The Challenger Disaster and Vote Fraud: LISTEN LIVE

THE 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED' SHOW
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm April 14th show: The Challenger Disaster, with guest Richard Cook. Second Hour: Vote Fraud, with guest Bev Harris.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-9231. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.

Program directors email affiliaterelations@gcnlive.com
Ad inquiries ads@whatreallyhappened.com

Dems’ Big Middle Finger to the American Voter

One of my idiosyncratic little hobbies of late is to keep a tally on statements by Washington politicians and pundits that are express an open hatred for democracy. This hobby is a subset of a bigger collection of quotes I collect that show how Washington politicians are entirely divorced from the political reality they purport to be experts on - a classic example is Sen. Chuck Schumer’s hilariously moronic declaration that strengthening the Patriot Act is politically good for red state Democrats (thanks for your helping make the Montana Senate race that much harder, Chuck!). I’m not exactly sure why I focus on this, other than because it is important to always remind ourselves just how different - and hateful - the Beltway is towards the country it purports to represent. Today, we get a beauty from South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D).

In the Washington Post’s solid writeup of the debate over Iraq in the House, a faction of Democrats continues to attack the very Election 2006 mandate they were vaulted into office on: opposition to the war. Justifying her opposition to bills that would stop President Bush’s military escalation, we get this from South Dakota’s lone House member:

“I don’t think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls.”

I give Herseth credit - her use of “overreacting” deviously implies that there are just a few very recent polls here and there showing negligible opposition to the war, and that Serious People in Congress should never “overreact” to the supposed fleeting whims of the American people. But, of course, the American public has been strongly critical of the Iraq War for almost 4 years now. Go all the way back to August of 2003 - just a few months after the invasion - and polls started consistently showing that Americans felt the Bush administration misled us into war, and that Congress should put the brakes on war spending bills. By the eve of the 2006 election, opposition to the Iraq War was at an all-time high. And just a few weeks ago, a CNN poll found that a strong majority wants Congress to cut off funding for President Bush’s escalation, while the Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal, want Congress to do what it takes to stop Bush’s escalation, and strongly support a plan to force the White House to adhere to strict troop training standards - all positions Herseth and her small faction of “conservative” colleagues oppose in the name of faux “centrism” and “not overreacting.”

Herseth, of course, is following the tried and true path of fellow politicians and pundits insulated comfortably in the Washington bubble. It was Cheney who said in November that the war “may not be popular with the public - it doesn’t matter.” It was David Brooks who said a few months ago that “voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics.” There was the Bush administration in August of 2006 telling the New York Times “that they are considering alternatives other than democracy” in Iraq - after repackaging the war as an exercise in pro-democracy nation building. The Times itself just recently said that Democrats pushing antiwar legislation strongly supported by the public are “fringe.” And let’s not forget The New Republic’s Peter Beinart who trumpeted groups that - in an oxymoronic backflip - believe “the less beholden politicians are to grassroots activists, the better they will represent voters.”

The message from Washington, D.C. to all of us out here in the heartland is very clear: Our government is the exclusive gated community of Big Money interests, their appointed pawns in Congress, and a select group of self-declared “experts” in the media and at think tanks (which are, of course, funded by many of those same Big Money interests). Inside this gated community, actually listening to or shaping policy on behalf of the vast majority of Americans is considered either laughably outdated or disgustingly unsavory.

This is why we have a House lawmaker running to reporters attacking efforts to end the war as “overreacting” to public opinion. This is why we have a Vice President who goes on national television declaring that what the public wants “doesn’t matter.” This is why the largest newspaper in America continues to publish a columnist who says voters shouldn’t decide elections. This is why, months after being elected to the majority on an antiwar mandate, we have a congressional Democratic Party that still refuses to do anything to end - or even slow down - the war. Because underneath all the platitudes and rhetoric, Washington, D.C. is a place that hates democracy.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry

posted 3/8/2007 by David Sirota @ 10:42 am | Permalink

Democratic voters growing impatient with Congress

Posted on Fri, Feb. 09, 2007

By Margaret Talev, Renee Schoof and Steven Thomma
McClatchy Newspapers

CHICAGO - In Washington, Democrats are blaming Republicans for the Senate's failure so far to vote on a resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq.

But in the heartland, some voters say such excuses no longer are good enough.

Having banked on the promise that Democrats would force a change of course in Iraq if they won control of Congress, some of the people who helped the Democrats get there are growing impatient.

They're frustrated that Democrats sank so much energy into a nonbinding resolution then dropped the bipartisan plan of Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., like a hot potato when Republican leaders who support President Bush maneuvered them into a corner.

All the finagling has gotten in the way of a formal debate or vote in the Senate on Bush's plans for Iraq.

The House of Representatives, sensing voters' impatience, is expected to go ahead next week with its own plan rather than follow the Senate.

"The people spoke pretty clearly in November, and nothing's happened," said Bill Fahrenwald, a marketer from Blue Island, Ill., a Chicago suburb. "It's pretty discouraging."

"They're being overly cautious, to the point of really not accomplishing anything," said Lisa Rone, a psychiatrist from Oak Park, Ill. "I thought the Democrats would be much more clear about that vote and be much more active."

Those criticisms don't match the rhetoric from Senate Democrats, who say they're building toward decisive votes on the war.

"I think the American public's very satisfied with what's happening," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're on the right side of the angels here."

Democrats, who control the Senate 51-49, have nine new senators this year. All have supported Reid's handling of the Iraq issue so far.

Freshman Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said during a trip home a week ago, "I've had nothing but positive (feedback) from people knowing that we're pushing this and want to get it done."

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said her constituents thought Republicans were trying to protect Bush "from the embarrassment of a public way of saying `you're wrong' in a bipartisan fashion."

But she's frustrated by a Senate rule that lets the minority party put the majority in a corner because 60 of the 100 members must agree to force a debate or a vote.

"Maybe after I'm here awhile I'll understand it," she said, "but right now it seems like we ought to be able to vote and see where the majority is, not where 60 are."

In the House, the minority doesn't have the same power.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Republican leadership was trying to expand, not block, the debate and that voters blamed the party in charge for inaction.

"The only thing we could have done differently would have been capitulate and allow the majority to determine what amendments were offered by the minority," he said.

Many Republicans say the Warner-Levin resolution is pointless and that without the force of law it could demoralize the troops. They say the president's troop increase in Iraq should be given a chance.

So they said they'd block consideration of the resolution unless Democrats also debated a resolution by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would support the troops and take no position on a troop increase.

Democrats saw a trap: If they backed Gregg's resolution, then didn't get 60 votes on Warner-Levin, the only formal statement out of the Senate would voice no opposition to the troop increase. If they rejected Gregg's, opponents would run ads accusing them of hurting the troops.

Their decision: Hold off on a formal debate. Senators who are critical of Iraq policy have been waiting a long time for a debate, though, which they couldn't get when Republicans were in charge.

Despite Democratic senators' confident talk, their party is worried about keeping voters' faith.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the House couldn't let members go home Feb. 17 for a weeklong recess empty-handed. So the House plans to begin a three-day debate Tuesday and vote on its own resolution opposing the troop buildup.

National polling shows that a majority of Americans support a resolution opposing the troop increase. National independent polling organizations haven't assessed reaction to the stalled Senate debate.

It's only about a month into the 110th Congress, and the appropriations bills - where Democrats have the real power to attach strings to military spending if they can muster the will and support - are weeks away from consideration. Still, there's mounting pressure on Democrats from their base across the country.

At least 22 state legislatures are considering resolutions urging Congress to stop the deployment of more U.S. troops to Iraq, said David Sirota, the Montana-based co-chairman of the Progressive States Network:

They are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

Senate Majority Leader Reid said that when the Senate returned from the recess at the end of the month, Democrats would redouble their efforts. They may take up whatever Iraq resolution the House passes. Or they'll look for ways to impose conditions or deadlines on continued U.S. involvement.

Freshman Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he agreed with Reid's decision to hold off on the debate rather than consider Gregg's alternative.

But Tester conceded, "If you can't get a vote on a nonbinding it's going to be very difficult to get a vote on anything else." He said, "I think you just work within the process and hope something changes."

Talev and Schoof reported from Washington, Thomma from Illinois.

It's Bush vs. America - and Bush wins

---

Larry Derfner, THE JERUSALEM POST

Feb. 7, 2007

---

What's going on in Washington now is unbelievable - Bush is getting away with it. He's escalating the war in Iraq. He's sending 21,500 more soldiers over there. Nobody's stopping him, nobody's going to, either - not the Democrats, not the new Republican realists and not American public opinion, where Bush is heading down to Nixon's Watergate level.

The war in Iraq is a four-year, runaway disaster, the American voters turned adamantly against it in the November elections, the vaunted James Baker-led panel recommended what most everybody wants - a careful withdrawal, or as careful a withdrawal as possible. In the face of all that, it was just assumed Bush would have to bow to reality.

No way. The exact opposite is happening. Not only is Bush not starting to get the troops out, he's not content to stand pat with the troops he's got there now. No, he's sending over more. The war in Iraq is one of the worst blunders in American history, and the man responsible is now digging America in deeper. And America is letting him do it.

You watch these clowns in Congress, these eunuchs who don't have the balls to even pass what a Bush ally laughed off as a "confetti resolution" - a symbolic statement that wouldn't force Bush to withdraw but would at least officially express Congress's opinion in favor of withdrawal. But they can't even agree on that - they're afraid the White House will accuse them of demoralizing the troops, of encouraging the enemy. It would be too politically risky.

Such a statement wouldn't have stopped Bush anyway. The only way Congress can prevent Bush from escalating the war is by refusing to pay the cost of sending the extra troops in. But only a few senators and congressmen are willing to take that step because then the White House would accuse Congress of leaving the troops to die, of taking away their guns and uniforms and everything.

It's bullshit, of course. The only thing that would be taken away is Bush's right to send over those 21,500 more soldiers. But it's not going to happen; the fear of White House propaganda has all but a few politicians paralyzed, and the White House knows it. The administration isn't even worried. "We are moving forward," Dick Cheney told CNN about Bush's decision to escalate. "Congress has control over the purse strings, they have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding, but in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision." In America, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on. Right over the cliff.

MEANWHILE, the administration's argument for moving forward has cleverly changed. Bush and his mouthpieces have stopped braying about "victory," because nobody will buy that anymore, it'll only hold them up to ridicule.

No, America isn't fighting to win in Iraq now, because whatever victory might look like, it's nowhere on the horizon. Instead, America is fighting to avoid defeat, which is very easy to visualize. Defeat will come when America leaves Iraq with the country still exploding, with the killing still going on in all directions, with America still hated by everyone (except the Kurds), and with nothing but further atomization, slaughter and radicalism ahead.

That's defeat. And that, warns the pro-war camp, will leave the entire Middle East in danger of being pulled into the Iraqi conflict. Even worse, it will leave America disgraced and its enemies emboldened.

So, they argue, America has no choice but to fight on. The 21,500-plan is called a "surge" - a euphemism for "escalation" that lets people think this is just temporary, that the extra troops being sent into Iraq will be home soon.

The idea is that these new troops, being deployed in new ways, will make the difference in the war, that they will bring a turning point toward security on the Iraqi streets and national unity in the Iraqi government.

I'm not being too original when I say this is impossible. In the best case, the extra troops might make Baghdad somewhat less lethal; they might bring the daily nationwide body count down from 100 or so to 80, or 70. But security they're not going to bring. And this is in the best case. Another possibility is that they will make no difference at all. Still another is that they will make things worse.

But even if the new troops really make a dent in the murder rate, does anybody think that whatever security and stability gains might be made from the "surge" would remain in place after America's withdrawal? In other words, is there anything these additional soldiers can achieve that would change the consequences of an American pull-out, that would make those consequences any different from what they would be if those 21,500 soldiers were kept home?

Does anybody have a good idea for anything at all that the US can do in Iraq over the next two years, or five years, or 10 years, that would make the downside of an American withdrawal any less steep than it would be after the gradual withdrawal, beginning now, that most Americans want? I haven't heard such an idea, and I don't believe it exists. While optimists may come up with feasible plans for improving Iraqi conditions under America's occupation, no one can come up with a feasible plan for holding Iraq together after American troops are gone.

So by staving off the withdrawal, the Bush administration's escalation of the war is just delaying America's inevitable defeat. The only lasting difference the surge will make is to increase the number of American soldiers getting killed and maimed.

The majority of senators and congressmen, Democrats and Republicans both, now understand this. And since they understand, but lack the courage to use their power to force Bush to wind down this war, the American blood about to be spilled for nothing will be on their hands, too.

Voters are responsible for Bush's Iraq fiasco

Voters are responsible for Bush's Iraq fiasco
Albany Times Union, NY - 25 Jan 2007
George W. Bush was a profoundly ignorant man who was putty in the hands of the neocons who were the true architects of the Iraq fiasco.

Keep hope alive

Despite their vote of confidence in Democrats this November, voters doubt Congress' ability to lead. Swift reforms could prove them wrong.

By Joe Conason

Dec. 22, 2006 | By ending Republican hegemony in the midterm elections, the nation's voters were expressing hope that Democrats could change the direction of a government that has forfeited public confidence. Such hope is highly perishable and must be nourished with principled action early in the coming year. It isn't easy for people to believe in politicians.

For the moment, at least, the Democratic Party is still riding on post-election political momentum (while the Republican Party remains stuck in negative terrain). Although many mainstream commentators continue to claim that Americans dislike both parties equally, their shorthand cliché is badly out of date. A substantial plurality of voters now say they expect to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, and that partisan preference remains especially strong among the young.

But in the current political environment, the opportunity to rebuild a governing majority of the center-left could evaporate without being realized. National opinion remains angry, apprehensive and volatile. Having turned sharply against George W. Bush within months after his second inauguration -- initially reacting to Social Security privatization, then to the Katrina disaster, and finally to the failure of the war in Iraq and the stunning pageant of corruption on Capitol Hill -- disappointed voters could just as easily discard the Democrats in 2007. If the newly empowered opposition fails to honor its commitments, that is exactly what will happen.

Many if not most Americans have repeatedly expressed an underlying doubt that either party can still serve the public interest. Those feelings are especially prevalent among the independent voters whose support was critical to the recent Democratic victory. To dispel such cynicism and fulfill the expectations raised by their anticorruption campaign, the new Democratic congressional leaders must quickly deliver real government accountability as well as substantial reorganization of their own institutions. While voters may understand that major changes in healthcare, education and environmental stewardship will be difficult to enact under this administration, they will not have much patience for any evasion on reform of Congress.

Whether Democrats can overcome the old habits that have often made them inarticulate and inert, however, remains to be seen. To put it kindly, the signs are mixed.

Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., first displayed her deafness to the reformist vox populi when she tried to foist Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. -- a courageous antiwar convert but an ethics scofflaw -- on the Democratic caucus as majority leader.

Pelosi seemed equally obtuse when she pushed aside Jane Harman, D-Calif., the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, to name Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, as the committee's new chairman instead, after considering Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a former federal judge whom she voted to impeach for corruption. Rather than replace the compromised Harman with a truly independent and competent figure such as Rush Holt, D-N.J., a scientist and former State Department intelligence officer, she heeded the dictates of old-style patronage politics.

That decision boomeranged on Pelosi almost instantly, when Reyes gave an interview to Congressional Quarterly correspondent Jeff Stein that revealed the congressman's embarrassing ignorance of the most basic facts about al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Islam. (She should have suspected that Reyes was a dubious choice simply because of his curious attraction to the conspiracy theories of Curt Weldon, the wacky Pennsylvania Republican who lost his seat last month.)

More encouragingly, both Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader, have indicated that they will support a broad package of ethical and procedural improvements next year. The most important proposals for best practices would require that "earmarks" in appropriations bill be identified by the sponsoring members' names; that members and staff stop taking gifts, meals and free travel from lobbyists; and that conference committees, where much midnight skulduggery has occurred, be open to public and media scrutiny. Certain members of both parties will no doubt resist or undermine those changes, which would represent important progress toward honest government; if the leaders enact such stringent reforms they will deserve great credit.

But lobbyists and politicians -- and the money that sustains their relationship -- inevitably find ways to get around the rules. For that reason, the leaders must also reform the dysfunctional ethics enforcement procedures. The House Ethics Committee is a sinkhole of the worst kind of "bipartisanship," with both sides cooperating to thwart effective monitoring and sanctions. The most promising solution is an outside Office of Public Integrity that would operate as a watchdog over Congress, with investigative authority, just as inspectors general and integrity monitors oversee government agencies. Not so long ago, Pelosi herself sponsored legislation that would have established such an office. In response to protest from the ranks, she has backed away from the proposal and asked a "task force" to report on its feasibility and advisability by next March. This is a waste of time and, worse still, a potential compromise with discredited Republican leader John Boehner. Again, Pelosi appears not to quite grasp the potential consequences of her actions. If she fails to institute this new policing mechanism, then whatever credit she and her party earn for other reforms will be diminished. That would be too bad for the Democrats and the country.

Pelosi and Reid should receive the benefit of the doubt, despite early stumbles and hesitations. But when the new year begins, they must swiftly distinguish themselves from their soiled predecessors -- or they will confirm voters' cynical assumptions about them, their party and their vocation.

Voters Remain Angry at GOP, NPR Poll Shows

Politics

Enlarge

Sixty-eight percent of voters polled favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in the next six months, according to the NPR poll. Public Opinion Strategies/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

Poll Results

• Poll Questionnaire and Results(Requires Adobe Acrobat)
• Poll Highlights(Requires Adobe Acrobat)

The poll was conducted for NPR Dec. 7-10, 2006, by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. It consisted of a national telephone survey of 800 likely voters. The survey has a margin of error of +/-3.46 percentage points.

Enlarge

About 46 percent of voters favor a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008; 28 percent favor a Republican. Public Opinion Strategies/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

Enlarge

Voters continue to be pessimistic about the direction of the country. Sixty-five percent say it's on the wrong track, up from 55 percent in December 2005. Those who see the country heading in the right direction dropped to 25 percent, from 35 percent a year earlier. Public Opinion Strategies/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

Morning Edition, December 15, 2006 · Voters are feeling more positive about the Democratic Party than about the Republicans as the GOP prepares to hand over control of Congress in January, according to a new NPR poll. And with his approval rating remaining low, President Bush will find it tough to keep Republican lawmakers on his side, the numbers suggest.

Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger conducted the survey of likely voters. They found that unlike some previous elections, the 2006 midterms were not a release valve. In other words, according to Bolger, voters are still angry, mostly at Republicans.

Sometimes when voters get the result they want in an election, they feel better about the country. But the survey showed that although the number of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track stayed the same as before the election, the number of voters who think the country is on the right track dropped.

And while President Bush's approval rating is still around 40 percent, Bolger points out that the president's strong approval is at 17 percent, and his strong disapproval rating is at 45 percent. That suggests that the president will be facing an increasingly difficult challenge keeping Republican members of Congress on his side.

Even before last month's election, many Republicans were starting to break with the president; now they will be under even more pressure to do so.

Bolger and Greenberg asked voters a "thermometer question" -- to measure how warm or cool they were toward the parties. For the first time in many years, the Democrats' rating on a scale of 1 to 100 was 53; the Republicans scored 44. Greenberg points out that this gives Democrats an opportunity, but not a free pass. Bolger says Republicans are still in a hole and must claw their way back into the trust of the public.

by Mara Liasson

Here

Federal Advisory Panel Rejects Paper Trail Requirement For Voting Machines

Extra checks on voting machines rejected

Staff and agencies
04 December, 2006

By STEPHEN MANNING, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

GAITHERSBURG, Md. - A federal advisory panel on Monday rejected a recommendation that states use only voting machines that produced results that could be independently verified.

The failed resolution, proposed by Ronald Rivest, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer scientist and panel member, closely mirrored a report released last week warning that paperless electronic voting machines are vulnerable to errors and fraud and cannot be made secure.

"They should be longer-range goals," said Britain Williams of the National Association of Election Directors. "You are talking about basically a reinstallation of the entire voting system hardware."

Some panel members worried that the systems with audit trails could present problems of their own, including printer errors. Others said it was unclear whether paper records could be used by voters who are blind or have other disabilities.

That could lead to a scenario where you have "got an election result that is wrong and you have no evidence to show that it‘s wrong," he said.

The paperless voting machines are essentially laptop computers that allow voters to cast their ballots by touching a screen, and then tally the results. They are widely used across the country.

Protesters demand new election for District 13 congressional seat

Article published Dec 4, 2006

STAFF PHOTOS / ROB MATTSON

Danielle Neetz, second from right, goes over voter statistics with fellow Volusia County resident Jack Wrightington during a rally at Sarasota's Bayfront Park.

External Links

• Special Section: District 13 election

By DOUG SWORD
doug.sword@heraldtribune.com

SARASOTA -- Arguments about ballot design, machine error, statistical probabilities and the like don't sway Bertie Lou Gentile, one of more than 500 people packing Bayfront Park on Sunday calling for a revote in the 13th Congressional District race.

The 77-year-old Nokomis resident has a simple reason for believing that 18,000 people didn't all intentionally skip the congressional race Nov. 7.

"When you get more votes for the hospital board, you know something's wrong," Gentile said.

She was referring to election results showing that fewer people voted in the congressional race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings than in the race for a county hospital board seat.

Gentile and her husband, Don, didn't fit the profile of the "hundreds of outsiders" that the Buchanan campaign said in a press release Saturday would be bused in by liberal special interest groups.

Several groups, though, did bring members to the rally, including People for the American Way, Common Cause and Voter Action, which has filed suit in Tallahassee for a revote. Grass-roots groups from Pinellas County and Miami, which are lobbying for an end to touch-screen voting in their locales, also brought members. But there were also many local Democrats attending the rally.

"We want hope! Give us the revote!" thundered the Rev. Charles McKenzie, the Florida coordinator for the RainbowPUSH Coalition.

The crowd at Bayfront Park joined in -- "Give us the revote!" -- as McKenzie chanted the phrase.

"We cannot stand idly by while 18,000 citizens are victims of massive disenfranchisement," he said.

Rally-goers sported buttons calling for "Paper not Vapor," and waved signs reading, "Honk for a revote," "Revote to Revive our Trust," and "Touch my screen, no one will ever know."

The rally was advertised in 300,000 e-mails to Common Cause members, who can respond and get photos and comments from the demonstration, Chellie Pingree, president of the national group, told the audience.

"What you do today makes a huge difference," Pingree said. "We are here to stand behind you to call for a revote."

Jennings has filed suit asking for a revote or to have the election overturned and for the court to declare her the winner. In a court filing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Charles Stewart said the odds were 5 million to one against such a large undervote occurring by chance.

The Buchanan campaign, though, argues that there is no evidence that electronic voting machines malfunctioned.

While the contested congressional race provided the spark for the rally, Jennings and Buchanan were infrequently mentioned by speakers, who focused on what they called the unreliability of voting systems that don't provide a voter-verified paper ballot.

;The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush'

Bush Nuts

Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable?

By Andy Bromage

November 23 2006

A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.

Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.

“Yes it was a legitimate study but these data were mined after the fact,” Rakfeldt says. “You can ask new questions of the data. I haven’t looked at” Lohse’s conclusions regarding Bush, Rakfeldt says.

“That doesn’t make it illegitimate, it just wasn’t part of the original project.”

For his part, Lohse is a self-described “Reagan revolution fanatic” but said that W. is just “beyond the pale.” ●

abromage@newhavenadvocate.com

Copyright © 2006, New Haven Advocate

http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story