October 29, 2007

Warning! May Contain Spoilers! (If you've been in a coma for seven years)

"Recount" is an upcoming TV movie, whose IMDB listing takes the contemporary fetish for protecting the reader from unknowingly discovering the exciting conclusion of the movie to the point of absurdity:
Plot Outline:
A chronicle of the weeks after the 2000 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent recounts in Florida.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

18 comments:

dearieme said...

The 2000 race gave an easy route to identifying Amerifascists - those who say that Gore won the popular vote and therefore should have been president. No point in a constitution, apparently.

I distinguish them from people who simply want to bore on about the Supreme Court. Blaming the umpire isn't too illogical when someone has to be declared winner of what was practically a dead heat.

Comment moderation said...

Hey Steve why do you have comment moderation on. You use to not have it on, this is just a question did something happen?

Ross said...

I hate it when TV listings give the plot away. The other week I was planning to sit down and watch 'Titanic' until I checked the listings and learned that boat sinks in the end!

Mark said...

The other week I was planning to sit down and watch 'Titanic' until I checked the listings and learned that boat sinks in the end!

Hell, if you think that's bad, try "Homicide." You know what's gunna happen just from reading the title. WHy can't they be ammbiguous - like "Maybe a Homicide - or not!"

But otherwise I love IMDB. However did we get along without it?

Anonymous said...

"Americifascists"? The electoral-college-thing is, in a profoundly fifth-grade sense, totally gay. People were correct to point that out, and wonder what their elected legislators were doing in 1999, when it should have been set fire to, or 2002, when it should have been scrapped, or now, when it's inexplicably still there. I can't recall its hoary justification, but I know it's no longer operative, as the People, in their infinite wisdom, intuitively sensed. They didn't even know such a thing existed, and really, they shouldn't have, because it should no longer exist.

astorian said...

Here's another odd "spoiler."

Some years back, I saw a movie called "Backbeat," which told the story of the Beatles' early days playing at sleazy clubs in Hamburg, back when Stu Sutcliffe was their bassist. The movie ends just after Sutcliffe's death,
right about the time the Beatles were beginning to take off.

Right as the movie ended, a postscript told us tha the Beatles
went on tobecome the most popular rock group of all time.

Thank God for that postscript! Without it, I'd have lain awake all night wondering what ever happened to those guys!

Anonymous said...

They should have lent historical perspective on the matter by illustrating Truman and his goons as he took the presidency away from Dewey, then shoot on over to the Kennedy's for even more election stealing fun.
Maybe someone could provide a "what if" scenario, highlighting Nixon, and what would have happened if he had ignored his advisors and went ahead and exposed Kennedy's link to organized crime, and how he used it to pull the rug out from under Nixon in Chicago.
The dems have never gotten the full credit they deserve for the legacy of our presidential election process.
Something should be done.

Zen Redneck said...

Well, all things being equal, without the electoral college system in 2000 we'd have had to recount the whole damn country. If it ain't broke....

Cato said...

The electoral-college-thing is, in a profoundly fifth-grade sense, totally gay. People were correct to point that out, and wonder what their elected legislators were doing in 1999, when it should have been set fire to, or 2002, when it should have been scrapped, or now, when it's inexplicably still there.

The one remaining justification for the electoral college is that it serves to contain fraud in the presidential elections. With state-by-state races, there is no reason for state parties to stuff ballot boxes in reliably blue or red states. It doesn't do anyone any good.

Of course, like all sensible checks on direct democracy, this is being eroded as well. Several states have decided to scrap the traditional method for allocating their electors (by who won that state) and allocating them instead to whomever wins the popular vote nationwide.

jerzy cow said...

To think I was watching the FL recount back in 2000 on CNN and rooting for Bush. Sigh, what a fool that cowardly little liar has made of us Republican voters.

jerzy cow said...

That Kennedy somehow stole the 1960 election is pure BS urban myth.

Did Daley's machine steal votes in Chicago? Of course. But you think Nixon's campaign was a pure as a virgin snow?

Republican machines stole just as many if not more votes in downstate Illinois, and in many other states.

Kennedy won Illinois mostly fair and totally square, and clearly was the choice of the American people, who gave him a popular vote majority in 1960. And that whole "let's beat up black people if they show up to vote" thing was none too fair either, a bit worse than a few dead people voting.

After all, we let 95-year-old living fossels with stage 57 terminal cancer vote. What's the big deal if a few recently deceased voters show up who are only in slightly worse shape?

Anonymous said...

Kennedy won Illinois mostly fair and totally square, and clearly was the choice of the American people, who gave him a popular vote majority in 1960. And that whole "let's beat up black people if they show up to vote" thing was none too fair either, a bit worse than a few dead people voting.

Holy cow, talk about ahistorical BS.

The reality is, the only way anyone can possibly give Kennedy a majority of the popular vote is if you count all of the unpledged Democratic electors as going to Kennedy, when in reality the votes they represented went to Robert Byrd. Nixon actually won the plurality of the vote, period.

And as far as sinister pro-Nixon thugs going around beating up black people, that's just a laugh. Nixon thought he had the black vote all sewn up, since they were reliably Republican up until that point. Go back to school, son.

Evil Neocon said...

I honestly wonder if anon has ever READ the Federalist Papers? Or if he's just retarded?

The Electoral College prevents a tyranny of the (bare majority). It specifically was created to prevent large population states (NY, Virginia, PA) from dominating the small population states. It buys peace in the Union, because the President HAS to have some small state support (or, conversely, at least a few big states). You can't get domination of say, big cities and states at the expense of mid-west or southern states. Or the converse.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting blow-by-blow regarding the Nixon/Kennedy fiasco:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

Anonymous said...

BTW, just for fun, can anyone name the president who got the most civil rights legislation passed in the history of the presidency, by far?

Yes, it was a blessed day for minorities, and women when Nixon came to town!

I'm still waiting for a boulevard in Compton to be renamed in his honor, but barring that occurance, I always thought renaming the 605 freeway would also be fitting.

Just think... "The Richard Nixon Freedomway."

Okay, I gotta stop. I'm tearing up.

Anonymous said...

And as far as sinister pro-Nixon thugs going around beating up black people, that's just a laugh. Nixon thought he had the black vote all sewn up, since they were reliably Republican up until that point. Go back to school, son.

Nixon carried the Southern black vote in 1960, where the Dems(including the very progressive J William Fulbright) were still segregationists. In the North, however, FDR's New Deal had caused most blacks to switch parties.

Mark said...

I'm still waiting for a boulevard in Compton to be renamed in his honor

Sorry, he'll have to take a back seat to my proposal to rename UCLA after President James K Polk. I also have a long list of things in Dearborn I'd like to name after Charles Martel, John Sobieski, and a few others.

David said...

Nixon famously refused to contest the 1960 election results, even though many people said he had ample reason to demand a recount.

Tricky Dick's refusal to pull an Al Gore is traditionally painted as the magnaminous act of a healer.

But as Jerzey Cow suggested, perhaps he didn't want anyone to look too closely into what went down in Illinois. Tricky D knew a voter-fraud investigation might end by merely putting him behind bars.