Fooled Again: How The Right Stole The 2004 Election
 

This is without a doubt required reading for anyone with an interest in politics. This country is missing thoughtful, rational discussion about our electoral procedure and process. If you even insinuate something fishy happened in 2000 or 2004 you are shouted down as a nut or kook. However, there is a lot of evidence BOTH elections were stolen right out from under our noses. Isn't there room for a rational debate on this issue? Our politicians have failed us, the press has failed us and we've failed ourselves! Where is the outrage?!?! I know this is a long interview, but if you have any curiosity as to what might have happened in the past 2 elections, I suggest you read it.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

For the full interview, check the link...

http://www.alternet.org/story/31217/


Election Theft Emergency

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted January 27, 2006.

Mark Crispin Miller talks about how the right stole the 2004 presidential election -- and how they'll do it again unless we stop them.


For GOP voters, the 2004 presidential election was little short of miraculous: Behind in the Electoral College even on the afternoon of the vote, the Bush-Cheney ticket staged a stunning comeback. Usually reliable exit polls turned out to be wrong by an unprecedented 5 percent in swing states. Conservatives argued, and the media agreed, that "moral values" had made the difference.

In his latest book, Fooled Again: How The Right Stole The 2004 Election, And Why They'll Steal The Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them), Mark Crispin Miller argues that it wasn't moral values which swung the election -- it was theft.

TERRENCE McNALLY: You're a professor of media studies. According to your bio, you write about "film, television, propaganda, advertising and the culture industries ?" Why did you write this book?

MARK CRISPIN MILLER: Out of a sense of civic emergency. I believe that "Fooled Again" makes the case quite persuasively that there is actually no convincing evidence that Bush and Cheney won re-election.

This is a civic story of the utmost importance. It has to do with the dire need for election reform in the United States. But it's also a story about the colossal failure of the American press to do precisely the kind of job that the framers had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. What they had in mind was that the press would function as a reliable check on executive power. It would keep the people informed about what their government was up to, and it would keep them politically engaged in national debate.

The newspapers, as limited and defective as they were in the 18th century, did perform that function, and I believe they performed that function for much of our history. We now have a corporate media system that is not answerable to the people nor concerned about the people, but [is] in the service of its pay masters. And it is far too close to the government for the health of anything like a democratic system.

One of the points of "Fooled Again" is that this is a story of tremendous importance, as far as a democracy is concerned. Yet the press has for the most part ridiculed those who have come up with very solid evidence of fraud. They've been in the business less of talking about the situation than of preventing anybody else from talking about it. And this includes some of the progressive media as well. In fact, the most hostile reviews that I've received have been in Mother Jones and Salon.

MCM: We have to understand that for some decades the press has served basically an establishmentarian function. They have the reputation, and they certainly have the self-image, of being terribly skeptical, prone to disrespectful questions, probing dark matters that authority would just as soon have them leave alone. That's a very flattering view of the press but completely undeserved. The press will not deal with any story that goes beyond a particular scandal to cast doubt on the very viability of the entire system. The press in this country will studiously ignore any story that too violently rocks the boat, whose implications are too shattering.

This is not new. Watergate was a story that the press avoided for months and months. Only the Washington Post pursued that story; everybody else made fun of it. Now we look back on Watergate with tremendous nostalgia and self-congratulation, telling ourselves the press saved the system. But since Watergate the press has preferred to deal with meaningless and trivial scandals like the Clinton scandals. They will not talk about 9/11, they will not talk about the theft of the last three elections.

TM: Why do you believe the two successive Democratic candidates have given in so easily?

MCM: I think basically Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry this last time are far too concerned with establishment opinion, far too worried that they'll seem to be sore losers, conspiracy theorists, etc. They have therefore refused to go public with what they actually believe. Kerry told me personally on October 28th at a fundraising party that he believes the election was probably stolen.


TM: As a citizen, it bothers me that we leave it to a Gore or a Kerry, who's thinking about his future reputation or his future career, to stage the protest. I don't care about their careers. I care about my vote getting counted or discounted.

What's the statement that you're willing to make in "Fooled Again" about the 2004 election: stolen? worthy of investigation? evidence clearly shows in six states ??

MCM: The evidence in Ohio, as anyone who followed the story knows, is copious. Bush allegedly won that state by 118,000 votes. As I point out -- and this part of the book is largely based on John Conyers' report to the House Judiciary Committee -- the various stratagems, tricks and tactics used to prevent people from registering, to prevent them from voting, to throw away provisional ballots -- all these add up to a number far greater than 118,000.


TM: You say similar practices (and occasionally worse ones) were applied in several other key states -- Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and even New York?

MCM: In New Mexico, for example, we're told that Bush won by some 7,000 votes. We know of over 17,000 Democratic voters who were unable to cast a vote for president because the touchscreen machines in their districts refused to record a vote for president.

These 17,000-plus New Mexicans turned out to vote in Democratic areas, and they didn't record a vote for president. Seventeen thousand is 10,000 more than 7,000. That glitch alone can account for the ostensible victory margin of Bush over Kerry in New Mexico. Greg Palast's new book will have a whole chapter on New Mexico. It's hair-raising stuff, and we haven't heard a word about it. The same kind of thing happened in Iowa, where Bush supposedly won by under 10,000 votes.

This isn't only a matter of the White House, it's also a matter of the Congress. I don't believe that this government represents the people of this country. The people of this country, however frightened some of them may be by terrorism, are essentially not theocratically inclined. They don't want a Christian republic. They were not happy with the way the government dealt with the Terry Schiavo case. Americans basically believe in the American system of government. Checks and balances, the separation of church and state.

The press kept telling us after the election that a huge outpouring of religious voters account for Bush's miraculous victory. Well that's nothing more than a talking point that the religious right itself put out after the election. There is no statistical evidence whatsoever that there was any increase in the number of religious voters.

TM: The big thing that people seized on was one particular exit poll in which people, when given a choice of a few things, said moral values was the No. 1 reason for their vote. More people answered moral values in 1996 and in 2000 than in 2004. There was actually a drop in the number of people who attributed their vote to moral values in 2004, not a rise.

Let me check a couple of things with you. I've heard that exit polls were most inaccurate -- by a big margin -- in those areas that used electronic voting machines with no paper trail. True?

MCM: That's basically true, and it was particularly noticeable in five swing states. There's a lot of stuff floating around out there in cyberspace about the exit polls. The question of the exit polls has been very badly muddied by a lot of disingenuous argument. Now a lot of people think that it's not a reliable gauge, it doesn't tell us anything. That's actually the result of propaganda obfuscation. The exit polls' sudden divergence, sudden wrongness in these five states is really a remarkable deviation from the norm.

Bogus reasons for why the exit polls were so wrong include the reluctant responder argument, which holds that Bush voters were strangely reluctant to tell exit pollsters how they voted. Well, Freeman has read the raw data at precinct level and has discovered that, as a matter of fact, if anyone showed a greater reluctance to come forward and say honestly who they voted for when confronted with an exit pollster, it was actually the Democrats. There's no evidence of any numerical kind that can support the view that somehow Republicans wouldn't fess up.

This has to do with the peculiarly paranoid quality of the crusading mindset. I believe this theft was to a great extent carried out thanks to a kind of crusader mentality. I've got plenty of evidence in the book that the religious right played an enormously large role in the theft of the election last year.

omg, are you still butthurt that kerry lost? move on...

C'mon StickyGreen, has all that pot smoke made you so oblivious to what's going on? Yes, let's just sit back while the criminal in the White House starts wars, appoints his unqualified cronies to positions of great importance, tortures prisoners, gives out no-bid contracts to his buddies, lets Bin Laden roam free, abandons Americans in Hurricane Katrina, illegally wiretaps American citizens and on and on and on....

It's ok, he's only mortgaging all our futures. Let's just sit back and drink the Kool Aid man.

He's just a goofy good-hearted texas all american guy, not some evil satanic person out to destroy the world. lol, get a grip. whether he is actually doing a good job or not, he most likely is trying to do a good job.

the thread could just as easily be called " how the left gave the 2004 election away "

and its a very poor example of someone trying to profit from people's hate of bush..

No evidence whatsoever . BUY THE BOOK haha well at least we know his agenda..

I'm not saying its not possible the elections were rigged , but to try to "SELL' this is idiotic.. Behind every good conspiracy is some moron trying to sell a book about it..

You're right. Good-hearted people authorize more executions than any other Governor ever (including the mentally incompetant). Good people invade sovereign nations for their own benefit and the benefit of their largest campaign donors resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. I could go on, but you're right, he's trying sooo hard to do a good job!

LOL...murderers should be put to death. You don't have to be "evil" to believe that. And he did not invade a sovereign nation for his "own benefit." LMAO. Yea, the Bush family is hurting so bad for money...tough times.

who gives a fuck

honestly.

Oh yeah? Then who exactly has benefitted? It's going so swimmingly over there, didn't you know? Just remember the war is going to pay for itself! What a joke. You can't dispute the facts my man and it's a good thing you don't even attempt to.

No, it just speaks to his careless disregard for life. Wether its Iraqis, US Troops, underpriviledged citizens in LA and MS, genocide in Darfur....

I don't think that anything was stolen or illegal in the election. I think our country just has more too many idiots that can vote.

Whats amazing is how the history books record Al Gore as the only president who won the presidential election but didn't go into office. If this happened so blatantly in 2000, do we really think they couldn't tweak a few rules here & there to help them gain power again. Not saying I believe it but I certainly think the current govenment in power are capable of anything.

Americans need to realize that America is not uncorruptable. So many people believe this and ignore any chance of corruption going on but its clearly there and in a country & system built & flooded by money can we expect an uncorruptable system? I think not.

The electoral college system allows for someone to win the popular vote, and then lose the election. It has happened THREE times:

In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president