Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Did Kerry win afterall?

Last year, in response to the 2000 presidential election debacle, Sen. John Kerry and John Edwards promised supporters that they would work to count every vote and make sure every vote counts.

On election day, early exit polls seemed to indicate that was happening and that Kerry/Edwards would be elected. However later in the day, in several key battleground states, the exit polls were said be wrong, leading to a victory for George Bush.

To many there was always a question of "how could the exit polls be so wrong?" Now there is a study by the US Counts Votes that shows that possibly the polls weren't wrong. In Monday's Washington Post, Terry Neal writes that the USCV study "suggests the early exit polls that showed Kerry beating Bush may have been accurate after all."

While very exciting, reading the charts in the back of the study it appears that if the exit polls were correct, Kerry would have picked up votes in many states but only Iowa (7 electoral college votes), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) clearly voted for Kerry rather than Bush. If Kerry had received those three states, the 17 electoral vote change would meant a 269-269 tie rather than a 286-252 Bush win.

That leaves Ohio, for which the study showed two exit polls, an early one showing Kerry winning 52.1% to 47.9% and a late one showing Bushing winning 50.9% - 48.6%. Florida had three exit poll results and while the race was basically even Kerry was not ahead in any of the exit polls.

So was Ohio accurately counted? In 2000 the media tried to determine that regarding Florida and perhaps came up with a mixed result. (Although assuming Florida was basically a tie, how does the guy who otherwise was in second place in both the electoral college and popular vote end up President?)

If Kerry had only won Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. Could Kerry have won in the House? Maybe not since the GOP has the majority, but maybe Ohio would have been examined closer, eliminating the need for the House vote.

One comment heard a lot last fall was something along the line of "whoever wins I hope it's not close." While there might not have been a conspiracy, individually many voting officials may have repeatedly gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, increasing his vote total. After all, didn't this kind of behavior take place in Florida in 2000? (Did Florida Secrtary of State Katherine Harris do anything that hurt Bush?)

Kerry may well have won Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico AND Ohio, which would have been a 289-249 win, and based on what the Bush people believe, this would have been quite a mandate. That also might have meant the GOP lost the Presidential election four times in a row.

Friday, April 22, 2005

GOP(H)'s new name

In effort to keep up with the times and their actions it has been suggested that the Republican Party change its name from the Grand Old Party to the Grand Old Party of Hypocrites.

After using their minions to pummel Sen. John Kerry last fall with questionable accusations that apparently had a small, but effective, impact on the voting public (enough to win Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico) the GOPH is now upset that the Democrats and turned the table on them and may have a a small, but effective, impact on the Foreign Relations Committee (enough to change votes in Ohio, Nebraska, and Rhode Island) which could send John Bolton's nomination down to defeat.

Of course, the GOPH would say that the situations are very different, and they probably are. For example, most of the Swift Vets accusations have proven untrue, yet on Bolton most of the accusations have not been disproved. (For extra hypocrisy credit, read White House press secretary Scott McClellan's refusal to disprove the allegations, only saying that they are
"unsubstantiated allegations." Probably just a bunch of Democrats complaining, I'm sure.

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that former secretary of state Colin L. Powell has weighed in on the matter.

"On two occasions, he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," a Democratic congressional aide said.

In addition, the Los Angeles Times reported that A former U.S. ambassador to South Korea said yesterday that John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice for U.N. ambassador, might have misled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about a provocative and controversial 2003 speech on North Korea.

One might wonder why the White House is sticking by Bolton and why they would want him around. But considering the cast of characters at the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice), Bolton is just another crybaby who believes in the mantra "it's my way or the highway." The idea that one is working for the general good is unimaginable to these people.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Character assassination is wrong, unless we're doing it

In two episodes this week, the White House and GOP House leadership decried the attacking of members of their party by Democrats, which is ironic considering they, and their minions, had no problem doing so during the 2004 election.

The ultimate expression of hypocrisy was made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who complained "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction and the criminalization of politics.

Last fall E.J. Dionne Jr. pointed out the ridiculousness of this argument when DeLay first made it, noting the origins of the comment. "We must stop the politics of personal destruction," [President Bill] Clinton said in December 1998 after the House impeachment vote that DeLay had rammed through.

One could say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but apparently the GOP does not agree. The White House, stung by the fact a Republican member of Congress found both his conscious and backbone at the same time and threatened to not support the nomination of John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador, found it necessary to have spokesman Scott McClellan proclaim that the allegations are "trumped-up" and part of an "ugly" campaign to destroy Bolton's character.

Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich set the delay in the vote on Bolton in motion after listening to a long presentation by Democrats regarding problems with Bolton. Too often Bush has succeeded because his supporters had closed their minds to differing information. Unable to apply earplugs and blinders to the GOP committee members, the Republicans, who outnumbered Democrats 10-8, looked at the possibility of a 9-9 vote, or even worse 7-11 if both Sen. Lincoln Chafee and Sen. Chuck Hagel joined together to vote their conscience.

Perhaps the GOP is worried that at long last, given enough information, Americans will say enough is enough and turn against the GOP.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Don't treat us like we treat you

Following years of crushing politicians and others for sport, the news media has now found itself getting a dose of its own medicine, and it doesn't like it.

On Monday Howard Kurtz's column (When Blogs Bite Back) was a collection of news media mainly complaining about the email they receive regarding their work. Granted it is a lot easier to send a nasty email than a letter, or write a blog, but has the world changed that much or is it just easier to scream today?

If the public's reaction has become nastier, the increasingly caustic nature of online criticism is the result of the Rushification or Coulterization of the Internet. Rush, Coulter and others have attacked politicians and others and today many bloggers are merely following the example of Hate Radio, except their target is now the media.

And now Time magazine has chosen Coulter to be its poster girl for this week's issue. Too often the punditocracy thinks its neat to feature people like Coulter and Limbaugh, no matter the damage they are doing to the public discourse. And people like Kurtz, after promoting Limbaugh (He's so mainstream that those right-wingers Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert had him on their Election Night coverage) don't understand why there's a problem.

So when will Michael Moore become a fixture as a election night commentator on the major networks?

If reporters don’t like being questioned by bloggers perhaps they should stop giving them so much ammunition. From the Post’s John Harris “Mr. Bush Catches a Washington Break,” to Jane Hall’s Columbia Journalism Review article showing how the press trashed Al Gore in 2000, to Mark Halperin’s criticism that the press shouldn’t ARTIFICALLY hold both campaigns equally accountable, to Dan Fromkin recent criticism of the press pool questions of Bush on Air Force One, readers are left with the impression that even journalists think there’s something wrong with today’s coverage.

Everyone is going to occasionally make factual mistakes. But the bigger problem is the approach one takes to the story, who is quoted, who is not, what stories are covered and which aren’t.

Now there’s no need for ugliness in reviewing this but the blogosphere is a reflection of today’s political environment, which in large part was created by another new media – talk radio.

Friday, April 15, 2005

Beware of the Tax Day Lies

There's an old line about "Beware, the Tax Man Cometh." Actually a better line might be "Beware, the Press Cometh with Tax Misrepresentations. Expect a series of stories on the AMT and high taxes, but little on things like Republican policies make taxes so high, are those paying the most in taxes get the largest share of income and so forth.

So to help everyone out, return to 2004 for Elephant Lies week-long look at the U.S. tax situation. The following are only snippet. For more, read the full version:

April 12 - In the April issue of SmartMoney (a Wall Street Journal publication) several families taxes are reviewed, such as the family from Missouri who under the AMT will pay 15.7% of their 182,300 adjusted gross income to the feds. Another family makes $90,000 finds themselves paying 9.2%. How are these people paying these amounts? Numerous exemptions bring their level well below the 21.4% paid by the top 10% of Americans (those making over $92,000 in 2001)

April 13 - The
Tax Foundation shows that the top 25% saw their tax payments increase from 17.5% to 18% of income from 1984 to 2001, yet that group's share of overall income went from 57.5% to 65.2%. So for a small increase in taxes they got a huge increase in the overall share of U.S. income.

April 14 - What many people don't understand is that different parts of income are taxed at different levels. People understand that there are different tax rates on different income levels (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%), but conservatives have deceived the public into thinking that if they earn over a certain amount ALL of their income will be taxed at the higher level. In reality, different parts of a person's income are taxed at the different levels. For example, for singles, currently taxable income (AGI minus deductions) up to $7,000 is taxed at 10%, income from $7,001 to $28,400 is taxed at 15%, and so forth. For a complete listing of rates see Yahoo's tax center.

April 15 - When Reagan took office the national debt was around $930 billion dollars. When he left it was $2.6 TRILLION, a 280% increase. For comparison, the debt was around $4 trillion when Bill Clinton took office and around $5.6 when he left, a 40% increase over eight years. Today the debt is $7.1 trillion, a $1.5 trillion increase in THREE years. Most of the increase during Clinton's term was left over from Bush I, which was a hangover from Reagan. In Clinton's final THREE years the debt only increased by $260 billion or 4.8%.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

No Respect

If anyone wonders why the Mainstream Media is suffering from a loss of respect, one only has to look at the actions of the White House typists during a recent meeting with George Bush on Air Force One.

Among the questions posed by the press in the 47 minute interview, which revolved heavily around the recent funeral for Pope John Paul II, were: What are your plans this weekend? Had you ever been to a Latin mass before; I imagine you've been to an English mass? Did he (Pope) speak English? What has it been like spending time with the former Presidents for three days?

To be fair, among the seven invited to ask questions was Bill Sammon from the Washington Times, best known for his hatchet job reporting on Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. However the rest of the group included representatives of the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, Newsweek, NBC and ABC.

While the interview got a lot of positive spin and there were a few semi-tough questions, at least one press observer, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post, figured out the typists missed the boat.

Entirely missing, by contrast, were any questions about whether he thinks it's okay to eject dissenters from his public events, or what his exit strategy is for Iraq, or what effect the latest reports on flawed intelligence have on his doctrine of preemptive war -- or even why, at the pope's funeral, he wouldn't shake hands with his adversaries.

There are some signs that Bush may chat with the press more in his second term. But why not? Apparently he doesn't have to worry about the White House lap dogs asking tough questions.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Who Cares What You Think

With the nomination John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, George W. Bush has decided to tell America and the world that he doesn't care what they think.

How else could one explain Bush's actions? After the numerous investigations into the problems with America's intelligence community and how wrong they were on Iraq, why would one nominate an individual who attempted to bully intelligence analysts?

The idea that Bush must be thinking "Screw you" comes to mind.

Possibly Bush doesn't appreciate being shown that he ginned up a war in Iraq on fake evidence. His defenders say the world is better off without Saddam. That's true but will anyone believe the U.S. when confronting Iran or North Korea. Countries that poise an ACTUAL danger to the world.

During the confirmation hearings, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr. Bolton's record would undercut any American attempt to warn the United Nations of Iran's or North Korea's suspected weapons programs.

And it's not like the administration should be surprised by any of this. According to the New York Times, Committee Chairman Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not to nominate Bolton as deputy secretary of state because he could not be confirmed.

But now, if Sen. Lincoln Chaffee rolls over and votes to approve Mr. Bolton, can the world take him or the U.S. government seriously? Perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for is that the world will investigate what he says and determine what is believable. The worst case is they automatically disbelieve everything we say.

Screw You America & The World.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

If the Schiavo memo was authentic...

In a blow to right wing bloggers, the legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, according to the Washington Post.

Rightwing bloggers questioned the authenticity of the memo, comparing it to the unauthenticated CBS documents about Bush's National Guard service.

In attempting to limit the potential harm the GOP memo could do, bloggers attacked the media, questioning whether the memo was authentic, how many people saw it, and so forth.

When it first appeared, Cliff Kincaid of the conservative Accuracy in Media wrote The memo may have been written by some Republican somewhere. But there's no independent evidence at this point that it was authorized by a Republican Senator or written by a top Republican staffer.

The Right now can narrowly claim it wasn't authorized or written by a top staffer as Sen. Martinez wasn't a big fish. However, isn't the real question, just like with the Bush memos, whether there a bigger story waiting to be found?

Kincaid asked the right question - Didn't we learn anything from Memogate? In Memogate bloggers and the media only examined the authenticity of the memo, not whether the overall story was accurate. This time the bloggers attacked the memo (which turned out to be authentic) AND also the story, which may have been more of a molehill rather than a mountain.

Why not look at both on the SUBJECT of the CBS story? The memo was only a part of the story. Perhaps no one really wants to admit that if the Schiavo memo was authentic then maybe there was more to the claims of Bush not completing his military duty.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

I Shave

I seem to recall an old Doonesbury cartoon from the Nixon era where a member of the media asks the an administration official what he does after looking in the mirror and thinking of all the lies he will be tell.

"I shave," said the character.


One has to wonder if that is a daily occurrence on the Right. A recent controversy is the blogger's attempt to prove that a memo supposedly given to Republican senators by an unknown group was faked and probably the result of Democrats.

Fred Barnes of the Standard told the Washington Post that the reporting of the memo was unfair but not unsurprising, since "the press is much tougher on Republicans." The sound you just heard may have been Al Gore, unmercifully and unfairly targeted by the media in 2000, falling out of his chair in shock.

Right. Excuse me but the reason Bush was able to limit his loss in the 2000 Presidential election to only a half million votes was the media's dishonest "War On Gore." If Florida was counted fairly, Gore wins not only the popular vote, but also the electoral college, 292 to 246, a significant win. To believe the media played no role in influencing Al Gore's vote total is to suspend belief, which is what many on the Right do on a daily basis.


Those on the right believe they are looking at another memogate like they had with Dan Rather. And I'm sure they are hoping for the same outcome. You know, investigate whether the media should have checked if a memo was legit, not whether the story was legit.

Afterall what's the story? In the CBS's case was it that Bush might have shirked his military obligation or that there was a questionable memo that alleged Bush shirked his duty?
Hmm, lets see. There is one common ideal (investigate whether there is truth to the story), or check and see if the documents are accurate? Why not both?

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Where is the Outrage in America?

During the 1996 presidential election Sen. Bob Dole used to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" because he didn't think voters we getting upset enough about minor issues like Al Gore going to a Buddhist temple and some staffer reviewing FBI files.

After the recent release of the intelligence report one really has to ask "Where is the outrage in America?" But perhaps the bigger question should be
"Who Gets Held to Account?"

On a recent on-line chat in the Washington Post, intelligence reporter Dana Priest responded to a question asking if anyone would be held responsible

Dana Priest: Well, President Bush gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. And the voters gave President Bush another term. SecDef Rumsfeld is in perfect standing with the president. His deputy is moving on to head the World Bank. The head of the other large intel agency, the National Security Agency (does eavesdropping) is becoming Negroponte's deputy. That leaves only the worker bees.

Surely, one might think, someone higher will be held accountable. Don't bet on it.
Mark Silva wrote in the Chicago Tribune: "Bush has long refused to assign specific blame for intelligence failures to himself or top aides. What is not clear is whether Americans will accept this in the face of this latest, unusually scathing report.

But how can anyone blame Bush if he was everyone was united in giving him bad news so there must not have been any dissenting views. Um, well that's not how things went.

Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman wrote in The Washington Post that it's not like no one spoke up. "Up until the days before U.S. troops entered Iraqi territory that March, the intelligence community was inundated with evidence that undermined virtually all charges it had made against Iraq, the report said."

Dole's had another good question that fits much more today than in 1996 -
When will the voters start to focus?

When indeed.