Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCorrections: In Which The New York Times Perpetuates the Myth It Created -— That George Bush Won Florida in 2000
"In 2001 painstaking postmortems of the Florida count, one by The New York Times and another by a consortium of newspapers, concluded that Mr. Bush would have come out slightly ahead, even if all the votes counted throughout the state had been retallied."
--Alessandra Stanley, New York Times, May 23, 2008 in a review of the HBO television movie, Recount
That's not true.
The New York Times did not do its own recount. It did participate in a consortium. Here's what they actually said:
"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."
--Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder New York Times, November 12, 2001
Why did Ms. Stanley make such an important and fundamental error?
It is not a trivial matter. It is a common piece of misinformation. Many, many people believe it. Now a few more do, as a result of Ms. Stanley's review.
It is not a trivial matter. Because that misinformation was created by one of the most bizarre, and still completely unexplained, journalistic events in modern times.
Here's what happened.
George Bush appeared to have won Florida, and therefore the presidency.
The law in Florida was actually quite simple and direct:
Æ'(4) If the returns for any office reflect that a candidate was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, ... the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure.
That is one of the simplest and most clearly written bits of legislation I've ever seen anywhere.
The Florida court thought so too and ordered a recount.
Then the United States Supreme Court stepped in and shut the recounts down.
Bush was left as the victor and became the president.
But, presumably, the whole world wanted to know who actually did get the most votes. It would make a great and important story. But getting the truth was too time consuming and expensive for any single news organization, so a consortium was formed. It consisted of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN.
It took almost a year and cost over a million dollars.
All the news organizations had the same information: Al Gore got more legal, countable votes than George Bush.
Here are the headlines:
The New York Times: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote."
The Wall Street Journal: "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help,"
Los Angeles Times: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds."
The Washington Post: "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush"
CNN.com: "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins."
The St. Petersburg Times: "Recount: Bush."
If you were still interested after the headlines, and bothered to read the stories, it didn't get much better.
I read it in the New York Times. Frankly, I missed the key paragraph, until I saw it pointed out in an article by Gore Vidal.
I subsequently went back and read all the stories.
The Times was the worst in terms of active misdirection.
They spent the first three paragraphs supporting the headline, and they explicitly stated that Bush would have won even with a statewide recount.
Finally, in the fourth paragraph -- if you got that far -- was the statement quoted above:
"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."
There it was. A very simple statement. Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush.
It is also very well buried. It had arcania about chads on both sides of it. Even so, as if in a panic to make sure that nobody might think that it mattered that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, the Times dismissed what the Consortium had spent a million dollars to find out: "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes." Even though that would seem to be a fairly obvious interpretation of the law and it is what was found when someone actually did sit down and count the votes.
The rest of the story, another four paragraphs, detailed a variety of other possible recounts, all partial recounts -- these counties, but not those counties -- that the Gore lawyers or the Bush lawyers asked for at various times. Bush would have won all of those variations, he just didn't get the most votes in Florida.
Not that the all variations mattered much. The Florida court had ordered a state wide recount.
The news story spinners hung their hat on a technicality.
Florida law, as affirmed by the courts, says a vote most be counted if there is "a clear indication of the intent of the voter."
When the questions and lawsuits started, they were about undervotes.
An undervote is when a voter has tried to vote but for some reason the counting machines fail to accept it.
The most common cause, in Florida, which used a punch system, was that the punching device did not make a clear hole in the voting card. The piece of paper that was supposed to be knocked out, a chad, was hanging, or only broken on two corners, or merely dented.
While the machines couldn't discern the "intent of the voter," the human eye often could. So we had the spectacle, and the jokes, about "hanging chads," as the recounts began.
If only the undervotes were counted, by some standards of judging them, then Bush would have won.
But the consortium recount came across something else -- overvotes.
An overvote is when someone punches in the name of the candidate, and then, just to make sure, writes their name on the ballot. The machines could only read that the ballots had been marked in two places and threw them out.
But a human being, who saw that the place to vote for Gore had been punched and then, that Gore's name had been written in, could easily determine the intent of the voter.
So the reporters for the consortium kept track of those too, and found out that Gore actually won.
Had the people inspecting the votes in the actual recount, also noticed overvotes, and would they have done something about them?
The answer appears to be yes.
Newsweek has uncovered hastily scribbled faxed notes written by Terry Lewis, the plain-speaking, mystery-novel writing state judge in charge of the Florida recount, .... -- just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its order--Lewis was actively considering directing the counties to also count an even larger category of disputed ballots, the so-called "overvotes," which were rejected by the machines because they purportedly recorded more than one vote for president. ....
"Judge, if you would, segregate 'overvotes' as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter," Lewis wrote in a note to Judge W. Wayne Woodard, chairman of the Charlotte County Canvassing Board on the afternoon of December 9, 2000. "I will rule on the issue for all counties, Thanks, Terry Lewis."
Newsweek, The Final Word? Michael Isikoff, 11/19/01
That leaves us with a big question.
The largest, most prestigious news organizations in the United States -- pretty much in the world -- discovered a great and exciting story -- the wrong guy was president of the United States.
Also, that the Supreme Court of the United States had interfered in an election to frustrate the actual will of the voters. (Justice Scalia wants us to get over it.)
Why did they so distort the story with misleading headlines, by burying the lead, by blowing so much fog and confusion around it, that almost everybody who read or heard the story, walked away with the false impression that they had deliberately created?
Created so successfully that the NY Times TV show reviewer is repeating it as fact seven years later.
There is no hard, on the record answer to that.
None of the editors or publishers have come forward and said, "This is why we spun the story the way we did, even if it meant pissing away the million dollars we spent to get it."
Nobody has, and nobody can, sue them for gratuitous misinformation and malfeasance, and put them in the witness box under oath to get to the bottom of it.
There is only speculation.
The story is dated November 12, 2001, just two months after September 11, 2001. We can imagine that they universally felt it was not the time to announce a pretender was on the throne and that the system was rotten, right to the top.
But I sure would love to know how they all got on the same page about it. That would make a terrific story. Not as great as the one they threw away, but good enough.
I would also have liked the Times to issue a correction to Ms. Stanley's story. I wrote and suggested one. At the time that I've submitted this, none has appeared.
Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. All available at nationbooks.org. His new novel: SALVATION BOULEVARD will be published in September, 2008, by Nation Books. Responses can be sent to beinhart@earthlink.net
73 Comments so far
Show AllThe New York Times is the nation's Paper of Record -- Record of Errors, that is.
My last comment was for you only Crayon Boy, I don't care if no one else saw it.
No wonder your father gave up on you asshole.
I never said it proved anything, nor did those offering the explaination. You can't find anything by me or they that suggests it's anything more than a possible explaination.
As such, it counters the "*must* have been explosives, exclusively" assertions, so that is not a proven fact as so many like to think.
"Jokenewton is more like it"
That's fine, if it makes you feel better about screwing up the plasma thing.
"fire is in a plasma state"
Yes, but red hot iron is not, Mister Physics. *That's* what we were talking about.
"Recount" was a good movie - I could not have imagined I would have found it interesting. So many things gone wrong, so many ways the Republicans got in the way of democratic ideals and violated the rules of elections, all presented in such clear detail.
This movie didn't go beyond the 2000 election, which is too bad because the most startling thing of all was that after the Republicans did all this election cheating that became obvious in the following months after that election, and after all the awful lies and horrible choices Pres. G.W.Bush made in his first term, Americans still voted for him in 2004. That really blew my mind.
"It was you that asserted against a large assortment of real and credible evidence, that the molten metal couldn't be iron, "
Completely false, and plain to anyone who would want to read the link you provided. I merely said there was no evidence of molten iron. Which is a completely different thing of course.
"and it was me that asked for some examples of anything even close to the WTC "meteorite" formation, ever occurring anywhere before."
Which of course is beyond the pale on your part, since *you* initially offered the photo of that object as proof that there was *molten* metal on the site. You failed to show anything in that photo that indicated metal that flowed, dripped, or puddle, as *molten* metal does.
"Your burden of proof was that ( something like ) 'steam and hot iron reacting to form hydrogen, could have combined to cause the observed heating up the debris pile'".
Yes, as well as the release of additional heat, with the hydrogen of course being itself additional fuel for the existing fire.
"It was my analysis of those bunk website's missing effects that you didn't provide,"
Not only did you not identify any "missing effects" within the explanation I offered from the website in question, you in fact simply ignored it, besides when you got off track when you noted that the reaction in question is the same as rusting. On that you stayed well off track, joking about how steel structures that rust don't seem to be burning to you. When I pointed out that the same reaction can occur at different rates in vastly different temperature levels and different results, you ignored that too and you still have here. Some "analysis".
Verifiable by anyone who wants to look at the thread, while in this thread you continue with the same pattern.
"your memory"
(You) forgot that there was fire in the WTC towers.
" as good as your science "
After claiming in this very thread boasting of your physics prowess, you later state that ionization of iron means it's turned to plasma.
"There is no real score nor winner,"
You misunderstand where you are.
"What temperature do you think Iron ionizes ( turns into a plasma ) at ? "
"Ionization" of iron does not mean "turns to a plasma". It simply means that an atom of iron has released an electron, and thus has become an iron ion. This happens as a result of the application of heat, and is idicated by a red glow.
All a Red Herring, you were to explain to the group the chemical reaction expected when steam is applied to the surface of hot steel, ionized or not, and to tell us about the range of rates at which the oxidation reaction of steel can occur. You never did that in the other thread you were so kind to link to.
"Here's another interesting paragraph from The Times' article:"
Um, that was already addressed by the article we are all replying to, and has since been discussed. I would add that the is considerable ambiguity in the wording of the statement, and that for clarity we should have to go to the raw data from the study.
no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.
Here's another interesting paragraph from The Times' article:
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive ''dimpled chad'' standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.
Many in this discussion demonstrate the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". The Constitution of the United States gives the power to elect the electors for President to the Legislative branch of the States, not the executive and not the judiciary.
Article 2, Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
Note that the Constitution doesn't even specify that the people directly have anything to do with it; it's left only to the State Legislature. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that what the Florida Supreme Court was doing was recreating the "Manner" of the election by making things up as they went along. The famous 5-4 vote was not about this issue; they had already decided that what the Florida Supreme Court was doing was wrong- it was just about wether or not there was still time to affect a constitutional solution to the recount.
Also this final decision was issued on Dec 12. That is that last day of the so called "safe harbor" provision whereby a state's electors will be counted without question; after that date it is to the House of Representatives to decide who is seated as electors and who is not. Should the other justices have prevailed and a recount had somehow shown Gore a winner – the Republican State Legislators would have still certified their electors and guess who the Republican House would have chosen!
It's a messed up and archaic system but it is the Law of the Land and this time, to the detriment of so many, young George got to try and play his Daddy, with disastrous results. Like it or not, it was not a stolen election, really it was a dead heat that came down legally for the Republicans.
Don't like- vote Obama and give change a chance instead of voting for the man who caused this mess to start with- one of my former heros until he decided his ego was more important than the country- yeah I'm talking about you Ralph the Spoiler.
"Please — Mr. Bush won Florida by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court."
And the ruling that halted the recount was 7-2.
"Here's another interesting paragraph from The Times' article:"
Yes, but the article also makes clear that those results assume that the canvassing groups approached the overcounts in the same way that the study had.
"to ionizing temperatures from simple gravitational collapse"
LOLOL!!! It was from *fire* dumass! Iron will ionize in a friggin' wood fire!!! So much for your credibility on physics.
Kudos for your use of the tags that make different colors and fonts sized though. How much they pay you for that?
Now, on your to do list for this thread is to substantiate how the Supreme Court "reversed itself" on anything, and to challenge any of the arguments that I made in this thread.
Please -- Mr. Bush won Florida by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court.
Here's another interesting paragraph from The Times' article:
In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical -- a statewide recount -- could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.
I found this from a Google search which gave me a link to:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
More important, Mister Physics, if you might explain to the group what chemical reaction will occur if steam is applied to iron at an ionized temperature.
"Jake buzzes like one of those nuisance insects and often is not FIT for a reply."
Use any excuse you want for leaving an argument on the table, it's still on the table.
Why can't the Democrats learn to rig elections better? I know it's tough if you have a Supreme Court like ours filled to the gills with right wing freaks in black robes but why not give it the old college try?
Good morning, NAMASTE: As for karma re: Jake... here's a possibly applicable analogy. I get my best intuitive guidance when I bike into the springs and find my secluded spot deep in the forest where an occasional deer or armadillo comes by to say "hello," and do Yoga. What is very hard to deal with, turns into by turns "salsa" Yoga and/or Kamakazi (spelling?) Yoga are the vicious insects who find me great bait right there. Now some Buddhists would kill nothing, not even swat at the creature that could carry an illness which in turn could kill many more persons. I am not THAT kind of Buddhist. So far as I can tell, Jake buzzes like one of those nuisance insects and often is not FIT for a reply. Elitist? Perhaps... but he almost sounds like a broken record, or a Lily Tomlin immitation of the annoying phone operator that puts you on hold while repeating a message that by all accounts is not much more than a mind f--k. Of course if it stimulates your reflex to debate, by all means hone your game. That's what a nemesis may in the final analysis be for.
Check what is going on in the Oxy-Fuel cutting process, Mister Physics.
" he squirms to defend his pathetic theory of iron catching fire and melting heaps of debris to molten flow - rust you know, with just a little rain causes so many bridges to ignite into molten flames these days"
As I said, ignorant of the *various rates* at which a reaction can occur under various circumstances. Thanks for doing it again, right here in public, Mister Physics! LOL!
Why are we still discussing this? Can we go back and change anything by continuing this fruitless conversation? Bush won and the best we can do is hope the next president will inspire us to get out of the mess he got us into.
"Jake does appear to inspire both my ( not so well ) hidden physicist "
Can't let this go. *You* are the one who demonstrated a lack of understanding reegarding the variable rates of an oxidation reaction of iron, and what the term "molten" means. What a joke.
"I read the entire article."
OK, but you said:
"Finally, in the fourth paragraph — if you got that far — was the statement quoted above:"
And:
"The rest of the story, another four paragraphs,"
Implying a story totaling 8 paragraphs.
Google the term:
"EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote "
And find the entire article of *41* paragraphs. It should be the first hit.
"The goal of the consortium's project was to determine who actually got the most votes."
False:
' "The intention of the project from NORC's viewpoint is not to identify who got more votes but rather to examine closely the variabilities in the voting systems themselves," said Dr. Kirk Wolter, NORC's Senior Vice President for Statistics and Methodology. '
http://www2.norc.org/fl/press.asp
"exposing motives of those who would prefer to put a monkeywrench into all that's decent, honest and truly just."
You should not worry about motive if you aren't as yet handling the substance of the discussion.
"Your apparent "conservative" bent would inform you of the nominal preference for state's rights,"
Miserable Straw Man, tell this to someone who *actually* made a claim about State's Rights.
"SO why does the SCOTUS massively reverse itself "
What "reversal"!?!? They had three *different* cases before them regarding the election, this subtlety is lost on you I guess.
"Perhaps matti's "unconstitutional" is a trifle exaggerated, "
The question remains on the table.
"I've got your number.
"
So I'll not expect an answer from you soon?
"Jakenewton is infamous in being so well paid for doing really so little to say anything other than, just go back to sleep, trust your govt and corporations."
Smacked Ass, you.
"The Supremes have shi$ to do with choosing the President, the states do."
Unless of course, the candidates have a disagreement about what the state is doing. The question on constitutionality stands.
Bush was better for the Zionists after Ariel Sharon got to screen our presidential candidates. It's really that simple. Bush was the Zionist's boy, and manipulation of our electoral system is not a big deal to the dual-loyalty traitors in our press and government.
Antonin Scalia's son, Clarence Thomas's wife, and the late William Rehnquist's daughter were appointed to lucrative positions by Bush immediately afterwards. This was a clear, blatant and shameless violation of judicial ethics; any lesser court judge who accepted rewards from a recent litigant in whose favor he had ruled would have been removed. In Scalia's and Thomas's case, it's still not too late to impeach and remove these regressive, elitist, antidemocratic political hacks.
jakenewton May 27th, 2008 7:16 pm
"Unconstitutional Interference of the U.S. Supreme Court in an Election."
Could you be specific please?
***********************************************************
Constitution of the United States
Amendment.XII.
Paragraph 3, Sentence 2
The Supremes have shi$ to do with choosing the President, the states do.
The quotes are cut and paste.
The quote may not be from the 4th para of the web version of the story. It may have been in the 4th para in the original print version which I used when I wrote about it some years ago. But the quote is identical and appears in both versions.
Al Gore did not call for a state wide recount.
However, the Florida court called for a state wide hand recount.
As far as I can tell the only "broader category" of votes would have been the overvotes.
There are two kinds of overvotes. One in which two different names are marked. Then it is impossible to discern the intent of the voters. Those would not and should not be counted. But when the same name is marked in two different ways, then the intent is clear and the vote should be counted under Florida law and as the law has been historically applied.
I read the entire article.
My point was that the other paragraphs were obfuscation and distraction.
The goal of the consortium's project was to determine who actually got the most votes.
Although the fact that Gore got the most was in the story, which thereby technically satisfied journalistic ethics, a great deal of effort went in to writing the story in such a way that it was extremely hard to see that.
Most journalists will say that they will always follow the story. If the story is exciting, a good story, a dramatic story, that's what they will report, no matter what.
Clearly the story that the man who was president got fewer votes in the state the swung the election was far more dramatic than, "Oh well, Bush would've won anyway, the Supreme Court didn't matter." There was sufficient material to headline the story "Gore Had More Votes."
Another story as big for me as the above one is the
deliberate disenfranchisement of close to 100,000
Florida voters by a newly hired data processing company.
They are on record as stating (in front of a congressional
committee) that the Harris people urged them to use
race as one of their search criteria. They also warned
Harris that many voters flagged using these search criteria
would be thrown off the rolls erroneously. She told them
not to worry about it.
NAMASTE: You'd make a great lawyer in defense of higher causes, and in exposing motives of those who would prefer to put a monkeywrench into all that's decent, honest and truly just.
GALEN: I sure agree with your "articles" 1-3.
MATTI said, "Hell, you could make a case that because the Appointment of Bush was illegitimate, then EVERYTHING done in office by him was as well, and should perhaps, therefore, be negated." This is exactly how I see it... my "I have a dream" speech would begin with rescinding all the fake laws. Unfortunately the great "video" can't be rewound to replace the very real lives taken, broken, stolen from or displaced. Only part of the tragedy ca be corrected; but doing so, like Impeachment, would mean a cleaner slate for those who have survived and for the world to see.
Why has the majority of people banished Truth from their lives? We'll see what comes of that!!
I apologize, if the *full* article name "EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote " is used, which the author did not use in full, then we can find a near match to the quote on the fourth paragraph on the *third page* of the article.
So it appears at that the author didn't read the whole article himself! He certainly missed the paragraph I did quote, and apparently a slew of others. That paragraph correctly pointed out that there was no reason for the canvassers to arrive at the same decisions about each overvote as the consortium did, having made up the rules themselves about that, in a scenario that never occured in the real recount.
Additionally, by reading the *entire* article and not just the third page, Beinhart would have been aware of many of the other difficulties associated with the recount and maybe wouldn't have been so quick to say "Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush."
"Great post!"
Even with the gross misquote and halftruths I've outlined?
"Are you sure that's the same article? Is that a paraphrased quote?"
Don't take my word, Google the phrase that he refers to, and it refers back to this article of his only. He attributed the quote as follows:
"–Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder New York Times, November 12, 2001"
Then Google this:
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote."
And you will find an article with the above byline. Look at the fourth paragraph which is what I posted, and search in vain for the other quote, as I said, not there.
"Are you suggesting that Mr. Beinhart is making this story up?"
Do as I did here yourself, than answer yourself.
"Also, for you to suggest that we should visit/trust some official site seems fishy to me."
That is the site for the study that Beinhart is using as the central source in this article. The one cited in the NYT article. The one that shows that "Gore won". It doesn't.
What do you think is going on here?
"That would be similar to referring us to the 911 Commission Report to "educate" us about terrorism. I don't trust official reports anymore."
Than you should not trust Beinhart either, cause he is using it. Interesting what happens when you take some time and check things.
Great post! I too consider it a continuing wrong every day that that corrupt, undemocratic and unelected (mal)administration presides over our government. IIRC, the consortium announced that they had delayed the release of the report so as not to stir questions during wartime, about the legitimacy of "our" Commander-in-Chief. Cute, huh? Kind of like how the Supreme Court held that counting votes would deprive Bush of his right to take office. What has become of us?
jakenewton
Are you sure that's the same article? Is that a paraphrased quote?
Are you suggesting that Mr. Beinhart is making this story up? I have been following the whole thing all along. The 2000 election inconsistencies within the media and leadership have been significant enough to cast a huge shadow of doubt over our free and fair elections for a century.
Also, for you to suggest that we should visit/trust some official site seems fishy to me. That would be similar to referring us to the 911 Commission Report to "educate" us about terrorism. I don't trust official reports anymore.
Why should this be a surprise. The Iraq war would have never gotten off the ground if it wasn't for those cracker jack reporters at the Times and The "Kaplan" Times - the test company that actually owns The Washington Post. Our liberal media at work. Without the Times I would have had no idea that Sadam had weapons of Mass Destruction and Bill Kristol - who's been wrong about almost everything he's ever written - would have to find a real job. The New York Times all the fake stories fit to print. Keep up the good work guys.
"Unconstitutional Interference of the U.S. Supreme Court in an Election."
Could you be specific please?
Getting bogged down -as this article and some of the comments do- with the technicalities of how the 2000 Florida vote was counted or how it "could've ended up" or in recriminations of the "bad media" that distorts this issue is just as counter-productive and silly as pleas to "get over it" or "move on and not let it happen again".
The Big Problem here is not in the vote, or the count, or the "official story" its in the Unconstitutional Interference of the U.S. Supreme Court in an Election.
This Interference and all the related actions by other parties swirling around it must be accounted for and dealt with or the Republic and Democracy are reduced to shams even in the open record and the public eye.
So yeah, vote for Obama, that won't be a waste of time.
-matti.
Rather than rely on this lousy article, you may want to go right to the NORC Florida Ballot Recount website:
http://www2.norc.org/fl/
"An overvote is when someone punches in the name of the candidate, and then, just to make sure, writes their name on the ballot. "
This is only a partial truth, overvotes also include ballots that had no such writeins, but were spoiled by voting for both Bush and Gore say.
The NYT has become a disgrace. Starting with its Judith Miller drumbeating for the Iraq invasion, continuing through the matter you describe, and including such matters as the failure to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney as well as the ending of the Clinton campaign, the question that keeps recurring is why? The answer has to be either cowardice (though what they're afraid of, I don't know)and/or corruption. Their publisher Sulzberger and their editor Kelleher have to be deeply corrupt people.
The 2000 "presidential election" in the U.S. may be the Crime of the Century.
The list of people and parties that should go down for this is so long -all current members of the Supreme Court who where then sitting and agreed to hear the case, whatever their vote in the Decision, all members of Congress who failed to join the few who directly protested this violation of our Constitution, the G.O.P. and the Democratic Party, the Candidates, any and all federal, state, or local workers or officials who complied without protest and therefore reneged on their Oaths of Office, Bush himself, and all government workers and officials hired or appointed by his office who failed to refuse the legitimacy of his Power, and of course any and all persons, groups, or coporations who co-operated with, or gained from the actions of the illigitimate Bush Administration, and it goes on and on- that I don't believe any thing short of a new Constitutional Convention and some form of peaceful reform or revolution can possibly solve this, or even begin to deal with the scope of this.
Hell, you could make a case that because the Appointment of Bush was illegitimate, then EVERYTHING done in office by him was as well, and should perhaps, therefore, be negated.
This would include UN votes, farm bills, military actions, even Bush's "re-election" run from the White House could be thrown out, making his "second" Term as unconstitutional as his first even without vote rigging.
The list of those not directly accountable or involved but complicit after the fact could extend to the vast majority of the Nation-State's and even the World's population. Unless, of course, we are to be excused due to Media illusions and general powerlessness.
Bono (from U2) meets with Bush to talk about the poor kids or whatever, calls him "Mr. President" without making "bunny ear quotes" in the air, boom, Bono's in the doghouse with everyone else who continued to pay their federal taxes, obey federal laws, or join the federal government employment rolls-including running for office or enlisting in the Military.
Try to remember all of this when you think about or discuss or debate the current "health" of "our" system. The truth is its Bad, real Bad.
And for those who still wish to legitimize this broken machine of State by participation in the upcoming elections: remember that if your choice for Congress or Senate is the incumbant or a former office holder, they might be partially responsible for all this and you should think twice. For "President" the only possible choices would be Nader(I) or McKinney(G), so that narrows that down quite a bit.
In general I would like to suggest:
-If you vote, vote ONLY for those who are not accountable for this Constitution destruction. Make this a line you will not cross and have no fear that your fellow citizens will fail you and all of us and vote in the "bad guy" (presumably McCain for us "liberals"). Remember that ANYONE who will not respect and adhere to the Constitution is a Bad Guy in a Constitutional Republic. The Road Ahead is bumpy, whether the "president" is named Obama or McCain or Clinton or McKinney or St. Francis or Lance Armstrong or Lucinda Williams or anything else.
Just take a deep breath, accept the Truth of this, and do the Right thing, not the "least Wrong" thing, okay?
-If you do NOT vote. Do not go quietly into that good night. Do not hang your head in shame or walk about hiding your guilty face. BE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. Tell everyone you know about your bold choice to say "sit and spin" to the whole damned corrupted mess! Organize your friends or fellow protesters or book club into an Election Boycott group, call the local paper and get a write-up, positive or sneering-doesn't matter. At least take the time to go down to your local polling place and go into the booth and write in "None of the Above" or "No Thank You" or "Daffy Duck" or "Amy Goodman" or something. Go down there and just leave the damn thing blank or blank for the national offices if you want. The point is do SOMETHING. Don't just join the millions who don't bother to make their boss give them sometime off on a Tuesday, don't join the millions who allow themselves to live as mere Subjects more than two centuries into the Modern Democratic Era, don't join the millions who the media will refer to as "apathetic" or "uninterested". Even if you just go to the polls and leave a blank ballot, make sure to find an exit-poller to explain your choice to. If enough people did just that the issue would recieve nation-wide attention.
In some nation-states with shorter traditions of general sufferage elections than the U.S., those who do not participate in the Vote are refered to as "Abstaining" not "Apathetic". Take the small amount of time, and small amount of effort it will take to become a Non-apathetic, Non-voting, Citizen Abstainer. It'll do you good.
Lastly, don't forget while your doing all of this, and all the other Serious Work that needs to be done, to HAVE FUN.
Sure the 21st Century is looking pretty grim at the start, but the 14th was way worse (in Europe) and we didn't even have the Internets then, so buck up and cheer up and let's enjoy ourselves shall we?
-matti.
Here is the actual fourth paragraph from the cited article in it's entirety:
"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes.""
So what'ts going on, Larry Beinhart?
"This is one of many egregious examples of claim and counter-claim deteriorating into a mush of ambiguous factoids whirling around the world while truth and dispassionate scrutiny are hidden in the closet. "
This is true.
"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards"
I just googled this and it only relates back to this article. Why?
PS to PeaceLove above---What the fuck kind of GOP logic is that? A wrong in this election makes the 2000 rip-off OK? "Saint Obama"? Sounds like sour grapes given that all the GOP has is Mitt The Twit or Crazy Old Grandpa, with his shrivelled ghoul of a nurse Joe-mentum Lieberman....Try progress for a change!
I'll never forget or forgive The Boston Globe's version of this slime-fest: they printed an article with the headline saying Bush "actually won" and if you read the article, it said GORE actually won....Cancelled our house's 40 year subscription that day. Permanently.
This is one of many egregious examples of claim and counter-claim deteriorating into a mush of ambiguous factoids whirling around the world while truth and dispassionate scrutiny are hidden in the closet.
What is unambiguous is that the Supreme Court of the United States of America, composed of Bush-friendly cohorts with nepotistic connections to Bush interests, assumed extra-legal jurisdiction and circumvented the merits of the election process by appointing the future Unitard president.
Thus a heinously criminal maladministration was anointed by an equally heinous and corrupt judiciary.
Get over this.
Mr. Beinart,
Well done!
For those who want to see how this misinformation was handled in real time, Robert Parry did the analysis right after the story came out showing that Gore really won.
Gore's Victory Nov. 12, 2001 by Robert Parry
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
Progessives have no right to complain about what happened to Gore when they themselves support disenfranchising FL and MI this time around. Do the ends justify the means? Back then you did not think so--but this time you do...hmmmm. Just as long as progressives get Saint Obama as a nominee, it doesn't matter whose toes you step on.
And on top of all that, as someone pointed out, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, but somehow that didn't stop them from issuing a ruling. The Constitution says the states are in charge of all things having to do with elections.
The official story, for those who actually pay attention, is that once the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to examine the issue, it came down to a case of Bush vs. Gore. Maybe other people should have had standing to say something in this case, given how much was at stake for all of us, but the Supremes only heard arguments from Bush's lawyers and from Gore's lawyers.
Gore's lawyers asked that certain specific jurisdictions be recounted according to certain specific rules. According to the consortium's findings, Gore would have lost, very narrowly, even if the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Gore's favor and allowed the recounts to proceed under the rules Gore's lawyers had asked for.
Now, Beinhart informs us that had those overvotes in which the voter's intent was unambiguous, those with a punch plus a write-in both for the same candidate, also been counted, then Gore would have won. We have also known for some time that Gore would have won if Katherine Harris hadn't had the Florida voter rolls purged of people with dark-skinned names, and other voter intimidation tactics. Also, Gore would have won if Mr. Nader had given a damn about the consequence of his own actions.
In any case, I'm with Judge Scalia on this. If we can't even impeach the lying, torturing, war-mongering, mass-murdering bufoon, it's about time we get over how he got where he is. We all lost. The world lost. It's done. Let's not let it happen again, and let's make up for lost time in the next round. Obama, go!
election tampering and voter fraud needs a life sentence or a death penalty. End of story.
andersdl May 27th, 2008 4:35 pm
The newspaper industry continues to give us many reasons why newspaper readership continues to decline. Credibility is never cited as one of the reasons.
You just did.
Hollow point May 27th, 2008 4:39 pm
Save a tree ban the NYT
Works for me.
Save a tree ban the NYT
The newspaper industry continues to give us many reasons why newspaper readership continues to decline. Credibility is never cited as one of the reasons.
Glenn- The Democrats and the Republicans are the two public wings of the MONEY PARTY!
And the tradition continues; Hillary wins all machine counted counties in New Hampshire, loses all hand counted counties. This after Bill Clinton declares in 2004,"Bush wins fair and square".
When the opposition party does not object to cheating by the other party, its time to check if they really are two parties.
Whenever "New York Times" and "Correction" are used in the same sentence, you will notice that the name Alessandra Stanley isn't far away. The woman is an idiot; plain and simple.
She makes about as much sense as a sock puppet.
The Florida vote tampering that led to the Supreme Court deciding Bush was the new president was just the opening act that was nothing less than a coup detat. The second act was the so-called 'terrorist attacks' of 9/11. Act three was the invasion of two sovereign nations that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, but had everything to do with securing that last major remaining reserves of petroleum in any easy extractable amounts.
In enacting the 'war on terrorism' the Bush junta has shredded the US Constitution, broken centuries of legal precedent by overturning 'habeus corpus', and enacting the draconian USA PATRIOT Act and Patriot II, using unprecedented levels of wiretapping, mail tampering and surveillance on the supine and fear driven US populace.
In the wake of Halliburton/KBR going into Iraq 47 million dollars worth of heroin has beeen flooded into the Baghdad area. Halliburton/KBR, Dick Cheney's old company is a well known and oft used front for CIA operations, grey and black. Halliburton/KBR is the SOLE logistical supplier for the entire US military. Haliburton/KBR has also benefitted on the homefront, as they were the winners of the no bid contract to build and run the detention/ 'processing' centers throughout the continental US.
Face facts people.
The US is a fascist dictatorship.
Lay the blame with Gore. He lacks the stones and force of character to have been standing on the WhiteHouse porch ordering the Appointed Lice to clear off.
One of the goals of the false-flag 9-11 black operation WAS to ensconce the impostor on the throne, beyond challenge or review.
In view of the magnitude of the disasters that have befallen the countryas a result of Bush becoming president, why not impeach the Supreme Court justices who authorized that swindle.
No, no, no. It was Catherine Harris. She was/is a Bush groupy. She gave the election to Bush.
http://katherineharrissucks.com/
Another important question would be "Why have the corporate media not followed the obvious leads regarding the facts of the events which occurred on 9/11/2001 that strongly lead a serious observer to conclude that the official explanation of what happened that day cannot possibly be accurate and complete?"
The corporate media appears to be the chained cur of something or other and the lapdog of some cabal somewhere. Maybe you, the reader, can remember the complete quote . . .
Don't hold your breath for that correction to appear anytime soon...
"bush would've won anyway" is the only story line that allows the Ds (pronounced "duhs") to continue scapegoating nader rather than acknowledging their own abject capitulation to the Rs (pronounced "arse").
"bush would've won anyway" is the only story line that allows the Ds (pronounced "duhs") to continue scapegoating nader instead of acknowledging their own abject capitulation to the Rs (pronounced "arse").