Why is there so little controversy over the new HBO movie "Recount" which airs tonight, that aims to mislead the public into believing Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, when every recount (even the liberal media’s) found otherwise? Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz offered one reason in the Saturday paper: "The makers of 'Recount' tout their reliance on several books about the crisis, and hired as consultants CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, ABC's Jake Tapper, Time's Mark Halperin and David Von Drehle and Newsweek's David Kaplan."
Tapper, one of the consultants, told Kurtz the film is "a fictional version of what happened" and "tilts to the left because it's generally told from the point of view of the Democrats." But, he says, while some scenes and language are manufactured, "a lot of dialogue is not invented, a lot of dialogue is taken from my book, other books and real life."
Kurtz took up the story to outline the pitfalls in "docudrama," which gives the viewer the feeling of history – but with scenes and dialogue often invented. He focused on former Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Gore aide Ron Klain liked the film, but found "Secretary Christopher comes across as kind of naive and out of touch, and he wasn't. It makes Christopher look like an idiot, and he wasn't. It's just not right."
Klain and former Bush I Secretary of State Baker were among those given a chance to review the script and request changes, some of which were accepted. Kurtz said Baker was portrayed as "canny and ruthless," basically the villain of the piece, but get this: "Baker, by contrast, was so pleased with the product that he is hosting a screening next week at his public policy institute in Houston."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Need a shot of Viagra there, buddy?
May 25, 2008 - 08:04 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSo either Bush stole the election, proving the Democrat party feeble and impotent, or Bush was rightly elected, proving the Democrat party feeble and impotent.
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Honestly, anyone who still
May 25, 2008 - 08:30 ET by Seabeach4348Honestly, anyone who still thinks that Algore was cheated or that the USSC "selected" GW Bush in 2000 is empty-headed.
So now someone made a movie about it and massaged the story just a tad to make it look like the big buffoon truly won. Big deal. I'm certain that some people who are already delusional about the reality of that election will now become even more rabid because they get their history lessons from movies, not history books.
I wonder if in 10 or 15 years the libs will rewrite history on this one just as some are denying that the Holocaust wasn't real!
I think that I'll skip this one.
Like the Bush TANG story,
May 25, 2008 - 08:40 ET by motherbeltLike the Bush TANG story, they "know" the premise is legitimate, even though they have to manufacture the evidence to back up their story.
In other words, another "fake but accurate" offering.
Hard Concepts
May 25, 2008 - 10:03 ET by allanfLiberalism is all about changing the "rules" to suit your noble goal. That's why it is so very hard for Democrats to accept defeat in the 2000 Election.
At no point was hand divining of voter intent on punch card ballots part of the legislative scheme envisioned by the Florida Legislature. Bush won the original ballot count and the legally mandated machine reccount. Gore's people then tried to reshape Florida law contending that machine's working as designed, mal-functioned. Although they lost a trial with a Democrat judge the politicos on the Florida Supreme Court decided to create a new hand devining ballot counting mechanism based on their new reading of the Florida Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the reccount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. That was because the reccount treated votes differently.
The decision was 5-4 as to the remedy.
A majority of justices also quite reasonably held that the scheme to elect a President is a plenary power of the State Legislature. That meant that the Florida Supreme Court, could not cite the Florida Consitution as a ruse to change the scheme under which votes were counted. Also very reasonable. The Court felt the Legislature and Congress should ultimately resolve disputes, not the judiciary.
As a typical liberal, Gore chose the wrong venue to fight in: the courts. He should have taken his case to the Florida Legislature and the House of Representatives and challenged the electors.
The Supreme Courts decision was judicious and important. It will prevent activist courts from usurping the electoral process.
Well maybe thats bad for Democrats.
-
May 25, 2008 - 11:05 ET by dahliatraversthat aims to mislead the public into believing Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, when every recount (even the liberal media’s) found otherwise?
Then HBO has seriously mis-served the public with this docudrama because it will be taken as factual on its most important point.
*** OBLIGATORY SPOILER ALERT ***
May 25, 2008 - 13:38 ET by BacchusWhy is there so little controversy over the new HBO movie "Recount" which airs tonight, that aims to mislead the public into believing Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, when every recount (even the liberal media’s) found otherwise?
It's because a controversy doesn't exist. With the slew of money-losing Iraq antiwar movies preceding it, and before Recount even airs, the Hollywood sore loser moniker is already well established, and here they go reminding us of it again.
Jake Tapper calls it a "fictional version of what happened" and that "a lot of dialogue is not invented." That's quite the admission and I can only guess that he meant those slivers of truth can be taken seriously. So, the premise of the movie is slanted towards the underdog and the fiction is needed to keep from revealing the whole truth. The truth is known and the story avoids it. Got it, Jake! That's Hollywood.
"RECOUNT" spoiler: Gore still loses the election.
Not so fast...
May 25, 2008 - 15:26 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistMr. Graham asserts that the HBO program "aims to mislead the public into believing Al Gore won the presidency in
2000, when every recount (even the liberal media’s) found otherwise." That is simply not true. An article published in the Washington Post on Nov. 12, 2001, describes a study of the Florida election conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, in cooperation with a consortium that included the Post, together with the New York Times, the AP, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and four Florida newspapers. Referring to the study results, Post writers Dan Keating and Dan Baltz wrote, “In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed.... But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.”
The complete Post article may be found at:
www.washingtonpost.c...