Friday, April 21, 2006

"Let us not forget the power of the Mainstream Press"

Mainstream Media

I was cleaning up an old hard drive when I found this info that came to light after the 2000 Presidential election and after numerous claims that the Republicans stole the election for President Bush...

But if you look back at the facts that came out after the election it is evident that the Mainstream Media did their best to report the election poll results in their "View" and to influence the voters...

Election 2000 False & Delays

* Gore won Maine by 5 points & it was announced within 10 minutes of polls closing.
Bush won Colorado by 9pts & it took CNN 2hrs-41min to make the call...

Bush won Arizona +7pts. It took 2hrs-51min to report...
Gore won Michigan +4pts. It took 1hr-24 min to report...
Bush won Arkansas +6pts. It took 3hrs-42 min to report...
Gore won Penn +4pts. It took 1hr-24 min to report...
Bush won Tenn +3pts. It took 3hrs-3 min to report...
Gore won Min +2pts. It took 1hr-25 min to report...
Bush won WVa +6pts. It took 3hrs-16 min to report...
Gore won Wash +5pts. It took 1hr-8 min to report...

Gore avg margin of victory was 18pts.
Bush avg of victory was 26 pts.
Data by Jim Abrams AO On-Line

Some more interesting facts from the 2000 election and those "Mainstream

Election 2000 Florida
* CBS News declared Gore taking Florida and that the polls had been closed 18 times before polls actually closed...

* 3 seperate studies found that by calling Florida for Gore by 7:49 pm this suppressed thousands of votes in GOP heavy panhandle...

* Voting patterns since 1976 compared to 2000 vote showed that early call for Gore resulted in
10,000 to 37,000 missed votes in heavy GOP panhandle...
Research by John Lott


zen said...

"Let us not forget the power of the Mainstream Press"

wow, some power...did Gore become president?

Bubba said...

No he did not. Thank God!

zen said...

Don't you mean..."Thank the Supreme Court!"

It's hard to imagine someone even more incompetent and a larger failure than Bush.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

RightsideVA said...


Thanks for the info but when I clicked on the link it went to a "Unavailable" page and nothing was there. I also did a search on "History News Network" and it was interesting to see that it is operated by George Mason University. My only wonder is why did 1 out of 10 admit that they enetered false data into the survey? What is the accuracy of the rest of this poll?

Yes we should thank the Supreme court for not allowing the change of procedure when it came to counting the votes. Reminds me alot of sandlot baseball games when one side did not like the call so somebody always yelled "Do OVER"!!!

Bill Clinton did a better job???

Bubba said...

Zen. Thank You.

Thank God for the Supreme Court and George Bush.

Surveys and polls are bunk and can be targeted and manipulated to prove or show anything. It is impossible to judge a President while we are in a WAR. The sucess or failure of this administration will be judged like every other administration in retrospect years after the 2008 election.

I can imagine much worse than Bush... but since he is in office none of those nightmares came true. Once again.....Thank you Supreme Court, Thank you Mr. Bush, Thank God

RightsideVA said...


I think I found the article that you are talking about. Interesting but are we not talking academia who 80% pretty much claim to be Democrats, liberals, and higher thinkers? From the article:

"A recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University’s History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure."

What kind of control group is this?
Bet if we took a pole of the people who visit RightsideVA we might get different results...

What did the historians think of Truman when he was in office and then after?

What did the historians think of Reagan when he was in office and then after?

SWAC Girl said...

Worse ever President?? We're safe ... and so far there have been no more terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11/01 ... but look how quickly we forget.

zen said...

Here's the link

You know I've always wondered about the claim that, "so far there have been no more terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11/01."
I seem to recall that the US was indeed attacked by a biological attack that killed 5 Americans and even targeted US Senators.
I agree with you SWAC ... but look how quickly we forget.

RightsideVA said...

Amazing how some high profile problems can go away. This was such a hot topic that faded away and thought to be domestic terrorism but yet still not solved... Fault of GW Bush?

Look at TWA 800 which had numerous people see a streak of light lead up into the air and then a large explosion. A Vet pilot that served in military also saw the streak which he had seen missiles before said that is what it looked like... they wrote that off to a center fuel tank spark & explosion? And there are no wires in the center fuel tank... Is that Clinton's cover-up???

zen said...

My intention is not one of blame at all. (why is any criticism always taken as an attack?)
I mean more to illustrate, as you put it, that some things get glossed over and forgotten. And much too often those are facts. (This also demonstrates that the bias in media is more 'sensational' bias than ideological.)

But more so, it shows the much too common talking points of image management to not be based in fact, but rather in perception. If it is repeated loud enough and often enough, a talking point such as this "hasn't been an attack since..." doesn't have to be factually true to be successful.
We all have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.
One's perception becomes one's reality. And you can't spell "believe" without "lie"

SWAC Girl said...

Zen, you're drowning in your own talking points again....

You gloss right over the fact there has been no catastrophe such as 9/11 since that time -- not another 3,000 persons killed, no airplanes hijacked.... The anthrax incident, last I heard, had not been proven one way or the other. It's still a mystery and was thought to be home grown terrorism but who knows?

On the other hand, almost five years has passed with no attacks in this country since 9/11. Under President Bush's leadership we have been free from harm. That means everything to me - my family, my friends, my country - they're all safe.

zen said...

Are you serious??!!? So because these attacks were not catastrophic, because they didn't kill enough people to qualify as 'significant' for you...the fact that they happened doesn't matter?!
The anthrax incident, last I heard, had not been proven one way or the other. It's still a mystery
You cannot be serious.
The fact that 5 people died is not evidence to you that these attacks happened?! 5 dead Americans from a biological attack is a "mystery?" That this "incident" has "not been proven one way or the other." I think the dead people's families would see things quite a bit differently.

Please get a reality check.

zen said...

So you honestly think that the policies of Bush have made us safer?
You honestly believe that the war in Iraq has made us safer? I am talking about facts here (I know a foreign topic for you SWAC) not intentions, not what was thought would happen, what was desired to happen, what we were told would happen—but what has occured.
What has been achieved from Bush policies....we are safer & more secure? Don't forget that it was under Bush that we were attacked, and that those who plotted the attack remain free...that makes you feel safe?

RightsideVA said...

We were attacked under the Bush Administration because of his administration? I believe I heard it took at least 5 years to train and put the 911 attacks together. Was not done over night and was related to the attacks in 93 when the WTC was attacked the first time. Seems to me that many people feel safer because we are now doing something about terrorism as compared to how many years of Clinton shaking that finger at the camera, with that frown, and maybe a tear, while he promised that those responsible with be tracked down and face the full extent of the law...

SWAC Girl said...

Zen ... in a word ... yes. I honestly believe President Bush's leadership has kept us safe. The facts speak for themselves.

Bubba said...

If Clinton had used the chance he had to take out UBL I wonder if 9-11 would have even happened.....

Bush made a promise from ground zero and he is keeping it.

SWAC Girl said...

"[President] Bush made a promise from ground zero and he is keeping it."

Indeed, after 9/11 President Bush said, "I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this strugle for freedom and security for the American people."

He also said it would be a long battle that would not be finished in our lifetime.

From Ground Zero, as cheering workers chanted "USA, USA," he responded, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon ... May God bless America."

zen said...

SWAC says, "The facts speak for themselves."

Yet you ignore the facts that speak in contrast of your predetermined view. Agian, we have been attacked since 9/11.

Bubba>>> What makes you think Clinton had the chance to take out bin Laden? Before pointing to a false report originally posted on NewsMax about Sudan, try reading what the Bush appointed 9/11 commission said about it. Basically they found no "reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan made such an offer.

And if you want to have one standard for blame, then if the 9/11 attacks were Clintons fault because Bush was only in office for 8+months before 9/11, well then the first WTC attacks must be GHWB's fault since Clinton was in office mere days, bearly a month before that attack occured.
Yet the people responsible for the '93 attack are captured and doing time, whereas the plotters of 9/11 live free...escaping from Tora Bora.

This "blame" that commentors are so fond of on this site is the standard applied here. Your logic, not mine.

None are more blind than those that refuse to see.

zen said...

While the majority of us living in the reality-based community favor evidence and factual information to make informed decisions, some here appear to favor the Tinkerbell Strategy.
You remember how in the second act Tinkerbell drinks some poison that Peter is about to drink in order to save him? And then Peter turns to the audience and he says, “Tinkerbell is going to die because not enough people believe in fairies. But if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you do believe in fairies, maybe she won’t die.”

You just keep clapping louder, it's bound to work. The picture of Bush with that megaphone is memorable. Always the cheerleader.

bubba said...

Thanks for pointing me to your reality. Here are some excerpts from your reality that prove my point. By Presidential directive PDD-39 and knowing that UBL was seriously linked to terrorism, Clinton had his chance once he knew where UBL was, which was Sudan. He did not have the balls to keep to his own policy. I suspect has Bush (either) been there UBL would have been dealt with, one way or another.

“Since the terrorists were understood as loosely affiliated sets of individuals, the basic
approach for dealing with them was that of law enforcement. But President Clinton
emphasized his concern about the problem as a national security issue in a Presidential
Decision Directive, PDD-39, in June 1995 that stated the U.S. policy on counterterrorism.
This directive superseded a directive signed by President Reagan in 1986. President
Clinton’s directive declared that the United States saw “terrorism as a potential threat to
national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat
it. In doing so, the U.S. shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend
and prosecute, or assist other governments to prosecute, individuals who perpetrate or
plan to perpetrate such attacks.””

This part of your reality showes how they knew but did nothing. Even though they had a presidential directive and knew UBL to be a terrorist financier. If you read the whole thing about UBL and Sudan you should see (depending on your perceived reality) how we were seeking info on UBL and knew him to be an issue.

“According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the
interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a
hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion
a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to
the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger
adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was
responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin
Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to
senior policymakers during 1996.”

Also if you look here (
from way back in 2001 you can see how one of the people involved never said Sudan would hand him to us, but verifies we had access to hard intelligence on his location and could have used it to take him out, per Clintons’s PDD-39.

Need more reality?

I like the picture of Bush as a cheerleader, it shows involvement, dedication and ability, all things that a good president should have. Cheerleaders adapt to changing situations and have to be involved in the game, however it seems Dems and those who hate Bush just play the same tune over and over and over whithout change. (

zen said...

So the only opposition to Bush policies must come from Democrats or "those that hate Bush." Interesting, have you looked around? Maybe seen the numbers or talked to many people?
You say, "they knew but did nothing." But then will likely turn around and bash Clinton for bombing an "asprin factory" in Sudan. Which is it? I guess a full scale invasion was the only option of "doing something."
I supported going into Afghanistan. But what did Iraq have to do with bin Laden? What's the CIA and every analyst living in the reality-based community say about Iraq? Clue: Since the invasion it's destabalized the region. That makes you feel safer?

Your Bush cheerleader comment is golden! Hilarious! Thanks.

Anyone that

Bubba said...


Being the War-Monger I am....

Actually, I think we should have dropped cruise missles on all the suspected sites in Sudan. And with all the Iraqi chemists that were crawling around in Sudan back then it would have been the right thing to do. Might have saved a bunch of Kurds from a grueling Chemical death from Saddam a few years later. (the thing Clinton asked for from Sudan was intelligence on UBL about who he was interacting with, especially the Iraqi chemists) {let me know if you want a source)

Critism for Bush comes from lots of places and should. I am critical of some of the things he has and has not done especially on the borders and with tax reform. And people should be critical when the time is right. and the time to critique what has and has not been good will be like with every other major world changing event, in the future because unless you are all seeing you can't fully see what is gonna happen from what we are doing now, because that will only be evident in the future because it is not a in and out event it is a change of culture with all the good and bad that comes with it.

I don't think Bush is the best President we have ever had and i don't think he is the worst. I do KNOW that he is better than the other options that were presented in both elections especially in today's circumstance. I don't beieve in fairy's either and given the chance would run on stage with some RAID to make the death of tinkerbelle quicker.

See that is the big difference between normal people and those who live in the Democrat/Liberal reality-based community. I and many like me will acknowledge the good things Clinton did while in office. But the "Reality-Based" bush haters will not admit one good thing he has done.

Basically people like you and me and everyone else are playing arm chair quarterback, the only difference is your team is not in the game. And your team does not have cheerleaders, only a small but loud pep band with a limited song list. (couldn't resist)

zen said...

But I can admit that Bush showed incredible leadership immediately after the 9/11 attacks. And I give credit where credit is due. Those speeches given in the wake were some of the best I'd heard.
But (knew that was coming didn't you?) the huge opportunity that we had as a unified country, with enormous global support was squandered for political reasons. That was his chance to use significant political capitol to drive energy independence, secure borders, galvanize emergency response capabilities, etc... Yet the admin jumped into action to use the national fear to push a predetermined agenda. Well before 9/11 a plan to go after Iraq was formulated. It was initiated without listening to people who were informed, in favor of those who 'clapped louder.' A blunder of enormous proportions. This will be his legacy. It was an unbelievable abuse of the public trust and fear.
People have come to realize this and it is reflected by their opinion of him. This my friend is 'reality based.'

You (or SWAC, or anyone else) cannot seriously communicate an argument that we are safer with Bush in power. How safe did you feel the week of watching hurricane Katrina slam into the Gulf coast, and the aftermath? I for one felt enormously let down and vulnerable. Especially considering it was 4 years after 9/11 and we knew it was coming and the potential for damage. It was apparent that government on every level is not prepared to handle what the 9/11 commission describes as inevitable—another attack in our future.

Bubba said...

I spent most of the time after Katrina wondering what idiot would have stayed down there knowing what was coming. I hold the local authorities responsible for not evac-ing their people and FEMA responsible for not having a good and tested logistics system. But remember one thing FEMA is by nature a second responder in a hurricane, the local and state people should have reacted quicker. That is why the loss of life in Mississippi was much less, because they got the people out. Also any discusssion of the New Orleans aftermath must take the "Poor" into the equasion. By in large the masses of "Poor" in new Orleans just saw Katrina as another way to get more dole from the govm't. We have basically paid them for being poor and given them everything they have so why would they leave or even think to try to better themselves after the devestation when they are just gonna do what they are used to doing....waiting for a govm't check. I wonder how many of the "poor" put up their mailboxes waiting for a check?

Before 9-11 we had plans to go into russia and china and anyother area that area that could loom to be a warzone or a conflict. It is called Strategic Planning. If we didn't have a plan for Iraq we would have been extremely stupid given their past with us. I am sure we have a plan for North Korea and a plan for Iran too. I personally would like to see a plan for Mexico.

I do feel safer and here is why. A terrorist must have a base nation to operate from. A nation where they can train and plan and get resources. Since we traced the Taliban to UBL and 9-11 and kicked them like thy have never been kicked before possible terrorist nations woke up. Then we Stomped on Iraqi for all the various reasons that have been debated. Since the USA has stood up under Bush's leadership and said in a nutshell that we are not afraid to use our military, a lot of forign Govm't are making it very difficult for terrorists to operate. YES we did destabilize the region and when the dust settles down in a few years they will have a Democracy in Iraq and the area will be different than it was before. And that will make us safer. We are safer now because no one really wants the entire force of the US military focused on them (except for IRAN maybe?) and for the most part we have disrupted the international terrorist organizations.

Remember the old saying: "If you do what you have always done you will get what you have always gotten."

Well what we had been doing over in the gulf was not changing anything, we only rattles the sword but never really used it to effect. Even in the first gulf war we stopped short. What we are doing now should have been done then. I cringed when Bush #1 stopped short of taking over Iraq because it showed the area that we would not really do anything in the region that could possibly be ugly or risky.

Likewise You or anyone in the "Reality-based" community cannot postulate a serious argument or case that we are NOT safer with Bush in power. The facts support the fact that there has not been a 9-11 style terrorist attack on the US since Bush took action. And the facts list person after person in the terrorist ranks that have been killed, neutralized, or forced into seclusion. And the facts show that a evil dictator is behind bars and cannot do what ever plans he had for the future. All your "reality-based" commune can do is point at Analysts and opinion polls which are scientific but not real, hard, boots on the ground FACT. Maybe the reality-based community should stop using a crystal ball and survey data and take a hard look at what "IS" and not what "COULD BE IF"

Bubba said...

I'm fired up today. Just had a conversation with some people about the Planned "strikes" on Monday and might have taken too much anger out on Zen.

Unlike the normal Deaf, Frothing at the mouth, brain dead Liberal. With you I can actually discuss an issue here and take from both sides.

Monday should be interesting in the cities targeted by the Mexican invasion.

zen said...

No offense taken here, I actually didn't interpret your comments as being angry at me, just passionate in what you believe. Nothin wrong with that.

have a good weekend.