Customer Reviews

Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Toobin offers a well-written, informative, and very entertaining account of the 36-day long post-election debacle. As a political science major and a senior at the University of California, I've chosen to write my honor's thesis on the political rituals, symbolism, and rhetoric evoke by the two camps during these 36-days. This being the case, I've had to read just about every book, important journal article, and major newspaper story concerning the events, strategies, and significance of this political fiasco. I found "Too Close To Call" to be clear, easy to read, witty, and well organized -- as one would expect from a staff writer of The New Yorker. As for those who complain that Toobin favors the political left -- he's a law school friend of Ron Klain and Jack Corrigan; was research assistant to Lawrence Tribe; and friend/Client of David Boies (p. 285) -- he probably does. However, Toobin sets out to explain how the strategies and "orientations" of both candidates contributed to their respective successes and failures, and this he does brilliantly. Further, I have yet to see an unbiased account of the 2000 post-election. The journalists, and sadly even the academics, that you expect to find on the political right, are there just as sure-idly as are those on the left. That said Toobin does a surprisingly good job of staying near the middle of the road -- where you're only suppose to find dead skunks (Baker).

Toobin is famous for his pro-Democratic sympathies, but what makes this book tolerable to conservatives (like me) is his unrelenting loathing of Gore as spineless and milquetoast, and his grudging admiration for the GOP's no-holds-barred tactics. Toobin covers the events from election night to the unofficial non-partisan tabulation released in November 2001. Although he does an excellent job of explaining the incredibly complicated series of events, Toobin makes no effort to be neutral and doesn't hold back from labeling people as spineless, incompetent, or ruthless. He explains how some judges in the lower-level Florida judiciary were in over their heads, and although Democrats, did Gore great harm, while other minor judges rose to the occasion and demonstrated impressive leadership. According to Toobin, the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot" fiasco was not nearly important as the Democrats' decision not to challenge the massive numbers of improper absentee ballots.

Toobin's theme is that while Gore focused on managing the process in a statesmanlike way, the GOP concentrated on winning at any cost. According to this author, Clinton said he would have declared victory, played the race card, fought the inclusion of the controversial military ballots, and encouraged mass protests in the streets. One wonders where such an approach would have led.

The author's harshest criticism is reserved for the US Supreme Court, where Rehnquist and his allies abused their power and behaved as unscrupulous political hacks. Even conservatives find it difficult to defend Rehnquist's action that stopped the statewide recount. Ironically, later examination of the ballots showed that the statewide recount would have ended in Bush's favor anyway, and all Rehnquist's intervention accomplished was to taint the (already dubious) legitimacy of Bush's victory.

Toobin reminds us that a non-partisan consortium that examined every ballot discovered that under any criterion of defining what constituted a valid vote, Gore would have won the election (although not under the rules imposed by the Florida Supreme Court for the statewide recount, which limited the recount to ballots already deemed questionable). In an ideal world, Gore deserved to win the Florida vote count and hence the presidency, but no voting system can hold up when an election comes down to roughly a hundred votes in a nation of a quarter-billion people. Toobin blames the ruthlessness of the Republicans and the spinelessness of Al Gore for what happened.

Molly Ivens once wrote GW Bush is so lucky "if they hung him the rope would break." Nothing comes closer to fulfilling that claim than the 2000 Florida presidential election. No one who has seriously considered the butterfly ballots, questionable absentee ballots, failure of state officials to follow their own laws and rules, and mechanical problems with that election would conclude a majority of Florida's voters intended to vote for Bush. Jeffrey Toobin succintly summarizes the good, the bad and the ugly of the events that led democracy away from the will of the people to the will of five Supreme Court justices.

Unlike (perhaps) the other reviewers of this book, I have hands-on experience with punch-card ballot counting machines, software and procedures. I can say without qualification if you want to be absolutely sure, you have to look at the ballots themselves. The voting machines mis-calibrate, voters and others mishandle the cards, the counting machines jam possibly losing or double-counting a ballot. Anyone who has used a copier has a sense of how much trust we should place in these devices.

Toobin briefly describes the events, legal issues, political maneuvering and, in particular, the failure of Florida's elected officials to do the jobs the citizens entrusted to them. He has criticism for many of the participants and particularly Katherine Harris, Joe Lieberman, Theresa Lapore and Sanders Sauls. If you admire any of those people, you won't like this book.

Several reviewers have given "Too Close To Call" one-star for Toobin's presumed liberal bias. He clearly argues that Floridian's INTENDED choice for President did not win. Those who already disagree with that conclusion will find no comfort here.

A quick scan through the reviews of this book claim that Toobin "bellows" about racism (he actually spent two paragraphs on the issue, and acknowledges that it was not NEARLY as significant as many Gore supporters would claim), unfairly bashes Katherine Harris (even Fox News portrayed her as a dolt, so Toobin is not alone here), and that he generalizes about those involved (he actually details personalities of several individuals of both sides, and his generalizations are limited to his descriptions of groups of hundreds - ie "the Gore campaign).

That said, this is not an unbiased book. Toobin unquestionably sympathizes with the Gore campaign, and seems to almost root for them. This does not, however, alter his in-depth and accurate reporting of the basic facts of the case, which are laid out clearly and simply, providing a very easy and fun read. He does tend to editorialize, and doubtlessly, the charges against the Bush campaign (that their hypocrites, amorale, and underhanded) are serious compared to those he levels against the Gore campaign (too compromised by their sense of fair play and their desire for positive media attention). However, this does tend to come across as a kind of admiration for the complete devotion of the Bush soldiers, the intelligence of James Baker, and the tenacity of their lawyers.

Overall, this should not be construed as a strictly journalistic work (though it does serve as a good vehicle for learning the facts of the case), but as an entertaining and though-provoking fact-based editorial.

This book is an excellent piece of journalism, synthesizing all of the elements of last year's election controversy into a compelling and lucid tale of how politicians once again choose to stick up for their own personal interests rather than that of American voters.

Several reviewers here have made much of bias in this book, for which I have a different take. Toobin clearly points out the grubby behavior of both of the camps (both interested in counting only the votes that may benefit them, both cynically playing the media and public opinion, both stretching the law to suit themselves) and certainly highlights both the inept and the inspired from the Florida county and judicial officials trying to complete an election in the spotlight. His broader point, I think is to show how the political shenanigans that both sides participated in shortchanged the only party to the election who really mattered here - the voter.

He is especially effective in breaking down the spin of both camps - "votes have been counted and recounted", when they were counted and only a few FL counties had done a full recount (they rechecked tallys only); "count all the votes", when that meant only doing a recount in a few counties. He is also quite good at explaining the legal issues and approaches of both camps, and in providing closure to some of the allegations of discrimination against black voters (no evidence of roadblocks, etc).

But the real value of this book is its picture of a voting process where the voter is the only unprotected and unrepresented party to the election debates and lawsuits. For those of us who make a point of voting, this is a chilling state of affairs. Democracy does not exist without voters, and those of us who participate in the most important civil duty there is should be given the greatest possible respect, and more protection that any politician. This is, I think, the larger message and point of Toobin's book - that much of the system that should have been accommodating the voter choose to invest itself in partisanship on behalf of its candidate.

I highly recommend this book - especially as background before jumping into the numerous books analyzing the legal and political consequences of this election.

I read Alan Dershowitz' "Supreme Injustice" before reading "Too Close to Call." Big mistake. Toobin's book provides the social history of the election you need to put Dershowitz' arguments--and other accounts of the election--into perspective. Toobin has performed the incredible feat of giving us the facts without being boring, confusing, or overwhelming the reader. There may be bias here, but neither side comes out very well--Bush appearing disengaged while his team did its work; an isolated Gore trying to seem presidential while forfeiting the presidency.

It's tempting to say that we should put this squalid bit of electoral history behind us. But anyone who wants to understand the operation of the Bush administration needs to know how it got to the White House in the first place. Toobin's book is the place to start.

This is an excellent objective recount of all that happened between election day, Nov. 7, 2000, and the final resolution of that election by the Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2000, when by a 5-4 vote the Court ruled to stop the vote recount in Florida. It gives both an outside (what we all saw), and a behind-the-scenes (what the public couldn't see) view of the chaos, dirty tricks, legal maneuvering that went on in Florida in the days after the presidential election that put the loser of the popular vote in the White House.

This is not a partisan book. It discusses the moves, good or bad, that each side made, and it puts on the record events that should never be forgotten in this Democracy.

It details how some of those involved in this election decision allowed their partisan beliefs to taint their decisions. For instance on the Supreme Court side, a quote from the book:

"As it turned out, in the tight whirl of the Republican social establishment in Washington, O'Connor's views on the election were already well known. On the previous Monday, December 4, the day of the Supreme Court's first opinion on the election, O'Connor and her husband had attended a party for about thirty people at the home of a wealthy couple named Lee and Julie Folger. When the subject of the election controversy came up, Justice O'Conner was livid. 'You just don't know what those Gore people have been doing,' she said. 'They went into a nursing home and registered people that they shouldn't have. It was outrageous.' It was unclear where the justice had picked up this unproved accusation, which had circulated only in the more eccentric right-wing outlets, but O'Connor accounted the story with fervor."

I read the book yesterday, skipping over parts that are still fresh in my memory and too painful to read about even now. I'll eventually go back and read through them. Toobin offers a lot of details of what went on behind the scenes. He appears sympathetic to the Gore team, but not entirely uncritical of Gore. What he does clearly show, however, is the absolute ruthlessness of the Bush team: their Machevellian approach to making sure their man got into the White House. Another theme that comes through clearly is that the Democrats tried to take the high road, to their disadvantage; while the Republicans had only one goal--winning, by any means necessary. Gore was too instinctively decent to stoop to similar tactics, and his reluctance to do so caused some divisivness in his team. My one compaint is that Toobin too easily seems to dismiss the ramifications of this past election, eluding to the feeling that Bush is now our President and we should all move on. We should forget that the past election was manipulated and that our Supreme Court stepped into very shaky legal territory by ruling as they did in favor of Bush.

However, near the close of the book, Toobin makes this statement:

"But still, the election of 2000 will not go away, because in any real, moral, and democratic sense, Al Gore should have been declared the victor over George W. Bush--in the popular vote, in Florida, and in the Electoral College. No one seriously suggests that 3,407 people intended to vote for Patrick Buchanan in Palm Beach County; no one believes that thousands of black voters in Duval County had no preference in the race for President. The 680 questionable overseas absentee ballots identified in July 2001 by the New York Times assuredly, and improperly, went to Bush by a wide margin. If the simple preference of the voters behind their curtains was the rule--and it IS supposed to be the rule in a democracy--then Gore probably won the state by several thousand votes, approximately the margin of the original exit polls."

A MUST READ book for all of us, but be forewarned, it may stir up emotions and anger that you thought you'd started to put behind you. When I finished the book, I wanted to cry.

I highly recommend this book, no matter where you reside on the political spectrum. Jeffrey Toobin brings a clear-minded, sharply intelligent voice to the 2000 election debate, which has been sorely missing from the shrill controversies surrounding the events in Florida. His ability to sweep through the high emotions, the drama and the vitriol, and get to the heart of the issues is truly admirable.

Beyond that, it's simply a great read -- at times both thrilling and, frankly, hilarious. Toobin has an ear for the absurd and a knack for turning a phrase. The book is just stuffed with amusing anecdotes and incredibly spot-on observations of all the players involved.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It deserves a wide audience.

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.

It is most painful to read the customer reviews such as the one below from Marlboro, New Jersey. This sort of intellectual dishonesty purposefully confuses the distinction between junior high school history textbooks and responsable journalism for adults.

Pretensions to objectivity serve no purpose other than to provide outlines of dates and battle names for adolescent school reading, where kids have not yet refined their reasoning skills enough to evaluate what is convincing and what is not(though they'd do so a lot faster if conventional historical views were identified as opinions rather than taught as fact....)

Objective journalism is a fiction provided for the undereducated. It does not even exist --we just all agree to pretend it does--but we know there's lots of bias in which "facts" get chosen to be covered in school--and which get left out.

People are not objective--nor should journalists and authors try to be. Even their choice of topics, let alone their choice of "facts", demonstrate bias. It's a thousand times more interesting and informative to hear WHY intelligent people have those opinions, and to hear them well argued than to get tepid and uncritical presentations of "both sides".....As if....

This is a book for those who want to hear a point of view well defended, with the intelligence of someone unafraid to show the "warts" on either side.

If both sides of the argument interest you, you cannot presume to read only one book on the subject. If you are naive enough to believe that one suffices, there are plenty of books on this election that pretend to be objective (and are so weak and uninteresting as to be useless)--or you can drown yourself in the archives for the New York Times coverage of the entire election.

I prefer real debates, which stimulate--rather than undertaking to eradicate--the development of intelligence and articulate communication in the old as well as the young. Hopefully, people with some intellectual curiosity draw their own conclusions and move on to writing their own opinions, or to having intelligent conversations with their friends...the possibilities are endless.

I have seldom seen Republican journalists write books about historical events that found liberal arguments as convincing as those which support a conservative interpretation. Nor do I generally read books written by Republicans hoping to elucidate the liberal viewpoint on an issue or event. Why do Republicans find the same behavior on the part of liberals so surprising??? Perhaps it is their unnerving belief that "TRUTH" objectively exists somewhere and we could find it and all believe it together if only we were willing to work hard enough to understand their point of view.....

Elsewise, why would so many Conservative/Republican commentaries on books by liberals forever concentrate on whining about liberal journalists who don't give enough credit to conservative arguments? It seems obvious that if those journalists found conservative arguments so convincing, they'd spend their time making conservative arguments......

Myself, I prefer to hear why Conservatives see things their way and why liberals find other arguments more persuasive. The more succesfully argued the book, the more intelligent, the way I see it. I also like intellectual honesty which is unfortunately absent in most conservative journalists--the one exception I've seen in recent years, Jay Severin of MSNBC, suddenly disappeared from the Internet soon after the last election--perhaps because his conservatism was too honest to survive the demands for more "red meat"--who knows?

The presence of that honesty is exactly what pleases me about Jeffrey Toobin and his book on the 2000 election. I find his argument of why the Republicans won using a more successful "strategy" rather than more convincing "facts" a satisfactory and convincing one. To me, his "objectivity", lies in his willingness to see the spots and stains and less than always elevated or noble motivations and behavior on the side of Gore and the Democrats, though he clearly believes that in terms of which side was "right", the Gore side had the stronger argument.

If you read non-fiction for insight into why things happen the way they do, and you don't find a journalist's opinions irrelevant--then you will find satisfaction in the cogent arguments and incisive commentary of Jeffrey Toobin.

Particularly if you enjoyed "A Vast Conspiracy" which was a masterpiece of honest journalism--which is asking quite a lot in these days of murky and sensationalist commercialized news--you will find this book enlightening.

The analysis of the different strategies the two candidates followed to different conclusions is masterful and an excellent guide to fundamental differences in belief as well as behavior on both sides.

If you thirst for explanations of why one candidate could lose an election in this good country, and still have gotten more votes--perhaps even in Florida--you will definitely enjoy this book--though perhaps not the conclusion of the story it tells.....