SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (68335)9/9/2004 9:37:14 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793958
 
The NYT now knows that as a result of the vets, the military vote will be 80/20 Bush. Heaven forbid!



September 09, 2004, 8:31 a.m.
Spinning Away
The Times wants our servicemen overseas disenfranchised.

— NRO contributor Jed Babbin is the author of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think.

When last I visited with the pages of the New York Times, fabulist Douglas Jehl was bashing the president with made-up facts about what then-CIA director George Tenet said about his talks with the vice president. This time, the editorial page has surpassed itself. In its August 31 editorial, "The Pentagon's Troubling Role," the Times accuses the Pentagon of preparing to operate a system "...in which employees who answer to the secretary of defense could control the margin of victory in a close presidential election." They would do so, said the Times, by funneling e-mailed ballots through the Pentagon.

The system that is giving the Aunt Pittypats of the Times such a case of the vapors was begun in 1990 to enable states to use available technology to facilitate absentee votes from all American citizens — not just the military — who are overseas. Now the Defense Department is engaged in a determined effort to ensure that our soldiers and their families away from home aren't disenfranchised as they were in 2000. Problem is, the Times — again — is simply making up facts to feed its own paranoia. Well, maybe it's not paranoia: If the soldiers get to vote, they could easily deliver a Bush win in November.

This exercise in editorial mythology spun off from a press release from Missouri's secretary of state, Matt Blunt, announcing that "...he will allow military voters from his state — one of the most pivotal in the election — to e-mail ballots from combat zones to the Defense Department." The Times says that the Missouri rule — and a similar one issued in North Dakota — opens the door to coercion of soldiers by their commanders and makes it easy for Pentagon ballot-handlers to alter the votes, and it demands that the Pentagon stop handling ballots and instead help military and overseas voters send the ballots directly to local election officials. It would be a stretch to say that every word in the editorial is a falsehood. But it wouldn't be much of a stretch. Though Matt Blunt's office did make the incorrect announcement, the Times — knowingly, willfully, and with considerable precision — misstated the facts.

One very senior Pentagon official I spoke to Tuesday was dumbfounded. He said, "The New York Times has outdone itself by having more errors per column inch in this editorial than in any other article I've ever seen. Those pesky facts once again elude the New York Times." Elude? Hardly. Facts occasionally elude those who are interested in them. The Times isn't. Before the editorial appeared, Pentagon spokesmen told the Times's editorial writer that no ballots were going to be handled by or transmitted through the Pentagon. But the Times ignored the facts and went about its business of purposely misleading the public.

What the Times described was a new system with which "military voters in combat zones will be able to e-mail their ballots to the Pentagon, which will then send them to local Missouri elections offices to be counted." The Times editorial also said that the ballots would be handled by a company with the melodramatic name of Omega Technologies, "hired for this purpose, at the company's offices and without the election observers who are present at normal polling places." Unfortunately for the Times — as it knew before the editorial was published — none of that is true. Ballots will not be e-mailed — through the Pentagon or otherwise — but hard-copy ballots could be faxed directly to state and local ballot-counters (And no one in the Pentagon seems to know who "Omega Technologies" is. Maybe it's related to Ah-nold's employer in True Lies, which was called "the Omega Agency.")

What is happening — in Missouri and North Dakota and other states — is that their registered voters who are away from home as members of the military, or of military families (and other civilians as well), are being enabled to obtain absentee ballots by the usual means, fill them in and fax them to the precinct or other ballot-counting official. They will also, under the new system, first request ballots normally through the mail and then — in some states — be able to download a hard-copy ballot to be filled out, signed, and faxed back to the state. The Pentagon isn't involved in handling any ballots. None. Zero. Zip. So where are all the creepy crawly ballot thieves, forgers, ghouls, and goblins the Times apparently thinks are at work in the Pentagon basement? They exist, but only in the imagination of the Times's fabulist crew. For good reason.

The Times's agenda is to give credence to the liberal groups who will, I'm sure, soon be filing suit to prevent the use of the new system. This agenda will be hidden under the usual claims of protecting the voting rights of someone or other. But their real goal is to disenfranchise the soldiers, sailors, Coast Guardsmen, airmen and Marines who are fighting for every American's right to vote. The only question remaining is which California federal judge will give them an injunction, and how long it takes for the Ninth Circuit to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Once these lawsuits are filed, the election will truly hang in the balance. And everyone who is interested in preserving the right of the solider to vote should oppose them.






nationalreview.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (68335)9/9/2004 9:41:31 AM
From: gamesmistress  Respond to of 793958
 
the Democrats as the media's political arm.

From CJR Campaign Desk:

Campaign Desk has previously lamented cable shows whose ideas of "news" is to slap two campaign officials on air to shout talking points at one another with a moderator trying (or frequently not bothering to try) to penetrate the blizzard of spin. Often, we've thought, the cable channels might just as well dispense with the journalistic camouflage and put on a show called something like, oh, say, Racicot & Devine. (As in Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, and Tad Devine, a senior Kerry campaign advisor). You know, make it official.

Now, CNN has done just that -- made it official. Paul Begala and James Carville, "from the left" co-hosts of CNN's "Crossfire," late last week joined the Kerry campaign as advisors -- and will be continuing their work on CNN.

There are plenty of pundits practicing today who once upon a time worked for a political campaign or a presidential administration -- but concurrently working for a news organization and a political campaign seems an obvious conflict of interest to us.

But not to CNN, whose spokesman, Matt Furman, offered Campaign Desk this morning "some facts which actually might explain what's going on." There is no conflict, Furman explained, because Begala's and Carville's advisory roles with the Kerry campaign are "informal." Furman told Campaign Desk that The New York Times failed to explain the "Crossfire" co-hosts' roles "in as complete a form as possible," before offering Campaign Desk, apparently, the "complete" explanation: Begala and Carville "have an informal role advising some members of the Kerry campaign"; they are "unpaid," they "don't have an office or a desk at campaign headquarters," and they don't "regularly meet with the campaign."

What about CNN's viewers? What are they to make of the fact that the network which bills itself as "American's Campaign Headquarters" now employs two Kerry campaign advisors as hosts of a daily show? Furman repeated himself: "[Begala's and Carville's] informal role advising some members of the Kerry campaign is not inconsistent with their role on CNN. Our audience knows exactly what position they're getting watching them, [that] they want nothing more than to see a Democrat elected president." Moreover, Furman is confident Begala and Carville can do both jobs well -- cohosting "Crossfire" and advising the Kerry camp -- because, he said, "they're talented men."
So, will viewers be informed of the "Crossfire" co-hosts' dual roles? "We already did that on air at least three times yesterday," Furman said, noting that CNN's Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, and Larry King mentioned the issue on air on Monday.

We took a look at how these three CNN personalities addressed the issue. Tucker Carlson, not surprisingly, used the news to rib his co-host, referencing the Times piece, speculating on what Carville's hiring might say about the state of the Kerry campaign. The notion of a conflict of interest apparently never crossed Carlson's mind.

Anderson Cooper noted yesterday that "a group of familiar faces" recently joined the Kerry campaign, including Begala and Carville. He then exchanged some harmless back-and-forth with Carville, noting that Kerry is making some strategic changes and that Carville is glad to help.
And on "Larry King Live," Larry King asked Paul Begala mid-program yesterday, "Are you going to work on the Kerry campaign, that was in The New York Times yesterday?" Among Carlson, Carville, Cooper, King and Begala, only Begala seemed alive to the potential hot potato implicit in the question. His halting reply: "Yes -- no, I work for CNN, Larry, I'm going to keep working for CNN if they'll have me. I absolutely ... I support John Kerry. And I will advise him as I would advise any Democrat who wants advice, but I do it for free and I do it for love. So I'm going to continue to advise Kerry and support him but I'm not going to work for anybody but CNN."

All this intermarriage is the net result, of course, of a slippery slope that news outlets first ventured onto by hiring ex-politicos in the first place -- a trend that the Washington Post's Howie Kurtz derided yesterday as one in which "political operatives, moonlighting hacks, unemployed pols and pseudo-celebrities have become interchangeable in the profession formerly known as journalism." After all, once you hire, say, a presidential speech writer as a political reporter after his boss gets run out of town, it's a short (and tempting) step to hire him as a reporter while he's still churning out boilerplate and stump speeches for a candidate.

But it's a step that comes at a cost -- and in this case that cost may be one more lost thread from the campaign press' already tattered credibility. By keeping two attack dogs like Carville and Begala on the payroll even after they sign on with the Kerry campaign, the cable network puts that at risk. (Meanwhile, what little alarm has been raised about Begala/Carville's double employment stint with CNN/Kerry has been strangely muted. Somehow, we suspect there would be more indignant outcry about all this if two Fox News headliners -- say Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly -- had joined the Bush campaign as advisors, while continuing on at Fox.)

However it plays out, the only losers in this incestuous minuet of the observed and the observers are the readers and the viewers.
--Liz Cox Barrett

campaigndesk.org