Karl Rove Steals Elections

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic argument is that the networks called Florida for Gore at 7:50pm EST, with the polls closing at 8:00pm EST. However the panhandle part of florida is in the central time zone, so the polls didnt close there for another hour. the panhandle is heavily conservative. Some people think that a lot of bush voters ended up staying home because the election had already been called for gore.

[/ QUOTE ]
I found this National Review article by John Lott. (The "Controversy" section of his Wikipedia entry is pretty funny.)

Anyway, Lott concludes "that Bush received as many as 7,500 to 10,000 fewer votes than he would normally have expected."

[ QUOTE ]
4. DON'T FORGET THE EARLY MEDIA CALL

Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.

Polling conducted after the election indicates that the media had an impact on voter behavior, and that the perception of Democratic wins discouraged Republican voters. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

Using voting data for presidential elections from 1976 to 2000, my own own empirical estimates that attempted to control for a variety of factors affecting turnout imply that Bush received as many as 7,500 to 10,000 fewer votes than he would normally have expected. Little change appears to have occurred in the rate that non-Republicans voted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
People like Palast aren't interested in what actually happened during the election, they are interested in promoting one side.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you conclude that Palast "[isn't] interested in what actually happened during the election" and that he is "only interested in promoting one side"? In a prior post I linked to an audio interview Palast's site described thusly:

[ QUOTE ]
Palast explains the oil game in Iraq, the deal behind the U.S. attorney scandal, Hillary Clinton’s shameful corruption and her husband’s pardon of arch-criminal Mark Rich, and the deal struck by Republicans to impeach Bill only for the silly sex scandal instead of his felonious relationship with the Indonesian Riady family billionaires as long as the Democrats promised not to expose the Republican’s felonious connections to the American Koch family billionaires.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've read and watched a lot of Palast's work, and he is an equal-opportunity investigative reporter. He's first and foremest skeptical of people in power, be they Republicans or Democrats. He doesn't tend to frame things as Republicans vs. Democrats, but rather in terms of power structures and behind-the-scenes shenanigans that otherwise go largely unreported.

[ QUOTE ]
He may actually be right about what Rove did, I don't know, but either way I don't give him very much credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you'd not "give [Palast] very much credibility." Can't you just look at his claims and evidence as objectively as you can and come to your own conclusions?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"He first says taht the statistics demonstrate that if you are a black voter, your vote is 900% more likely to be miscounted than if you are white. Fine, I don't doubt it."

Is that what he said? Or did he say if you live in a BLACK MAJORITY PRECINCT, your vote is 600% more liekly to be miscounted?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would make the statement even more ridiculous for New Mexico. I wonder if there are any black majority precincts in New Mexico. I'm guessing that there aren't any. If there are they're very few.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you'd not "give [Palast] very much credibility." Can't you just look at his claims and evidence as objectively as you can and come to your own conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because when he is talking about something like the 2000 election, I doubt I am getting both sides of the story. It's not necessarily that I think he is lying or making stuff up, I don't really, but he has an agenda, and I'd be stupid not to think of that when I'm listening to him. The end result is that a lot of what he writes is not worth very much on its own.

How many times has he mentioned the election being called early? That had a huge impact on things too and should definitely be mentioned in any honest discussion about the election but I'd be suprised if he cared very much. The same way that I doubt john lott gives two [censored] about the bad stuff rove did. If he has mentioned it a lot I stand corrected.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you'd not "give [Palast] very much credibility." Can't you just look at his claims and evidence as objectively as you can and come to your own conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because when he is talking about something like the 2000 election, I doubt I am getting both sides of the story. It's not necessarily that I think he is lying or making stuff up, I don't really, but he has an agenda, and I'd be stupid not to think of that when I'm listening to him. The end result is that a lot of what he writes is not worth very much on its own.

How many times has he mentioned the election being called early? That had a huge impact on things too and should definitely be mentioned in any honest discussion about the election but I'd be suprised if he cared very much. The same way that I doubt john lott gives two [censored] about the bad stuff rove did. If he has mentioned it a lot I stand corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's accurate to apply a "he said, she said" frame to the 2000 Florida voting story. I think the difference is that on the one hand you have credible evidence to support a conspiracy among the leadership of one political party to suppress large numbers of minority voters, and on the other hand you have the television networks erroneously or improperly calling the election at a time that cost a candidate votes.

I don't see the two as deserving equal scrutiny in terms of their nefariousness and potential illegality, and in terms of their consequences the scale of the former dwarfs the estimates I've seen for the latter.

As usual, and as you've articulated, the best advice is probably to gather as much information on the topic at hand from a wide variety of sources and come to your own conclusions. I just object to dismissing Palast as someone "interested in promoting one side" or not giving him "much credibility" for the reasons you stated.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...58769441262005

Greg Palast, American and investigative reporter for the BBC, has exposed the GOP and Karl Rove as criminal thugs. The media is off in the corner, flirting with some floozy, but the internets are fighting back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good vid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nielsio, I'm guessing you won't like Palast as much after viewing his thoughts on 9/11 (not) being an inside job.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol, he really embarresses himself there.

But it's typical, you know. People who know so much about the lies and atrocities of the state, and this guy particularly knows a lot, but then the question of 9/11 arises and he just can't wrap his head around it, and he becomes very hostile. It means that they cannot, for one second, even ponder the plausibility of the theory, and anyone who tries to do it must be attacked immediately. Basic psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm at work and can't watch the video right now, but I've watched it in the past and I think you're mischaracterizing Palast's responses. I remember Palast specifically mentioning investigating claims of controlled demolotions, etc. and not finding anything to support that conclusion. He didn't just dismiss the theory as nonsense, but he did come to a different conclusion than you did.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe watch again.

He starts off very reasonable, objective, calm, but then it turns ugly, and then it just builds on itself (he becomes uninterruptable, loud, starts making strange claims and avoids the questions asked).

[/ QUOTE ]
Nielsio: I watched the video again last night and just don't agree with your analysis of Palast's responses. I thought he came across fine.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a February 12, 2003 statement

[ QUOTE ]
In very clear words, Osama bin Laden told the people of Iraq to rise up against both American aggression and against "socialist" Saddam Hussein.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

another one who posts in irrelevant comment responding to the claim they were AT WAR.

You may also not want to put too much trust in public statements by OBL. some war

[/ QUOTE ]
You realize the Weekly Standard article you linked to (from 2003) has largely been debunked, right? I mean, it concludes:

[ QUOTE ]
But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're also clearly just quibbling over the definition of "at war." Bin Laden oversaw operations to destabilize secular governments in the region, including Saddam Hussein's. This qualifies in my mind as being "at war," but you're entitled to your opinion.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...58769441262005

Greg Palast, American and investigative reporter for the BBC, has exposed the GOP and Karl Rove as criminal thugs. The media is off in the corner, flirting with some floozy, but the internets are fighting back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good vid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nielsio, I'm guessing you won't like Palast as much after viewing his thoughts on 9/11 (not) being an inside job.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol, he really embarresses himself there.

But it's typical, you know. People who know so much about the lies and atrocities of the state, and this guy particularly knows a lot, but then the question of 9/11 arises and he just can't wrap his head around it, and he becomes very hostile. It means that they cannot, for one second, even ponder the plausibility of the theory, and anyone who tries to do it must be attacked immediately. Basic psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm at work and can't watch the video right now, but I've watched it in the past and I think you're mischaracterizing Palast's responses. I remember Palast specifically mentioning investigating claims of controlled demolotions, etc. and not finding anything to support that conclusion. He didn't just dismiss the theory as nonsense, but he did come to a different conclusion than you did.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe watch again.

He starts off very reasonable, objective, calm, but then it turns ugly, and then it just builds on itself (he becomes uninterruptable, loud, starts making strange claims and avoids the questions asked).

[/ QUOTE ]
Nielsio: I watched the video again last night and just don't agree with your analysis of Palast's responses. I thought he came across fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because Nielsio is describing himself, not Palast.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]

You realize the Weekly Standard article you linked to (from 2003) has largely been debunked, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Back it up.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You realize the Weekly Standard article you linked to (from 2003) has largely been debunked, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's been almost 4 years since that article was written. Read this and draw your own conclusions. We can slog through this if you want but it's kind of pointless.