I think some people arent getting the message.

Thats a pretty ignorant statement...

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

After the horrendous character assassinations perpetraited against her during the process, why the hell should she give the producers the time of day. They went right on along ripping her a new one through the film. Conservative women are fair game for any hate speech in America today.

Katherine Harris NEVER acted outside the discretion of her office during the 2000 process.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes"

- Josef Stalin

I get the message. I just didn't like the film because it furthered the stereotype that the democrats were not only wronged by the system, they were wronged by scheming, unreasonable, rich, mustache bearing A-hole republicans who were actively trying to rob an election.

Sure, this movie followed the chain of events pretty well. But every time the Democrats spoke, it sounded reasonable, well toned, and in the name of justice. Then every time a Republican came on screen, they grunted, cheered, and talked about how what they needed to do in order to beat the system.

The message wasn't supposed to be that Dems are good and Repubs are evil...but they made that a huge part of the movie.

Forgive me, but I don't think you do. You think you do, but anyone who doesn't have the sense to judge things on their own and independent merits is clearly either obtuse or agenda-driven. I've read this line before, and people just don't get it that all the jokes, many excessive and insulting, around America about Florida in the 2000 debacle, how it was 'stolen', how Bush and Cheney are scumbags, etc., etc., all reflect a true basis. The world should be fair and balanced in these matters, but not with a verdict of balance and bipartisanship just for the intrinsic sake of it. I know what I saw, read, and deduced from plenty of investigating, and it reaches a line where interpretation and point of view gives way for outright duplicity. For the Republicans directly involved in the politics of the whole quagmire, they were without doubt the scummy bad guys. But here's the good news - they can live with it handsomely (oh, was that unfair? Let's 'be fair' to the Republicans for the intrinsic value of what fairness means in the dictionary, shall we, not for the extant and circumstantial issues for a basis of judgment), if they're cognizant of it.

What you've just relayed (the quote above) is not inaccurate, but your connotation that it is unreasonable is the usual attitude from the people who just don't or refuse to get this (at least 'publicly'). Neither does that moron (personal bias on my part) Antonin Scalia, a relatively smart man who thinks he's a genius! Whooo, move over Aristotle and Ben Franklin! He asserted that "Al Gore made the issue a judicial question by...we didn't go looking for trouble, it was he who wanted the issue solved by the courts". That's a flat out lie! 'We didn't go looking for trouble!!' What an outright jerk Scalia is. Trouble - like the shenanigans attempted by the Felon Purge List. It was James Baker and Co. who enacted the first usage of the courts, as the movie showed in its special features. The democrats are guiltier of naivete and lack of hardball tactics.

I believe the reason why the Democrats spoke so well toned, reasonable and honorably, while the Republicans grunted, cheered, and tried to beat the system was because that's probably what actually happened...

Thank you!

We're not talking of something a little bit specious here. It is clear as day that hindsight has revealed that Gore should have won Florida by thousands of votes.

Some Republicans are just amazing. I wonder if it's some sort of complex neurosis or something: George W. Bush was sworn in as the President as of late January of 2001. Hence why do they care so much over many of the leftist arguments about their loss in this election? I've seen if first-hand. They really care. The Republicans really get mad about this controversy over the now-over-a-decade-old 2000 Election. They won. Bush and Cheney attacked Iraq, both whom are quite safe. Be happy the 'diseased' liberals didn't win the White House in 2000, nor did the war-criminal John Kerry win four years later, thanks largely to the brilliant and just acts of the Swift Boat Veterans who maintained the deep integrity amid our country. George W. Bush was a prophetic genius, evidenced by how composed and confident he was even after the exit-polls in Florida looked more auspicious for Gore.

Yes, I'm being quite facetious

From the thread 'Definitely Biased' here on the same site:

I saw Kevin Spacey, Jeffrey Toobin and David Boies interviewed on The Charlie Rose Show a few night before HBO premiered this movie, and they insisted - insisted! - that "Recount" was fair to both sides. I just finished watching the movie and it was probably one of the most biased movies I've ever seen in my life.

I don't think there was one scene in the entire movie that showed (a) the Democrats in a bad light, or (b) the Republicans in a good one. I challenge anyone reading this post to find one scene anywhere in the movie that proves me wrong.

By the way, yes I'm a Republican. And since I know I'm going to get kicked around on this thread, let me say in advance: "Sticks & stones, etc. . ."

Challenge accepted: the terrific actor Tom Wilkinson portrayed James Baker, and when Bush was finally appointed as President, the movie depicted Baker telling his staff (quote, at 1:47 of the movie):

"People are going to say all kinds of things about this election - that it was down to 154 votes, that Bush's brother was the governor, that the U.S. Supreme Court gave it to us. But I want you to remember that we won every single recount. Not once did we trail Gore. And who knows how many votes we lost when the networks called Florida for Gore before all the polls were closed on election night."

Why did you assume you'd be kicked around on this thread, rather than take stock in Baker's words in the movie, which I thought were not indicative of Democratic bias, quite tenable overall (in terms of a closer to plausibly fair victory for Bush than the notion that he surely stole the election), particularly the last statement regarding the premature call for Gore? You're a Republican, as you admitted, and coupled with that trivia you wrote that this movie was probably one of the most biased movies you've ever seen in your life. That parallel is supposed to be a coincidence of some sort? You have the capacity to discern acutely between bias and fairness, without being affected by the course of the controversy? If so, good for you. I disagree, though. I lean more to the left, but feel I am far more bipartisan than such rigid-minded Republicanism. Whatever field, it's an historical tradition that the loser in such famous and close-run things garners more sympathy. The 2000 Election was quite freaky for its irregular and aberrational happenings, and much did not have to do with purposed foul play. But Republicans, I'm sorry, will invariably fool themselves if they think Bush won in the manner such elections purport to serve - if they carry a viewpoint of fairness as defined in a dictionary, not the 'way of the world' of not getting caught at injustice or it was fair because a legal interpretation afforded them the 'victory' (it worries me that some people actually think Justice Scalia is a decent and fair man!).

The movie did reflect the Republicans in a poorer light. But, however tacit, you're reflecting the quintessential Rovian forensic tactic: draw attention to the intrinsic aspect of a lack of down-the-line impartiality of the topic, and subsequently connote it as the paramount factor as being unfair per se. The movie might, just might, be presented as one-sided because the Republicans were indeed guiltier of duplicitous actions in that pathetic quagmire in November of 2000; at 1:08 into the movie it is depicted quite accurately as to what occurred with the voter purge list which successfully precluded, ultimately, over 80,000 people from voting (one of a couple figures, others being 57,000 and 94,000; they do not reflect a figure for the the same region, as I remember the investigations revealing) under the guise, no less, of the lawful exclusion of felons as voters (as it turned out, over 90% were unlawfully scrubbed from the list). There's no question that voter intent in the Gore-Buchanan box of the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County was meant for Gore, but 'voter intent' cannot be a determinate to conclude such a problem. But, for all in all, these two huge issues which worked against Gore occurred in three counties where he won by a collective 180,000 votes with the official results. The final tally favored Bush in all of Florida by 537 votes. Need I bother with extrapolating who should have won? But this is old news, and it's reached a point where it is satisfying that most people joke with various connotations how Bush should not have won. The astute post by keithgordon is common knowledge, even in other countries. Now, am I bias for thinking so, or is keithgordon an intelligent person only because I agree with him? Is it bias whatever the judgment may be, and whomever will not share agreement? Is objectivity really exclusive from subjectivity? Do we live in The Matrix? See how easy it can be to play that game. I would never claim something as being bias - with the attitude of I know the total truth. That's what the likes of Sean Hannity do, who once told a guest over this issue 'nothing happened in Florida' (he was retorting to a liberal after the latter said amid the 2000 Election coming up in a discussion, 'and after what happened in Florida...'). Nothing happened in Florida. "I'm telling the truth. I love America. I believe in the integrity of our system and protection of our children and upholding the traditions..." I can't finish!

The Office of the Florida Secretary of State (one Katherine Harris) contracted Database Technologies to itemize a master list of anyone who conceivably might have been a former felon, hence could be, by law if accurate, scrubbed from voter rolls. The email from Harris' office to Database clearly read as instructions to the latter to capture more names that possibly aren't matches. This was the real eye-roller of the 2000 Election, in terms of Republican wrongdoing. Any intelligent and tidy explanations have never gotten them out of this one, hence people like the thread-starter here will have to merely live with their 'problem' over the election's deep controversies. Get over it! Wasn't that the wonderful Scalia's advice to the losers of the election? Many Republicans state they're sick of hearing about this, or 'get over it' to the left: well, to you 'tough guys', how about close your ears and worry not about the 'diseased' liberals, but worry about all your 'family values' and conforming traditions to the power of the Lord and the tradition he invoked.

Because the movie couldn't concoct any scenes to show the Democratic side perpetuated things that could offset that, well, it's because such acts never occurred, not because the 'Hollywood left' purposely stilted the whole scenario due to partisanship. I personally prefer truth (or at least the best it can be gleaned) - to look at situations based on their own merits over arbitrarily lain parameters - presented as 'objective criticism' - of 'balance' just for the intrinsic value of it. Fairness works from investigating the arguments from all sides in a balanced manner, not the final judgment needing to be the measure of 'balance'.

However, it wasn't the Republicans' fault that Al Gore couldn't hold his own state, nor they're doing that the majority of thousands of voters in Palm Beach County clearly screwed up their responsibilities (or the creator of the Butterfly Ballot ). Oh, forgive me Mr. Scalia - we should just get over it, right?

Thanks for the vent; I just recently saw the movie, and would have been disappointed had it not portrayed the Democrats as more honorable people than their opponents. I will spare the Republican apologists a comment about Katherine Harris. That would be unfair to taint her as emblematic of Republicans. Just be embarrassed, I ask of most of them.

reply share

add reply

formatting help