 |
|
Monday, January 03, 2005
In Game 6 of the 2002 World Series, the San Francisco Gaints looked like they had the game -- and the Series -- wrapped up. It looked like Barry Bonds would finally get his Championship. That is why everyone was shocked when Willie Mays opened Champagne in the dugout while the game was still going. Mays tempted fate...and the Giants lost.
If you think that is shocking, wait to you hear the latest story about the Shrum Curse and John Kerry...
From the January 10th Newsweek:
It was a little after 7 p.m. on election night 2004. The network exit polls showed John Kerry leading George Bush in both Florida and Ohio by three points. Kerry's aides were confident that the Democratic candidate would carry these key swings states; Bush had not broken 48 percent in Kerry's recent tracking polls. The aides were a little hesitant to interrupt Kerry as he was fielding satellite TV interviews in a last get-out-the-vote push. Still, the 7 o'clock exit polls were considered to be reasonably reliable. Time to tell the candidate the good news.
Kerry had slept only two hours the night before. He was sitting in a small hotel room at the Westin Copley (in a small irony of history, next door to the hotel where his grandfather, a boom-and-bust businessman, shot himself some 80 years ago). Bob Shrum, Kerry's friend and close adviser, couldn't resist the moment. "May I be the first to say 'Mr. President'?" said Shrum.
First Kerry tempted fate by hiring Shrum and then Shrum went and did something like that while the polls were still open? WTF???
Oh, it gets better:
In the heady days before the election, Kerry's top aides sat around picking a cabinet...
I'm not making this shit up. Even worse, it appears Kerry thinks he is still a candidate:
He never quite came out and said it, but Kerry sounded very much like a man who was running for president again. He has a mailing list with 2.9 million names and an organization in every state. His moneymen have not backed away.
Uh, maybe his big moneymen, but the netroots only supported him because he wasn't Bush -- in fact, I've already unsubscribed from his email list.
The problem with Kerry is that he knows better but for some reason will never say it. Do you think this character flaw has been remedied since the election?
Though Kerry did not directly criticize his friend Shrum, it's clear he did not feel well served by his message makers and speechwriters.
No shit?
Jose Ferreira, Kerry's nephew, told his uncle, "Some people are saying that your candidacy was driven by ABB [Anything But Bush]." Kerry replied: "Do you think so?"
Yeah.
And now you're cursed too.
Posted at 01:25 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Open-source message development
Posted at 06:33 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Proposed Republican Resolutions for the New Year
This past year, Republicans in Congress made a mockery of the democratic process and the intelligence of the American people. They followed the Administration's lead in ignoring important issues like poverty, health care, social security and education. Instead, they focused on special favors for wealthy corporate interests and pursued divisive policies for political gain while abusing the House procedures meant to ensure fair debate.
Republican leaders spent so much time ignoring their Congressional duties they were forced to rush a several thousand page spending bill through at the end of the year just to keep the country running. With only a few hours to review the massive bill, controversial provisions were snuck in, provisions that violated the privacy rights of taxpayers everywhere. Luckily, Democrats caught the 'error' and were able to reverse it.
We hope that Republicans are able to remember middle-class Americans in their 2005 plans. To ensure this, we would like to suggest a few New Year resolutions for them to keep in mind while they pursue their disingenuous agenda which protects multinational corporations that outsource American jobs and cuts taxes for millionaires at the expense of working families.
Proposed Republican Resolutions for the New Year
We are not professional arm wrestlers and thus we will not hold votes open for 3 hours for the sole purpose of twisting arms to get our way.
We will lead by example and not change our own ethics rules to protect the Leader of our Caucus, no matter how many times they are indicted or rebuked by the Ethics Committee.
We will not allow the chairman of a key committee to negotiate a private deal with the pharmaceutical industry while considering legislation that benefits that industry.
We will respect House rules that require three days before legislation that has been through a committee is voted on.
We will admit that incompetence is not cool: not in our Defense Secretary, not when engaging in war, and not in our fiscal policies.
We will agree that middle-class families are bearing the burden of economic mismanagement.
We will engage in diplomatic efforts with countries that pose a real threat to our country and will always present sound intelligence to the American people before using military force.
We will agree that money does not grow on trees and contrary to popular belief, there is no prize for running record surpluses into record deficits.
We will remember that children are our future. Slashing Pell Grants and partially funding the No Child Left Behind Act does not demonstrate a commitment to our future.
We will leave no soldier or veteran behind in our budget.
We will not dismantle the environmental protections that keep our air clean and preserve our public lands and then name the initiatives "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."
If these common sense resolutions are adopted and kept, perhaps 2005 will be a better year for the American people and the Representatives in Congress who actually want to get things done. Democrats cross their fingers in hope that Republicans are not holding theirs behind their back.
Posted at 11:38 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Friday, December 31, 2004
ALERT: GOP congress to eviscerate congressional ethics laws on Tuesday
by John in DC - 12/31/2004 02:38:44 PM
READ THIS AND TAKE ACTION
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of reading this article on the front page of today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37521-2004Dec30.html?sub=AR
In a nutshell, Republican leaders in the House are planning on GUTTING the ethics rules governing their own members, for the most part because one of their own, Rep. Tom Delay, got caught doing a lot of nasty stuff. So in retaliation, they're changing the rules to make it next to impossible to file an ethics complaint in the future. Any complaint will be dropped, period, unless a majority of members on the committee in favor of it. Like that will ever happen.
But oh, it gets better. They also plan to change the rules so family members of congressmen can more easily accept gifts from lobbyists trying to influence the congressman in question. AND, they even want to permit congressmen to BRING A PARENT ON A CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. Yes, now we're giving them perks for mom and dad. Wouldn't it be nice if all of our companies let us bring the folks on business trips to Europe, at the taxpayers' expense, no less.
This is absolutely outrageously disgusting what they are planning on doing. All the more so because this is the "values" party, and they're now trying to railroad new rules that will permit them to be less ethical. What a way to cast your first vote of the new Congress, and in the case of new members of Congress their first vote ever.
There are a few clear action steps that are needed:
1. I hear from good sources that the Dems in the House are terrified of taking on this issue full-blast as they don't want Tom Delay to get mad at them. Well, I'm through with playing nice, hoping the Republicans will throw us a few scraps while they lead us to the slaughterhouse.
Call Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, both Democratic leaders who need to grow a set of balls (or vaginas) and finally throw down the gauntlet on this outrageous behavior by the Republicans. What more do the Democrats need handed to them than this proposed vote on Tuesday? If this were the Dems planning this kind of vote, what do you think Newt Gingrich would do? He certainly wouldn't be sitting back issuing press releases and having the occasional press conference. He'd be plotting all out war to embarrass the hell out of the Democrats. It's time the Dems did the same. Call Pelosi and Hoyer and tell them it's about time the democrats started fighting back - demand that they go nuclear over this proposed change to the ethics rules this coming Tuesday. And it is irrelevant if you're from their state or not - they are the leaders of the Democratic party, tell them you're one angry Democrat and demand that your voice be heard, or we should throw them all out.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Phone (415) 556-4862, (202) 225-4965
Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Rep. Steny Hoyer(D-MD)
Phone (202) 225-4131 - Fax(202) 225-4300
Phone (301) 474-0119 - Fax (301) 474-4697
Phone (301) 843-1577 - Fax (301) 843-1331
Web form for email: http://www.hoyer.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=hoyers&type=Let%27s%20Talk
2. Then contact your own House member, Democrat or Republican, and let them have it. I'm serious, the only thing these people understand is pissed off constituents - I worked there, trust me, it gets their attention.
Use this zip-code locator to find your member of Congress. Call and email them today through Tuesday - fill their voice mail with messages over the weekend. Blast them over this issue. http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind
3. Call and email your local newspapers IMMEDIATELY over this issue, especially if you have a new member of Congress elected from your district. Will your congressman's first vote of the new congress, and possibly their career, be in favor of lowering their ethical standards? Make sure your local papers cover this issue - call the paper and ask for a reporter or editor covering the US Congress and talk to them about this issue. Trust me, if they get 20 or so calls from people, they'll write about the issue. Find some friends and have them call too (just look your papers up online for email and phone contact info, letters to the editor, etc.)
You can read more on this issue here:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/20041216/
Feel free to copy this post and put it on your site, or to email this message to your friends. It's high time the Democrats fought back and stopped this outright theft of our government.
Posted at 04:49 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Proof: 2004 Election Stolen
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/30/223723/91
The 2004 Election Was Stolen
by TocqueDeville
Thu Dec 30th, 2004 at 19:37:23 PST
This is my first post regarding the possibility that the 2004 election was rigged. Some may be surprised by that since I've had a few post advocating severe scrutiny and focused attention by the blogging community.
But through all this time I've waited before reaching a conclusion. This is because I've always believed that if there was foul play in this election it would be accomplished through electronic means and the only way to know would be through exit polling.
So I've been waiting patiently for a comprehensive analysis of exit poll data by qualified analysts. That moment has slowly, but finally, arrived. The latest is the analysis posted below in its entirety (converted from PDF for convenience and posterity) by Jonathan D. Simon, J.D. and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D. from Institute of Government and Public Affairs - University of Illinois at Chicago. This paper, combined with others, namely Freeman, is as close to a "smoking gun" as you will ever find.
I've watched with amusement as people have tried to prop up theories about why the exit polls were so "wrong": Bush supporters are more reluctant to discuss their vote, or Democrats vote early. Meanwhile the same proponents of such theories chide the suspicious for reaching beyond the bounds of credibility. And in the background, on someone's TV, CNN is chattering about Ukraine and Dioxin.
Also, some fail to appreciate the significance of exit polls for proving election theft. The power of statistical evidence should be well known. DNA or fingerprint analysis is actually statistical in nature. The veracity of such evidence is derived from a statistical probability that no one else shares those traits. By the same token, if the election outcome is statistically improbable, by a factor of 1000 or more, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the outcome is wrong.
`Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', I heard recently. This assertion is built on the false premise that rigging an election in the United States is somehow extraordinary. Considering the history of US elections, and the stakes involved, and the fact that 80% of all votes in the US were either cast on, or counted by two private corporations owned by Republicans, this and all elections should be suspect from the start.
History will judge us harshly for this election. Not just the Bush administration, but the media, the Democrats, and the online community as well. Future historians will no doubt get a chuckle for the providence of the Ukraine fiasco falling so closely behind our own. But mostly, when they examine the American response to the exit poll discrepancies of the 2004 election, they will be saddened by the blaring naiveté, maliciousness, and cowardice.
There is indeed a norm that permeates American culture, propagated mostly in the media, that some things are just too ugly to talk about. Some believe the consequences of rocking the boat are too risky. Perhaps, in some cases, they are. Despite its age, history has proven a fragility in our country that we often care not to admit.
But not talking about it isn't going to make it go away. And the consequences for rocking the boat pale in comparison to the consequences of allowing our democracy to be stolen away.
The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won The Popular Vote?
An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data
December 28, 2004
Jonathan D. Simon, J.D.
Verified Vote 2004
verifiedvote2004@aol.com
Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D.
Institute of Government and Public Affairs
University of Illinois at Chicago
rbaiman@uic.edu
Published by the Free Press (http://freepress.org)
The views expressed are the authors' own and are not necessarily representative of the
views of their respective institutions. Comments or questions directed to the authors
are welcome.
Executive Summary
There is a substantial discrepancy--well outside the margin of error and outcomedeterminative--
between the national exit poll and the popular vote count.
The possible causes of the discrepancy would be random error, a skewed exit poll, or
breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count.
Analysis shows that the discrepancy cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or
random error.
Evidence does not support hypotheses that the discrepancy was produced by problems
with the exit poll.
Widespread breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote
count are the most likely explanations for the discrepancy.
In an accurate count of a free and fair election, the strong likelihood is that Kerry
would have been the winner of the popular vote.
The Significance of a Popular Vote Victory
Although it is the Electoral College and not the popular vote that legally elects the
president, winning the popular vote does have considerable psychological and practical
significance. It is fair to say, to take a recent example, that had Al Gore not enjoyed a
popular vote margin in 2000, he would not have had standing in the court of public
opinion to maintain his post-election challenge for more than a month up until its
ultimate foreclosure by the Supreme Court.
In the 2004 election now under scrutiny, the popular vote again has played a
critical role. George Bush's apparent margin of 3.3 million votes clearly influenced the
timing of John Kerry's concession. Although the election was once again close enough
that yet-to-be-counted votes offered at least the mathematical possibility of a Kerry
electoral college victory--and although, once again, concerns about vote counting were
beginning to emerge from early post-election reports and analyses--Kerry apparently
believed that, unlike popular vote-winner Gore, he did not have effective standing to
prolong the race.
As ongoing inquiries continue to raise serious vote counting issues, Bush's
apparent popular vote margin has loomed large as a rationale for minimizing these issues,
at least as far as their impact on the outcome of the race. While much concern has been
expressed about "counting every vote," even the Kerry camp has issued disclaimers to
the effect that their candidate does not expect that so doing will alter the outcome.
With the results in Ohio currently subject to both recount proceedings and legal
contest, dramatic developments compelling a reversal of the Ohio result cannot be ruled
out at this time. Yet to overturn the Ohio result, giving Kerry an electoral college victory
(or even to disqualify the Ohio electors via challenge in Congress, which would deprive
Bush of an electoral college majority and throw the election to the House of
Representatives), would likely be regarded as unjust and insupportable by a populace
convinced that Bush was, by some 3.3 million votes, the people's choice.
Thus, although the popular vote does not legally determine the presidency, its
significance is such that we must give due consideration to any evidence which puts the
popular vote count itself at issue.
Sources of the Exit Poll and Vote Count Numbers
As the analysis which we undertake below is based upon the conflict between two
sets of numbers, one generated by the exit polls for the presidential race and the other
generated by the vote counting equipment, it is necessary to review the nature of the two
sources of results. Exit polling, since its invention several decades ago, has performed
reliably in the projection of thousands of races, both here at home and, more recently,
abroad.1 The record of exit polling from the 1970s through the 1990s was essentially free
of controversy, except for the complaint that publication of exit poll results prior to poll
closings dampened voter turnout by discouraging late-in-day voters from bothering to
vote, the race having already been "called."2 Voters could be so influenced because they
had come, indeed, to regard exit poll projections as all but infallible. Significant exit
polling problems began to appear along with the development and spread of
computerized vote counting equipment, since which time exit polls have had a notably
poorer track record in spite of improvements in polling methodology.
Compared to standard pre-election polling, exit polling has certain advantages
and disadvantages. On the plus side, exit polls sample actual rather than just "likely"
voters and do not fail to include voters who are not attached to a conventional phone line
or who screen their calls.3 This results in significantly greater accuracy. On the minus
side, exit polls employ a cluster sampling technique, grouping respondents by precinct,
rather than a fully homogenized random sample of the target venue. This results in
somewhat less accuracy. On the whole, the advantages in accuracy an exit poll enjoys
over a pre-election poll of the same sample size tend to outweigh the disadvantages.
The exit polling in Election 2004 was performed by the combined firms of
Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research, under exclusive contract as "official
provider" of exit poll data to six major media organizations (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox
News Channel, and the Associated Press), which collectively formed the National
Election Pool. 4 Exit polling operations were under the principal direction of Warren
Mitofsky, credited as the inventor of exit polling and recognized throughout the world as
the leading expert in the field. With over 35 years of exit polling experience,
encompassing nearly 3,000 electoral contests in the United States and abroad, Mitofsky
has achieved consistent success in the field and has continued throughout his career to
refine and improve the methodologies and protocols of exit polling.5 In 1999 Mitofsky
received the Award for Lifetime Achievement from the American Association for Public
Opinion Research.
Election 2004 presented a particular challenge and opportunity for Mr. Mitofsky,
whose exit polling operation was hampered in 2002 by a massive computer breakdown.6
It has been reported that preparations for Election 2004 were especially thorough,
entailing increased staff numbers and training, upgraded computer hardware and
software, expanded surveys of absentee and early voters, and dry runs beginning in July
to prepare analysts for the full spectrum of possible election night scenarios.7 It may
fairly be said that the exit polling for Election 2004 was a more advanced, sophisticated,
and meticulous operation than any previously undertaken.
In contrast to the uniform methodology of the exit polls, a variety of methods are
employed to record votes on election day, including optical scan devices, direct
electronic recording (DREs or "touchscreens"), punch cards, paper ballots, lever
machines, and data-point devices, in that order of prevalence. An additional variety of
methods are then employed to transmit these votes to central locations and tally them at
the county and state levels. Ownership and operation of this mosaic of machinery is fully
privatized and is concentrated predominantly in the hands of four corporations: Diebold,
ES&S, Sequoia, and Hart Intercivic. The partisan proclivities and activities of each of
these corporations are a matter of public record. 8 Because of the proprietary nature of
the election system throughout the United States, these vendors of the voting equipment
design, program, operate, maintain, and repair it at every level, most often without
outside or public scrutiny, and with at best a minimal process of testing and certification.9
Boards of Election and state level authorities over election protocols have often accepted
financial support from the equipment vendors10 and have also been seen at times to act
under the influence of partisanship, appearing to elevate outcomes over fairness of
process.11 Such systemic conflicts of interest do little to enhance the integrity or
credibility of the vote counting system.
Computer experts have documented the susceptibility of both the recording and
tabulating equipment to undetected errors, hacking, and deliberate fraud.12 A substantial
component of the system (DREs, which are responsible for recording approximately 30%
of the vote) generates no paper record and is effectively immune to meaningful recount.
Central tabulators responsible for compiling over 50% of the vote employ an operating
system that has been demonstrated to be vulnerable to entry and manipulation through a
standard laptop PC.13 In spite of these vulnerabilities of the counting system, few if any
questions about the accuracy of the numbers it produced were raised on election night.14
Election Night 2004: The Exit Poll/Vote Count Differential
On election night 2004, the exit polls and the vote counting equipment generated
results that differed significantly. In the early morning of November 3, 2004, a
CNN.com website screenshot entitled "U.S. PRESIDENT/NATIONAL/EXIT POLL"
posted national exit poll results updated to 12:23 A.M., broken down by gender as well as
a variety of other categories.15 The time of the update indicates that these results
comprised substantially the full set of respondents polled on election day, but were free
from the effects of a subsequent input of tabulated data used to bring about ultimate
congruence between the exit poll and vote count results.16
The CNN posting indicates the number of respondents (13,047), the gender
breakdown of the sample (male 46%, female 54%), and the candidate preferences by
gender (males: 52% Bush, 47% Kerry; females: 45% Bush, 54% Kerry). For the national
exit poll taken as a whole, therefore, the result was 48.2% Bush, 50.8% Kerry.17 The vote
counting equipment produced a markedly different result: 50.9% Bush, 48.1% Kerry.18
The differential between the two counts, which were virtually mirror images of each
other, was 5.4% overall, or about 3.3 million votes (see Chart 1).
The reaction of election night analysts interpreting this differential was
immediately to query what had "gone wrong" with the exit polls. This was a curious
approach both in light of standard accounting practice, which compels independent
examination of both sets of numbers that are found to be in conflict, and in light of muchvoiced
pre-election concerns about the accuracy and security of the computerized vote
counting systems. We offer an alternate approach to the conflicting data, based on
fundamental statistical and accounting principles.
Statistical Analysis Of Exit Poll Results
Steven F. Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania has analyzed Election 2004
exit poll results for battleground states,19 and has drawn certain conclusions regarding the
significant discrepancies between exit poll results and vote counts for several critical
states. In particular, the odds against the discrepancies in Ohio, Florida, and
Pennsylvania occurring together are computed at 662,000-to-one, or a virtual statistical
impossibility that they could have been due to chance or random error. Receiving
somewhat less emphasis is the overall pattern of discrepancy in the state polls--again
with the vote counts turning in Bush's favor, though less dramatically in the
nonbattleground states, as will be discussed below. The national popular vote is not
addressed in that paper, but the same statistical principles are applicable, and will be
employed in this analysis.
While the individual state samples totaled 73,678 reported respondents,20 a
national sub-sampling was undertaken by Edison/Mitofsky, which comprised 13,047
reported respondents, chosen as a representative random sample of the nation as a whole.
This sample was drawn from 250 targeted polling places and from 500 individual
telephone interviews with absentee and early voters.21
What is remarkable about this national sample of 13,047 is its size. When
compared with more familiar pre-election poll samples of about 2000 - 2200 respondents,
it is approximately six times as large. Such augmentation of sample size reduces a poll's
margin of error (MOE) from the ±3% to which we have become accustomed, down to
±1.1%.22
The ±1.1% MOE tells us that, barring specific flaws in the design or
administration of the poll and in the absence of significant mistabulation of the vote
count itself, the exit poll result for the selected candidate will fall within ±1.1% of his
vote count 95% of the time. In this case it tells us that we can be 95% certain that
Kerry's popular vote percentage would fall in the range 49.7% to 51.9%; that is, it would
fall outside that range only once in 20 times. Kerry's reported vote count of 48.1% falls
dramatically outside this range.23
To carry our analysis further, we can employ a normal distribution curve (see
Figure 1) to determine--again assuming proper poll methodology, no discriminatory
voter suppression 24, and an accurate and honest popular vote count--that the probability
that Kerry would have received his reported popular vote total of 48.1%, or less is one in
959,000--a virtual statistical impossibility.25
The Popular Vote Winner
We can proceed one helpful step further and calculate the likelihood, based on the
exit poll results, that Kerry would receive more popular votes than Bush. The break-even
point would be 59,024,629 votes, or 49.54% of the total.26 This percentage lies,
significantly, outside the MOE of the national exit poll and in fact we find that Kerry
would receive fewer votes than Bush only 1.3% of the time. Put another way--given the
exit poll results, proper poll methodology, and an accurate and fair voting process--
Kerry would be the popular vote winner of Election 2004 98.7% of the time.
Is Something Wrong With The Exit Poll Results?
The clear implication of our analysis is that neither chance nor random error is
responsible for the significant incongruence of exit poll and tabulated vote results, and
that we must look either to significant failings in the exit poll design and/or
administration or to
equally significant failings in the accuracy and/or fairness of the voting process itself to
explain the results. Given the dramatic implications of our analysis, we of course must
consider carefully any argument that has been put forward suggesting that the exit polls
failed as an accurate measure of voter intent. We examine the two least implausible
hypotheses that have been put forward.
The first deals with the proportion of respondents by gender. The composition of
the national sample by gender was 46% male, 54% female, which prompted a claim that
females were over-represented, skewing the results towards Kerry. While it is not proven
that this is in fact the case, if it is taken as stipulated and the sample is reweighted to
reflect a "normal" gender breakdown of 52% female, 48% male, the effect is to increase
Bush's exit poll percentage by 0.2% to 48.4% and decrease Kerry's to 50.6%. The effect
on the bottom line is minimal: Kerry would be the popular vote victor 96.9% of the
time.27
The second hypothesis put forward is the "reluctant Bush responder" hypothesis.
It suggests that Bush voters were for some reason less willing to fill out an exit poll
questionnaire, and therefore were undercounted in the poll results. If such a phenomenon
could be proven, it would be a source of significant skewing and effectively invalidate
the polls. The proponents of this hypothesis, however, have yet to offer any supportive
evidence for their theory.28 The hypothesis also does not explain the nonuniformity of
the pattern of state-by-state discrepancies.29 In fact, one could equally well imagine that
a "reluctant Kerry responder" phenomenon was at work, and that the exit polls
systematically underrepresented Kerry's vote.30
Conclusion
In light of the history of exit polling and the particular care that was taken to
achieve an unprecedented degree of accuracy in the exit polls for Election 2004, there is
little to suggest significant flaws in the design or administration of the official exit polls.
Until supportive evidence can be presented for any hypothesis to the contrary, it must be
concluded that the exit polls, including the national mega-sample within its ±1.1%
margin of error, present us with an accurate measure of the intent of the voters in the
presidential election of 2004.
According to this measure, an honest and fair voting process would have been
more likely than not--at least 95% likely, in fact--to have determined John Kerry to be
the national popular vote winner of Election 2004.31 Should ongoing or new
investigations continue to produce evidence that, to an extent determinative of the
electoral college outcome, votes have not been counted accurately and honestly or
discriminatory vote suppression has occurred, the re-examined popular vote outcome
may well be deemed relevant to the question of what remedies are warranted.
1 See Polling and Presidential Election Coverage, Lavrakas,
Paul J, and Holley, Jack K., eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage; pp. 83-99.
2 This problem was theoretically resolved by a gentleman's agreement to withhold release
of exit poll calls until the polls had closed.
3 Because only actual voters are included, these might more accurately be referred to as "exit samples"
rather than "exit polls."
4 As described in the National Election Pool Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International homepage:
www.exit-poll.net/index.html .
5 Exit polling has been relied upon as a check mechanism for the vote counting processes in
numerous foreign elections. Indeed Mitofsky himself received public commendation from Mexican
President Carlos Salinas for his contribution to the credibility of that nation's 1994 election. Most
recently, exit polling hasbeen instrumental in the overturning of election results and the ordering
of a new election in the Ukraine.
6 As a result exit polls were not employed in the projection of election outcomes in 2002.
7 Newark Star-Ledger, 10/28/2004, page 1, "Networks Will Look to Somerville of Tuesday." See also,
Bauder, D., "TV Networks to Test New Exit Polling System," The Associated Press, Oct. 13, 2004,
reprinted at
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?/id=20041013122209990005&_ccc=6&cid=946. The
specific methodologies and protocols employed are detailed on the websites for Mitofsky International
(www.mitofskyinternational.com), Edison Media Research (www.edisonresearch.com), and the National
Election Pool (www.exit-poll.net).
8 See, e.g., Smyth, J., Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 28, 2003, reprinted at:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm ; see also http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/ .
9 See Zeller, T., "Ready or Not, Electronic Voting Goes National," The New York Times, Sept. 19, 2004
(reprinted at http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040918145609990001&cid=842).
10 See "On the Voting Machine Makers' Tab," The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2004, Editorial Page.
11 See, e.g., Welsh-Huggins, A.. "The Next Katherine Harris?" Associated Press Report Oct. 27, 2004,
reprinted at http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041027161309990012 (detailing actions
taken by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell).
12 See, e.g., Rubin, A., "An Insider's View of Vote Vulnerability," Baltimore Sun, March 10, 2004
(reprinted at www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-02.htm); Levy, S., "Black Box Voting Blues,"
Newsweek, Nov. 3, 2004 (reprinted at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339650/)
13 The GEMS system, employed by Diebold in central tabulators serving about half the venues, is
particularly susceptible to entry and manipulation (hacking or preprogramming) as was dramatically
demonstrated on national television (CNBC: "Topic A With Tina Brown") when critic Bev Harris led
Howard Dean through the necessary steps in less than two minutes (see Hartmann, T., "Evidence Mounts
That The Vote May Have Been Hacked," at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm).
14 Such unquestioning acceptance may be portrayed in a positive light. As Warren Mitofsky himself has
said: "In a democracy, it's the orderly transfer of power that keeps the democracy accepting the results of
elections. If it drags on too long, there's always a suspicion of fraud." The perils of unquestioning
acceptance of what may, given the vulnerabilities of our vote counting system, be falsified results should,
however, be self-evident.
15 The time-stamped screenshot was printed out by Simon at 1:29 A.M. on Nov. 3, 2004, and is attached
for reference as Appendix A. The data derived from the CNN screenshots printed by Simon for the
individual states may also be referenced at http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm.
16 This practice is referenced in "Methods Statement: National Election Pool Exit Polls Nov. 2, 2004,"
(.pdf) at http://www.exit-poll.net/.
17 The totals for the full sample are computed by combining the candidate preferences of male and female
respondents: Bush = [(males)46% x 52%] + [(females)54% x 45%] = 48.2%; Kerry = [(males)46% x 47%]
+ [(females)54% x 54%] = 50.8%
18 Approximately 1% of the total vote went to minor candidates. Therefore a vote percentage of 49.54%
rather than 50.0% constitutes a winning margin for either Bush or Kerry. It is important to bear this in
mind in reading the analysis below.
19 Freeman, S., "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Honest? An Examination of Uncorrected Exit Poll
Data," Working Paper #04-10, rev. Nov. 23, 2004;
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1.pdf .
Bush % Kerry %
Bush
Margin%
National Exit 48.2% 50.8% -2.6%
Popular Vote Count 50.9% 48.1% 2.8%
Difference 2.7% -2.7% 5.4%
20 For the 47 states and District of Columbia for which data was captured by Simon, see:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00142.htm
21 See "Methods Statement: National Election Pool Exit Polls: National/Regional Exit Poll," available
from the National Election Pool in .pdf format at www.exit-poll.net/index.html
22 Ibid, p. 2, Table. Calculation of the margin of error may be checked as follows: Calculate the standard
error of a random sample using the formula  , where p = Kerry percentage of the
vote (0.481) and N = the sample size (13,047). The fact that an exit poll is a cluster sample, grouping
respondents by precinct, rather than a fully homogenized random sample of the target venue, increases the
standard error by 30% to 0.00568 (see Merkle, D. and Edelman, M. "A Review of the 1996 Voter News
Service Exit Polls from a Total Survey Error Perspective," in Election Polls, the News Media and
Democracy, ed. P.J. Lavrakas, M.W. Traugott, New York: Chatham House, pp. 68 - 72). Ninety-five
percent of the time, a result predicted on the basis of a random sample will be within 1.96 standard errors,
or ±0.011 (1.1%) for a sample of this size.
23 It is dramatic because a 2.7% "miss" at these levels of precision is extremely unlikely to occur. The
statistician's measure of such likelihood is known as a "standard deviation." A result which is off, as in
this case, by 4.7 standard deviations is without question "dramatic:" the odds against its occurrence are
enormous.
24"Discriminatory voter suppression" refers to methods that disproportionately reduce voter turnout in
precincts that favor one candidate, for example through disproportionate allocation of voting machines.
Because state level exit polls are weighted sums of precinct voting shares, disproportionate changes in
turnout can contribute to a discrepancy in state exit polls relative to the actual vote.
25 Probability of a 48.1% vote share assuming an exit poll vote share of 50.8%: P(0.481) = 1 -
NORMDIST(0.481, 0.508, 0.005686, True) = 0.0000010424 (where NORMDIST is an Excel spreadsheet
function that gives the probability of obtaining 0.481 for a normal distribution with a mean of 0.508 and a
standard deviation of 0.005686). 1/0.0000010424 = 959,336.
26 Based on final election numbers from the Washington Post, Nov. 24, 2004.
27 For reference, even a clearly "male-skewed" 50% male, 50% female sample would have resulted in a
Kerry victory 93.5% of the time.
28 There is some intriguing evidence to the contrary, drawn from an analysis performed by William
Kaminsky, a graduate student at MIT. Kaminsky finds that in 22 of the 23 states which break down their
voter registrations by party ID the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats in the final,
adjusted exit poll was larger than the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats on the official
registration rolls. In other words, the adjustments performed on the exit polls in order to get them to agree
with the official tallies would, if valid, require Republicans to have won the get-out-the-vote battle in
essentially every state. We find this requirement implausible, and indeed observational evidence pointed to
just the opposite: massive new voter turnout, which virtually always cuts in favor of the challenger; huge
lines in Democratic precincts; unadjusted exit poll data showing apparently greater Democratic turnout;
etc. Exit polls appropriately stratified to official party ID percentages, which would effectively neutralize
any suspected "reluctant Bush responder" phenomenon by including the expected proportions of
Republican and Democratic voters, would on the basis of Kaminsky's analysis have yielded results at least
as favorable to Kerry as those upon which we have relied in our calculations.
29 A complete analysis of all 45 states and the District of Columbia for which comparable exit poll data is
available shows that four out of the 11 battleground states had exit poll/vote count discrepancies that were
outside of a standard 5% (one-tail) margin of error, whereas this was the case for only one of the 35 nonbattleground
states. Moreover, all of these statistically significant discrepancies were in favor of Bush. This
data is at odds with claims of "systemic" pro-Kerry exit poll skew. See Baiman, R. Dec. 19, 2004 at:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/997 (some figures have been updated by the author
to reflect more recent data).
30 It is by no means self-evident that either candidate's supporters were systemically more likely to be
intimidating or more easily intimidated. While it might be more reasonably argued that voters finding
themselves in a dwarfed minority in their communities might have been less willing to be exit poll
respondents, in light of the even division of the national electorate, any such tendencies would have
resulted in a wash, with no net effect on the validity of the national exit poll. We would of course welcome
the release by Edison/Mitofsky and/or the National Election Pool of the data which would facilitate further
analysis of these and other factors.
31 It should be clear that more is at stake than the presidency itself. Use of computerized vote counting
will only increase, as mandated by law. Vote counting is the bedrock protocol of a democracy and
meaningful reform of a broken counting system is dependent on an expression of public will ultimately
exercised at the ballot box and fairly, accurately, and honestly tabulated. If the system has broken down
and is no longer counting accurately and honestly, there is no effective democratic mechanism to bring
pressure upon a governing majority to reform a vote counting status quo which is seen to work in its favor.
This is, as may be seen, a potentially crippling catch-22 for a democracy.
Figure 1:
Appendix A See PDF
Posted at 12:51 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Posted at 10:34 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Kid Oakland on DNC Chair and Bloggers
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/28/20200/060
bloggers and citizens
by kid oakland
Tue Dec 28th, 2004 at 17:20:00 PST
Reading ttagaris and blogswarms's diaries regarding the controversy over the Pelosi/Reid nod to Tim Roemer for DNC chair just made me angry at first...kind of like I suppose you all feel.
Which is also how Chris Bowers and Jerome Armstrong (who are doing an excellent job covering the ins and outs of this story at MyDD) feel....
But let me say something here, all Democratic party politics aside, all debate of the horserace pushed off the table, this just brings something home in a crystal clear manner:
They don't even know who we are.
I remember thinking after Al Gore conceded the 2000 Presidential race..."hey, maybe Al will actually have time to come meet with some of us little people who fought for him as he gathers strength and reformulates for 2004." Needless to say....that vision of sitting at an environmentalist conference and looking at the folding chair next to mine and seeing the former Vice President on a "listening" campaign never materialized.
In part, that's due to Al Gore being a busy man...ahem...and in part...that was due to Al Gore not realizing that...like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tim Roemer, and, yes, John Kerry and John Edwards...he was bound to be an "old school" DC Democrat with no idea what the grassroots and the netroots are actually up to...so long as he stayed within his comfortable corridors of power.
They don't even know who we are, much less what we think and who we are fighting for.
And worse, they are so caught up in their inside the beltway, high-stakes power games that even if we screamed our lungs out over here in our little corner of the universe....we'd still appear as this tiny fraction of the equation. Be a dear and weight the pro-Dean, blog-driven dissent by any extra factor or two, would you, Harry....
We are bloggers and citizens, and our politics should no longer be about them....our politics should reflect who we are and who we fight for. In fact, the question I have tonight is not who will be chair of the DNC, but, with all due respect, if all we're doing is shoring up a "business-as-usual party" why should I care?
When I walk the streets and see my brothers and sisters..I know exactly who I'm fighting for. When I hold a newborn in my arms and think of my own life half over, I know who I'm fighting for. When I think of the rainbow of citizens every election day going to and from work at the West Oakland BART station, I realize how hollow the rhetoric coming from our Democratic leadership has been. When I think of Paul Wellstone, and all that his political life stood for, what direction that life was pointed in, I know the answer to my question.
It's not simply that the heads of Democratic Congressional delegations have seen fit to nominate an anti-choice, "concede before we've begun to fight" on Social Security Democrat...it's that in doing so they've proven to me that they have nothing whatsoever to do with our lives.
And when I say our lives I don't mean some kind of cheesy media version of us netizens. Anyone who did GOTV this fall knows who we are....we're the folks who give a shit...the ones with extra coffee cups rolling around in the back of our cars...the ones getting up in the early AM to bus to PA or NV or Ohio...the ones who show up...and there's something in each of our personal stories that makes us politically active, that makes us fight.
And you can't really get much more taken for granted than we are. It's as if the 500,000 strong march in protest of the Republican National Convention was made up of ghosts...a ghost march of families, the old and the young...of voices peacefully raised up against Bush and his war...marching through the center of our largest city as if we didn't exist.
We are bloggers and citizens. We stand not just for ourselves, but for those we fight for. For our ideals, and for a future that we are committed to building and sharing, by fits and starts....not always perfectly or in harmony...but with a core commitment that we share: our generation will leave an impact on this nation and this world.
We aren't going anywhere. And our job tonight is different than it was in 2004 in the lead up to the election. We are reforming and fighting for our collective future. We are gathering steam for our next move....we're putting the folding chairs in a circle.
If Nancy and Harry don't realize that.....it's time to get a couple userid's and join the conversation. That conversation will go on with or without them....but that conversation will not be about them.
Time is short, and we've just begun to fight.
Posted at 09:45 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Monday, December 27, 2004
Why can't we catch OBL???
Does Bush know?
An audiotape message said to be made by the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden called for Muslims to boycott elections [in Iraq] next month and endorsed the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as Mr. bin Laden's deputy in Iraq.
The tape, broadcast Monday by the Arab news network Al Jazeera, condemned the American-backed Iraqi elections for a constitutional assembly, scheduled for Jan. 30, saying, "In the balance of Islam, this constitution is infidel and therefore everyone who participates in this election will be considered infidels."
The voice on the tape also described Mr. Zarqawi as the "emir," or prince, of Al Qaeda in Iraq and said Muslims there should "listen to him." The man speaking on the tape referred to an October statement in which Mr. Zarqawi declared allegiance to Mr. bin Laden, calling the declaration "a great step on the path of unifying all the mujahedeen in establishing the state of righteousness and ending the state of injustice." Where's Bush on this?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI Good to know, but wait:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 How's Bush's War on Terror goin'?
Posted at 09:52 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Sunday, December 26, 2004
DailyKos - Tim Roemer for DNC Chair
MyDD - Tim Roemer for DNC Chair
CfA - Tim Roemer for DNC Chair
Ever since CNN declared that both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were backing Tim Roemer for DNC Chair the blogosphere has been working overtime to expose his positions on the issues. It is true that Roemer will have zero credibility in the upcoming Social Security battle because he has already voted to privatize Social Securty. And yes, it is also true that the religious zealots are salivating over his anti-woman, pro-alley stance against choice. The only feather in his hat is that some believe his position on the 9/11 Commission will help Democrats on national security. Which is an interesting angle until you consider that the 9/11 Commission debunked the Al Queda/Saddam link and four months later 63% believed the link existed. So yes, he has national security credentials, but nobody listened to him and his ineffective communication may have cost us the election.
However, the greatest problem with Roemer is that he won't be able to unite Democrats around the DNC. If Roemer is elected it appears that there will be a mass exodus of volunteer and financial support. In the post-modern marketplace of progressive action, Roemer would be unable to compete with Howard Dean's Democracy for America or Simon Rosenberg's New Democrat Network. Don't believe me, see what others are saying.
MyDD has almost hit the 5 million reader milestone. Here is whay Chris Bower's says he'll do with his MyDD soapbox should Roemer be elected Chair:
The upcoming battle to save Social Security from destruction by lying, rampaging conservatives is the single biggest domestic issue we have faced in the country in a decade. During this fight, we do not need the chair of the DNC to be in favor of said destruction. Unless Roemer publicly, loudly and completely repudiates his recent position on Social Security, he is utterly unacceptable as DNC chair. Mark my words: if Roemer becomes chair without doing this, I will actively encourage all progressive activists to donate and volunteer to third-party groups instead of and at the expense of the DNC. The Fainthearted Faction has no place in the Democratic leadership. [emphasis mine]
In the last cycle I gave $500 each to Farrell and Sullivan, plus donations to Dave Thomas, Morrison, Herseth, Chandler, Barend, Ashe, etc. They totalled $1500, and that is a lot of money for me. (I gave significantly to MoveOn and Kerry in addition.)
Simply put, if Roemer gets the nod, I ain't giving in the next cycle. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.
Kos wrote, "Roemer is not a Reform Democrat, and, beyond that, clearly outside the party's mainstream." which set an avalanche of criticism of Roemer. Here are some choice quotes:
Colleen:
I assure you that anti-choice on abortion
is indeed a deal breaker for about 20% of the dem electorate. And these aren't people whose reaction will be anything simple like not voting for democrats and refusing to donate money. We will do serious damage. Imagine the reaction of the African-American community if the dems completely rolled on reinstating Jim Crow laws and then amplify that.
LISoundView:
The largest party in the country is actually the group of people registered as Independents. If the Democrats appoint Roehmer, I will become one of them.
And if Pelosi or Reid asks me for any money or time or even my vote the answer is, NO.
cscs:
Perfect!
Roehmer becomes Chair, which sounds like we'll be going down the all-too-familiar road of LOSING once again.
[...]
I'm so sick of Republican-lite.
Pro-life AND pro-privatization? Why don't we just put fucking Tom DeLay in as DNC chair???
If Roehmer is in as Chair, I'm out.
MimiKatz:
I gave thousands in this last election but not one dime for the DNC or his type of candidates if Roemer is the chair.
Boring Dem:
If Roemer is chosen as DNC chair, I will never donate to a democrat or to the party again, nor will I ever vote for one again. I'd say my politics are moderate left of center, but they don't include appeasement, and they aren't defined by sure-fire losing policies. This party has a chance to make something good happen now, but it also has a chance to become completely irrelevant. The choice is theirs---those few people at the top who don't listen to little folks like me. I'm not optimistic.
David in Burbank:
Why would anyone vote for a fake republican when they could vote for a real one?
How is a policy of being more like your opponent going to win us national elections?
If the Demoicrats in DC shove this kind of approach down our throats again, I will really be pissed.
wph:
If Roemer is selected for DNC Chair this will absolutely kill my motivation. Watching Dean crash and burn seeing Bush get back in was heartbreaking to say the least. My only hope now is to get a "reform" chair so we have a realistic chance of winning things back. If they not only go for status quo but veer right to "appease" so called moderates I will lose all faith that the Dems seriously want to win election.
MJB:
Sorry Roemer, no DINOs
If Roemer or any other DINO becomes DNC chair, then it will be time for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to become its own party.
Anderson Republican:
I thought Democrats wanted.....
....to be different from Republicans.
This guy's about as different as a Nestle bar to a Hershey.
God, they really need to get over the fact that the grass roots thinks they're full of shit, swallow their pride, and take either Dean or Rosenberg.
Lestatdelc:
Fuck Roemer with his pants on
[...]
Fuck Roemer and fuck him right now.
This man is a fucking ignoramus and menace to the party and what we rightly stand for.
Alumbrados:
If Roehmer is chair...
...I'm done with the DNC. Not a single dollar will go to them. Until they decide to start representing Democrats, they will not be able to rely on me and I will let me friends know they shouldn't support them as well.
Support is a two way street.
If the Democratic Party isn't going to listen to me, I'm not going to listen to them. They have a choice to make. Represent the people of the Democratic Party, or continue to play CYA with their choices. If they decide to go with people like Roehmer, than I will abstain when requested to vote. If the Democrats can't differentiate themselves from the Republicans on the issues that matter to me the most, than there simply isn't any reason to vote for them at all.
fishwars:
Anti-abortion is a deal breaker for me
I'm seriously considering registering in the Green Party if this trend continues in the Democratic party.
Frederick Clarkson:
The DP will lose alot of people if theu feel sold out on abortion and/or social security. This would be a great big Christmas presdent to Ralph Nader, and probably save the Green party from oblivion.
hardleft:
If the democratic party is dragged further to the right, it will split. It will no longer be able to claim to be the voice of the working families.
It will be the party of the Hollywood agenda and Wall Street. I and most progressives will be gone.
Boring Dem:
We are totally fucked
There's no point even paying attention now.
The fact that Pelosi and Reid, the two biggest leaders in our party, are looking for another anti-abortion candidate, and one who favor SS privatization to boot, shows that Neville Chamberlain's ghost still haunts our party.
I am SOOO discouraged. There really isn't any reason to vote for Democrats any more, or give the party one cent.
These are just some of the comments about Roemer. I quoted the ones with swearing because I think it illustrates the passion against his candidacy.
Since the soft money ban (which Roemer opposed), political parties have come to rely on small donations from the very people who are making these comments. As the DNC website reminds us:
In 2000, the DNC only raised $35 million in small donations. Most of our resources -- over $150 million -- came in large donations. But in 2004, there was a remarkable turnaround. This year, the vast majority of our funding -- over $248 million -- came from average Americans donating what they could, while large donations actually went down to just $105 million -- less than a third of our total.
In the past four years, the DNC expanded its small donor base seven fold, from 400,000 in 2000 to 2.7 million in 2004.
Can the Democratic Party afford to elect Tim Roemer as DNC Chair?
Really, can we afford it?
Posted at 06:11 pm by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
Bill O'Reilly is full of Shit
Since our launch in May 2004, Media Matters for America has monitored, analyzed, and corrected conservative misinformation in the news media 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our staff recently reviewed the misinformation we've identified and corrected during those eight months in order to choose our first annual "Misinformer of the Year."
Of all the news anchors, columnists, pundits, and reporters whose work we've critiqued and corrected, one stands above all the rest. We're pleased to announce that with at least 75 (we stopped counting) lies, distortions, and mischaracterizations, television host, columnist, radio host, former Inside Edition anchor, man of the people, and Harvard University graduate Bill O'Reilly can now claim the title: 2004 Misinformer of the Year. We've compiled a list of some of his most egregious false and misleading claims of 2004 for your reading pleasure. We've left out comments that were merely offensive, but you can see where he ranks on our list of the Top Ten Most Outrageous Comments of 2004 here.
Without further ado:
- O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
- O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
- O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
- O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)
- O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
- O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
- O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
- O'Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention ... as Kennedy spoke behind him. O'Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up." In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)
- O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
- O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
Posted to the web on Thursday December 23, 2004 at 1:11 PM EST
Posted at 11:23 am by blog swarm
Political News Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
