind every time we hear a politician who didn’t like the way an election turned out keening about how the process was “unfair.”Nice read but nothing new. All points that have been aired, as in this quote, one that I’ve also made but in a less than in your eye way.
But the Democratic delegate-allocation rules can make the Electoral College that Democrats maligned back in 2000 look robustly representative by comparison.

As you said, it’s all about winning.

I don’t know-- if the situation were reversed, in 2000, and “W” was on his way to make his concession speech and the same data was presented to him, whether his phone call would have been rescinded and the election contested. But I can categorically assert that there would have been just as much furor on “his” side to do so, as was on Gore’s side.

As I said, in response to Archie earlier, regarding a nation capable of scooping kitty litter off of Mars but not competent enough to tally a vote properly—it can be done… but I think the folks prefer the margin of error factor.

..but this isn’t news to me...:D You beat me to it.

Nice read but nothing new. All points that have been aired, as in this quote, one that I’ve also made but in a less than in your eye way.

As you said, it’s all about winning.

I don’t know-- if the situation were reversed, in 2000, and “W” was on his way to make his concession speech and the same data was presented to him, whether his phone call would have been rescinded and the election contested. But I can categorically assert that there would have been just as much furor on “his” side to do so, as was on Gore’s side.

This notion is nothing more than pure conjecture, and is really a moot point.


As I said, in response to Archie earlier, regarding a nation capable of scooping kitty litter off of Mars but not competent enough to tally a vote properly—it can be done… but I think the folks prefer the margin of error factor.

Putting a Robot on Mars is childs play compared to conducting a 'perfect' election.

This notion is nothing more than pure conjecture.

:cool: But of course… ;) I don’t feel the need to preface all of my posts with ubiquitous acronyms such as IMHO.

Putting a Robot on Mars is childs play compared to conducting a 'perfect' election.Maybe I’m not making might point clear. Of course this country is capable of perfecting the voting system. Why has so little been done in eight years? In my opinion,:rolleyes: no political party really wants to. The system is flawed and the flaws are exploited when needed. I’ll leave it at that.

:cool: But of course… ;) I don’t feel the need to preface all of my posts with ubiquitous acronyms such as IMHO.

Maybe I’m not making might point clear. Of course this country is capable of perfecting the voting system. Why has so little been done in eight years? In my opinion,:rolleyes: no political party really wants to. The system is flawed and the flaws are exploited when needed. I’ll leave it at that.

No, you're making yourself clear. And I think you're nailing it when you say that no political party wants to make the voting system more accurate (although I think that some of this is due to nothing more sinister than laziness and not wanting to spend past a certain amount of tax payer resources). This, among many other reasons are why I'm saying that putting a robot on Mars is easy compared to getting a 'perfect' voting system.

No, you're making yourself clear. And I think you're nailing it when you say that no political party wants to make the voting system more accurate (although I think that some of this is due to nothing more sinister than laziness and not wanting to spend past a certain amount of tax payer resources). This, among many other reasons are why I'm saying that putting a robot on Mars is easy compared to getting a 'perfect' voting system.

Actually, maybe the way to phrase it is, finding the will to put a robot on Mars is easier than developing a "perfect" voting system. If every ATM in the land can spit out a paper receipt, it's hard to understand why we can't make a voting machine do the same simple damn thing. Every receipt would be tied to that particular machine, and the paper receipts would be duplicated for the poll workers. That way, if things look fishy, it's just a matter of matching the receipts to the machine's electronic tally. If they don't match, then you break out the circuitry/programming (which would most definitely not be proprietary - in fact, it should be developed by the government and provided to all the hardware manufacturers) and start looking for hanky-panky. If you find it, you cancel the contract with the voting machine provider and prosecute its executives. Severely. That oughta' do it. :)

We just need to find the will.

Hey, how come the Dems aren't so determined to make sure that every vote must count in the current Florida and Michigan delegate debacles?

I can only imagine the outrage we'd be hearing if the GOP was in any way tied into this mess. There'd be accusations of rigging the system to handpick who they want coming from every corner of the free world. But not for the Chosen One.

Not picking sides, just pointing out that it does indeed go both ways. :)

I can only imagine the outrage we'd be hearing if the GOP was in any way tied into this mess. There'd be accusations of rigging the system to handpick who they want coming from every corner of the free world. But not for the Chosen One.

Not picking sides, just pointing out that it does indeed go both ways. :)

It always goes both ways. Hardcore loyalists to a party will whine that the other party got away without repercussions in the past, so why should their party be held to a different standard. When politicians participate in immoral or unethical acts, often the loyalist will try to rationalize it and spin it because it’s their party. However, when the other party does the same or similar thing, they’re outraged. This is one aspect that has caused such corruption in our government. The sheep, which follow the rhetoric they hear from their party and talking heads, allow servants to get away with acts that the average Joe would lose their job over or be sent to prison for. Party loyalty often comes ahead of what is best for the country. People are so manipulated by what they hear, that corruption often goes unchallenged in DC. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Actually, I see the current Dem primary as a microcosm of the 2000 election. It's over, but the loser just doesn't know when to quit. The word 'obsession' comes to mind. Pretty coincidental that it involves Florida again.

Hey, how come the Dems aren't so determined to make sure that every vote must count in the current Florida and Michigan delegate debacles?

I can only imagine the outrage we'd be hearing if the GOP was in any way tied into this mess. There'd be accusations of rigging the system to handpick who they want coming from every corner of the free world. But not for the Chosen One.

Ironically enough, the final solution chosen by the Democrats for dealing with Florida and Michigan is the exact same thing that the Republican party did up front -- cutting the number of delegates that those two states get at the convention by half. So I think we can safely state that there wouldn't have been any outrage if the Republicans had done what the Democrats just did...for the simple reason that the Republican party *did* do it, and no outrage resulted.

But back to the movie...which I thought was pretty well done, considering that it managed to keep me interested in finding out what happened next when I already knew the ending.

The real "takeaway" point for me from the movie is the need to establish clear and consistent standards for voting, vote counting, etc. Most of the problems in Florida resulted from a lack of clear standards -- clear standards that could have prevented the butterfly ballot nonsense, as well as clarifying the exact standards by which a recount would be handled. Ironically enough, the legislation that George W. Bush had signed in Texas was the right idea, because that law meant that recounters knew what to do with dimpled chads and the like.

Another problem, of course, is political grandstanding -- and Florida saw plenty of that from both sides, starting with the idiotic protests to demand a "revote" in one county and continuing with the even more idiotic riots to stop the recount in another county.

Kathrine Harris was on Hannity and Colmes last night. As one might expect, she wasn't very happy with Laura Dern's over-the-top portrayal of her. She said that the film was pure fiction on what she did and what went on during the Florida recount, citing several points and giving her own account. Harris also said that she had talk to the filmakers and offered her input, but they didn't want anything do with her. Giving the filmakers license to make the film more of a hit piece.

Kathrine Harris was on Hannity and Colmes last night. As one might expect, she wasn't very happy with Laura Dern's over-the-top portrayal of her. She said that the film was pure fiction on what she did and what went on during the Florida recount, citing several points and giving her own account. Harris also said that she had talk to the filmakers and offered her input, but they didn't want anything do with her. Giving the filmakers license to make the film more of a hit piece.

Hit piece? LOL! Don't tell me, let me guess: Sean Hannity shared and empathized with every last righteous indignation she's suffered because of the movie, and probably ended up more angry than her. :rolleyes: Nobody likes to see themselves as others see them, especially if it's an unflattering portrait. Kathrine Harris has numerous pancake-makeup photos and plenty of audio tape of her own stumblin', bumblin' words in which she hangs herself with extreme prejudice. If anything, the film (finally seen it) toned it down. :p But she's saying exactly what you would expect her to say on a FNC show.

Kathrine Harris was on Hannity and Colmes last night. As one might expect, she wasn't very happy with Laura Dern's over-the-top portrayal of her. She said that the film was pure fiction on what she did and what went on during the Florida recount, citing several points and giving her own account. Harris also said that she had talk to the filmakers and offered her input, but they didn't want anything do with her. Giving the filmakers license to make the film more of a hit piece.I saw that last night. :eek::rolleyes: It was a very uncomfortable thing to watch. I really wanted to empathize with her. I haven’t seen her in the news for several years now. I forgot.... but all I could do was pause and rewind a few times and laugh.

Kathleen Harris definitely exudes a quirky persona and Laura Dern captured her essence but she did take it too far, to the point of caricature. Dern could have toned it down a little and still succeeded.

Regardless, I don’t think Ms. Harris should be doing a media tour right now. She is not helping her cause.

I still think the characature worked. A little over the top, but necessary considering the airtime they had devoted to her character. If she got double the air time, they could have toned it down a bit, but to accurately portray how her personna came across to the public with the limited amount of time devoted to her, the net result was accurate.

Why? Was the previous sentence a lie? :p:D


One of my pet peeves:

"...but to be honest..."

Or:

"... but if I'm being absolutely and completely honest..."

Courtesy of Simon Cowell.

And that was the final point made in the film by Kevin Spacey's character. Ironically, that was also the main point that Harris herself made on H&C the other night. She said there would have been a statewide recount with uniform standards, had the Gore team not intervened with the certification of the election. So in the end, after all of that legal and political wrangling, it looks like the Gore team shot themselves in the foot. At least as far as the recount goes. It's still anybody's guess as to whether a full statewide recount would have yeilded a different result.

Best post on here.

Your comment would seem to illustrate the importance to each party of controlling as many governorships (sp?) as possible. If you own the governor's office, you control the process, and likely the rules by which the process plays out as well.

And that is why the Founding Fathers set up it the way they did. The power rests with the "people" not the government, meaning the states. We fought a war in the 1860's over that issue, "states rights." Of course we know that the "people" the Founding Fathers were talking about were the landowners who had the power in the 18th century and it still holds today, even though we are told the "people" means us little guys, but I suspect the Bush's, Kennedy's, Romney's, Kerry's, Bloomberg's, Clinton's and Edwards' doesn't believe that beyond what it takes to get elected. I guess in that case the experiment works!

This is really a great country.

From my experience, I have to agree. I was brought up to think as an “independent” and thought that was the way I should be labeled. Later on I realized that thinking independently is correct but picking a party is in my best interests, especially living in a State with closed primaries. As an Independent, my voice is silent.

That's really true. A viable third party, or third option since the two main parties are so welded to diametrically opposed policies, has never managed to catch on in America. But on the other hand, it sort of simplifies things in a country where most of the populace can't even be bothered to exercise the democratic prerogative we claim to so revere, and are so determined to export to the rest of the unenlightened world. Odd, that.

It really has. And I thank the mods for letting us get a "little bit" off topic.

Yes, thanks.

Not true, as an 'Independent' I vote for who I feel is the most qualified candidate regardless of their party. I've voted for 'Republican', 'Democratic' and 'Independent' candidates all in the same election.

I am a registered Democrat but vote like an Independent, much to the dislike of my Democrat friends (Does that make me a Reagan Democrat? HHMM, maybe I get courted this cycle for my vote!! WHOO HOO!!) . Recently I have been threatening to officially change to Independent and you wouldn't believe the looks and names my Democrat friends call me! Hey, I am what I am.

I am a registered Democrat

:eek: Wow! Guess the Dems really are the "big tent" party. :D

:eek: Wow! Guess the Dems really are the "big tent" party. :D

I guess so!! :D :D

Sad thing is the Democratic party of today isn't anything like the Democratic party of my past. Not sure when it turned on the road it is on, but it isn't the same party I grew up with and I really, really, really hate that.

A viable third party, or third option since the two main parties are so welded to diametrically opposed policies, has never managed to catch on in America. But on the other hand, it sort of simplifies things in a country where most of the populace can't even be bothered to exercise the democratic prerogative we claim to so revere, and are so determined to export to the rest of the unenlightened world. Odd, that.
I think the Republicans and Democrats have a lot to do with that. The odds for either one of them being elected is much greater with a two party system rather a three or four party system. Things get nasty when there is an election with a two party system, but they really get nasty when someone else tries to enter their sacred territory. But the bottom-line, so far there hasn’t been a truly viable third party candidate since Ross Perot garnered almost 20 million votes (19%) in 1992. Give independents a strong and viable candidate and watch the shin hit the fan.

Sad thing is the Democratic party of today isn't anything like the Democratic party of my past. Not sure when it turned on the road it is on, but it isn't the same party I grew up with and I really, really, really hate that.
Many Republicans are making the same statement about their party. ;) We've lost direction in this country, IMO.

I guess so!! :D :D

Sad thing is the Democratic party of today isn't anything like the Democratic party of my past. Not sure when it turned on the road it is on, but it isn't the same party I grew up with and I really, really, really hate that.



'Reagan' Democrats, or more precisly, 'Conservative' Democrats are nothing new in the Democratic Party. And there are still a few left. Although their ranks are getting thinner and thinner. As Ronald Reagan said himself, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party." "It left me." What's also of noteworthyness, is that true conservatism of smaller government and lower taxes has left the Republican party as well.

As Ronald Reagan said himself, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party." "It left me."

That is me. That is how I feel. What used to be considered "liberal" is now considered "conservative." That is what I mean.
Unlike Reagan though, I am not thrilled about the Republicans either even though I did vote for him. Twice. But then I voted for Bill Clinton twice too! Wished I hadn't now, but that is a whole 'nuther thread. :D

I feel both parties have let this country down in recent years. I don't think they intended to let us down. As times have changed, things have happened to cause it. You can see that in Recount. I don't think that was an intended message, but it is there because that is what did happen in real life.

As just one person, not much I can do to change that except to find something else. And that is one of the great things about this country, you can change parties. Who knows, maybe a 3rd party could rise up enough to challenge the Dems and Repubs but it will take more people to get involved than what is involved now to make that happen. I am a realist.

But I will step down off my soapbox now. Sorry.

Well, one thing I always remember that keeps me from going bananas over what happens in Washington... What happens in your own house has far more effect on your life than what happens in the White House.

. But then I voted for Bill Clinton twice too! Wished I hadn't now, but that is a whole 'nuther thread. :D


Just what part of 8 years of peace and prosperity didn't you like? :confused: Don't mean to start a debate, but after what we've been experiencing during the last 8 years, I am curious as to why a registered Democrat would say such a thing...? Most of us, even if we were bothered by his personal peccadilloes, admired his statesmanship, his intelligence, and his ability to get things done in spite of fierce opposition to his every move in the new Republican Congress. If he had been allowed to run again in 2000 he would have won big in spite of the scandal, as Reagan would have done in '88 in spite of Iran-contra. You can PM me if you want to avoid posting here; I really am curious.

Well, one thing I always remember that keeps me from going bananas over what happens in Washington... What happens in your own house has far more effect on your life than what happens in the White House.

I dunno; my wife and kids haven't invaded anybody lately. :p

I dunno; my wife and kids haven't invaded anybody lately. :p

???

As I said... what affects YOUR life. In other words. You have a far greater impact on what happens in your life than any Bozo in Washington.

???

As I said... what affects YOUR life. In other words. You have a far greater impact on what happens in your life than any Bozo in Washington.

Well, all I know is, if I see a charge for $12 billion on my credit card bill next month, somebody in the household's going to have some 'splainin' to do. :D

I, too, am concerned with the polarization of the major parties. These days, it seems as if the only people who are truly comfortable with either’s positions are around-the-bend radicals or hard-right fundamentalists. Thank God, though, the complexion of political parties changes like the Oklahoma weather, about which Will Rogers famously said, “If you don’t like it, just wait a minute.” :)

I think the Republicans and Democrats have a lot to do with that. The odds for either one of them being elected is much greater with a two party system rather a three or four party system. Things get nasty when there is an election with a two party system, but they really get nasty when someone else tries to enter their sacred territory. But the bottom-line, so far there hasn’t been a truly viable third party candidate since Ross Perot garnered almost 20 million votes (19%) in 1992. Give independents a strong and viable candidate and watch the shin hit the fan.

I completely agree. Well put.

I think a bigger problem is the reality of the way the primary system functions. It's the more radical candidates, the ones most likely to pander to the extreme positions on either side, that get the "base" support to be nominated in the first place. Probably more true in local and statewide Congressional elections than presidential races, but the trend is clearly there. Moderates, who usually govern most effectively and who would represent the biggest share of the general electorate, are shut out by the party die-hards who nominate the guy who throws them the most red meat. The result is an increasing polarization in the Congress; something that most of us who long for effective government decry.

I believe that's true. I think that Congressional Term Limits would be a good first step in the right direction to rectify some of this. But since the very people who would lose there 'jobs' are the one's who would have to vote for term limits in the first place, that will never happen.

Just what part of 8 years of peace and prosperity didn't you like? :confused: Don't mean to start a debate, but after what we've been experiencing during the last 8 years, I am curious as to why a registered Democrat would say such a thing...? Most of us, even if we were bothered by his personal peccadilloes, admired his statesmanship, his intelligence, and his ability to get things done in spite of fierce opposition to his every move in the new Republican Congress. If he had been allowed to run again in 2000 he would have won big in spite of the scandal, as Reagan would have done in '88 in spite of Iran-contra. You can PM me if you want to avoid posting here; I really am curious.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are many of us Dems who feel the same way and it takes more than 8 years of good economics to make a presidency. Unfortunately, like I said, this isn't the place to debate that.

I believe that's true. I think that Congressional Term Limits would be a good first step in the right direction to rectify some of this. But since the very people who would lose there 'jobs' are the one's who would have to vote for term limits in the first place, that will never happen.
Although legislative and congressional term limits is a hot button issue about which there are compelling arguments on both sides, I have always thought that they probably do more good than harm. At least legislative term limits have worked well in Oklahoma.

One of my bitterest disappointments was the 5-4 decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, in which the usually sound Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to hold unconstitutional an Arkansas constitutional amendment that limited the number of terms Arkansas congressmen and senators could serve. It served to invalidate congressional term limits provisions in a total of 23 states. Do you want to talk about judicial activism? I hated that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

Although legislative and congressional term limits is a hot button issue about which there are compelling arguments on both sides, I have always thought that they probably do more good than harm. At least legislative term limits have worked well in Oklahoma.

One of my bitterest disappointments was the 5-4 decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, in which the usually sound Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to hold unconstitutional an Arkansas constitutional amendment that limited the number of terms Arkansas congressmen and senators could serve. It served to invalidate congressional term limits provisions in a total of 23 states. Do you want to talk about judicial activism? I hated that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton


Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

In the past, I was always against term limits. Agreeing that the people ought to have the right to choose who they want to represent them. But in more recent years, I've done a complete 180. I just think that when people are in there for 20, 30, 40 years, that we get nothing but corruption and congresspeople who care more about taking care of their own needs, instead of the needs of the nation.

It all harkens back to that old saying by Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

When I first graduated from college I worked for a crusty old nuts 'n bolts architect for a few years who had a bumper sticker on his truck that read: Don't Re-elect Nobody! :p

Still pretty good advice, if you believe the Constitution intended true citizen representation.

When I first graduated from college I worked for a crusty old nuts 'n bolts architect for a few years who had a bumper sticker on his truck that read: Don't Re-elect Nobody! :p

Still pretty good advice, if you believe the Constitution intended true citizen representation.
Indeed, my guiding principle in politics has always been and remains, "All things being equal, never vote for an incumbent." There are limits to the rule, though.

My congressman, a Republican who I have never liked much, keeps getting reelected because the Dems characteristically have nominated candidates to run against him who have been either so extreme or so mediocre, the incumbent turned out to be a better choice. Sometimes you have to just hold your nose and choose the better of two bad candidates -- even if it does mean voting for the incumbent.

Sometimes the problem goes the other way. I voted for our Democratic governor when he first ran, but against him when he ran for reelection. He had vetoed a tort reform bill as a pander to the trial lawyers, which made me so furious, I voted for his Republican opponent the second time. Ha! The incumbent won anyway.

While term limits have both good and bad facets, there is one policy that would greatly improve the quality of our government.

Redistrict w/o regard to incumbents and 'identity' politics.

Current district boundaries are the biggest factor in the "extreme" polititions we get and their ability to get reelected no matter how bad or corrupt.

Because my 15 year old grandson had expressed interest in seeing Recount, I recorded it again earlier this week. Yesterday I watched it again and it was even better the second time around. Here are a few observations.

Jim Baker was exactly right when he told his recount defense team that the Florida recount battle would be, “a political street fight.” There may be a few guys around who are smarter than Baker, but maybe not, but there are certainly none around who are tougher. Gore’s choice of the weak and ineffectual Warren Christopher to counter Baker was a grievous mistake, it seems to me. Christopher was an honorable man but he was far out of his depth in this remarkably nasty political battle.

Ron Klain was a smart and effective guy but he wasn’t 40 yet and didn’t have anything like the influence in the Gore camp that Baker did in Bush’s organization. I don’t know what to make of Klain’s remark that he was sorry the recount couldn’t go on so that they could “know who won.” That seemed either disingenuous or naïve to me. The unalterable fact of the Florida battle is that, given its historic closeness and the its many problems with ballot design and voting irregularities, we could never “know who won,” no matter how many recounts their were or for how long they went on.

The tone of the picture was warm and funny. I have even come to admire some of what they did with Katherine Harris’s character. In one scene, she is shown looking out of her office window at a bunch of protesters, and her expression says, “Oh, what have I got myself into?” The movie was also ultimately patriotic. Despite the vicious infighting, neither side’s finest hour, in the end everybody wanted what was best for the country. In this regard, Gore’s decision to call off his dogs after Bush v. Gore and his graceful concession speech were nearly noble.

Just what part of 8 years of peace and prosperity didn't you like? :confused: Don't mean to start a debate, but after what we've been experiencing during the last 8 years, I am curious as to why a registered Democrat would say such a thing...? Most of us, even if we were bothered by his personal peccadilloes, admired his statesmanship, his intelligence, and his ability to get things done in spite of fierce opposition to his every move in the new Republican Congress. If he had been allowed to run again in 2000 he would have won big in spite of the scandal, as Reagan would have done in '88 in spite of Iran-contra. You can PM me if you want to avoid posting here; I really am curious.

While there are many that come to mind here are three major ones:

1. The presidential pardons.
2. The appointment of two very liberal supreme court justices.
3. The stain of an impeached president.

And most important was the failure to recognize the serious turmoil in the mid east.

Actually, I did not "hate" Bill Clinton. I support many of his ideas. I would not, however, want to play a money card game with him.

While there are many that come to mind here are three major ones:

1. The presidential pardons.
2. The appointment of two very liberal supreme court justices.
3. The stain of an impeached president.

And most important was the failure to recognize the serious turmoil in the mid east.

Actually, I did not "hate" Bill Clinton. I support many of his ideas. I would not, however, want to play a money card game with him.

I'll take all of these over the list I could write concerning the current administration. I'd post it here but that would probably result in the post being deleted.

I finally watched this movie after being goading into seeing it. I had said I'd lived those 36 days and didn't want to relive it, but alas with the primary season over and nothing to watch, I saw it. Reminded me alot of the Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, loved that movie but hated what happened in it, except at the end when all the bad guys got what they deserved. Wish it would have happened here, but at least they mentioned Bush had Enron ties. Kind of makes you think.

Great performances...not that compelling to me, though.

...at the end when all the bad guys got what they deserved. Wish it would have happened here...:confused::rolleyes: Well, after all, it was a docudrama not a pure fiction piece. The filmmakers had to adhere to the realities of the situation no matter how unsettling the events were for all involved.

Indeed well put.

Yes, indeed, the framers in their wisdom did try to devise a system that would balance out the power of the smaller, more rural states of the time with the larger ones. However, that is just not relevant today, when legitimate electoral interest groups are no longer divided along state lines the way they were in the 18th Century. In my opinion, the Electoral College is a non-democratic (small "d") anachronism.

Irrelevant, if we are to abide by the Constitution. And that election did just that to perfection.

That is also not a partisan statement; simply a re-affirmation of why the system was set up to begin with. And you know as well as I do that the best decisions are typically not made by the masses living in urban areas. That hasn't changed in 250 years, and probably never will, given generational tendencies.

That is also not a partisan statement; simply a re-affirmation of why the system was set up to begin with. And you know as well as I do that the best decisions are typically not made by the masses living in urban areas. That hasn't changed in 250 years, and probably never will, given generational tendencies.

Well, of course. Take the war in Iraq. Not the best decision, I think we can all finally agree. And it was supported and encouraged by those masses living in urban areas who never make the right decisions, those liberal ninnies....uh, no wait.... :rolleyes:

Well, of course. Take the war in Iraq. Not the best decision, I think we can all finally agree.

The invasion was a great idea. The lack of forethought about the cleanup process was flawed indeed.

And it was supported and encouraged by those masses living in urban areas who never make the right decisions, those liberal ninnies....uh, no wait.... :rolleyes:

Actually it was supported by their elected leadership, one of whom was finally ousted in the Presidential campaign.

We need to be cool and respect the Forum rules a little more, and discuss the movie.

I thought Harris as a naive dingbat was quite amusing.

Arguments at this point about the wisdom of the Iraq War are premature, it seems to me. That assessment can’t be made accurately for many, many years, long after partisan feelings have abated. Recall that Harry Truman was vilified over the Korean War and for having fired Douglas Macarthur. He was so unpopular that he decided not to run for reelection in 1952. And yet, over time he has come to be regarded as one our finest foreign policy presidents. Most observers now agree that he had no choice but to fire Macarthur. Thus, I suggest we await the judgment of history before we make any profound pronouncements either way about the Iraq War.

Arguments at this point about the wisdom of the Iraq War are premature, it seems to me. That assessment can’t be made accurately for many, many years, long after partisan feelings have abated. Recall that Harry Truman was vilified over the Korean War and for having fired Douglas Macarthur. He was so unpopular that he decided not to run for reelection in 1952. And yet, over time he has come to be regarded as one our finest foreign policy presidents. Most observers now agree that he had no choice but to fire Macarthur. Thus, I suggest we await the judgment of history before we make any profound pronouncements either way about the Iraq War.

Good point. I think the war's final and eventual effect still has a long ways to go. The current situation is extremely dynamic and could still go in an infinite number of different directions. No matter what the next President (who ever that may be) does with the troops. Besides, we still have another election to go through. And who knows, we may be soon discussing "Recount II: The 2008 Presidential Election" ;)

The invasion was a great idea. The lack of forethought about the cleanup process was flawed indeed.

Screwing the babe at the bar was a great idea. The lack of forethought about the unexpected pregnancy was flawed indeed. I’ll let you guys figure out the moral of the story. Actually, there are several morals to this; however, this isn’t the place to discuss those. ;)

Screwing the babe at the bar was a great idea. The lack of forethought about the unexpected pregnancy was flawed indeed. I’ll let you guys figure out the moral of the story. Actually, there are several morals to this; however, this isn’t the place to discuss those. ;)
;) Just to add to this philosophical train wreck—

Perhaps, since this unexpected pregnancy cannot be 'stopped' —who knows? Maybe she/he will grow up and become a President of some new great nation.:cool:

Screwing the babe at the bar was a great idea. The lack of forethought about the unexpected pregnancy was flawed indeed. I’ll let you guys figure out the moral of the story. Actually, there are several morals to this; however, this isn’t the place to discuss those. ;)

I'm sure most that take this stance would just say to get rid of it.:rolleyes: The people that would take this stance typically aren't the ones to preach about morality.:confused:

But you're right, this isn't the place to hit-and-run post.:p