ABC news: "Electronic voting machines could skew elections"

Over time, this is becoming less and less tin-foil hat territory:

ABC NEWS

Electronic Voting Machines Could Skew Elections

Researchers, Candidates Have Little Confidence in Machines Designed to Make Elections Easier to Call

By JAKE TAPPER, REBECCA ABRAHAMS and EDUARDO SUNOL

Oct. 22, 2006 -- Cheryl Kagan, a former Maryland Democratic legislator, was shocked when she opened her mail Wednesday morning. Inside, she discovered three computer discs. With them was an anonymous letter saying the discs contained the secret source code for vote-counting that could be used to alter the votes cast through Maryland's new electronic voting machines. "My understanding is that with these disks a malicious person could skew the outcome of an election," Kagan said.

It continues:

Diebold, the company that makes the voting machines, told ABC News, "These discs do not alter the security of the Diebold touch-screen system in any way," because election workers can set their own passwords. But ABC News has obtained an independent report commissioned by the state of Maryland and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation revealing that the original Diebold factory passwords are still being used on many voting machines. The SAIC study also shows myriad other security flaws, including administrative over-ride passwords that cannot be changed by local officials but can be used by hackers or those who have seen the discs.

I don't want to quote much more, for fear of copyright issues. If you want to read the whole article, it's here. Finally, here's a quote, towards the end of the article, by the GOP's Ehrlich:

Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican running for reelection, advised residents to vote by absentee ballot because he had no confidence in the machines. "I don't care if we paid half a billion dollars or $1 billion," Ehrlich said. "If it's going to put the election at risk, there's no price tag for a phony election or a fraudulent election."

Can anyone else point to other coverage in the OSM (Old School Media)?

•  poll should include

  "You're kidding, right?"

  by UneasyOne on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:03:23 PM PDT

  •  should also include

    "uh ..... they been doin it and doin it already"

    by theyrereal on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:06:04 PM PDT

    •  Umm, will I get in trouble for rec'ing this? nt

      by cowgirl on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:42:19 PM PDT

      •  If you can't do the time...

        

        ...don't do the crime.

        by wonkydonkey on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:48:13 PM PDT

        •  'less and less tin foil hat territory'?

          It never was tinfoil hat territory, as the whole thing started with a promise to "deliver an election" by the maker of the machines, and all sorts of evidence regarding code and lack of security. Where did this broken meme come from?

          by KumarP on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:27:42 AM PDT

          •  Diebold CEO pledges votes to GOP in 2004.

            Absolutely no tinfoil involved here.  This has long been promised by the CEO of Diebold.

            Link

            We all need to re-read this article and share it with everybody.

            by JenThinks on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:49:29 AM PDT

          •  Where did it come from?

            Have you ever heard of Astroturfing?

            by kraant on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 11:22:16 AM PDT

          •  As a software QA professional

            The thing that annoys me about Diebold's software design is that there is no functionality forcing the user to change his or her password on initial boot up.  There's no excuse for allowing critical systems to be used with default passwords.  The system must force the user to change the factory password on the initial start.  It's security 101.

            by Arclite on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:43:59 PM PDT

        •  That etching is creepy

          not just because of the tarring, feathering and waterboarding but the smiles the men have on their faces. Makes you wonder about the men who torture in our times.

          by ohcanada on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 11:33:59 AM PDT

    •  Should also include

      Some dems also.  There are people, in both parties, who would or wouldn't do it.  I truly believe that. Are there more in the Repblican party then the Dems? Probably.  But the idea that no Dems would do the same is ludicrous.

      by bruinbown on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:57:14 PM PDT

      •  Democrats have cheated in the past

        But they don't have an extensive recent history of cheating to win elections. The Democrats were once as dishonest as the Republicans are today. They got caught and the ended up purging the cheaters in order to save their party.  Right now, they are in a state of relative honesty - but in time, I'm sure they will turn again. Memories fade.  Republicans, unfortunately, have been demonizing Democrats/Liberals so enthusiastically that there are a lot of people who actually believe that if Democrats win back power, they WILL destroy the nation. What would you be willing to do to save the United States from destruction? Would you overlook a few voting "irregularities"? Maybe just to "balance" things out (because Republicans all KNOW that the Democrats cheat)...  

        by dianem on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:14:39 PM PDT

        •  Of course they can't prove that Democrats cheat,

          and they don't ever bother investigating, but their certainty that it happens sure comes in handy.

          by sagra on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:28:03 AM PDT

        •  I'm sure that Democrats cheated also

          but not to the extent that it happend in 00 and 04.  When the President of Diebold blatantly states that he is going to bring home the  vote for Bush before the 04 election, something is terribly wrong. And I am appalled that people here at Daily Kos refused to give credence to this problem after the 04 election.  There were numberous reports of problems after the election, including a report that "technicians" were coming into voting precincts saying that they had to update or fix voting machines while they changed discs or whatever they did and then leaving the election workers dumbdounded. If this was brought up on this website you were called a tin foil hat nut. This is now documented by Princeton professors and ABC news.  We had years to check this out.  Now we are reduced to a couple of weeks.

          by LimosineLiberal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:46:04 AM PDT

      •  Ehrlich clearly thinks so

        Maryland Republicans are convinced that Glendening stole the election from Sauerbrey.

        For the life of me, I don't know why the (Democratic) Maryland legislature is fighting on the wrong side of this issue. It will BITE THEM IN THE ASS.

        by frostyinPA on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:24:37 PM PDT

        •  It's not the Democratic legislature ...

          it's the State Senate President.  A bill requiring  a paper trail passed UNANIMOUSLY in the heavily Democratic House of Delegates, and Ehrlich had already said he'd sign it, but it never even came to a vote in the State Senate because Thomas "Mike" Miller didn't WANT it to come to a vote in the Senate.

          In general, the House of Delegates has given Ehrlich far more trouble than the State Senate (especially on things like putting slots in Democratic areas that don't want them while refusing to put them in Republican areas that don't want them).  In general, it's been the more progressive of the two chambers.  

          I may be way too cynical on this, but I don't especially trust either Ehrlich or Mike Miller, and it wouldn't totally shock me if Ehrlich and Miller agreed that Ehrlich would say he wants it, in the secure knowledge that Miller would kill it in the State Senate.  And yes, Miller is a Democrat, but he's probably the prominent Democrat in Maryland politics that I least trust to ever take and stick to a position as a matter of principle.

          by leevank on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:57:11 PM PDT

          •  Don't know Miller's motives, but I have feared

            that it's too easy in this set up to have Diebold and the other companies buy off politicians who support them in return for some votes...

            It's too obvious, and the temptation would be there. I'm not making any accusations, just presenting how we focus rightly on the Rethug manipulations around e-voting, but should also take a look at how easily such companies could make elections up for the highest bidder in return for making their companies richer.

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:45:04 AM PDT

            •  the problem is

              Any person in a position of power has an incentive to control the elections to ensure that he stays in power, regardless of whether said person is Republican or Democrat.  It's been six years since the Florida debacle and there still has not been meaningful election reform because the people already elected don't feel any compulsion to change a system that has been rewarding them.

              by RickD on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:04:00 AM PDT

              •  My take on this, a little tin foil hat....

                Is that the MD senate blocks it and Ehrlich looks as if he  is for a paper trail in a heavily democratic state, thereby winning the vote of the Blue swing voters here in the state.

                Just a theory. could be wrong.

                by Lockedupspirit on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:23:21 AM PDT

      •  Sure, more people would cheat if they were

        unlikely to get caught. But the issue is whether the GOP is engaged in cheating now. Past Dem cheating (Chicago, for instance) isn't relevant, any more than Gerry Studds is relevant to Foley.

        by lanellici on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:58:29 AM PDT

      •  I would hope all dem candidates check their mail

        my bet is that the GOP and Diebold have mailed out this software to cry foul when they lose lots of elections. They'll blame Congressman and women who received these letters that they sent. This another play from the Rove book. Only this time it was busted.

        by f furney on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:07:19 AM PDT

        •  Well if it leads to them signing the Holt Bill

          finally! then fine. As it this that bill (ppaper trail ) is held up by the Repugs even tho it has like 220 cosponsors now.

          by dotcommodity on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:47:57 AM PDT

      •  there is plenty of evidence that repbulicans

        have been cheating wholesale since 1998 or 99.  Everytime there has been a discrepancy between exit polls and the actual vote.  In 2004 exit polls where not reported UNTIL they were adjusted to fit the official results.
        Stop with the false equivalency arguments.  Democrats are not controlling these machines or their software.  This is a republican operation just like the Abramhoff  scandal was all republican.

        by TeresaInPa on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:11:05 AM PDT

        •  I'll never forget Lisa Myers coming on tv

          election night 04 and stating that Karl Rove said that the exit polls were done incorrectly and the 3 to 5% lead that John Kerry had was not right, so therefore the Republicans would win.  And guess what! He is already saying the same thing for this election.  So, they are already screwing with the voting.

          by LimosineLiberal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:51:27 AM PDT

      •  it's more likely

        that the MSM is doing this so that if the Repubs lose big they'll be able to claim the Democrats stole the election.  

        by NorthlandLiberal on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:32:27 AM PDT

      •  In the end, it makes no difference....

        We still have to devise a voting system that can restore the confidence of the public, and that will prevent ANYONE from cheating!

        All of this stuff about "they do it too!" is completely irrelevant.

        by Vagabond57 on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:59:49 AM PDT

      •  This isn't about Democrats.

        This is about Al Gore, John Kerry, Max Clemmons and nearly 3,000 dead American soldiers.  It's about our future and the lives of 600,000 Iraqis squandered in the sand.  These stolen elections add up to treason.  
        We can talk about history after we get justice.

        my aim is true

        by Cottagerose on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:18:28 AM PDT

      •  Lieberman, anyone? n/t

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:30:54 AM PDT

  •  Poll must be snark.

    People who would lie a country into a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people would have ethical issues with hacking computers to keep themselves out of jail?

    by goinsouth on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:20:51 PM PDT

    •  Jail?? Not according to Pelosi

      She adamantly insists there will be no investigations against the current regime, see the 60 minutes transcript from last night.

      by retired on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:51:03 AM PDT

      •  Who died and made Pelosi queen?

        That's political posturing. If we don't have any investigations, we don't have a democracy anymore. And I, for one, think the government belongs to all of us, not just the super special senators and house reps. Silly me.

        by JuliaAnn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:29:31 AM PDT

        •  Oh you got the wink wink nudge nudge

          memo? And you approve of such public deception?

          It's going to take more than puffed up political postering to save this country.

          by retired on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:27:37 AM PDT

          •  Come now, just a week ago Pelosi said the 1st

            thing she wanted from a victory was subpeana power.

            You can start organizing her tar and feathering after the elections if no investigations occur, and I'll join you. But it's purely nonsensical. Every House Dem chair is planning all sorts of investigations, and Pelosi herself intends it.

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:47:44 AM PDT

            •  I don't approve of her methods of posturing, she

              is simply inept at nuance and wiggle, which would be better than her klutzy fibs.

              But so what. She is what we're stuck with, but John Conyers and Henry Waxman have been collecting enough stuff on Bush to put him away in solitary for several life terms, so no worries on that account.

              by doinaheckuvanutjob on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:49:42 AM PDT

            •  I think so too.

              She's only saying No Investigations so the Reps can't accuse her of being on a witchhunt. I'm hoping the day after the election to see a blizzard of subpeonas...

              by lanellici on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:00:42 AM PDT

              •  I think a majority DO want investigations

                There was even a recent poll by Newsweek showing that 51% favored impeachment of Bush.

                I don't understand why Democrats keep listening to Republicans about what the public thinks. Republicans tell them this shit about how the public doesn't want investigations and impeachment and they believe it. The Republicans want to win too. Don't expect they're giving you advice in your best interests.

                Whether you want it or not, they already have been raising a "witch hunt" stink, but who cares? People want these investigations. They want you to do something and change things. If not, what's the point of voting for you?

                by poxonyou on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:17:38 AM PDT

              •  Coming Jan. 2007 on HBO

                

                by armadillo on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:13:07 AM PDT

      •  So now Democrats condone lawlessness?

        by sagra on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:45:19 AM PDT

      •  Yeah

        When she said that I almost spit my beer all over the TV.

        Unbelievable.

        She still doesn't get it. The American people are SICK AND TIRED of the Republican corruption, they aren't sick and tired of Democrats fighting back as Republicans screw us over.

        Somebody please fire her ass. We need a fighter, not someone who says there won't even be an investigation, much less an impeachment.

        GRRRR

        by racerx on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:57:19 AM PDT

  •  Reason why I've been telling people reading polls

    Don't count your chickens before Diebold does.

    by tiggers thotful spot on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:12:53 AM PDT

•  Vote absentee

  Until these technologies are verifiable and reliable I would vote absentee.

  by HM2Viking on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:04:22 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but

    Absentee ballots are scanned through the same electronic voting machines that are used in precincts. Also, central tabulators for statewide elections do not have open source code or open procedures - virtually unverifiable totals without a handcount audit.

    Handcount audits are difficult without statewide standards and any results across the nation could ultimately be deemed unconstitutional under Equal Protection clauses - much like Bush v Gore.

    This is going to take a very long time to clean up - in the meantime, we should all have paper marked choice ballots manually counted by humans with verifiable vote audit receipts that the voter can check election tabulation of at any time they choose. If a mistake is made, there should be a voter recourse for petition to change that vote to the correct one listed on their ballot copy.

    by a lynn on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:47:24 PM PDT

    •  Actually, they're not

      The electronic voting machines in the precincts don't have scanners at all.  And even though monkeying with the count on a scanner is possible, it's a lot less likely since there's at least the theoretical possibility that a hand count could prove that the machine count had been wildly incorrect.  If that kind of proof is EVER developed, the day of electronic counting of any kind will be over.

      by leevank on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:00:18 AM PDT

      •  Not true for our Absentee ballots in California

        At least in San Francisco. I made them show me when I dropped off my ballot. Same one as my polling place. Accuvote.

        My general point is there are many ways to monkey with the tabulation of these voting machines from polling place upward. Very little accountability or sunshine in the process - the code is held as a proprietary private commodity and away from public scrutiny.

        by a lynn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:07:47 AM PDT

        •  Another thing ...

          it's real easy to throw away, lose, damage, or otherwise "invalidate" absentees. I don't know why people think those are so great. And the political hacks usually in charge of election offices (that's a generalization, I know, but justified) get to handle and process those absentees all behind closed doors way before watchful eyes start working on election day.

          I agree with a lynn about a paper record. I cannot believe there aren't some test sites that will conduct both paper and electronic voting so results can be compared. Of course, those could be clean results while unmonitored polling places get monkey-farted with. It would be great if voters conducted a shadow vote that could be compared to announced results.

          by JuliaAnn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:35:00 AM PDT

          •  I think they do...

            the shadow vote is called an exit poll?

            by a lynn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:34:03 AM PDT

            •  Massively funded and verified exit polling

              would be a lot of help here.  Preferably with a bipartisan approach and lots and lots of sunshine.  

              Myself and probably lots of other voters would be happy to chip in to help fund such.  Possibly even true-believer Republicans who have a sincere (if sometimes misguided) belief in their side's numerical dominance.  

              by lgmcp on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:49:33 AM PDT

              •  Out of curiosity

                how would exit polling be conducted in Oregon, where all ballots are by mail? I've never been exit-polled--it is what it sounds like, just asking voters how they voted as they leave the polling place?

                I like to think, with our awesome SOS Bill Bradbury, that our voting system is unusually clean. It has just now occurred to me to wonder about exit polling as a sort of check/balance on vote-counting problems in a system where no one "exits" from a polling place.

                Anyone here have ideas about that?

                by Anne Hawley on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:36:15 AM PDT

                •  Hmm, certainly changes the picture

                  I suppose one option would be a massive phone survey, not unlike a regular Gallup poll only with hundreds of thousands, not just a few thousand, contacted.  That would take some serious bucks.

                  Another approach would be printing ballots with some sort of tear-off stub.  Those who so choose could detach the stub and mail it of their own volition to some outside entity for tabulation.  Of course completion rates would never approach the vote count but in theory partisan motivations could balance each other out.

                  Conventional wisdom is that exit polling is not all that reliable anyway because lots of folks decline to state and others will activly fib about their choice.  Despite these limitations, I think exit polling will become a more prominent feature of our electoral system because it does give an outsider a way to estimate the validity of the official count.

                  by lgmcp on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:43:30 PM PDT

                  •  I have tried to get verification

                    of my vote tabulation in every election since 2000 to no avail. I have stubs for every election I have had in California. I can only verifiy that it was part of the election respondence - not how it was counted.

                    My mother's Oregon ballot has a perforated receipt at the top but she never checks it.

                    by a lynn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:51:50 PM PDT

          •  Beginning this November in Los Angeles:

            1. A poll worker must demonstrate the correct way to use the "Ink-A-Dot" voting system (inserting the ballot, using the pen correctly, etc.) to each and every voter, as an effortto minimize damaged ballots.

            2. After voting, the voter takes their ballot to another poll worker who tears off the numbered receipt and returns the ballot to the voter, who then insert it into a machine that checks for under or over votes, tears, smears, etc.  In the case of under or over voting, the machine spits out a notice that tell the voter the specific problem.  They then have an opportunity to correct the ballot, get a new ballot (up to 3 times) or submit it.

            The ballot-checking machines were tested in a limited number of precinct last year, and apparently did well.  It sounds like someone has done some thinking.  I'll let you know how well the system worked after the election.

            by goodasgold on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:39:40 AM PDT

            •  I don't believe it complains about undervotes

              It just assumes you skipped that office or proposition.

              If a particular office is being consistently misread, it'll show up in the stats and trigger a hand recount.

              (if they're the same machines we've got in Alameda county, which it sounds like they are)

              by raines on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:17:26 AM PDT

          •  I have been an election judge, often

            head election judge, for many a long year (although this year I resigned in order to work all day, every day on Dem campaigns) and I can tell you that the percentage of absentee ballots rejected by judges is quite high, at least here in Ramsey County, MN.  People are amazingly careless filling them out and they MUST be filled out correctly, including envelopes, or they will be rejected, although we always try very hard to see that every possible absentee ballot is counted. Under my watch there was never any attempt to subvert the process, just voters who couldn't manage to find their butts with both hands.  

            When you vote at your polling place, the opti-scan will reject an incorrectly voted ballot (two votes for one office, that kind of thing) and you have a chance to redeem yourself and fill out a new ballot correctly.  Absentee voting does not allow for this so a lot of people who think they voted actually have not.  Fortunately for MN voters, all ballots are kept (can't remember for how long, but long enough so that if questions arise we can go back and hand count, check absentee ballot rejections, etc).  We have hand counted any number of times.  It's a drag, but I thank god for the paper ballots and for the chance to recount them if necessary.

            by feelingsickinMN on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:04:30 AM PDT

        •  Thank you

          for making this point again a lynn.  If I were going to rig an election, I would not do it with individual machines and ballots--too many mouths to keep shut.  I would hack the central tabulators and restrict myself to races in which my polls indicated my candidate would lose by 5% or less.  I would also want to have the secretary of state on my side so that there would be no meaningful recount to compare actual precinct totals with the totals registered on the tabulator (in cases where there is no paper trail).

          It is also instructive to look at the electoral fraud issue from a different perspective.  It is possible to make a virtually fool-proof fair system.  Why are the Republicans so steadfastly resisting efforts to do so?

          by Eric Blair on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:33:25 AM PDT

          •  I'm guessing

            Republicans haven't gotten involved because they are the beneficiaries of 99% of "chicanery" (fraud) - at least that's the trend in electronic voting. You can;t deny that in each contest where it's alleged it trends towards their benefit and away from ours.

            When Republicans lose an election - or suffer a loss they will make the issue "bi-partisan" and the changes then become possible. Ultimately this topic will have to come away from the parties to make a difference.

            I did hear a rumor that one (R) strategy was to challenge this type of issue after the results. I think it's one reason why we are hearing about it in the MSM more frequently of late. I have noticed that the more reports/polls favoring Dems come in - the more I hear about this electronic voting fraud issue we've been complaining about for 6 YEARS. Interesting...

            I'm with you it's an easier approach with minimized risk to plant untracable "flipcode" higher up in the voting chain. I imagine they only go precinct and polling place where they don't have access to other more powerful, efficient and loyal operatives. For chrissakes - we've already seen this happen:
            1.) Ohio vote count lock out for "terrorism threat"
            2.) Clint Curtis testimony and now these discs
            3.) Ion Sancho of Florida hacking test of Diebold
            4.) Princeton study.
            5.) Post-election audit of 2000, 2002 and 2004 results not matching who took office.
            6.) Etc Etc

            by a lynn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:51:20 AM PDT

      •  they do this year in Alameda County,CA

        As a pollworker, we got training. Absentee is on the same forms used for in-person voting: optical scan, and each polling station has a scanner integral to the ballot box. It will beep and refuse to accept the ballot (unless you push the override button) if it's unreadable or overvoted (two votes for one office). No error is reported for undervotes, i.e. skipped offices, however). At the end of the day it prints two paper copies of totals, one to put on the door and one that goes to the county office along with the electronic version on card, so there's auditability/accountability both at the precinct level and at the county level and also afterwards by hand recount.

        There's also a (Sequoia, not Deibold) touchscreen with a printer (so the voter can look at the votes before they're recorded).

        And a regular old-fashioned ballot box for provisional and absentee drop-off.

        by raines on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:15:43 AM PDT

      •  Not true in TX, dammit

        Same exact Diebold lie-makers. At least in my county, anyway.

        by bwintx on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:57:20 AM PDT

•  thanks for posting this

  I find it totally absurd that ABC news acts like they're discovering this, all breathless and shit.

  I want to get a job with ABC news.    Because obviously you can work there and have your HEAD UP YOUR ASS FOR YEARS ON END and STILL COLLECT A PAYCHECK.

  Where the F have they BEEN?

  by theyrereal on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:04:29 PM PDT

  •  Only if you're blonde...

    and a bimbo.

    I want to get a job with ABC news.    Because obviously you can work there and have your HEAD UP YOUR ASS FOR YEARS ON END and STILL COLLECT A PAYCHECK.

    by fly on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:07:29 PM PDT

    •  So, vast stupidity resides in females,

      particularly of the blonde persuasion?

      How does that explain W Bush?
      Or John Stossell (bad consumers destroy health care at its capitalistic best!)
      Or John Soloman at AP indicting Harry Reid for fun?
      Or Bill O'Riling for profit?
      Or Geraldo Rivera, on any level?
      Hannity got some kind of superior brain power hidden beyond his stupid on-air persona?
      Rush- all kinds of logical purity?

      Yeah, only if you're blonde, and a therefore a bimbo.

      by 2lucky on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:38:08 PM PDT

      •  The bubble-headed bleach-blond comes on at 5,

        she can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye,
        it's interesting when people DIE,
        give us dirty laundry...

        (lyrics by Don Henley; inspired by Faux News)

        by sunbro on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:02:05 PM PDT

        •  You can travel across the planet,

          and see bubble-heads of all stripes, anchoring the news. I believe Henley was lampooning a particular LA-area anchor (I remember her well), but that still, to me, misses the point.

          The news anchors AIN'T running the local news, or the national news.  They are chosen to further ratings by the powers that be to, at best sell the news, and at worst, to spin the news they want to sell.

          The anchors?  Their power lies in their saleability; the news: that's their bosses preview.  Not so different from the way the rest of the world works.

          by 2lucky on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:09:31 PM PDT

          •  Absolutely--

            Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes have certain ideas that they want stressed on the air by their anchors and on-air personalities.  And they are very successful at controlling the type of information that is given.

            "Outfoxed" is an excellent movie in explaining what evil lurks within their studios.

            by sunbro on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:26:06 PM PDT

            •  But so many her assume that Wolfe or Kyra are

              destructive.  

              Wolfe and Kyra can be, and will be, replaced with, ir the network can do it, with purtier and sellier faces.  

              Wolfe and Kyra are just like the rest of us who work in controlling corporate interests: yes, sir.  thank you sir.  Right away, sir.  

              No matter HOW stupid, cause we got few places to go.

              I will never understand people who flip out over Wolfe, without giving credence to the power that Wolfe's boss has over him.  

              Seems a little nuts to me.  

              by 2lucky on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:35:51 PM PDT

          •  I meant "bosses'

            purview.  

            I never understand how people view on-air anchors as some sort of mantle of incompetence; they're are there to SELL.  

            Who in God's name really believes the buck stops with the anchors, local or national.  I really want to know how they control everything.  I really do.  Cuz, that's contra-the corporate world I've lived in the past near-thirty years?  

            Is Katie our downfall?

            Yeah, Katie and her power to invade Iraq.

            by 2lucky on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:29:54 PM PDT

        •  inspired by Faux News?

          I remember "Dirty Laundry" from when I was in High School (late 80's), long before Fox News, or even Fox broadcasting.

          Damn, who woulda thought that The Simpsons were to be the first wave of the most evil assault on our media ever made.

          by bartman on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:47:10 AM PDT

          •  Okay you're right...

            Pardon me.  This is what I read weeks ago on "Songfacts", and I misinterpreted what it said when I originally read it:

            Don always dedicates this to Rupert Murdoch when he performs it.

            • Dan, Winthrop, MA

            My apologies for getting this wrong.

            by sunbro on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:56:56 AM PDT

          •  Here it is again:

            on Wikipedia's entry for Rupert Murdoch:

            Singer/songwriter Don Henley dedicated his song "Dirty Laundry" to Murdoch.

            by sunbro on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:21:38 AM PDT

            •  Cool

              I've been wondering about innaccuracies in Wikipedia for a while now.

              When someone posts something blatantly wrong, it gets fixed, but it would seem natural that there's lots more subtle mistakes that get through.

              It's nice to have a concrete example.
              (Although I imagine someone will fix it soon.  :)

              by bartman on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:39:39 AM PDT

              •  Answers.com has the same language on this:

                here.

                Singer/songwriter Don Henley dedicated his song "Dirty Laundry" to Murdoch.

                by sunbro on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

                •  That page also contains this statement:

                  This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors

                  by bartman on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:03:37 PM PDT

                  •  Yeah, well...

                    I have no other valid points to make, Bartman.  You win. (smile)

                    (Careful, I'll pull out the Chewbacca defense...)

                    by sunbro on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:10:34 PM PDT

              •  Rupert Murdoch was around. . .

                . . .*before* Fox News. How'd ya think he got rich enough to launch a major network?

                He's been sullying the public discourse for decades (though primarily in Australia and Britain at first).

                by Robespierrette on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 09:21:25 AM PDT

                •  Regardless, of whether Murdoch directly inspired

                  Don Henley to write the song, Murdoch's primary brand of journalism, tabloid journalism, is what Henley railed against.

                  Moreover, Henley's song also appears on the soundtrack of the documentary-expose on Fox News, "Outfoxed".

                  by sunbro on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:13:47 PM PDT

                •  But the song is about TV News,

                  and Murdoch didn't own any TV news outlets at that time.

                  Although, on further research, I did find that Murdoch did own the NY Post at the time Henley wrote the song.

                  by bartman on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:00:31 PM PDT

    •  Don't insult blondes.

      We will hunt you down and rip out your throat.  Blonde jokes are as insulting as the N word.  If you have an ounce of intelligence, you eliminate racism and classism all together.

      by bloomer 101 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:06:46 PM PDT

      •  Re: Blonde Jokes--

        Men often tell blonde jokes because of a "secret" fondness for attractive women of any hair color.  Women often tell blonde jokes as a stealthy form of flirtation.

        I don't believe that many people think that blonde women are dumb.  

        IMHO, the people that do believe that blondes are dumb usually are not very emotionally mature themselves.

        by sunbro on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:20:35 PM PDT

        •  I think blonde jokes are funny...

          but I'm blonde...

          and I think it would be a mistake to think blondes are really dumb...there are consequences to that judgement...lol...I can't be held responsible for what might happen afterwards :-)

          by Elise on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:22:29 PM PDT

          •  I think my favorite line is

            "do you think I'm blonde to the roots?"

            I know a woman who says that all the time.  (I know for sure she's not blonde to the roots, but that doesn't make her any smarter...)

            by MissLaura on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:48:36 PM PDT

            •  lol...

              all the blonde jokes I always thought were funny were sexual in nature...imagine that! lol

              by Elise on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:14:27 AM PDT

      •  Blonde jokes.

        Blonde jokes are as insulting as the word "Nigger"?

        Damn, only a blonde would be stupid enough to believe that.

        by bartman on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:49:21 AM PDT

      •  Being blonde to the roots

        I once took exception to some particularly vile blonde jokes told at a party and nearly got booed out of the place for being "too sensitive". The joker then provided a list of blondes (including Marilyn Monroe and Truman Capote), with a sneer about what a "great boon" to humanity they all were.

        That was a mistake. After I pointed out that on his list only Trigger and Capote were REAL blondes (and that Capote was one of the greatest writers of the century), I cheerfully went down a list of brunettes who were "great boons" to society: Hitler, Mussolini, Chairman Mao, Lenin, Ghengis Khan, Nixon, Pinochet, Attila the Hun-- you get the idea. My juices were flowing and the list was much longer than the joker's was.

        I had a great time, but I wasn't invited back. LOL

        by tigerdog on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:58:19 AM PDT

    •  y in the f are you listening to ABC anyway?

      u like the little mouse?

      aren't we still boycotting them?

      by borkitekt on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:11:24 PM PDT

    •  ABC and stupidity

      LMFAO Amen, fly! Amen!!!

      by xc1427 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:30:29 PM PDT

  •  I'm OK with it -

    better late than never, and better before the election than after.

    I'm just happy the MSM has anything on this, frankly.

    And, I understand your anger . . .

    by occams hatchet on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:11:13 PM PDT

    •  trying to channel Lewis Black

      :)

      But I mean every CAPITALIZED word of it.

      I like how Barbara Boxer tried to introduce a bill that would allow people the option of NOT voting with one of these machines.  Ignored by the media.  Completely.  

      But now, when it's too late to do anything about it, they finally discover it.

      ABC:  liars and jackasses

      by theyrereal on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:21:30 PM PDT

      •  But next time, don't forget the bold typeface!

        ;)

        by big spoiled baby on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:59:59 PM PDT

      •  they're only 'discovering' it

        to make dems feel as though voting is futile.
        thugs already know that their own party is the one going for the steal.

        by khereva on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:51:18 PM PDT

  •  The real question is why are they doing this now?

    This is ABC of grisley-Disney fame

    Is it some sort of positioning so they can say, "we told you so"?

    Fear hype to keep people from voting?

    by Creosote on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:10:09 PM PDT

    •  The Path to a November surprise?

      Where the Repubs claim voter fraud and seek to nullify democratic gains?

      I would like to believe it is just the re-awakening of journalism but the GOP is getting desperate and has shown their ability to manipulate the press.

      by leeroy on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 11:30:43 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, I second that

        Funny that the MSM and GOP give a shit about clean elections when it looks like they're gonna lose big time and their polls look disastrous.

        by JuliaAnn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 01:37:20 AM PDT

    •  Jake Tapper, reporter

      was formerly with Salon, got his big break by reporting there on the 2000 election and aftermath.  

      I've alw