First off, I know this is beyond a dead horse, it's glue slathered onto a 1st grader's construction paper project. But show me some levity here because I was not a fan of politics in 2000. As usual, this HBO original movie was very entertaining. I did not change the channel. I saw the making of this movie and they said their intent was to tell the story like it is. I will acknowledge that the various forms of media tend to lean left, but if this movie "documented" what really went down, did Al Gore get screwed? Were all the votes counted? Why did the US Supreme Court jump in. I know this issue is almost ten years old , but I want to know if you guys really do think Gore was hosed? Sure seems like it. If it really went down like that then I am really pissed. Wonder where we would be with 8 years of Gore? I feel sorry for the guy.
I thought Laura Dern looked nice; and it was somewhat Earth-shattering to see Ed Begley Jr. with dark hair. Between this, part I of the Harry Truman special on PBS and a pretty solid 60 Minutes (even a good Andy Rooney segment!) this is the best night of television I've seen in a while. Between channeling Ben Franklin and James Baker in the last two months, Wilkinson better get an Emmy for something. And it's nice to see Spacey doing quality work again.
Sure. But people would consider me a conspiracy theorist and discount my opinions right away. I think there are extremely powerful people that pull strings for things like this to happen so that they can get their way. When they don't get their way, well, people are killed and the people that will pull those strings are put in their place. See JFK. Often times those people are eliminated before they become a problem. See RFK, MLK, JFK jr... Not coincidental in my mind that Hillary decides to make an Obama assassination comment this past week. I don't see Obama being these 'people's' choice just like Al Gore wouldn't have been.
Another conspiracy buff. I'd say, "give me a ****ing break," but I just don't have the energy. As for the topic... yes, Gore was hosed. They should never have stepped into what was the purview of the 50 states of this country. They did anyway. Why? Because a narrow majority wanted a Republican in the White House. It was one of the most blatant power plays and power grabs in United States history. Collusion between the highest court in the land and one of the two major political parties. It had an enormous impact on American history. Really, an incalcuable impact that we are still reeling from. And some people think it doesn't matter whether John McCain or Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton gets elected in November? Just remember who nominates these lifetime Supreme Court justices. It is rare that those nominated don't get confirmed, even when the President's party doesn't hold Congress. Just look at Clarence Thomas for an example. Someone who wasn't within a hundred miles of the ballpark when discussing possible SC nominees, yet he was confirmed and we are stuck with him until he resigns or he dies. Impeach Bush.
I'm not saying you're wrong...but your argument would have a lot more force if the election of '00 weren't preceded immediately by 8 years of Bill Clinton in office.
If it had to be selected according to someone's race, then I'd prefer someone qualified. There were a host of prominent Black jurists at the time far more qualified than Mr. Thomas. Impeach Bush.
I didn't know the Supreme Court reserves one of their appointments for black judges only. Didn't bush sr. once say he was against quotas? And then he goes and appoints a black nominee as Thurgood Marshall's replacement. Nothing strange there.
No, I didn't think responding to you worth my taking the trouble to google sources from a decade or two back so that I could give you a nice list. Do it yourself, chump. Impeach Bush.
out of the 8 appointments since 1986 5 have been "conservative" yet you pick out the black justice as your prime example of a tragedy citing him incapable.
What's your problem? Thomas wasn't nearly as qualified as a host of other possible Black jurists. If you don't believe me, research it. I don't know what the hell you are trying to say, in your clumsy way, but he was an obvious choice as someone who was widely opposed by many, many people, yet got confirmed regardless. That was the point, wasn't it? Showing that a President could make an awful nomination for the SC and still get that person confirmed? Having a bad day? Impeach Bush.
Jesus, automatically this thread goes to a tangential topic. As far as Recount, I haven't seen it, but I don't suppose they actually had the guts to get past all the recounts and hanging chads and talk about how Katherine Harris ("pink sugar!") colluded with others to scrub nearly 100,000 poor people from the voter rolls? 50% of whom were black? And I don't mean 100,000 recividists or whatever, I mean, try showing up to vote and not being able to do so because your name was "misprinted" or your SSN was transposed. There was really a lot more than this. Read The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Greg Palast wrote it; he's a journalist Dems and Repubs both hate and admire, depending on the individual he has in his sights.
Are we still talking about this? The unofficial recounts went on for at least another two years and in EVERY case, Bush won. You may not like the man, you may not like his presidency, but he did win. It's almost over. For those of you that hate Bush, just pray that the Democrats don't screw it up. There are a lot of incompetant people running the Democratic party, if anyone can ruin things this election, it's them.
Not at all. By qualified, I mean being of the traditional eminence as a jurist to rate a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. Is that clear enough for you? By that standard, Thomas didn't come close. As I recall, there were some conservatives disturbed by the choice as well, but what do I know? Impeach Bush.
Can they be any worse than the incompetent republicans who had 6 years in charge and basically ****ed things up royally. Be careful who you label incompetent.
I'm not even refering to the Dems in congress. I'm talking about the DNC. The ones allowing the election to drag on and on and on.
How are they doing that? If you are talking about the rules put in place before the primary season that kept Michigan and Florida from being a part of the process, I agree. It was stupid and clearly shows the party leadership didn't expect the primary campaign to really extend past Super Tuesday, which was exactly the same thought the Clinton campaign had. In fact, she's been hammered for not planning for a longer primary race, but the Democratic leadership obviously didn't expect one, either. If you are talking about the bizarre cornucopia of state rules for primaries, which made an absurd ****-up of the Texas primary (IMO!), then I would say that it is up to the states' various political parties to make their own primary rules, as bad as those rules may be. If not those things, what are you talking about? The DNC can't do anything until May 31st, when the rules committee meets. Even then, they can't do a thing about the primaries that have taken place or that haven't taken place, as far as I know. They can rule about the Florida and Michigan delegations, but only because of the ****-up they allowed by making the stupid ruling not allowing them in the first place, because they chose their own date. And even then, they are limited in what they can do. They can't do anything about the Texas primary, for example, where the candidate that gained a clear majoprity of the popular vote lost the delegate count, which I find rediculous. Again, what do you expect them to do? Impeach Bush.
