Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reminder: Bush Won in Florida Recounts Conducted by the Media [HBO's 'Recount' movie 9 PM tonight]
Newsbusters ^

Posted on 05/25/2008 5:24:16 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

Reminder: Bush Won in Florida Recounts Conducted by the Media Photo of Brent Baker. By Brent Baker | May 25, 2008 - 19:56 ET

With HBO's 'Recount' movie (airing Sunday and Monday night at 9 PM EDT/PDT) sure to rekindle claims that Al Gore would have won if only the U.S. Supreme Court had not “stopped the counting,” a reminder that both recounts conducted by major media outlets in 2001 determined George W. Bush would have won anyway. Two stars of the film have fueled the re-writing of history with actor Kevin Spacey, who plays Gore operative Ron Klain, charging that “the Bush people were trying to stop votes from being counted and the Gore people were just trying to get votes counted” while Laura Dern, who plays Katherine Harris, recalled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling left her “devastated because there were uncounted votes.”

The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....

That look was followed in November by an analysis by a consortium of media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN and AP. It determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either legally possible recount scenario which could have occurred: The Florida Supreme Court ordered recount of undervotes statewide or Gore’s request for a recount in certain counties. The New York Times led its November 12, 2001 front page article, “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,” by reporters Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder:

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

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. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations....

In summarizing the consortium’s findings, however, the November 13, 2001 MRC CyberAlert recounted CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather gave equal weight to a scenario which never could have occurred, a statewide recount of all overvotes in which the intent of the voter would have been intuited, as to how Bush would still have won in the only legally possible scenario, a recount of undervotes:

In the second half of the hour-long CBS Evening News on Monday night [November 12], Rather announced:

A consortium of news organizations today released their joint findings on the disputed Bush/Gore presidential election results from Florida. They suggest the limited hand re-count of votes requested by Democrat Al Gore would still have given Florida and the presidency to George W. Bush. But this study also found that if there had been a re-count of all disqualified ballots statewide it might have produced a narrow Gore victory.

As Monday’s New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," but Rather failed to correct his earlier reporting. At the top of the CBS Evening News back on the December 13, 2000, Rather had declared:

Good evening. Texas Governor George Bush tonight will assume the mantle and the honor of President-elect. This comes 24 hours after a sharply split and, some say, politically and ideologically motivated U.S. Supreme Court ended Vice President Gore’s contest of the Florida election and, in effect, handed the presidency to Bush.

Neither ABC’s World News Tonight nor the NBC Nightly News, both of which remained the usual half-hour on a busy news day on Monday, mentioned the latest media effort at a Florida re-count.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: floridarecount; hbo; liberalmedia; recount; soreloserman

1 posted on 05/25/2008 5:24:19 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

My HBO free pass from DirecTV expired just in time....today!


2 posted on 05/25/2008 5:34:23 PM PDT by clintonh8r (Leaving the top of my ballot blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrewksu

The facts will be in short supply in coming days. Remembering them and reminding the ignorant that the vaunted Democrat Party is the party of liers and cheats. Remember on Memorial Day that the only votes that any party worked to ensure were not counted were the absentee votes of America’s military. The people who did this are the real Democrat Party and they are to be reviled and condemned.


3 posted on 05/25/2008 5:38:31 PM PDT by centurion316 (Democrats - Supporting Al Qaida Worldwide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

Well from what I’ve read they’re light on the facts as usual - is the word bias?


4 posted on 05/25/2008 5:40:05 PM PDT by Sub-Driver (Proud member of the Republican wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I guess this movie is what the libs need for closure.


5 posted on 05/25/2008 5:41:50 PM PDT by chardonnay ( www.ballbusters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So who won American Idol?

< /sarc not off>


6 posted on 05/25/2008 5:46:49 PM PDT by Old Sarge (CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
If you were on this board back then you know the truth .. 2000 was the Dem trying to steal an election and now history
7 posted on 05/25/2008 5:53:30 PM PDT by tophat9000 (:[....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

.......2000 was the Dem trying to steal an election and now history ......

My impression is that the Dims were pulling out all the stops to the max and fighting tooth and nail legally and illegally in what amounted to a coup attempt.


8 posted on 05/25/2008 6:04:02 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . The Bitcons will elect a Democrat by default)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
In light of what the Dims are doing to disinfrancise Mich. and Fla. primary voters, I wouldn't think they'd want to open themselves up for this this analogy.
9 posted on 05/25/2008 6:07:40 PM PDT by FrdmLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

10 posted on 05/25/2008 6:12:14 PM PDT by HokieMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
...Laura Dern, who plays Katherine Harris, recalled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling left her “devastated because there were uncounted votes.”

What about those military ballots that were being rejected? Do the dims ever worry about THOSE disenfranchised voters?

11 posted on 05/25/2008 6:16:49 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Democrats were trying to manufacture votes after the fact. Especially in cases where voters had chosen to either not cast a vote for president (but voted for other offices), or where voters had marked their ballot for both presidential candidates. A lot of people have always assumed that not voting for a specific office would send a message to the parties of “none of the above”, while casting a vote for both candidates would send a message of “I don't see a difference”.

The Dems tried to count these so-called “spoiled ballots” as votes for Gore, on the basis that people simply meant to vote for Gore, but messed up their ballots. From this scam came the Democrats line “count ALL the votes”. Republicans should have responded with “count all the LEGITIMATE votes”.

As a result, I will find it difficult to leave any offices blank on my ballots in the future. I would propose that every office on every ballot should include an extra block of “no vote”. Democrats would never go for that though. Just like requiring voters to show ID’s, it takes away their potential for fraud.

12 posted on 05/25/2008 6:23:32 PM PDT by ChicagahAl (So your bumper sticker says: "Don't blame me, I didn't vote!"? Duh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Please America, all need to watch this wonderful HBO movie.

Sincerely,

Hillary Clinton

13 posted on 05/25/2008 6:31:35 PM PDT by Mark (Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
History is defined by those recording the facts making the stupid movie!
14 posted on 05/25/2008 6:32:37 PM PDT by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

15 posted on 05/25/2008 6:51:27 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

I lurked then, that’s what got me here in the first place.

Ikept the /sarc off because the Sheep could care less these days, as long as they can still watch Oprah/Wheel/Jepoardy/Idol/Dancing-with-the-Stars.

Kind of a bread and circuses thing the Left does, you know...


16 posted on 05/25/2008 6:56:30 PM PDT by Old Sarge (CTHULHU '08 - I won't settle for a lesser evil any longer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

HBO just wanted to cleanse its palate of the John Adams series, being the pro-liberty, pro-Founder, pro-American vision that it was...


17 posted on 05/25/2008 7:06:39 PM PDT by Skywalk (Transdimensional Jihad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I’m sure HBO showed the laimstream media declaring Gore the winner of Florida at 6:49 PM central .


18 posted on 05/25/2008 7:50:35 PM PDT by Freak Flag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Caught the end of it and thought it was a very dishonest ending. They showed boxes of votes as if they were never counted.

Docudramas of this sort normally would put info on the screen at the end, explaining that recounts by various media showed Bush did in fact win.

Also, they say the Supreme Court ordered a stay which made it impossible to count by Dec 12, and then ruled there was no time left to count so thw election was over. No, the Supreme Court stayed a recount of only some votes, which was not being conducted uniformly across the state. The SC overwhelmingly found that the recount was violating equal protection. The SC did not create the problem by ordering a stay.

19 posted on 05/25/2008 8:25:46 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; All

“If you were on this board back then you know the truth .. 2000 was the Dem trying to steal an election and now history”

Al Gore was simply on a vote shopping expedition with a compliant and very political Florida judiciaries assistance - changing the rules after the votes were recorded and doing so only for those counties Gore was vote-shopping in

at no time did Gore seek to “correct” anything about the voting statewide or seek a statewide count on any new basis

the entire time he was seeking to squeeze a few more votes out of some Dim-dominant counties, and forcing the state total to be adjusted therewith

the Florida judiciary went along with the vote shopping expedition and the U.S. Supreme Court - twice - told them - the courts - to knock it off

the judges antics in support of Gore were not only set in opposition to the Florida state constitution, they had the affect of disenfranchising all the voters of all the counties the judicial rulings were not to apply to, setting one class of voters - those who Gore wanted to go shopping for - as deserving of general rules for vote counting that were not to be applied to all Florida voters - thus the “equal protection” clause was violated by the Gore-judicial-assisted cherry picking

regardless, in accordance with the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, the Florida legislature had already certified the winner of the Florida vote in the constitutionally required time frame

four years later the Florida voters vindicated the U.S. Supreme Court decision (maybe, in part, because the people in the Florida panhandle did not hear the game was over before they voted that time - as they did in 2000)


20 posted on 05/25/2008 8:27:19 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The military absentee ballots that Gore got thrown out were never included in the final certified vote, and I don’t believe were ever included in the recounts conducted by the liberal newspapers. Why don’t we ever read about that in the fishwrappers?


21 posted on 05/25/2008 8:28:24 PM PDT by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailback
Why don’t we ever read about that in the fishwrappers?

LOL 

22 posted on 05/25/2008 8:29:45 PM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Freak Flag
Before the polls had closed in the panhandle counties, if I recall correctly.

I've never seen any estimates of how many votes that cost Bush but I'm willing to bet it was enough to be a clear margin of victory.

And the Rats in the MSM knew exactly what they were doing — you'll never convince me it was an “accident”.

23 posted on 05/25/2008 8:33:03 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tailback
The military absentee ballots that Gore got thrown out were never included in the final certified vote, and I don’t believe were ever included in the recounts conducted by the liberal newspapers. Why don’t we ever read about that in the fishwrappers?

You are correct. Those military ballots which were disallowed -- wrongly -- were never counted.

And you know damn good and well why we've never "read about that in the fishwrappers".

24 posted on 05/25/2008 8:38:27 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Al Gore was simply on a vote shopping expedition with a compliant and very political Florida judiciaries assistance - changing the rules after the votes were recorded and doing so only for those counties Gore was vote-shopping in

To add a needed dimension to your post...

The reason Gore specified Broward, Palm Beach and Dade Counties is because a.) they favored Democrats and b.) they used the punchcard ballot (and its famous chads).

Note that William Daley, the mayor of Chicago, was Gore's campaign manager and that Cook County has always used punchcard ballots -- for a reason that will become apparent.

It is the nature of punchcard ballots that, every time they are handled, more chads will fall out. Run a thousand punchcard ballots and get a result of say, 500 to 470 -- a thirty vote margin with thirty no votes. Run them thru a second time...and you'll get something like 505 to 474 -- a 31 vote margin with 21 no votes. A third time...and you'll get maybe 509 to 477 -- a 32 vote margin with 14 no votes.

In other words, with each recount, the Democrat running in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties was bound to gain votes by virtue of the punchcard's physical characteristics.

But, if you recounted the votes in Republican counties using punchcards -- then it would be Bush who would gain votes.

Recall that Daley and Gore were riding together to what was going to be Gore's concession speech. Somewhere along the way, Daley had to say, "Al, we can still cheat our way into the White House". And, while the limousine sat in the square surrounded by the crowd, Al must've turned to Daley and said "Let's go for it".

Recall also that Dade County started the recount and, then, about half way through their precincts halted the operation. That was because they had counted all the Democrat precincts, maxing out Gore's vote gain in the county. If they had counted the rest of the precincts, Bush would've narrowed the margin.

Further recall that the State Supreme Court approved the Dade County recount as it was, even though it was only half-completed, specifically ordering that those numbers would become part of the state's official count. Otherwise, Bush's eventual 537 vote margin would've been over a thousand.

Between Gore, the Democrat party and the Florida State Supreme Court, there was a concerted effort to steal the 2000 election in Florida. Those who say otherwise are a.) lying or b.) blind partisans.

25 posted on 05/25/2008 9:00:25 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I like red meat as much as the next guy, but objectivity says that the panhandle votes were probably more than offset by the overly inclusive felons’ list that excluded voters, and we know the type that weren’t allowed to vote probably would have voted Rat. Let’s face it - if the shoe were on the other foot we would be stewing the same way they are now, and making the same whining arguments.


26 posted on 05/25/2008 11:08:46 PM PDT by duncantancredo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I have a book written about this event and the media calling Florida for Gore before the polls closed costed Bush at least 10,000 votes in heavily Republican counties in the panhandle.


27 posted on 05/26/2008 3:38:07 AM PDT by beckysueb (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American history.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Nader took over 97,000 votes from Gore. Why isn’t anyone blaming him?


28 posted on 05/26/2008 3:45:40 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver


Gore lost.
29 posted on 05/26/2008 4:18:39 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

That’s a strange pic.


30 posted on 05/26/2008 4:21:28 AM PDT by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Also important, but smothered by the ratmedia was the story in the Miami Herold about the felons that voted illegally in Florida. The reporter found 1246 felons had voted. Statistics consistently show that 80% of felons vote rat. That means 997 voted rat and presumably 249 voted GOP. That was a net gain of 748. I'll bet HBO didn't mention those votes.
31 posted on 05/26/2008 5:13:33 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatives live in the truth. Liberals live in lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aflaak

ping


32 posted on 05/26/2008 9:44:25 AM PDT by r-q-tek86 (If you're not taking flak, you're not over the target.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37; Liberty Valance; csvset; Fresh Wind; beckysueb; duncantancredo; okie01; Wuli; ...
I saw the movie. It's not too bad. It is biased, but far less than I expected. The writing and acting are decent. Principles enunciated by the Pub side are spoken in the movie, if you listen closely. A fairer film would have given far more dimension to the conservative points.

I feel certain Dems are now outraged that the movie didn't corroborate their arguments more unequivocally.

Dems in the fight and in the media were and are sincere in their take, in my opinion. And they sincerely believed and believe the Republicans were cynically suppressing votes.

However, I would criticize their side in these three ways:
1. their stances on points of contention, in general, are extremely situational and elastic, far more inconsistent than their opponents
2. as a group they are laughably ignorant of the other side's well-reasoned positions
3. their opponents may acknowledge their sincerity, but owe the Dems no "benefit of the doubt" on account of ignorance of a. their own hypocrisy or b. the honesty and validity of their opponents positions

33 posted on 05/26/2008 9:48:59 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Dems in the fight and in the media were and are sincere in their take, in my opinion. And they sincerely believed and believe the Republicans were cynically suppressing votes.

Some Rats actually believe the nonsense their demagogues spew. But the ones making the decisions know it is all a lie. Florida was no different.


34 posted on 05/26/2008 9:52:10 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
2. as a group they are laughably ignorant of the other side's well-reasoned positions.

Liberals are always good for a few laughs.  Thanks for the ping. 

35 posted on 05/26/2008 9:54:44 AM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Some Rats actually believe the nonsense their demagogues spew. But the ones making the decisions know it is all a lie. Florida was no different.

Full disclosure: I believe Al Gore wrongly undermined the legitimacy of a Presidential election. He knowingly caused events that ended up harming America. However, I would argue the point that "Dems making the decisions knew it was all a lie."

There is of necessity a Machiavellian component in advocacy. But it doesn't follow that disputants are 100% cynical.

Should the nominal loser never seek recounts? Of course not! The kernel of sincerity on the Gore side was that the basic desire was for a fair recount (that may give Gore the victory). The mere fact that the sought-after recount became a fiercely advocated dispute is not enough reason to unequivocally condemn the Democrats' early actions.

36 posted on 05/26/2008 10:46:13 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“Between Gore, the Democrat party and the Florida State Supreme Court, there was a concerted effort to steal the 2000 election in Florida. Those who say otherwise are a.) lying or b.) blind partisans.”

You forgot: (c)ignorant of the facts and the real issues

and (d): (c) plus a Dim partisan


37 posted on 05/26/2008 11:14:41 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson