Skip to comments.The side of "Recount" that Big Media won't show
Posted on 05/25/2008 8:02:23 AM PDT by wm_tate
For weeks now, we've heard a steady drumbeat--from Big Media, from Barack Obama and other Democrats, and now from HBO's "Recount"--that the Supreme Court handed George Bush Florida and the 2000 election, even though subsequent reviews show the recounts Al Gore requested would have increased Bush's margin of victory.
Tom Shales, in today's WaPo, has finally put into words the reason behind that: "If the mess in Florida had been resolved with as much skill and savvy as went into the making of the movie, the world might be a different place today -- presumably a better one...."
In the liberal media's halcyon days of Gore, we would all, somehow be better off. I beg to differ. I have spent almost three years researching and writing an alternative history novel, A Time Like This, that asks what would have happened if the 2000 election HAD turned out the other way.
How would a president whose top priority was international cooperation on Global Warning have reacted to 9/11?
How would a rapid conversion to a Green Economy have affected the nation's economy?
How would the liberal media have reacted to presidential infringements on the rights of other governmental branches and of citizens?
Not to disappoint Mr. Shales and his colleagues too much, but my research has lead me to answers that a liberal administration these last eight years could have lead to a far, far worse world.
Yes, this is a sheer vanity plug, but if you would like to see a very different interpretation of the effects of the Florida recounts than you'll see on HBO--the negative effects if the election had gone the other way--please check out my book, A Time Like This.
I make this direct appeal because I have had incredible difficulty getting media exposure for the book. Most newspapers simply don't want to give attention to a book that challenges their core beliefs.
Why is A Time Like This important?
By implying, or flat-out stating, that the world would be better off if the Democrat had won in 2000, Democrats and their allies in the media are also implying that the world WILL be better off if a Democrat wins in 2008.
As long as that conceit goes unchallenged, the media will succeed in rewriting, not only the history of what happened in Florida in 2000, but the future of this country.
-Wm Tate www.atimelikethis.us
Rats = Good
Pubbies = Bad
FLOTUS, which actually tried to steal the election from the voters is given no blame.
SCOTUS, which held that election rules cannot be changed during the election is bad per HBO.
Joseph Goebbels lives in the Democrat media.
Crazy people can’t face reality so they frequently sit in corners, rocking and telling themselves little happy fairy tales.
Unfortunately, the *other* crazy people generally mistake the fairy tales for truth.
I thought ABC’s Path to 9/11 skewered the Dems fairly decently.
As noted in a post above, the Florida Supreme Court screwed the whole process up.
If I recall correctly, no less than 14 news organizations finished the recount, and no telling what criteria was used, and discovered that George Bush did indeed win, albeit by the slimmest of margins.
I wonder also, if they'll show the Democrats not wanting to count the military ballots?
Al Gore lost period. Will this happen again - Will We The People let this happen again? Get involved in your city.
Obviously, Shales knows absolutely nothing about the whys our forefathers gave us the Electoral College.
Had Bush won the National Popular vote in 2000, but still had the close call in Florida in favor of Gore, I imagine the left would be singing praises for the Electoral College.
Shales is just one more piece of evidence at how the left is manipulating the public for the leftist takeover and enslavement of our people.
“How would a president whose top priority was international cooperation on Global Warning have reacted to 9/11?”
pulease, pulease mr bin laden hit us again!
these evil skyscrapers are doing the work of evil capitalism
and evil smog.
And that's without the margin for George Bush in western Florida because of the easrly announcement of poll closures (estimated 10,000 votes more for Mr. Bush than Al Gore).
I learned that several states do not report (and may not even count) overseas votes unless the primary election is close.
In any case, the national vote is not certified until in December, far after this media driven drumbeat had started.
“Ref: Statistical evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that 19,120 Presidential race ballots were destroyed by deliberate double-punching ballots in Palm Beach County FL with a “second punch” for Al Gore or Pat Buchanan. (In 1996, an additional 15,000 Dole and Perot ballots were destroyed by double-punching presidential ballots in Palm Beach County, FL. *)”
Massive double punching occurs when an operative sits with an open metal stylus (sometimes a clothes hanger) and punches through 30 - 50 ballots to enter another name.
It is these double punches that led to the “dimpled chad” problem, since the operator did not always punch cleanly through all the cards.
Yeah. The did recount until the got it right in Washington State, including “finding” hundreds of ballots between the second recount (Republican still winning) and the third recount. In the fourth, court supervised “contest” recount it was determined that there were approx. 1,700 illegal votes cast: the majority by inelligible felons, but also double votes and dead people voting. The margin of the dictators victory was 132.
The DEMS stole the election in broad daylight in Washington State. We should officiall be called the “occupied territories of Northwestern America” as our state governemnt is an illegitimate scam.
They know better. They held their tongue on the Clintons too.
They push partisan propaganda. I hope they lie awake late at night staring at the ceiling disgusted with themselves for living a lie and forcing it on the American public.
I am waiting to see if they at least get the Supreme Court ruling correct. The official ruling was 7-2 not 5-4 that ended the process. Let’s see of they lie about that.
I have to laugh whenever the Dems talk about their views on voting. in 2000, the mantra was "Let Every Vote Count", but now in 2008, in their OWN PRIMARIES, what we hear is anything but. The Democrats have their own equivalent of the Electoral College in their "Super Delegates" who have been universally acknowledged as being the deciding factors in this primary.
As a confirming flip of the finger to their pretensions, consider the Democrat Texas Primary which Hillary (HRC) won by 100k votes and 3% over Barrak (BHO) [I'm being consistant on my identifiers, unlike MSM]. Texas gets 228 delegates to Denver of which 35 are 'Super' and as such uncommitted by the primary vote. Therefore it would appear by letting "Every Vote Count", HRC should get 51.5% (99) of the 193 committed delegates, right? Well, according to the "Real Cear Politics" delegate counts, it is BHO that has 99 and HRC has 94. If you read the Wikipedia entry cited above, you will see a scheme that makes the US Electoral College look simple.
So Shales and all of the rest of these simple-minded deniers of history can take their prejudices and go sit with the 9/11 truthers. A pox on thier heads and my plaintive cry from the heart, why have we let the libs get control of the MSM???
Correct. Even the 3,000 absentee military ballots that were approved by the Supreme Court were not included in the certified Floriduh total.
Gore’s national “victory” was a 0.51% margin. One half of one percent. A recount (national county by county) with all absentee ballots would’ve changed it.
If we’d have known that Red Dupes would push the Algore Junior WON lie, we could’ve justified the expense in doing a total recount.
Don’t forget the 2004 Washington State Governors race where Democrats kept “finding” “misplaced ballots” in Liberal King County, until Christine Gregoire was declared the winner (it took three tries).
A commonly heard phrase here then was, “That’s payback for 2000.”
The Sopranos was such a good show, that I held my nose and subscribed to HBO depite Bill Maher, and a lot of other intolerable crap on the network. When The Sopranos finished I could not drop my subscription fast enough, and I doubt if there will be anything they broadcast that could get me back as a paying subscriber.
Concerning the 2000 election my state of Wisconsin was won by Gore with a less than five thousand vote difference out of more than two million cast. Afterwards reports of Dem vote fraud in Milwaukee were confirmed. One Dem operative openly bragged about passing out smokes to people in Milwaukee to vote for Gore. Would a recount have made a difference? Who knows. Gore might have still squeaked it out, but the fact is Republicans never demanded anything like what the Dems demanded.
I was a voice crying here in the Florida wilderness when the push was made to go to 'all-electronic' voting after this fiasco. I said then and say now that voting without any capability of recount of physical ballot is a massive open door to fraud. We are now seeing a costly effort to replace what was bought in haste with something more 'palatable'.
I want to see an 'electronically readable' paper ballot that uses indelible ink to mark the ballot like standardized tests. Yes it is not perfect, nothing is. But it would take a party hack a LOT LONGER to work their mischief there. I'm wondering if someday, in a death's bed confession, we'll have one of these hacks confess.
Somehow I doubt that "Recount" will delve into the teams of lawyers the DNC sent into every Florida county to dispute absentee ballots. They were actually high-fiving each other every time they got a ballot thrown out.
I’ll bet they repeat the same line that Leslie Stahl used in her 60 Minutes piece on Antonin Scalia, that the 5-4 vote amounted to “handing the election to George Bush.”
my plaintive cry from the heart, "why have we let the libs get control of the MSM???"
If it's any consolation, "we" didn't. At least unless you are a lot older than I am - and I'm retired.
The Right to Know presents my thesis on why journalism is "liberal."
The thirtieth reply on that thread discusses William Safire's take on the transformation of the meaning of the word "liberal" from its traditional pro-freedom meaning (still current outside the U.S.) to the socialist, anti-freedom meaning Americans are familiar with and contemptuous of.
They took out a lot in deference to Bill Clinton and his temper. He demanded that they delete a lot of damning info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.