Definitely biased


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. . ."

reply

[deleted]

Certain Dems were made to look like the spineless weasles they are. James Baker was made to look like the most competent and strategically sound person in the movie.

If you check the facts, it's quite accurate. The bias was slight and shouldn't take away from the facts. I mean, I can't imagine Katherine Harris is that much of a clown, and perhaps the Dem Lawyer wasn't kicked by a mob (or maybe he was?).

Regardless, if you want to dismiss this because you have detected a bias I think you need to examine your opinions a bit.

Of the 9 independent recounts since this occured, 5 said Bush wins and 4 said Gore wins. There are probably other unaccounted for factors that weren't considered in the recounts. All in all, it is *somewhat likely* that Bush would have won with a recount.

So what? The fact that this is how our election was handeled is a travesty and should be a point of nataional shame. It's irrelevant whether or not it would have made the difference.

reply

lets be accurate...shall we?

of the independent recounts (all which were severely flawed) 6 showed gore winning

harris was/is a clown...her senate race proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt

James Baker loved the film

the real story is the scotus decision...that was the true travesty

reply

Every recount done after the fact showed Bush winning....EVERY ONE and that includes the NEW YORK TIMES...Idiot, name your sources

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

reply

To plexys69:

"A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president."

However, if you read further from one of YOUR sources:

"The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings....."

".....Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore....."

".....In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes....."


".....According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush....."

".....Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race....."

".....Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush....."

".....On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast....."


Let's not forget that hand recounts and "dimpled chad" were signed into Texas law by Governor Bush, yet they were deemed unworthy in Florida.....the mandatory machine recounts were not performed in 18 of the 67 Florida counties (these 18 counties only retabulated the machine memory cards).....an estimated 20,000 potential voters were "purged" from the polls by Katherine Harris.....not one "recount county" used the same counting standards, and Dade was "forced" to abandon the recount due to unruly protests.....and the SCOTUS overturned a state decision--and wrote a landmark decision that counted "only once"--going against all that is holy to the right-wing GOP (state control over Federal intervention).

None of the NORC's findings were conclusive, and I'm not saying Gore won. Florida--whether you supported Bush or Gore--was a legal and partisan nightmare.

But I am saying you should read your sources through before you footnote them.

reply

Typical fabricating lib.

reply

Several Republicans said the movie was very accurate.

There were several scenes that made the Democrats look bad, like when Liberman agreed that the military ballots should be counted (some would say that is definitely right), but the Democrats were angry at him for making that stand. The Republicans also believed what they were doing was completely just, which adds some virtue to their side.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree, the movie is biased, but given the fact that 95% of Hollywood always vote for Democrats (I read it somewhere) it should not come as a surprise.

Almost all Democrats are portrayed as the good guys, smart and honest while the Republicans are mostly a childish and in some cases like Katharine Harris plain stupid.

Toward the end of the movie, while everybody is waiting for the Supreme Court decision, we see the Democrats headquarters. They all are quiet, look concerned, still busy working on something. And then the camera moves to the Republicans who are having a good time playing cards and throwing a ball. The message the producers are sending is clear - Democrats are righteous and Republicans simply immature.

reply

There's a difference between a movie being biased and having a point of view. I don't think the Republicans came off as immature exactly; on the contrary, they seemed more focused and forceful on attaining their goal of having Bush win the presidency--which after all was their job. Warren Christopher comes off as an ineffectual wuss.

reply

I didn't get that at all from this film.

I thought the film accurately reflected the reality between the two parties: the Republicans are passionate and organized, capable of getting things done while the Democrats are disorganized and overly sensitive, too busy backstabbing each other to help out the few members of the party who are trying to get something done.

Whether the Republicans were villains in this film or not is dependent on your perspective. If you are a Republican who saw Al Gore as a continuation of the Clinton Presidency, something that almost all Republicans universally reviled, then the movie showed the depth of passion and will that the Republicans exhibited in preventing Al Gore from getting to the White House. Were I a Republican watching this film, I would be proud. I'm not a Democrat (anymore) but I lean that direction and I was a very active Democrat at the time this was going on (I was involved in the Al Gore campaign in another State in 2000). I remember the frustration and annoyance that came from the inability of the party to get anything done because the leaders were so obsessed with their own political futures and with the perception of the public that they would be stealing an election. That was aptly demonstrated in this film when Joe Leiberman betrayed his running mate on television and ensured that illegal absentee ballots would be counted in the election EVEN THOUGH the Republicans had done the same thing with similar non-post-marked ballots from Israel (which tended Democratic). I felt Kevin Spacy's frustration at the incompetence and impotence of his own party because I witnessed it first hand myself. Then I witnessed it again in 2004 when John Kerry ran.

Yes, there was Katherine Harris...but any Republican in the country should be ashamed of her anyway, because she is a total nut-case. Unless they too are nut-cases, they shouldn't want to have anything to do with her. The Republicans wisely sent an intelligent and charismatic lobbyist to talk with her and convince her to do what they wanted. Nothing illegal there. The Democrats chose not to because they were afraid of how it would look. That is cowardice. The Republicans in this film were ballsy and bright; not to mention intelligent and organized. The Democrats were confused, scared, disorganized, and self-serving. The few of them that were passionate about this got trounced out by the ones who didn't want to "rock the boat", including Al Gore himself.

The message I got from the last scene in the film was that the Democrats were unsure of themselves, while the Republicans were confident and excited. And why shouldn't they have been? They knew they'd won this one. The played a good game, and the score was heavily in their favor. The only thing that kept the Democrats in the game at all in this competition was a few lucky breaks: the Florida Supreme Court taking it upon themselves to hear the case without being asked, among others. They had nothing on their own, because they didn't give it their all.

Personally, I think it makes Republicans look bad because they were fighting for a terrible, evil man (Bush). But, if you LIKE Bush, or at the very least, don't HATE him with the same degree of passion and near-violent-outburst-level rage that I do, then you should just LOVE the Republicans in this movie. Its like rooting for the Allies in the WW2 movie.

reply

How do you know Katherine Harris is a nut-case? Do you know her?

And I know that you liberals put a lot of stock in shame, but those who believe in personal responsibility don't feel ashamed for something someone else has done.

Oh, and here is the kicker, Bush is a terrible evil man.

How old are you mentally-emotionally? 14?

reply

How do you know Katherine Harris is a nut-case? Do you know her?
Good point. I suppose she could just be ACTING like a nut case every time she appears on television and in interviews and when she was running for office, and that in REAL life she is totally lucid and competent. Possible, but not likely.
And I know that you liberals put a lot of stock in shame, but those who believe in personal responsibility don't feel ashamed for something someone else has done.
Ah yes, the guilt remover. All a neocon or right-winger has to do to alleviate himself for any guilt or shame is convince themselves that they don't bear any responsibility. Gutless, but efficient.

How old are you mentally-emotionally? 14?
Why? Did I turn you on?

reply

ProzacGod must be on, well...prozac and therefore cannot understand simple concepts like, oh say, personal responsibility.

I will try again.

Prozac...prozac, wake up. Personal responsibility isnt a guilt remover. It is the ultimate in fixing responsibility, it puts it on the person...prozac, wake up. It puts it on the person...prozac, you listening? It puts it on the person who is actually doing the thing, thinking the thing, saying the thing, get it?

Nodded off again. Gee, I wonder who is responsible for prozac taking those drugs in the first place? Ah! It's president Bush's fault.

reply

im a democrat, and what the movie was portaying is not that the republicans were childish, but that they practically knew that they had the recount wrapped up. the dems had the toughest job to begin with (since katherine harris is/was a puppet for bush) and so naturally they were more concerned. The reps playing basketball and cards was just showing that they were much less uptight.

reply

Seeing that the Republicans basically destroyed the electoral process of the United States, i'd say it wasn't that biased.

reply

<<Seeing that the Republicans basically destroyed the electoral process of the United States, i'd say it wasn't that biased. >>

Translation: Since Al Gore lost Florida and the electoral college because the US Supreme Court basically told the Florida Supreme Court that they couldn't make new law, George Bush was elected president. And, since no recount showed that AL Gore was ever going to win Florida, I will make asinine statements like the one above because it is me, after all, who is really biased.

reply

Actually, the electoral process worked EXACTLY the way it was supposed to. Just because YOU don't like the outcome does not mean the process was destroyed. The same way that just because YOU don't like certain policies of an administration, that does not make them illegal.

reply

Because republicans are probably the worst people on this planet.

reply

[deleted]

According to the US Constitution, the state legislatures determine how a President will be elected. The Florida Supreme Court came in and in effect rewrote that legislation. Also, they overruled all of the Florida Circuit Court trial results that found for the Bush side. They arrogantly ignored initial rulings from the US Supreme court until it came to a showdown. Every Gore backer I have talked to are totally unaware of the circuit court rulings for Bush and the politically biased rulings of the Florida Supreme court. Ignorance and bias are bedfellows.

reply

I can think of few worse. The Nazis, Communists, Maoists...

If you lived in Cuba you wouldn't be even able to make internet comments criticizing the government of Raul Castro.

reply

<<Because republicans are probably the worst people on this planet.
>> Another genius heard from.

Oh yeah. Worse than the Taliban. Worse than the slave dealers in sub-sahara africa. Worse than the warlords who use starvation as a weapon. Worse than the corrupt government of Mexico. Worse than all the corrupt brutal regimes around the world who murder rape and torture.

Worse than the crazy mullahs in Iran who want an atomic bomb.

Oh, yeah. The Republicans are far worse than they are.

reply

Yeah, but I'm sure these evil republicans just do it for the tax writeoffs, and would really prefer to throw grandma off the cliff....

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

reply

i love how stating historical FACT is bias. Find one thing in that movie that wasn't true. It's well known the election was stolen. Even Florida admitted it and changed the voting machines. Get Over It and move on with your life Republicans.

reply