Olbermann: 56 million people voted against "The MANDATE Man"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Richard Nixon may have phoned John Kennedy in November, 1960, and congratulated him through clenched teeth. But if the FBI had burst into Kennedy headquarters in Chicago a week later and walked out with all the file cabinets and a bunch of employees with their raincoats drawn up over their heads, nothing Nixon had said would’ve prevented him, and not JFK, from taking the oath of office the following January.

This is mentioned because there is a small but blood-curdling set of news stories that right now exists somewhere between the world of investigative journalism, and the world of the Reynolds Wrap Hat. And while the group’s ultimate home remains unclear - so might our election of just a week ago.

What will Bush do with his Mandate and his Political Capital? He got the highest vote total for a presidential candidate, you know. Did anybody notice who’s second on the list? A Mr. Kerry. Since when was the term “mandate” applied when 56 million people voted against a guy? And by the way, how about that Karl Rove and his Freudian slip on “Fox News Sunday”? Rove was asked if the electoral triumph would be as impactful on the balance of power between the parties as William McKinley’s in 1896 and he forgot his own talking points. The victories were “similarly narrow,” Rove began, and then, seemingly aghast at his forthrightness, corrected himself. “Not narrow; similarly structured.”



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

[krkaufman]

1. Of special interest from Mr Olbermann's blog entry....

We will be endeavoring to pull those stories, along with the Warren County farce, into the mainstream Monday and/or Tuesday nights on Countdown.

...

Email me at [e-mail]

Let him know your thoughts....

[Ducks In A Row]

2. he's already said in email to bev harris, he's not doing the story

there is a lockdown in news of the fraud.

the MSM, sadly including keith, are all gutless wonders

[krkaufman]

5. I emailed him asking to shed some light, nonetheless.

Dear Mr Olbermann,

As an Independent voter -- temporarily turned Democrat until some sanity is restored to our political discourse -- I want to thank you, in advance, for whatever you might be able to do to shed some much-needed light on the various voting "difficulties" experienced this election cycle. The media seems to be spending all its time conjecturing about what fatal flaw exists in the Democratic strategy, while turning a blind eye to what appears to be, at best, an incompetently run election in several states.

From voting queues up to 8 hours long(!), to threatened challenges, to remarkably transparent attempts to arbitrarily disqualify newly registered voters (see Ohio, Blackwell, 80-lb card stock), and to unauditable electronic voting and tabulation systems, this election was a far cry from a democratic ideal. All I am looking for is a reasoned, fair, courageous investigation into the various allegations, to uncover what facts are available -- for the inability to authoritatively detail the vote will in itself be a condemnation of paperless voting systems.

Further, the people are owed an investigation into why the exit polls in certain states were wildly inaccurate while others matched nearly perfectly. Lest we forget, claims of the Florida 2000 exit polls being wrong proved false. It was the exit polls that more accurately measured the intent of Florida voters in 2000; unfortunately, the mechanisms implemented to translate intent into votes were horribly flawed and the "will of the people" was defeated. And if this year's exit polls are any indication, the "will of the people" may have again been thwarted. Either the exit polls or the vote totals failed to reflect voter intent this cycle, and an investigation is needed to authoritatively determine which -- and to what degree.

However the chips have fallen this election cycle, we must move towards fully auditable voting systems. Ignoring concerns about this election cycle will only slow necessary reforms, and may again lead to uncertain election results in 2006, 2008, etc.

Regards,
Firstname Lastname
Town, State
(phone)
(email)

p.s. If you're looking for alternate topics, I'd also cherish a segment commenting on the PIPA study (link) and its implications relative to this election -- including the perspective contributed by Bob Herbert, of the NY Times, in his Nov 8th Op-Ed piece.

p.p.s. You'll earn further gratitude from this voter for avoidance of the terms "mandate", "sweeping victory", "values voters", etc. in relation to this election. One can hardly call a second within-the-margin-of-error election a mandate -- aside from the fact that gains originating from an illegal or illegitimate act cannot be made legitimate.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

4. His management and producers have decided to cut

that presentation...the revolution will not be televised.

[Logansquare]

3. Olbermann's commentaries crack like a whip

He is the only breath of fresh air on cable news, if you aren't counting Jon Stewart's real/fake news commentaries.

[Shopaholic]

6. I got my Countdown newsletter about 30 minutes ago-he's doing

the story!!!!!!!

[KoKo]

7. So...we should do a "Here Kitty Kitty, Here.." and assume Olberman will

REALLY do the story? Or, will it be a "qualified, edited, dressed down version" that would be "old" news to us here on the WEB?

:shrug: I like Olberman...but, he will only be allowed a "little" off the leash to report. A "little off the leash" means that it's "a little less than a stranglehold where you "heel and lift your leg up" at the appropriate fire hydrant...IMHO...:shrug: