NewsDay lies-01 vote study w/ USSC statewide over/under w/intent=GORE win!

[papau]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usfilm273869328jun27,0,5702938.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

NewsDay lies-01 vote study w/ USSC statewide over/under w/intent=GORE!


Film offers limited view

BY THOMAS FRANK;WASHINGTON BUREAU

June 27, 2004


WASHINGTON - At the start of "Fahrenheit 9/11," filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, "under every scenario Gore won the election."

What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.

The inclusion of Toobin's minority view and exclusion of mainstream documentation typifies the shaky case Moore builds against President George W. Bush in his two-hour film.

The movie unearths nothing new. It is a cinematic lawsuit, not a verdict, that skews and omits events for its central charge: that Bush was soft on terrorism because his family is financially tied to wealthy Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden.

Moore cites well-documented links centering around The Carlyle Group, a high-powered international investment firm. Bush himself had been an adviser to a Carlyle subsidiary before becoming Texas governor in 1995. His father became a Carlyle adviser after leaving office in 1993. The bin Ladens, a family of wealthy industrialists, were major Carlyle investors, though they and the elder Bush cut ties with Carlyle after Sept. 11.

[Bertha Venation]

1. "skews and omits events for its central charge" -- even if, so what?

Moore has never claimed to present a balanced view of any of his subjects. His films are clearly essays from his point of view. Is Krauthammer going to be objective? Limbaugh? Any conservative pundit?

Why should liberals be required to be objective -- especially when they've never claimed to be?

[papau]

2. They can't say he lied - so they lie - I do love our media! :-)

So facts can not be presented until after the WhiteHouse edits the report -

sort of explains the lack of a free media in this country if NewsDay represents the current working rules!

:-)

[Bertha Venation]

3. gawd, no kidding

don'tcha just love living in the western hemisphere's ussr? :grr:

[meatloaf]

4. Speaking of lying and omitting.

Mr. Frank is playing fast and loose with the facts.

That study found that in 5 out of 9 scenarios for recounting the votes, Gore won, including all the methods that most closely followed FL voting law. The newspaper reports only highlighted the results where Bush won.

[cybildisobedience]

5. and don't forget the "overvotes,"

Where ballots that had Gore's name punched and had "Gore" written in as well, were discarded (in poorer counties only). There were 46,000 overvotes for Gore that didn't get counted -- and that doesn't count the Thanksgiving "stuffing" (fake votes in Repuke counties), the illegal military ballots, the corrrected ballots for Repukes in two counties -- not to mention the tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters who were knocked off the voter rolls by Katherine Harris and Jeb.....
This thing wasn't even close.

[papau]

6. Well said -

:-)

[Catfight]

7. My question is, why didn't ONE senator object in Gores behalf?

I didn't know that until the movie, anyone know why the florida senators didn't object for a recount?