Did a liberal television network correspondent cause the 2000 Florida recount debacle?
When all eyes were on Florida and it wasn't looking good for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, his campaign was warned by a senior network correspondent that conceding on Election Night would be a bad idea. That intervention stopped Gore from conceding the election according to a top Democratic strategist.
Former John Kerry campaign manager and long-time Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum made the allegation on the CNN show "Reliable Sources" Sunday.
Interviewing Shrum about his new book, titled No Excuses, CNN host Howard Kurtz brought up Shrum's revelation that he was warned by a "senior network correspondent" to stop Al Gore from giving his planned concession speech on the night of the 2000 election.
"A senior network correspondent, you said, called you and warned, 'The Florida numbers are wrong. Don't let him concede.'"
Shrum confirmed: "Someone I knew ... I think this happened not only with me, someone else called Carter Eskew and, who was in a different place than I was at that point."
Kurtz set up the question to Shrum: "Here's one thing that jumped out at me in your book. Election night 2000, very close. Suddenly, it looks like George W. Bush is going to win. A senior network correspondent, you said, called you and warned, 'The Florida numbers are wrong. Don't let him concede.' Why would a correspondent, this is not a commentator, this is not a columnist, be giving you that kind of advice?" (Transcript follows)
Shrum responded: "Someone I knew, and Al Gore, I think this happened not only with me, someone else called Carter Eskew and, who was in a different place than I was at that point, and Al Gore was speeding toward the war memorial to concede. And we actually had to have David Morehouse, who was his body guy, stop him and say, 'No, Mr. Vice President, you cannot go to the stage. You must go into this holding room.' Why would the correspondent do it? I think because the correspondent was just informing me that the Florida results were not what they had been reported as when we left the hotel."
After Kurtz commented that this revelation would "fuel everybody who thinks there's a liberal media," Shrum argued that Bush would also have been warned if the roles had been reversed. Kurtz ended by unsuccessfully inquiring about the reporter's identity.
Below is a transcript of the relevant exchange from the Sunday June 17 "Reliable Sources" on CNN:
HOWARD KURTZ: Here's one thing that jumped out at me in your book. Election night 2000, very close. Suddenly it looks like George W. Bush is going to win. A senior network correspondent, you said, called you and warned, "The Florida numbers are wrong. Don't let him concede." Why would a correspondent, this is not a commentator, this is not a columnist, be giving you that kind of advice?
BOB SHRUM, Democratic strategist: Someone I knew-
KURTZ: Yeah?
SHRUM: -and Al Gore -- I think this happened not only with me, someone else called Carter Eskew and, who was in a different place than I was at that point -- and Al Gore was speeding toward the war memorial to concede. And we actually had to have David Morehouse, who was his body guy, stop him and say, "No, Mr. Vice President, you cannot go to the stage. You must go into this holding room." Why would the correspondent do it? I think because the correspondent was just informing me that the Florida results were not what they had been reported as when we left the hotel.
KURTZ: "Don't let him concede." This is going to fuel everybody who thinks there's a liberal media, that there were journalists that were rooting for Gore-
SHRUM: Oh, I don't-
KURTZ: -trying to spare your candidate from embarrassment.
SHRUM: I don't, I don't, I actually think that if the situations had been reversed, there would have been correspondents who would have called the Bush campaign and said, "The numbers are wrong, don't let him concede, you shouldn't concede," something like that. I don't think it was in the nature of giving advice, actually.
KURTZ: Do you want to take this opportunity to name the correspondent?
SHRUM: No.
KURTZ: All right.




HOWARD KURTZ: Here's one thing that jumped out at me in your book. Election night 2000, very close. Suddenly it looks like George W. Bush is going to win. A senior network correspondent, you said, called you and warned, "The Florida numbers are wrong. Don't let him concede." Why would a correspondent, this is not a commentator, this is not a columnist, be giving you that kind of advice?













Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why would Bob "the loser
June 18, 2007 - 23:30 ET by jdhawkWhy would Bob "the loser" Shrum say that? Because the drive-by media told America and specifically, the panhandle of Florida that the race was over an hour before the polls had closed and Al Bore had won. Yes, it was an "honest mistake" or was it? The panhandle of Florida is conservative and on central time not eastern time like the rest of Florida. So, it is estimated that thousands of panhandle Floridians did not go to the polls hearing this "news" because why bother? The election had already been decided. Given Shrum's comments, the notion that the election "call" was made on purpose is given even more credence. Of course, the numb nuts interviewer can't quite connect the dots. Color me amazed!
You won't hear the above often repeated. But, when push comes to shove, you will hear that even the NYT couldn't pull it out for Al Bore when they went to Florida fishing for votes to, hopefully, write a report following the election that Al Bore had won.
Nevertheless, Shrum, in an interview on Dennis Miller's radio program brought up that it was the Supreme Court that handed President Bush the election.
Shrum has lost eight presidential races while making millions for himself and his firm.
The "best" part of Shrum's book is the trashing of John "the breck girl" Edwards. Edwards gets a pasting!
jdhawk.. SC handed nothing..
June 18, 2007 - 23:48 ET by Gary Halljdhawk.. As you know, Shrum can say that it was the Supreme Court that handed President Bush the election all he wants, but how in the world does that figure?
Even if we consider that if the SC had not voted 7-2 to stop the recounts in Florida, we now clearly understand that the recount still would have shown Bush to be the winner. We know that because the media organizations went out and performed the recounts.
The simply facts remain. Bush won the election. Gore sued everyone and still lost. Had Gore succeeded in convincing the courts to overturn the election that Bush had won, then one would be able to refer to Gore as the "selected president," although I'd prefer the term, occupant. (;~> gh
Why would a correspondent,
June 19, 2007 - 04:01 ET by motherbeltWhy would a correspondent, this is not a commentator, this is not a columnist, be giving you that kind of advice?"
Well, DUH! Did he really not know the answer to that question?
BINGO! I live in Pensacola
June 19, 2007 - 04:27 ET by GatorgradBINGO! I live in Pensacola and know of at least 5 people that got off work, heard that Gore won, and drove home and not to go vote. How many more Florida Panhandle voters did the same? I have a hunch that it's about the same number of hanging chads in Ft Lauderdale. .
I can't recall the pundits, b
June 19, 2007 - 08:03 ET by Iron LadyI can't recall the pundits, but I have heard two different politicos at various times say that it cost Bush as much as 30,000 votes.
One piece of info that needs to be added into the discussion is that the story at the time was that Gore was talked out of conceding by Bill Clinton, who called and told him to fight the results. Makes one wonder if the reporter might not have been Stephanopoulus or one of the other Clintonistas, doesn't it?
The reason it is important is more than that Bush still won, even though Dems continue to say the election was "stolen", which doesn't compute at all. It is that many votes were added to Gore's total which should never have been counted at all. They used statistical reasoning to challenge districts guaranteed to add Dem votes; they used a district controlled by Dems so that ridiculous things like holding paper ballots up and counting any slight mark as a "vote for Gore". It is just by chance that one of the two (or was it three?) districts they picked for recount ended up not adding Dem votes at all.
Bush was ahead, yes. But does anyone doubt that - if allowed - they wouldn't have manufactured enough votes to put Gore ahead, even if they had to "discover" votes all from homeless people listing the same address, as the Washington Dems did to put their governor ahead. Washington Dems learned their lessons - they didn't count Seattle (the district they could guarantee that a discovery of 500 suspicious ballots would be allowed) until after all other parts of the state - when they knew just how many votes they needed to manufacture.
Stephanopoulus makes sense.
June 19, 2007 - 08:13 ET by sarcasmoStephanopoulus makes sense. The key, for this story to survive and work against the pervasive media bias we see these days, is endless speculation. George is only one possibility, and perhaps it's time to make 'em all deny it one by one, starting with journalists like Stephanopoulus & Russert who have obvious Democrat ties in their pasts. Some of you (ok, any of you) people probably have more influence with shows like Rush Limbaugh's than I do, and y'all should go-for-it on this one. Time for a full court press, IMO.
JMR
jdhawk - The House Energy and
June 19, 2007 - 09:33 ET by ding7777jdhawk - The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing at which the heads of the major news networks were questioned by a congressional panel and found the projection that Gore had won Florida, based on VNS data, was made:
Its absurd to believe "that thousands of panhandle Floridians" were still not at a polling place and were listening to TV poll results 11 minutes before the panhandle polls closed.
Perhaps, but seeing Im not go
June 19, 2007 - 12:18 ET by Dan The Man 2Perhaps, but seeing Im not going to check the validity of your sources, the point is taht the polls had not closed and could have easily influenced any number of voters. I dont think there should be any predictions at all or any reporting of numbers until teh polls close.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Dan The Man 2 - and in real
June 19, 2007 - 14:46 ET by ding7777Dan The Man 2 - and in reality it would have influenced Gore voters more - why should Gore voters go to the polls and vote if Gore has already won.
Anyway, the whole argument is silly because Floridians were also voting for a Senator and mutiple House members which were just as important.
Got a link for that, Ding?
June 19, 2007 - 15:09 ET by RJGot a link for that, Ding? This quote from wikipedia (sorry for that, but I'm just not interested enough to do an extensive search) says
"All five major networks made the incorrect assumption that all of Florida's polls closed at 7:00 PM EST, which was not the case. All five of them reported this incorrect statement at the top of the 6:00-7:00 hour, with Fox News being the only network not to make the same mistake throughout the hour. CBS, on the other hand, implicitly stated 13 times (and indirectly stated more times) that the polls were closed."
"A survey estimate by John McLaughlin & Associates put the number of voters who did not vote due to confusion as high as 15,000, which theoretically reduced Bush's margin of victory by an estimated 5,000 votes."
Looks to me as if it was over an hour, Ding....
Eastern or central ? 11 minu
June 19, 2007 - 12:21 ET by florida_chadEastern or central ? 11 minutes or 1 hour and 11 minutes.
florida_chad - 11 minutes u
June 19, 2007 - 14:39 ET by ding7777florida_chad - 11 minutes until the polls closed at 7:00 p.m CST
Al Gore lost. Get over it.
June 19, 2007 - 14:40 ET by florida_chadAl Gore lost. Get over it.
florida_chad - Excuse me, but
June 19, 2007 - 14:50 ET by ding7777florida_chad - Excuse me, but you asked a question. Sorry you don't like a truthful answer.
ding777
June 19, 2007 - 14:52 ET by florida_chadand I thank you for the reply. It doesn't change the FACT that Gore lost. Sorry you don't like the truth.
Panhandle in Florida is mostl
June 19, 2007 - 14:46 ET by bassndudePanhandle in Florida is mostly republican, ding. If anything, Bush lost votes in that. You dident hear Gore calling for a recount in the panhandle. He did not want those votes counted, nor did he want the absentee votes counted. Mostly votes for Bush. Gore lost. Tried to cheat, still came up short, even with limp chads.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
WHOA - we were not LIMP - dim
June 19, 2007 - 14:51 ET by florida_chadWHOA - we were not LIMP - dimpled & pregnant? sure - but NOT LIMP
I just know Gore would have w
June 19, 2007 - 14:52 ET by TruthMongerI just know Gore would have won if we gave the Democrats enough time to engineer it...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Thank God for James Baker
June 19, 2007 - 21:07 ET by pbthinkerThere isn't a day goes by when I'm not thankful for James Baker. There is little doubt that, had Democrats had unfettered control of the process, in Florida, they would have manufactured a victory for Gore. They changed election law, in Broward County, just by a vote of the canvassing board, the Florida Supreme Court over-turned all rulings that went against them and, were it not for James Baker and the crew getting the USSC involved, Gore would have successfully stolen the election.
The Dems have been fighting that election for 7 years and will continue to fight it until they figure out a way to rig them again. In Florida, they've successfully gotten rid of touch-screen voting, which is pretty tamper-proof, in favor of optical-scan machines, which are more subject to "interpretation". The leader of that change was Rob Wexler, the illustrious Clinton defender. He was also successful in getting rid of Election Supervisor, Theresa LePore and having his own personal selection, elected to take her place. We haven't had an error free election since.
Watch for some funny stuff, out of Palm Beach County, next election.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
It doesn’t matter whether a
June 18, 2007 - 23:47 ET by KC MulvilleIt doesn’t matter whether a different correspondent would have called a Republican. Remember that night. The numbers were wrong from the beginning, because the exit polls were over-sampling districts with disproportionately Democrat numbers. And, as this little episode unintentionally proves, the media realized their mistake much earlier than they admitted.
The real story isn't that a correspondent was trying to save a candidate from embarrassment; it's that the networks were trying to save themselves from embarassment.
Shrum might be candid...
June 19, 2007 - 00:37 ET by danybhoyLong time reader, 1st time poster...
I recorded & listened to the show on my XM unit, Shrum says he believes "...if the situations had been reversed, there would have been correspondents who would have called the Bush campaign & said, "The numbers are wrong, don't let him concede...". Anyone here buy that line? Kurtz might have, but nobody at any of the MSM outfits would have done anything of the sort. They would have played the part of the referee in a pro wrestling match who just happened to have his back turned when everything happens, & those in the MSM know it.
I can only hope Shrum will be again working for the Dems in a campaign leadership role, but since it will almost certainly be Hillary, he won't be. The Clintons are too smart to allow him anywhere near campaign with a major role in it.
I agree with you, danybhoy.
June 19, 2007 - 07:23 ET by GalvanicI agree with you, danybhoy. Shrum's comment is absurd on its face. What else could the correspondent have intended when he called Shrum pleading with him not to let Gore concede? Shrum isn't stupid; he's just ducking the clear evidence of MSM-bias. The bottom line, of course, is that 5 major papers had the hanging chads counted, and Bush won. If the Gore-requested recount in only 3 heavily Democratic precincts gone unchallenged, the count would've gone for Gore because thousands of Bush votes would've been left uncounted.
I think that after going something like 0-8 as a national campaign manager, Shrum is bitter that none of the Democrats running for President have called him for advice, let alone offered him a job. (Can you blame them?) So, he's written his book to get even with his former comrades, and earn some $$$ to pay the bills.
By now, the Dems must have something called The Shrum Rule: "Whatever Bob Shrum recommends, do the opposite."
Shrum's Comment
June 19, 2007 - 21:11 ET by pbthinkerShrum's comment is typical of most Liberal Spin, if everyone does it, or it's considered normal, then no one will take a serious look at it. Anyone remember: "Everyone lies about sex."?
One thing we can agree with Shrum about, Edwards is a fraud.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Probably Dan Rather, who yo
June 19, 2007 - 00:56 ET by daveinbocaProbably Dan Rather, who you will recall had called Gore the winner in Florida before the polls had closed in western panhandle areas in Central Time like Pensacola.
Rather on Florida
June 19, 2007 - 01:08 ET by Cool ArrowWhat was the name of that "independent" polling company the MSM hired to skew , i mean predict the election results?
What people here especially
June 19, 2007 - 05:03 ET by sarcasmoWhat people here especially should keep in mind is that foreign "polls" that involve gambling are very useful tools, whether or not they're doing something that's (stupidly, IMO) "a crime" in this country, even in Vegas...
JMR
I believe ABC, CBS, and NBC a
June 19, 2007 - 07:26 ET by GalvanicI believe ABC, CBS, and NBC all made the call before the polls closed in the panhandle.
Galvanic
June 19, 2007 - 07:29 ET by Cool ArrowI know they made the call in unison, but they blamed the same polling company they all relied on
I'm racking my brain trying to remember the name of that company.
Notice he said "there
June 19, 2007 - 01:12 ET by sarcasmoNotice he said "there would have been" correspondents, not that the same biased as all Hell correspondent would have done this...This fuels our suspicions, because OF COURSE "R. Emmit Terrell" and Rush Limbaugh would give hypothetical Republicans the same advice. And the reason he doesn't want to name the correspondent is because that name would confirm LOTS of suspicions on this site, and Shrum knows that fact.
JMR
Too sharp sarc
June 19, 2007 - 01:18 ET by Cool ArrowThe MSM version of Freddie Prinze: "Not my yob mang"
If this happened with not o
June 19, 2007 - 05:01 ET by sarcasmoIf this happened with not only him, a full court press questioning him and others should be able to reveal our name. "Hey Shrum, who's the allegedly unbiased 'journalist' who was calling with advice instead of questions for AlGore?" "Hey Carter Eskew, you too, same question! Spill the bias-beans!" Keep asking and keep making him hide the biased "journalist," and this story could easily turn into long term fun. (Well, fun for me is a bit different than fun for other people, especially if those people are named Bob Shrum or Carter Eskew!) Conservatives, you now have a target. All you need to do is show a bit of persistence & determination and you'll probably be unable to avoid hitting it.
JMR
direct link
June 19, 2007 - 05:08 ET by AgnosticIt says a lot that a network had such convenient and easy access to the person running the Democratic Campaign. You would think that at such a time access to Schrum would be limited due to time and yet a simple phone call is all it takes to connect the leaders of Democratic Party with their Media Supporters and Propagandist.
Oh, I'm sure they've all go
June 19, 2007 - 05:57 ET by sarcasmoOh, I'm sure they've all got eachothers' phone numbers & emails. The interesting thing isn't that, that's just doing their jobs. The interesting thing is that today we've suddenly stumbled upon an admission of NOT a question but a piece of actual campaign advice from an allegedly 'unbiased' journalist Mr. Shrum now does not wish to name. What "we" do with this piece of news isn't up to me, but if I were advising conservatives in terms of my own behavior around here I'd say "think JMR vs the FCC" to the Tim Graham types. Or maybe imagine a pitbull's jaws and a throat. Up to them what they do, though...
JMR
FCC
June 19, 2007 - 06:39 ET by AgnosticEasy part first - FCC: Waste of money and energy that gives power to small groups of people to attempt control over the masses. Sound like any forms of government that are usually looked down upon in the US? I don't support most federal agencies that are not concerned with the defense of the nation (I think that is written somewhere) but the EPA and the FCC are great examples of federal corruption of ideas and misuse of power.
I realize that a good reporter would have the number but my attempted point was the timing and the access at that moment. During one of the closest and most contested elections in history and he takes a call from a member of the press. If at that time he did not have anything better to do than we know why is has such a poor track record in presidential elections.
Personally I think your lawsuit is a wonderful idea and if not for the individual's cost I would like to see the FCC flooded with lawsuits from anyone who has ever been inconvienced by a ruling from the FCC. If our Justice Department and System (a joke within itself) can see clear to allow know illegal felons the right to sue the US Government in return for their testimony then I believe peole should be able to sue the FCC for having their choices limited by a body whose entire premise should be unconstitutional.
Sorry for the Rant.
I'm still floored not about
June 19, 2007 - 07:07 ET by sarcasmoI'm still floored not about the call itself, but that the call contained political advice rather than questions. Questions would be understandable ("hey, my call got through, what are they up to?" is a lot different for me than "hey, my call got through, now I can advise them, since they're my favorites despite my allegedly-unbiased screen-persona, on how to win!")
JMR
Following...
June 19, 2007 - 07:18 ET by AgnosticCould a positive media story be considered a campaign contribution? Point being that advice from the same media that is shaping a story also giving advise to a political campaign could come under many lawsuits.
I guess I am not so 'floored' by the advice as it is done constantly on air. There are stories pouring out of the media of how one candidate can attack another and the slightly more subtle attempts to isolate certain politicians from attacks by advising everyone she is "unbeatable" or "untouchable" on certain political subjects. Did I say she? Damn Freud! I should have said the politician not "she".
"Could a positive media
June 19, 2007 - 07:31 ET by sarcasmo"Could a positive media story be considered a campaign contribution?"
Now we're getting into why the FEC (as distinguished from the FCC) shouldn't exist, IMO. :) Anyway, on the air advice is generally from partisans like Keith Olbermann or John Gibson. I have a feeling Shrum's secret name is neither one of those, and is instead an "unbiased" journalist.
JMR
Secret Names
June 19, 2007 - 07:41 ET by Agnostic"Deep Throat II" or "Shrum Likes it HOT!"
3 to 1 odds on Stephanopoul
June 19, 2007 - 08:40 ET by sarcasmo3 to 1 odds on Stephanopoulus, Russert, or Rather being the name, vs all the others! Any obvious names I've missed who might have made the call?
JMR
Reporter Political Advice
June 19, 2007 - 08:42 ET by genethemachineIf there is nothing wrong with the reporter offering this advice, why not say who he or she is? Maybe because there is something wrong and it wouldn't have been done if the roles were reversed.
Maybe it's because he knew
June 19, 2007 - 08:44 ET by sarcasmoMaybe it's because Bob knew we could guess the "former" partisan leanings of the "unbiased" journalist...
JMR
The Who
June 19, 2007 - 21:18 ET by pbthinkerIf Shrum revealed the name, we could look at the body of his work since that election and come to some conclusions. Let's just say it was Rather, then you look at what he did in 2004, that would be putting 2 and 2 together. There's only one reason not to reveal a name, they're still at it and helping y ou in subtle ways.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
OMG!!!
June 19, 2007 - 10:01 ET by c5thenNot, the numbers just changed and it's too close to call now. "The numbers are WRONG! That implies that the two correspondents knew what the RIGHT numbers were supposed to be.
Correspondent, as opposed to analyst, or anchor, or reporter, tells me that they were people assigned to cover the particular campaign by the network (they all do this). So we can probably narrow the list down by going back and researching who was assigned to the Gore campaign from each of the networks.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Gore Lost - get over it! Ju
June 19, 2007 - 15:39 ET by mattmGore Lost - get over it! Just like Nixon in 1960, only Nixon never went around calling himself "the former next president of the United States."
Gore and all his minions are a bunch of whiny losers.
Dear God! Will the Gore Sour
June 19, 2007 - 21:24 ET by QueenMumDear God! Will the Gore Sour Grapes Tour never end.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria