Zounds. The Huffington blog is throwing elbows right out of the gate.

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/biggest-story-of-our-live.html

The Biggest Story of Our Lives

At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.

And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.

Many of the participants in this blog have graduate school educations. It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.

...more...

[paineinthearse]

1. Link to initial DU post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1772080&mesg_id=1772080

[DemBeans]

2. terrific stuff

Huffington's blog has tremendous potential - it's going to be one of my most-visited bookmarks.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Definietly

I definietly have it bookedmarked. It's becoming a daily stop for me.

[Brotherjohn]

3. Jim Lampley... isn't he a sportscaster?

If so, whoda thought the two most courageous national broadcasters are from the sports world? (Kieth Olbermann, too)

[blm]

24. Used to co-anchor in LA news, too. Married his co-anchor, Bree Walker.

That was the same Bree Walker who guested on Carnivale for the last half-season. Played Samson's ex-wife.

[spooky3]

27. I think I saw him on a charity Jeopardy--blew everyone away.

Very smart & knowledgeable guy.

[dave123williams]

118. He knows a fixed horse-race when he sees one.

Though he is HBO's boxing anchor...

[crispini]

4. Wow

Good stuff.

[kenny blankenship]

5. For those wondering about the author: Jim Lampley

It's good to indicate the author especially when the site the linked story originates from is strongly associated with someone else, not the author.

[NicoleM]

117. Right you are, Ken.

I just like to say that. :)

[ewagner]

6. Good to see Gary Hart

on the blog too.....and he, too, gets right down to the nitty-gritty!

"If the goal of the Project for a New American Century, as it thereafter became the Bush administration, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don’t.

I think this blog is going to be good.

[johnaries]

7. HotDam! Whoever Jim Lampley is, he pulls NO punches!

"Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. They did it. "

YES! :applause:

[lancdem]

14. This is a phenomenal post

But I get depressed thinking about it. Will the truth ever come out and be reported by MSM?

[Eloriel]

67. No. n/t

[KoKo]

28. Here's Jim Lampley's Bio:

In 1987 Jim Lampley left ABC and went to work for CBS in Los Angeles. In the next 5 years he anchored sports, including both the 6:00 and 11:00 news at KCBS-TV; functioned as the sports correspondent for "CBS This Morning" in New York; took over hosting boxing and Wimbledon for HBO; hosted radio shows on WFAN in New York and KMPC in Los Angeles; and went to the 1992 Albertville Olympics as a news anchor.

In 1992 Jim Lampley went to work for NBC Sports, for whom he hosted golf and NFL football in 1993 and 1994, and anchored late night Olympic coverage at Barcelona and
Atlanta. In 1995, he added reporting on the magazine show "Realsports" to his duties at HBO, and has since twice won the Emmy Award for Best Sports Journalism, along with a third Emmy for writing. In 1998 he anchored the Nagano Winter Olympics and the Goodwill Games for Turner Sports. When he goes to Sydney this September to anchor 101 hours of coverage on MSNBC, Lampley will be attending his tenth Olympic games as a broadcaster. No one has had more such assignments.

-snip-

Right now, Jim Lampley is best known for his work on HBO and TVKO Boxing telecasts for Time Warner. In twelve plus years, he's called more than three hundred championship fights. He reports six stories a year for "Realsports", and his production company has produced feature essays for HBO boxing telecasts.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:X4XDpVjKYZMJ:www.brooksinternational.com/Jim_Lampley_665.htm+Jim+Lampley&hl=en

[bob-calhoun]

126. HBO SPORTS, the only respectable journalism left in the US

I have often said that HBO Sports is the last bastion of real journalism that you will find on American television. It may even be the last place where you will find real journalism in American media as a whole -- especially after the decline of both "60 Minutes" and the New York Times. Non sports watching friends of mine think that I am crazy until I show them things like that one segment on "Real Sports" about how young boys from Pakistan are impressed into slavery in Bahrain to jockey in camel races. During that segment, the HBO reporter grilled a US State Dept. official in a way that I really doubt that PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, or NBC would. It was really quite amazing.

After reading Lampley's article, I am even more assured of the journalistic integrity of HBO sports and boxing.

[Roland99]

70. He covers boxing for HBO...looks like Treat Williams

:)

[FrankBooth]

107. I've watched Lampley for years

He's been a Network sports guy, bounced around, Olympics and boxing mainly. I never really thought much of him until now. He's got big brass ones, and I love him for it. Thanks Jim,for are acting like a real journalist in this era of posers.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

110. same here

I have never especially cared for the way he does play-by-play of boxing on HBO. But I've developed a new respect for him. What he's doing takes tremendous courage.

[Hissyspit]

8. Haven't you heard, Will? Ariana's blog is a "horrific ... failure!"

How the LAWeekly writer can determine that in one day, I have no earthly f'ing idea.
:wtf: :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3628218

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/25/web-finke.php

[K8-EEE]

22. Nikki Finke is "horrific....a failure!"

I cannot stand that column, it is always so mean-spirited. When I saw all the vitriol about this just coming out of the gate, I knew Arianna was on to something. You go girl! I'm really loving the new site.

[Griffy]

36. Damn her and her truth telling!! LOL go Ariana GO! nt

[Beelzebud]

100. I emailed her, and asked her if she had that hit-piece typed up before....

the blog went live. She didn't respond. I wonder why?

:)

[Hissyspit]

109. Cool!

It's clearly intended to be tabloid-inflammatory, but that's no excuse for not responding to your email.

[newfaceinhell]

115. Angry, angry woman..........nt

[wicket]

9. WOO HOO!

:kick:

[seabeyond]

10. i think for the first time i am confident, they know, the election

was stolen

[iconoclastNYC]

11. Huffington Post: I'm Loving It.

Everytime a new piece of liberal media pops up it warms my heart. What we need now is a framework to teach people like me how to soft-sell our friends and family into buying-in to the media and get them hooked.

I'm trying to do that with my blog, but not everone has the time to keep a blog.

Or a campaign, like Move-on that exposes the mainstream media as biased, untrustworthly, and unamerican.

[meegbear]

12. I'm hooked on her site!

She's got a great group posting on it and I hope it makes the cyber splash it's projecting.

[kodi]

13. just spent an hour there. good stuff , definitely a daily stop on the road

love the Kos and atrios and buzzflash and smirking chimp, and mahablog. and like smirking chimp and mahablog, huffington is bringing a wider view together from day one. it remains to be seen how well it can be kept up.

i think the "Media Matters" site run by dave brock is going to get a lot more dissemination of its findings on huffington's site. which is a very good thing.

[Nothing Without Hope]

41. I'm a Mahablog fan, too! Don't hear much about this excellent blog around

here.

[moddemny]

84. Isn't it great?!?!?!?!

Blog and forum hopping for 3-4 hours a day with a need to suck up all those potentially useful but probably irrevelant pieces of information. If we only picked up a subject/trade/profession and studied it for 3 to 4 hours a day comprehensively maybe we could be useful in a real way to our fellow human beings, or make some extra money for ourselves. If each one of us stuck with one topic me we could actually be an expert in something (and solve some real problems) instead knowing nothing about a lot of things. Naaaahhhh, it's more fun to seek out those juicy little tidbits and pass ourselves off as politically savvy.


Blaaaaah, Blooooggg, Blaaaahhh, Blooogggg, Blaaaahhh


P.S. My reply is not directed personally at Kodi, I mean it in general. (whatever it means, blaahhh, blaaah, blaaaahhhh..). I am also not directing it at anyone in this thread who is discussing the serious topic of exit polling. It is semi directed at a celebrity blog (which I just surfed). Then again I have a very broad point, blaaahhhhh, bllloooogggg, and I am just going nuts. Period. Blllllaaaaahhhhh, Bllllloooggggg, Blaaahhhhh.


Too many blogs to keep track of. Not that I am trying too hard..... but...... Blaaaahhhh, Blllooggggg...... it's becoming all one big blur.......... blaaaaahh, blaaaahhh, blllloooogggg.

[moddemny]

85. By the way

where you start hearing blogs, referred to as Blaaah Blaaahs, you saw it start here first.


Blaaahhhh, Blaaaaahhhh.


I only have 93 posts, can I get too 1000?


Blllaaaahhh, Bllllaaaahhhh. Blaaahhhh.

[applegrove]

15. There are so many ways in which the exit polls could have been

wrong. Starting with the non-scientific sample. I wish he was not being so narrow. Lots of dirty tricks happen in elections. Including purposely misinforming pollsters.

[spooky3]

23. You are a social scientist? Then you know the term is

"non-random", not "non-scientific." And you also know, that with the size of the Ns and with the methods that WERE used, this is not likely to be a major problem, as demonstrated empirically in prior elections.

As a social scientist, you also know that you need to propose some reasonable hypothesis about WHY a large subgroup would consistently "purposely misinform() pollsters", i.e., that misinforming took place, that one group and not another did so systematically, and that the misinforming was not random (which would introduce noise but not bias toward one candidate or the other). And you need evidence that it happened that would overcome evidence others have presented to the contrary.

If you have that, please present it.

[applegrove]

42. look - the polls started out very much for Kerry and then got worse

as the day went on. Also the overseas vote. And all the rest. Where freepers told to vote at the end of the day? So it would give a false sense of security to Democrats at work who then might just go home instead of hiring the babysitter et all and going to vote. There could be so many possibilities.

You do not present proof. Just a hypothesis yourself.

Don't pretend it is anything but a hypothesis.

Up to you to prove it. Screaming does not count.

As to scientific? If the same bus-load of GOP workers got bussed around from poll to poll (or were given a schedule of where to walk into a poll, walk out (not having voted) and get themselves in a exit poll, you have massive corruption in the statistics. The assumption in the stats would have been 'without replacement' and the assumption would have been faulty in that case. The term in the stats equation would be an N. (from what I can remember of stats). And if they repeatedly voted falsely for dems.. it could mess up the statistical significance in an Ohio minute.

I am not saying it happened. It is a hypothesis like yours that could explain the faulty exit polls and may have encouraged thousands of Dems not to vote late in the day. It is an option I totally conjure up in my mind. But it is one more explanation of what could have happened. And there is just as much proof of my hypothesis as there is of yours.

I am not saying the the GOP machine is honest..they are a bunch of freaks & monsters. I'm just saying that all you have is a hypothesis.

The things we do know is that they targeted AA church members and got an extra 6% of the AA vote in Ohio. The Vatican was active at the GOP behest. All white men and the majority of white women voted for Bush. GOP made inroads in all religious groups except atheists and the Jewish vote (I think). And they motivated every single one of their base to get out and vote (which the Democrats did not do - what percentage voted? 60%? I cannot remember but it is a pathetic number of people who didn't bother to show up - and none of these were the right wing religious..they all showed up!).

[spooky3]

51. No one is screaming. Obviously, you have not read any

of the reports on what caused the reported changes in the exit poll results and when the reported changes mysteriously appeared. I think you'd find them interesting. You can find a lot of information in threads on DU, and in reports that academics have written on the probability of these results given the final vote tallies.

You may also want to address the issues that I raised.

It is not my burden to "prove" your hypotheses wrong. You're the one who is asserting that Lampley is wrong. Therefore, it is up to you to "prove" it. And, by the way, if you were a trained social scientist, you would also know that there is no such thing as "proof" on issues of probability.

[applegrove]

71. No - it is statistically significant or not. Still room for any number of

things that skew the results.

So - as to proof - that leaves us with a whole pile of hypothesis.. and the one about the stats is not provable.

I say we take a deep breath, step back and say "they are assholes, they could have done many things, there is no proof, I'll just have to follow their bigger patterns"..of which there is always much proof because these are not incidents they are patterns. The very nature of pattern says if you get the pattern right it will repeat itself.

Take the Rove pattern of flipping just a few % of voters from some groups using the gay issue or abortion and getting the leaders of the churches to put the screws to followers. That is a pattern. One we could work on by reaching out to the religious and joining hands to fight the incidence of abortion with all manner of tools & information.

[LongTomH]

122. For the sake of argument,

let's accept your premise that what we have is a "hypothesis," which is acceptable to me. In science, when a model becomes a hypothesis, that means there is considerable evidence to support it. Only after years of debate and attempts to replicate or refute the original experiments or observations, does it become a "theory."

There is another term for an idea which is not yet defensible as a hypothesis: swag. A "swag" is a Scientific, Wild-Assed Guess. Scientists make swags all the time; but, unlike the rest of us, they are honest enough to label a swag a swag. Most people make wild-assed guesses and act on them throughout their lives.

The creationists are demonstrating a severe case of retrograde peristalsis when they label evolution a "theory," using "theory" in the common usage, meaning a scientific, wild-assed guess.

Getting back to the original point, if we accept that the idea that the election was fixed as a "hypothesis," that means we're conceeding that there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation (I would say to demand further investigation!).

[applegrove]

123. But do we ignore all the other hypothesis on why the exit polls didn't

match? Cause there are many, many. And you would have to test against a variety of hypothesis. And this has not been done. The hypothesis that best suits the emotional needs has come to the forefront. And that is not how hypothesis should be made. The reason why diebold has taken ahold is because it is the one theory/hypothesis that has a desired outcome (Bush gets kick out on his ass). Now you cannot use emotion in making hypothesis. You have to grieve and step back. And if the facts are there.. they will not go anywhere (the actual facts never change). And you will have Bush in a nefarious WH either way. It is just that they used their dirty tools according to the overall patterns of stealing hearts and minds (which is a bigger thing to swallow cause it means it is very bad and could happen again with their propaganda machines) than by toying with a machine.

There is evidence of physical manipulation of stuff in Rove's past. He was investigated by the FBI for planting a bug in his own Texas candidates office in the last week of an election and therefore swinging the election to his guy with all the sympathy.

But that again tells us only that certain character types really do not follow any rules. And that they are not going to manipulate in the most obvious way. And they haven't .. they have been on a 30 year campaign of wedging and tribalizing and propaganda making. That is the pattern that there is much evidence of.

[scarletlib]

78. "All white men...voted for bush"?

My husband and son are about as white as you can get and they definitely did not vote for bush. neither did my daughter's husband or anyone in my white family.

[applegrove]

105. I used the wrong wording. "they got the White vote". They got the

Reagan Democrats. Who are now older and richer.

Sorry.

[Laurab]

108. I don't know about you, but unless I missed it

The military vote (ie much of the overseas vote), was never actually released. Had it gone to the shrub, I have a pretty good idea it would have been released. If it has been released since I last read about it, when only 1 state had released theirs, then it took an AWFULLY long time to release it.

I put NOTHING past these people.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. So how did

polling work in the UK and Ukraine elections and why did Bush support those two elections? I think that shows me that he is spitting at is saying he got away with it. Knowing how blunt he is.

[Blue Belle]

72. I was wondering about that too...

There were no exit poll discrepancies in those countries... I guess the ONLY place in the world where the exit polls are ALWAYS wrong (at least since 2000) is the United States. Just another lie being perpetuated...

[iconoclastNYC]

40. And the election results could be wrong too

Nobody who suspect fraud in this past election is resting thier case solely on the exit polls results.

There are many many other things that point to fruad.

Like the lack of an invesitigation and the obvious hush-up job from the corporate media and republicans ("me thinks thou doth protest too much")

The reluctant republican responder theory is the most looney conspiracy theory i've heard.

[applegrove]

43. The point is there could be 20 good reasons why things did not match up.

We have not proof of the hypothesis you talk about.

Republican reluctance to fix the trust problem is likely because they get a great "pay-off" by dividing Democrats on this issue. They get to paint some as 'nuts'. When have Repukes ever solved a problem that worked in their favor? They stir the pot on issues like this. It enfeebles our big huge democratic tent. It is so effective in keeping some focused on things that are over with..that many are not in the battle fighting the proven creepiness and coercion and lies & scapegoating that the current WH should be getting nailed on (and is..but we could use your help as often as possible).

It would not surprise me one iota if the person who runs around saying they witnessed bush being the 'default' on diebold is a freeper. That is how they play the game.

So step back and leave your options open. Sociopaths will trick you coming and going. As long as they have landed 'certain fears' in your lap, and a different set of 'certain fears' in the laps of other DUers.. we have been separated. Suits Bush fine.

[vince3]

102. The oddsmakers don't make weak lines.

The fact that they had moved Kerry to a 2/1 favorite is huge. They don't accept bets on things they know little about. The exit polls meant something to the oddsmakers. They should mean something to everyone. 2/1 underdogs have little chance of winning. Given the deceit of this Bush thing in the last five years, including the stolen election of 2000, the huge favorite knowledgeable prognosticators had made Kerry after viewing the exit polls and final pre-election polls, tells us that Vegas was certain the incumbent was going down. It's hard to beat Vegas. Especially if you don't cheat. Vegas doesn't like to be cheated. Maybe Vegas should take a look at who bet on Bush on 2 Nov and cleaned up at 2/1 odds. It might reveal something about who knew about the crooked vote totals.

[ldf]

104. sorry

i'm not buying what you are selling.

"there could be 20 good reasons why things did not match up."

but you are really good at spin.

people have been convicted of murder on huge amounts of "circumstantial evidence".

maybe you should read all the threads listing the "circumstantial evidence".

and then may YOU should step back try to see the big picture.

or maybe you CAN see many things happening, and then still say "well, maybe that didn't happen".

[applegrove]

106. Right and a circumstantial trial would be based on at least more than

5 pieces of evidence. You have 1) stats (that may not be a good case for many reason) and you have 2)one person who saw one machine default to Bush (and we don't know who that person is).

So you have two pieces of circumstantial proof.

I'm just saying..there may have been a plan to 'skew' the exit polls early in the day and keep lazy democrats home. Nobody shows id or a purple finger when they leave the poll and walk at least 100 feet down the street. Much room for that to be fucked up. That is just one suggestion I pull out of the air. Much room for either of your two pieces of proof to be fucked up.

You don't have the proof for a circumstantial case in one instance.

[iconoclastNYC]

120. LOL.....read the Conyers report

You are a joke, you don't know the first thing about this issue but you want say all of us who suspect the election was stolen are being conned by sociopaths.

I think it's you who's trying to do the con job.

BTW...most of my quasi-political friends, non much into conspiracies all think this election was stolen. The problem with our country isn't that people don't know things. The problem is we've been raised to feel that's its all hopeless and that there is nothing we can do about it.

[applegrove]

124. It was stolen. Hearts & minds. n/t

[Liberty Belle]

95. Yes, and the lies told by Blackwell, and the lie detector test

passed by Clint Curtis, the programmer who says a GOP Congressman paid him to create vote-rigging software. And the recount "computer expert" who faked a need to replace a battery, then told recount workers to just use a cheat sheet he provided instead of bothering to actually recount votes. And Diebold's promise to deliver the election to Bush, plus Diebold caught loading up backdoor software in CA and probably elsewhere. Plus all those voters who say they saw their Kerry votes changed mysteriously to Bush votes on exit screens of electronic voting machines.

Nah, nothing suspicious here...

[KelleyKramer]

45. Then how come it has never EVER happened before?

This has never happened in any state for over half a century of these exit polls.

And this time it didnt just happen once, it happened in TEN states.

And the error was against Kerry and in favor of Bush in how many of those?

Yep, you guessed it, it favored Bush in all ten UNPRECEDENTED cases.

If you cant see how unlikely, hell basically impossible, for that to happen then you are living in denial.

From the original post ...

"NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor."

[applegrove]

49. There has not been a close election (other than Gore winning) in 30

years. How can you compare? This was an indecisive election for sure. But Bush squeaked by this time.

[spooky3]

52. It doesn't matter whether the results were "close" between

candidates. The point the poster is making is that the exit poll results have never been so far away from the "actual vote" results. That can be examined with all elections.

[applegrove]

60. No - it matters.

[dsc]

81. No it doesn't

For the record, I am a deep skeptic of the idea that the election was fixed but you are just plain wrong here. Regardless of the margin of the race (assuming both candidates have enough votes to be above the margin of error) the margin of error is unaffected by the closeness of the race. Ie The MOE in the Johnson Goldwater race should be the same as that in the Gore Bush race if the number of people asked is the same. But, if like Buchanan, your total is below the MOE then the MOE can't be as large (since one can't have a negative number of votes).

[KelleyKramer]

53. Bullshit

Gore 2000 was a close race
Ford-Carter 1976 was a close race
Nixon 1968 was a close race
JFK 1960 was a close race
Truman 1948 was a close race

All those were under basically the same exit poll system, and NONE of them EVER had a SINGLE state this far off the mark.

[applegrove]

62. Right. And since the science of stats has changed in the past 30 years,

and neither Reagan, Bush, or Clinton were close races.. how do we compare.

Gore we know won... and judicial activism took over and gave it to Bush.

[yowzayowzayowza]

65. FYI for the statistically challenged:

The reliability of the margin of error is independent of the "closeness" of the race.

[applegrove]

66. That is absolutely impossible!

[KelleyKramer]

68. exit poll: reagan 58% mondale 40%

Thats not a close race.

Say the margin of error is 2.5%

And the 'official' results of those same voters is reported as 74% Reagan and 22% Mondale.

That is outside the margin of error and SOMETHING IS WRONG with the official count.

If its never happened before, and then happens 10 times in one election, then something is REALLY WRONG with the official count.

I hope you understand now.

[applegrove]

73. I don't understand. Could you be clearer? n/t

[dsc]

79. 1948 sure did

Where do you think the headline Dewey defeats Truman came from? To be fair, there also were very valid reasons for those errors (polls stopped way before the election and they used phones which still were the provence of the wealthy among other reasons). But to say the polls of 1948 were more accurate than those of 2004 is just plain wrong.

[bpilgrim]

92. so it's just a coincidence that it only occurred twice and each time with

the CHIMP... wonder what the odds are of that? or is probability a forbidden science/theory now as well?


the neoCONs are gonna have trouble with these folks speaking out.


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[gordianot]

16. I could almost become an optimist.

[warrens]

17. He's right

If you look at states where no monkey business is suspected, the results were identical to the last polls. I worked in Wisconsin during the campaign, and every poll we had said it was very, very close, but that Kerry was leading all the way. He won by 2 points.

Penn, Jersey, Michigan and a whole lot of others came out within a point of where they polls said they would.

Then suddenly you get outliers. Florida was a tossup, but Bush won easily. Kerry was leading in Ohio and Iowa. He lost both.

It smells to high heaven.

[faithnotgreed]

18. that is an awesome and right on rally cry - thank you jim lampley and

thank you ms huffington and all those who are working to take back the country one piece of truth at a time

[spooky3]

19. I LOVE it! Great job, Mr. Lampley!

[Cleita]

20. Thanks Will.

I forwarded this link to people who are working on election fraud in our county as well as nationwide.

[K8-EEE]

25. Is This The Same Jim Lampley, Who Was A News Anchor

here in L.A.....married to co-anchor Brianna somebody?? They had a semi-scandalous affair years ago I recall and then married....kind of lost touch with both of them.

[KoKo]

29. See Post #28 for Lampley's Bio.

[Pithy Cherub]

30. Smashmouth Blogging! Good on Them!

Wow, left no room for a misunderstanding of the position! :yourock:
Saw Ariana at the LA Festival of Books and she was fired up then - its only three weeks later! :applause:

[spooky3]

31. Check out Larry David's "Why I support Bolton" on the same blog.

[Guaranteed]

32. Great piece, great point. nt

[SalmonChantedEvening]

33. Another daily MUST

Opinions from the right as well as the left, a nice newswire, loads to read and pass along to friends.

MMmmmm. Input.

Bravo Arianna, Bravo!


:kick:

[warrens]

34. Wow!

That's going to be must-reading from now on. I was interested in this response to an article about an upcoming book about the evil Saudi regime.

King Fahd himself declared in Jeddah in 1993 "I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
In my opinion we need more investigative writers who like Posner strive to get at the truth.


Posted by: Mike Grey at May 9, 2005 02:45 PM

[Bouncy Ball]

35. Uh, WHOA.

Speaking truth to power, you go, girl!

Gonna have to bookmark her blog for sure.

[grasswire]

37. John Fund and Joe Scarborough, too!

The Lampley piece is great. But I wonder why Huffington is giving platform to two men with such ugly personal pasts and who are such liars.

[rocktivity]

38. I hope she's not doing it out of a "need" to be "fair and balanced"

I doubt Scarborough would welcome Arianna if he were spearheading this project. And if she hires Jeff Gannon, we're through!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Terre]

69. That was my immediate thought as well

I didn't see John Fund, but did see (though not read) Scarborough's.

Although it won't keep me from popping over there from time-to-time, I was HUGELY disappointed to see him there.

And now that I think about it, why do either of them need blogging space, don't they already have a place of their own that we can avoid?

[grasswire]

74. sure they do

Scarborough blogs on MSNBC's site, and Fund has a voice at the WSJ.

Both are such disreputable people, it's hard to see how Huffington gains anything by giving them space.

Fund, of course, was accused of assaulting his girlfriend (the daughter of his former girlfriend) -- and she had tape recordings of his verbal abuse.

Scarborough comes under scrutiny because of the young healthy woman found dead in his office while he was a congressman, and because of the ensuing fracas while he tried to quash press inquiries into the matter. No investigation. Gary Condit gets crucified. Scarborough gets a TV show.

[AlGore-08.com]

86. Am I the only one who knows her history? She was rabidly conservative

All through the Clinton and Gore years, running a campaign to urge Clinton to resign from office during the impeachment.

She also penned such classic Gore bashing pieces as the Washington Time's "Spinning in the campaign saddle". Yes, you read it right, the Washington Times.

She may or may not have been Green in 2000. She certainly spent a lot of time trying to convince people it didn't matter whether Smirk or Gore was in office - - a strategy that helped Smirk, which is why the GOP funded some of Nader's efforts.

As late as Nov. 4th 2004, she was dissing Kerry. Here's a link to her own thoughts about the Ohio election:

http://www.alternet.org/story/20412/

ANATOMY OF A CRUSHING POLITICAL DEFEAT

By Arianna Huffington

November 4, 2004

This election was not stolen. It was lost by the Kerry campaign.

(more... )

Blast from the past time!

Here's Arianna back in 1998, demanding Clinton's resignation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/talk/zforum/huffington121698.htm

Direct Access: Arianna Huffington
Wednesday, December 16, 1998

Besides being a national conservative columnist and political commentator for Comedy Central, Arianna Huffington runs the Web site Resignation.com, which calls for President Clinton to resign. She is also circulating a petition against poll data called "Partnership for a Poll-Free America." She joined us today to talk with our users. The transcript follows.


washingtonpost.com: Welcome to the first in a day-long series of online impeachment discussions. Our guest this morning is Arianna Huffington, who joins us now.

To start things off, Arianna: What are your thoughts on the new Washington Post poll which indicated that most Americans don't support impeachment, but would support Clinton's resignation if he were impeached. (Just to hit on two of your favorite topics...)

Huffington: I think that's very significant. For a few months now I have been saying that resignation is the best option for the nation. I started a Web site at http://www.resignation.com where people can go and put their names on a petition calling on the president to resign, and they can participate in a contest for the best resignation speech. The first prize is a trip to the island of Elba, which is where Napoleon went.

And the second contest is for the resignation speech that most resembles the one the president ends up giving. In the last few days, the numbers of people signing up and participating have gone up astronomically. The prize for the second contest is a trip to San Clemente, where President Nixon went.

And the third and final contest is predicting the time and place when he resigns, and the winner gets to go where he goes.

It's very interesting how the numbers are changing -- there's really a majority of people who want to see him go. It's a little bit like saying, "Enough is enough."

(More, if you really want to read it... )

[grasswire]

98. we know her history

People used to run screaming from the room during the Clinton impeachment years just because of her voice yapping on TV about his transgressions.

However, she has since that time positioned herself as a smart and quirky woman who seeks truth. She can't honestly take that position AND provide a platform for known liars and propagandists.

[AlGore-08.com]

121. That's the problem: "she can't honestly take that position... "

The one thing I miss from the pre-Smirk era is a healthy dose of skepticism. There are non-political, cynical reasons that Arianna Huffington might now oppose Smirk and the GOP - - reasons that are consistent with her earlier incarnation as an Elf of Evil.

If you actually read her work, she is not pro-Democrat. She has (in my opinion) morphed from being a Republican to Celebritarian, a subspecies of Libertarian we have out here in Tinseltown. Some of them are serious Libertarians, but most of them are people who oppose whoever is running the Government because cynicism is cool - - and as celebrities (or wannabes) they know so much more than the peasants who foolishly vote for idiots like what's his name, you know, the guy with the hair - - and because their taxes are too high and they keep getting busted for drug possession, which is the real biggest crime of our life times.

Did we all look into Huffington's heart and see what was there? Her reaction to the recall of Gray Davis - - an unconstitutional power grab by the GOP - - was not to oppose the power grab, not to stand in solidarity with the people's choice for Governnor, but to take advantage of the power grab to run for Governor herself. The second Kerry lost the 2004 general, she wrote an article beginning "This election wasn't stolen. The Kerry campaign lost it" (that may be a paraphrase).

But that's okay as long as she lets one of her Celebribuddies with severely challenged logic skills blog the opposite. How many folks have written articles about the Ohio election on DU? Convincing ones? Ones which actually discussed verified voting, and provided a statistical analysis of the voting patterns? You think Arianna Huffington couldn't read DU or Buzzflash and said "Man, that's a great argument. It needs to be on my blog." Instead, she publishes a guy whose entire argument is "Wake up SHEEPLE!" and he gets publishes on a Celebrablog whose birth was heralded on CNN.

Y'all should realize that this guy's fact free rant getting wide press makes it that much harder for y'all to be taken seriously when you say "I believe the Ohio election was fixed" or even worse, "There's systematic voter disenfranchisement in this country".

Was that her grand evil scheme that lead to her publishing this guy's logic-free rantings? I doubt it. If I had to assign her a motive, I would say it's same sh*t, different day. If y'all can't see where the interests of conservatives and Greens overlap, then y'all need to do some more historical research.

This is how the rank and file Republicans ended up having the right wing nut jobs run their party. They accepted, uncritically, anybody who had the right buzz words in their speeches. "Bush can't honestly take that position and not be on my side". A little healthy cynicism would have served them better.

Why do we all leap to the conclusion that anybody who turns their coat is sincere? Is there any defector from the right who would not be lionized if they (claimed) to have found (our) religion? Would we accept Rush Limbaugh without thinking? What if Sean Hannity jumped ship? What if Bill Frist suddenly "saw the light"?

No question, we'd all follow them straight over the cliff to our doom.

[Liberty Belle]

99. Um, don't we want Republicans to read about election fraud, too?

What better way to make sure they get informed then to lure them to Ariana's site with a couple of conservative columnists?

I think it could be a brilliant strategy, especially since Ariana ran this on the first day. So if Joe was hyping his column to all of his fans, they certainly got more than he bargained for!

[Liberty Belle]

97. Could be a ploy to get non-progressives to read about election fraud.

Joe Scarborough must be choking to realize what his fans have just read!

[catzies]

103. I can't look at John Fund's pic without thinking of Bartcop's caption

"I beat women, got any?"

[RBHam]

39. Jim Lampley is a smart man...

He subs for Jim Rome once ina while and throws the Jungle into mass confusion - he uses words they don't understand and asks hard questions of those sports figures he interviews...

And when he's involbed in round table discussions on other sports shows, his word always seems to be final.

[Faygo Kid]

44. Two states: Ohio and Florida. Rove got 'em.

I didn't think so at first, but am now convinced that the election was stolen. Rove et al never needed to rig 50 states; only those that would tip the election. They were Ohio and Florida. Maybe Florida would have gone Bush, but not Ohio. I believe that the conspiracy could not have been vast, or it would have cracked. Just Jeb's state, and Ohio, and it worked.

[Liberty Belle]

101. They rigged it in more places than you'd think.

That includes Texas, to make his phony mandate look bigger.

I first suspected fraud two days BEFORE the election, when I got an e-mail from a friend who informed me that a writer she knew encountered a problem during early voting. The review screen showed her vote changed from Kerry to Bush. She summoned a pollworker and was allowed to vote a second time. The same thing happened. She tried a third time--same thing.

At that point, she insisted that the "faulty" machine be taken out of commission. The pollworkers refused. The woman called the Austin Democratic Party to complain, and was told they had received "quite a few" complaints of exactly the same thing!

[blondeatlast]

46. Damn. Just damn. I wasn't into the whole BBV thing, but something

about the election never smelled right.

"Coincidence? Of course not."

Damn straight. You go, sister. Testify!

[sandnsea]

47. Daaammn JIM LAMPLEY???

Whoa!! Get the popcorn people. I think this one is going to be a firestorm!

[Zorra]

48. Many of us warned that electronic voting machines would "fix" the election

repeatedly and vehemently.

I'll say it again: There is only one reason for the government to use inaccurate voting systems that are subject to private, secret manipulation and that are not publicly auditable and verifiable. And this reason is to be able to cheat in elections without possibility of being caught.

This is a no-brainer.

[Just Me]

50. SOaB!!! He really nails it, doesn't he!!!

Fabulous!!! :bounce:

[oasis]

54. "A bomb". That's how they've chosen to describe Arianna's blog at CNN.

Judy Woodruff's "little elve blog helpers" selected an "established" blogger's critique that compared the Huffington Post to "Ishtar" and "Gigli".

"Kill the messenger" right off the bat. CNN's aversion to truth telling has no limits.

[LeahD]

55. I'm smilin'

and letting everyone know about the new web sit

[realFedUp]

56. I'm surprised and wonder what Jim thought of election 2000....

Hope KO mentions this....

[libertypirate]

57. Also Conyers!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/creating-justif.html

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

113. Conyers on Lampley!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/08-week/index.html

Rep. John Conyers

Jim Lampley and the Story of Our Lives
Since November of 2004, I have been investigating the irregularities and fraud that took place in the 2004 Presidential election. The first phase of my investigation culminated in the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff's January 2005 status report, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio? (warning: big PDF file), and the first Congressional challenge to a state's entire slate of electors in over 100 years.

It is often the case that when you look at something so closely for any length of time, you often lose perspective on it. The debate between those of us who believe there were serious, substantial and outcome determinative irregularities in the election, and those who do not, often centers on the intricacies of central machine tabulators, provisional ballot rules, and the appropriate weight of registration forms.

On Huffington Post today, Jim Lampley brings the story back to its essential question: who are you going to believe -- what the mainstream media tells you or your lying eyes? During the challenge, filmmaker Linda Byrket released a short film about Ohio that I sent to every Member of the Senate as they were deciding whether to support the Ohio challenge (it is a large file that you can download here). http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/video%20the%20vote.mov

In much the same way Ms. Byrket made the facts of this injustice accessible through film, Mr. Lampley's post offers an accessible perspective I have never heard before. I highly recommend it and congratulate him for his courage. He is right -- it is the biggest story of our lives.

Posted at 01:58 PM

[libertypirate]

119. Link -- Found it direct link bellow

Where did you find that post?

I would like to read it in full please...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/jim-lampley-and-the-story.html

[OrlandoGator]

58. Why would sportsbooks be posting odds AFTER most people voted?

That would be like taking bets during the third quarter of the Super Bowl.

[Serial Mom]

59. He came right out and said it - THEY STOLE THE ELECTION

Good for Lampley!

:applause:

[Imagevision]

61. Even Vegas hadn't a clue the fix was in

[Imagevision]

63. Ever wonder why Bush gave that election morning interview?? for "Barney?!!

arf-arf as behind the scenes vote rigging was going on.

[manxkat]

64. "the biggest crime in the history of the nation"

Well, it was definitely a big crime, but biggest? Somehow, 9/11 seems bigger since more people have died since BushCo committed that terrorist atrocity. Then, there's the ensuing resource wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with tens of thousands dead, many more wounded.

Of course, it could be argued that election fraud was the mother of all crimes, since 9/11 wouldn't have happened without Bush and the neocons pulling the levers in 2000.

What will it take to wake Amerikans up?

[corky44]

75. the crime is not over.

This is massive RICO stuff - ongoing...

[SeveneightyWhoa]

83. What's your agenda?

Why do you call Americans "Amerikans"?

[lala_rawraw]

76. I only wish

She had some alternative news outlets listed... check out the news section... it is all MSM standard.

[dsc]

77. One big problem

gambling odds aren't set that way. Gamblers make money by charging a small amount per bet not by being correct on the outcome of events. The odds are set to even out the bets for each side of a sporting event so that the bookie isn't risking too much. Thus if lots of people believed Kerry was going to win then the odds would move regardless of any science behind that belief.

[Ksec]

80. Lampley understands mathematical impossibilities

And for 10 states to be that far off(much further then the margin of error) and then all of them going for Bush is an impossibility. Couldnt happen. Impossible.

[dsc]

82. that has nothing to do with Vegas odds

Maybe he is right on that, though I would like to see some evidence of a mathematical backround. But his stated reason for thinking something was up is just plain wrong.

[AlGore-08.com]

87. Right, and doesn't "2 to 1" mean "twice as likely to lose as win"?

That's my understanding of betting lingo, but I could be wrong, I don't bet.

[dsc]

89. actually it means

that if you bet 2 you win 1. That is if you bet $2 you will get $3 back (your 2 plus the other 1) It doesn't mean that they think Kerry was twice as likely to win as Bush. Given that they want the payout to be roughly even it also means there was considerably more money being bet on Kerry than on Bush. But, in point of fact, it doesn't man that Kerry is twice as likely to win as Bush.

[bpilgrim]

94. lol

"in point of fact, it doesn't man that Kerry is twice as likely to win as Bush."

true, no facts matter to some, apparently and unfortunately.

peace

[dsc]

96. To see my point look at football, which is done differently

In football instead of altering payout percentages they give points to attract bets. Many times the points given are 5 and a half or something like that. Clearly the people setting that line don't expect the Steelers to beat the Bengals by 5 and a half points. Instead they are adjusting the line in order to even out the bets. But odds are not, I repeat not, set by looking at the likelyhood of winning, they are set by the amount being bet on each side.

[bikesein]

116. That's right

Other than an interesting anecdote, the Vegas odds on this mean nothing as far as a prediction. They are set to ensure an equal amount of betting action on both sides. The casino takes its 5-10% juice and comes out ahead no matter which bet wins.

That being said I am shocked Lampley had the guts to come out on this.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. Wow. Good stuff!

Is anybody listening?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

90. good site...but why's JoeDeadIntern on there?

doesn't he already have an outlet for his lies and smarm?

however, having good ol' walter cronkite on board almost makes up for scabby's inclusion

[Lex]

111. I think she wants to entice the rightwingers over and then

give them some truth.

Scarborough is the bait?

[slybacon9]

91. Anyone know what the odds were that bush would win?

[In Truth We Trust]

93. Paper ballots NOW!!! Hand counts NOW!!! N/T

[TheUnspeakable]

112. I know I shouldn't watch CNN, but....

I happened to catch their daily feature on "Inside Politics" about the blogosphere-if you haven't seen this it is a complete joke-they show a lot of RW blogs and act like that is all that's going on in the blog world-(still haven't mentioned DU-I know it's a message board, not a blog, but still..) Anyway, I knew something was up with Arianna's site because they were showing a TON of negative comments from all the RW sites about it-I thought to myself "there must be something really hot there, I'll have to check it out", sure enough THIS POST is what all that spin was for.

[In_The_Wind]

114. Voter Verified Paper Ballots - Now

I'll be passing this information to everyone I know - Thanks Will

[Joey Liberal]

125. Great Blog n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

127. Bush beating Kerry as a 2-1 fav is almost as crazy as...

a 50-1 horse winning the Kentucky Derby.