John F. Kennedy, Chicago, 1960.

How different would the world have been if Kennedy hadn't stolen that election from Nixon?

Of course not. But it's hypocritical as hell for Democrats to complain about what happened in 2000 given what happened in 1960.

And what happened in 1960 is much more egregious than what happened in 2000. In 1960, Kennedy won Illinois and therefore the Presidential election because DEAD PEOPLE, thousands of them, voted for him. What happened in 2000 wasn't organized before the election like 1960 was; what happened in 2000 was people working circumstances that happened to arise spontaneously, not a conspiracy to rig and steal an election like Kennedy did.

Just goes to show you. Even a dead person had better sense than to vote for Richard Nixon.

Wow, the logic of some of your responders is amazing. If democrats did something wrong in 1960, they can't criticize republicans in 2000.

This same logic leads is what drives the folks who say things like "how dare Americans criticize human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia/Iran/Afghanistan/wherever because Americans mistreated native Americans/owned slaves 150 years ago/etc."

If ones predecessors doing something wrong in the past preclude us from speaking out on wrongs done now, none of us can criticize anything.

Jim

It's not just that they criticize, it's that they do so with a pretense of being "shocked! Shocked!" that such things go in in elections, as though it's something new that Republicans invented.

There's no question in your mind.

You're comfortable with the simple "Democrats=all that's good/Republicans=evil" worldview, so this movie's for you.

They both play dirty. Most people accept that, which is why they think movies that show Democrats wearing halos and Republicans wearing horns are hypocritical and not very realistic. It's unfortunate, because a lot of rotten dirty stuff happened in Florida and the story's well worth telling.

If Kennedy cheating justifies Bush cheating, what does Bush's brother using the Highway Patrol to divert black voters justify? Good government is supposed to get better, not worse. When government starts getting worse instead of better, you get the slow and steady decline anyone who has read history is familiair with. Sometimes I think if Bush had been smarter, he would have been the Augustus to Reagan's Julius Caesar in the annals of American democracy. Maybe he still will be, if McCain enshines Bush's policies.

I have to admit I'm sometimes tempted to label Republicans as "evil," but when Bush floated the idea of suspending elections in 2004, a bunch of Republican senators went to the White House and squashed that idea so fast it was only in the news for one cycle. There is still some honor to be had in their ranks.

Well, I can't, because I don't have HBO.

I had to take your word for it: "Recount doesn’t offer any answers, except in the subtext: Look at what cheaters the Republicans are!" If that's a premise of the movie - the solution to election fraud is to keep those cheating Republicans in line - then it will be met with skepticism, which is unfortunate.

Does the movie have an anti-Republican political bias that factors into the premise? If it does, then that taints the message, because most people don't believe that the Democrats are any better, or that they played a "gentlemen's game" in 2000 or any other year.

"When government starts getting worse instead of better..."

When it comes to dirty politics in elections, the government isn't getting worse.

That's the flawed premise.

This sort of stuff is not new to U.S. politics, and it isn't exclusive to Republicans.

I watched Recount this weekend. Like bitchen, I agree that both sides played dirty. In this particular case, the Republicans played dirty better. In previous elections, as "ohplease" pointed out, it's clear that the Democrats played dirty better.

But as James Baker says at the end, What matters is that the system worked. There were no tanks in the street, no declaration of martial law, no Bill Clinton remaining in office past January 20th. We had the same peaceful change of leadership that we have every four or eight years, and the nation kept on going.

What really makes me sad is when Americans equate George W. Bush with Adolf Hitler. Hyperbole on that scale is intellectually dishonest as hell and it's uncalled for even if you don't agree with the man and his policies. People seem to forget that every elected official, from the President on down, swears an oath not to defend the President, or the nation, or any particular philosophy, but to defend the Constitution. And when their time's up, it's up. As much as certain people don't like the current President, or the one before him, the difference between us and places like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and yes, even pre-war Iraq is that we KNOW that the President's time in office is strictly limited.

Which shouldn't come as any great surprise. When Oliver North broke his oath to uphold the Constitution, 90% of the military's officer corp thought he should have gone to prison (which I learned at a panel of officers from every branch touring colleges to do damage control to the military's reputation), but the GOP ran him for political office instead. That's the party we've entrusted our freedoms to.

"But as James Baker says at the end, What matters is that the system worked. There were no tanks in the street, no declaration of martial law, no Bill Clinton remaining in office past January 20th. We had the same peaceful change of leadership that we have every four or eight years, and the nation kept on going."

Are you kidding? System failed - if the system worked, then every vote would have been counted. Just because there wasn't overt violence for the most part, doesn't mean there wasn't any other kind of brutality such as voter-purging, racism, cheating, whatever. The exchange was far from being "peaceful." Wake up.

--'That's the reality. If the truth has a "liberal bias," well, whose fault is that?'

"The sun rises in the east," is also a true statement. It's neither a revelation nor a helpful observation, though. That was my point in the quote you responded to.

--"System failed - if the system worked, then every vote would have been counted."

If that's your criterion for success, then the system has never worked.

--"...doesn't mean there wasn't any other kind of brutality such as voter-purging, racism, cheating, whatever. The exchange was far from being "peaceful."

Run this observation by a voter in Kenya or Zimbabwe and see how much sympathy you get. You're trying to compare the usual skullduggery of a U.S. election to the violence and anarchy of failed republics. It wasn't nearly that bad. Really. Again, if you think Florida 2000 was something new in U.S. politics or a symptom of a failed republic, then you need to wake up.

It's not the first time in history that the Supreme Court has headed off a constitutional crisis by making a ruling on an extraconstitutional matter by conjecturing what the constitution would say had it addressed the specific issue. They've exercised that power before. This was the first time it was applied to a presidential election, granted.

The alternatives were unpleasant, with the Democrats threatening to use the tactic of endless recounts past the inauguration date as blackmail to get the result they wanted, if necessary by making up rules for counting the ballots that changed with each recount. The law and constitution did not provide a mechanism to achieve an outcome before instability and chaos set in, so the Supreme Court acted to preserve order, as it has done in the past. I get the impression the movie glosses over if not completely omits discussion of the Democrats' underhandedness.

No, this isn't Kenya. When we have a contested election, we have a way to reach a resolution peaceably before instability and riots arise. We've never had an election dispute delay a smooth transition of power. That's enviable in this world.

There's been no "fire sale of American values." Elections have always been dirty. This administration has definitely backslid from standards of integrity and human rights achieved by the end of the twentieth century, but he hasn't done anything that some president in the past hasn't done before. That certainly doesn't justify anything, and I don't like to see our civilization retrogressing, and those in power did not and do not have my vote, but so far there's been no unprecedented low. So far.

This movie has about as much credibility as Star Wars, The Incredible Hulk, Bowling for Columbine, King Kong, or any of the other great fictional movies of our time. Its a fake...a phony written by bitter people who can't stand the fact that the majority of America does not support the wacky out of control left wing nuts like Al Gore. Buh Bye

If Al Gore is "out of control," then you, my wacky liberal friend, are certifiably insane. There are plenty of nuts in both wings, but Al Gore is tackling an issue that is about as nonpartisan as they come, a fact that even McCain acknowledges.

For someone so concerned with credibility, you really haven't provided us with much in the way of credentials. Your "majority of America" comment suggests that you don't believe that Mr. Gore actually received more votes than Mr. Bush. Are there any specific facts in this movie that you'd like to dispute?

Amanohyo, you're probably wasting your time asking him to dispute facts. People like him(?) argue by insult and insinuation because facts get them in trouble, and some of them make a great deal of money doing so. Probably not Wackyliberal; he probably just buys their books or listens to their radio.

Mary Ann
Good for you in standing your ground.
One of the nut jobs in the email string above derided "Star Wars". But parable movies such as Star Wars and the LOTR trilogy are really not that far off as fictional counterparts to movies like Recount.
In LOTR, Frodo trusted Aragorn because he expected an agent of Sauron to look "fair", but feel "foul". Recount does a fantastic job of showing how the Republicans looked fair, but felt so nauseatingly foul long before the Bush reign-of-terror actually happened.
Certainly the right wing of poltics in Amerika has revealed itself to be servants of a Star-Wars-like "dark side". They are true masters at pretending to be whatever is situationally convenient. Knowing the true Florida vote was not covenient for their purpose. The actual truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was, similarly, not important to them either. And they certainly don't like to quibble about unclear "chads" like the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. (Just throw them out!) And really, aren't mutilated and dead American soldiers and Iraqis, etc. also just "chads" in the Republican "grand scheme" of things?
Recount stands as a chronicle of "writing on the wall" that few actually saw at the time it was written. Sadly, it appears that too many people still can't (or won't) read the sign even now that it's become a blazing neon billboard.

Dream on guys. It was entertaining but slanted.
There was NO fooling around. Bush won deal with it,
get over it, and move on. Oh yeah, did you like the visit to the woodshed Palin gave the Dems last night

Heh, I've just read to the bottom of this thread. I wonder if Mike still thinks Palin is 'taking the Democrats to the woodshed'?

Just a geeky aside regarding this project: It was written by Danny Strong, who is a long-time acting alumnus of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (as well as Gilmore Girls). Always thought he was funny and talented but I never knew he could write as well.

I had absolutely no idea. "Johnatan" wrote this? I guess he really was the good one of the nerds of doom.

Wow. This movie seems to have stirred republicans more than democrats. They really have proven themselves to be overly-emotional bullies. Perhaps if they realize that they are incapable of running a government. Around the world, noone will ever want to hear from them again. Perhaps they should deal with this.