Thought you might to look at our born again Prez and his carefree days!

Source: Sunday Times
DAte: 12 September 2004

How team Bush took an airbrush
to the Chosen One’s misdeeds


The public swallowed a story of the wayward president’s son who cleaned up his act to take his place in the White House. Kitty Kelley exposes what really lurks in George W Bush’s past
On November 6, 1997, the exclusive club of America’s current and former presidents and first ladies gathered at a college campus in Texas for a celebration. President and Mrs Clinton arrived on Air Force One to join President and Mrs Ford, President and Mrs Carter, Nancy Reagan and Lady Bird Johnson.

They were there to honour President George Bush, who had raised $83m to build his presidential library at Texas A&M University.

His eldest son, George W Bush, governor of Texas, welcomed the 20,000 guests. With a few words, W smashed the bonhomie of the occasion: “I’m here to praise my father as a man who entered the political arena and left with his integrity intact . . . A war hero, a loving husband . . . and a president who brought dignity and character and honour to the White House.”

Spoken at the height of Clinton’s personal scandal in front of a predominantly Republican crowd, the assault on the current president’s integrity was not lost on anyone.

The Bush family had never accepted Clinton as a worthy successor, and they delighted in his unfolding scandal. They e-mailed one another ribald jokes about Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones’s sexual harassment suit against Clinton.

When it was reported that Jones claimed she could identify a “distinguishing characteristic” of Clinton’s anatomy, George Sr did not rest until he discovered what she was talking about. He then e-mailed his sons and friends: “His Johnson curves to the left.”

The family was looking towards its restoration to power through the presidential candidacy of George W. His mother, Barbara Bush, referred to him as “the Chosen One”. There was a problem, however. After eight years of Clinton, the American public “want to elect a statue”, as Oklahoma’s Republican governor Frank Keating put it. “They want a hero, an unblemished and untarnished guy in the White House.”

Karl Rove, the political adviser with the task of shaping W’s image, knew he had to present his candidate as the anti-Clinton: fresh (no drugs, no alcoholism), religious (acceptable to evangelicals) and faithful to his wife (majority of voters: women).

Fanning out across the country, Rove and the Bush team began to tidy up the governor’s past. Rove wanted no potentially devastating revelations to emerge that might portray W and Laura, his wife, as anything but an ideal and idealised couple. But to present W as pure and pristine was hypocritical and untrue.

George W Bush wasn’t Bill Clinton, certainly not in terms of sexual excess. But Clinton is not the standard to which he should be held. He must be compared with his own declarations on morality and his own carefully crafted public image — the image that the entire Bush family has cultivated for so long.

THE first hurdle facing the tidy-up team was to deal with W’s past drug use. As governor of Texas, he took a hard line on drugs. He supported increased penalties for possession and signed legislation mandating jail time for people caught with less than a single gram of cocaine.

Yet, as the claims of Sharon Bush, his sister-in-law, show, he could have been subject to jail time himself had he been caught “doing coke” with his brother Marvin at Camp David during his father’s presidency.

In the midst of an unfriendly divorce from Neil, another of the Bush brothers, Sharon told me last year: “He and Marvin did coke at Camp David when their father was president and not just once, either.”

As governor, George W had been very careful not to lie about doing illegal drugs himself, because he knew there were too many people who could testify to the truth. “When I was young and irresponsible,” he would say, “I was young and irresponsible.”

So what was his drugs record? When they were young, both he and Laura used to go down to the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands where they attended and enjoyed heavy pot-smoking parties. Smoking pot was hardly a sin but it did not mesh with the strait-laced image the Bushes were now presenting to the voters.

Then there were the allegations about cocaine. When W was at Yale in the mid-1960s, it was the most popular drug on campus. One contemporary, who insists on remaining anonymous, admitted years later to selling cocaine to W at the university.

Another man who was at Yale’s graduate school recalled “doing coke” with George, but he would not allow his recollections to be used on the record. This was not simply through fear of retribution. He said he did not feel right about “blowing George’s cover because I was doing the same thing”. A confirmed Democrat, he also said that although he could not stand George’s Republican politics, he liked him as a person.

Alcohol, the more familiar thread in W’s life story, started at Andover, the exclusive school W attended.

Andover stressed athletics as part of its regimen. Unable to live up to his father’s legacy as one of Andover’s most outstanding athletes, George W played his own kind of sports and won a reputation as a prankster.

“He loved stickball, which is baseball played with a broomstick and a tennis ball and funny hats,” recalled his contemporary, J Milburn “Kim” Jessup. “George made himself the high commissioner of stickball, which was a joke job.”

Alcohol was absolutely forbidden on or off campus, but the high commissioner of stickball figured out a way to beat the system. He designed an official stickball membership card that seemed to carry the imprimatur of Andover. He distributed the cards as fake IDs.

“People took the cards and started slipping off campus to go to Boston so they could get drunk,” said Jessup.

When W moved on to Yale at 18, with the Vietnam war at its height, he felt alienated on the liberal campus because of his father’s conservative politics and his own Texan childhood.

“George was definitely not on the popular side of the war issue, but he stood his ground,” said Robert Dieter, his Yale roommate. “Saying someone was conservative back then almost had a moral sting. I remember him coming back to the room and telling me that someone had been in his face about his father’s position. There was a certain arrogance that the left conveyed back then. It was hurtful.”

As a result, George spent most of his time carousing at the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity house or “the drinking jock house”, as it was known. Some classmates remember him as a “hard-drinking good-time guy” and “a jock sniffer” who “loved to raise hell”.

Ken White, a DKE contemporary, told me: “My wife remembers him roaring drunk one night at a DKE party without a date doing the Alligator; that was some sort of dance back then when you fell to the floor on all fours and started rolling around.”

In the spring of 1972, after graduating from Yale and while serving part-time in the Texas Air National Guard, George W embarked on what he would later describe as his “nomadic years”. Seeing him adrift, his father got him a job with the Republican campaign in a Senate race in Alabama.

Those who worked with George at that time remember him as an affable social drinker who acted much younger than his 26 years. They recall that he liked to drink beer and Jim Beam whiskey at the Cloverdale Grill in Birmingham, Alabama. They also say he liked to sneak out the back for a joint of marijuana or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine.

According to their recollections, he tended to show up for work “around noon”, prop his cowboy boots on a desk and start bragging about how much he had drunk the night before.

Spending Christmas in Washington with his parents, W went out drinking with 16-year-old Marvin. Driving home, he smashed into several dustbins. He swaggered into the house with the bravado of someone who had drunk too much, and there was his father, sober and unsmiling.

“You want to go mano a mano right here?” George junior challenged.

Big George called John White, a former footballer with the Houston Oilers. Bush wanted his son to perform community service with a mentoring programme for inner-city youth started by White and his teammate Ernie “Big Cat” Ladd.

Young George reported for work in January 1973 at a warehouse in a tough district where kids up to 17 years of age were offered sports, crafts, field trips, free snacks, rap sessions, tutoring for those who had been expelled, and big-name mentors from the athletic, entertainment, business, and political worlds.

Ladd recalled young George as “a super, super guy . . . If he was a stinker, I’d say he was a stinker. But everybody loved him so much. He had a way with people . . . They didn’t want him to leave.”

W stayed only seven months before he was accepted at Harvard Business School — a more hostile environment. It was the height of Watergate and his father was running the Republican National Committee for Richard Nixon, who was considered the Antichrist at Harvard. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the town that surrounded the college, only 400 people were registered Republicans.

“I remember seeing Georgie at the Harvard Business School,” said Torbert Macdonald, an old classmate from Andover, “but he looked so lost and forlorn I didn’t have the heart to say hello.”

Others were less sympathetic. “I can still see him in his cowboy boots and leather flight jacket walking into macroeconomics,” recalled a classmate. “He sat in the back of the class, chewing tobacco and spitting it into a dirty paper cup . . . He was one red-assed Texan who made sure he was in your Yankee face and up your New England nose.”

Most of his contemporaries at the business school headed for Wall Street after graduation but W moved back to Midland, his boyhood home town in Texas, trying to become an oilman. He lived above a garage in an apartment that was piled high with dirty clothes that his friends’ wives periodically washed. Most of his nights were spent in bars, drinking with buddies in the oil business.

In July 1977, soon after his 31st birthday, friends introduced him to his polar opposite, Laura Welch. “We were the only two people among our friends who had not yet married,” she later joked.

Nobody expected the introduction to ignite, but George and Laura were married within three months at the First United Methodist Church in Midland.

Laura, the only child of a Midland builder, is remembered by some former students at Southern Methodist University in Dallas for not being as conservative as most. She had smoked marijuana and backpacked through Europe after graduation. A Democrat, she had also supported the anti-war candidate, Senator Eugene McCarthy, for the presidency in 1968.

In the early years of their marriage Laura joined her husband in his revels. “George and Laura ran in a much faster and fancier crowd than we did — their friends were all hard-drinking and drugging. That was part of the oil business scene then,” said Robert Whitt, a Midland lawyer.

But after a hard struggle to conceive and a fragile pregnancy with twins, Laura pulled back from the hellraising while he charged on, leaving her behind.

“I suppose there were strains in her marriage, just because he’s so difficult and high-energy and . . . she isn’t, but she never talked about it . . . Just read paperbacks and smoked cigarettes,” said Sharon Bush.

The couple kept their distance from the Bush family for several years in the 1980s, staying in Midland and even skipping the big surprise party that George Sr — by then vice-president of the United States — threw for his wife on their 41st wedding anniversary. “It’s a long way,” Barbara said, “and too expensive.” But family members confirmed that she had stopped speaking to her son, whose drunken outbursts had become a source of unending embarrassment to his wife and parents. The last eruption at a family gathering had been a tactless crack to the wife of one of his parents’ friends at her 50th birthday party: “So, what’s sex like after 50, anyway?”

He was 40 by the time he gave up tobacco, alcohol and drugs in 1986 and became a born-again Christian. In his memoir, A Charge to Keep, W credited his family’s good friend, the Reverend Billy Graham, with planting “a mustard seed in my soul”. He did not mention that he actually came to Jesus in a coffee house conversion with a much more flamboyant evangelist, Arthur Blessitt, who was known among born-agains as the man who had wheeled a 96lb cross of Jesus into 60 countries on six continents, winning a place in the Guinness Book of Records.

W figured, perhaps, that Graham was more palatable to churchgoing voters than Blessitt, who came to Midland after the bottom dropped out of the oil boom and fortunes crashed overnight. In a desperate effort to rescue lives and restore morale, some church elders invited the evangelist to stage a revival in the town. Loudspeakers exhorted the populace “to experience the love of God, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the holy spirit”.

George, who had already begun attending a men’s Bible class, asked a friend to arrange a meeting at a hotel coffee shop. As Blessitt recalled, George began with a few pleasantries, and then plunged in: “I want to talk to you about how to know Jesus Christ and how to follow Him.”

“I was quite shocked at his direct and sincere approach,” said Blessitt. “I slowly leaned forward and lifted the Bible that was in my hand and asked him about his relationship with the Lord: ‘If you died this moment do you have the assurance you would go to heaven?’” “No.”

“Then let me explain to you how you can have that assurance and know for sure that you are saved.”

“I’d like that.”

The evangelist read from the Book of Romans. He quoted Mark, John and Luke to the vice-president’s son, who held hands, repented his sins, and proclaimed Jesus Christ as his saviour.

Conversion and abstinence did not affect W’s machismo, however. He still swaggered and cursed constantly. When a friend accused him of taking the Lord’s name in vain, George exploded: “That’s bullshit. Total bullshit.”

Whether talking to reporters, congressmen, or heads of state, George made no effort to curb his trash mouth. Israel’s prime minister Ariel Sharon was taken aback to hear, “I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took immense crap for that.”

Those closest to George agreed that the key to his new persona lay in his steely discipline. His sister Doro described him as a fat boy who deprived himself to stay thin. His mother depicted a drinker who denied himself to stay dry. Both acknowledged that the effort to control these appetites was monumental.

In order to maintain his rigid discipline, George imposed an inflexible order on his life. Like any addict in recovery, he needed a regular schedule, rising early and retiring early. He prayed daily from his One-Year Bible, which was divided into 365 readings, each from the New Testament, the Old Testament, Psalms and Proverbs.

Edgy and impatient, he exercised at least one hour, sometimes two hours, a day. With martinet punctuality, he started and ended meetings exactly on time. The routine became the core of his developing political career, first as governor of Texas and then as president.

He refused to read memos longer than two pages. He thrived on making quick decisions. His religiosity allowed him to live in a black-and-white world of absolutes with no bedevilling in-betweens. His decisiveness sprang from his need to control and to establish order amid chaos. Once he made a decision, he rarely looked back.

Despite his quick temper, he was capable of nice gestures, as he showed on the presidential trail. Ruth Gilson, an estate agent, recalled a touching moment during a $1,000-a-head fundraiser in a Washington hotel in 1999.

She was one of very few women to attend the event. “All the men looked to be lobbyists in expensive suits with huge stomachs. The room filled up fast and we were all squished together. I was at the front of the rope line. A little old lady about 85 years old crept in beside me. She said she needed to see the governor. ‘I just have to talk to him,’ she said.”

The elderly woman was frail and wearing clothes that looked worn and dated. “She looked like a church lady from the 1950s.”

George W arrived and started working the crowd. The old lady stepped forward and asked if she could say something.

He reached out and took her hand. She whispered in his ear to please do something about the price of prescription drugs for the elderly.

He nodded. “I’ll try,” he said. Then he stepped back to look at her. “Did you pay $1,000 to come here?” “Yes, sir, I did.”

“Well, I want you to get your money back.” He turned to the man with him. “Get her name and address and see that she gets a cheque for $1,000.”

The little old lady shook her head. “No, I want you to have it all, Mr Bush. I want you to win.”

“Well,” said George. “I’ll tell you what. I’ll keep $100 and you keep $900 and we’ll both win. That’s what we’ll do.”

She smiled gratefully.

“It was such a sweet gesture on his part,” recalled Gilson. “Others might have seen it as patronising, but I didn’t. In a crowd of fat-cat lobbyists that little woman in her tattered coat looked like someone’s poor grandmother, and he responded sensitively.”

Extracted from The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty by Kitty Kelley.






Refs
HOME
Cocaine Resources
president-bush.com
When Is It Best to Take Crack Cocaine?
Bush Tars Drug Takers With Aiding Terrorists


01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24



Comments

  1. Dems And Press Share A Common Frustration: No Country
    By Joseph Grant Swank (bio)
    Other Articles by Joseph Grant Swank Jr.
    Back to News / Home Page

    That’s right. The Dems have Nomansland for a country. The liberal press has NowherebutRather to go to. Sad, isn’t it? But they asked for it. And the Red States gave it to them.

    I felt the liberal press anguish in Barbara Walter’s interview with Laura and George Bush the other evening. She introduced the hour with a pretty view of the White House interior. Then she was face-to-face with The Couple. With the smallest of chit chat she then looked at the US President and said, "Well, let’s get on with torture."

    Torture?

    Interviewing the newly reelected President of the most powerful nation on Earth? That’s an interviewer’s torture chamber? Yes, obviously to Babs that’s what it was. Torture. Just plain press corps torture.

    I recall my Dad saying that there’s never a factious remark. In other words, we often give ourselves away with the slightest comment, a word or two.

    Babs gave herself away — along with all the press corps pals watching in to see how she performed. They must have had cold shivers this winter. So it goes when one of the most popular women in the press interviews the most popular public figure in North America. Interesting.

    That’s the way it is, though, when Red States win. That’s what happens when the conservative President is interviewed by one of the archliberal interviewers. Where’s the match? Where’s the give? Where’s the fun? In other words, to quote Babs, it’s "torture."

    The same is seen on the anchors’ evening news countenances. Men and women. It doesn’t matter whether they are in the main newsroom or out there somewhere giving the national upbeat on what’s going on.

    So it was that last evening NBC News started out with Liza Myers saying that the FBI is scanning the "evangelical" Muslim killers in cells within this country. "Evangelical"? I don’t think so.

    Evangelical means one who gives the evangel — the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. No way can that term be equated with Muslim murderers. No way. Theologically, logically it does not work. Yet Liza began her news story with those slamming-American-evangelicals slap-arounds — in her opening sentences. I about flew to the ceiling.

    However, it’s "torture." You see, it’s hard to give factual news when the conservative President sits in the Oval Office. He’s the one the press fought for months on end. It’s hard to put down the knife. For most, there’s no peace treaty. It’s just putting on an act of tolerating the "torture."

    So it is with the Dems. They have no country, just as the liberal press has no country. They’re all wanderers. They have no home. They are in search of a pad. But — "tortureland" is all that appears on the dusty horizon.

    I wonder if that’s why Dem Joe Biden counseled Europeans on a recent visit there that it’s time for them to "Get over it." That is, he was referring to Iraqi Freedom Operation. They didn’t like what Bush did with that. They still don’t like the liberation — called "invasion" by Germany, France, Russia, Dems and liberal press. But Biden says to "Get over it."

    In that I felt he was preaching to himself. He was saying to his own psyche: "Get on with it. We Dems lost. Bush won. It’s four more years of this. After all, it’s ‘torture’ living out here in the cold of winter without a hearth to go to. So, saying to the Europeans, I’ll say to myself: ‘Get on with it. Get over it.’"

    The moralists won. Abortion hugging, same-gender cheering, euthanasia supporting Dems are not moralists. They endorse evil. In other words, when moralists line up with the President, Dems have no country.

    The evangelicals took power slots in the ballot cast. They stood for hours in line to cast their single votes for the President. Where can you find an evangelical among the Dems? Where can you find an evangelical in the press corps?

    See what I mean?

    01.20.05 06:40 AM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires" Part I Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout- January 2005
    Back to News/Home Page
    News Archives



    Election 2000 and 2004 Fiascos Linked
    by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls



    Election 2000 and 2004 Fiascos Linked - Election 2000 is the starting point for understanding the scandalous exit-polling fiasco of Election 2004. In a joint venture, ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC hired Voters News Service (VNS) to conduct exit polling during Election 2000. VNS produced misleading exit-poll data that the National Networks then used to justify calling Al Gore both winner of the election in Florida and winner of the National Election. In Election 2002, the VNS computer system malfunctioned but not before "early" exit polls incorrectly forecasted Democrat candidate landslides. The Networks then terminated VNS and established the National Election Pool (NEP) consortium to provide tabulated vote counts and exit-poll surveys for Election 2004. This consortium appointed Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International as sole providers of exit-polls. Associated Press' role was to tally the vote.



    Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state. Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process.



    In 2000, 2002 and 2004, misleading exit-poll data (disinformation) proved counterproductive to fair elections for the Republican Party, interfered with and recklessly endangered the electoral process, produced an environment of animosity and resentment, and subverted the legitimacy of our national election process. Presidential elections are too important to our system of government to risk future exit-poll fiascos. The practice of indicating winners using manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated now; this practice has already done great damage in Elections 2000 and 2004; why risk catastrophic damage in future elections?



    I live in the Panhandle of Northwest Florida where Democrats and Republicans in Presidential elections tend to vote Republican. In 2000 the ratio was 2:1 and 2004, 3:1. In Election 2000, with a voting ratio strongly favoring George W. Bush (GWB), announcements were made by the National Networks that stopped or curtailed voting in the Florida Panhandle. The National Networks helped the Democrat Party at a critical point on Election Day by: (1) Declaring the polls closed all across the state of Florida when in fact there was still a full crucial hour of voting left in the Panhandle and (2) Declaring Al Gore winner of the state and national election before Florida polls closed.

    Given the closeness of the election, these inappropriate network announcements could have resulted in an Al Gore Presidency. Both of these declarations were made under dubious circumstances: (1) Florida's Secretary of State reminded the National Networks one week prior to the election that the polls in Florida's Central Time Zone did not close until 8 pm EST and (2) Pre-election polling and actual voting indicated an extremely tight race, one too close to call. There was no “ethical” way either Presidential candidate could be declared winner of Election 2000 without a total vote count.
    National Network disinformation tactics (telling the public the polls were closed when they weren’t and telling the public that Al Gore had won the election when he didn’t) proved highly effective in curtailing Florida voting in Election 2000. Many citizens of the Florida Panhandle know voters who chose not to vote once the networks (CBS in particular) announced that all Florida polls were closed and that Al Gore had won Florida and therefore the National Election. According to the Clerk for Elections, Okaloosa County, Florida: "In past elections, there was usually a rush of people coming from work, trying to get to vote before the polls closed" Soon after 6 p.m. in the Central Time Zone, voting volume dropped almost to zero in 361 polling places in the Panhandle.
    The beneficiary of the Network announcements (polls closed - Al Gore winner) was the Democrat Party. See "Committee for Honest Politics” testimony before the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. With Dan Rather, "CBS, for example, made at least 13 explicit statements during the hour that the Florida polls were closed, a number which increases to 18 if the statements calling Florida for Gore are included. Moreover, CBS made more than 15 additional statements implying that the polls were closed ..." "With the exception of Fox, all other networks repeated the poll closing information throughout the 7 p.m. hour broadcast." Suggest Reading “Exit Polls Need More Than a Makeover” By Dr. David Hill
    Given the 2:1 vote advantage of Bush over Gore in the Panhandle, the minimum effect was “loss of 12,761 votes for the Bush campaign.”
    Nationally, the loss of votes by the Bush campaign probably was very significant (nationwide) in that the retraction announcement that Al Gore hadn't won the state of Florida / National Election was not made until 10pm EST - just in time for the polls to close on the West Coast (7pm PST). This is Republican voter suppression at its best; compliments of the National Networks, VNS, and the Election Decision Team of Mitofsky and Lenski. Without the National Networks’ voter suppression tactics in Election 2000, GWB may have won both Florida and the National popular vote by enough of a margin to obliterate the election legitimacy issue.
    During Election 2000, I was naïve about how far the National Networks would be willing to go to help a Democrat get in the White House. I had viewed the actions taken by the National Networks (undermining GWB during Election 2000) as “possibly” honest mistakes. Not until Dan Rather’s CBS fraudulent memos scandal, the 380 Tons of RDX and HMX Missing Hoax, and finally the Election 2004 exit-poll fiasco did it become comprehensible that some members of the National Networks' consortium were using the exit-poll system to help Democrats win Presidential Elections. In 2000, the Networks used the broadcast Airways to influence Election Day voting in favor of Gore and in 2004 they used the Internet to influence Election Day voting behavior in favor of Kerry. In future elections, recommend we bypass the National Networks' manipulated exit polls and rely on actual vote counts - no more winner projections.



    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part II
    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005

    Election 2004 Disinformation Strategy -- Curtailing Republican Voter Turnout

    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls




    Election 2004 Disinformation Strategy - Democrat campaign strategists, Democrat National Committee (DNC), Kerry Campaign, Left-Wing Media (LWM), the National Networks and pollster companies surely comprehended that Al Gore would have been elected President in Election 2000 (given the close vote) if only the National Networks had made their inappropriate Al Gore victory announcement a little earlier on Election Day 2000. The linkage between Election 2000 and 2004 is that Democrats got validation in Election 2000 that manipulated data (disinformation) could be used to significantly curtail Republican voter turnout and possibly alter the outcome of closely contended national elections. Democrat leadership (my view) had a crystal clear Election 2004 strategy:

    Manipulate swing state exit-poll data early on Election Day to create a lethal effect on Republican voter turnout.
    Utilize manipulated exit-poll data to advance Kerry’s momentum via the Internet.
    Use manipulated data as justification for the Networks calling states promptly for Kerry and slowly for GWB.
    Should Kerry not win Election 2004, de-legitimize GWB’s Presidency by asserting that the manipulated exit-poll data was accurate and pre-election poll averages, automated polling just prior to the election and actual vote counts were all fraudulent. See "Left Wing Claims Exit Polls Were Accurate, Bush Stole Election"
    Use the manipulated exit-poll data to justify to Democrats that the election was fraudulent and stolen.
    One of the best papers I've read is "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" by CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project (and December 5th Addendum)The project concludes: "There is no evidence that electronic voting machines were used to steel the 2004 election for George Bush."
    Also, the CALTECH/MIT paper poses a provocative question: "Which is more likely -- that an exit polling system that has been consistently wrong and troubled turned out to be wrong and troubled again, or that a vast conspiracy carried out by scores and scores of county and state election officials was successfully carried off to distort millions of American votes? I think the Kerry campaign concluded that the former is what happened."
    Should the Kerry Campaign choose to contest swing state elections, manipulated exit-poll data (favoring Kerry) would be in place to support multiple legal challenges in the courts.
    Given that the National Networks could not participate in further overt deception of the American voter (because of inappropriate declarations in Election 2000 and subsequent Congressional scrutiny), the Internet became the vehicle for stopping the re-election of President Bush. The Internet enabled disinformation to be disseminated to the American people "early" on Election Day without overt involvement of the National Networks.



    Curtailing Republican Voter Turnout - To achieve the desired lethal affect on Republican voter turnout, blatantly misleading exit-poll raw data (disinformation) was paraded before the American people at about 1 p.m. EST on Election Day just minutes after Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International sent their first wave of exit-poll data to the Networks and subscribers. This early data was to suppress Republican voter turnout using disinformation. The Internet blogosphere aided the deception (in some cases unintentionally) by spreading the buzz / perception that Kerry was winning and that the election was "effectively" over; no need wasting your time voting; Kerry will be the winner.

    The architects of the “Disinformation Strategy” must be wondering whether their scheme backfired and contributed to a GWB win. Maybe Democrat voters concluded that Kerry was winning in a landslide (based on exit-poll disinformation) and therefore it wasn’t necessary for them to vote. Why wait to vote in a long line (in Ohio rain) when it was a sure thing that Kerry was going to win the election? Republican voters may have been shocked by the exit polls ("Virtuous Victory" by Larry Kudlow) and concluded that they must help GWB win by voting (no matter what the exit-poll data showed) and thus turned out in droves. Or just maybe the exit-poll fiasco caused the loss of millions of votes for GWB and the Republican Party due to a successful Democrat voting suppression strategy.
    How much "early" exit-poll disinformation impacted voter turnout in unclear. It is not known to what degree disinformation distorts voting patterns for the Presidency or impacts "down-ticket" races. However, it should be clear to everyone that any interference with the election process that produces only small shifts in voter behavior can make a huge difference in a national election. In Election 2000 just a little over 500 votes in Florida decided the Presidential election. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all citizens should renounce strategies that rely on "misinforming" the American people to win national elections.
    A Congressional investigation should determine (1) who colluded in generating manipulated exit-poll data (disinformation) on Election Day 2004? And (2) who colluded in releasing "raw" exit-poll data to the National Networks and subscribers on Election Day knowing that disinformation would be immediately leaked to the Internet, media outlets and American people? Mitofsky, after the Election 2000 fiasco, said he favored abandoning "the release of "waves" of exit poll results to the networks early in the day" (page 26 CNN Report) so why was raw exit-poll data again released to the Networks early Election Day - given Mitofsky was fully aware of the consequences?
    Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state. Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process. The practice of indicating the Presidential winner using manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated now. If Election 2004 shenanigans aren’t addressed by Congress now, they will be at a later date when disastrous consequences result from the Networks' interfering with voter behavior during National Elections. Read "Exit Poll Outrage" and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage" by Dick Morris.



    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part III
    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005


    Gaming National Election Pool (NEP) Exit-Poll Interviews
    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls



    Gaming National Election Pool (NEP) Exit-Poll Interviews – Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state. Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process.



    Voters have alleged that there has been no explanation why exit polls were so far off on Election Day. So here is an explanation. Gaming NEP exit-poll interviews may have had a lot to do with it. The exit-poll system is easy to game. Just as misleading data (disinformation) was quickly leaked to the Internet, hypothesize that a list of exit-poll interviewer locations (usually 40-50 per swing state) along with the planned sequencing of interviews were leaked to the DNC, Kerry Campaign and 527 groups before Election Day. With this information, exit-poll data collection could be manipulated to favor Kerry by flooding known survey locations with Kerry operatives early in the morning on Election Day.



    · Kerry supporters would have been pre-briefed on tactics for getting exit-poll interviews (how to be an anxious volunteer). See Warren Mitofsky’s (co-director of NEP) comment “that the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters.” It is not reassuring to Republicans that the manipulated data was the result of anxious participants (Democrats) in early exit-poll interviews?



    · All these years of polling and no one ever came across "the anxious exit-poll participant phenomenon" until Election 2004, amazing! What good is exit-poll data if tactics are being used to skew data into disinformation to help win elections for the Democrat Party? See Michael Barone Article (4th paragraph on Exit Polls).



    If the effort to deceive the American people were more sinisterly contrived than flooding swing-state polls with anxious participants (Democrats) that like to do exit-poll surveys, then further chicanery would have included the enlistment of Kerry friendly interviewers to conduct the surveys.



    · To do the surveys, interviewers would have to know the precinct names, polling locations and interview procedures. This information could be passed along to Democrat operatives.



    · Either flooding pollster locations with Kerry supporters (anxious to participate in exit-poll surveys) or use of Kerry friendly interviewers to conduct the surveys (or a combination of both tactics) would result in manipulated exit-poll data early on Election Day.



    In addition to anxious exit poll participants, over surveying Kerry voters and under surveying Bush voters (in each swing state) are unambiguous indications of manipulation. How do you under represent Bush voters across the board except by design or incompetence in what you are doing?



    Dick Morris wrote: “But this Tuesday, the networks did get the exit polls wrong. Not just some of them. They got all of the Bush states wrong. So, according to ABC-TV’s exit polls, for example, Kerry was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10 points. To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible. It boggles the imagination how pollsters could be that incompetent and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here.”

    Getting the sampling wrong in one state is a huge issue; getting the sampling wrong in each swing state substantiates a well coordinated effort to generate misleading raw data (disinformation) to influence the outcome of Election 2004. In my view, tilting of data in favor of Kerry was done at the exit-poll interviewer level. Exactly how this was done remains unclear; investigation should tell us the answer.

    "Results of exit polls lie in the hands of twelve experts" - possibly all Democrats. Where were the checks and balances to insure blatantly misleading raw data (disinformation) was not used (once again) to influence the outcome of a Presidential Election?
    Congress needs to investigate: (1) how the collection of exit-poll data was being gamed and manipulated to benefit Kerry and the Democrat Party (2) Who were the willing accomplices to this deception? (3) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Groups suggest any sample precincts or polling locations used by the pollsters? (4) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Group people play any part (with the pollster companies) in the recruitment of exit-poll interviewers? (5) How thorough was the training of exit-pollsters (and other people working in the system); who trained them and what were their instructions? (6) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Group people have any role in survey data tabulation or in the data gathering / handling process either at the polls or at the Edison-Mitofsky polling companies? (7) Did the DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Group people have any communications with the National Networks asking them not to announce states for GWB and did the National Networks comply with their requests? (8) What role was played (in the exit-poll scandal) by the National Networks, subscribers to the pollster service, pollster companies, DNC, Kerry Campaign or 527 Groups? (9) Why didn’t pollster company executives put an immediate stop on exit-poll raw data that was highly suspect, that looked unreasonable, that was so out of whack with pre-election poll averages and that was so clearly prejudiced in favor of Kerry? (10) Of the twelve experts that make exit-poll data decisions, how many are Republicans? (11) What safeguards were in place to preclude misleading exit-poll data (disinformation) being presented to the American people early on Election Day – on the Internet blogosphere and media outlets? (12) Who were the leakers of exit-poll data? (13) What should the American people expect during Elections 2006 and 2008? Since exit-poll raw data has been repeatedly used to influence Presidential Election outcomes in favor of Democrats, should exit poll forecasting of the Presidential winner be continued? This is a question for Congress should address.



    Exit polling in Elections 2000 and 2004 gave great advantage to Democrats at the expense of GWB. On Election Day 2004, the National Election Pool (NEP) sent out six separate releases of exit-poll results to the National Networks and subscribers – each one showing Kerry in the lead. The last wave of national exit polls showed Kerry winning the popular vote by 51 percent to 48 percent (these numbers are symbolic of a systematic bias favoring Kerry in nationwide exit polls).

    Polls are statistical calculations, not factual realities. Pre-election poll averages, automatic polling (taken just before the election) and actual voting results established that NEP sampling data was inaccurate for the swing states and the nationwide exit poll. Democrat Party friendly demographics (skewed samples) provide a partial answer as to how methodology corrupted data. Over or under sampling of demographic factors by pollsters created sampling errors. In plain language exit-poll numbers were not derived from random samples of the voting population. Skews in each swing state favored Kerry. Investigation is required.

    It made no sense that NEP exit-poll interviewers would include too many unmarried women and not nearly enough men unless pollsters wanted to skew results (the early sample of 5,000 voters was based on a 59-41 women to men ratio but interviewers/pollsters know very well not to interview disproportionate numbers of a group, so why too many unmarried females?), too many Democrats and too few Republicans, too many people in the Blue States and not enough in Red States, too many coastal state people and not enough Westerners, too many people in urban areas and not enough in suburban areas except if this was by design or one other alternative, the companies performing the surveys are incompetent in doing what they profess to do very well. Which is it? Congress needs to sort it out.
    The practice of indicating the Presidential winner using manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated. If Election 2004 shenanigans aren’t dealt with now, they will be at a later date when disastrous consequences result from the Networks' use of manipulated exit polls to interfere with voter behavior during National Elections. Read "Exit Poll Outrage" and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage" by Dick Morris. Gaming NEP exit poll interviews, Democrat friendly demographics (skewed sampling) and a deficient pollster polling methodology – all combined to produce manipulated exit-poll data on Election Day. Our National Elections involve the trust of our people in an open and fair system. Having the National Networks and its Pollster Company's interfere (in a very significant way) with Election 2004 via disinformation is alarming but then to declare what they did proprietary is truly insulting to the public conscience. What we are witnessing is a collision between Public and Private Interests that need to be reconciled by Congress in favor of the American people. Count votes - no more winner projections using manipulated exit polls.





    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part IV
    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005


    Statistical Analysis of Disinformation Exit Polls
    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls



    Statistical Analysis of Disinformation Exit Polls - Whether the CACTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project (and December 5th Addendum) or analysis being done by statisticians such as Stephen F. Freeman (who likely understates sampling errors for Election 2004 exit polls), their analysis is mainly focused on the backend of the exit-poll controversy (on data that emerged after polls closed). My concerns are at the front-end with the early disinformation data (before any polls closed) that hoodwinked the American people into believing Kerry would win the election. Why would any exit-polling company circulate data to the broadcast Networks that Kerry was winning in a landslide in Pennsylvania by 20 points, Minnesota by 18 points, Wisconsin by 9 points and New Hampshire by 18 points? Which National Network was this data suppose to help in its Election Day analysis? What were trained election statisticians suppose to do with false data?



    The National Networks use of exit polling in Elections 2000 and 2004 suggest that their primary purpose for exit polls is to assist Democrats win elections. Election Day exit-poll analysis appears secondary to getting a Democrat in the White House. Influencing the outcome of National Elections via early exit-poll disinformation has become the Election Day modus operandi of the Networks. To understand exit-polls, visit "Mystery Pollster - Demystifying the Science and Art of Political Polling" and "Exit-Polls: What You Should Know" and Have the Exit Polls Been Wrong Before? - By Mark Blumenthal. For those concerned about voting machine accuracy, suggest "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" by CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project (and the December 5th Addendum). Also, suggest reading: “A Tour of the 2004 Exit Poll: What it Says and What it Doesn’t” By Roy Telxeira.



    Comparing National Election Pool (NEP) Exit-Poll Data and Data Indicating a Kerry Landslide
    With Pre-Election Poll Averages and Actual Voting Results:

    Table 1 – NEP Exit-Poll Data (Disinformation), Shown on Drudge Report, Tuesday, November 2, 2004 at - 2:03:32 EST
    Table 2 – Early Exit-Poll Data (Disinformation), Indicating a Kerry Landslide to the American People (Uses Table 1 Data)
    Table 3 – Pre-Election Poll Averages 10/25-11/1, 2004 – Real Clear Politics.Com
    Table 4 – Actual Voting Results – CBS News. Com - Campaign 2004 - Nov 2nd Election
    Table 1 - NEP Exit-Poll (Disinformation Data) – Published on Drudge Report, Election Day, 2:03:32 EST




    AZ
    CO
    LA
    PA
    OH
    FL

    Kerry
    Lose

    45
    Lose

    48
    Lose

    42
    Win

    60
    Win

    52
    Win

    51

    Bush
    Win

    55
    Win

    51
    Win

    57
    Lose

    40
    Lose

    48
    Lose

    48

    MI
    NM
    MN
    WI
    IA
    NH
    TOTAL
    POINTS

    Win

    51
    Win

    50
    Win

    58
    Win

    52
    Tie

    49
    Win

    57
    W8,T1,L3

    615

    Lose

    47
    Lose

    48
    Lose

    40
    Lose

    43
    Tie

    49
    Lose

    41
    W3,T1,L8

    565




    Table 2 - NEP Early Exit-Poll (Disinformation Data) - Indicating a Kerry Landslide to the American People

    NEP Exit-Polls Indicated

    Kerry Winning By
    Pre-election Poll Averages
    Projected Kerry Winning By
    Actual Voting Results

    Showed Kerry Winning By

    20 points in Pennsylvania (PA)
    1 point in PA
    2 points in PA

    18 points in Minnesota (MN)
    3 points in MN
    3 points in MN

    9 points in Wisconsin (WI)
    1 point in WI
    1 point in WI

    16 points in New Hampshire (NH)
    1 point in NH
    1 point in NH






    Table 3 - Real Clear Politics.Com Pre-Election Poll Averages (10/25-11/1, 2004)

    *Actual Voting Results were used for AZ and LA. To review poll averages and the pollster companies used to construct those averages, click on the state abbreviation




    AZ

    *
    CO
    LA

    *
    PA
    OH
    FL

    Kerry
    Lose

    44.0
    Lose

    44.8
    Lose

    42.0
    Win

    48.2
    Lose

    46.7
    Lose

    47.6

    Bush
    Win

    55.0
    Win

    50.0
    Win

    57.0
    Lose

    47.3
    Win

    48.8
    Win

    48.2

    MI
    NM
    MN
    WI

    Note
    IA
    NH
    TOTAL
    POINTS

    Win

    48.7
    Lose

    46.4
    Win

    48.7
    Lose

    46.8
    Lose

    47.1
    Win

    48.5
    W4 - L8

    560

    Lose

    45.2
    Win

    47.8
    Lose

    45.3
    Win

    47.7
    Win

    47.4
    Lose

    47.5
    W8 - L4

    565




    Table 4 - Actual Voting Results –- CBS News. Com - Campaign 2004 - Nov 2nd Election

    To review election results, click on the state abbreviation




    AZ
    CO
    LA
    PA

    Kerry
    Lost

    44
    Lost

    47
    Lost

    42
    Won

    51

    Bush
    Won

    55
    Won

    52
    Won

    57
    Lost

    49

    MI
    NM
    MN
    WI
    IA

    Won

    51
    Lost

    49
    Won

    51
    Won

    50
    Lost

    49

    Lost

    48
    Won

    50
    Lost

    48
    Lost

    49
    Won

    50

    OH
    FL

    Lost

    49
    Lost

    47

    Won

    51
    Won

    52

    NH
    TOTAL
    POINTS

    Won

    50
    W5 L7

    580

    Lost

    49
    W7 L5

    610




    Table 1 (above). This table shows National Election Pool (disinformation) Exit-Poll "Raw" Data appearing on the Drudge Report at 2:03:32 EST on November 2, 2004. These early exit polls are a national scandal. In the swing states, all exit polls were biased in favor of Kerry. We must ask why? The logical answer is that the exit-poll numbers were not derived from random samples of the voting population. "There was a time you could go to the bank with the early exit polls," Zogby said.” Now we have a problem." For the NEP to plead ignorance of the political impact that their disinformation would have on Election Day is beyond incredulity. NEP Exit Polling was used to mislead the American people into thinking Kerry would win the key battleground states of Ohio, Florida and other closely contested swing states and the national election in a landslide.
    o In the two non-swing states shown in this data (Kerry had no chance of winning Arizona and Louisiana), NEP “early” data was virtually spot on with actual voting results - hmmm. A question for NEP: how come "early" exit polling for non-swing states was highly accurate yet this "early" exit polling data was off in swing states and always favoring Kerry? Dick Morris believes: "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."


    o NEP "Early" exit-poll raw data was used to validate a Kerry landslide to the American people. Given pre-election poll averages were so far out of whack with these early exit polls, why would this highly suspect data be released to the National Networks and subscribers if not for the purpose of influencing the national election in favor of Kerry? Of note, NEP (disinformation) data (Table 1) shows Kerry's percentages (in all cases) equal to or exceeding actual voting results.

    Table 2 (above). NEP Early Exit-Polls (disinformation) were clearly being used to convey to the American people that Kerry would win the election in a landslide. Percentages shown for these four states are outlandish. This "Early" exit-poll data was so far off the mark that it should have been an embarrassment for the pollsters to forward it to the National Networks and its subscribers. It is reasonable to speculate that "early" exit-poll "raw" data was not intended for use by the National Networks or subscribers but for the consumption of millions of Americans to chill Republican voter turnout and influence the outcome of Election 2004 in favor of Kerry. The Networks use of exit polls in Elections 2000 and 2004 suggest that their first priority for Election Day exit polls was to assist Democrats win National Elections.

    Table 3 (above). The third table indicates the projected winner (in states shown) for the week immediately preceding Election Day 10/25-11/1. See Real Clear Politics (RCP) Poll Averages. Clicking on the state abbreviation allows you to review Real Clear Politics poll averages and the pollster companies used to construct those averages. Pre-election poll averages showed Bush as the projected winner for the battleground states of Ohio and Florida; actual voting results confirmed this prediction; Bush won Ohio and Florida. WI Note: The winner of each state was predicted correctly by RCP poll averages except Wisconsin - which Kerry won by one percent. "Collectively, the pollsters were right. A Real Clear Politics average of all the national polls had Mr. Bush winning 50 percent to Mr. Kerry's 48.5 percent, which was only about a point off the actual results."

    Table 4 (above). The forth table shows actual voting results. To review, click the state abbreviation. Reference: CBS News. Com - Campaign 2004 - Nov 2nd Election.
    The early NEP exit-poll survey data (disinformation) exploited all the American people. It misled Democrats into thinking they were winning and Republicans into thinking they were losing. Millions of voting citizens were the target of a well orchestrated deception in the swing states. What other conclusion could one reach after reviewing the pre-election Real Clear Politics poll averages and actual voting results? Manipulated data (disinformation) was aimed at the swing states. Why was it important for the Networks not to call the winner in any state (until after closing of all polls in a state) when their early raw data on the Internet showed Kerry winning the election in a landslide (well before a single poll closed)?



    If pollster company exit-poll raw data was not assessed to be highly accurate, it should never have been released. Any organization with even limited political savvy would intuitively understand that high impact election data helpful to Kerry would be leaked (by members of the National Network consortium / subscribers) to the Internet (Drudge Report, etc.) and from there the information would be disseminated country-wide at warp speed.



    The American people learned on the Drudge Report at 2:03:32 EST on November 2, 2004 that Kerry was destined to win the election in a landslide (disinformation) at the very time GWB was ahead in the election. Based on an unorthodox exit-polling sampling methodology (sampling more Kerry supporters than Bush supporters, etc.), the networks / pollsters / DNC / Kerry Campaign / 527s were able to benefit (once again) from exit-poll data manipulated to favor the Democrat Party candidate. The perpetrators of the deception have yet to be determined. This is a job for Congress.



    Disinformation had another damaging impact on Republicans. It influenced when states were called for each candidate. When it was logical to call states for GWB -- CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN took no action using the misleading NEP exit-poll data as a basis for saying the race was too close to call. Using NEP data (disinformation), National Networks called states for the Democrats faster than they called states for the Republicans.



    · How and when states are called for a candidate by the National Networks could impact the momentum of the election. These calls help maintain, advance or deflate campaign momentum. Based on how and when calls were made, it is clear that Networks sought to protect or advance Kerry's momentum (using manipulated exit poll data) while deflating GWB's momentum.



    Aside from manipulated exit-poll data compromising the fairness of the election process, exit poll disinformation had an immediate impact on the stock market. Faced with the real prospect of Kerry becoming President, the stock market plummeted 100 points in the last two hours of trading. The financial markets had apparently already assessed (based on their own analysis) that GWB was going to win Election 2004. The early afternoon exit-poll raw data (indicating that Kerry would win the election in a landslide) caught investors completely by surprise. In addition to recognizing Rear Clear Politics' excellent pre-election predictions, suggest reading “Who nailed the election results? Automated Pollsters” by David Kenner and William Saletan. Also see Polling Report.

    The National Networks use of exit polling in Elections 2000 and 2004 suggest that their primary purpose for exit polls is to assist Democrats win elections. Election Day exit-poll analysis appears secondary to getting a Democrat in the White House. Influencing the outcome of National Elections via exit-poll disinformation is now the Election Day modus operandi of the National Networks. Remember that the National Networks are paying for the disinformation data. They have a great responsibility for making sure that their exit-poll data is responsibly handled in a National Election.



    Gaming NEP exit poll interviews, Democrat friendly demographics (skewed sampling) and a deficient pollster polling methodology – all combined to produce manipulated exit-poll data on Election Day. Our National Elections involve the trust of our people in an open and fair system. Having the National Networks and its Pollster Company's interfere (in a very significant way) with Election 2004 via disinformation is alarming but then to declare what they did proprietary is truly insulting to the public conscience. What we are witnessing is a collision between Public and Private Interests that need to be reconciled by Congress in favor of the American people. Count votes - no more winner projections by exit polls.



    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part V
    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005


    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data to De-legitimize the Republican Presidency

    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls





    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data to De-legitimize the Republican Presidency - Whether the CACTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project (and December 5th Addendum) or analysis being done by statisticians such as Stephen F. Freeman (who likely understates sampling errors for Election 2004 exit polls), statistical analysis has mainly been focused on the backend of the exit-poll controversy (on data that emerged after polls closed). My concerns are at the front-end with the early disinformation data (before any polls closed) that hoodwinked the American people into believing Kerry would win the election. Why would any exit-polling company circulate data to the broadcast Networks that Kerry was winning in a landslide in Pennsylvania by 20 points, Minnesota by 18 points, Wisconsin by 9 points and New Hampshire by 18 points? Which National Network was this data suppose to help in its Election Day analysis? What were trained election statisticians suppose to do with false data? See Statistical Analysis of Disinformation Exit Polls (Part IV).



    Armed with manipulated exit polls and pre-election polls of choice, senior level Democrats are now on a mission to de-legitimize Election 2004 and hence the Presidency. It is not surprising that some Democrats are in a state of denial and others are hallucinating that they didn’t really lose Election 2004. They will not accept GWB won the election and are now deluding themselves into believing manipulated exit poll samples were correct and actual voting results were wrong.



    To satisfy their delusion that the exit polls were correct, Democrats must assert that Real Clear Poll Averages and Automated Polls taken just prior to the election and Actual Voting Results of the election were all wrong or fraudulent. For those that believe this, I commend them to a New York Times article: Who Lost Ohio? by Matt Bai. To cut to the chase, go to page eight and start reading the paragraph "Why wasn't it enough? (And then finish the article). This should help everyone understand how Election 2004 was won by GWB.



    If you haven’t done so, read “Exit Poll Outrage” and "Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage" by Dick Morris. Like Morris, I believe that exit polls were gamed to help Kerry win the election. Although there may be explanations for manipulated data, there is no excuse for the Networks' financed raw data (disinformation) being paraded over the Internet on Election Day. After the Election 2000 debacle, Mitofsky said he favored abandoning the release of "waves" of exit poll results to the networks early in the day; so why was his pollster company sending exit-poll results to the Networks as early as 1pm EST? (See page 26).



    Just as we heard for four years how GWB stole the election from Gore in 2000 (which he didn’t-more disinformation), expect to hear over the next four years that GWB stole the election from Kerry. The reality of GWB winning Election 2004 by around 3 million votes and receiving the largest popular vote in United States history means little to Democrat extremists. The mantra until 2008 will be GWB stole the election from Kerry. Expect that prominent leaders in the Democrat Party will attempt to energize their base by alleging/implying that the election was stolen from them. See the section on “statements and articles to de-legitimize the election” – below.



    Before Democrats attack electronic voting machines, suggest that they read "Voting Machines and the Underestimate of the Bush Vote" by CALTECH/MIT Voting Technology Project. The project concludes: "There is no evidence that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for George Bush." Also, it asks a provocative question: "Which is more likely -- that an exit polling system that has been consistently wrong and troubled turned out to be wrong and troubled again, or that a vast conspiracy carried out by scores and scores of county and state election officials was successfully carried off to distort millions of American votes? I think the Kerry campaign concluded that the former is what happened."



    The “November Surprise” for Election 2004 was the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data showing up on the Internet early afternoon on Election Day. Their purpose was to create a lethal effect on Republican voter turnout and gain Election Day campaign momentum for Kerry. The Internet enabled manipulated data to be disseminated to the American people without overt involvement of the National Networks. Since Kerry’s bid for the Presidency failed, phase two of the Democrat strategy is now being fully implemented (de-legitimize the election). Many of the tactics implemented by Democrat Party to de-legitimize Election 2004, you can be sure were mapped out well before the election took place. Review their tactics:

    Statisticians sympathetic to the Democrat Party de-legitimize the election by (1) understating sampling errors for Election 2004 exit polls (2) turning a blind eye to a consideration that exit-poll interviews were gamed and skewed to produce disinformation (3) diverting attention away from the "early" exit polls that hoodwinked the American people into believing Kerry would win in a landslide (the election bomb) and (4) focusing attention, instead, on exit-poll data that emerged after the election was over – data with little impact on election results.

    Expect Democrat friendly statisticians to assume that the November 2, 2004 exit-poll data was correct (to include the methodology, mathematical models, procedures for collecting the data, etc.) and standing on this false assumption, declare the discrepancies between the exit-poll data and the actual vote results so great that there is a million to one shot (or some other mind-boggling ratio) that such and such could happen. Based on a false ratio derived from manipulated data, they infer or assert that the actual voting results are fraudulent and that voting machines may have been tampered with to favor GWB, etc.

    Investigators of Election 2004 should not be misled into the quagmire of exit-poll statistics that emerged after the election was over. They should keep their eye on the ball by backtracking everything that happened leading up to the National Networks’ Exit-Poll "Raw" Data appearing on the Drudge Report at 2:03:32 EST on November 2, 2004. This is the data that influenced the voting behavior of the National Election. This is the data that impacted voter turnout. This is the data Democrats intended to have the greatest influence on the outcome of Election 2004.

    Anonymous witnesses are used to de-legitimize the election: (1) Democrats fabricate/imagine/rig stories about how voting equipment was tampered with and then attribute the story to an anonymous witness. See "Ohio Papers Getting Nowhere on Vote Fraud Allegations" by Joe Strupp and (2) Democrats have witnesses detail accusations but the person/company that they are alleging against have no opportunity to respond. All you hear is the Democrat witness’ expose of extraordinary events to shock the public into thinking Election 2004 was unfair to Kerry.

    Statements and articles are used to de-legitimize the election by:
    o Equating our elections to those of Third World countries (but not as good). Manipulated exit polls support their case.

    o Alleging that exit polls are infallible thus the election must have been stolen by GWB.

    o Alleging that the voting machines were tampered with and that this is how Republicans stole the election (Recount 2004).

    o Having statisticians state that the exit polls were accurate. Some Democrat statisticians will consider exit polls accurate unless presented with irrefutable proof of manipulation.

    o Accusing voting machine manufacturers of conspiring with right-wing politicians to steal the election.

    o Blaming Republicans for everything that didn’t go well for the Democrats on Election Day.

    o Blaming Republicans for not having sufficient voting locations and voting machines for Democrat high population voting areas.

    o Blaming Republicans for manipulating the tabulations.

    Read a counter article: "The Democratic Coup in the State of Washington" and "Ohio Recount Finally Over".

    Court challenges are used to de-legitimize the election using manipulated exit-poll data to support charges; claiming disenfranchisement (see Election 2000 claim), voter fraud, voting irregularities, unverifiable computerized voting, voting machine tampering, voter suppression, voter intimidation, voter misinformation, obstruction, nefarious activity, etc.

    See: Uphill Battle Predicted For Voters Filing Complaint with Ohio Supreme Court. "The complaint also questioned how the actual election results could show Bush winning the election when exit-poll interview findings on election night indicated that Kerry would win 52 percent of Ohio's Presidential vote." Expect every challenge to the election that Democrats can muster. This is why the Democrats went out and hired so many thousands of lawyers. The manipulated exit polls for Election 2004 are now playing a key role in post election court challenges. Democrat strategy is fully supported by manipulated exit polls and pre-scripted/manufactured allegations. Read: “Internet Post-Election Rumors Missing One Little Thing: Evidence” by Howard Troxler.

    A Constitutional Insurrection to drive GWB from power on January 6, 2005 is the latest tactic for de-legitimizing the election. Instead of facing up to the fact that GWB received the largest popular vote in United States history and then helping to celebrate the inauguration of a new duly elected President, ardent Democrats are intent on undermining our Democracy and de-legitimizing the Presidency.
    Reasonable Democrats may appreciate that: (1) there are excellent reasons for every citizen to question the credibility of exit-poll data displayed to the American people on Election Day; (2) the Democrat Party disenfranchised their own people (if you can call it disenfranchisement) by failing to ensure the correct number of voting machines were placed in their districts and that they had sufficient voter locations; (3) the Republicans waited in polling locations as long as Democrats - seven plus hours; the record turnout of voters took everyone by surprise (Democrats, Republicans and Independents); (4) Democrats, Republicans and Independents have many similar voting challenges and issues; (5) voting machine errors / problems / irregularities / waiting on lines affect Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats; (6) court challenges to Election 2004 was the post-election strategy of the Democrat Party – that is why there were thousands of lawyers this election. (7) Even the punch card voting system came under legal challenge; and (8) there were complaints of no paper trails with electronic voting - something Democrats knew before the Election (8) there are multiple checks and balances in place to preclude voting fraud.



    Voters concerned about the integrity of our voting system should support some form of National Voter ID. Everyone that votes in a National Election should have a National ID (National Identification Number) that would insure they vote only once in elections. Every vote can then be tracked back to an ID number which, in effect, validates that the person who is voting is a citizen of this country and eligible to vote in the National Election.



    The need for such a system is validated by an article "Exposed: Scandal of Double Voters" by Russ Buettner which states: "Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both New York City and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections. Registering in two places is illegal in both states, but the massive snowbird scandal goes undetected because election officials don't check rolls across state lines.” A National Voter ID would fix this problem. “Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party."

    When extrapolated nationally, dual registrations are a significant problem; no person should have more than one vote. If Democrats are concerned about election fraud, they should support a National ID; it would help give the audit/paper trail they want and it would make electronic voting even more reliable. The issue of being able to verify and audit electronic votes is a key issue for all political parties. A National Voter ID would go a long way to solving the verifiability issue.
    Democrats lost more than an election at the polls. (See "Democratic Disaster" by Robert Novak and "The Election 2004" by Cal Thomas). Some reasons why Democrats lost were addressed by Democrat Zell Miller in "A National Party No More" and Audio. Before anyone seeks to de-legitimize Election 2004, they should first understand what the exit polls say and why people voted the way they did. Knowing the shifts in the voting behavior of the population should be helpful to those who want to understand why GWB won the election. Suggest reading: “A Tour of the 2004 Exit Poll: What it Says and What it Doesn’t” By Roy Telxeira. Actions focused on fixing real voting problems are to be commended; however, strategies that de-legitimize our national elections and undermine the confidence of our citizens in the voting process do not serve our Nation well.





    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part VI
    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005


    Manipulated Exit-Polls Funded By National Networks

    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls




    Manipulated Exit-Polls Funded By National Networks – Stringent National Network standards for projecting a state for a Presidential candidate over the National Broadcast Airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process. Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state. The purpose of the data (disinformation) was to create a lethal effect on Republican voter turnout.



    So who got fooled by the manipulated exit-poll data? Republicans supporting GWB were thrown into depression; the Democrats supporting Kerry became elated and the American people experienced a monumental disinformation hoax.



    Post Election 2004 Warren Mitofsky / Joseph Lenski (owners of the National Networks’ exit-poll companies) stated that the only people that know how to read exit polls are pollsters and trained statisticians. Also, they stated that you can believe exit-poll forecasts if a candidate is winning in a landslide and that exit polls aren’t good at forecasting winners in close elections. If all this is true, why do the National Networks need exit polls to forecast a winner? If it's a landslide, they don't need them (the outcome becomes obvious soon enough) and if the election is close, exit-polls can't do the job according to the pollsters. So the real purpose of using exit-polls to forecast the winner of a National Election is to give the Networks a tool that can be manipulated for the benefit of the Democrat Party. Elections 2000, 2002 and 2004 give credence to this perspective.



    An Internet blog stated “If any media outlet is dumb enough to pay $10,000,000 for guesswork on what will be firmly quantified a few hours later, they deserve what they get.” In my view, the Networks are not paying $10,000,000 for exit-poll guesswork but for the capability to influence the outcome of National Elections. They paid for the capability to have a lethal affect on Republican voter turnout in Election 2000 and Election 2004. Fortunately, both efforts were unsuccessful - but who knows what tricks the exit polls will perform in Elections 2006 and 2008.



    When Dan Rather’s CBS’ 60 Minutes (Political Bias? What Political Bias? by John Podhoretz)was used to help Kerry defeat GWB (fraudulent and forged Air National Guard memos) and hundreds of millions were spent by Democrat friendly groups for negative campaigning, 527s; etc., a mere $10,000,000 would be nothing if that's what it would take to get a Democrat back in the White House. The Networks may have had no direct involvement in exit-poll trickery (even CBS and Dan Rather) other than funding manipulated exit-poll data to be placed on the Internet early on Election Day.



    What remains to be seen is how much longer Congress will turn a blind eye to the Networks' modus operandi of Election Day exit-poll deception and trumped up (fraudulent) stories discrediting Republican Presidents just prior to National Elections. It looks as though Campaign Finance Reform has some legislative clean up operations after Election 2004. How much longer will Congress allow fraudulent stories on the National Airways and lying exit polls on the Internet (just prior to National Elections and on Election Day) to be funded by National Networks in support of the Democrat Party? Both Warren Mitofsky and Joseph Lenski worked for CBS. During Election 2000, they were the Decision Team (election analysts) for CBS/CNN. These are the same individuals that interfaced with VNS and recommended to CNN/CBS that Florida be called for Gore before Florida Polls closed in Election 2000. These are the same individuals that recommended to CNN/CBS that they retract their Florida call for Gore at 10pm EST – just as Pacific coast polls were closing (7pm PST). The opportunity for further Republican voter suppression and damage to the Bush campaign ended at 10pm EST when voting stopped on the Pacific Coast - the exact time the Networks retracted their Florida call for Gore. Questions to ponder are:



    · One challenge to an honest Election Day is the “apparent” conflict of interest between Dan Rather's CBS (so obviously in the Democrat Party's corner) and their interface with Edison-Mitofsky polling companies. How easy would it be for members of the National Election Pool (such as CBS/CNN) to influence election outcomes given their close relationship with Warren Mitofsky and Joseph Lenski. Beyond both individuals being involved in the Election 2000 debacle, Mitofsky and Lenski now run the pollster companies involved in the Election 2004 exit-poll debacle.



    · A question that needs to be answered: Were Edison-Mitofsky polling companies complicit in forwarding raw data to the National Networks and subscribers showing Kerry winning the election in a landslide, while knowing that data margins in some of the contested states were unreasonable and surely knowing that this data (in a politically impassioned atmosphere) would immediately leak like a sieve to the Internet early on Election Day? In fact, polling company data was on the Internet within minutes after its release to the National Networks and Subscribers.


    Feigned anger or outrage (by the pollster companies or CBS) about leaked exit-poll data and the blogosphere should be taken with a grain of salt. Let me understand this. The Edison-Mitofsky polling companies release raw exit-poll data "early" on Election Day (to the National Networks and subscribers) showing Kerry winning the election in a landslide and they don’t anticipate that this data will be immediately leaked (by the National Networks and subscribers) to the Internet and be used to influence the outcome of the National Election. I don't believe it.



    · To state that we tried hard to keep the data secret just doesn't cut it; everyone knows that exit-poll data cannot be kept secret on Election Day; in fact, the secret is gone (in a highly politically charged environment) the moment the "first" swing state exit-poll data (showing who is in the lead) is tabulated. It would be naive to think otherwise. The pollster companies have culpability in that they know that the data they send to the National Networks and subscribers will be leaked to the Internet and they know that this data is likely to be misinterpreted by the American people (since, according to the pollsters themselves, trained statisticians are required to interpret data correctly).



    · Mitofsky has stated “Only the unauthorized leakers and bloggers were misled - a fate they richly deserved.” It was more than the leakers and bloggers that were misled. FOX News Channel decided to quit using the exit-poll results Tuesday evening, calling them inaccurate and unreliable. Let it be clear to Mr. Mitofsky that the target audience for the National Networks' disinformation data was not the Internet and blogosphere but the American people - who were scandalously misled; did voters richly deserve this fate, also? Make no mistake; it was the American people who were duped by the NEP disinformation placed on the Internet.



    Cover stories supporting the release of data that projected / forecasted / indicated the winner of the National Election (using manipulated exit-poll data) are easily made up. If you believe these stories, someone can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Here are a few:



    (1) “There were no mistaken projections by Edison/Mitofsky or any of the NEP members.” Comment: This is like Dan Rather maintaining that the Air National Guard memos were legit after everyone else knew otherwise. The National Networks and the pollster companies can maintain they are ready for the scrutiny of a Congressional investigation. All the books will be in order and all their projections justified. Everything they did will be spot on. One big problem, while the pollsters are arguing how correct they were with exit polls and projections, everyone else (that was subject to the “unauthorized” leaked exit-poll data on November 2, 2004) knows that their data was misleading and inaccurate based on the results of Election 2004. In a fair election actual voting results trump concocted/misleading exit-poll samples.


    (2) Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in exit polls than the Bush voters. Comment: Anxious participants should make no difference in the survey outcome if surveys are conducted using standard protocols and unbiased sampling techniques for selecting participants and collecting data. Also, the anxious participant explanation doesn’t clarify why the exit polls were mainly inaccurate in swing states.



    (3) The leaked information was not intended for public consumption. Comment: Of course the leaks were unauthorized; does anyone believe that the pollster companies are going to say that they authorized leaking this data (if they did) or admit they knew that their data would be leaked the moment they sent it to the National Networks and subscribers? The impact of having the data on the Internet on Election Day is the same whether they authorized or didn’t authorize its release.



    (4) You have to know how to read the data to properly interpret it. Comment: Voters are smart enough to know what the percentages are telling them. Telling the American people - that looking at early exit-poll data is like looking at the score of a football game at half time - means little if the half time score is showing a clear victory for one of the teams.


    (5) Early data is not meant to characterize who's ahead or behind. Comment: Exit-poll data does exactly that and early data in many non-swing states was very accurate.



    (6) The Internet bloggers should have listed caveats. Comment: At the National Press Club, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie stated : "But with the Internet today, we're kidding ourselves, aren't we, to think that everybody in America doesn't know what the exit data is showing?"



    Given the 2000 election experience, the National Networks, exit pollsters, DNC and Kerry Campaign all anticipated a windfall election benefit for Kerry should the American people (early on Election Day) become aware of NEP data - validating a Kerry landslide. Except for Fox News, the networks that hired the NEP have been in the tank for Kerry during this entire election cycle. There should be no surprise that manipulated exit-poll data (Network financed) was used to tip Election 2004 in favor of Kerry just as VNS exit-poll data (Network financed) was used to tip Election 2000 in favor of Gore. The question remains what is Congress going to do about it?





    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part VII
    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005


    Democrats Favored In Exit-Poll Forecasting -- Exit-Poll Surveys Need Competition For Credibility

    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls


    Democrats Favored In Exit-Poll Forecasting – Shortly after 1pm on Election Day 2004 the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state.



    Pollsters are experts on how to get exit-polling information correct. See “Exit Poll Outrage” and Those Faulty Exit Polls were Sabotage by Dick Morris. To get exit polling scandalously wrong when the Presidency of the United States is at stake should be virtually impossible to do but it keeps happening - and each time it happens the intended beneficiary of the manipulated data are the Democrats.

    From now on, let the actual votes tell us who won an election. Waiting until the polls close to find out who won by an actual vote count is a better option than being subjected each national election cycle to disinformation aimed at deceiving the American people. Based on two consecutive debacles (2000 and 2004) we can no longer trust pollster companies (hired by agenda driven National Networks) to collect data in an unbiased way (See Rigged Polls, Rigged Networks by Nicholas Stix) and then to use the data they collect in a responsible manner.



    National Networks bear great responsibility for the exit-poll fiascos of 2000 and 2004. In each election, the Networks financed the manipulated exit poll data used to support the Democrat candidate for President. Networks may have their candidate and political party of choice but use of raw exit-poll data (to influence national elections) must come to a screeching halt! Congress needs to figure out what is going on and fix it so we are not faced with yet more fiascos during Midterm Election 2006 and Presidential Election 2008.



    Stringent Network standards for projecting or calling a state over the national airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process. Although exit-polls glean useful data, questions used to project an election winner should be removed from surveys to preclude future exploitation of exit-poll data for political advantage in National Elections. Let’s count votes; no more winner projections.



    Exit-Poll Surveys Need Competition for Credibility – After Election 2000, a report to CNN seriously questioned the concept of a single source for exit polls in National Elections. "Such a system lacks the checks and balances required for reliable reporting" (click then go to bottom of page six). For exit polls to have credibility in forecasting / projecting the winner of an election there must be competition. Right now we have a single system paid for by the National Network consortium.



    One must wonder if the manipulated exit polls (that appeared on the Internet shortly after 1pm on Election Day) reflect a conflict of interest. When we know that the heads of pollster companies (Edison and Mitofsky) are closely intertwined with CBS, conflict of interest questions arise. Think about this proposition. What if the situation were reversed and instead of the manipulated data showing Kerry ahead, the data had shown GWB winning in a landslide, I doubt that you would have found that data on the Internet. Democrat pollsters would have noted immediately that the data was way out of whack with pre-election poll averages and would not have released it to the National Networks or subscribers.



    Had exit-poll data (detrimental to Kerry) leaked to the Internet, CBS would “likely” have been instrumental in the firing of Edison and Mitofsky. These pollsters certainly know who they are working for and they certainly know CBS’ (Dan Rather) politics. They also know the politics of ABC, NBC, CNN, the Associated Press, the New York Times, etc.



    Evaluation of the performance of exit-polling over the last several elections makes it clear that exit polls are being manipulated, managed and tweaked to help Democrat Presidential candidates win elections. Until there is competitive national exit polling, data collection should be limited to information supporting analysis of demographic groups that voted and why they voted the way they did. This information then becomes part of the national dialogue with scholars, politicians, journalists to help assess the meaning of elections and concerns of our citizens.



    Based on the Election 2004 exit-poll fiasco, the consortium of news organizations that run NEP want to now set a release time for exit-poll data at 4 p.m. EST. This change means little. The real issue is how National Networks and pollsters protect high impact exit-poll survey data from being manipulated and leaked to the Internet even earlier in the day than it was on November 2, 2004? Unless the American people want more manipulated exit-poll data (disinformation) during the next National Election, they should ask Congress to pass a law prohibiting National Election Pool (NEP) data from forecasting or projecting the winning candidate.



    If data, forecasting a winner is collected, you can be sure it will be leaked or manipulated and then leaked to show the Democrat Presidential candidate winning in a landslide. Let's wait the extra hours and get actual voting results. Why should the American people be misled again? Note: After Election 2000 debacle Mitofsky said he favored abandoning the release of "waves" of exit poll results to the networks early in the day; so why were the pollster companies sending exit poll results to the Networks as early as 1pm EST? (Page 26).



    In 2000, 2002 and 2004, manipulated exit-poll data (disinformation) proved counterproductive to fair elections for the Republican Party, interfered with and recklessly endangered the electoral process, produced an environment of animosity and resentment, and subverted the legitimacy of our national election process. Presidential elections are too important to our system of government to risk future exit-poll fiascos. The practice of indicating winners using manipulated exit-poll data must be terminated now; this practice has already done great damage in Elections 2000 and 2004; why risk catastrophic damage in future elections?







    Election 2004 - "Exit-Poll Disinformation Hoax Backfires?" Part VIII

    Manipulated Exit-Poll Data for Lethal Affect on Republican Voter Turnout - January 2005



    National Networks in the Tank for Kerry and Democrat Party

    By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) j-bwambough@cox.net - www.nsar.us
    Election Reform: Count Votes - No More Winner Projections by Democrat Manipulated Exit Polls



    National Networks in the Tank for Kerry and Democrat Party – Stringent National Network standards for projecting a state for a Presidential candidate over the National Broadcast Airways mean little when the Internet is used as an alternative avenue for subverting the electoral process. Shortly after 1pm on Election Day the National Networks’ raw exit-poll data was posted on the Internet showing Kerry winning the National Election in a landslide. From the standpoint of the American voter, this data was projecting / forecasting / indicating the winner of the National Election and it was doing so before a single poll had closed in any state. The purpose of the data (disinformation) was to create a lethal effect on Republican voter turnout.



    Given that the National Networks could not participate in further overt deception of the American voter (because of inappropriate declarations in Election 2000 and subsequent Congressional scrutiny), the Internet became the vehicle for stopping the re-election of President Bush. The Internet enabled disinformation to be disseminated to the American people "early" on Election Day without overt involvement of the National Networks.



    In the lead up to Election 2004, we saw many indications that the National Networks (less Fox) were in the tank for Kerry. Information potentially unfavorable to Kerry (Swift Boat Vets and POWs) seldom made it to the National Networks. See Swift Vets and POWs.



    When Swift Boats Vet John O’Neil was interviewed on MSNBC, he was treated with contempt and disdain by MSNBC's chief political analyst and Democrat partisan Lawrence O’Donnell. When Veterans tried to address the issue of Kerry embellishing his war record, the broadcast networks and Left-Wing Liberal newspapers either ignored them or sent reporters on a jihad to discredit the Veterans. Of particular note, Ted Koppel’s “Nightline” program (per Thomas Sowell) “went to a Communist country to get witnesses to speak on camera -- with a Communist official present -- to discredit what the Swift Boat Veterans had said about an incident involving John Kerry during the Vietnam war. Not one of the American eyewitnesses, who could have spoken freely in a free country, was interviewed in this "Nightline" broadcast.” To get their story out, the Swift Boat Vets published a book "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill and Jerry Corsi.



    An additional indication of media being in the tank for Kerry was their amazing lack of attention to Kerry’s undistinguished Senate career and no mainstream media demands that Kerry should release all his military records as the media demanded of GWB. The media helped advance Kerry's campaign momentum with endless coverage of Abu Ghraib (CBS/Mary Mapes launched multiple attacks on the Bush Administration to help Kerry win Election 2004). Although Kerry made Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign, the people most impacted by Kerry (the prisoners of war - POWs) were given little access to the National Networks. Listen to: “Stolen Honor Wounds That Never Heal”.



    On the other hand, books by authors detrimental to GWB had no problem gaining extensive coverage on the National Networks. One author (Kitty Kelly) besmirching the reputation of GWB and his family was interviewed on a national network (the Today Show) three days running just before Election 2004. Why?



    National Network partisanship in Election 2004 was best exemplified by CBS. Read "Big Media Drops the Mask" by Pat Buchanan.



    · CBS’s 60 Minutes first attempt at unseating GWB came on September 8, 2004. The 60 Minutes program was designed to discredit GWB’s Air National Guard service and help Kerry and the Democrats to win Election 2004. (See my article: Bush and Uncommon Valor). However, the use of fraudulent memos and forged documents to make CBS’ case was debunked by Internet bloggers. See Thornburgh/Boccardi Report to CBS "Concerning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service", "Political Bias? What Political Bias?" by John Podhoretz, "The Thornburgh Report: What It Says, and What It Doesn't Say” by John H. Hinderaker, "Rather Biased" by Charles Krauthammer, "What the CBS Report actually admits" by Clarice Feldman, "CBS WATCH: The Mapes-Hackworth-Memogate-Abu Ghraib Connection" by Michelle Malkin and my article: Kerry and Left-Wing Democrats Exploit Abu Ghraib. See my articles regarding GWB's Air National Guard Service Leapfrogged Hundreds Hoax, Political Influence/Favoritism Hoax, Coward/Draft Dodger Hoax and Sugarcoated OER Report Hoax.


    · CBS’ 60 Minutes second attempt to influence Election 2004’s outcome included a collaborative effort with the New York Times in the "380 Tons of RDX and HMX Missing" Hoax planned for airing on October 31, 2004 – just two days before Election Day - giving the President no time to respond; again, the purpose of the story was to discredit GWB and help Kerry and the Democrats win the Election.



    · The third attempt to influence Election 2004 came on November 2, 2004. CBS' role is yet unclear but a Congressional investigation into ties, relationships and understandings between CBS and Edison-Mitofsky polling companies need to be investigated to follow up on their Election 2000 investigation. CBS’ involvement with fraudulent memos, forged memos and coordination with the Kerry Campaign (Mary Mapes and Joe Lockhart) suggests special attention should be focused on what collusion, if any, existed between pollster company people and members of the National Network consortium. (See Anchors Away by Brent Bozell).



    We do know that Warren Mitofsky and Joseph Lenski have worked for CBS on election decision analysis and statistical analysis. Both individuals played roles in Election 2000 and Election 2004 exit- poll debacles. Given CBS' extraordinary efforts to undermine GWB just prior to Election 2004, CBS’ current and previous interface with the pollster companies should be brought under close Congressional scrutiny. Per Dick Morris, "Next to the forged documents that sent CBS on a jihad against Bush’s National Guard service and the planned “60 Minutes” ambush over the so-called missing explosives two days before the polls opened, the possibility of biased exit polling, deliberately manipulated to try to chill the Bush turnout, must be seriously considered."



    Having National Election Pool manipulated exit-poll data (disinformation) released on the Internet to chill Republican voting and influence our national elections in favor of Kerry and the Democrat Party is more outrageous then CBS' use of fraudulent memos to undermine the credibility of GWB. We now have the National Network consortium using the National Airways (2000) and Internet (2004) to support the Democrat Party. Freedom of the press should not mean that the Network consortium can use strategies and tactics that deceive the American people to change the outcome of National Elections. There is no imperative for voters to know the winner of an election just hours before the actual voting results come in. Unless there is exit-polling competition to keep data honest, exit polling should only be used to shed light on who voted and their reasons for voting the way they did. Count votes - no more winner projections using manipulated exit polls.



    There may be little interest on the part of Congress in pursuing an investigation; however, one has to wonder how healthy it is for our democracy to have the National Networks using their resources to support a particular political candidate or political party. We need a means by which networks and their pollsters can be held accountable when it can be proved that they deliberately misled the American people…NO MORE MEMOGATES, RATHER-GATES OR LYING EXIT-POLL GATES! There must be a healthy penalty, and a quick means to enforce it, for those who use disinformation to subvert the integrity of our National Elections. Suggested Reading: "A Bad Election for Old Media" by Michael Barone; "Big Media Drops the Mask" by Pat Buchanan; "Down with the Elites" by Linda Chavez; "One Last Flip-Flop" by Ann Coulter; "The Voters have spoken: Bush is one of us" by Ross MacKenzie; "Election Day Reflection" by Diana West; "Exit Polls Miss Election Goals" by Rich Galen; "How Daschle Got Blogged" by John Fund.



    John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Also, he served in Current Operations at 7th Air Force Headquarters, TanSon Nhut Air Base, RVN. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 - having served 28 years in the Air Force. Contact info: j-bwambough@cox.net Visit Site: www.nsar.us

    01.19.05 06:31 AM
    Top of Page

    -- Shop --
    BushCountry


    New!
    Bush Country 2004
    T-Shirt & Sweatshirts
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    George W. Bush Photos
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    New!
    Bush Bumper Sticker
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Bumper Stickers


    Order Online
    OR by Mail


    Latest
    Commentary



    01-19-05
    "Gun Control" Or "Tyranny"
    Bob Pratt

    01-19-05
    Democratic Hostility As A Platform
    Vincent Fiore

    01-19-05
    Sad: Jews Losing Their Homes?
    Joseph Grant Swank

    01-19-05
    Today, Ariel Sharon Is Irrelevant!
    Ariel Natan Pasko

    01-19-05
    Roe Vs Wade Goes Back To The Supreme Court
    Jeremy Reynalds
    01-18-05
    Global Warming Fiction Vs. Facts
    Alan Caruba

    01-18-05
    Da Vinci Code's Jesus: Fact And Fiction
    Joseph Grant Swank

    01-18-05
    Unspoken Social Security Solution
    Tamara Wilhite

    01-18-05
    Internet Evangelism Conference Expands Offerings
    Jeremy Reynalds

    01-17-05
    Perceptions (In A Pigs Eye)
    R.A. Hawkins

    01-17-05
    Is Your Church Teaching Pagan Earth Worship In Sunday School?
    Tom DeWeese

    01-17-05
    Bible Prophecy Coming Together In Israel: Sanhedrin
    Joseph Grant Swank

    01-17-05
    Eyewitness Accounts Of Refugees Testifying To Killings, Torture And More
    Jeremy Reynalds

    01-15-05
    God's Tsunami Will Strike The Worldwide Church
    Joseph Grant Swank

    01-14-05
    How Planned Parenthood Effected My Youth
    Jen Shroder

    01-14-05
    Crosses At Inauguration: Another View
    Joseph Grant Swank

    01-14-05
    Shelter Chapel In Desperate Need Of Physical Help
    Jeremy Reynalds


    More Links

    What Visitors
    Tell Us


    Other Links

    ReplyDelete
  3. I Believe John Kerry
    Back to News/Home Page
    News Archives


    I believe John Kerry. I have always believed him. I believed John Kerry when in January of 2003 he said “that the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... ” and I believed John Kerry when he said that “the President made a mistake in invading Iraq.”

    I believed John Kerry when he said that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s in Iraq and I believe John Kerry when he said that, well, Saddam did not have WMDs in Iraq. I believe John Kerry knows that the biological weapons strains found hidden in the house of an Iraqi biological weapons scientist would have taken at minimum of four weeks to turn into a usable weapon of mass destruction means. I believe John Kerry when he then concluded that America really had nothing to fear.

    I believed John Kerry when he said we needed to deal with the threat in Iraq and I believed him when he said we should have waited for UN resolutions to work. I believe that 17 UN resolutions over a 10-year period is not quite enough time to allow for Saddam to comply.

    I believe that with 9 or 10 more strongly worded resolutions that Saddam would have backed down. I believe that George Bush should have waited for Iraq to grow into a problem of crisis proportions before deciding to do anything. I believe that we needed a little more time to give the Iraqi biological weapon a chance; to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance.

    I believe John Kerry when he said that he would never allow foreign countries to stand in the way of America’s defense, “as long as it passes the global test.” And I believe that if we needed to act to defend ourselves, and we did not pass the global test, that John Kerry would have an answer from his magic Kerry 8-ball. I believe that John Kerry may one day realize that the “global test” on this Iraq war was fixed against America.

    I believe it was a sad lesson for the world’s tyrants to learn that, however much they might like to, France and Russia cannot veto America’s right to defend herself. I think it was sad for Saddam to have to learn the hard way that, in a post-9/11 world, America no longer has the luxurious ignorance to let evil rule the day….. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, and claims to be a duck; while it still might be a chicken we are going to shoot it anyways.

    I believe in John Kerry’s “better” plan to have a summit with the duck and the duck’s puppet pals. I believe that when faced with a “serious and imminent threat” we should call a summit.

    I believe that George Bush’s plan to support the birth of the new democratic Iraqi Government, with its own Army and police force, is not a good plan. I believe that since the Iraqi terrorist leader and beheader of Americans, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is fearful that this plan will be successful and is doing everything in his power to disrupt it is an indication that the plan has little chance of success. I believe that even though our enemies have figured this plan out; it is probably not nuanced enough for John Kerry and the mainstream media to figure it out.

    I do not believe the assertion that the mainstream media and Al Jazeera are the strongest weapons in the terrorist’s arsenal. I do not believe that the negative bias of the media results in more American troops being killed in Iraq. I truly believe that Abu Gharib prison scandal was hundreds of times more important than covering either American successes in Iraq (I guess there must not be any) or properly covering the beheading of Americans by terrorists.

    I find nothing odd in the fact that terrorists allow journalists to accompany them on their missions with the cameras rolling. I believe the terrorists were lying when they said that they released the kidnapped American journalist “because the journalists are on our side.”

    I don’t believe the any Americans that figure this out should stop supporting the media lies by refusing to buy products that are advertised during the mainstream media’s news broadcasts.

    I don’t believe that the leader of the North Vietnamese military during the Vietnam war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, was telling the truth when he asserted in 1985 that without the antiwar efforts of such organizations as Vietnam Vets Against War (of which Kerry was a leader), Hanoi would have surrendered.

    I don’t believe John Kerry is worried that a few Americans might recall that we did not lose the Vietnam war in Vietnam, but that we lost it at home in America, where John Kerry acted as a General for the enemy.

    I don’t believe that John Kerry is worried that a few Americans might realize today that we cannot lose the Iraqi war in Iraq either; that the only place we can lose it is at home here in America where John Kerry and the mainstream media are once again providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

    I believe John Kerry’s recent comment that “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance” shows the kind of visionary security he plans to provide for America. I believe it might be helpful to revisit those good old days that John Kerry refers too.

    I believe that the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing, where the terrorists first tried to knock down the towers and 6 Americans were killed, was appropriately treated by Bill Clinton as a nuisance.

    I believe that the al-Qaida backed slaying of 18 U.S. service members in Somalia in 1993 was appropriately treated by Bill Clinton as a nuisance.

    I believe that al-Qaida’s 1995 Riyadh bombing that killed 5 U.S. citizens was appropriately treated by Bill Clinton as a nuisance.

    I believe that al-Qaida’s 1996 Dharan Air Base Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. service members was appropriately treated by Bill Clinton as a nuisance.

    I believe that the August 3, 1998 al-Qaida bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 231 people were appropriately treated by Bill Clinton as a nuisance.

    I believe the August 20th, 1998 grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky was appropriately treated by Bill Clinton by launching a missile strike on a factory in Sudan and empty tents in Afghanistan.

    I believe that the October 2000 al-Qaida attack on a U.S. Navy warship, the USS Cole, that killed 17 U.S. sailors, was appropriately treated by Bill Clinton as a nuisance.

    I do not believe the assertion that Bill Clinton’s “nuanced” foreign policy consisted soley of doing nothing to stop terrorism for eight years.

    I believe that Americans who voted for a convicted liar for president in 1992 and 1996 realized they were rolling the dice and hoping character would not matter and security would not be an issue. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to vote for John Kerry and once again play amateur hour with Clinton-style John Kerry appeasement security for the next 4 years. I believe the U.S. should change its national bird from the Bald Eagle to the ostrich.

    I believe that there is no need to remember our neighbors who were murdered by evil cowards on September 11th. I believe that these Americans, who had hopes and plans for a future they will not see, that these people should be forgotten. I believe it is well that we have done our best to erase from our collective conscience the images of the planes driven into the towers, Americans jumping to escape the flames, the towers collapsing, and New York’s finest heroes buried in the rubble. I believe we should just go on with our lives and get back to the good old Clinton years when we were at war but did not have the leadership to recognize the threat for what it was, back to the days when terrorism was, as John Kerry said, just a nuisance. I believe that is the kind of clear vision called for in these perilous times.

    And, lastly, I believe there is no truth to the rumor that the Christmas lights you may see out early this year have been put out by those with hope that truth might win the day on November 2nd …that America will keep a truly courageous leader who has had the strength and vision to make the hard choices to defend America even when opinion polls say we should sit on our hands and wait for the next attack. George Bush has demonstrated that he has the character to lead us through the peril of the post-9/11 world. Waffling, indecision, summits, appeasement, negotiating with those who have been bribed by our enemies. That is John Kerry’s bold plan for America; John Kerry’s bold plan for American defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Repukes love to beat an old horse...Kerry lost to your valian Christian crusader who went against all the major religions views on the stupidity of this war...

    you will never admit what a mistake it was to go there...you vote for the most organized system of gangsters to put the country further into debt after the democrats pulled us out of the debt caused by Reagan and Bush

    you complain about the liberal media and don't question Fox or Limbaugh being voice pieces for the rich Republicans

    you will only be happy when there no longer is a free press

    you and your childrens' children will be paying for the biggest blunder in American history
    '
    so many won't admit that it is about oil and corporate greed

    you will not admit that the Republicans are for the rich
    and will make the working poor pay for their mistakes, boondoggling and partying (the poor working people had to pay so the rich could have fun in DC)

    it is coming ever closer to the difference between the rich and poor in so many countries that ended up having revolutions

    your party of neo cons will be and is the emabarrassment of the rest of the world

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please Lord, get my ass in gear so that I can focus on the future for our family!