‘No Transparency or Accountability in’ Whose Election, New York Times?

8 Comments on “‘No Transparency or Accountability in’ Whose Election, New York Times?”

1. I am so sick of the faux outrage being expressed over the elections in Iran.

   We don’t have open, free, verifiable elections here.

   The rest of the world knows that 2000 was plainly stolen. The reviews in this country show it was too – MSM buried it in silence.

   The repugs that stole 2000, key races in 2002, 2004, and even some key races in 2006 proclaim “Get Over It!” when it happens in the US.

   And now McCain is publicly stating that he “hopes we will act” in Iran.

   No one in this country has any right to claim the high ground and judge another nations election.

   The repugs know they can’t win without disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters and even then they have to steal the results.

2. NYT, take note!

3. In “fairness” to the Times, it should be noted that these days, typos — real typos — have been running rampant throughout the paper. Surely they could have traded Elizabeth Bumiller for a few proofreaders!

4. Ha! That rocks.

5. effing brilliant!

6. http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/Media501.htm

   Kerry won by a landslide but no one knows it – thanks to the NY Times. After the 2000 fiasco one would have suspected that the major media would have pursued the story. But here we are in 2009 and still no one will touch it. What are they waiting for?

   A Times article written the day after the 2004 election is quite revealing. Unlike the rest of the media, the authors quoted the Kerry and Bush exit poll shares of returning and new voters. But they failed to apply simple logic that would have indicated that Kerry won by at least five million votes. Instead, they reported that Bush won a ” close election”.

   They could have been on to something very big had they done the math.

   “ For the second time in four years, the American people showed themselves deeply split yesterday about who should lead their country. Interviews with voters as they left the polls indicated that women, members of minority groups, young people, political independents, moderates and baby boomers voted for Senator John Kerry. As anticipated, Mr. Kerry ran powerfully among blacks, attracting 9 African-American votes in 10; perhaps more surprisingly, the senator also won a solid majority of Hispanics. President Bush did best among whites, men, voters with high incomes and evangelical Christians. Mr. Bush divided the Roman Catholic vote with Mr. Kerry, who is Catholic but whose positions on abortion, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research are at odds with his church’s positions. The interviews showed that Catholics who attend Mass weekly preferred Mr. Bush, while those who are less observant supported Mr. Kerry. Mr. Bush’s bid for a second term was handicapped by his failure to compete on even terms with Mr. Kerry among the millions of new voters who cast ballots yesterday. Almost 15 percent of those questioned said they had not voted in the equally contentious election of 2000, and more than 60 percent of them reported having chosen Mr. Kerry this year. On the other hand, Mr. Bush held onto 90 percent of the voters who said they had backed him four years ago, and Mr. Kerry won 90 percent of the voters who said they had supported Al Gore, the Democratic nominee in 2000”.

   If they had done the simple math, the authors would have noticed that Kerry must have won by more than 5 million votes. They wrote that Kerry won 60% of new voters. Since there were approximately 20m new voters, Kerry won the group by 4 million votes. Kerry won 90% of returning Gore voters and Bush won 90% of returning Bush voters. There was a zero net defection of returning Gore and Bush voters. A wash. The article failed to mention that Kerry also won 70% of 3 million returning Nader voters (a 1.5 million vote margin). No one in the media did the math. If they did, they were not about to talk about it.

   Consider this:

   “Turnout was “enormous”. Half the voters said they thought the country was seriously on the wrong track and fewer than half said it was going in the right direction. Mr. Kerry ran powerfully among blacks, attracting 9 African-American votes in 10; perhaps more surprisingly, the senator also won a solid majority of Hispanics. In Florida, where many people felt they had been disenfranchised four years ago, the memory of that election remained fresh enough to propel them to the polls. The country remains as divided about the success or failure of Mr. Bush’s presidency as it was when a Supreme Court ruling led to his narrow victory four years ago”.

   But then the authors closed ranks with the MSM lockdown of election fraud. They wrote that Bush won a “close election”. That’s it. No questions asked. They did not put 2+2 together. On the other hand, maybe they were told not to go there. Simple arithmetic would have gone a long way. But the media refused too investigate the 2004 voting anomalies. In 2000 Greg Palast had to go to the BBC to report on the disenfranchisement of 90,000 felons in Florida. The U.S. media wanted to keep a lid on that. They also avoided mentioning the butterfly ballot which cost Gore 5000 votes and the 110,000 punch card overvotes of which 70,000 were for Gore.

   THAT’S THE NEW YORK TIMES!

7. AlanJ.Gerson,District 1 election candidate has assured funding for the upcoming Battery Park City branch in Newyork city.

   Please check out his website,the link is given below:

   http://www.gerson2009.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpContent&htmlKey=issues&s=gerson

8. that is nice .. John.

Comments are closed.