ELECTION FRAUD UPDATE - KOS Out, Freeman In
As Markos Zúniga (kos) of blog Daily KOS is slamming election fraud theorists, University of Pennsylvania professor of statistics Steven F. Freeman has updated his paper on election exit-poll discrepancies. In his Summary he continues to include:
Republicans have proven that they will use dirty tricks and media propaganda to paint liberals as "wacko" no matter what they attempt, even when a legitimate senator such as John Kerry runs for office. And that is accomplished by framing liberals as elitist, amoral, socialist, communist, big government, whatever - you name it - if it is button pushing material regardless of it's legitimacy (take Social Security) it will be thrown into the conversation as qualifier, not topic. The unconscious frame links the Republican noise-machine have crafted simply light up the appropriate belief-system to shut down the rational thinking of the listener. It doesn't matter what fraud theorists, or Kos, actually think or write. If both are liberal, both are wacko. And he goes on to point out that this is not 2000. Well, it wasn't until 2001 that all the recount scenarios from Florida revealed that if the entire state were counted, Gore won under every possible recount scenario. Would that we do the same in Ohio, Bush will be inaugurated and discovery of fraud could emerge in late 2005! Kos may be okay with that, but I'm not.
Second, I would imagine that if Kos has been accused of not covering something it's because activists know Daily KOS is widely read and respected, which is of course one of his points - he intends to remain independent and respected - but I hope he understands that at least one faction of the liberal community expects him to behave like a journalist (even if he isn't actually proclaiming himself as one) and cover the news (especially if it's running contrary to coporate media spin or black-outs). Although unwelcome, to be drafted by your peers in the name of a righteous cause, is a compliment.
Third, I am a member of the fraud theory faction, that probably represents one of the lines or mindsets of which liberals will have to take a stand on one side or the other, eventually. I have completely and entirely lost trust in current administration members of government and their political and corporate support network. As actors in good faith for all Americans, their rights and the constitution, I believe those persons are dangerous, untrustworthy and capable of any evil in the name of their extremist cause. Hence all their actions are suspect. From that point of view, kos' position falls more toward one who believes that if liberals figure out the problem, or otherwise do something different, we will win elections. From my POV, he is in denial, like that of an abuse victim who refuses to see that he can't win.
If statisticians like Steven Freeman continue to believe the fraud theory has validity, it is good enough for me.
Systematic fraud or mistabulation is as yet an unfounded conclusion, but the election’s unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate.Admittedly, Kos has been attacked by some fraud theorists for not covering the issue, and he has a point - it's his blog - he can write what he wants. I agree. Then he goes on to add:
So why didn't I find the Ohio stuff compelling? Because the whacked out conspiracy theories hijacked the issue, taking it away from the obvious travesties -- the long lines in Democratic precincts, attempted voter intimidation, etc., to the realm of fantasy.First, I do see his point - that this (I suppose he means election reform) - "...has been painted as a partisan issue pushed forth by wacko liberals," but I don't agree that is the fault of fraud theorists or the activity of election activists in Ohio.
Us liberal bloggers like to brag that we live in the "reality-based community". It's kind of hard to be reality-based when people are claiming that Kerry won with no hard evidence to the contrary. Was there fraud? Sure. There always has been. Was the GOP ready to steal the election if necessary? No doubt. But they didn't have to steal this one. This wasn't 2000. Bush rode his fucked up war to victory, whether we like it or not. History will judge us right, but until then, we're stuck with the results.
Now, I was open minded at first, letting the fraudsters do the analysis, ready to pounce if the smoking gun was found. But after myriad diaries crying wolf, claiming that this was the evidence to seal the deal, well, it got old. Then it got counterproductive, then it got embarrassing.
All the crying wolf is hurting the cause for electoral reform. This has been painted as a partisan issue pushed forth by wacko liberals who think Kerry won the election when Bush won.
Republicans have proven that they will use dirty tricks and media propaganda to paint liberals as "wacko" no matter what they attempt, even when a legitimate senator such as John Kerry runs for office. And that is accomplished by framing liberals as elitist, amoral, socialist, communist, big government, whatever - you name it - if it is button pushing material regardless of it's legitimacy (take Social Security) it will be thrown into the conversation as qualifier, not topic. The unconscious frame links the Republican noise-machine have crafted simply light up the appropriate belief-system to shut down the rational thinking of the listener. It doesn't matter what fraud theorists, or Kos, actually think or write. If both are liberal, both are wacko. And he goes on to point out that this is not 2000. Well, it wasn't until 2001 that all the recount scenarios from Florida revealed that if the entire state were counted, Gore won under every possible recount scenario. Would that we do the same in Ohio, Bush will be inaugurated and discovery of fraud could emerge in late 2005! Kos may be okay with that, but I'm not.
Second, I would imagine that if Kos has been accused of not covering something it's because activists know Daily KOS is widely read and respected, which is of course one of his points - he intends to remain independent and respected - but I hope he understands that at least one faction of the liberal community expects him to behave like a journalist (even if he isn't actually proclaiming himself as one) and cover the news (especially if it's running contrary to coporate media spin or black-outs). Although unwelcome, to be drafted by your peers in the name of a righteous cause, is a compliment.
Third, I am a member of the fraud theory faction, that probably represents one of the lines or mindsets of which liberals will have to take a stand on one side or the other, eventually. I have completely and entirely lost trust in current administration members of government and their political and corporate support network. As actors in good faith for all Americans, their rights and the constitution, I believe those persons are dangerous, untrustworthy and capable of any evil in the name of their extremist cause. Hence all their actions are suspect. From that point of view, kos' position falls more toward one who believes that if liberals figure out the problem, or otherwise do something different, we will win elections. From my POV, he is in denial, like that of an abuse victim who refuses to see that he can't win.
If statisticians like Steven Freeman continue to believe the fraud theory has validity, it is good enough for me.
<< Home