Just watched Fahrenheit 9-11 for the 1st time. Question re. Election 2000

[Dukakis88]

I didn't watch this movie in the theaters because from the reviews I read it sounded like it didn't cover any bombshells I didn't already know about as a consumer of alternative polical media. I was glad it was out there to inform others, but didn't feel the need to rush out and see it myself.

Anyway, just watched it, and have a question about the very first part of the movie, where it recaps Election 2000. Moore reminds us (and I had forgotten) that not a single Senator would support the post-election Congressional Black Caucus attempt to formally protest the voter disinfranchisement and stopping of the recount in Florida. I'm wondering why. Wasn't Paul Wellstone in the Senate then? What about Ted Kennedy? Kerry? Wyden? Why didn't any of the Democratic senators support this move, therefore shutting down the dissent and allowing the electoral votes to be ratified uncontested? Why didn't anyone have the balls to do this, even if just to keep the Republican chicanery in the media spotlight a bit longer? Was there a valid reason for the Senators to avoid doing this that Moore didn't tell us about? Or did even the most liberal Senators betray us in 2000?

[NJ_Lib]

1. Excellent question...

I would love to know the answer to that as well...

[GOPNotForMe]

2. I know Daschle told them not to.

And I'm pretty certain that was at the request of Al Gore. If Gore didn't want to contest it anymore at that point, I suppose the logic was to just let it be and ignore the racist disenfranchisement in Florida. I dunno, still seems pretty shitty.

[papau]

8. A Senator sponsor meant votes in House and Senate that GOP win

What was the point?

The House vote for Pres would have been something like 30 to 20 for Bush.

The Senate vote for VP would be close - but still GOP.

[SoCalDem]

10. and Bush had already gotten the imprimatur of the Scotus

There was nothing to be gained, since *²/Cheney would have won in the house/senate anyway.

They were out-maneuvered and out-lawyered.

From day one it was always portrayed as Gore trying to "steal" the election...never Bush trying to steal it..

They did it again in 04..Kerry's states were withheld so that he was always "trailing" Bush..

People went to bed with Bush ahead and that's all they needed to know..

Perception is everything.

[ohioan]

11. Gore asked them not to . . .

Because he knew it would make no difference.

What Michael Moore didn't make clear was that this would not have changed anything and wouldn't have had any effect on the outcome. It was a procedural move to enable a debate on the floor, which the Republicans would have cut off after an hour. The vote would have been taken and the outcome would have been the same.

Gore would have been in the difficult position of presiding over a debate about his own loss in Florida. Rather than drag this out any further, he asked the Senators to just let the vote - which was a foregone conclusion - go forward without further complication. And, keep in mind that no one, at that point, had any idea just how bad this administration would turn out to be. The word at the time was "no mandate, govern from the middle, uniter not a divider, blah blah blah."

In hindsight, this may not have been the right choice. But I don't think the Senators should be attacked for making what seemed to be a logical decision at the time. The fact that not a single senator - even stalwarts like Kennedy or Wellstone - signed on should be an indication that they all felt this just wouldn't have done any good. This wasn't a matter of ignoring the disenfranchisement in Florida. It was a matter of recognizing that forcing Al Gore to preside over a debate on the issue that day would have done no one any good.

[Eloriel]

17. Daschle told them not to because that was part of a deal he made

with the Repugs in the Senate to get just a little more of the Senate resources since the split was so even.

I think it was a sell-out.

[ohioan]

19. You are aware of this "deal?"

How did you come to be privvy to this "deal" between Daschle and the Republicans?

Please be specific.

[lynintenn]

21. I am glad Daschle is gone

[BlueEyedSon]

3. I have never heard the "official" explanation

but I guess the Senate Dems thought that a Bush presidency would be a big nothing..... he had no mandate, no big policy ideas, and was going to be "humble" (no nation building, yadda yadda). Swearing in a new president to heal the country after the contested election was more important.

Just grin and bear 4 years, how bad could it be?

Surprise!

[JNelson6563]

7. My opinion too

I had no idea it would be this bad and I wasn't given lots of empty promises like the Dem Senators probably were.

If it's any consolation I am sure they deeply regret it now.

Julie

[stellanoir]

4. This was the most often asked question when the

movie was released. . . "Why didn't any of the Democratic senators support this move,"

Apparantly Gore asked them not to as he felt as though a protracted contested election was not in the best interest of the country.

[SheilaT]

5. Yes, even the most liberal

Senators betrayed us in 2000. Just as we're being betrayed this year by Kerry's hasty concession speech, and no insistence on a real count of the votes.

Too bad you didn't see it in a theater, because the audience response was amazing. Even in the reddest parts of the country people cheered and applauded in all the right places, and lots of standing ovations occurred at the end.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Kerry's "hasty concession" is strategic.

1. Concession speeches are not binding. Recounts are going forward, if you haven't noticed. If he wins the recount, he wins the office.

2. If he loses (after all recounts, etc) the damage to him and the party will be much less.

[Butterflies]

9. You're right

I still think he knows what he's doing.

[ohioan]

12. Why do you assume that it was a betrayal?

Just because they didn't do what YOU now think they should have done (with the benefit of hindsight)?

It's interesting to me that the minute an elected official doesn't do exactly what some people want them to do (damn the fact that they represent more than the most radical wing of their party) they are attacked as traitors, incompetents, sell-outs, etc. I wonder how many people who are so quick to attack these people would ever bother to put themselves out there to run for public office and do a better job.

[spanone]

16. Wrong... The Black Caucus was looking out for the Black Vote.

That is their job. I don't have to run for office to have an opinion....neither do YOU. Otherwise your opinion would be as invalid as you assume other are.

[ohioan]

18. The CBC move would not have protected one single black vote

or any other vote, for that matter. It was a protest, nothing more.

[SheilaT]

22. If it wasn't a betrayal,

then what was it? Kerry and Edwards originally said they'd make sure all the votes were counted, and then caved in, and we're all supposed to go along because it will make Bush & Co treat us all better. I'm being reminded of the abuser saying You Made Me Do It.

Oh, and I did put myself out and ran for public office, the Kansas State House, to be specific. I lost, because people here would rather do the safe thing and vote for the Republicans who've mismanaged the budget for the last dozen years than take a chance on a Democrat.

But I will make a point, every time someone tries to complain about things at the state or the local level, of telling them that if they voted for the Republicans, this is exactly what they voted for.

[spanone]

13. That was the most revealing part of the Movie.

I sat there ashamed to be an American. I have no explanation.

[ohioan]

15. Michael Moore distorted this in the movie

I'm a big Moore fan, but he did distort history for this portion of the film, making it appear that the Senators could have done something to change the outcome of the election.

This was simply a procedural move to force a debate on the floor before the vote - nothing more. The outcome would have been exactly the same.

[Lex]

14. It would've *only* been symbolic if a Senator signed on because

there were NOT enough votes for the outcome to have changed (Bush getting the electoral college win).

Since the outcome wouldn't have changed, the Senators decided not to sign off on the Congressional Black Caucus' protest.

[Hamlette]

20. That scene ruin the movie for me, it was a cheep shot

and used for pure entertainment value. Remember too that Lieberman was in the Senate. He could have done it.

Gore did a head count. If they voted with the Black caucus they still lost the election. There was a lot of "get it over with already" thought out there at the time.

Why fight a battle and risk losses if you know you will lose the war?

[sherilocks]

23. Michael Moore was absolutely right on target

I stayed in Tallahassee during the protests and observed most of the hearings in 2000. I counted ballots and watched rethug dirty tricks. I'm still angry at the spineless Democrats who could have effectively used the Senate floor for a debate on the selection of * by SCOTUS even if it was only for an hour. Stand up for something Democrats.

Daschle did sell out. He did make a deal to keep everything nice and polite, as usual. In return he received some minor power thing, that I can't remember because it was so minor.

The members of the CBC did not have to put on an act of outrage for their constituents, they were outraged.

Message Boards, just like this one, where howling over the lack of Democratic spine in the Senate. I stepped down from a leadership position in my county's Democratic party partly because of it.

Look at the outrage expressed in DU at the 2004 vote. Imagine that we find that Kerry actually did win in the Ohio recount, but then SCOTUS decides even if Kerry got the votes, * wins. And the Democrats in the Senate just let it go by. DU would have to get six new servers to handle the angry outcry

[Mugsy]

24. Gore would of had to cast the tie breaker for himself.

Daschle told Democratic Senators not to support the challange because the Senate was almost evenly split (51/49?) and should the vote break 50/50, Gore would have been put in the awkward position of casting the tie breaking vote for himself for President (as President of the Senate).

Not saying I agree with his logic, just explaining it.

[Cocoa]

25. that would be a good question to ask your senator

write Wyden and ask him, and share his answer with us here at DU.