(Note to mods: There is a really factual answer to this question, I think, so I’m posting it here, but if you feel you must move it to Great Debates, that’s your call.)
We watched Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 last night. I was surprised that, according to the film, there were near-riots along the motorcade route on the day of Bush’s inauguration, and that the part where the new President-elect usually alights from the car and walks the last hundred yards or so, had to be abandoned. I don’t remember hearing about this in the news, which certainly doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I do remember other things mentioned in the same part of the film, like when the major networks first called the election for Gore, but then turned after Fox called it for Bush. But Michael Moore, though I agree him in many respects, has a reputation for not letting facts get in the way of the message.
So I look to the Dopers, especially ones who were in DC at that time and might have seen the actual events on January 20, 2001, or have heard first-hand, in-person accounts. Just how chaotic were things that day?
Apparently, Moore has amazing powers to alter your memory.
To be ultra-clear, Fox was among the major networks that called Florida for Gore first. And it was CBS, not Fox, that first reversed its call and awarded Florida to Bush. Other networks “then turned”.
How can you all not remember this? It’s the image that I most remember about the 2000 election. Protesters lining either side of the road while the presidents motorcade speeds up, forcing the poor secret service guys to jog along behind.
I’m gonna go google alternative universes now. Bizarre.
I do remember brief news stories about the motorcade riots, and wondering why they didn’t get more airtime than they did.
Bricker, where did you get that? ALL the nets used the Voter News Service projections, which, based on (correct) exit polls, had Florida going for Gore. They all reported as such, then all retracted their calls when the counts in “bellwether” precincts didn’t match exit poll results. ALL other accounts I’ve come across, other than your “ultra-clear” one here, have the first middle-of-the-night call of Florida for Bush (not based on VNS projections) being made by Fox and Bush’s own first cousin. Can you cite CBS being the first?
Fair enough, I suppose the news networks might have downplayed it to make the country “get over” the derisiveness of the 2000 election. And of course they had a new president to talk about, so maybe they abandoned the old “divided country” story for the new “first 100 days” story.
Still, the “right time” to be watching and listening was the inaguration of a new president, and the image of him having to scurry away from the capitol to the White House seemed a very powerful image of the times to me. So it still seems bizarre more people don’t remember this.
Personally, I don’t remember the protests because I didn’t care for Bush to begin with and after he got “elected”, I sure as heck didn’t want to watch the inaugural ceremony and I didn’t want to watch the news that day either. So, maybe for a lot of people, it was just a matter of apathy and maybe even anger toward Bush2.
Maybe the media isn’t as lib’rul as the right wing crowd makes it out to be.
The N.Y. Times article on the inaugural motorcade indicated that there were more police on the street than protestors. They also said that nine people were arrested. No mention of anything approaching a near riot.
It didn’t specifically say anything about cancelling the last part, which is a walk.
Yes, but not with a reliably neutral cite - the authority for this statement appears in several different pieces that purport to debunk F/911. I will take a deeper dig at this and see if I’ve been taken in or if this also appears in places without such an obvious ax to grind.
“Fox News is reviewing the status of John Ellis, an executive who is a cousin of Gov. George W. Bush and who played a central role in the first network call of a Bush victory in the Nov 7 election.”
It goes on to say that Ellis had been “trading information with the Bush campaign during election night…”
I believe you’re conflating two events: reversing the call for Gore and awarding Florida to Bush. From what I can dig up, CBS was the first to reverse the Gore call, but FOX was the first to award the state to Bush.
The fact that there were even nine arrests suggests to me that there were serious problems, or at least the hint of problems. The inauguration is customarily a dignified ceremony of state, in which we usually put our political differences aside, and cheer the incoming President and wish him well. It’s very unusual to have protests on that particular occasion.
Not anymore, I’m afraid. I’d like to be wrong, but I think the era civil dignity in Presidential politics is over, and this incident marked the end of it.
I remember seeing this event (via television), and this thought has stuck with me. When I look at the political spam I get, and messages forwarded to me by people I would otherwise respect, I’m disheartened to think that no matter who wins an election, his opponent’s camp now claims a right to disrupt.
So, to the OP: things were, as far as I could tell, very chaotic. I would expect the same thing this time 'round.
Well obviously, by this point, my question has been answered. Sure I saw it in the film, but I thought it was remotely possible that Moore had montaged footage from another protest or event. If that had been the case, it would not, IMO, have invalidated the message he was trying to convey.
Everyone should hope that the upcoming election will be decisive. Preferably for the candidate we favor, but failing that, then for the other guy. If we have another election decided by the Supreme Court, it could get very ugly.
I also saw the film for the first time the other day. Well, I didn’t really see the film; I saw the first 5 minutes, including the things you describe. After 3 big mis-truths, I turned it off. As you point out, the size of the commotion during Bush’s inauguration and the idea that Fox overturned things were the first two. The next one – the biggie, in my estimation – was when Moore claimed that “Bush’s Daddy’s Supreme Court” over-turned things. Of Bush Sr.'s two appointees (two of nine hardly makes it his court), only one (Thomas) voted in favor of Bush Jr. The other one (Souter, who’s generally considered a swing vote) voted in favor of Gore.
And that’s not to mention that Gore’s daddy put in another two justices, Ginsburg and Breyer who are considered the left flank of the court and as expected also voted for Gore.