Sunday, November 30, 2008

What If...


One of recent history's greatest "What Ifs."

In this clip from the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Al Gore comments on the unfortunate consequences of the 2000 election.  In hindsight, the 2000 election was much more important than most would have imagined, Gore says before explaining how he would have solved the problems plaguing his former opponent's ill-fated  presidency.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Election 2000: Tim Russert



Tim Russert appeared on the Today show on November 13, 2008 to discuss the pathways to victory for each campaign depending on how Florida was allocated. Russert goes into great detail about any possible outcomes of the election, what Katherine Harris might do, what the Gore campaign might do, what the Bush campaign might do. It was an awful shame that Tim didn't get to be involved in the election this year; he surely would have had a ball.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008



This cartoon characterizes the difficulties many citizen of Florida ran into when attempting to vote in the 2000 election. The main problem with the ballot in Florida was that the ballot was tilted and slanted so the wholes did not exactly match up with each candidate. As many as 19,000 voters realized they accidentally voted for Buchanan and attempted to correct this by punching an additional whole in the third whole for Al Gore, their candidate of choice. However, these ballots were inevitably thrown out and not counted during the recount and this lost Gore the election.

Monday, November 24, 2008


I think this cartoon shows how little understanding the American voters had of the events of the 2000 election. It was extremely confusing even for those actively following. In this case a voter is shown to think that Dangling Chad is the name of a person rather than a problem with ballots. It also in some ways shows how easily people forget the affect that Nader had on that election because there was so much emphasis on the recounts in Florida.
Here's a short clip of Saturday Night Live's Ana Gasteyer as Katherine Harris.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Primary Source Assignment




This cartoon is by Darrin Bell (http://www.rudypark.com/editorialcartoons/topics/elections/2000/001109florida.gif). I like this source because it points out a major issue of the election that was due to a flaw in one person's logic. I don't understand why the ballot needed to be confusing - it really shouldn't be that difficult for people to vote.

COUNTING THE VOTE: HUMOR; Television Shows Find Comedy in the Errors

This article, published 11/17/00, recaps a bunch of goodies for wannabe political humor wonks - including some of the posts that precede mine - well done, students more diligent than myself, well done [new window]. 

Also, this being more recent, Katherine Harris commented on her protrayal in Recount, available in this transcript off FoxNews.com (as she appeared on the ever-entertaining Hannity and Colmes). It's not really anything you wouldn't expect - obviously the film's portrayal was biased and probably over-the-top, but who doesn't love a good puppet-villian here and there?

Finally (and I do mean finally - this clip is so hard to find, it should be boxed in a vanity case and sold on QVC as the special item of the day), I tracked down one of my favorite SNL political skits - the Bush v Gore First Presidential Debate. NBC.com doesn't have this available, and they'll be itchin' more than a man with ants down his pants if they find out this little ditty made it past their de-youtubeing-of-NBC-stuff interns. [Thanks go out to Dan Rather for inspiring me with good 'ole southern backwoods talk.]


[Sorry about the awkwardness of the video placement... AOL Video doesn't like Safari or Firefox when it comes to blogs, it seems: Link to the original source [new window]

"Katherine Harris tries to certify Florida vote"

This video recaps some of the events of the recount, and has some of the real footage of events that happen in the movie (including the real Katherine Harris).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck0GKmov0nI
From Talking Points Memo-November 17, 2000 by John Marshall

As of late afternoon on Friday only about a half-dozen Florida counties had reported their overseas absentee ballot totals. But the results weren't pretty. So far the numbers are running 31 to 10 in favor of George W. Bush. Yikes! If that sort of percentage holds up Bush could move another thousand votes ahead of Gore.

Consider this, though. Fox News reported on Wednesday that the US Postal Service was expediting delivery of military absentee ballots. But only military ballots. That doesn't seem fair. What if you're a Floridian hanging out in Tel Aviv? What about your vote?

The question, though, is this: Did the Bush folks lean on the USPS and get them to move those ballots along? And if so, why are the postal folks such push-overs?

Why does Talking Points think the Bush folks may have gotten in touch with the people at the US Postal Service? He has learned, on good authority, that the Bush campaign sent a letter to the Defense Department asking them to help insure that all military absentee ballots got to Florida in a timely fashion. Don't get me wrong: nothing untoward was implied or requested. But the folks at the DOD rightly responded that there are already procedures in place for this sort of thing.

Maybe the postal service didn't respond in quite the same way.



This post from Marshall is significant because it represents the drama that unfolded as the election results dragged on in 2000. Here, we see a hint at a Bush-United States Postal Service conspiracy. I think this shows us a lesson learned from the 2000 election that dragging things out, even if there are discrepancies, can lead to bigger problems. Of course in 2000, no riot or revolt overthrew our democracy by any means, but it did give us a glimpse of the possibility.

Ground Zero of the Florida Vote Recount

A look at ground zero of the Florida vote recount -- Palm Beach County -- and at complaints of voting irregularities. Betty Ann Bowser reports from Palm Beach.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: By early this morning, Palm Beach County Democrats had compiled more than 5,000 affidavits from voters. Some complained their votes weren't counted; some said they were unfairly turned away from the polls on Tuesday by precinct workers. But, overwhelmingly, they complained the presidential ballot was confusing.

The confusing butterfly ballot

WOMAN: I never saw anything so confusing.

WOMAN: I'm from New Jersey, and I never saw anything like this.

WOMAN: It's absolutely ridiculous.

WOMAN: It is.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Bev Simon is an elementary school teacher who still isn't sure whether she voted for Vice President Gore or Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan.

BEV SIMON: The fact of the matter is, that it is very confusing. You're talking about the presidency of the United States, and that needs to be handled by a popular vote.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Do you want a chance to vote over again?

BEV SIMON: Oh, most definitely. And that's why I'm here today, because I feel that we have to be given the opportunity.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And insurance executive Gerald Postin says he accidentally voted twice for President, which means his ballot was thrown out.

GERALD POSTIN: It is real confusing when you went to punch it and went to look at it. And I remember doing it and then I wanted to go back and there were so many people, I just said 'eh'.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What happened to you? You punched it twice?

GERALD POSTIN: Yeah. I knew I was going to go back and ask for another card, but there were so many people waiting on line, I said forget about it. Then when I got home, I started thinking about it. I said wait a minute. That means my vote didn't count, you know. Gee, I better do something.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Republican leaders say the ballot was legal under state statutes and they argue only a handful of voters were confused at the polls. Mary McCarty is a Palm Beach County commissioner.

MARY McCARTY: Suddenly because the Democrats don't like the outcome of the election, we now have to throw our whole democratic process in turmoil. It undermines the whole basis of our democratic system. That is not how democracy works. And, regardless of what people say about confusion or whatever, it is the voter's responsibility to go in and do the right thing. And 450,000 people were able to figure it out in Palm Beach County.

(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/palmbeach.html#)


I really enjoyed the movie we watched in class about the Florida recount, and I found this article with quotes from Florida voters. Since I am from Palm Beach County, I remember hearing a lot about the recount from my parents, but I didn't realize how close the race was for Florida's electoral votes.

I called my dad to see what he remembered about the 2000 election and the butterfly ballot. He voted in Palm Beach County, but he didn't find the ballot confusing. He remembered that King's Point, which is a neighborhood one block from my house, was one of the centers for protest against the ballots. I find it both interesting and a little embarrassing that I lived in Palm Beach County during the recount.

After researching the recount online, I came across a number of articles about the 2008 election. One article stated,"More than 3,000 optical-scan ballots have mysteriously disappeared since the county held an election last Tuesday." With all of the controversy that surrounded Palm Beach County during the 2000 election, it is hard to believe they would let something like this happen during the next election.

-Taylor Foley

The Ace in the Pocket

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/telnaes/images/18-04681r.jpg
Florida Legislature,
December 7, 2000
Ann Telnaes

Telnaes drew this cartoon based on Democratic candidate Al Gore's lawyers' final effort in his quest for the presidency. They appealed to the Florida State Supreme Court to count 14,000 disputed ballots before the December 12, 2000 deadline for selecting presidential electors. The Republican-dominated Florida Legislature meanwhile prepared to convene a special session for December 8, 2000, to appoint a group of presidential electors who would support George W. Bush. Bush's brother Jeb was Florida's governor. "If the Supreme Court hadn't made the decision, then the Florida legislature would have decided whether [or] not the governor's brother was going to become president," Telnaes observes. "This cartoon's about that ace in the GOP's pocket."

(In 2001 Ann Telnaes became the second woman to win the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning. This cartoon and others can be seen at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/telnaes/telnaes-pulitzer.html)

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Counting the Vote Overview

COUNTING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; With Deadline Near, Florida Recount Grinds On

Published: November 26, 2000

With only hours to go before a winner is declared in Florida's presidential balloting, weary election officials in Broward County finished their manual recount of ballots late tonight, cutting Gov. George W. Bush's lead over Vice President Al Gore in half. At the same time, their counterparts in Palm Beach County prepared to spend the night checking frantically for dimples, hanging chads and daylight in hundreds of punch cards before the deadline of 5 p.m. Sunday.

That time was set by the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday for all counties to report their final results to Katherine Harris, Florida's secretary of state, who plans to go before the cameras shortly afterward to announce a winner.

The counting left Mr. Gore hundreds of votes behind Mr. Bush of Texas, and Mr. Gore's aides said they did not expect him to take the lead. Mr. Bush retained an official lead of 930 votes, but Mr. Gore had a net gain of 466 votes statewide in an unofficial tally of hand-counted ballots. If the votes hand-counted in Miami-Dade County last week were included in these figures, Mr. Gore would have 157 more votes, but the county election board stopped its manual recount on Wednesday, and those votes are not included in the unofficial hand-count tallies.

The Broward elections board finished counting 2,422 votes at eight minutes before midnight, giving Mr. Gore a net gain of 567 votes. Wiping their eyes in exhaustion, the three members of the elections board stood up in satisfaction when the counting was done and shook hands with the partisan observers who had monitored their every move. A cheer went up in the courtroom in which the ballots were counted.

But the counting there broke out in acrimony this morning when the canvassing board began considering a stack of about 500 dimpled absentee ballots, where holes had not been punched all the way through. Lawyers for the Republican Party argued vehemently that such ballots should not be considered because absentee voters could see whether they had fully punched the hole.

A Broward County spokesman said all of the dimpled absentee ballots had already been hand-counted in the presence of Republican and Democratic observers, but he acknowledged that they had not been mentioned when the county first released the number of disputed ballots it would count.

In Palm Beach County, the canvassing board said that Mr. Bush had gained 10 votes by late afternoon, but Democrats said that when later counts were included, Mr. Gore was ahead by 78 votes. Mr. Gore's poor showing in the Palm Beach County hand count was largely because of a tougher standard employed by county officials in judging whether dimpled ballots should be counted, a standard that Democrats pledged to challenge in court next week.

The manual count moved much more slowly in Palm Beach. Denise Cote, a spokeswoman for the county, said election officials there counted 2,000 ballots on Friday and 900 Saturday, but had roughly 7,000 left to finish by Sunday night. Judge Charles E. Burton, chairman of the Palm Beach County canvassing board, said that if the county did not finish, it would send whatever results it had completed to Tallahassee by the deadline. (The state elections division said it had not decided whether to accept partial results.) But Judge Burton was optimistic that the board would complete its task.

''We'll stay all night if we have to,'' he said.

But even as the hand-counted ballots piled up in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, it became increasingly clear as the tumultuous week ended that the certified results Ms. Harris planned to announce on Sunday would immediately be swept away in a tide of litigation to be filed by both sides.

No matter which candidate is able to declare himself the president-elect on Sunday night, lawyers for Mr. Gore plan to be in court first thing Monday morning to formally contest the election in three counties.

''I think that both sides probably will want to be sure that the results in the counties they're contesting are heard in front of a court, regardless of how the overall statewide votes are,'' said David Boies, Mr. Gore's chief lawyer in Florida. ''I don't think either side will withdraw their contests just because on Sunday at 5 p.m. one side or the other is a few votes ahead.''

The contests grew in importance for Mr. Gore as Democratic officials acknowledged he would probably not prevail in the hand counts. Assuming he mounts a legal contest, aides said the vice president would probably address the nation next week to explain his decision to press on.

Aides worry that he has not stated his case plainly enough to voters and that his previous public comments have been more a call for patience than an explanation of his position. Without a clear explanation why he has refused to concede, the aides said, Mr. Gore knows his support could weaken.

Republican lawyers, meanwhile, filed lawsuits in four counties late tonight -- Hillsborough, Okaloosa, Pasco and Polk -- demanding that discarded military ballots be counted before the Sunday deadline. The ballots had been cast aside because they lacked postmarks, dates or proper signatures, but the Bush campaign said they should have been allowed and that a fifth suit would be filed Sunday morning in Orange County. Mr. Bush's campaign had already asked Circuit Judge L. Ralph Smith to reinstate some of the ballots on Friday, but withdrew the suit today after the judge said in court that he was unlikely to reinstate the ballots.

And lawyers for both sides began work this weekend on briefs requested by the United States Supreme Court, which agreed on Friday to hear Mr. Bush's appeal from the Florida Supreme Court's ruling allowing manual recounts to continue beyond the state's deadline for certifying returns. The initial briefs have to be filed by 4 p.m. Tuesday, and the justices will hear oral arguments at 10 a.m. on Friday.

If the court rules in Mr. Bush's favor, saying that Ms. Harris was within her rights to cut off the hand counts after seven days, that could undermine the challenges Mr. Gore is mounting in the three counties, and would probably overturn a victory by Mr. Gore if he should be declared a winner by Ms. Harris on Sunday. A ruling for Mr. Gore would mean the election would probably be determined by the outcome of the challenges, which are likely to wind up back in the Florida Supreme Court.

The expanding universe of litigation made it clear that the real deadline in the case is Dec. 12, the date by which the states must select their Electoral College delegates. The Sunday deadline will be useful psychologically to the declared winner, who may in the public mind be harder to dislodge after a certification from Ms. Harris and the state's Election Canvassing Commission. But with so many hearings and briefs planned for the coming week, the joy of declared victory may be short-lived if the winner must struggle to avoid being unseated.

Florida, indeed, offers ample precedent for successful election challenges that topple victors. Most recently, in 1997, an appeals court unseated Xavier Suarez, who had been elected mayor of Miami, after his challenger, Joe Carollo, contested the election on the basis of fraudulent absentee ballots.

In the Bush-Gore case, the Gore camp will not be alleging fraud but rather errors and legal violations in counting ballots. In Miami-Dade County, the Democrats plan to sue because the elections board there voted to stop their manual recount of ballots, a direct result, according to the Gore campaign, of a heated demonstration by Republican partisans in the elections office. In Nassau County, the campaign will contest the decision to toss out a recounted tally where Mr. Gore picked up 52 votes. And in Palm Beach County, the challenge will center on the decision by the elections board not to count many dimpled ballots as votes.

The Democrats have seized in particular on the demonstration that they say caused the Miami-Dade board to stop its hand counts, charging that it was an orchestrated effort by Republicans to disrupt the count. Many of the demonstrators in Broward County said they were former recount observers who were being put up in local hotels and given meals by the Republican Party.

In this race, of course, it will not be possible for a state court to unseat a president-elect directly, so the object of Mr. Gore's contest will be the electors that the State Legislature must select by Dec. 12. The Legislature is dominated by Republicans, many of whom have said they are so angry at Mr. Gore's legal challenges that they would vote to choose electors pledged to Mr. Bush even if Mr. Gore should be certified as the winner on Sunday.

But after the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on Friday afternoon, the leaders of the Florida House and Senate chose a somewhat less confrontational tack, announcing plans to join Mr. Bush's side before the Supreme Court. The Legislature's strategy will stay in the courts only for a short time, though. Johnnie B. Byrd Jr., a senior House Republican and co-chairman of the Legislature's select committee on the election, vowed in an interview today that even if contest actions are still unresolved by the Dec. 12 deadline for naming electors, the Republican-dominated Legislature will go ahead and pick a slate of 25 electors loyal to Mr. Bush. ''It's been fun, but we're ready for a little finality,'' he said.

Correction: November 29, 2000, Wednesday A chart on Sunday tracking legal challenges over Florida's presidential ballots referred incorrectly to the Bush campaign's appeal of a decision by the Federal District Court in Miami, which refused to stop manual recounts. The case remains active in the United States Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Only a request for an immediate halt of manual recounts was rejected on Nov. 17. On Monday, at the request of Bush campaign lawyers, the appeals court decided to postpone hearings until Dec. 5.



This article, along with many others from November 2000, really demonstrates the chaos that was happening during that time. There is a lot going on in this article, just like there was a lot going on in Florida during the 2000 recount. Just seeing the numbers laid out in an article are surprising - just how many votes Al Gore got (and did not get) from the recount leave people wondering what could have happened. The lack of a standard for the counties in the recount is present in this article, the question about military ballots is here, and the amount of ballots that were not recounted is in here too. This whole debacle is so ridiculous, and everyone can see the mistakes that were made when they are written out on paper.

New book claims JFK planned to get U.S. out of Vietnam



On today, the 45th anniversary of the John F. Kennedy's death, Gordon M. Goldstein has published an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times in which he claims that the assassination of JFK ensured heightened U.S. involvement in Vietnam. His new book Lessons in Disaster is based on interviews with McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser to both JFK and LBJ. In these interviews, Bundy claims that JFK had planned, if reelected in 1964, to pull most U.S. advisers out of Vietnam. As you may remember, I argued in class that JFK had made no clear commitment to pull out of Vietnam. In light of this new evidence, I may have to revise my conclusions.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Karl Rove- Election Night 2000

Here is Karl Rove talking on CNN the night of the 2000 election, focusing his efforts on Florida.

Rove is upset that major news stations had already called Florida for Gore before all of the votes were in. He then goes on a big rant about how Republicans are winning the vote count in most of the counties, by "a substantial amount" and are doing better than he had predicted. He even talks about the controversial Florida counties such as Miami-Dade and how the Republicans are doing much better than he had anticipated. Looking back now, it's a different story and we know why Bush was ahead in those counties and the voting catastrophe that ensued. But Rove does make an important point about the election coverage by major news stations and their willingness to jump the gun on calling state as well as election winners. Things would have gone a little smoother, I believe, if the major news stations didn't continue to go back and forth in calling Florida for Gore than Bush and so on. Even watching the election this year, news stations were calling the states for McCain or Obama right after the polls had closed. Apparently they didn't learn from their debacle in calling Florida in 2000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyKlcQ_HiD4

Gore mentions in his concession that the world community may look at the trouble the US had with deciding the election as a sign of American weakness. His response that the process showed the strength of American democracy in its ability to overcome special circumstances reminded me of the lecture former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski gave at BU. He recounted a UN conference he was attending while the Florida battle was going on. He said that everyone that got up to speak made a joke about the situation and how hard it was for the US to decide a winner, some criticizing the American election process. He said, however, that when Kofi Annan got up to speak he said something along the lines of this: (not a direct quote)
"In my home country of Ghanna if a week went by without a winner in the election a General would claim the presidency. If two weeks went by, a Colonel would. If three weeks went by, a Major would."

Though I wouldn't expect a military takeover in most countries, especially the US, Gore and Annan's comments really shed light on the issue. Even with all the issues of the right to vote and the political subversion that went on, at least in the portrayal in "Recount", the whole process was ultimately decided with legal courts without massive riots or civil unrest. Was the Florida battle in the 2000 election a demonstration of the flaws in the voting process or was it a show of strength American democracy being controlled by law?

Liberties; Oyez! Oyez! Oy Vey! This Is One Nutty Election!

Published: November 26, 2000

The old Don had helped the humiliated man in the black robe get justice. He had treated the judge's enemies as his own enemies.

He had caused those who tried to ruin the judge to weep bitter tears. He made sure the nominee under his protection got justice and became a justice.

''Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do me a service in return,'' the old Don, the head of the WASP Corleones, whispered to the younger man.

For Clarence Thomas, that day has arrived. Don Georgio of Kennebunkport needs a splash of service in connection with the hotheaded Sonny, who has gotten himself into his biggest scrape yet. Nearly a decade has passed, and now it time for Clarence to repay his political godfather.

Imagine what might have secretly transpired between the two:

''Look how the Democrats massacred my boy with dimpled ballots and endless hand recounts,'' an emotional Don Georgio confides in Justice Thomas. ''It's a low-tech lynching. I want you to use all your powers and all your skills. I don't want his mother to see him this way.''

Just when you thought our electoral spectacle could not get more surreal, labyrinthine, incestuous and conspiratorial, we now have Jeb's legislature joining W.'s lawsuit before Daddy's old Supreme Court.

''It's just a family affair,'' laughed a Bush aide in Tallahassee.

If the Bush forces angrily discounted a decision of the Florida Supreme Court that went against them, because all the justices were appointed by Democratic governors, then why would the Gore forces trust a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court if it went against them, when seven of nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, including two by W.'s dad?

The highest court in the land is supposed to be above politics. But nothing has been above politics so far in this presidential mud wrestle.

And the two candidates whose marathon donnybrook has now spilled into the Supreme Court made that body a major campaign issue.

W. expressed the highest respect for Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Al Gore seized on this to scare women voters: ''When the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade.''

How rich to see W., whose campaign was steeped in skepticism about Washington, the federal government and trial lawyers, send his lawyers to Washington to petition a states' rights Supreme Court to overturn a state decision.

The theme of revenge, so prominent in the race, is continuing in the coda. Cuban-Americans in Florida, still angry at the Clinton administration over the seizure of Elian, threatened to go back to the streets, which helped stop the Miami-Dade hand count that Al was hoping would put him over the top.

The Bush team filed suit with the Supreme Court in Washington knowing that the Supreme Court in Florida would ''always be a problem and that there had to be recourse,'' as one Bushie put it.

But the legal tactics of the two camps are running ahead of their political strategies.

Bush advisers were riding the tiger this weekend, unsure if the high court would prolong the wrangling rather than head it off. Their hope had been that W. would eke out an edge in votes by the 5 p.m. Sunday deadline, and Katherine Harris would hold a press conference certifying W. the winner.

Then he could have emerged and declared himself the president-elect -- as Napoleon once took the crown from the pope and proclaimed himself emperor.

''We were counting on Katherine 'Where is my ambassadorship? I held up my end of the deal' Harris to complete her duty,'' a Bush adviser in Florida said mordantly.

But now they are not sure what to do. If Al Gore ''steals enough votes to win'' on Sunday, in the Bush argot, at least the W. camp will have the U.S. Supreme Court to keep hopes alive. But what if W. gets his votes, and then the justices validate the Gore hand recounts -- hoisting W. with his own legal petard?

Will W. get Jebby's legislature to come to his rescue? Will Al keep counting and counting and counting . . .

Voters in 2000 and The Nadar Factor

Ralph Nadar, though a third party candidate and far from the head of the race, had a measurable affect on the outcome of the 2000 election. This ad shows how he had a sufficient grasp on some of the widespread attitudes of American voters during this election time - indifference, pessimism, and distrust of and towards the government. This ad appeals to these feelings in a very effective way.


Thursday, November 20, 2008

Politically Incorrect Recount



The first 10 minutes of this episode of Politically Incorrect focuses on the week's topics of Nov. 24, 2000. On that date, Dick Cheney suffered a mild heart attack. This lead a combined force of Bill Maher, Radio Talk Show host Al Rantel, Batman's Adam West, actress Sherely Lee Ralph, and in an ironic setup, Al Franken to discuss openly their views of how both campaigns were running the recount in Florida. Al Franken leads an attack on Gov. Bush's campaign, declaring a hand recount is needed throughout the whole state. Luckily for Franken in the year 2008, he ran for Senate in a state which suggests, like legislation signed in Texas, that hand recounts are the most effective.
Other topics discussed include the vitality of the VP, the three month gap between election day and inauguration day, and the importance of a healthy candidate.
You've been warned, much of what is discussed in the clip is heated and politically incorrect.

Scalia: Get over it!



I know this isn't exactly from 2000, but Scalia definitely has his own primary source opinions on the issue. He gets very defensive, and "get over it!" is a way of dodging a question. There is no doubt that his conservative bent certainly was a factor in his actions during the recount. I found this video fascinating because it shows a Supreme Court Justice getting flustered and embarrassed because he failed to make an objective decision in 2000.

Woodward and Bernstein visit W. Mark Felt, a.k.a. "Deep Throat"



Here is an account of their recent visit with former FBI man and Watergate whistle-blower W. Mark Felt.

Quotes from Dan Rather on Election Night 2000

Here is a list of Dan Rather quotes on the 2000 election compiled by Daniel Kurtzman on About.com:

"This race is shakier than cafeteria Jell-O."

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."

"It's cardiac-arrest time in this presidential campaign."

"He swept through the South like a tornado through a trailer park."

"Don't bet the trailer money yet."

"It's too early to say he has the whip hand."

"Now Florida, that race, the heat from it is hot enough to peel house paint."

"It's a ding dong battle back and forth."

"If he doesn't carry Florida Slim will have left town."

"If a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a hand gun."

"They both have champagne on ice, but after the night is over, they might need a pick axe to open them."

"This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."

"It's about as complicated as a wiring diagram to some dynamo."

"Only votes talk - everything else walks."

"This will show you how tight it is - it's spandex tight."

"We're going to go to some of those longnecks from a long time ago."

"He's going to find that people will hang on him like a coat rack."

"This election swings like one of those pendulum things."

"This race is as tight as the rusted lug nuts on a '55 Ford."

"What we know is that there will be no decision until some of those races are decided."

"Al Gore has his back to the wall, shirt tails on fire with this race in Florida."

"You talk about a ding-dong, knock-down, get-up race."

"When it comes to a race like this, I'm a long distance runner and an all-day hunter."

"It's the American way: if you don't vote, you don't get to whine."

"Smelling salts for all Democrats please."

"Maybe you can bring some perspective on this, we're plum out."

"When the going gets weird, anchor men punt."

"Tipper is probably telling her husband to hook a U, go back to the house to get a recount."

"It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican or a mug wamp, elected officials play it straight."

"Florida is the whole deal, the real deal, a big deal."

"The presidential race still hotter than a Laredo parking lot."

"These returns are running like a squirrel in a cage."

"It was as hot and squalid as a New York elevator in August."

"Bush has run through Dixie like a big wheel through a cotton field."

"This will have the people in Austin standing up like they got stuck with hat pins."

"...in Austin, between the 10 gallon hats and the Willie Nelson head bands."

"The big burrito out there in California"

"They'll be doing back flips in Nashville."

"It would be Shakespearean for Al Gore to lose because of his home state."

"I think you would likelier see a hippopotamus run through this room than see George Bush appoint Ralph Nader to the Cabinet."

"None of this television mumbo jumbo, let's get in there and count the votes."

"Frankly we don't know whether to wind the watch or to bark at the moon."

"We've lived by the crystal ball, we're eating so much broken glass. We're in critical condition."

GOP operative Roger Stone reflects on his role in Miami-Dade "Brooks Brothers Riot"




In Recount, we see a re-enactment of the "Brooks Brothers Riot" in which Roger Stone and a group of other well dressed young GOP operatives shut down the vote count in Miami Dade by getting past security and shouting down the recount process. In a recent interview, Mr. Stone has expressed some regret about his role in this affair.

Onion News-in-Brief

Man Who Threatened To Move To Canada Before Election Still Here

November 29, 2000 | Issue 36•43
CEDAR FALLS, IA– Despite repeated pre-election threats of expatriation, area resident Ron Glick remains a U.S. citizen, acquaintances of the 43-year-old reported Monday. "For weeks leading up to the election, Ron kept saying, 'I swear, if that clown wins, I am moving to Canada,'" coworker Paula Vogel said. "Well, he's been at work every day since, so unless he's commuting from Winnipeg, he's still here." Glick has threatened to renounce his citizenship every four years since 1980, when Reagan's victory was supposed to have precipitated his emigration to Spain.

I love this little blurb from The Onion. I think it is a hilarious jab at all those people you'll hear threatening to move to Canada or Mexico should the candidate of their choice lose an election. We all know those people and we've all heard those people shoot their mouths off before, and such threats are not only annoying but utterly ridiculous and empty. The quality of life in America is so high - not many people want to leave.

Beyond it's satire, this little blurb also provides insight into the American electoral process. Americans have long been jaded and confused by national elections. Such feelings and public opinion are not a recent phenomenon that's only developed since 2000. The electoral college has confused generations of Americans, and anger and disgust with the American electoral process has always been a part of presidential elections. Like Ron Glick, who's been disgruntled since 1980, American disillusionment with the electoral process reaches far back into this country's history and is much more than a recent, 21st century phenomenon.

The Concession Phone Call



This clip imagines what was said between Gore and Bush in Gore's initial concession phone call and his later retraction.

October 2000 Rage Against the Machine Video



I thought that I would post this to show how many people, including myself, felt in 2000. I saw the election as a contest between two thoroughly mediocre candidates that didn't have enough substantial differences between them to make necessary changes to the direction of the country.

Man, was I wrong. I don't think many of us really grasped how important the 2000 election was at the time, as was noted in class a few weeks ago, but those seemingly small difference between Gore and Bush would have created a drastically different trajectory for America, the main turning point being September 11th. Of course it's all speculative, but I think Gore would have gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq, and he would have conducted relations with other nations in a very different fashion.

At the time, I cast my vote for Nader as a protest to the Democrats for abandoning the left wing of their party. I still don't feel horribly guilty about this, having voted in Massachusetts. And even at the time I thought it was wrong to vote Nader in a swing state, as I did recognize that Gore was the lesser of two evils.

This video documents some of the frustration people felt prior to the election, feeling that both candidates catered to the major corporations and they were too moderate to address major problems brewing in the globalization-era of the world. It's humorous, makes some valid points (as well as a few cheap shots) and it features many familiar faces that we've been discussing recently.

Gore could have won if the recount went through....

Here's a different take on the NY times article:

Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!It turns out the U.S. Supreme Court really did cast the deciding vote ...

Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncovered the hidden cache of valid, uncounted "overvotes"—seemingly double-voted ballots that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it.

Gore instead focused on "undervotes," ballots that initially registered no vote at all. It has been widely assumed that the real-life, statewide recount of Florida votes that was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court a year ago—and then abruptly stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court—was also limited to undervotes. Certainly the Florida court's opinion focuses on undervotes.

But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."

Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized 'I'd be open to that.'

"If that had happened," the Sentinel notes, "it would have amounted to a statewide hand recount. And it could have given the election to Gore," since salvaging the valid overvotes turns out to have been "Gore's only path to victory." Lewis had apparently planned a hearing for later that Saturday, at which the overvote issue was going to be discussed.

Why is this significant? Because the comforting, widely publicized, Bush-ratifying spin given to the recent media recount by the New York Times(and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post) has been that—as the Times' lede confidently put it—"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." [Emphasis added.] (The Times' front-page headline was "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.")

We now know, thanks to the Sentinel, that this Times take (and the somewhat more hedged ledes in the Journal and Post) is thoroughly bogus—unfounded and inaccurate. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won. Certainly the Times doesn't know otherwise.

That Judge Lewis would probably have counted the overvotes at the perverse (in hindsight) urging of the Bush camp (which either wanted to delay the proceedings or erroneously thought the overvotes would boost Bush's total) doesn't alter this conclusion.

It looks as if the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who stopped the Florida count cast the deciding vote after all. …

P.S.: Does this mean Gore's undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn't foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, it was almost too late to count them before Dec. 12, the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore's lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida's electors. Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as this Sentinel companion story suggests. Had Gore instead asked for a full statewide recount immediately after the Nov. 7 election, as some of his aides urged, there would have been plenty of time to count both undervotes and overvotes before Dec. 12.

P.P.S.: If any paper gets a Pulitzer out of this Florida mess, shouldn't it be the Sentinel?

South Park Does 2000 Election

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152351

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152315

These are two clips from a South Park episode that aired a few days after the 2000 election. The kindergarten students elect a new class president and encounter problems that spoof the Recount issue. (Only the first halves of each clip are relevant.)

Notice also that the two candidates' names (Filmore and Ike) are those of past presidents.



This video is the first segment of a documentary called In View which was produced specifically for Palm Beach County. It reviews the personal accounts of those who were recounting and making the decisions at the poll centers. The amount of pressure put on this individuals seems to be astronomical considering the pressure from Democrat and Republican officials as well as the hardships put on them by thousands of threats by email and phone. Certainly these people wanted to do a good job while under such scrutiny, but one can't help but think that personal threats against their well-being swayed them in some way, even subconsciously.

One Year Later: Newspapers Examine Florida Ballots in Unofficial Recount

November 12, 2001
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER [NY Times]

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.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

Even so, the media ballot review, carried out under rigorous rules far removed from the chaos and partisan heat of the post-election dispute, is unlikely to end the argument over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The race was so close that it is possible to get different results simply by applying different hypothetical vote-counting methods to the thousands of uncounted ballots. And in every case, the ballot review produced a result that was even closer than the official count a margin of perhaps four or five thousandths of one percent out of about six million ballots cast for president.

The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected last November. Those included so-called undervotes, or ballots on which the machines could not discern a preference for president, and overvotes, those on which voters marked more than one candidate.

The examination then sought to judge what might have been considered a legal vote under various conditions from the strictest interpretation (a clearly punched hole) to the most liberal (a small indentation, or dimple, that indicated the voter was trying to punch a hole in the card). But even under the most inclusive standards, the review found that at most, 24,619 ballots could have been interpreted as legal votes.

The numbers reveal the flaws in Mr. Gore's post-election tactics and, in retrospect, why the Bush strategy of resisting county-by-county recounts was ultimately successful.

In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical a statewide recount could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.

Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida's standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.

A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.

But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.

Democrats invested heavily in get- out-the-vote programs across Florida, particularly among minorities, recent immigrants and retirees from the Northeast. But their efforts were foiled by confusing ballot designs in crucial counties that resulted in tens of thousands of Democratic voters spoiling their ballots. More than 150,000 of those spoiled ballots did not show evidence of voter intent even after independent observers closely examined them and the most inclusive definition of what constituted a valid vote was applied.

The majority of those ballots were spoiled because multiple choices were made for president, often, apparently, because voters were confused by the ballots. All were invalidated by county election officials and were excluded from the consortium count because there was no clear proof of voter intent, unless there were other clear signs of the voter's choice, like a matching name on the line for a write-in candidate.

In Duval County, for example, 20 percent of the ballots from African- American areas that went heavily for Mr. Gore were thrown out because voters followed instructions to mark a vote on every page of the ballot. In 62 precincts with black majorities in Duval County alone, nearly 3,000 people voted for Mr. Gore and a candidate whose name appeared on the second page of the ballot, thus spoiling their votes.

In Palm Beach County, 5,310 people, most of them probably confused by the infamous butterfly ballot, voted for Mr. Gore and Patrick J. Buchanan. The confusion affected Bush voters as well, but only 2,600 voted for Mr. Bush and another candidate.

The media consortium included The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN. The group hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in January to examine the ballots. The research group employed teams of three workers they called coders to examine each undervoted ballot and mark down what they saw in detail. Three coders provided a bulwark against inaccuracy or bias in the coding. For overvotes, one coder was used because there was seldom disagreement among examiners in a trial run using three coders.

The data produced by the ballot review allows scrutiny of the disputed Florida vote under a large number of situations and using a variety of different standards that might have applied in a hand recount, including the appearance of a dimple, a chad dangling by one or more corners and a cleanly punched card.

The difficulty of perceiving dimples or detached chads can be measured by the number of coders who saw them, but most of the ballot counts here are based on what a simple majority two out of three coders recorded.

The different standards mostly involved competing notions of what expresses voter intent on a punch card. The 29,974 ballots using optical scanning equipment were mostly interpreted using a single standard any unambiguous mark, whether a circle or a scribble or an X, on or near the candidate name was considered evidence of voter intent.

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.

But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.

Using the most restrictive standard the fully punched ballot card 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.

The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state's 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the undervotes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.

The Florida court's 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore's plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush's demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral remarks, asked, "Why wouldn't it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the undervotes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?"

The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including overvotes.

The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court's ruling, sealing Mr. Bush's election.

But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?

The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.

The Florida Legislature earlier this year banned punch-card ballots statewide, directing counties to find a more reliable method. Many counties will use paper ballots scanned by computers at voting places that can give voters a second chance if their choices fail to register. In counties that use that technology, just 1 in 200 ballots had uncountable presidential votes, compared with 1 in 25 in punch-card counties.

Others will invest in computerized touch-screen machines that work like automated teller machines.

Kirk Wolter, who supervised the ballot review for the National Opinion Research Center, said that the study not only provided a comprehensive review of uncounted ballots in Florida but would help point the way toward more accurate and reliable voting systems. All data from the consortium recount is available on the Web at www.norc.org.

The review produced databases to study this election from a historical perspective, said Mr. Wolter, the research center's senior vice president for statistics and methodology, adding, "I hope in turn this can lead to voting reform and better ways of doing this in future elections."

Article by SanFran Newspaper Journalist on Recount

Florida Justices Delay Certification of Vote


Written on November 18, 2000, this article includes a brief summary of the recount events, the public's opinion on the situation, Gore's reactions, and important statistics including the vote tabulation at press time. The article describes the Republicans' angry responses to the Florida Court's decision after Secretary of State Harris already certified the vote.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2000/11/18/MN57218.DTL&type=printable

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The Daily Show's take on the 2000 Election Certification

On November 27, 2000 the Daily Show's "Moment of Zen"



Although a bit outlandish, Steve Carrell shows how ridiculous the certification and this triumph of the "rule of law" seems to anyone outside of Katherine Harris's circle.

The 2000 Recount and The Onion

Not surprisingly, The Onion (America's Finest News Source) had some pretty quality stories about the 2000 recount. Here are three great ones.

Florida Ballot

florida_confusing_ballot.jpg
This political cartoon expresses the confusion and frustration voters experienced in the 2000 election.  Obviously it wasn't this bad, but apparently it was bad enough.

Florida Recount Controversy- Nader's role

http://img.timeinc.net/time/teach/glenspring2001/p12cartoon.gif

This lampoon of the 2000 election that came down to the winner of Florida between George Bush and Al Gore explains a lot about Ralph Nader, the third party candidate’s role in the election. Specifically concerning the recount in Florida, some voters argued that their confusion with the ballot had cased them to vote for Nader when they intended to vote for Gore. In a newscast clip from Florida in 2000 that we saw in the movie Recount, Ralph Nader actually said that he thought some votes he received in Florida were from individuals who had intended to vote Gore. So this picture shows that in some ways Gore had to appeal to Nader for help in trying to win Florida, which would have made him the President of the United States. So although Nader may have appeared to have less of an influence (hence the smaller boat), when it came down to Florida, he actually played a pivotal role in determining who would be elected President in 2000.

In considering Nader's effect on the election, historians and writers from 2000 argued that he had a more detrimental effect on Gore's campaign in comparison to the votes he took from the Bush campaign. According to the Washington Post "Nader received some 97,000 votes in Florida. According to the Washington Post, national exit polls showed that "47% of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21% for Bush."

The New "Long Count"

This is an OpEd piece written by New York Times writer William Safire. Safire is a self-described "libertarian conservative" and I think his point of view in this article is interesting. His examination of the media's role is prudent - if the networks hadn't called the election so early, Gore's actions may have been different. What's most critical, though, is how he describes the actions of the loser. The difference between gracious loss and going down kicking and screaming is relevant in today's political climate as well and can be urged across partisan lines.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E2DE1638F93AA35752C1A9669C8B63

Monday, November 17, 2008

Frost/Nixon and other films

There was an interview in BU Today this morning with Robert Zelnick a BU COM professor who served as an executive editor for the Richard Nixon/David Frost interview that we looked at in class.

This interview is being given the Hollywood treatment by Ron Howard in the upcoming movie Frost/Nixon:


I actually saw this trailer for the first time last weekend, when I went to see "W," which is another film people in this class may be interested in:



I think this trailer sells the movie as something it's not; as a cinematic berating of George W. Bush. Stone really portrays him as a sympathetic character, someone with good intentions and a myriad of obstacles. That being said, it's certainly not an admiring portrait either, often painting him as a reformed alcoholic business failure who took a shot at politics and got in over his head (which, I suppose, is not that far off.)

Oliver Stone's portrayals of the Nixon presidency and the JFK assassination are more revisionist history, including more theory than historical fact. But this film actually sticks pretty closely to what we know, using accounts by people such as Bob Woodward and Richard Clark. The only "iffy" area I'd say would be the relations between Bush Jr and Bush Sr. I have no idea where Stone got his source material for some of those more personal scenes.

You can read the mixed reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (which currently stand at about 60% good 40% "rotten") but I'd say that the movie is worth checking out, if only to see Richard Dreyfuss' phenomenal interpretation of Dick Cheney.

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

While we're on the subject; does anyone have "presidential" movies to recommend? If you can stomach Kevin Costner's miserable attempt at a Boston accent, I really like the movie "Thirteen Days" about the Cuban missile crisis. Also the documentary "Fog of War" is an amazing film about Robert McNamara that touches on a variety of subjects from the past 60 years of US history. It's interesting to hear stories and opinions on WWII, Vietnam, the Cold War, etc from a man who had a front row seat in all of those events.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Clinton Defends His Presidency

After yesterday's lecture, I think this video is appropriate. Clinton defends himself and his administration for their reputation for poor moral authority.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

Clinton's 2008 views on his 1993 "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

Monica Lewinski and the dot com boom

http://www.thereal-monica.com/
This is the website for Monica Lewinski's handbags that she started making in the middle of the affair.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Republican Party Rebuilding



The RNC has just released this video extolling its values and successes of the past 20 years to regain energy in the future. I just think this is an interesting approach to take--certainly the opposite of what gave Obama his success (in looking almost exclusively into the future even at a time when George W. was so unpopular).

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

"Triangulation": Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign


Today we'll discuss Bill Clinton's strategy of using conservative rhetoric, and supporting some conservative causes such as welfare reform and opposition to gay marriage, in his first term as President and in his 1996 re-election campaign. Above is the electoral map from that election, and below is a Clinton-Gore TV ad from 1996.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

last chance to discuss paper topics 11/12 at 2:30pm

I've had many students come by to discuss the paper, and I'll be available this Wednesday during office hours to discuss the paper before it's due on Friday, 11/14.

If there's is anyone out there still having trouble with their topic, here's the email I sent out re: paper topics on October 2nd:

I've talked to a number of students during office hours who have developed some
excellent paper topics. To add to the mix, I'd like to suggest a few possible
topics for each primary source:

1. Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt:

Role of the First Lady Before and After Eleanor Roosevelt

The "Brain Trust" in FDR's White House

The Success and Failure of New Deal Programs

Isolationism vs. Support for the Allies Before Pearl Harbor

FDR's Conduct of the War Effort

FDR's Vision of Postwar Order

Eleanor Roosevelt's Role in Postwar American Politics

2. Miami and the Siege of Chicago

The Last Days of the Johnson Administration

The Rise of the "New Left" in American Politics

The Rise of the "New Right" in American Politics

The Political Resurrection of Richard Nixon

The Rise of "New Journalism" (e.g. Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson, et al) in US Politics

The Breakdown of the "Liberal Consensus" in US Politics

3. The Reagan Diaries

Reagan & the Challenges of the Early Eighties: Recession & Inflation

Reagan & the Challenges of the Early Eighties: A Spike in Cold War Tensions

"Reaganomics": The Promise, the Results, and the Legacy

Reagan and the Iran-Contra Scandal

"The Great Communicator": Reagan's Use of Mass Media

Reagan and the Imperial Presidency







Sunday, November 9, 2008

Quayle-Bentsen Debate




It's interesting to see how strangely similar the VP selection was to our most recent election. Quayle was criticized for a lack of experience by both parties, while the same was done to Palin.

After the Imperial Presidency: New Yotk Times Magazine

This article appeared in today's New York Times Magazine. The author discusses the role of Congress and the president through interviews with longtime senators. He focuses more or less on the terms of Bush Sr. through the present. The most interesting part of the article for me was on the last two pages or so where he discusses how the Obama administration will treat its executive authority. I think the title is a little misleading, as the author cannot (and does not) draw firm conclusions on the next administrations and the power of the presidency. Overall a pretty interesting read.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Dukakis Ad

Here's the ad of Dukakis in the tank. Real tough looking, no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZkoKh_A5pw

Interesting fact: it ran during game five of the World Series in 1988. Skillful media manipulation, reach as many people in as many demographics as possible...

Clinton Ad '92



Straightforward advertisement. Notice how at the end they say "for a change". Sounds vaguely familiar...

Something funny: if you actually "read" George Bush's lips, it looks like he says "'go' new taxes". Aha! He's not a liar, he's just misunderstood!

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Putting this election in its historical context: "And then they wept" by Charles M. Blow

November 4, 2008, 11:20 pm
And Then They Wept
By Charles M. Blow


History will record this as the night the souls of black folk, living and dead, wept – and laughed, screamed and danced – releasing 400 years of pent up emotion.

They were the souls of those whose bodies littered the bottom of the Atlantic, whose families were torn asunder, whose names were erased.

They were those who knew the terror of being set upon by men with clubs, of being trapped in a torched house, of dangling at the end of a rough rope.

They were the souls of those who knew the humiliation of another person’s spit trailing down their faces, of being treated like children well into their twilight years, of being derided and despised for the beauty God gave them.

They were also the tears of those for whom “Yes We Can, ” Obama’s campaign slogan, took on a broader, more profound meaning.

“Yes We Can” escape the prison of lowered expectations and the cycles of poor choices. “Yes We Can” rise above history and beyond hatred. “Yes We Can” ascend to Martin Luther King’s mountain top and see the promised land where dreams are fulfilled, where the best man wins and where justice prevails.

During this election African-Americans, their hearts weary from disappointment, dared to hope and dream again. Tonight their dream has been realized.

Whether or not you agree with Barack Obama’s politics, there is no denying that his election represents a seminal moment in the African-American narrative and a giant leap forward on the road to America’s racial reconciliation.

In fact everyone, regardless of race, should feel free to shed a tear and be proud of how far our country has come.

Feel free to share your thoughts. [link]

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

"Let us summon a new spirit..."

The 44th President of the United States of America:

Monday, November 3, 2008

The Economist: Global Electoral College Map


Today a student asked a very good question about how tomorrow's U.S. presidential election is being seen around the world, especially in light of the current economic crisis. The conservative British magazine The Economist has taken surveys around the world and now presents the results at its Global Electoral College site.

Ronald Reagan - A Time for Choosing (October 27, 1964)

In the Modern American Presidency book by Lewis L. Gould, Reagan made his first nationally televised defense of Barry Goldwater. Alot can be taken from this short clip. First is Reagans skill at speaking to large audiences which it seems he is naturally gifted at. Second, is that even at the time he gave this speech, it is apparent how conservative he is in his political beliefs that will shape his presidency in about three decades. Finally, as Gould points out this will help Reagen gain national spotlight and help in win California's governorship in 1966 and launch his political career.

Brian Walsh

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/CPRadio_player.php?podcast=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/xmlfeeds/367.xml&proxyloc=http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/player/customproxy.php
"This American Life goes to Pennsylvania to figure out why, and how, John McCain and Barack Obama both think they can win there. And we get to know the ordinary people who’ve become the candidates’ most forceful foot soldiers."
This is a very interesting episode of This American Life from Chicago Public Radio and it ties into the discussion we had in class today about the race element of the election.

Gould writes, "A key premise of the Reagan team was that the modern presidency was more about the visual images that viewers saw each day than the substance of what the president said or what was said about him by reporters or his political opponents" and even though this clip is only a commercial, it does rely heavily on positive images of Reagan. Gould also tells a story about when a White House aide told a reporter who had run a story that was critical of Reagan; "Nobody heard what you said...they just saw the five minutes of beautiful pictures of Ronald Reagan. They saw the balloons, they saw the flags, they saw the red, white and blue. Haven't you people figured our yet that the picture always overrides what you say?".

Two Posts: Reagan/Sinatra and GHW Bush v. Ferraro

posted by Elizabeth Molloy:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47hcybjZmVY

Reagan and Sinatra

Throughout his diary, Reagan references dinners and galas his friend Frank Sinatra performed at and how successful they were. However,both men were able to use their friendship for other purposes. For Sinatra, it meant more publicity for his charity works

" Francis Albert (Sinatra) came by with the Multiple Sclerosis Mother and Father of the year. He's heading up their fundraising drive - 'FS for MS' " pg.84

Reagan was able to utilize their friendship to garner political support.
"After that we helicoptered to Hoboken where Frank Sinatra joined us. He was baptized in St.Anne's Church where they were having the 74th St.Anne Celebration. The crowd was largely female and Italian but they let me know they were for me." pg.258

This clip highlights both the friendship of Sinatra and Reagan, as well as Reagan's sense of humor and ability to captivate a crowd.

***


For my debate clip I had selected this one :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw4-1E4ooX0

Bush v. Ferraro

Recently, alot of emphasis has been placed on Sarah Palin and the role women have in politics. Interestingly enough, not alot has been said about the first women vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro. Prior to the debate between Palin and Biden, it was suggested that Biden would need to word things wisely so as not to appear patronzing or demeaning to Palin. In 1984, Bush did not take that into considersation, and the result was this clip.

Reagan and Air Traffic Controllers

"Monday, August 3

The strike was called for 7AM. I called the press corps together in the Rose Garden and read a statement I'd written yesterday.  I included in it a paragraph from the written oath each employee signs - 'that he or she will not strike against the US govt. or any of its agencies.' I then announced they would have 48 hrs. in which to return and if they don't they are separated from the service. 
By afternoon an estimated 29% of the 17,000 were at work. Have my fingers crossed for tomorrow" (p. 34)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5JSToyiyr8

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Reagan - Machiavellian figure?

Big thing of the day was 2 hour meeting in the Situation  Room on the Iran affair. George S. is still stubborn that we shouldn't have sold the arms to Iran - I gave him an argument. All in all we got everything out on the table. After meeting Ed M. & Don R. told me of a smoking gun. On one of the arms shipments the Iranians paid Israel a higher purchase price than we were getting. The Israelis put the different in a secret ban account. Then our Col. North (NSC) gave the money to the "Contras". This was a violation of the law against giving the Contras money without an authorization by Congress. North didn't tell me about this. Worst of all John Poindexter found out about it & didn't tell me. This may call for resignations.
Reagan Diaries, 11/24/86

Watch more Saturday Night Live videos on AOL Video


Judging a president by how he runs the executive branch & personal opinions on the level of power he exerts is one of the main issues people had with determining whether Reagan was a good president. The Iran-Contra Affair is probably the largest divisive event under his administration - while he enjoyed high approval ratings for most of his presidency, he did suffer under the consequences of this affair that emerged in November 1986. Not to worry - he rebounded in March of 1987 with a speech where he famously did not apologize for his office's actions despite recognizing that it was illegal. Nice, Reagan.
The clip I attached is a skit in which Phil Hartman plays Reagan as a 'political mastermind' (the name of the sketch - I know, I'm original). I found this really enjoyable (mostly because I'm openly a political nerd) because of the difficulty determining not only how involved Reagan was in his presidential affairs, but also how much of his political persona as an affable witty-but-kinda-doddering grandpa figure (remind you of anyone?) was real.