TOTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS

Friday, January 30, 2004

From an essay at LegitGov.org 2004 01 25:

It is very clear that Howard Dean has been manipulated by the media, the other candidates and also by his own handlers to his own and our disadvantage. For example, Dean should NEVER have let himself be snookered into withdrawing that excellent ad in Iowa which exposed Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards as having voted for the Iraq War. This was the defining difference and it was eliminated. This is an example of that old psychological warfare trick of taking a person?s strong point and falsely portraying it as a weak point in order to try to put the person on the defensive.. . .

Regarding Howard Dean?s supposed "scream" and ?tirade?: I heard the short speech and yell several times and I think that it simply represented not a ?scream? nor a ?shriek? but an exuberant yell, a battle cry, signifying that he and his young supporters would NOT give up. That?s all it was. It was not ?over the top? nor ?unruly? (!) in any way. Nor was it at all ?angry.? Nor was it a ?tirade.? A tirade is defined as ?a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language.? Obviously, the media deliberately lied about the speech and Dean was intimidated sufficiently, undoubtedly ably assisted by his ?advisors,? to go along with the lie and assume a defensive posture. . . .

In the debate on last Thursday night Howard Dean obediently refrained from criticizing the phonies who are running against him in the primary. Howard Dean is NOT running against George Bush right now! He is running against the other Democratic candidates! But he has been told by his handlers that he has ?made mistakes? and must pay the price and NOT attack the other Democratic candidates. Sure! Doesn?t that sound like an excellent strategy? . . . But the other candidates are allowed to attack him. And the media is permitted to attack him and belittle him relentlessly without Dean making an appropriate response.

Putting Dean on the defensive aster Iowa certainly took the bite out of this statement , from New Yorl Post 2004 01 22:

Discarding his old stump speech, slipping-in-the-polls Dean took an Oliver Stone-ish shot at the GOP hierarchy, telling New Hampshire voters about his fear that new high-tech voting machines will be programmed to steal ballots from Democrats. . . .

"Whether you can program a chip or not is up for debate. I think you probably can and have a vote for Al Gore count as a vote for Pat Buchanan," said Dean, who says he'd like every electronic vote counter to leave a paper trail.

Some Democrats have charged that Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell is not to be trusted because he's been a Republican financial supporter.

Former ABC News report Jon Rappaport made these observations about the election returns in New Hampshire at his nomorefakenews.com 2004 01 28:

At the start of network coverage, just after the polls closed, Kerry was listed with 38% of the vote, and Dean with 24%. That was with 14% of the precincts counted.

During the next six hours, I saw Kerry vary only one point, up to 39%. Dean went as high as 26%.

This morning, MSNBC is stating that, with 99% of all voting precincts reporting, Kerry is at 38% and Dean is at 26%.

Kerry is exactly where he began. Dean is two points higher than where he began, but exactly where he sat most of the night.

I don?t care whether they mostly used paper ballots or punch cards or touch screens. As the vote unfolded from minute to minute on TV---and they kept updating, showing the changing count of total votes cast for the various candidates on a continuously running basis---SOMEHOW THE PERCENTAGES FOR KERRY AND DEAN REMAINED VERY NEARLY UNCHANGED.

If you think about that, you?ll see (especially with seven candidates running) that this is beyond belief. How could this be?

We are to believe that each new small segment of reporting precincts is giving the same percentages to Kerry and Dean? That the returns are coming in on a uniform basis, like identical cupcakes being turned out on an assembly line?? All night?

At one point CNN claimed that voters in urban areas and voters out in the sticks were not in accord. If so, then how in hell were the emerging vote counts (every few minutes) on TV staying with the same percentages for Kerry and Dean? . . .

Because New Hampshire is such a small state, as the precincts reported in last night it would not have taken very many votes to change those percentages for Kerry and Dean in a very visible and significant fashion. But that didn?t happen. . . .

Dem Bones, dem Bones, dem Diebolds. . .

| Posted at 00:22 | PERMA-LINK |

Comments:

Post a Comment