Exclusive: Preview of HBO's Bush-Gore 'Recount' In 'NYT' Sunday

We know you can't wait for the upcoming HBO film on the 2000 Bush-Gore finish, aptly titled Recount, but here's a preview - coming in The New York Times Magazine this Sunday.

Director Jay Roach (previously known for Meet the Parents and Austin Powers films) says Democrats who hear about the film "always" ask him, "Can't you change the ending?"

Despite his prankish film background,  he says Recount is "not a comedy at all" and does not feature any new catch-phrases such as "yeah, baby, yeah."

As far as he knows,  Al Gore has not seen the film yet but one of the key characters, Ron Klain, a lawyer for the Democrats has, and he "likes it," even though it's "kind of painful for the real people to relive it," Roach observes.

Deborah Solomon, the interviewer, claims that the film is "very fair, except, perhaps" in its casting.  The Dems are more appealing than the Republicans, she asserts, but Roach challenges her by saying that Tom Wilkinson, who plays James Baker, "is a very handsome man."

Laura Dern gets the plum part - playing Florida "decider" Katherine Harris, smothered in makeup.  Roach explains:  "There was a rumor that someone told Harris that when you're on TV, your makeup washes out so don't be shy with those eyelashes and with that lip color."

On the chad front, the "dimpled" ones get more face time but Roach assures us,  the "hanging ones get a few close-ups too."  
*
Greg Mitchell is author of the new book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, which has been hailed by SusanG of Daily Kos, Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and others.  He is editor of Editor & Publisher.

•  Tipper

  Gore for it

  by GregMitch on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:05:34 AM PDT

•  Can't wait to see this

  for Katherine Harris alone :-)

  by DJShay on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:58 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like a classic case of if you don't

    laugh, you'll cry.  Don't know if I want to subject myself to reliving this horrible chapter of US History: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

    by Fury on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:14:31 AM PDT

•  Best account of Bush v Gore I've read:

  A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN BUSH V. GORE by Mark H. Levine, Attorney at Law.

  Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
  A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore got the most votes.

  Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
  A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the hand-counts were legal and should be done.

  Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would find any legal ballots?
  A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be counted but can't be.

  Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't conservatives love that?
  A: Generally yes. These five justices, in the past few years, have held that the federal government has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor does the federal government have any business telling a state that it should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop violence against women.

  Q: Is there an exception in this case?
  A: Yes, the Gore exception. States have no rights to have their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

  Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
  A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, or the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

  Q: What complexities?
  A: They don't say.

  Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the rules of the election after it was held." Right?
  A. Dead wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was wrong.

  Q: Huh?
  A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.

  Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the Legislature's law after the election.
  A: Right.

  Q: So what's the problem?
  A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote"

  Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
  A: Right.

  Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would have been overturned.
  A: Right. You're catching on.

  Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted.
  A: Right. Next question.

  Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a problem?
  A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are thrown in the trash can.

  Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
  A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That "complexity" was not a problem.

  Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and Buchanan.
  A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed their mind about Hitler.

  Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
  A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots may have been determined under slightly different standards because judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a slightly different opinion about the voter's intent.

  Q: Hmmm. OK, so if those votes are thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the voter's intent is clear?

  A: Nope.

  Q: Why not?
  A: No time.

  Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans, agree the intent is clear? Why not?
  A: Because December 12 was yesterday.

  Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
  A: No. January 6 is the deadline. In 1960, Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4.

  Q: So why is December 12 important?
  A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the results.

  Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme Court?
  A: Nothing.

  Q: But I thought ---
  A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress. The United States Supreme Court is trying to help the Florida Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline that everyone agrees is not binding.

  Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the votes counted by December 12.
  A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices stopped the recount last Saturday.

  Q: Why?
  A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

  Q: So why not separate the votes into piles, indentations for Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida.
  A. Great idea! The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held that such counts would likely to produce election results showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm
  "democratic stability."

  Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
  A: Yes.

  Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
  A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that doesn't stop the
  five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.

  Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
  A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.

  Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes?
  A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.

  Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?
  A: Yes.

  Q: But, but --
  A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.

  Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
  A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount.

  Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
  A: Gore, of course.

  Q: Tell me this: Florida's laws are unconstitutional, right?
  A: Yes

  Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted differently are unconstitutional?
  A: Yes. And 33 of those states have the "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in
  Florida.

  Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
  A: Um. Because...um.....the Supreme Court doesn't say...

  Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?
  A: Right. Though a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the
  butterfly ballot errors).

  Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state? Count all ballots under a single uniform standard?
  A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

  Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
  A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the Bush administration.

  Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
  A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have
  been affirmed.

  Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political way.
  A: Read the opinions for yourself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/... (December 9 stay stopping the recount), and http://www.supremecourtus.gov/... (December 12 final opinion)

  Q: So what are the consequences of this?
  A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's
  second choice who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

  Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
  A: True, in a democracy. But America is not a democracy. In America, in the year 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
  Court votes wins.

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM PDT

  •  Outcome oriented

    The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

    -Scalia in Bush v. Gore

    They didn't conceal their goal.

    by lgcap on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:24:21 AM PDT

    •  That's from his opinion granting the stay

      At the time that opinion was written on 12/09/00, Gore had already picked up >100 votes in Lake and Orange counties alone, as those counties had already started their counts.  There was a treasure trove of "overvotes" that really wasn't becoming apparent until the statewide hand recount.   Ballots on which the voter voted for Gore and then wrote in for him too were legally cast ballots, and they could only be picked up in the hand recount.

      The crime was in the granting of the stay on 12/09, not in the issuance of the dubious final decision on 12/12.  Had the count gone forward, by 12/10, Gore would've started pulling ahead in the tallies CNN was running on the bottom of the screen.  Seeing Gore finally pull ahead would've removed the last remaining justification for W's (s)election.

      It was a classic case of "sentence first, trial later."  The filing of briefs on 12/10 and the oral argument on 12/11 were all for show.  The decision was entered on the merits when the stay was issued on 12/09.

      I've posted on this travesty here and here before.  As I noted in the latter diary, I worked w/ one of the Miami-Dade election judges who cut and ran during the Brooks Bros Riot.  I was recently in front of Judge Rosenberg, the Broward judge who was the subject of the famous picture looking at a hanging chad w/ a magnifying glass.

      I've never looked at law, at politics, or at much of anything else the same way since I personally witnessed the theft of the WH from a front-row seat.

      by RFK Lives on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:52:59 AM PDT

      •  The dissent of David S. is probably the best

        one of the bunch.  It is precise and efficient, and pretty devastating.

        Here's the best part for those conservatives who despise so called judicial activism: "If this Court had allowed the State to follow the course indicated by the opinions of its own Supreme Court, it is entirely possible that there would ultimately have been no issue requiring our review, and political tension could have worked itself out in the Congress following the procedure provided in 3 U.S.C. § 15. The case being before us, however, its resolution by the majority is another erroneous decision."

        In other words, you conservatives only talk about the rights of individual states when it is convenient, plus you got it wrong.

        by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:09:00 AM PDT

        •  I chuckled as I read the FL Supremes' opinion

          on 12/08/00.  They consciously attempted to make it bulletproof by repeatedly making it clear that they were ruling on questions of state law.  I didn't think that 5 Supremes who'd spent their careers singing from the "States' Rights" hymnal would dare overrule a state's highest court on a question of state law.

          Shows what I know.

          by RFK Lives on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:14:14 AM PDT

      •  Just how rigged it was

        is more clear now than it was at the time, which raises the next obvious question. Bush was not elected or reelected through rule of law, why would he leave in January.

        This puts me in the lunatic fringe, but it just seems improbable that Bush would all of a sudden respect the constitution. Don't ask me how he'd do it, because I haven't a clue, but deep in my gut I don't think they are going anywhere.

        by lgcap on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM PDT

  •  I think this should be the foundation for the

    "Impeach Scalia" movement next term.  This is far from his only conflict of interest, just his most egregious.

    I want this buffoon off the Court.

    by Mogolori on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:26:17 AM PDT

    •  Yep

      I deeply abhor the man. Not to mention, I am Italian and his under chin gesture is a particularly odious 'dismissive' gesture, meaning the equivalent of 'basta' or enough with you -- It's contemptible to all of the rest of us; like we're so much nasty street trash.

      by DelicateMonster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

  •  I read this ... I'm sick again

    This was the worst thing ever imaginable.  I'll never get over it.

    by Tuffie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM PDT

  •  Link here

    I wanted to bookmark this and Googled up a link, if anyone else wants one.

    by Janet Strange on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:42:06 AM PDT

•  Greg, you'd have to tie me to the chair

  To watch this thing.  It might be terrific -- as fiction, if the tragedy had never happened.  But I'll NEVER 'get over it,' as we were all told to do back then.  The last eight years have only made it worse.  

  by Tuffie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:34:14 AM PDT

  •  i'm right there with you

    i have, thankfully, the easy out of not having hbo. watching this, however well-crafted, will do little more than angry up the blood.

    sweet merciful crap, i'm sitting here stewing in a fresh, molar-grinding re-pissening simply having read kab ibn al ashraf's supreme court recap, above.

    by homo neurotic on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:07:44 AM PDT

    •  Nice sig...n/t

      by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:40:05 AM PDT

      •  thanks

        it came from a comment back & forth here several months ago with a fellow jazz-listening dk'er. but as much as i like it, thankfully, the time approaches when circumstances will mandate swapping it out!

        by homo neurotic on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:44:20 AM PDT

        •  Perhaps....

          or maybe only an edit will be necessary (looking on the dark side).

          Still, jazz is the anti-lotsa things so the need will surface again, one way or another....

          by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM PDT

•  The PTSD flashbacks would be too painful

  I actually turn the channel when the trailers even come on. Give me another eight years and I might be able to watch!

  by jamfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM PDT

•  2000 election was the real Y2K crisis

  Remember the truncation error that everyone feared would wipe out trillions in assets? Thank God they fixed that.

  Whew, that was close.

  by high coup haiku on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

•  Well, let's remake history, then.

  This year's Democratic primary has been a disaster for the party, the country and for two candidates who do not deserve the treatment they have received from one another's more rabid, nutcase supporters, the MSM, the blogs or the self-serving, power-seeking promoters and hangers-on.

  I am now of the firm opinion that neither Obama nor Clinton could be elected this fall no matter what 'the believer people' say about either one.

  How to fix it?

  Pretty simple.  Nominate Gore.

  Not only could we heal the party's wounds...and the country's...what a great redress of grievances, large and small.

  by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM PDT

  •  Sigh....

    ....not a single taker...

    You'd rather lose than start a revolution and make Al Gore president?

    Okaaaaaay...

    Well, it's your future, not mine.  At 71+ and no grandchildren it's not my job anymore.  We made a lot of progress in the 60s, 70s, 90s...but we couldn't fix public education or make stupid people smart.

    Oh, well.

    by oldpro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM PDT

•  Recount

  This film was curiously researched. Danny Strong, its writer, let Baker and Klain review and give "comments" on the script while others involved in the events of 2000 were left in the dark. I understand that Christopher and Daley weren’t even contacted until the film had begun shooting.That isn’t good journalism, if that’s what Strong thinks he’s doing> It also isn’t good filmmaking if you’re holding out your product as accurate. Viewer beware.

  by bergers on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:02:20 PM PDT