December 18, 2001

10:58 AM

The Press vs. Al GoreHow lazy reporting, pack journalism and GOP spin cost him the election (If you don't believe that the 5 Justices hijacked the election) Still not over it, BTW.
posted by Rastafari (71 comments total)

[Still not over it, BTW]

We hadn't noticed. Had you ever considered starting a weblog for those who still care? Then you could leave the rest of us alone to deal with what IS rather than what IF.

As an aside... I'm a conservative mostly but I wouldn't post NewsMax articles as they are ridiculously right of center. If you weren't aware of it, Rolling Stone is about the same distance in the opposite direction.
posted by revbrian at 11:10 AM on December 18, 2001

The media has many sins it should answer for. But Al Gore lost Al Gore the election. Facing a low-IQ rich-boy candidate, riding the crest of the biggest economic boom in modern history, a moderately competent campaign should have made him the indisputable victor.

Instead, George Bush Jr. enjoyed his second election victory.
posted by sacre_bleu at 11:10 AM on December 18, 2001

Isn't the important thing to make sure the Supreme Court never selects our president again? There is no "get over it" if "it" can happen again. You might feel a little differently if the parties were reversed. We're not much of a model for other countries if we don't adhere to the principles of democracy ourselves.
posted by Ben Grimm at 11:20 AM on December 18, 2001

Indeed, the fact remains that statistically the election was dead even... no clear victor, PERIOD. There definitely seems like some shady stuff went on, but honestly, nothing was stolen from anyone, because it WAS a tie. And I say that being pretty damned far left, myself.

We can just hope it inspires states to get some better voting machines and processes, and move on.
posted by malphigian at 11:23 AM on December 18, 2001

Well put, malphi. Reminds me of a quote (unfortunately, I forget the source) about the election: "The American people flipped a coin, and it landed on edge."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:28 AM on December 18, 2001

C'mon: Gore is a career politician, and a savvy one; Bush Jr. is Texas aristocracy, and half a doofus to boot. Gore should have whipped Bush's ass. That it was even CLOSE is a testament to Gore's bumbling during the election (something he normally didn't do) and his arrogance for ignoring the public opinion results of the aforementioned bumbling. The press had nothing to do with it, and Bush didn't win anything - Gore lost.
posted by UncleFes at 11:30 AM on December 18, 2001

The American people flipped a coin, and it landed on edge.

Maybe. But if that's true, is it the job of the Supreme Court to tip it one way or the other?
posted by dogmatic at 11:31 AM on December 18, 2001

Had you ever considered starting a weblog for those who still care? Then you could leave the rest of us alone to deal with what IS rather than what IF.

Revbrian
Who made you the MeFi God?

The story is current even though the election is old news. I found it fascinating how an allegedly liberal press could suddenly turn into a bunch of Limbaugh Henchmen. Ah. Such is American politics.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:34 AM on December 18, 2001

[Isn't the important thing to make sure the Supreme Court never selects our president again? ]

I could have swore we already discussed this...and it turns out that the SCOTUS decision didn't decide the outcome, Gore's strategy did.
posted by revbrian at 11:34 AM on December 18, 2001

You have to include Gore's lack of balls too.

Gore should have beat Bush by at least 10 points.

Gore never questioned the media's obvious desire to get some payback for the media's failure when it came to destroying Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, Bush was kissing media ass and handing out nicknames.

When questioned directly about Bush's lack of everything in the first debate, Gore ducked the question. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do being that was the number one reason not to vote for Bush in most people's minds.

He ducked the question because he did not want to be labeled by Bush's spin team and the get-Gore media army as "negative". They were already negative on Gore. He should have questioned why and returned fire. He had the facts on his side, so why hold back?

There's no reason to "be over it". Have it fresh in your memory when you step intp the voting booth in 2002 and 2004.

BTW, I'm an indie and I voted for Gore, just like most voters did.

revbrian, you are correct about RS being left, but they aren't as fanatical as those Newsmax dopes. Who is?

There isn't anything in the article that isn't true.They left out a lot of stuff, notably Gore being booed during the debates in the press tent. That says it all about the media's attitude towards Gore.

Had you ever considered starting a weblog for those who still care?

If Gore got in the White House under the same circumstances Bush did, conservatives would march down Penn Ave with torches in their hands to drag him out of there.

Also, the Congress would have abolished the Electoral College. I can't imagine what the talk radio crowd would be doing. Geez....
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:35 AM on December 18, 2001

[Who made you the MeFi God? ] Nobody, when did I make that claim? I'm expressing an opinion. It's not like I'm the only one that is sick and tired of this stuff rehashed over and over and over again.

The religious right has Jesus, the Palestinians have suicide bombers and the left has Al Gore. Turns out everyone needs a martyr after all...

[If Gore got in the White House under the same circumstances Bush did, conservatives would march down Penn Ave with torches in their hands to drag him out of there.]

That would have been just as myopic and ineffective as rehashing this for the 3 millionth time.
posted by revbrian at 11:39 AM on December 18, 2001

The left has Al Gore? I thought the left had Ralph Nader.
posted by raysmj at 11:45 AM on December 18, 2001

It's not like I'm the only one that is sick and tired of this stuff rehashed over and over and over again.


But not sick and tired enough to post in metatalk eh?
posted by skallas at 11:47 AM on December 18, 2001

you have to be human to be elected president
posted by blackholebrain at 11:48 AM on December 18, 2001

Lots of name calling. I won't entert into this. I had this from my first marriage. But it ought to be noted that not ony is theWashington Times leaning heavily to the Right but it is owned by Rev Moon, of the Unification Church, and Bush the Father is on their payroll as a speaker for a number of occassions.. Made very big bucks too.
posted by Postroad at 11:49 AM on December 18, 2001

That would have been just as myopic and ineffective as rehashing this for the 3 millionth time.

Get used to it, you've got three more years of it coming your way. You can't actually believe that people are just going to forget about how Bush got in the White House.

I mean...if I supported Bush, I would want everyone to have a short memory, too. Just like George.

It's not going to happen though.We got 8 years of Clinton witch hunts, now you get this.

Hell, you're getting off easy.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:52 AM on December 18, 2001

Rev, I'm unaware of anything requiring you to read threads concerning this stuff that you're sick and tired of rehashing over and over and over again. (That you take the time to pop in here and dispute the issue shows you think the issue's open to dispute.)

Move along, there's nothing for you here, or the religion you rode in on.
posted by retrofut at 12:01 PM on December 18, 2001

[Hell, you're getting off easy.]

No, you're wasting your time.

Honestly, if the left would offer some contructive ideas I really think the US would be a better place for all.

[I mean...if I supported Bush, I would want everyone to have a short memory, too. Just like George.]

It's in the republican interest that the left occupy themselves with fighting the last battle rather than the current, or next one. Of course if the left were to confront the current (or future) problems of the US they might be able to do something positive with their support.

Harping on the Gore thing isn't going to change any minds at this time. Everyone has gone through the motions and come up with their view of what happened. I just see it as an annoying waste of energy.

[We got 8 years of Clinton witch hunts]

That's the problem isn't it? Honestly it's a childish way to look at the world. When you say "We" you are including everyone right? Because alot of us didn't support that crap either. Getting sidetracked in partisan bickering does surprisingly little for the health of the nation.

[Move along, there's nothing for you here, or the religion you rode in on.]

Ah, yes, The inclusiveness of the left embracing me again. I never brought my religion into it.
posted by revbrian at 12:05 PM on December 18, 2001

Did any of you complaining that Gore lost the election himself actually read the article? The thesis seems to be that most of Gore's "stumbles," as well as the "dishonest" and "exaggerates" themes, were created by the press and flogged to death in spite of the facts.

If the man doesn't stumble but the press reports that he did, and the press refuses to report that he didn't really stumble, how are the stumbles his fault?

Maybe the argument is that Bush's handlers were better than Gore's handlers, and maybe that's correct, but there's a serious point to be made when the man who got more popular votes and arguably got more electoral votes is not only not in office, but is seen as not deserving the office thanks to unending reports based on fiction.

We do need a Republican in the White House, but the one we need would seem to be Theodore Roosevelt...
posted by mdeatherage at 12:09 PM on December 18, 2001

Facing a low-IQ rich-boy candidate, riding the crest of the biggest economic boom in modern history, a moderately competent campaign should have made him the indisputable victor.

This doesn't gibe with the long failure of sitting vice presidents to win the top job. Historically, voters refuse to give veeps credit for the achievements of their running mate. The impeachment scandal made it even more difficult for Gore to associate himself with Clinton, because the more he did, the more he was hurt with independents in swing states like Missouri.

Gore had a tough job last year, and I think he achieved a lot by recovering from the disastrous debate press coverage and winning the race. He earned the presidency. How people can find fault with the guy for losing, when he didn't, is just one of many signs that Gore was born with a kick-me tattoo on his back. The Rolling Stone story does a good job of showing that the allegedly liberal press screwed him.
posted by rcade at 12:17 PM on December 18, 2001

Maybe the argument is that Bush's handlers were better than Gore's handlers, and maybe that's correct..

Methinks you nailed it on the head. We have seen Bush, when left to his own devices, looking as flustered as a nerd on his first date. Lets face it. Image is everything and the Bush handlers knew that. His handlers were excellent. Even Gore's team admitted that.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:21 PM on December 18, 2001

Here's one repercussion. Katherine Harris's campaign for congress, now online. Ugh!
posted by liam at 12:23 PM on December 18, 2001

Er, online
posted by liam at 12:25 PM on December 18, 2001

Wait a minute, are you saying that the media, actaul people have a bias? NUH - UH! It is impossible to believe that people are unpartial!

What is this guy going to uncover next? That journalists eat food, and sleep at night?
posted by dancu at 12:35 PM on December 18, 2001

Because alot of us didn't support that crap either. Getting sidetracked in partisan bickering does surprisingly little for the health of the nation.

Yeah, a lot of people say that now.Most of them voted for Bush.

Also, revbrian...you refer to everyone that doesn't share your view as being "left".

How shallow and shortsighted is that?It comes right out of the dittohead playbook.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 12:35 PM on December 18, 2001

Had you ever considered starting a weblog for those who still care?

I still care.
posted by jpoulos at 12:47 PM on December 18, 2001

I'm a reporter. I don't cover politics, but I have covered campaigns in the past, and I was appalled by the coverage of the Gore campaign. The Rolling Stone article that Rastafari linked to explores just a few of the press's exaggerations and lies about Gore. The article isn't a rehashing of the post-election debacle, nor is it a complaint that Gore should be president. It's simply a description of how poorly the press behaved in Campaign 2000.

I live in Palm Beach County, and an old friend of mine, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, came here for a few days in November 2000. My friend normally is of the type who would vote for Gore. But in our conversations, he implied that he voted for Bush because he wanted a president who knew him well enough to greet him by name. That saddened me, and made me wonder how this infantile wish skewed his coverage. I wasn't impressed by his reporting while he was here in Florida.

The Rolling Stone article doesn't dig deeply enough. It doesn't explain why reporters knowingly lied in their coverage. It goes into detail about Ceci Connolly's fabrications after Gore's talk at a high school in which he mentioned Love Canal, but the author let Connolly wriggle off the hook. We still don't know why Connolly lied, and why she continues to deny that she deliberately altered a Gore quote. I don't make up quotes, and neither do most reporters. I just can't understand why Ceci Connolly isn't a journalistic pariah.
posted by Holden at 12:58 PM on December 18, 2001

I still care.

What Holden said.

" you have to be human to be elected president"
But you can be a chimp and be appointed.
posted by nofundy at 1:05 PM on December 18, 2001

He wore a white shirt. He didn't wear a suit. Therefore he wasn't a leader and he lost.
posted by holloway at 1:14 PM on December 18, 2001

[revbrian...you refer to everyone that doesn't share your view as being "left".]

No, I refer to the left as left and the right as right. There are quite a substantial number of people on the right that I do not in any way agree with including Robertson, Falwell, and Buchanan. Up until six months ago I was a card carrying libertarian. I'm anti-abortion (in all cases, but pro abortion rights), anti death penalty (in all cases except combat), pro bill-of-rights (including the right to bear arms all though I choose not to outside of my home), pro-federalism, anti-tax, pro freedom of religion (whether your jewish, wiccan, buddhist, muslim, christian, taoist or anything else), and believe in a strong seperation of powers, including church and state.

If you've imagined me as a overweight short-haired fire and brimstone short-haired suit-wearing cigar-chomping conservative fuddy duddy you might be a bit off base.

[It comes right out of the dittohead playbook.]

Rush I've read, and listened to. I'm hardly a dittohead although I usually find him entertaining. His analysis I usually agree with, his solutions (to me) are idiotic. He's got a very simplistic world-view which is as dangerous on the right as it is on the left IMHO.
posted by revbrian at 1:28 PM on December 18, 2001

The 2000 election was Gore's karmic retribution for being the first politician to raise the Willy Horton "race card" angle against Dukakis in 1988, and then compounding his cowardice by letting Bush Sr. take all the heat for it.
posted by quercus at 1:37 PM on December 18, 2001

Nobody was appointed. The electoral college voted, and Bush won. That's the only election that matters. The fact that the states are nice enough to allow their citizens to influence their decisions on who to send as electors is immaterial; the only election that mattered gave Bush the win.

If Gore wanted to win, he should have taken more states. His association with Clinton, and the gaffes reported against him (Bush had his, too, but his handlers were quick to manage them) made it hard for him to win. I tried to see past the gaffes, and when I did, I couldn't lend my support to either of them.
posted by dwivian at 1:45 PM on December 18, 2001

Ahh, yes, I'll never forget the day the Supreme Court told me that votes don't count. And not only do votes not count, but humans are henceforth forbidden to count them. Lovely. Checks and balances only work if at least some of the politicians are honest men. So therein lies the current dilemma.

revbrian, you're short-haired x2 and you need to learn how to spell separate but other than that you sound like a decent fellow. Just know that a lot of people aren't sick of discussing the fact that the media decides elections and in this case they bent Gore over and fucked him hard.
posted by David Dark at 1:48 PM on December 18, 2001

quercus: Al Gore mentioned Willie Horton briefly during a debate, if I remember correctly. His race was not mentioned. There was no giant ad campaign involved.
posted by raysmj at 1:55 PM on December 18, 2001

Up until six months ago I was a card carrying libertarian.

That's a phrase I've never understood. True Libertarians would never make you carry a card...
posted by jpoulos at 2:17 PM on December 18, 2001

The votes that count, count.
The votes that don't, never did.

If it took the Supreme Court to teach you civics, well, we're glad you got the word finally.

And, humans are allowed to count votes, if they are counting the votes subject to a count. The SCOTUS ruled, rightly, that Florida had to play by the rules it set up for picking electors. It was left to the states to come up with something, and no changing the game mid-stream. The important ruling was 7-2; try to remember that.
posted by dwivian at 2:17 PM on December 18, 2001

I don't know that the poor journalistic behavior cost Gore the election, but they could very well have. Reading that piece was agonizing and infuriating. For all their desire to provide some service to their readers, far too many journalists are petty, resentful and just plain adolescent people. Many of them are underpaid and relatively unacknowledged, and so they somehow think they can compensate by abusing the power they wield. Why bother to actually get a story right when you can have more fun (by lashing out at things you resent) and write better headlines -- and attract more attention to your work -- if you just willfully misinterpret and sensationalize the facts?

It's disgusting.
posted by mattpfeff at 2:31 PM on December 18, 2001

The photo in the article is a crop of the famous (or infamous) "package shot" Rolling Stone cover, which should have wrapped the election up for Gore.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:35 PM on December 18, 2001

"Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of fifteen-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd."

Wow, I'm a fan of the movie, but I hadn't realized that "Heather" is in circulation as a synonym for "bitch." I like it, even though I think the characters were probably 17 or 18.
posted by NortonDC at 2:36 PM on December 18, 2001

I am not convinced that the election issue is dead and over with. In fact, from this week's New Yorker, a piece on the recount recently conducted. And what I quote below is a complaint that the magazine is pussy footing around with what they found out:

In The New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" column, Hendrik Hertzberg writes:
"There is no longer any doubt that more Florida voters intended to vote
for Gore than for Bush: according to the Times, some eight thousand Gore
overvotes, net, were lost because of bad design (the notorious
"butterfly" of Palm Beach) or confusing instructions (the two-page Duval
County "caterpillar" ballot, which directed voters to "vote all pages").
But those votes were irredeemably spoiled, and the consortium did not
consider them. In terms of those votes that were arguably valid,
Florida— still—is too close to call." Sorry, Hendrik, but Al Gore won.
Yes, the Electoral College should be abolished, but those responsible
for stealing the Presidency - including the Supreme Court 5 - should be
held accountable.
http://www.newyorker.com/THE_TALK_OF_THE_TOWN/CONTENT/?011224ta_talk_hertzberg
posted by Postroad at 2:49 PM on December 18, 2001

Up until six months ago I was a card carrying libertarian.

What happened six months ago?
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:55 PM on December 18, 2001

Dwivian: If Gore wanted to win, he should have taken more states. His association with Clinton, and the gaffes reported against him (Bush had his, too, but his handlers were quick to manage them) made it hard for him to win.

His association with Clinton cost him the election? This despite the fact that he rarely, if ever, brought up Clinton during the campaign, or bothered to run on the economy? And if association with Clinton is so bad, how do you explain Hillary Clinton's 10 point victory over Lazio? And before you launch into 'how NY is liberal state' tirade, let me remind you that NY has a Republican governor, Guliani was elected for two terms, and Bloomberg won. How liberal is that?
posted by Rastafari at 3:07 PM on December 18, 2001

[What happened six months ago?]

For the first time in a long while, I read the party platform in it's entirety.
posted by revbrian at 3:43 PM on December 18, 2001

[And before you launch into 'how NY is liberal state' tirade, let me remind you that NY has a Republican governor, Guliani was elected for two terms, and Bloomberg won. How liberal is that?]

Guliania, Pataki and Bloomberg are liberal. Hell, Bloomberg was a registered democrat up until recently.
posted by revbrian at 3:45 PM on December 18, 2001

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!

I mean, Jesus Christ! This article isn't about who should have won the election itself, so don't attack- or support- it like it is. This article is about the press, plain and simple- how they didn't report accurately or fairly, or how they make a complete bloodsport and soap opera of politics, yet then have the gall to complain that the contenders are "all about spin" instead of substantial issues. This article, in short, is really about this truly unbelievable quote from Margaret Carlson:

"You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator, or you look at his record in Texas... But it's really easy, and it's fun, to disprove Gore. As sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us."

That's not reporting, that's utter laziness and unfounded gossip, better suited to the 7th grade than the desks of our most powerful news media figures. That a media figure would so publicly and unashamedly state that the words of a presidential candidate could be disproved by examining them or his record but that that's too much work, and it's just more "fun" and "entertaining" to just bash another candidate for [alleged] exagerrations- this is grotesque and shameful, no matter which candidate bears the brunt of such inexcusable behavior! We are in a Fascist state at this point, in its nascent form. It's part of the definition of a Fascist state that its existence will be steadfastly denied by those who have a hand in the cookie jar.
posted by hincandenza at 4:33 PM on December 18, 2001

If it took the Supreme Court to teach you civics, well, we're glad you got the word finally.

Who's we, dwivian? Are you speaking for an entire tribe of morons?

The votes that count, count.
The votes that don't, never did.

Wrong. The votes that don't count actually did count for a period of time. The Florida Supreme Court (you know, the court with jurisdiction over Florida law) ruled, rightly, that under the laws set out for a contested election that the votes do count and should be counted, by hand. At that time, the votes counted. Then SCOTUS wielded its mighty sword, overturned the ruling, and said the votes don't count.

That's how it happened. Try to remember that.
posted by David Dark at 4:39 PM on December 18, 2001

Rolling Stone - the center of all journalistic integrity. (Insert bulge photo of the man they wanted to win here). Now if MTV can roll out an expose on what really happened I'll feel like I really know for sure.

You can't actually believe that people are just going to forget about how Bush got in the White House.

When he's re-elected in 4 years, then you'll have your answer.
posted by nwduffer at 4:41 PM on December 18, 2001

Isn't the important thing to make sure the Supreme Court never selects our president again?

Yeah, there's such a big push to make this happen.

Stupid people deserve whatever they get. I just regret that I have to get sucked along for the ride.
posted by rushmc at 5:44 PM on December 18, 2001

I love you,
You love me,
We're a happy fam-i-ly...
posted by y2karl at 5:49 PM on December 18, 2001

Hey, nwduffer: In what part of your comment do you refute the statements of fact made in the Rolling Stone article (which, presumably, you didn't read)? How, for example, have you shown that the "Invented the internet" brouhaha wasn't just a fax blast from the RNC deceptively misquoting Gore, while the media inexcusably ignored the extremely well-substantiated fact that Gore a) never said what he was quoted as saying, and b) In the 80's, while Bush was still drunk driving in Maine, Gore was pushing legislation to fund the research institutions at MIT etc. that were developing the standards of the Internet. So really, Gore in Congress DID have a significant role in the Internet becoming a developed medium which became such a huge cultural and economic force in the 90's- as Newt Gingrich and Vinton Cerf, among others, have proclaimed to no avail.

Prove that wrong, nwduffer. Prove it wrong, NOW. Go ahead, we all know that you are a paragon of Journalistic Integrity, so PROVE IT WRONG. Prove that Rolling Stone wasn't 100% accurate in making those statements. Ad hominem attacks on RS's journalistic integrity are just cute and charming, you slope-headed troglodyte, but you've failed to show how they are actually wrong. Minor detail.

Care to correct this missing piece of your original comment with actual facts, or some thorough investigative reporting? Or are you just going to pull a Ceci Connolly on us and dodge it altogether? We're waiting... waiting... waiting... waiting... waiting... waiting... PROVE IT WRONG. Many claims are made in that article. PROVE THEM WRONG.

Waiting...
posted by hincandenza at 5:52 PM on December 18, 2001

In what part of your comment do you refute the statements of fact made in the Rolling Stone article

Uh, that's really the question I was going to ask you...

For now I have to go take my sloped head and look up all those fancy words you called me....
posted by nwduffer at 6:12 PM on December 18, 2001

Many of them are underpaid and relatively unacknowledged, and so they somehow think they can compensate by abusing the power they wield.

The reporters who fucked over Gore are highly paid -- national correspondents and their editors. And many of them are celebrities in their own right.
posted by rcade at 6:46 PM on December 18, 2001

Rolling Stone - the center of all journalistic integrity. (Insert bulge photo of the man they wanted to win here). Now if MTV can roll out an expose on what really happened I'll feel like I really know for sure.

You don't have to trust Rolling Stone. Just judge the article based on the reporters who are quoted on the record. They're damning enough.
posted by rcade at 6:49 PM on December 18, 2001

nwduffer: Uh, that's really the question I was going to ask you... For now I have to go take my sloped head and look up all those fancy words you called me....

Hey, you're the one that called into question RS's "journalistic integrity". I'm STILL waiting for you to show/prove/demonstrate that the linked article that was the start of this whole thread is in fact, in any significant way, wrong. You are basically doing to Rolling Stone what reporters did to Gore- oh, the irony.

Waiting...
posted by hincandenza at 7:08 PM on December 18, 2001

I'll go way back to the beginning of the thread and reply to Rev. Brian's first post.

As an aside... I'm a conservative mostly but I wouldn't post NewsMax articles as they are ridiculously right of center. If you weren't aware of it, Rolling Stone is about the same distance in the opposite direction.

First Newsmax is more along the lines of an antithetical Zmag frankly.

Secondly, the day there's a good conservative music rag be sure to post it. Until then the left will continue be the womb from whence the BEST comedians, artists, musicians, actors, doctors, scientists and poets spring from.

IMHO

IMHO
posted by crasspastor at 7:16 PM on December 18, 2001

nwduffer:When he's re-elected in 4 years, then you'll have your answer.

In case you forget recent history, GB Sr. had a 90% rating after the Gulf war, but that didn't help him with his re-election. In the end, it will be, as it has always been, the economy will determine the election.
posted by Rastafari at 7:25 PM on December 18, 2001

I wanted Gore to win, but really, if you still care about this, there is something wrong with you. The election was a draw. The Gore argument turns on divining ambiguous ballots. The Supreme Court may not have acted with the detachment you would have liked. I think they may be awful people (a majority), but it's not that obvious from what they did. There's no provision in the Constitution for a do-over, or excluding a State's ballots, which, perhaps there should be. Get over it. And just be thankful that Gore, and a bunch of Albright-like advisors aren't faced with OBL, and telling Israel what to do. G E T O V E R IT!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:49 PM on December 18, 2001

posted by y2karl at 8:58 PM on December 18, 2001

The Gore argument turns on divining ambiguous ballots.

Have you read an article about this since December, ParisParamus? Gore won handily on the basis of a large block of uncounted legal votes -- overvotes where the voter punched Gore and also wrote Gore's name next to the words "Write In."
posted by rcade at 9:02 PM on December 18, 2001

Paris, there are provisions in the Florida Constitution for recounting votes in a contested election, section 102.168, (which was enacted by the Legislature prior to the 2000 election), and it's this the Florida Supreme Court cited in their decision to allow a recount. Using precedent established in prior election contests, they declared that any discernable intent of the voter should be considered a legal vote.

The recounts were underway, legally, when SCOTUS ordered all recounting to be halted, then sat silently as the deadline passed. It was basically a pocket veto of established law, a definitely unprecedented action by the high court, and one that was arguably illegal.

And it was a 5-4 decision by SCOTUS, not 7-2. The link above provides other links to PDF files of the decisions if you're interested in reading them.
posted by David Dark at 9:48 PM on December 18, 2001

When he's re-elected in 4 years, then you'll have your answer.

Well, you have to be elected to be re-elected.

Whoever runs against the Bush gang in 2004 probably won't repeat the Gore campaign's mistakes.

Bush could be re-appointed by daddy's buddies, though.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:00 PM on December 18, 2001

Get over it. And just be thankful that Gore, and a bunch of Albright-like advisors aren't faced with OBL, and telling Israel what to do. G E T O V E R IT!

No, I won't fucking get over it. What the hell makes you think Gore couldn't do the same or better job than Bush? I'm not thankful for that at all. Maybe Gore would have a better prespective on how to deal with Saudi Arebia since his family fortunes aren't tied up with the House of Saud. Did you ever think of that?

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." I sure don't want to repeat the history of 2000 elections.
posted by Rastafari at 10:10 PM on December 18, 2001

*sigh*. Paris, perhaps you should READ THE ARTICLE, which doesn't deal with the election itself, or the subsequent recount. Focusing on those is a cheap and cynical ploy to to avoid looking at the issue mentioned by this article: how the media played the bias game with Gore, baldly and badly misreporting his supposed exaggerations even when they weren't true and/ or an obviously partisan fax straight from the RNC. Regardless of the election, shouldn't ALL of us be worried about bias and unfairness on the part of the media, when they substitute solid and substantial reporting for fluff, gossip, and "entertaining" obsessions with trivial issues? Do you really think we are a better informed citizenry for having spent so many media hours focusing on Condit Condit Condit in those weeks and months before September 11th?

And nwduffer- still waiting for the well-researched disproof of Rolling Stone's claims. How's that coming along? I'm really looking forward to it when you're finished.
posted by hincandenza at 10:55 PM on December 18, 2001

Oh, well, hincandenza, you tried valiantly but were shouted down by people who don't want to read the Rolling Stone article or comment on it, but who just want to rehash last year's election.

I did like the way you ironically used ad hominem language to make a point to nwduffer, but I think the point was lost...
posted by Holden at 3:30 AM on December 19, 2001

Y'all, if you look at the archives, you see I agree with you that the Florida Supreme Court was 100% correct, and the USSC was 100% wrong. It's just that, the USSC can do whatever they damn well please in these situations. And, like 2% of the American populous cares. Including 3% of those who voted for Gore.

SO GET OVER IT. Focus on the next election, and, perhaps, getting a progressive candidate who can win. Focus on the fact that if you are a progressive, as I am (albeit with a somewhat conservative bent on defense and foreign policy), you are a member of a minority. Focus on the fact that by refusing to distance himself from a sleazy President, Al Gore lost. Focus on the fact that character, not just IQ, matters.

By the way, NewsMax is garbage, even compared to Rolling Stone.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:37 AM on December 19, 2001

I've posted this Make Them Accountable article before, but it's the most complete account I've seen on the ISSUE of this thread.

A study by the Pew Research Center examined 2,400 newspaper, TV, and Internet stories. Researchers reported that three quarters of the coverage emphasized allegations that Gore was dishonest and corrupt. The study found that a majority of the stories about Bush emphasized that he was a "different kind of Republican," which was the Bush campaign’s chosen theme.

This was not a conspiracy, nor was it an accident. It was self-interest.

The rapacious values of the networks mirrored those in the management of print journalism and the banking community in general. The emphasis in private meetings and phone conversations was that Bush would definitely call off the federal watchdogs, which would allow the giant media conglomerates to grow as large as they chose. The inconvenient pretense of federally licensed broadcasters having to serve the public interest would finally be gone. Without the intrusive feds butting in, the media giants would be free to “maximize their potential”. Translated into English, this meant that the extraordinarily valuable public ownership and control of the airwaves would essentially be transferred to the media conglomerates for no cash down and monthly payments of zero.
posted by ferris at 5:56 AM on December 19, 2001

Thanks Ferris.
And, yes, this thread IS about the press and how the press handled and currently handles issues relating to the election and why.
Still not over it so quit demanding that I get over it.
How about this instead: Get over demanding that I get over it!
Sigh...I miss democracy...
posted by nofundy at 8:36 AM on December 19, 2001

Y'know, whenever I try to get over it, I read an article about the first Bush tax cut (which was justified by arguing that it would only use a small fraction of the surplus... wow, 'the surplus' -- remember that?), or about the second Bush tax cut (the heavy corporate tax cut / alternative-minimum-tax giveback which is spinfully being labeled a 'stimulus plan'), or about Cheney's refusal to obey the law and release information regarding the development of the energy bill (even upon threat of subpoena)... and all of a sudden I'm back into it, but good.

Back when we thought that Bush won the election outright (during the few hours between the call of Florida for Bush and the retraction of that call), I remember feeling a wave of "politics is irrelevant" and thinking that "the next four years won't be great but we can survive this". I don't think that anymore. The brazenness of the Bush team -- using any arguments that work, even contradictory ones, in order to get their hard-right goals passed -- flat-out scares me. I'm really, really worried about what this country will look like after three more years of this.

Remember "the stimulus is your money; you should get it back"? Well, now it's *our* deficit. Since we no longer have the stimulus to use to cover it (thanks in large part to Tax Cut I), I suppose we'll each be receiving a bill for 'our share' of the deficit in the mail... and let me tell you, it'll be a LOT more than $300 apiece.
posted by sesquipedalia at 9:34 AM on December 19, 2001

Y'know, whenever I try to get over it, I read an article about the first Bush tax cut (which was justified by arguing that it would only use a small fraction of the surplus... wow, 'the surplus' -- remember that?), or about the second Bush tax cut (the heavy corporate tax cut / alternative-minimum-tax giveback which is spinfully being labeled a 'stimulus plan'), or about Cheney's refusal to obey the law and release information regarding the development of the energy bill (even upon threat of subpoena)... and all of a sudden I'm back into it, but good.

Back when we thought that Bush won the election outright (during the few hours between the call of Florida for Bush and the retraction of that call), I remember feeling a wave of "politics is irrelevant" and thinking that "the next four years won't be great but we can survive this". I don't think that anymore. The brazenness of the Bush team -- using any arguments that work, even contradictory ones, in order to get their hard-right goals passed -- flat-out scares me. I'm really, really worried about what this country will look like after three more years of this.

Remember "the stimulus is your money; you should get it back"? Well, now it's *our* deficit. Since we no longer have the stimulus to use to cover it (thanks in large part to Tax Cut I), I suppose we'll each be receiving a bill for 'our share' of the deficit in the mail... and let me tell you, it'll be a LOT more than $300 apiece.
posted by sesquipedalia at 9:34 AM on December 19, 2001

Agh... sorry about the double post.
posted by sesquipedalia at 9:36 AM on December 19, 2001

Rev, though I feel a natural sympathy with the principles of the perennial philosophy and the idea of enshrining those principles in law, the organized Left in this country was too far Right for an individual like myself, I suspect because both "sides" took mammalian dominance rituals (or their ideas of them) as the basis for their formal structure. So no, I'm not of the Left, I'm around here someplace where your reflexive metaphors are even less useful than they were when they were coined in 18th century France in reference to a seating arrangement. Who knows, in my silly pragmatism and lack of petrified ideology I might even be closer to the spirit of the Founding Fathers' creation than you in my actions.

The "Left" and the "Right" are no more naturally at odds than science and belief, or your left and right hands, in fact they depend on each other for their power.

I was calling your arguments religious in nature, a matter of simple faith in the absence of evidence (as well as referring to your self-confessed ordainment, you religiously-prefixed cognomen you). But I'm glad you didn't misinterpret me as saying that you should leave Metafilter, just that the thread was unlikely to be of much benefit for you. (Subsequent posts have shown how rum that prediction was. You've risen to the occasion, as have many others.) I do note though that you only quoted my postscript and not my primary assertion that you are contradicting yourself when you take the time out of your busy day to tell us that we're wasting our time because you/"we" haven't noticed. I take it you found that position indefensible?
posted by retrofut at 1:06 PM on December 19, 2001