Search Results

In the 2000 election, journalists settled on twin portraits of Al Gore and George W. Bush that framed the coverage each received. Gore was portrayed as the lying panderer, while Bush was portrayed as the inexperienced dolt. These portraits then determined how campaign events were interpreted. While neither portrait was complimentary, in the end they worked to Bush's advantage, because no moral value was attached to inexperience, while a moral value was attached to Gore's alleged dishonesty.

In the dispute over Florida's vote in the 2000 election, Al Gore and George W. Bush fought a fierce battle to determine the press frames that would govern the debate. Bush was far more successful, pushing frames including “chaos” and “military ballots” to the forefront. Subsequent analyses reveal that had press coverage been different, Gore could have won Florida and the presidency.

If news is the rough draft of history, the draft written on November 7, 2000 was rougher than most. This chapter analyzes how the preconceptions journalists brought to election night 2000 resulted in critical errors in judgment, leading to mistaken calls alternately benefiting Al Gore and George W. Bush. While all the networks did not use the same frames to describe the same events, each was misled by the metaphors guiding their coverage.

Outlines the constitutional and statutory framework within which presidential elections are conducted in the USA. Provides a brief chronology and an account of the US (Bush vs Gore) presidential election of 2000. The different sections of the chapter are: How We Elect Our President (the constitutional and statutory framework); The 2000 Election and Its Aftermath; The Ground War in Florida; The Butterfly Ballot; ‘Count All the Votes’ — or at Least the Ones That Favour Gore; Bush Goes to Court; The Overseas Absentee Ballots; The Supreme Court's Initial — Unanimous — Decision; and The Supreme Court's Stay (the decision to stop recounting in Florida before even hearing an argument) — looks at other cases in which equal protection has or has not been applied by the US Supreme Court.

Gives an account of the final decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida vote in the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000. Includes discussion of the deliberations and decisions of the Florida Supreme Court in the case of the recount in that state. The main sections of the chapter are: Imperfect Ballots and the Misuse of the Equal‐Protection Clause; Discerning Intent; The Majority's Curious Use of Precedent to Reach Its Result — the inability of the majority of the Supreme Court to point to any case that supported its questionable interpretation of the equal‐protection clause; Of Fundamental Rights, Equal Protection, and Victims; Limited Circumstances — the statement by the Supreme Court that their consideration was limited to the 2000 US presidential election; The Article II Argument — by the US Supreme Court that the Florida Supreme Court had usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature; and Justification by National Crisis.

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. Contrasts the prior decisions and writings of the particular majority justices with the opinions that they joined in this case; the dramatic discrepancies found raise troubling questions. Moves from this concrete evidence to a more speculative consideration of what may have motivated these inconsistencies. The different sections of the chapter look first at the decisions of Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas. The following speculative sections first ask generally why each justice behaved as they did, and then go on to devote separate sections on the motives of each of the five justices.

In times of crisis, the press acts in a patriotic role, fostering national unity and defending American institutions. After George W. Bush was inaugurated, the press ignored evidence that Al Gore had as much of a claim to be the victor in Florida as Bush, shaping stories about postelection analyses of the Florida vote to make only a Bush victory seem legitimate. On September 11, journalists filled in rhetorical gaps in Bush's performance, then changed the criteria by which the president was judged.

In this afterword, the author discusses the events surrounding the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, in which George W. Bush became President based on a Supreme Court ruling that gave him the majority in the electoral college, defeating Vice President Al Gore, who had won the popular vote. The widely held ideal of a popular democracy is contrasted with the reality of the Twelfth Amendment system of electoral votes, and the author asserts that such contrasts point to the ongoing conflict between our “two constitutions” and our own sense of nationhood. Issues of voter disenfranchisement raised in the election are also examined.

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. Discusses the importance of Bush vs Gore to all Americans, and starts by noting that Bush vs Gore is certainly not the first bad Supreme Court ruling. It looks at some of the other evil, immoral, and even dangerous, decisions made, most of which have been overturned by later courts and condemned by the verdict of history. However, for the most part, the justices who wrote or joined the majority opinions for these terrible decisions were acting consistently with their own judicial philosophies; Bush vs Gore was different because the majority justices violated their own previously declared judicial principles, and in this respect, the decision in the Florida election (recount) case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history. The different sections of the chapter discuss why criticism and accountability are important, some lessons to be learned from Bush vs Gore, the wages of Roe vs Wade (a controversial abortion case that helped to secure the presidency for Ronald Reagan), and changing how justices are selected.

This chapter focuses on the construction of climate change discourse by examining the personage and work of Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth relies on the impartiality and unquestioned truth of science to warn of impending global apocalypse, reinscribing the pre-eminence of this way of understanding nonhuman nature. An Inconvenient Truth and the persona of Al Gore offer an ethics of the self, an individualized form of green governmentality. Gore acts as a preeminent truth-teller, and his interweaving of science and storytelling is a potent way to narrate environmental crisis, reshaping the categories to meet the needs of the modern world.

Aims to demonstrate that, during the (Bush vs Gore) US presidential election of 2000, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, the majority justices of the US Supreme Court failed to test the US constitutional system in ways that it had never been tested before, and did so not because of incompetence, but because of malice aforethought. The author states that he is convinced that if it had been Bush rather than Gore who needed the Florida recount in order to have any chance of winning the election, that at least some of the five justices who voted to stop the recount would instead have voted to allow it to proceed. The main sections of the chapter are: Judicial Impropriety; Hypothetical Cases Involving a Supreme Court Decision Regarding a Presidential Election; The Difficulty of Proving an Improper Motive; Academic Defenders of the Majority Justices; Ad Hominem Arguments and Analysis of Motive; and Analysing the Justices’ Motives in Bush vs Gore: A Prelude.

This chapter focuses on how race and war intersected in 1960s Tennessee to destroy the career of a relatively progressive southern senator. Postwar conservatives used coded racism to lure southerners from the Democratic column and to associate liberalism with African American special-interest-group politics. Al Gore failed to realize that his moderate position on civil rights alienated him from his white voters. No amount of Northern liberal support could save him as the Solid South began its defection to the GOP (Grand Old Party). Gore's defeat represented a generational shift in liberalism. Never again would it be acceptable to rely on an ethical reputation or class envy to secure reelection—liberals would have to find new ways of talking to their constituents and building trust.

The conclusion focuses on the surprising of popularity of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. While many journalists, film critics, and others have marvelled at the strange career of An Inconvenient Truth, this discussion has failed to consider the film’s place in the longer history of environmental icons. Indeed, much that seemed novel about the film drew upon tropes and representational strategies that have repeatedly popularized and delimited the scope of American environmentalism. The conclusion explains how the film’s fusion of fact and feeling, its framing of universal vulnerability and responsibility, and its failure to address power relations and environmental injustice all connect to other themes and examples in Seeing Green. From this vantage point, An Inconvenient Truth can be considered both surprisingly innovative and disappointingly familiar, a popular text that visualized the climate crisis but also reproduced the problems and limits of previous environmental icons. After considering the film’s emotional presentation of scientific data, its emphasis on universal vulnerability, and its embrace of green consumerism, the conclusion ends with a discussion of 350.org. Led by Bill McKibben, this climate activist group has created innovative images that both draw on and depart from the visual politics of An Inconvenient Truth.

In one of the closest and most hotly contested presidential elections in American history, the outcome came down to Florida. And in the weeks that followed, Americans watched in disbelief as a series of bizarre ballot problems, an aging senior population, and a political donnybrook threatened the election outcome. This chapter focuses particularly on the events that unfolded in Florida and the ways in which its disparate constituencies divided over the presidential candidacies of Democrat Al Gore and Republican George Bush. With Jeb Bush as governor, and a popular one at that, most thought his brother George would capture the state. But Florida was as sharply divided in this contest as the rest of the nation, and the response of its constituent groups mirrored voting patterns elsewhere and among other like-minded groups. Both parties in Florida thought the other was trying to steal the election, and both pushed the envelope in asserting the claims of their respective candidate. On one side stood the Governor, the legislature, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the other, the state Attorney General and the Florida Supreme Court. It was mayhem.

Provides an overview of the argument. Describes how elections produce unequal outcomes—for some to win, others have to lose. Also highlights the importance of losers’ consent for understanding political legitimacy. Losers’ consent is critical for democratic systems to function because losers are numerous; in part, it is important because of the incentives that losing creates. Also describes examples of graceful and sore losers in various countries around the world. Concludes by providing an alternative view of elections as institutional mechanisms that can enhance or diminish the legitimacy of political systems.

This chapter examines the overlapping newslore about former U.S. President Bill Clinton and the material prompted by the men who followed him as the Democratic Party’s standard bearers including Al Gore and John Kerry. It explains that most jokes about Clinton were about his sexual appetite, particularly his alleged involvement with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky. It suggests that the jokes about Democratic presidential candidates Gore and Kerry have something to do with their defeat against George W. Bush despite their intelligence and experience.

The 2000 campaigns focused on experimentation with digital communication technologies (DCTs). Changes in election laws made collecting contributions online feasible, which became a focus of campaigns. John McCain was savvy at capitalizing on fundraising, establishing the infrastructure to channel enthusiasm into money following key events. George Bush built a massive voter file for microtargeting. Steve Forbes constructed an image as the first “Internet candidate,” while Al Gore, who also should have done so, instead used DCTs conservatively. Bill Bradley developed a community involvement kit, a clear indication that campaigns began to see the potential of two-step flow. Yet campaigns were still generally distrustful of what might happen if they let their supporters genuinely engage with the campaign. As hierarchical organizations with professional and highly paid senior staff who at their gut level and through their experience know how to campaign, they found the idea of more citizen-driven efforts unthinkable.

In 2000, Vice President Al Gore, with the wind at his back, squandered his advantages and lost to George W. Bush and his disciplined team of advisers. Gore was advised by Donna Brazile, Carter Eskew, Harrison Hickman and Paul Maslin, and Stanley Greenberg. The Republicans were determined not to repeat the mistake of choosing an unelectable candidate like Bob Dole. The senior Bush advisers were Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and Joe Allbaugh. In 2004 a weakened Bush was able to hold off a strong challenge from John Kerry, thanks in large part to Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman reaching out to Christian conservatives with the same-sex issue and making national security a priority. Howard Dean made great use of online communication and new technologies in his primary campaign. The Kerry team was headed by Robert Shrum. Also important in this race was the Swift Boat anti-Kerry ad campaign.

Chapter 3 traces the emergence and evolution of the climate skeptical narrative in the United States, showing how it has become more ideological over time, in tandem with sociopolitical events and movements. It examines the development and shifts in the narrative from the early twenty-first century to the present through narrative and critical discourse analyses of summary plots of articles and accompanying comments in conservative media outlets over five successive periods of time, providing textual evidence of how the narrative grew increasingly ideological in each period. The following textual analyses illustrate how skeptics have constructed an alternative ideological narrative through invariance, repetition, alternative data, binary frames (us vs. them), attributing sinister motives to and demonizing the other side, and reinforcing positions by sharing the narrative with like-minded people. In so doing, they created their own narrative-network by denaturalizing the dominance of anthropogenic climate change, framing it as unsettled science, and linking it to politics and fundamental American values of freedom.