Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 09, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Clay Waters's blog
  • Chris Matthews Reacts to JFK Mistress: Kennedy a Hero Who 'Still Arouses the Country'
  • Covering Up JFK’s Roguish Behavior for 50 Years Not Long Enough for NBC’s Viewers
  • Bozell: It's 'Hilarious' CNN Suspended Roland Martin for Inoffensive Tweet; Maybe 'Lefty Loons at MSNBC' Can 'Scoop Him Up' Now
  • CNN Responds to Bozell Letter Demanding Coverage of Catholic Outrage at Obama; We Reply
  • Barbara Walters: It's 'Heartbreaking' to Force Women to View an Ultrasound Before an Abortion
  • MRC Study: ABC and NBC Anything But Fast and Furious On Gunwalking Scandal
  • Bozell Column: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
  • Even Chris Matthews Questions Obama's 'Frightening,' Birth Control Decision

NYT Still Sad Supreme Court Didn't Do 'The Right Thing' for Gore in 2000

By Clay Waters | October 15, 2007 | 14:10

Change font size:  A |  A

Saturday's lead editorial in the New York Times celebrated Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize for his work on "global warming," "A Prize for Mr. Gore and Science." Before the praise, the Times stopped to spout misstatements on Gore's effort to overturn the 2000 election results.

"One can generate a lot of heartburn thinking about all of the things that would be better about this country and the world if the Supreme Court had done the right thing and ruled for Al Gore instead of George W. Bush in 2000. Mr. Gore certainly hasn't let his disappointment stop him from putting the time since to very good use.

But the Supreme Court "ruling for Al Gore" would not have automatically put Gore in the White House, as the paper assumes. Gore asked for a statewide manual recount -- which the Times's own comprehensive report shows Bush would have won.

Here's Ford Fessenden and John Broder from November 12, 2001:

"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."

Thomas Friedman made the same false accusation of the Supreme Court taking away Gore's presidential victory in the second paragraph of his Sunday column.

"Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush each faced a crucible moment. For Mr. Gore, it was winning the popular vote and having the election taken away from him by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. For Mr. Bush, it was the shocking terrorist attack on 9/11."

Share this

About the Author

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times. Click here to follow Clay Waters on Twitter.
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Global Warming
  • Judiciary
  • Al Gore
  • Thomas Friedman
  • An Inconvenient Truth
  • New York Times
  • Clay Waters's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 

  • Where are the blacks for Roland Martin? (NRO/Media Blog)
  • Turkish Islamists turn church into mosque (Commentary)
  • CNN suspends Roland Martin (Big Journalism)
  • Birth control mandate is unconstitutional (National Center)
  • Obama's Catholic 'problem' (S.E. Cupp)
  • Debt crisis not inevitable for America (Williams)
  • Catholic 'Obamacan' says he may have to reconsider in 2012 (CNA)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • good neighbors
    9 min 20 sec ago
  • So everyone knows
    11 min 13 sec ago
  • when Teddy was a young boy!
    14 min 34 sec ago
  • Monkeypeople getting you down?
    20 min 19 sec ago
  • So it breaks down...
    25 min 31 sec ago
More >

Obama's Bully-the-Catholic-Church Pulpit
more cartoons
  • Dan Savage Says FRC Leader 'Dances a Jig' at Teen Suicides
  • Cornel West Scolds Al Sharpton: 'Tell the Truth About the White House'
  • Politico: Is Nancy Pelosi A 2012 Asset, or Not?
  • CNN Demeans Republicans as Drag Queens
  • Democrat: Fox News Is 'The Enemy,' Hates 'Working Men and Women'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.