NOVEMBER 3, 2004. Earlier today, I wrote and posted a long article on Ken Blackwell, the secretary of state of Ohio, the man responsible for overseeing the whole (suspect) voting process there. The passionate supporter of the president.
There is another piece to the puzzle.
If we are to believe the Ohio exit polls, it was the issue of VALUES that energized the Bush Christians to come out of the woodwork in great numbers, from outlying districts, and cast their votes yesterday for the president.
Well, there was a very specific teaser that did the trick, that got these people racing to the polls. The statewide ballot measure banning gay marriage.
And who certifies the necessary signatures (several hundred thousand) on petitions to get all ballot measures officially entered into the voting process? The secretary of state. Ken Blackwell.
Who carried the water by campaigning for the gay-marriage ban in Ohio? Ken Blackwell.
JON RAPPOPORT http://www.nomorefakenews.com
______________________
ENTER, MR. BLACKWELL: WAS HE BUSH'S TRUMP CARD IN OHIO?
NOVEMBER 3, 2004. As all America now knows, Ken Blackwell is the secretary of state of Ohio. He controls every aspect of the voting process, from his office.
It was Blackwell who supposedly told Andy Card that there were not enough provisional ballots on tap to make up the difference between Kerry's count and a possible victory for Kerry. In other words, no need to actually tally those provisional ballots.
We've heard stories that, in Ohio, certain precincts didn't have enough voting machines ready to handle what everyone knew would be an avalanche of voters---some of whom ended up waiting nine hours to cast their ballots---some of whom wandered off into the night, too frustrated to stand and stand and stand. It is ultimately Blackwell that presides over the disposition of those machines.
We know that Blackwell told CNN last night that, if a count of provisional ballots was necessary under his watch, he would assure it would be done in a very orderly fashion: 10 DAYS to prepare the ballots and check them out, and then the ACTUAL count would follow. CNN anchors almost fell into a funk when they realized that it could take a month or more to complete the job. Imagine how such a prospect could have backed Kerry into a corner. Rolling the dice on overtaking Bush during this post-election tally, the media of the nation on his neck for an "unconscionable delaying tactic"---"Kerry is ruining America and making it a laughingstock"---the Republican hounds after him every minute of every day---"the Democrats are creating their greatest moment of shame"---I have to wonder why Kerry finally conceded the election. Was it because he really thought there weren't enough provisional ballots to make a difference? Or was it because he knew he would be relentlessly accused of distracting and weakening "a nation at war against terrorism?" And who, besides Ken Blackwell, has the true number of provisional ballots in his pocket?
What we don't know is: who is Ken Blackwell? Does he have a built-in political bias? Did he favor one of the candidates? If so, how fervent is his passion?
Here is an excerpt from an Ohio government website devoted to the work and credentials of Blackwell. You be the judge. And oh yes, Blackwell is a Republican. Actually, he's been the co-chair of the committee to re-elect George Bush in Ohio.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/blackwell/
Chief Elections Officer
As Ohio's chief election officer, Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell oversees the elections process and appoints the members of boards of elections in each of Ohio's 88 counties.
He supervises the administration of election laws; approves ballot language; reviews statewide initiative and referendum petitions, chairs the Ohio Ballot Board, which approves ballot language for statewide issues; canvasses votes for all elective state offices and issues; investigates election frauds and irregularities; trains election officials and reimburses counties for poll worker training costs.
The Elections Division compiles and maintains election statistics, political party records and other election-related records. Statewide candidates' campaign finance reports are filed with the office, together with the reports for state political action committees (PACs), state political parties and legislative caucus campaign committees…
Mr. Blackwell is a member of the national advisory boards of Youth for Christ…and was formerly a domestic policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C… Mr. Blackwell has held the nation's highest security clearance…He is a contributing commentator for Salem Communications, delivering commentaries on Salem's more than 90 [Christian] radio stations nationwide…In 2004, Mr. Blackwell received the John M. Ashbrook Award given jointly by the American Conservative Union and the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs. Past recipients of this award include President Ronald Reagan, Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick and Charlton Heston.
End of excerpt
The Heritage Foundation is a very famous and influential politically-right think tank (and that is only the beginning of its story). Is there anyone in the American Conservative Union who voted for Kerry? Is the Pope Protestant? As for Salem Communications, here is a snip from its website:
Salem Communications Corporation is the leading provider of radio programming, online resources and magazines targeted to the Christian and family themes audience. For over 25 years our core business has been the ownership and operation of radio stations in major U.S. markets. We have also developed a radio network, which offers talk, news and music content options to stations through affiliate partnerships. We own and operate magazine publishing and Internet businesses, both of which share our commitment to our target audience. We continue to look for opportunities to strengthen our leadership position in the distribution and development of Christian and family themes content across multiple media.
End of snip
Now, here is an excerpt from an interview with Ken Blackwell done by PBS host Tavis Smiley (Feb. 5, 2004):
Tavis: …Let me ask you before my time runs out here. As I mention again, you are the Secretary of State, but there's a big rumor that you're gonna run for Governor in Ohio and that, if elected, you would be only the second African-American elected Governor in this country since Reconstruction. The first Republican--Doug Wilder, of course, being a Democrat in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Are you really gonna run? And how serious are you about this?
Blackwell: I'm very serious. I've had the good fortune of being the mayor of my hometown. I've been the Treasurer of this fine state here in Ohio. I've been a U.S. Ambassador and an Undersecretary of the U.S. Department of HUD. I think I'm ready to put on the hat of Governor and to lead this state to growth and prosperity and opportunity…
Tavis: Let me ask you whether or not you think the Buckeyes, the folk in Ohio, are ready for Kenneth Blackwell, a black Republican, as the top executive of the state.
Blackwell: I think so. The fact of the matter is that folks elected me Treasurer of this state. I was the top fiduciary in the state. That's a statewide election, and now I, in fact, oversee all elections in the state, so when people of this state trust me with their votes and trust me with their money, I think they're ready to trust me to be their Governor.
Tavis: How much campaigning are you gonna do for George W. Bush between now and November?
Blackwell: Well, we're gonna do a lot of work in Ohio. Let me just tell you--Ohio is the battleground state. There hasn't been a Republican president elected or reelected without carrying Ohio, and George Bush, when you factor out Ralph Nader, only won Ohio by one percentage point. This is a battleground state. It's gonna go right down to the last day…
End of PBS excerpt.
I’m not making the point that Blackwell is bad because he’s a Republican. I’m illustrating that this is a very ambitious man who’s positioned as a Republican FOR BUSH and for what Bush believes, right down to his shoes. A man who campaigned resolutely for Bush and THEN oversaw the state election which handed Bush a second term. A man who is a player in the Republican party, who knows the score, who can give favors and then ask for favors back, as he pushes his own career upward.
Is this a conflict of interest that could have led Blackwell to improperly set the conditions for a Bush triumph? Is the Pope Catholic?
Here are a few more tidbits on the Ohio election and Mr. Blackwell----
_____________________
Was The Ohio Election Honest And Fair?
Institute for Public Accuracy
www.accuracy.org
11-3-4
Interviews and Background
TERESA FEDOR
(via Greg Lestini glestini@maild.sen.state.oh.us)
Ohio State Senator Teresa Fedor said today: "There was trouble with our elections in Ohio at every stage. It's been a battle getting people registered to vote, getting to the ballot on voting day and getting that vote to count. There is a pattern of voter suppression; that's why I called for [Ohio Secretary of State] Blackwell's resignation more than a month ago. Blackwell, while claiming to run an unbiased elections process, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Additionally, he was the spokesperson for the anti-business, anti-family constitutional amendment 'Issue 1,' and a failed initiative to repeal a crucial sales-tax revenue source for the state. Blackwell learned his moves from the Katherine Harris playbook of Florida 2000, and we won't stand for it."
BILL MOSS
bmoss@hbcuconnect.com
Executive vice president of HBCU Connect, which works to connect historically black colleges and universities, Moss said today: "I stayed in line two and a half hours. I've never seen anything like this in my life. There were fewer voting machines in the highly concentrated black areas, creating the long lines so as to frustrate the voters. But we knew the Republicans -- many of whom became Republicans because they opposed equal rights for blacks -- would try to drive down black turnout. ... [Ohio Secretary of State] Blackwell was confusing things by raising issues like the paper weight of cards."
SUSAN TRUITT
susan.truitt@lexisnexis.com
http://www.caseohio.org
Co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Truitt said today: "Seven counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire state to buy new machines without a paper trail. The exit polls, virtually the only check we have against tampering with a vote without a paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A poll worker told me this morning that there were no tapes of the results posted on some machines; on other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously shouldn't be the case."
DAN WALLACH
dwallach@cs.rice.edu
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach,
http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR062104.htm
Wallach is an assistant professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston specializing in building secure and robust software systems for the Internet. Along with colleagues at Johns Hopkins, Wallach co-authored a groundbreaking study that revealed significant flaws in electronic voting systems. He appeared on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release in June entitled "Electronic Voting -- Danger for Democracy."
BOB FITRAKIS
rfitrakis@cscc.edu
An attorney who monitored the election with the Election Protection Coalition, Fitrakis said today: "There were far fewer machines in the inner-city districts than in the suburbs. I documented at least a dozen people leaving because the lines were so long in African-American areas. Blackwell did a great deal of suppressing before the election -- like attempting to refuse to process voter registration forms. The absentee ballots were misleading in Franklin County. Kerry was the third line down, but you had to punch number four to vote for him. Bush was getting both his votes as well as Kerry's."
HARVEY WASSERMAN
windhw@aol.com
http://www.freepress.org/
departments/display/19/2004/810
Senior editor of FreePress.org, an Ohio-based web site, and co-author with Fitrakis of the recent article "Twelve Ways Bush is Now Stealing the Ohio Vote," Wasserman said today: "There was a huge fight around ensuring that the electronic voting machines had paper trails and there was resistance by the secretary of state, so there is no paper trail. There were some victories to ensure a paper trial -- by 2006. There were limited numbers of voting machines in African-American districts. Some people had to wait up to eight hours, far more than in predominantly white areas."
end of snip
Finally, here is an excerpt from an October 20 piece in the Globe and Mail:
At the centre of the uproar is Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who has laid down a series of controversial election guidelines -- many of which public outcry or the courts have forced him to shelve.
Mr. Blackwell is a nationally known conservative who is eyeing a run at the governorship. He is also the co-chair of President George W. Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio. Democrats have been calling him the 2004 version of Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state they accuse of "stealing" the election for Mr. Bush four years ago...
The key battle in Ohio has been over the procedure for provisional voting when a person has moved and not updated their registration, or when a challenger questions whether the voter is properly registered.
Dan Tokaji, a specialist at Ohio State University in election law, said the issue could be a critical and contentious factor in Ohio, a bellwether state with a large number of votes in the electoral college.
"Provisional voting could be the hanging chad of 2004," Mr. Tokaji said, referring to the faulty Florida ballot that resulted in rejected votes.
In 2000, more than 98,000 provisional ballots were cast in Ohio, where Mr. Bush beat Democrat Al Gore by just 165,000 votes -- a winning margin of less than half a percentage point. The race is considered equally close this time, but with 500,000 new voters registered, the number of provisional ballots could be much higher.
Mr. Blackwell initially insisted that provisional voting could occur only at the proper polling station -- a person who showed up at the wrong one would be given directions instead of a ballot. But last week, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the guideline would violate federal law if it prevents voters from casting provisional ballots if they are in the right county.
Monday, Mr. Blackwell issued new guidelines that Democratic lawyers say fail to reflect the court ruling. Poll workers are now supposed to attempt to turn away provisional voters if they are at the wrong precinct, and give them a telephone number to locate the correct one. If the voters insist, the workers are to accept the ballot, while warning that it will not be counted...
end of Globe and Mail excerpt
You might read that last paragraph again. It describes something far worse than up-in-the-air provisional voting---it lays out a process by which who knows how many voters were essentially denied the right to cast even a provisional ballot, but were instead turned away...never to appear on any tally-number of "votes that might need to be counted after the election."
Final final: a quite reliable source tells me Ken Blackwell is a loyal Party soldier and follows orders, AND YET, relatively speaking, is one of the good guys. If so, think about the really slimy ones.
__________________________
THE BIG LIE GOES UNNOTICED
NOVEMBER 3, 2004. All the articles I've written on the election in the last two days begin, in a way, from the same place:
A television anchor sits at his desk and says, "The polls have just closed in the following states, and we can predict a winner in those states..."
I find this intrinsically on the same level as watching the king parade down the street with no clothes on in front of a crowd that doesn't seem to notice.
If a man came up to you on the street and said, "It's going to rain in exactly forty-one minutes, and I'll be at the bar across the way for a post-mortem," would you be the slightest bit curious? And if it DID begin to rain in forty-one minutes, would you cross the street and find that man and ask him how he knew?
I would.
But of course most Americans accept these network projections of winners, as they also see that, in many cases, there are NO raw vote totals in yet, just zero on the board.
These viewers think to themselves, "Well, they must have a good reason for doing that. They know something. They have those eixt polls, which are scientific, and they have computers, and they can work with the exit interviews and come up with a really good answer on the other end. I don't really care how they do it. I don't want to know. It must be complicated. I'd have to have a math degree to understand it. But they always seem to be right, except when they screwed up in 2000. I mean, it's like driving a car. I don't understand what goes on under the hood but I can still get from home to the supermarket."
But just as I'd want to know how the man on the street could predict the moment when the rain started, I want to know how these news anchors and their back-up experts do their work.
Because, for one reason, in the case of elections the back-up experts are using exit-poll data supplied to them by the Associated Press and its subcontractors---and the Associated Press ALSO provides the vote totals that later bear out these instant projections of winners in the various states.
That is not a thing to gloss over.
But it's the initial moment of shock that I'm pointing to, when the anchors look at the audience---with no vote totals yet counted---and say they're ready to make a call on the winner. That's the instant when you either sit up and say WAIT or you slump back and let it wash over you.
You can go either way.
In the last several weeks, I've been writing about a loosely analagous situation. The CDC trumpets the fact that, every year in the US, 36,000 people die from the flu. However, I've seen with my own eyes the actual stats buried deep in CDC documents online. And these documents give the lie to that 36,000 figure. For example, for the year 2000, when all was said and done, the CDC could only confirm SIXTY deaths from flu (where the virus was actually identified). Obviously, to reach that 36,000 number, the CDC has been doing projections. Computer projections. Based on what? Using what method? Telling what lies?
Once you admit that the networks' early projections of winners are bizarre, you can fan out and begin to ask other questions and try to answer them. You can break through the flimsy facade of 'everybody knows it must be okay' and consider the implications.
On November 22, 1963, one bullet traveled in sixteen different directions and ended up in pristine condition on a hospital cot. On June 5, 1968, Sirhan Sirhan fired, at the most, eight bullets (the load capacity of his gun) in the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel, and yet evidence of at least ten bullets was found.
That kind of thing.
Everybody knows...but they don't.
____________________________
WHAT I SAW LAST NIGHT
NOVEMBER 3, 2004. First of all, here is a website that is tracking the growing list of reports on problems at the polls yesterday and possible fraud at precincts:
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
Note that the page shown is only page one. So far, the site has referenced 222 situations.
At about 8:30 Pacific Time last night, as I was clicking channels, CNN or FOX analysts mentioned, in passing, that the vote total from Florida thus far---as relayed to the network from the Associated Press (AP)---was a great deal higher than the total that was being reported out of the Florida secretary of state's office. The secretary of state is in charge of elections. The TV anchors said that AP was getting its totals direct from the individual counties in Florida. Well, where was the secretary of state getting the totals? From the moon? This discrepancy could have been explained by the fact that the sec. of state's office was slow in posting results, whereas AP was in a hurry to relay totals to the TV networks. Still, I found it interesting. AP was the source contracted by all the major TV networks to send in vote numbers in all states.
Now we come to the exit-poll versus actual vote-count debate. This is breaking all over the Internet, as people compare exit-poll results from various states with actual vote totals. Some people are reporting that exit-poll results exactly mirror eventual voting results and winners in states where the electronic vote machines are backed up with a paper trail, but in certain states where there is no paper trail, the exit polls are at great variance with the vote outcomes. In other words, some states with no paper trail show exit polls favoring Kerry, but Bush turns out to be the winner. The implication is, with no way to verify the integrity and accuracy of electronic voting, computer manipulation was worked to give Bush victories through fraud.
Remember, exit polls are live interviews conducted with voters after they cast their ballots and leave polling places. These interviews are then crunched by a tallying system and put through a projection model to predict a winner, long before final vote counts are in.
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky are the firms contracted by AP to do these exit polls nationally.
Here is what I saw. Although all the networks were stating that 'exit polls taken early in the day suggested a big Kerry surge, whereas the unfolding night was showing a very strong Bush position,' the network early projections for winners were NEVER WRONG. The networks never had to retract any early prediction---and many of these calls were made with ZERO actual vote counts reported thus far.
Think about that. The networks, at the top of an hour, exactly as polls close in a number of states, put up winners (Bush or Kerry)---before any votes are counted. And these predictions never had to be reversed. Well, on what then, were these predictions based?
Exit polls.
So, whereas the networks are saying that, earlier in the day, exit polls were not good, not predictive, all of a sudden these polls are so good that the networks can call winners in a large number of states without a single counted vote showing on the screen.
Well, there are other factors, too, in making these early predictions: how those states went in 2000 and 2002---and also estimates based on Zogby and USA Today and other polls taken in the days and weeks before the 2004 election. However, the networks don't admit using these other factors---and I would have to say that predicting an actual winner with no votes counted based on such factors is pretty insane. And not just insane, but SUSPECT. Highly suspect.
I got the weird feeling that I was watching a hologram of sorts---"well, all these states went THIS way last time, so we're saying they'll do the same again."
And of course the red and blue maps did uncannily resemble the final 2000 election maps, even though, in the interim, 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq and WMD and Osama tapes and Internet activism and the Patriot Act and swift boats and Moore's film and so many other things had changed the American landscape to a remarkable degree.
I simply don't buy the 2000-2004 election resemblances.
I assume that, in the end, the vote totals and winners as relayed to the networks by AP will be exactly the same as the results compiled and reported by the secretaries of state of every state---although just to make sure, someone should check this.
However, the electronic (and other) manipulation of the 2004 vote is, to me, a monster issue.
If vote totals in the states were subjected to massive computer manipulation, both AP and the secretaries of state would get the same (false) numbers. If this manipulation was basically designed to present pretty much a mirror of the 2000 election, it would mesh nicely with the television networks' practice of making VERY early calls of winners based, in great part, on what happened in 2000. You would get a closed loop, a piece of grand hypnosis, with the networks prophetically getting out ahead of the final (rigged) vote counts through their sudden and early predictions, replete with charts, graphs, flashes of light, whoosh sounds, fast-talking anchors, screens constantly changing for the television viewer.
Of course, the results of 2000 do not perfectly match the results of 2004. Florida becomes Ohio.
There was plenty of press commentary before the election that Ohio would, in fact, become the Florida of 2004. And so it was.
______________________________
MORE LIGHTNING PROJECTIONS
NOVEMBER 2, 2004. As polls closed in the east, NBC handed out a host of projected winners, in most cases this time with zero vote tallies on the screens.
These projections, we assume, are coming from AP subcontractors who are working off of voter exit surveys....
Illinois/Kerry. NJ/Kerry. Tenn./Bush. Mass./Kerry. Maryland/Kerry. Conn./Kerry. Alabama/Bush. Oklahoma/Bush. Maine/Kerry.
It's like watching a cartoon.
No facts, just graphs and background music and whoosh sounds as they cut from one chart to another.
Of course, very few people question this charade. The experts must be basing their judgments on highly accurate computer projections based on a few exit-poll surveys blah blah...and they know what they are doing and this will be illustrated by the actual vote counts later on blah blah....AP, which is forwarding those actual vote counts to the networks, is beyond reproach blah blah...you are sinking into a deep sleep...you will believe....
But of course no one knows just how these supposedly highly sophisticated computer projections are really done...oh no, THAT is proprietary corporate information and YOU are just a peon so keep your nose to the grindstone and have faith....all is well, all is well...
_______________________
NETWORKS CALL STATES LIKE LIGHTNING
NOVEMBER 2, 2004. The INSTANT the polls closed in Indiana and Kentucky, CNN and FOX called these states for Bush, and Vermont for Kerry. At least in the case of Indiana and Kentucky, there were vote totals (not exit-poll survey numbers) on the screen, and they were significant numbers, far too many to represent just a few precincts.
It is physically impossible to get these vote totals in the door of the networks at the instant the polls closed, unless AP (which is delivering those totals to the networks) had them BEFORE the polls closed.
That would be illegal...and since the vote count does not START until the polls close, it means AP was working with totals of absentee ballots, and/or early voting results, in which people were permitted to vote before today. I don't know whether Indiana, Kentucky, or Vermont had such early-vote programs in place.
Even if AP was working with absentee or early-vote results, it still would be illegal for them to have such totals in their hands before the closing of the polls.
Or, AP is simply winging it, making up false numbers. Of course, no one would believe THAT. Too incredible to consider. I mean, we're all honest people in this room, right?
Here we go.
________________________
WHO WILL TELL THE NETWORKS WHO WON?
NOVEMBER 2, 2004. Don’t worry, be happy, the vote count is in good hands. The Associated Press (AP) will be handling it for the networks, not that old disbanded and corrupt outfit called Voter News Service (VNS).
VNS was created by the major broadcast networks, whereas AP is…well, that’s hard to say. AP also appears to be a stepchild of major media.
Let’s start with a piece on AP by AP:
AP to Provide Sole National Vote Count on Election Night
Published: October 13, 2004 3:15 PM EDT NEW YORK
Determined to avoid a repeat of high-profile failures in 2000 and 2002, television networks will rely on new systems on Nov. 2 to help project election winners and analyze why voters made their choices, and they have turned to The Associated Press to count the vote for them.
The six news organizations that have formed the National Election Pool -- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and the AP -- say they're confident things will go better this time, based on test runs and the experience of people involved.
The networks blamed Voter News Service, the company they had formed to count votes and conduct exit polls, for faulty data that led to the wrong calls in 2000. VNS tried to rebuild its system, but it broke down on election night 2002 and failed to provide usable exit polling information. VNS was then disbanded.
This time, the news organizations contracted with two veteran polling companies -- Mitofsky International and Edison Media Research -- to conduct exit polls. They agreed that the AP -- which has been tallying votes in elections since 1848 -- would be their sole source for vote counts, and the news cooperative has significantly beefed up its system in response.
The TV networks said they would be careful projecting winners after prematurely declaring Florida, and the 2000 election, for George W. Bush. (The AP did not declare Bush the winner on election night). The election wasn't ultimately determined for weeks after vote recounts and court fights.
Each of the organizations will use data provided by NEP to make its own projections election night. The organizations also have promised, for the first time in a presidential election, not to call states that span two time zones until all of the polling places have closed.
"We're just going to really, really be cautious," said Marty Ryan, Fox News Channel's executive producer for political coverage. "When we think we have it, we'll wait a few minutes and look again. Then we'll wait a few minutes and look again."
Both the exit polls and vote counts worked with no serious problems during the 2004 primaries and in stress tests, network officials said. Full dress rehearsals will be conducted on Oct. 23 and 30.
Four years ago, the networks relied on VNS for its count of the actual votes and used the AP's vote-counting as a backup. Now, the AP will go it alone.
The AP will have stringers calling in results from each of the nation's 4,600 counties. Hundreds of people will be assigned to input the information into computers, and others will monitor the systems to guard against problems. In all, a total of about 5,500 people will be working on AP's vote count on election night.
"We have real confidence in the reliability of the AP's vote count," said Kathleen Carroll, AP senior vice president and executive editor. "We also have enormous confidence in the journalists in the field and the bureau chiefs who will be using the data and their experience when they call winners in the race."
The AP relied on that experience on election night 2000 to resist calling the election for Bush, despite enormous pressure after the networks had made their projections.
Most of the AP election night staff has done the job before, said Tom Jory, the cooperative's director of elections tabulations. The AP also has built in new system redundancies to protect against computer or telephone system failures, he said.
Precautions are being taken to guard against human error as well. Using past elections as a guide, the AP's computer system is designed to spit out a warning if figures are entered that are significantly at odds with expected patterns -- just to make sure the numbers are rechecked.
"The AP has a long history of doing these things in general," said Dan Merkle, ABC News decision desk director. "With these other improvements, we feel very confident in the AP."
End of AP piece.
Now here is an excerpt from an article about, in part, AP, by Lynn Landes:
…But, can't the AP be trusted? Isn't it an objective non-partisan news organization? Some say no. The AP is batting for a Bush presidency.
In Online Journal, Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence, the hosts of Democratic Talk Radio, wrote, "...the Associated Press ran a story that was widely published in newspapers and on the Internet, headlined "Bush Leads Kerry In Electoral Votes," that could have been written by the Bush campaign. The assignment of states to candidates, the headline and the conclusions were all simply wrong. The Associated Press should print a retraction and work to see that it is widely published." [I'm uncertain which article that was---JR]
And on WBAY TV in Green Bay, Wisconsin ran an AP article [October, 2004] reporting that Bush has won the election, weeks before the election is to take place. The AP reported, "At this hour, President Bush has won re-election as president by a 47 percent to 43 percent margin in the popular vote nationwide. Ralph Nader has 1 percent of the vote nationwide. That's with 51 percent of the precincts reporting." According to reports, the AP is now saying the article was a "test article," a never-heard-before journalistic practice.
Who is the AP? The Associated Press was founded in 1848. It is a not-for-profit news cooperative, some would say ‘monopoly’, that rakes in about $500 million dollars a year. The AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. Their board of directors is elected by voting ‘bonds’.
However, it is not clear who controls the bonds. AP spokespeople would not give out information on who sits on their board, however AP leadership appears quite conservative.
Burl Osborne, chairman of the AP board of directors, is also publisher emeritus of the conservative The Dallas Morning News, a newspaper that endorsed George W. Bush in the last election. Kathleen Carroll, senior vice president and executive editor of AP, was a reporter at The Dallas Morning News before joining AP. Carroll is also on the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME)’s 7-member executive committee.
The APME "works in partnership with AP to improve the wire service's performance," according to their website. APME vice president, Deanna Sands, is managing editor of the ultra conservative Omaha World Herald newspaper, whose parent company owns the largest voting machine company in the nation, Election Systems and Software (ES&S).
* LYNN LANDES is one of the nation's leading journalists on voting technology and democracy issues. Readers can find her articles at EcoTalk.org. Lynn is a former news reporter for DUTV and commentator for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Contact info: lynnlandes@earthlink.net / (215) 629-3553 end of Landes excerpt
Say what? AP ran a story before the election this year saying that Bush won?
_________________________
Here is a WorldNet Daily piece on THAT:
Prophecy? AP story 'reports' GOP sweep
TV news websites post test article announcing Bush victory
Posted: October 8, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
An Associated Press "test" article declaring President Bush the winner of the 2004 election and a Republican majority in the House and Senate was posted on the websites of at least five television stations yesterday, prompting calls from confused readers.
The article, bearing an AP copyright, had all indications it was a real story on the sites of KVOA in Arizona, KAIT in Arkansas, WBOC in Delaware, WBAY in Wisconsin and WQAD in Illinois.
Twenty-six days before the general election, the story on WBAY's site, under the motto "Coverage you can count on," read:
At this hour, President Bush has won re-election as president by a 47 percent to 43 percent margin in the popular vote nationwide. Ralph Nader has 1 percent of the vote nationwide. That's with 51 percent of the precincts reporting. Bush has won 324 electoral votes in 33 states. He is leading in 4 states for a total of 43 more electoral votes. Kerry has won 105 electoral votes in 8 states and the District of Columbia. He is leading in 5 states for a total of 48 more electoral votes. Nader has not won any state and is not currently leading in any state. In the 435 U.S. House races, the Republicans have won 173 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. The Democrats have won 145 seats and are leading in the races for 56 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 3 seats. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the House. In the 34 races for the U.S. Senate, the Republicans have won 14 seats and are leading in the races for 4 seats. The Democrats have won 13 seats and are leading in the races for 3 seats. Independent and other party candidates have won or are leading for 1 seat. If these trends continue, the Republicans will retain control of the Senate and will gain 3 seats.
Later, WBAY-TV issued a correction, stating: "President Bush Did Not Win Election on October 7."
The station said the test article was picked up by WBAY.com's automated system.
"The headline of the AP story did not bear that all-important word for the automated filters ... 'test,'" the station said.
end of WorldNetDaily piece
I've never heard of a test article being sent out to media outlets. AP sends out actual articles all the time to outlets. Why would they need a test just for the election? Why would they pre-write such an article filled with actual (made up) stats? Why not just send "Hi, we're here. Did you receive?" Of course, again, the concept of a test article is completely foreign to me.
____________________
FREE TRADE POINT
NOVEMBER 2, 2004. Since no president gets elected in the US if he opposes free trade, I thought I'd make a further point on this topic, which I have written about many times.
Free trade is constructed to grease the rails for giant transnational corporations. One aspect of that lubrication involves so-called protective tariffs. As in, the abolition of such tariffs.
Suppose, for example, a US-based transnational corporation is selling its goods to China. Suddenly, overnight, it has to pay a big duty on these goods when they arrive at China ports. That would cut profits and allow Chinese companies that make similar products to gain a domestic advantage inside China.
How might that sudden duty (tariff) have been laid on at China ports?
Well, if China were exporting goods to the US (any goods), and if those goods were priced much lower than US companies making the same goods were able to charge inside the US, this would throw those US companies into a tailspin. Lost jobs, lost profits, and so on.
So those US companies gain the ear of the White House, and the president decides to levy a tariff on these goods coming from China, to even the playing field. China then responds with tariffs on its end.
That back and forth situation creates a nightmare for big transationals seeking to move their goods into China.
Hence, free trade. All the signatories to the GATT treaty swear to eliminate these tariffs.
It matters not to these transnationals that US workers are thrown out of work because their companies can't compete against goods from, say, China. Unemployment in the US is simply part of "doing business."
The transnationals win. They are the true beneficiaries of free trade.
No matter what Bush or Kerry say, they support free trade. And they never even imagine a kind of self-sufficiency for the US in which the need for (cheap undercutting) goods from abroad are not necessary for America. That fantasy, in their minds, is not even on the radar.
"Global economic interdependence" is sold as the "new thing" that cannot be avoided, and the dreaded word "isolationism" is used to tar anyone who stumps for American self-sufficiency.
There are even people who claim to support a free market who say that America should never lay on protective tariffs on goods coming into the US.
But there are different types of free markets. To obstruct (with tariffs) commerce inside the US is far different from obstructing goods coming into the US that drastically threaten US jobs.
There is no public political debate on these matters. There are only slogans for the suckers. In part, that is because, for many years now, economic heavy hitters have considered all nations to be fictions. This concept bleeds right up into the White House. So-called Republicans, who are supposed to stand for a strong and independent America, and so-called Democrats, who are supposed to champion the rights of American workers, take on the same skin. They digest and acept the de facto notion that America is a fiction.
And having accepted that, the Democrats and the Republicans go on to make all sorts of bloviating pronouncements about America the Beautiful. The American people, at a loss to find an intelligent debate about these economic matters, weigh and assess the competing slogans like jewels laid out on velvet as they go to the polls.
JON RAPPOPORT
http://www.nomorefakenews.com
_________________