OurColony.net

Understanding the election

Customer Rating:
To understand what happened in Florida in the Gore and Bush contest for the presidency, one must read this book. For the first time, I understood the whole chad issue and was intrigued by the misuse of the judicial system in Florida during the period of challenge. While the author has some disdain for what he would see as the spinelessness of the Democratic actions, and he doesn't care for the New York Times editorializing during the recount, these biases are clear and unabashed. The telling of the story, though, reminds us how important it is to understand the difficulties of voting in this country and how flawed our democracy is, at least in that one state. With the subsequent misuse of the court system at the end of the Schiavo case in the same state, this book helps make clear why fark.com has a separate "Florida" tag for some of the world's most bizarre news.

not a bad work of fiction

Customer Rating:
too bad that such an important subject was handled in such a biased way. even worse is that the facts were either only particaly used or twisted to fit the point mr. toobin was trying to make at the time. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. this book should classified as fiction and not non-fiction.

A good read, if a bit biased

Customer Rating:
Jeff Toobin is a good writer - I enjoyed reading this book, just as I enjoyed his other book on the O.J. Simpson trial.

"Too Close To Call" is very Gore-centric, however, perhaps because Toobin himself is a Democrat and has made no secret of the fact that he thinks Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. But his bias doesn't distract too much from the interesting tidbits he provides about the campaigns, both before and after election day.

I do recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in the historic 2000 election fight, but be aware that Toobin is far from an impartial commentator.

The liberal bias is made somewhat less annoying by the fact that Bush ran away with Florida in 2004, winning the state easily.

One More Tired Election Book....Another Gore Whine...

Customer Rating:
I've never cared for Jeffrey Toobin's commentary on CNN. (I did recommend - in place of this book - Jeff Greenfield's, "One Order of Crow"). His obvious bias detract from a man who is articulate and handsome enough to attract attention.

This is another 'the Republicans stole the election' tome - and a wasted one at that. I wish to make a few points to those who have argued (like Toobin's book) that the election was somehow 'stolen' or people were 'disenfranchised.'

1. Gore did not lose the election because he lost Florida; he lost it because he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee (Jeff Greenfield is one of the few to honestly point this out).

2. The butterfly ballot DID confuse people. However, it was approved by a DEMOCRAT named Theresa LePore and published in the papers the Sunday before the election. How this is the Republicans' fault is beyond my ability to comprehend.

3. Judge Sauls is a registered DEMOCRAT - and even Sauls saw the insanity in allowing selective recounts in only Democratic counties. Had Gore applied to a statewide recount as opposed to an obvious vote search recount, people would have taken it much better.

4. Katherine Harris was unquestionably in Bush's corner. But there is no evidence Harris did anything with the votes except certify them which was her job. That was even delayed by several days - so what's the problem?

5. The Supreme Court did NOT give Bush the election by a 5-4 count; they ruled SEVEN TO TWO that selective recounts violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. The 5-4 vote concerned the REMEDY NOT the violation of the law.

6. Why does nobody mention that Bush had NOTHING to do with the make-up of the Supreme Court? Gore had voted to confirm Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, and his boss appointed Ginsburg and Breyer. Gore had also voted against Thomas. It seems that Gore had more personal involvement with the Court than Bush could have ever dreamed. Yes, Bush's father appointed two of them - but unless you wish to argue that Bush 41 knew his son would need the Supreme Court to be President years later, that is irrelevant.

Toobin's book was slightly entertaining, so I give it three stars. But Greenfield's takes you there in as unbiased a manner possible.

Overgrown New Yorker Article, Lucid About The Election

Customer Rating:
Written by probably America's most well-known media legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin takes on the Floridian debacle of 2000 in his short book "Too Close to Call."

What it lacks in legal heft it makes up with journalistic breeze, with Toobin writing in the same lucid tone that he takes in the New Yorker, describing set pieces between Bush and Gore staffers not quite equally, but close enough. Perhaps Toobin is biased in his conclusions that Gore was jobbed, and this is where he may have wanted to shed some light on his own political views, ahem -- Democrat -- and this would clearly have strengthened his case. But after all is said and done, the guy lays enough foundation to support his theory that the Republicans were too ruthless and Al Gore was too spineless.

"Too Close to Call" never describes evidence of out-and-out fraud, but presents the conclusion that it sure would have been nice if the great State of Florida would have taken the time and just truly recounted all the votes, and points out matter-of-factly that in this scenario, Gore most likely would have won. Whether or not you're a Democrat or Republican, the idea that democracy itself was circumvented in this case is extremely troubling, and that's the pitch-perfect note Toobin leaves the reader with.

Surpisingly from a "legal" analyst, this book lacks strong legal analysis, or any legal background at all. There's hardly any references to appropriate statutes, case background, etc., that would really be advantageous for the discerning academic reader who wants to read something more substantive than an overgrown New Yorker article.

But as a huge fan of the New Yorker, such an article draws no real complaints here.