Skip to comments.Countering the agenda behind 'Recount'
Posted on 05/27/2008 8:17:31 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 Sunday'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
The big lie, told often enough, eventually becomes accepted truth. The truth must be spoken as often or more than the lie to offset the lie.
Well the Democrats certainly have pie on their face with their ‘count every vote’ mantra and what they have done to Florida and Michigan this year. Even so, the Democrat superdelegate setup shows, Democrats really don’t care about what the voters have to say anyways.
I’m wondering if anyone pointed the facts out to Kevin Spacey when he was all over the networks promoting this movie.
ha!!! Ya, right.
Iremember the days after 9/11 where the press and public were thanksing God that Gore did not win! We would be fighting a war with carbon credits and 10 times the deaths.... although the media would be clamering what a brilliant war stratigist Gore is!
On Charlie Rose, David Boies said the biggest debacle even exceeding the SCOTUS decision was to allow the “riot” to take place during the count at Palm Beach City Hall, which “shut down the count” (paraphrased)
IIRC, the “riot” was about 20 laughing and joking Bush supporters making some noise in the hallways, and they were quickly dispersed. I’m sure Boies knows these facts.
Yet he reiterated at the end of the show that “I’d have put more people on the streets” to counter and prevent the “riot”.
Butterfly effect says 911 wouldn’t have happened.
“IF” 269 people voted differently....and IF all the military absentee ballots had been counted!
One of many sore points I have with the GOP was their apparent failure to prosecute the known and suspected cases of absentee ballot tampering.
But then the GOP wanted to make nice with the Dems for unity sake.
Dumb move on the GOP part, and dammit, we told them so back then!
I loved the fact that Dern said she plyed the Harris part with gusto to make her look like a fool. HMMM. President Bush instead of President Gore. Who was the fool again?
As I have said for a long time, movie makers make movies in order to get a message across.
The message is the primary reason. The “entertainment” is just the vehicle that gets the public to watch the movie, to lower its guard, and to allow the message to enter its mind.
I call it the Democrat-Media Complex, a symbiotic relationship between the Democrat Party and the mainstream media.
I was flipping channels last night and tried to watch part of "Recount".
Overall, it seemed very amateurish.
I gave it a chance, but when they got to the part where the case was being argued before the Supreme Court and they only showed the Democrat argument, none - NONE - of the Republican side, I had enough and turned it off.
Actually, that “riot” was an action instigated by the democratic recount team, because they discovered that they had gotten about all the extra votes they were going to get.
They had started with the most democratic precincts, and their method of recounting was bound to increase the number of accepted ballots — which increased Gore’s lead.
But then they started in on a cuban precinct, and found that it increased Bush’s lead.
That’s when they claimed there was too much noise, and took the recount behind closed doors, a violation of the rules.
The republicans screamed about being shut out, certain that the democrats would use their new hidden status to change how they counted votes, making it more restrictive and limiting Bush’s gains.
And then they figured they could simply use the ensuing “riot” to claim they were afraid, and shut down the count — meaning no new votes for Bush.
They didn’t want to pick up the Broward count again after that.