"DISINFORMATIONIST"-CannonFire to Salon re: election fraud criticism

[autorank]

"DISINFORMATIONIST"-CannonFire to Salon re: election fraud criticism.

Salon's Farhad Manjoo has written a number of articles on election fraud pointing to major problems in 2004. All of a sudden, he released an article on Salon claiming that the National Exit Polls really didn't mean much. Ar argued that the pollster Mitofsky and some associates had solved the riddle of Kerry winning the polls up to, and until, 12:25am (election eve). After that, the poll suddenly showed Bush winning by the same margin as the "actual vote count."

In the article Farhad discussed a some time poster at DU and subject of an interminable thread. He says: O'Dell is critical of his compatriots, some of whom routinely suggest that a "corrupted vote count" is the only explanation for the odd exit poll results. "It's impossible that they have actual evidence that vote fraud must have occurred," he says. "They're overstating their data -- I think it's crying wolf or chicken little big time to proclaim you have evidence of vote fraud when actually you don't." IMHO, O’Dell is spinning Republican talking points, but that’s just my interpretation.

There was a great GD thread on this where DUers in GD showed that they knew what’s what. A number of us called up and canceled Salon on the spot (your’s truly, subscriber from day one).

Well, look what uber blogger CannonFire had to say:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

BOYCOTT SALON

CannonFire link (articles appear by date)

In a new Salon piece on the 2004 vote -- find it yourselves; I won't link to it – Farhad Manjoo calls the "reluctant Bush responder" theory a "persuasive new theory." That phrasing indicates the work of a disinformationist.

Manjoo is peddling horse shit, of course.(don’t you love this guy) Use your common sense: Are any Republicans of your acquaintance shrinking violets? Turn on your radio: Do the voices of reaction sound even slightly embarrassed or cautious?Democrats are the ones who have been cowed into silence by the violent brown shirts of the right.

<snip>

If the "eDr" theory holds water, then why were Democrats so notably "exuberant" only in "purple" states? And why were exit polls accurate in this country until the ascension of the Bush dynasty? Why are they still considered extremely accurate in Europe?

The Republicans have done everything in their power to insure that our voting machines have no paper trails. As demonstrated in many previous posts (both on this blog and elsewhere), the vote tabulator companies are run by either crooks or theocratic fanatics. These companies have often bribed officials to use their easily-hacked machines. (it gets better)

Those facts alone prove vote fraud. We need no further evidence. If Republicans do not commit vote fraud, then why do they not allow paper trails? If someone using a fake identity asks for your credit card information, do you need to gather more evidence before you conclude that he hopes to rob you?

<snip>

Why does Salon no longer publish work by investigative writers such as (say) Murray Waas? Why do they waste cyber-ink on frauds like Manjoo?

Ask yourselves: When was the last time Salon published a worthwhile, cutting-edge investigative piece about politics?

I STRONGLY urge Salon readers to unsubscribe.

Well, he was just getting warmed up.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Manure from Manjoo: A response

In the "comments" section, Salon writer Farhad Manjoo responded to yesterday's call for a Salon boycott, which I issued in the wake of his piece attacking vote fraud investigators. In the interest of fairness, I'll repeat his words in full here. (Italics indicate when he has quoted me.)

<snip>

Manjoo tries to convince his readers that "fraud freaks" have concentrated on exit poll controversies to the exclusion of concerns he considers more vital. That accusation hardly applies to me, to Brad Friedman, to the many Democratic Underground posters, to the writers at Raw Story, to the heroic workers who oversaw the Ohio recount, and to any number of people who have devoted time and energy to the discussion of all aspects of vote fraud.

<snip>

And Manjoo still doesn't respond to the question about the accuracy of exit polls in Europe, but not here.

Neither does he mention many other pertinent points, such as the fact that vote tabulation companies have a disturbing history of bribing election officials and offering them comfy sinecures, in order to get their hackable machines into position. Or this administration's efforts to impede international observation of the 2004 vote. Or Leto's study of Snohomish county, where the electronic vote differed substantially from the paper vote -- a difference inexplicable by any theory other than vote fraud.

Neither does Manjoo offer any suggestions as to how we might double-check our highly-questionable paper-free compu-vote. If we blithely toss out any exit polls that conflict with the official story, what else do we have?

Salon, which was once the place to go for those who wanted the truth about the Right's war on Clinton, now prints very little cutting-edge investigative reporting. Lately, I've gone there mostly for the movie reviews. But in the Bush economy, I can't really afford movies. So why read the reviews?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what's called really kicking ass and taking names. CannonFire is on my regular check-in list from now ow.

[shance]

1. Thanks for posting AR and the intro to Cannonfire****great stuff.

n/t

[autorank]

2. My pleasure...

:hi:

[Carolab]

3. Your link is messed up. Here, use this:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

[Jackpine Radical]

4. And why is BBV fatal to exit poll accuracy?

For some reason, Puggies are diffident only in locales where electronic voting machines rule. Makes for a very strange set of statistical interactions.

[autorank]

6. I'm amazed by the intelligence of DUers on this issue. You rock.

[Carolab]

5. Hey, Farhad, touch my monkey!

("Your qvestions haff become tiresome; now is ze time on Shprockets ven ve dahnce!),

LOL.

(P.S. I NEVER trusted Salon, don't know why so many others did, either.)

[autorank]

7. ...

:rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

8. Why did they hide the true exit poll result (a comfortable Kerry win) from

the American people? Why did they FALSIFY the data on everybody's TV screens on election night? Who has the most right to know what the exit polls really said, and to discuss their significance, if not the voters?

And why has Mitofsky (the pollster) withheld the raw exit poll data from independent experts and from Rep. John Conyers, who requested it--while yet touting theories around, with zero foundation in the available evidence, that support a Bush win?

These two facts tell you all you need to know about the exit poll "controversy." Lies, delusions, fascism, and a whole lot of war profits, tax breaks for the rich, and corporate monopolies at stake.

Manjoo is a lapdog. And salon.com has become about as useful to truth-seekers as NPR.

[autorank]

13. "And why has Mitofsky (the pollster) withheld the raw exit poll data"?

Why indeed? Great question. Some people might say, well he doesn't own it. But some of us are aware that he gave the curious Election Science Institute (formerly votewatch.org) data to run some models. ESI says he did. Why give it to them and not, say, TIA and eomer or other's who have so much ability and knowledge?

It's a big fat series of lies and obfuscations all designed to hide the ugly truth...the election was stolen.

They'll do anything, construct any diversion, trow up unlimited amounts of flack in order to keep these simple questions from being asked.

GIVE US THE DATA NOW. STOP F'ING AROUND WITH OUR DEMOCRACY

Which is why I like to say...

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Contact the DNC and Tell Them to PREVENT Election Fraud

[peacetalksforall]

9. I think this Manjoo is full of it, but don't some of these host operations

purposely allow right leaning or over-the-edge propagandists write for them? Hasn't The Nation done this? Slate jumped on board with a bunch of right writers.

It makes me sick because it is always with transparency or without foundation and I don't have time for it because I don't learn anything new and I can't bear their attempts to be clever. Oh...there are so many reasons when a person is prejudiced against the writer.

What I am saying is that I don't think this is a new move or policy. ???

Can't remember her name - what about the female writier with the Italian name...she's been there for a long time and rarely says anything favorable to Dems. I think I have the right person with the right ezine.

[autorank]

11. Camile Paglia...but David Horror-owitz was even better...

It makes me sick too. What is their point? OK, let's present a reasonable position, well argued, on the one hand, and, on the other, a former extremist of the left (by his own admission) who is now a paid flack for the right, Mr. Horror-owitz who will lie to keep his right wing benefactors paying him. Camile Paglia is not a Democrat but at least she's clever from time to time.

My problem with the election fraud article is that it's such bad analysis. It was nice to see CannonFire take Fahrad to task (to put it mildly).

I maintain you could have what was essentially a non-partisan ezine that consistently supported DU-like positions if the reporters would simply investigate (presuming they had the requisite intellect, which wouldn't need to be that advanced).

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Camille Paglia?

[paineinthearse]

10. Looks like the koolaid has reached Salon

Or the "suicided" threat goons.

[tommcintyre]

14. Understanding why Salon may have done this

So Salon is taking the inconsistent, hypocritical route of many so-called progressive institutions (or even individuals).

On One Hand, they are "anti-Bush". (For example, Salon just ran a Conyer's-related DSM story a couple of day ago.)

But, On The Other Hand, they run "hit pieces" (and do things), to undermine true (and most important - like the exit poll discrepancies) election fraud discovery.

Why? IMO, it's because they (like many so-called "progressive" politicians, and others) don't want the US public to know how truly corrupt our overall election process is - and has been for quite some time.

So, the good news in all this is... if we focus on the real truth - and persist in getting the message out - we stand the best chance in a very long time, of having a genuine democracy in America - rater than just the illusion of one.

KEEP ON KEEPING ON!

[autorank]

16. Right, look at Donna Brazil and Mystery Pollster

They seem offended that people are ready to go to the mat to protest stolen elections and treat us like we're "unbalanced" or something "more sinister." That means you actually have to stand up and say "the system stinks." What about ballot spoilage, 3.0 million or so per presidential election. What a load of garbage that is. Count the damn ballots, figure out how to avoid 'spoilage' and let the people vote and have the vote counted fairly.

Your criticism applies also to the so-called "liberal main stream media" (or CM-corporate media as they are more appropriately known). You think they'd go near this story. Ask Koehler at the Chicago Tribune who has to publish his electoral fraud articles as "letters to the editor" because he's been told no fraud coverage.

People don't like cover-ups, Americans in particular. They smell a rat. Will the election fraud story, from Florida to Ohio and in between, cries out for exposure, the bright light of a public investigation, and the full expression of the people's will that at the very least their votes will be counted fairly and accurately.

No rest until this is accomplished.

[tommcintyre]

15. I'm almost tempted to subscribe, just so I can cancel their ass!

;)

[suziedemocrat]

17. saying "You Have No Proof" is like a non-denial denial.

What exactly does it mean? It's a little hard to get concrete proof without a paper trail, the raw data from the exit polls, or a decent investigation. But even without any of those things - we have enough to have serious suspicion. There is something wrong with people who don't even SUSPECT election fraud in 2004.

And - I don't know - but with elections - shouldn't they have a certain responsibility to prove they are accurate? Isn't that the way elections have been run for 200 years. People of both parties working the election. Checks and balances throughout the system. All of a sudden - in 2004 - we are just supposed to "trust" the system. "Trust" the machines. "Trust" the software.

My first college accounting course had a terrific instructor. In one class he was instructing us how companies set up accounting systems so that one person doesn't have total control over the money with no oversight. He said - "This is not because we don't trust people - we just don't want to tempt people beyond their ability to resist." It seems to me the current election system is so easily corruptible that even a saint would be tempted to help himself out a little. And - Bush is no saint.

[autorank]

18. suziedemocrat, You hit it exactly--"Prove it, but we won't give you access

to the information to prove it. Oh, you can't prove it, well then we can't take you seriously." You also hit exactly on the obligations of our public servants -- show that they're doing their jobs (after all we pay them don't we) and set up a system with checks and balances.

Great post, you're on my buddy list, whatever that does.

:hi:

[understandinglife]

19. "Manjoo is peddling horse shit, of course." Buckets of it. Recommeded.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm


WE THE PEOPLE .... WILL NEVER FORGET

"... we sent our young people into harm's way without leveling with the American people." - Congresswoman Pelosi before Congress, 16 June 2005

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Impeachment of Bush and Cheney; indictment and prosecution of all members of the Bush regime who participated in the deception, should be campaign promises of any candidate worthy of our vote in the 2006 Congressional elections.

[autorank]

21. understandinglife, Your post is eloquent--what it's all about right now.

[kster]

20. kick.nt

[TruthIsAll]

22. Great stuff from Cannonfire..reminds of Lampley calling Goldstein a punk..

Recommended!

[autorank]

23. Just remember, DISINFORMATION is *'s FRIEND: FALSE FLAGS EXIST

False Flag
Approach by a hostile intelligence officer who misrepresents himself or herself as a citizen of a friendly country or organization. The person who is approached may give up sensitive information believing that it is going to an ally, not a hostile power.
When U.S. Navy Chief Warrant Officer John A. Walker first recruited Senior Chief Radioman Jerry A. Whitworth, for example, he told Whitworth that the material was for Jane's Fighting Ships, rather than the Soviet Union.
In another case, an American of Armenian ancestry was approached by an Armenian who claimed to be a distant relative. He claimed to need help in trying to reclaim lost Armenian lands from Turkey. He was actually an agent for the KGB who succeeded in getting classified information he would never have gotten if he had not raised a false flag.
See RandomHouse: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/spybook/spy/970101.html

[kster]

24. kick.nt

[autorank]

25. KICK, AS A REMINDER

:kick:

[kster]

26. kick.nt