News International team to monitor US. Presidential Election

[russ_watters]

That's not their mission. The OCSE is not being sent to help avoid any situation. They are coming to observe...

Kat, from the article:

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

That certainly implies to me that they were invited to help prevent the same issues we had in 2000 from happening again. Further, others in this thread have implied that the observers are a good idea because they might help prevent some of the 2000 problems from happening again.

My point from the beginning is that if they are only "observers," then their presence here is at best, pointless. If they are only "observers," then their presence here does nothing to help fix the issues from the 2000 election.

This is not the U.N., it's membership is limited to democratic nations...I suggest you familiarize yourself with the organization.

My mistake - there are apparently two separate issues here. The initial request for monitoring was to the UN and it was rejected. That morphed into the OSCE request. But, same issue: is this supposed to help ensure fair elections or not? Some Democrats seem to think so:

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

 

[kat]

Russ- What do you consider to be the negative results of the last time the OCSE observed that would suggest we shouldn't have invited them to observe again?

 

[kat]

Kat, from the article: That certainly implies to me that they were invited to help prevent the same issues we had in 2000 from happening again. Further, others in this thread have implied that the observers are a good idea because they might help prevent some of the 2000 problems from happening again.

My point from the beginning is that if they are only "observers," then their presence here is at best, pointless. If they are only "observers," then their presence here does nothing to help fix the issues from the 2000 election.

Well, I think if you re-read what I have said...and you read not what the Dem's are saying but the Paris agreement, what the statehouse is saying and what the OCSE is saying your question should be...why are the Dem's misrepresenting the intent of the invitation, and why are they suggesting the invitation was given as a result of the 2000 election when...an invitation has been given for elections before 2000?

 

[kat]

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

Well, again...they arent monitors..and have not said they were. Why are the Dem's misrepresenting this? and secondly...they're suggesting that the invitation was in response to their request for U.N. supervision...which is not the same as observation...BUT the agreement to invite them for elections...was made in 1990 AND the invitation has been offered consistently since shortly after the 1990 agreement. There's some political posturing going on that is not representing the intent of the invitations. Bush may have used the ongoing invitation as a way of usurping the power of the Dem's call for the U.N. supervision (again, not the same as observation), but are the Dem's misrepresenting their mission to save face? or? I don't know...but evidently it's worked as the Dem's on this board seem to feel that the OCSE's presence same as having a U.N. team of supervisors. Although, I feel that even in a supervisory position the OCSE is far better qualified.

 

[russ_watters]

(sorry about my editing practices - my last post wasn't finished when you started replying)

Russ- What do you consider to be the negative results of the last time the OCSE observed that would suggest we shouldn't have invited them to observe again?

Cute - kat, my position was/is that "no negative results" does not equal a positive result. I have never considered 'it probably won't hurt' to be a compelling reason to do anything.

Well, I think if you re-read what I have said...and you read not what the Dem's are saying but the Paris agreement, what the statehouse is saying and what the OCSE is saying your question should be...why are the Dem's misrepresenting the intent of the invitation, and why are they suggesting the invitation was given as a result of the 2000 election when...an invitation has been given for elections before 2000?

Fair enough - and good question. Perhaps that should be the focus of this thread. Then again, doesn't the opportunity for politicizing the observer's job constitute a negative result...?

 

[kat]

(sorry about my editing practices - my last post wasn't finished when you started replying) Cute - kat, my position was/is that "no negative results" does not equal a positive result. I have never considered 'it probably won't hurt' to be a compelling reason to do anything.

Are you familiar with the results at all? positive or negative?

Fair enough - and good question. Perhaps that should be the focus of this thread. Then again, doesn't the opportunity for politicizing the observer's job constitute a negative result...?

I think the opportunity for politicizing exist with or without the invitation therefor the invitation is not the basis for the negative result. I think the greater issue is why are people who believe themselves to be informed buying into the politicizing instead of becoming informed?

 

[russ_watters]

Are you familiar with the results at all? positive or negative?

No, I'm not.

Thinking about this more, and in fairness to you, I need to amend my objection: Though I'm still not sure why they would be here, if they are invited in fulfillment of a treaty obligation and this year's invitation is consistent with past invitations, I have no obection.

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

 

[kat]

Thinking about this more, and in fairness to you, I need to amend my objection: Though I'm still not sure why they would be here, if they are invited in fulfillment of a treaty obligation and this year's invitation is consistent with past invitations, I have no obection.

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

Thank you, and I agree!

 

[JohnDubYa]

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

Yes, this has really muddied the issue for everyone concerned. Unfortunately, I think some are hailing the invitation for "oversight" as evidence that the 2000 election results were incorrect.

 

[amp]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

 

[kat]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

It's fact that elections have problems, and there is always room for improvement. It is NOT fact that the invitation given to the OCSE was a result of "improprieties" in the 2000 election.

 

[amp]

Nor did I say that, Kat. It is known for a fact that even after the fiasco with the felons list in Florida... They tried to do it again ...in secret at that!. Its possibly only because of a court order the conspiracy (if you try the same illegality more than once that's pre-meditated) was uncovered and scrubbed(?)

 

[BobG]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

Your post is a little unclear on how this was an impropriety.

First, the 57,700 is a little misleading. Felons were prohibited from voting by legally passed state laws.

Conflicting with state law is a constitutional requirement to honor legal rulings of other states. Of the 57,000+ felons, 2837 had their voting rights restored (or never taken away) by the state in which they committed their felony. Florida was legally bound to honor those voting rights regardless of their own laws regarding felons.

The method in which Florida allowed felons from other states to 'regain' their voting rights is the issue you're talking about. Since the felons had their voting rights before they moved to Florida, they should not have had to do anything to 'regain' their voting rights.

And Florida was guilty as charged.

Rather than let it stand, it chose an alternate method of 'regaining' voting rights, which was equally in violation of the constitution.

For what it's worth, even 2837 felons denied their voting rights might have been enough to make a difference in the 2000 election. Considering the percentage of ex-felons with voting rights who do vote (around 30%) and their voting tendencies, a Democratic candidate would have been likely to pick up an extra 700 votes.

Considering the inconsistency with which each voting precinct applied State policies on expunging voter lists and restoring voter rights (as applicable) the 700 would be far from a firm number. It was most likely significantly less than that.

 

[amp]

Actually, Mr. Palast found that 94,000 voters had their names removed of which 91,000 were errorneous, most were black a predominately democratic voting block. Strangely enough in the same list there were hardly any hispanics, a largely republican voting block due to the Cuban population that hates Castro and votes predominately republican. Using the same standard to max the list there should have been a lot more on the list.

 

[amp]

The list was comprised of voters who had never commited a felony - there was even one a person on the list with a date of conviction that was in future so far that the felony had yet to happen..!

 

[BobG]

Incorrectly putting non-felons on the list, especially with such a strange coincidental demographic grouping, is a valid issue. It's hard not to at least suspect a little intent behind numbers like those.

As I said, it was a little hard to figure out exactly the point you were trying to make, originally.

I saw the issue of 'other state felons' as frustration on the part of Florida (but, illegal regardless of their feelings). The constitution requires honoring legal rulings from other states, but, in this case, you had a zero sum game where both of the legal rulings from two separate states could not be honored, since they were in direct opposition to each other. Florida was put in the position of having to allow the rights of other states to trump their own, even within their own state borders.

 

[kat]

Actually, Mr. Palast found that 94,000 voters had their names removed of which 91,000 were errorneous, most were black a predominately democratic voting block. Strangely enough in the same list there were hardly any hispanics, a largely republican voting block due to the Cuban population that hates Castro and votes predominately republican. Using the same standard to max the list there should have been a lot more on the list.

I think this was debated and disproved in another thread. Including the fictional majority of hispanics are cuban line. Cuban's only make up 34% of the hispanic population in Florida and even at that...you cannot make the assumption that past criminals vote republican.

 

[amp]

If you kindly show me, I'd be much obliged. My links:http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2

Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.

No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.

link: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2

Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Most of the voters (such as "David Butler," (1); a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate and race matched - or nearly matched - one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. DBT, which frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. In Harris?s elections office files, next to DBT?s sophisticated verification plan, there is a hand-written note: ?DON?T NEED.?

Thomas Alvin Cooper (2), twenty-eight, was flagged because of a crime for which he will be convicted in the year 2007

.

The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it.

Wallace McDonald (5), sixty-four, lost his right to vote in 2000, though his sole run-in with the law was a misdemeanor in 1959. (He fell asleep on a bus-stop bench.) Of the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified."

SILENCE OF THE MEDIA LAMBS: THE ELECTION STORY NEVER TOLD
www.tompaine.com
Thursday May 24, 2001
Investigative reporting about voting rights violations in the US have been page one news---in Britain.

A transcript of an interview - http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2

 

[kat]

If you kindly show me, I'd be much obliged. Do you trust the US government to run an honest election?

Here's the thread. That might be a good place for you to post your above information...as none of what you have posted tells us why you would misrepresent the intention of the invitation to the OCSE to observe U.S. Elections.

 

[amp]

I did use the word 'overseers' in my first post on the thread, sorry, I meant 'observers' as you see if you read to the end of the reply. I didn't even mention the OCSE, Jimmy Carter would be fine and any org. he trusts would be fine with me.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, I cannot imagine why anyone would think Jimmy Carter would be biased.

 

[russ_watters]

amp, as I said in the other threa, unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence. Now if you have some proof, I'd love to hear it. But I won't take that guy's word for it that 91,000 of 94,000 were erroneously purged.

And Jimmy Carter is perhaps the most politically active ex-president we've ever had (Clinton is active, but he hasn't been out of office for long). As long as his actions remain politically motivated, he makes an awful observer.

 

[kat]

I'm pretty sure that U.S. election law allows for observers. period. Anyone has a right to observe...with or without and invitation. Jimmy Carter stated that he would not have his organization observe because it might be seen as trying to influence the election. As far as I know he did not need an invitation or permission to have them observe. As for supervising, I think it becomes a little more difficult as our laws prevent anyone other then those appointed to actively participate in the election process.

 

[plover]

amp, as I said in the other threa, unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence.

Taken out of context, this statement is not particularly controversial. However, as applied to Palast it seems a curious dismissal for someone who has received awards for his investigative reports for the BBC, who has written for the Washington Post, and who is considered a credible public advocate by the U.S. government's Commission on Civil Rights. It is good, however, that you've detached the word "foreign" which appeared in your first use of the tediously tendentious phrase "tabloid reporter hawking a book", as for one thing he's an American (even if he works mostly for British news agencies), and for another, the idea that the nationality of a journalist might a priori reflect on the credibility of their reporting is pretty far outside any standard of objectivity I can think of. Given that he's currently being sued by Mario Cuomo, it's not necessarily even easy to argue that Palast is narrowly partisan. (Note: Until I googled this stuff a few minutes ago, I didn't know Palast from a hole in the wall.)

Should this be taken as an example of how well you usually check sources?

Who do you consider credible? How well do you check their sources?

As for "unsubstantiated assertions", the pieces at the website that's been linked to are listed as "columns", not investigative pieces. For the purposes of this discussion that is unfortunate, but can't be considered an indictment of his methods. My googling indicated that at least some of his BBC pieces can be viewed on-line.

 

[amp]

Russ,

unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence. Now if you have some proof

UK members I'm asking you is the 'Guardian' a Tabloid. Mr. Palast is an investigative reporter. I'm not asking you to buy or read his book but I'm certain he substantiates his assertions therein. You will note that the 94000 number comes from the company (DBT) that produced the 'lists' for Florida. Russ, you call that unfactual? And 94000 were purged, 91000 should not have been on the list! Thank you Plover. On 'Like it is' Mr. Palast said he can't work in the US, because basically they (the US media conglomorates)don't want us the citizens to know what's going on.

 

[JohnDubYa]

One way to examine the credibilty of a reporter is to examine his works for obvious bias. Do the following sound objective?

"Heaven help us when President Bush and Congress tell us that they are going to 'help' us vote."

People who have axes to grind are less trustworthy when it comes to reporting facts. That doesn't necessarily make Palast a liar, but can those that lie on the opposite side of the political spectrum ever trust him?

 

[amp]

JDY,

"Heaven help us when President Bush and Congress tell us that they are going to 'help' us vote."

In the context in which it is written it sounds more like a warning or an alert for us to watch out.

 

[russ_watters]

It is good, however, that you've detached the word "foreign" which appeared in your first use of the tediously tendentious phrase "tabloid reporter hawking a book", as for one thing he's an American (even if he works mostly for British news agencies), and for another, the idea that the nationality of a journalist might a priori reflect on the credibility of their reporting is pretty far outside any standard of objectivity I can think of. Given that he's currently being sued by Mario Cuomo, it's not necessarily even easy to argue that Palast is narrowly partisan. (Note: Until I googled this stuff a few minutes ago, I didn't know Palast from a hole in the wall.)

Should I let go the fact that you cited something I didn't say in that quote and then proceeded to argue against it? Well - the main reason I would use the word "foreign" in this context is that the British mainstream press (with a few exceptions) is generally regarded as a tabloid press here. I submit that that is the reason he chooses to work there: the style of reporting better matches his own than what he finds in the US. That's different from the implication for the credibility of a "foreign" reporter coming from, say Iran...

Should this be taken as an example of how well you usually check sources?

Who do you consider credible? How well do you check their sources?

Well, the first and most obvious way is to check if they have or cite sources.

First off, a closer inspection of your link (I mised this before), the asertion you and amp are attributing to Palast did not even come from him. Read this quote again:

Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.[emphasis added]

...and now look at the byline for who "we" and "I" are.

Palast's assertion from the book (if accurately reported) is:

According to his[Palast's] investigation, up to 57,000 persons, the majority of them African American and Democrats, had their voting rights removed.

Notice the conspicuous lack of any charge that the purge was erroneous or illegal.

So, my opinion of Palast just went up a notch, my opinion of your (and amps, and my) reading comprehension went down a notch, and my judgement that the 91k number is BS is intact.

 

[russ_watters]

Mr. Palast is an investigative reporter. I'm not asking you to buy or read his book but I'm certain he substantiates his assertions therein.

What makes you so sure? Heck, now I'm not even sure what those assertions are - but the fact that no mainstream press is reporting anywhere near what you have claimed makes me doubt your assertions: Corroboration is the second criteria by which I judge a report.

You will note that the 94000 number comes from the company (DBT) that produced the 'lists' for Florida.

Did it? Someone stating that it did does not constitute evidence. Evidence is a photocopy of the document where they got the number. That said, I'm not questioning that number (that's just a lesson in what evidence is). The full quote from this Isaac Hernandez guy is:

Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.

Note the period between the two numbers: though he may have gotten the 94,000 number from DBT, he is not saying he got the 91,000 from them: he's looking for you to assume it. That's the number that needs to be substantiated and that tactic is straight out of Michael Moore's book.

Russ, you call that unfactual? And 94000 were purged, 91000 should not have been on the list!

Based on the word of Isaac Hernandez? Jeez, amp, do you have any standards for credibility besides 'I like what he said'?

On 'Like it is' Mr. Palast said he can't work in the US, because basically they (the US media conglomorates)don't want us the citizens to know what's going on.

Yes, that certainly fits with my judgement that he works in England because he's a tabloid reporter. But in any case, this isn't about him - its about this Mr. Hernandez.

Anyway, I don't speak Spanish: does anyone know what "EL MUNDO" means?

 

[amp]

It means 'the world'(el - the , mundo - world).

Note the period between the two numbers: though he may have gotten the 94,000 number from DBT, he is not saying he got the 91,000 from them.

The 91000 came from the finding that only 4000 people on the list were convicted felons Your right I didn't research this personally, but in light of the agreement that this little farce happened at all, lends enormous credence to what has been written. The fact that it took a court order to expose it leads even a simplistic Sherlock Holmes fan such as myself to deduce that the entire affair is SHADY, illegal I'll let the lawyers handle that though I suspect so.

And as I said he works in England because the american media isn't too interested in the truth when it comes to this admin. In fact, the buzz is that if you want to keep working for them you had best muzzle your objectivity and integrity.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, looking more into Mr. Palast, I found http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2 article. It wasn't written by him, its an inteview of him. But here's a direct quote from him:

My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime...

So that's where the number of errors came from: he generated it himself. Unless he's really, really good about laying out his methods (so that others can use what he says to check him) in his book (I won't be buying it to find out), he fails both of the credibility critereon I posted earlier: his allegations are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.

Also, from another article on his site:

Imagine a cross between Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, if such a beast is possible -- that's Greg Palast. In fact, Moore borrowed a good deal of the information for his bestseller, Stupid White Men, from the reports of Greg Palast.

Yeah, that's the impression I get too. But unlike the writer of that article, I don't consider that a good thing.

 

[amp]

When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t. He didn’t even bother to ask how the machines were set up. This is the kind of reporting we get in America. In Britain, this story ran 3 weeks after the election, when Gore was still in race. It was in the papers and on TV. In the US, it was seven months before the Washington Post ran it, and then it was only a partial version. After the election, Gadsden County replaced its voting commissioner. In 2002 they only lost one in 500 votes. So you can say blacks in Gadsden got smarter in one way – they elected a black elections chief.

This was in the link you posted Russ.

My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime...

So that's where the number of errors came from: he generated it himself.

Russ, the errors are there to be found, even you could "carefully" go thru the list and being a perfectionist probably find more.

 

[plover]

Should I let go the fact that you cited something I didn't say in that quote and then proceeded to argue against it?

At least you figured this one out later -- even if that didn't lead you to remove the unwarranted accusation.

Well - the main reason I would use the word "foreign" in this context is that the British mainstream press (with a few exceptions) is generally regarded as a tabloid press here. I submit that that is the reason he chooses to work there: the style of reporting better matches his own than what he finds in the US.

Ok, first we have an unsubstantiated characterization of the British press. We then use this to deduce that someone about whom no relevant facts were ascertained must a) work for a news organ of dubious repute, and b) must himself work to dubious standards. And from all this we can ascribe motives to this individual, while simultaneously toting in a new implication that of course if this person were competent he would work in the U.S.

Um... wow...


And, um... yeah, that's just... er, wow...

That's different from the implication for the credibility of a "foreign" reporter coming from, say Iran...

How is this suppose to follow from what went before? You have some greater reason to trust the overall Iranian press than the British press? How is this relevant to the case of a given individual? First you apply a statistical argument to a point where it's not warranted, and now you're backing that up with a statement where the statistical argument doesn't even seem to hold?

Well, the first and most obvious way is to check if they have or cite sources.

See the last paragraph of my previous post...

First off, a closer inspection of your link (I mised this before), the asertion you and amp are attributing to Palast did not even come from him.

You got to stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't directly attributed any statement to Palast or offered any explicit support. I merely noted that your dismissal exhibited more partisanship than fact-checking.

Yes, that certainly fits with my judgement that he works in England because he's a tabloid reporter.

Only if you equate a journalist disagreeing with your assessment of the U.S. media with being a tabloid reporter.

 

[russ_watters]

Um... wow...


And, um... yeah, that's just... er, wow...

You should learn from me. Detecting credibility (or lack thereof) really isn't all that hard. It just takes a little common sense.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the errors are there to be found, even you could "carefully" go thru the list and being a perfectionist probably find more.

Well, that's great, amp - does that mean you've seen the list, the errors, and the evidence? Please post the list with the errors noted and substantiated and I'll take them into consideration.

 

[amp]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, that's your right and I respect that. I do not desire to scan thru 94000 names and cross-references to acertain something which better qualified people have all ready done.

Detecting credibility (or lack thereof) really isn't all that hard. It just takes a little common sense.

I think Plover has expunged yours.

Ok, first we have an unsubstantiated characterization of the British press. We then use this to deduce that someone about whom no relevant facts were ascertained must a) work for a news organ of dubious repute, and b) must himself work to dubious standards. And from all this we can ascribe motives to this individual, while simultaneously toting in a new implication that of course if this person were competent he would work in the U.S.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, that's your right and I respect that. I do not desire to scan thru 94000 names and cross-references to acertain something which better qualified people have all ready done.

And there we have it: 'I don't need to see the evidence to believe it.' Sorry, but I do. I don't choose to believe or disbelieve things based on if they sound good to me - I want the evidence. You even say that I wouldn't believe the evidence even if I saw it: even if true, how is that worse than choosing to believe it without the evidence?

And if his credentials are so good: why doesn't he have a job in the US? Oh wait, I remember now: its all a conspiracy. And with all the self-fulfilling preconceptions that go with it: being rejected by the US press isn't evidence that he's a bad reporter (to you), its evidence that the US press is bad and he's good. Uh huh.

 

[amp]

Second question first, Its not a conspiracy just fact. He could work for press that dosen't have an agenda slanted in some particular direction, for instance, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't hire him and he owns a large share of the media. I am implying that because he tends to investigate news that brings serious issues to light that those who control the purse strings won't want anything embarrassing to their objectives to get know publicly.

Russ:

: 'I don't need to see the evidence to believe it.'

Nope, I don't need to see the equations of Newton or Albert to believe there is such a thing as gravity. I don't need to see the evidence of Mr. Kay to believe the UN inspectors when they said Saddam didn't have nuclear capability. I don't need to see the evidence (medically speaking) to know I live. (well that particular fact is felt by me.)

The point though is that by the time I heard or read about Mr. Palasts report, what had happened in Florida was public knowledge.

Which makes it a good idea to have observers.

 

[russ_watters]

Nope, I don't need to see the equations of Newton or Albert to believe there is such a thing as gravity.

Einstein's and Newton's equations are the theory, not the evidence. The evidence is the apple falling on your head. You're reading the scientific method upside-down, which maybe explains your position here...

 

[amp]

Right, I had it wrong anyway. See how easy that was, I knew someone would set it straight. In this case it was you, Russ. Just so, I know if Mr. Palasts staff had come up with the numbers they came up with erroneously it would have been refuted, perhaps by someone like you. Since it is now public knowledge, the people now know in order not repeat this voter purge they will have to view the election officials conduct under a microscope.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Just so, I know if Mr. Palasts staff had come up with the numbers they came up with erroneously it would have been refuted, perhaps by someone like you.

Something is true if we are not aware of anyone refuting it? Is that what you are saying?

 

[amp]

No not really.

As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency. And furthermore, they are attempting to do it again. That is the main reason such objections are made to having observers moniter this coming election.

 

[JohnDubYa]

with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency

Exactly what actions did George W. take that would be considered cheating? Or is this just more hyperbole?

 

[russ_watters]

As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency.

If that's true, isn't it surprising that no one (neither Bush's side, nor Kerry's) is making an issue of it? I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal! Where is the call for impeachment? Where is the call for the arrest of the officials responsible?

The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).

 

[kat]

Things that make you go hmmmm

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224449p-192807c.html

*snips*
Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows.

******

But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

******
The News' investigation also found:


Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party.

 

[plover]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, that's your right and I respect that.

While I appreciate you finding my points to be compelling enough to serve as support for your own, I must request that you too not put words in my mouth. The statement that Russ "would not consider ... truth [that] doesn't conform to [his] preconceived notions" is not one that I have made.

(I am still waiting for some example of how closely he checks sources he agrees with though... )

 

[plover]

The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).

If this is truly what it tells you, then you're amazingly naive, otherwise you're just being disingenuous. Since when have politicians, the media, or the courts been transparent conduits between fact and action? The above statement is on a par with saying that the Republicans do take him seriously, and so endeavor to ensure his voice is not heard. It is not impossible that the situation is as simple as you say, but you have given no evidence that it is, and most real-world situations do not reduce so easily, so reason is not on your side.

Your statements about Palast not working in the U.S. I just find tiresome. For one thing they ignore the fact that, as I stated above, he has worked for mainstream media here, and was considered a credible advocate by a government commission. But even if that were not the case, they exhibit a simplistic xenophobia that, whether or not it accurately reflects your beliefs, does your reputation no honor and your argument no service.

(Caveat delimiting the content of this post omitted in the hope it's not necessary...)

 

[JohnDubYa]

I already posted an obviously biased and subjective quote by Palast. Does not that indicate a seeming inability to investigate objectively?

 

[amp]

No John, Plover I apologize, ", Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions." this statement is my opinion from the responses given to you.

I see Kat seized on the Daily news article on a Double Vote scandal but when I post articles from the NY Times about Floridas' election conspiracy I get boo'ed.

Russ Watters:

...I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal!...

Aint that right!

Where is the call for impeachment?

There was a petition being circulated calling for Bush to be impeached. Not because of Florida but because he I won't say lied, how about deceived the American people and put our soldiers in harms way in doing so.

This quote explains why there wasn't any call for impeachment over the Florida incident.

No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.

This in itself would make it improbable for justice to be served add to that a republican house and senate... well it pretty obvious, for crying out loud

 

[kat]

I'm sorry...what was the date that Ashcroft took his position?

and er...com'on the NYT... Or hadn't you heard the old grey lady has fallen?