I am from Sweden and i think it was a good movie. However it seemed a bit like the democrats were the nice guys that did no wrong and the republicans in the movie were portrayed almost like monsters.
I remember waking up the day after US had the election and i remember seeing Gore live contesting the election since we are 6 hours ahead. The whole recount was like a sit-com
[deleted]
Yeah, well Kevin Spacey is the protagonist, so it has a democratic bias due to perspective. Even with the bias though, no arguments made by either side were off-based -- due to how screwed up Florida law was, neither side was evil...they were both doing exactly what the other side would have done.
Not only is it possible, it is essential
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/
Except that Bush stole the election.
That does make the Republicans just a tad evil.
Would love to know why you think he "stole" the election? I'm looking for hard facts that you have that prove it was "stolen", not just your opinion that it was stolen.
shareNever ask a liberal for facts... that's like asking Superman for kryptonite.
shareGreat comeback! Notice how I didn't get a reply either. Ask for facts and people crumble.
shareDo you have a proof that Bush won the election? Obviously, no. That's the whole point.
And the point of the movie is that the whole Republican machine's purpose was to prevent those facts of a mismanaged election from coming to light. If you don't know exactly how many votes casted for each party, how can you have a proof for either party?
Basically, the election was handed over to a party without knowing who won the election. That's the point. And this has lots of proofs.
In 2000, a clear majority of Americans voted for Al Gore. But the winner is determined by the Electoral College, so the winner in each state must be considered. The vote in Florida was so close that it took a month to declare a winner. Before Florida was declared, Gore led in the Electoral College with 266 votes to Bush's 246 votes. When Bush was declared the winner of Florida by 537 votes, he picked up 25 Electoral College votes which gave him the Presidency.
But Bush only won Florida because of poorly designed butterfly ballots that stole votes from Gore, and because his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and Governor Jeb Bush illegally removed 57,700 voters from the rolls. It is estimated that 90% of them were Democratic. So this represents thousands of votes stolen from Al Gore. If this crime had not been commited then Gore would be President.
[deleted]
It's also never mentioned in this movie that a consortium of newspapers did a recount of their own, (after the election had been decided,) and found that Bush had won Florida by 535 votes. How conveniently left out of their little movie.
shareI think the democrats came off as more "noble" perhaps but lackluster at being organized and fighters. Where were there organized demonstrations, leadership in the media?
shareHow conveniently left out by you the criteria used during that recount, or the various recounts which show Gore would have win. Hypocrite.
by - sheila-33 on Wed Nov 5 2008 10:58:48
It's also never mentioned in this movie that a consortium of newspapers did a recount of their own, (after the election had been decided,) and found that Bush had won Florida by 535 votes. How conveniently left out of their little movie.
smug Republican Bull$#it
share[deleted]
There was "no way" they could have known that? Nonsense!!!! EVERYONE knew it was going to be close. Maybe not a few hundred close, but certainly ten thousand or less close. Not a soul that a brain and knowledge knew it was going to be 58,000 close.
share[deleted]
Yeah, that's essentially correct. Bush won by a "rule of law" or strictly procedural manner. The myriad of screw-ups in Florida's election system were already in place on election day-the damage was already done so to speak. Supposedly the woman who designed the butterfly ballot was a democrat. I voted for Gore and was very emotionally involved in the "Recount" period. But years removed I hate to hear the same old ill-informed Libs saying Bush stole the election or the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency. When the Christmas decorations started to go up, it was time to put an end to it. As far as I know, there was never a tally that had Gore ahead.
The film is highly entertaining although very biased. One thing the film brings out about the crazy month, is that everyone had political motivations and nobody was objective. The Gore folks just wanted to keep counting until the got a count that went their way.
Bush was a pretty bad President, for all we know Gore could have been even worse.
"Bush was a pretty bad President, for all we know Gore could have been even worse."
For all we know (which is his credentials) he could have been better.
"But years removed I hate to hear the same old ill-informed Libs saying Bush stole the election or the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency."
Gore won many of the big industrial states with relative ease, including Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Democrats were sweeping the northeastern states and were expected to win the Pacific Coast, while Bush carried the south and southwest, the Rocky Mountain states and Ohio. It appeared that the election would be decided by Florida’s 25 votes in the Electoral College.
How convenient REPUBLICAN and bush supporter Harris just happened to throw away thousands of voters 54% of which were black.
He stole both elections.
I won't argue politics with you, as I'm a democrat. Still, I had a lot of misgivings about Gore.
As for the history of that election, I'll agree that Gore one by every "yardstick" except one. Unfortanatly, it was the one that mattered. I favored then, as I do now, changes to the Electoral System such that States are only given electoral votes for the # of Rep seats, and none for Senate seats. The current system gives way too much influence to States with small populations. Had this system been in place in 2000, Gore would have won.
I don't agree that Bush "stole" the election(s). I know its a liberal mantra, but from an objective POV, its just not true. The problems with voting machines in Florida were a result of careless neglect of many people. As for Katherine Harris' shananigans, I agree she may well have been acting outside her descretion and maybe illegally. I don't know. Florida's laws were really outdated. Maybe the Republicans were good at doing dirty tricks and staying within the law at the same time. I think the salient point is that all irregularities were in place well before Election Day. I agree with the Supreme Court, in that the awarding of Florida's Electoral votes was strictly a matter for Florida to decide, and that given the late date, there was no legal remedy to the situation. I also believe that the Florida Supreme was way out of its juristiction on several of its decisions. They in many ways created the controversy themselves by allowing dubious recounts to continue. I also blame the networks for making a premature call for Gore in Florida, when all indications were that it was a razor thin election. I believe the US Supreme Court sort of recognized this in their decision, and took "special" or "unique" remedies. Bottom line-there never was a universal standard for hand recounts established. Therefore, hand recounts is selected counties could never past muster.
I've read several legal interpretions of the 2000 Florida elections, including some by liberals, and most generally concur that there was no reasonable remedy to irrularities in the election once it had occured.
I'll agree that Katherine Harris, acting as Sectretary of State, manipulated the election in a way that favored Republicans and GW Bush. If you take that to mean that Jeb, stacked it in the favor his brother, You may have a point.
"but from an objective POV, its just not true"
Greg Palast writes, "In the months leading up to the November 2000 balloting, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local elections supervisors to purge these 57,700 from voter registries. In Harris's computers, they are named as felons who have no right to vote in Florida. Thomas Cooper is on the list... convicted of a felony on January 30, 2007. 2007? You may suspect something's wrong with the list. You'd be right. At least 90.2% of those on this 'scrub' list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent. Notably, over half -about 54%- are Black and Hispanic voters. Overwhelmingly, it is a list of Democrats. Harris declared George W. Bush winner of Florida, and thereby president, by a plurality of 537 votes over Al Gore. Now do the arithmetic. Over 50,000 voters wrongly targeted by the purge, mostly Blacks. My BBC researchers reported that Gore lost at least 22,000 votes as a result of this smart little blackbox operation. Explain to me what is subjective here.
"I'll agree that Katherine Harris, acting as Sectretary of State, manipulated the election in a way that favored Republicans and GW Bush. If you take that to mean that Jeb, stacked it in the favor his brother, You may have a point."
How is that not stealing the election then?
I don't doubt your facts. The only thing I would say, is that you can't predict what votes would be that were never cast. I believe even one of Gore's lawyers said this in the film. Minorities tend to turn out in very low #s. My question is did Katherine Harris' act outside the law with these purges? Was it within her descretion or an illegal act. To my knowledge, there was never an investigation of Katherine Harris on this matter. She went on to be elected to US Congress.
I also agree that she and Jeb sought to supress minority votes, and that they were/are both scum bags. The question is did they break any laws? If no laws were broken, then technically Bush won by "rule of law".
One fact is clear, and undisputed by either side. The closeness of the election was almost freakish. You could also make the arguement that the woman (a democrat) who designed the butterfly ballot in Miami Dade, "stole the Election for Bush", because her design caused at least 2000 elderly people to vote for Buchanon when they intended to vote for Gore. Many have said in retrospect that local democrats should have been more vigilant in the months before the election, in ensuring that voting machines were working, making sure ballots were designed properly, and challenging Harris' purge list in court.
Its always an enormous advantage for a presidential candidate to have a favorable Governor and or Secretary of State in a hottly contested State. It shouldn't be that way but it is.
I guess my main point is that the election wasn't handed to Bush by the US Supreme Court, or lower cucuit judges in Florida, who stopped recounts. If it was "stolen" for Bush, it was done well in advance of the election, and partially done unintentionally by incompetence.
I do believe that the purges likely cost Gore the election, it can never be proven though. "Rule of Law" is a mantra for the far right. The only problem is if the law is written in away that it allows violating people's cival right, then what good is the law?
Bush was a pretty bad President, for all we know Gore could have been even worse.
Of course you need to remember that the networks called the state of Florida for Mr. Gore while polls were still open in the panhandle section of the state. This area of the state is home to military institutions and a high segment of veterans that trend overwhelmingly Republican.
Who knows how many votes Mr. Bush lost as people either left voting lines or didn;t bother to come to vote. Was this a democratic/media attempt to steal Florida for Mr Gore? If Ms. Harris purged voters for the sole purpose of President Bush, did Mr. Brokaw and others call a state early for the sole purpose of Mr. Gore???
Of course if Gore had won his home State of Tennessee, Florida would have been a moot point, so the election loss in 2000 was Gore's fault because he took his own state for granted. Even Mondale won his own state in the 1984 49 state drubbing he took from Reagan.
shareThere were a number of illegalities by Democrats in Florida who were printing more ballots after the election was over, and only wanted to count the areas that Democrats would do well in, which is in fact, trying to steal an election. Besides that, even though this movie is just about the Florida recount, they ignore the fact that there were a number of states that George W. Bush could have contested, including Wisconsin, where WISN-12 in Milwaukee caught Democrats on tape bribing homeless for votes with cigarettes, also Democrats slashed the tires of buses that Republicans provided their supporters, as well as Democrats allowing voters to vote up to 10 times each, and Gore claims to be the man for 1 person, 1 vote. Yeah right.
share[deleted]
Crime? No statute was violated.
In fact, the local court decided that the machine recount was adequate, in keeping with Florida statutes.
The State Supreme Court, dominated by Democratic appointees, decided to invent new law to provide Gore with a recount that raised his chances from 0% to ~50% (recounts are ALWAYS desirable for the loser, as they provide a chance where otherwise they would be none).
The US Supreme Court, admittedly dominated (barely) by conservatives, by stopping the recount, overturned the State Supreme Court's attempt to "legislate" new law and left the situation exactly and precisely as provided for by Florida statutory law.
Those who call it a "crime" basically demonstrate the attitude that Gore should have won by any possible counting scheme that would have allowed him to win, relevant statutory law not withstanding, and not going along with that constituted the "crime".
Agreed and well said. From a legal point of view the fact there never was a STANDARD established for hand recounts, is THE saliant issue. In the end, thats why Bush won a "Rule of Law" election
Also, Katherine Harris never acted outside her discretion. Conservative women are so villified by our media its ridiculous. Her treatment was shameful and ultimately her legacy will be destroyed.
I believe the US Supreme Court made its decision to avoid a constitutional crisis. If any Court acted out of line it was the Florida Supreme Court-packed with liberals.
I voted for Gore btw.
2 major points in response:
1. It's just as much a known fact that Kennedy's father stole the 1960 election from Nixon so you could just say the parties are now even.
2. In both cases the better man one the election. God help us if Gore the enviro-wackjob had been president in the early 2000s...things would be much worse.
"Sir Ian McKellen? That dude must be knee-deep in boob."
Would love to know why you think he "stole" the election? I'm looking for hard facts that you have that prove it was "stolen", not just your opinion that it was stolen.
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. Katherine Harris never acted outside the discretion of her office. The US Supreme Court ultimately upheld her decision 7-2. Where is the criminal behavior? Please provide evidence.
The arbitrary hand recount with NO STANDARD which was allowed by the Florida Supreme Court was the real issue and the cause of all the controversy.
You can speculate on how the 20000 would have voted or even if they would have voted at all (minority turn-out is always low), but its pure speculation.
The myth that Bush stole 2000 Presidential Election will go down as a stain on our history.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bush (probably) did not steal the election. If anyone stole the election, it was the US Supreme Court at the time. Apparently, they thought it was so important that their decision resulted in George W Bush becoming POTUS, they were willing to jeopardize the reputation of the US Supreme Court.
I do not have as much of a problem with the result of their decision, as much as the "legal" arguments they used to "rationalize" their decision. They should have strictly followed US Constitutional precedent, and just let the laws passed on the books decide the issue. The recount would not have been completed in time, the matter would have moved to the Florida legislature, and the rule of law would have been followed. And since the legislative body was predominantly Republican, the matter would have been settled. Even if somehow Florida managed to bollux that up, Florida's electoral votes become invalid, and I believe the newly constituted US House of Reps then executes Florida's votes (thus delaying the POTUS inauguration ceremony). It incenses me that Scalia (and Thomas) to that point masqueraded as Constitutional Originalists in philosophy, but felt it was okay to "get creative" in this situation.
All this "stop the recount" BS was about fixing it for Bush, under the modern pretense that chaos will erupt if there isn't a new POTUS installed by Constitutional deadlines, and that politicians shouldn't deal with any political difficulties arising from the situation. There is also this notion that somehow the POTUS doesn't get all the people he wants to work for him if there is a delay in the accustomed time period for the POTUS-elect, to which I say "boo hoo, you've determined that gov't employees psychological perspective is more important than the rule of law."
Notice how the US system was more concerned about the equal representation of voters by applied standards, but really didn't give a rats ass that 20K voters were disenfranchised because the local government arbitrarily decided they were felons, and thus ineligible to vote. I am poised for the future firestorm that is going to erupt when some lawyer thinks Bush v Gore set precedents that needs to be applied for "Equal Protection" of US voters.
As for Republicans or Democrats, they are all evil.
I agree with you pad. I expected it to be a lot more biased towards the Democrats. I actually thought it was reasonably even handed.
I almost didn't watch it because I thought it was going to be "we was robbed" from the Democrats but the unfolding drama of it was quite compelling evewn though we did know the outcome. Most people (certainly outside of America) have little or no idea of exactly how the whole process occurred - and I think this movie detailed it very clearly.
Two things that stood out for me - the evolution of Katherine Harris's taste for power. I don't think it matters which side of politics you are from - her blatant bias did not serve the Republicans well. This is one of the reasons why they distanced themselves from her when she ran for the Senate.
The other thing that this movie made me think about was how different would things have been if Gore had won? Maybe not that much.
You're doing a helluva job Brownie - Dubya
I didn't feel like the film was as one-sided as I imagined it would be. Sure, Kevin Spacey and his associates were portrayed positively. But they were the underlings.
Persons of power on either side of the fence were both portrayed negatively. Most of the Republicans appeared to be bulldogs, calling the recount a "political street-fight". Then again, the Democrat higher ups looked like cowards. Warren Christopher backed down to James Baker with no resistance at all, even shaking his hand and telling him it was good to see him. Bill Daley, who should have been overseeing all of it, left Florida entirely shortly after the Republicans geared up.
So though Spacey and his staff may have looked good, I think the movie showed incompetence on both sides.
Okay. Now I'm going to do his teeth and cut off his fingers. You might want to leave room.
Perhaps one-sided in its portrayal but thats a writing and directing error. The story as a whole is told like it went down back then. Every little detail about the recounts and arguments where like that.
Remember, the GOP had won it on paper at first and why wouldn't they do everything in their power to keep a hold on that win even though compelling evidence told us that it didn't go down fairly in the end. And also remember that the more the democrats kept grasping at straws the less positive they seemed both to us and to the public back then, also it was Gore himself who put an end to the madness although they wanted to keep going.
Yes the GOP seemed like bullies and were generally a bit more sinister than the democrats but again, writing and directing is responsible for that
[deleted]
That's got to be a coincidence. Right..?
shareIt feels a little one sided depending on what perspective you have politically. If you identify with Republicans then you'll watch it and see the Democrats trying every trick in the book to steal the election. On the other hand if you identify with the Democrats then you'll see a group of noble hardworking liberal lawyers fighting against corrupt cowboys.
shareI'd agree with you on that, Shaun.
The thing I liked about Kevin Spacey in this is the fact that he genuinely seemed to only want to get all of the votes counted. Obviously he wanted to win, but the fact that he doesn't actually KNOW whether he won or lost is what gets to him.
Coming from Ireland, where the presidential election is run as one single proportional representation contest (essentially the same as the "popular vote" in the US), the concept of some people's votes being ignored is completely baffling, so I guess I identified strongly with the Democrats for that reason. It also baffles me that each state is allowed to decide how to vote for president themselves. To me, that seems an obvious thing to be set at a federal level. Otherwise, you end up with the a system that's too vulnerable to partisan influence from either side. To me, it doesn't seem like real democracy unless a vote in New York is worth the same as a vote in Nevada is worth the same as a vote in Florida is worth the same as a vote in Texas.
Somebody also said that it's the people in power in this film that are portrayed in a bad light, Republican or Democrat, and I'd completely agree with that. Warren Christopher is far too concerned about appearing honourable rather than winning, and comes off pretty badly in this.
A very good film overall, I felt.
yetanotherfilmreviewblog.blogspot.com
Of course It highlighted what a joke the USA electoratal system . each state is a mickey mouse entity. The fact is 20,000 non white Americans were wrongly removed from the register.THe HELL that was reaked upon the world because these events will always be rememebered. Even the Supreme Court was divided on these events. Of course the only good thing that came from this is that Lieberman was never VP
shareI find it humoring when non-Americans comment on our political system. The flaw and error in the argument that the system is not democratic is simple. The United States is a Union. We are not a single state, but a collective of 50 states. If New York and LA decided the election for the rest of the country it would be a disaster. It would likely be the end of the Union, based in idealogical differences.
The electoral system is great. It ensures that everyone has an equal voice. The 50,000,000 million Democrats in New York and LA don't decide what tax rates people in Selma, Alabama pay. On the flip side, the Republicans in Selma, Alabama don't shut down the abortion clinics in New York and LA.
Nice straw man, but we are not talking about taxes or abortion, we are talking about unified election laws and I can't think of any good reason why the laws on that can't be the same everywhere.
Why is the concept of votes being ignored "baffling"? It happens in every election. Everyone who didn't vote for the winner has their vote ignored. The outcome of the election would have been no different if they didn't show up at all. The electoral college just ignores a different set of people than a direct election does. It doesn't automatically make one system better or worse.
shareI guess you never heard of parliamentarism? Although both systems has flaws and benefits, i personally consider it superior in the end. You are of course entitled to disagree, but the statement that all democratic process presupposes ignoring votes is at least false.
share[deleted]
It is not important if the movie is one-sided or not, it's a movie and it won't ever accurately portray the exact events of those faithful days, ever heard of creative licence? Of course the movie will be biased, what do you think, after the past 8 years and the position the US finds itself in, this movie is a mild repercussion of what should have happened to those that created the situation that led to the infliction of the past 8 years on the US itself and the rest of the world! People always look for a message...for me the message is that both Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin, besides...
There is NO message to get, for that would imply a receptive population, which would, unfortunnately exclude, a large chunk of the American public. People didn't get IT, even while these events were unfolding before their very eyes and could have done something about IT!
In order for that to happen, it would recquire a well informed, well educated, active and eternally vigillent citizenry, and I'm sorry to say the vast majority of Americans strike me as anything but, once upon a time maybe, but not now (and please don't quote to me the election of Obama, the system is already irreparably damaged people are too blind or too unwilling to see it!)
IT, was the wholesale destruction of the American political and democratic system, that is what, this wasn't about who was right or wrong, who won and who lost, who was wronged and who was vindicated, who was Democrat or Republican, since they were and are still all part of the same big pile of steamming s*it that did the damage in the first place.
The big loosers are the American people who were caught in the middle of this "titanic" (see contest between a bunch of preening and self-importang gas bags, a**holes and morons) struggle!
Too bad they didn't, and still don't, know it!
By the way, the movie does an admirable job trying to convey this feeling, to bad there isn't anybody there (other than a depressingly small segment of Americans) to understand all of this, because as they say, the lights are on but there is nobody home!
"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins
[deleted]
Republicans (in D.C.) are monsters.
They care only about war,oil,corporations &the rich,taxes,about money itself and how much money they can make from all of these things.
They also tax the everyday worker far more than the rich,spend money on pointless wars,expensive White House $1000 a plate dinners and shamelessly flaunt their own riches,while there are million of people in this country who really need money,jobs and health coverage for their families.
The portrayal of Republicans in the film is perfectly accurate. The Bush family and Republicans would do anything to make an adversary look bad just to ein an election.
HaPpIpUPpI 13 *Arf!*
Inaccurate post.
share[deleted]
[deleted]