CNN And FOX Win Error Of The Year Award

It hurts to be wrong…especially if you’re caught and it’s about one of the biggest political stories of the year. But it turns out two of our biggest new networks did get it wrong and they’ve now been picked to be ‘honored’ for such.

CNN and Fox News share the distinction of “Error of the Year” for their simultaneous and mutual mischaracterizations of the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act decision on June 28, 2012, on the individual mandate, both reporting that it had been struck down when it had not. The dubious ‘honor’ bestowed upon them for this catastrophic blunder was made by Poynter’s.org, the website of thePoynter Institute of Journalism, which each year announces their choices for the most egregious media blunders of the year: “The best (and worst) media errors and corrections of 2012.”

The misinformation on the mandate decision was made as both networks jumped on initial reporting coming out of the Court and, without enough facts or follow-up, somehow mangled what they heard into the exact opposite of what was fact. From Poynter:

CNN said it on air, online, by email newsletter, on Twitter. This mistake was platform agnostic, which is one reason why it deserves error of the year status. It’s an example of how an error on a big breaking story can flow quickly, and move seemingly out of control, in a matter of seconds. The SCOTUS error takes the honor, too, because of the high-profile nature of the story, and therefore of the mistakes.

But Poynter went on to explain that Fox was tapped for the “dis-‘honor not only for their misstatements, but also for the disingenuous way in which they adjusted after it became clear what they’d reported was wrong. Unlike CNN, which essentially, and with great chagrin, apologized:

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts initially said that the individual mandate was not a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. CNN reported that fact, but then wrongly reported that therefore the court struck down the mandate as unconstitutional. However, that was not the whole of the Court’s ruling. CNN regrets that it didn’t wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error.

Fox took a different approach, deciding to go with an arrogant dismissal of their own erroneous reporting as “what we knew at the time,” mixed with a dig or two at CNN’s mistake of the same. Fox’s statement (reported by Poynter):

“We gave our viewers the news as it happened. When Justice Roberts said, and we read, that the mandate was not valid under the Commerce clause, we reported it. Bill Hemmer even added, be patient as we work through this. Then when we heard and read, that the mandate could be upheld under the government’s power to tax, we reported that as well—all within two minutes.
“By contrast, one other cable network was unable to get their Supreme Court reporter to the camera, and said as much. Another said it was a big setback for the President. Fox reported the facts, as they came in.”

Jeff Sonderman at Poynter made the point that Fox’s attempt at face-saving actually worked against them on the integrity front and worked to solidify their inclusion in the “Error of the Year” category:

“Fox’s statement says it ‘reported the facts’ when in fact Fox, like CNN, misinterpreted the facts. CNN owned its error when it said it leapt from reporting Roberts’ words to ‘therefore the court struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.’ Fox is saying its interpretation was a fact. Not quite.”

The awards given by Poynter each year are a topic of great anticipation and interest. Their site,www.Poynter.org, is an off-shoot the Poynter Institute, the non-profit school for journalism founded by Nelson Poynter (owner and chairman of the St. Petersburg Times, now the Tampa Bay Times). The school embraces the motto “Democracy needs journalism. Journalism needs Poynter.” [source:Wikipedia] Equally as noble, the tagline at their website is:

“Helps journalists do their jobs better and to serve their communities.”

Given their clear goal to set a higher bar regarding journalistic truth and integrity, Poynter’s award for “Error of the Year” can’t help but come with a certain “gravitas of shame,” now, no doubt, being felt by both CNN and Fox.

Source: .addictinginfo.org

BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A HARD PLACE

President Obama has insisted that a long-term solution to the nation's borrowing limit be included in a deal to avert the automatic spending cuts and tax hikes that will come January 1 if the president and Congress don't reach an agreement. But Republicans have clung to the debt limit as their sole leverage in the negotiations. "The debt limit ought to be used to bring fiscal sanity to Washington, DC," John Boehner said at a press briefing on Thursday.

There are a number of points on which Obama needs to stand firm during the fiscal-cliff negotiations. The new tax rates could decide federal revenue for decades, and the president must hold his ground on increasing the Medicare eligibility age. But the debt limit could prove to be the most important aspect of any deal. The past two years of Obama's presidency have been dominated by a string of crises constructed by congressional Republicans, who've threatened to crash the U.S. economy to achieve their goals. The next four years will fall into the same pattern if he doesn't use the political capital of his recent re-election to remove the GOP's ability to use the debt ceiling as a means to take the government hostage.

Voter Suppression 2013

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When it comes to voter-suppression techniques, Republicans generally maintain a certain pretense, at least in public. They argue that measures such as voter-ID laws aren't about blocking Americans' access to their own elections, but rather, about preventing imaginary fraud. The defense isn't compelling, but GOP officials generally repeat it with a straight face.

Once in a great while, however, a Republican will slip and tell the truth.

Republican campaign consultant Scott Tranter appeared on a panel Monday hosted by the Pew Center on the States to discuss the long lines and voter ID controversies that plagued the 2012 election. In his comments, Tranter seemed to imply that he believed these issues were helpful to Republicans and should be pursued for that reason.

"A lot of us are campaign officials -- or campaign professionals -- and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that's voter ID, sometimes we think that's longer lines -- whatever it may be," Tranter said with a laugh.

In fairness, I have not yet seen the full context, but the Huffington Post talked to Michael McDonald, head of the non-partisan George Mason University Election Project, who was in the room and heard everything Tranter said. Asked how he reacted to Tranter's comments, McDonald said, "I couldn't believe that they were said." He added that those around him shared similar looks, with attendees surprised by what they'd heard.

What's more, note that Tranter, though hardly a household name, is not an obscure, outside-the-establishment figure: his firm did "data consulting" for Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, and he's served as a consultant for John McCain's 2008 campaign and the NRSC.

And according to this Republican campaign professional, Republicans "sometimes" want to make voting more difficult, on purpose, "to help our side" win elections. Tranter said this out loud, on camera, in front of a room full of political professionals.

The next time GOP officials insist their voter-suppression tactics are about nothing more than protecting the integrity of elections, keep Tranter's jaw-dropping candor in mind.

How CNN Misinforms On Climate Change

In a blog highlighting the segment, CNN claims it invited "a pair of experts" to discuss climate change, without noting that Morano has no scientific expertise. The blog says Morano "presented an alternate theory regarding the impact, and concern, associated with carbon dioxide,"ignoring that the vast majority of scientists agree that carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming and that the public should be worried about the impacts of it.

CNN anchor Piers Morgan hosted a "debate" on climate science between Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and professional climate misinformer Marc Morano. As Morano spewed myths about climate change, CNN failed to disclose that he has no scientific training and is paid by an industry-funded organization.

Offering two "viewpoints" about temperature data and suggesting that scientific facts are up for "debate" is misleading in and of itself. During the segment, Morano claimed that we "have gone 16 years without global warming according to UN data." Nye pushed back, saying "This will be the hottest two decades in history, in recorded history. So when you throw around a statement like the UN says it's not the hottest 20 years, I got to disagree with you." But the audience was left unaware that Morano was highlighting a short time period to obscure the overall warming trend, as illustrated by this chart from Skeptical Science:

If the role of the media is to inform its audience, anchors must recognize how people are informed and misinformed. When people are repeatedly exposed to a myth, it becomes more familiar and they are more likely to believe it. By giving Morano a platform to claim that average temperatures have not warmed in nearly 20 years, Morgan enabled him to familiarize CNN's audience with climate myths.

It's not surprising that Morano seized the opportunity to spread confusion about climate change. Morano is paid over $150,000 by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an organization that has received funding from oil companies.* As New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin explained, "industry-funded groups have used the media's tradition of quoting people with competing views to convey a state of confusion even as consensus on warming has built." Morano has promoted extreme attacks on climate scientists and those that accept global warming. His website often publishes the email addresses of scientists, leading to a barrage of hate mail, and he defended a billboard campaign comparing those who accept climate science to the Unabomber, saying it was "edgy."

While Morgan tried to pin down Morano to acknowledge certain facts -- that the earth is warming and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that burning fossil fuels is the major cause of this warming -- Morano seemed to be stuck in an alternate universe, making the on-air exercise a waste of time. Or as Nye concluded at the end of the segment, "We just don't agree on facts. So we aren't getting anywhere."

From MediaMatters.org 

Newt Gingrich on Hillary Clinton

"The Republican party is incapable of competing at that level. First of all, she's very formidable as a person. She's a very competent person. She's married to the most popular Democrat in the country; they both think [it] would be good for her to be president. It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination ... Trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl."

—Newt Gingrich on Hillary Clinton's 2016 chances

Why Hillary Clinton Would Be Strong in 2016 (It’s Not Her Favorability Ratings)

By NATE SILVER

SCALIA'S UNPERSUASIVE ARGUMENT

Republicans are engaged in a bout of soul searching following the calamitous results of the 2012 election. But the party is held back by ideologues who can't get with the times. Take same-sex marriage. The trend lines are clearly against the Republican Party's opposition to marriage equality; young voters overwhelmingly support full marriage rights for LGBT couples and each year the share of the electorate that supports gay rights grows. If the GOP hopes to sell conservatism to younger voters, moderating its stance on same-sex marriage would be a quick and easy fix.

Yet the GOP won't have an easy time severing its homophobic ties. Yesterday, during an event at Princeton, Supreme Court Justice and conservative icon Antonin Scalia didn't mince words in criticizing LGBT rights. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality," Scalia asked before a room of students, "can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" The statement was a response to a question posed by Duncan Hosie, a gay freshman at the university. Unsurprisingly, the justice's answer proved unpersuasive to the room full of Millennials—all Scalia could muster was “I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”

This term, the Supreme Court will hear two cases relating to same-sex marriage. No one is quite sure how swing justice Anthony Kennedy will vote, but few expect any of the four solidly conservative justices to rule in favor of LGBT rights. These two cases may one day be considered as the landmark civil-rights decision of this generation. While the Supreme Court justices themselves might technically be separated from the machinations of party politics, most voters are savvy enough to realize that Scalia and his conservative brethren are Republican icons as much as John Boehner or Mitch McConnell. The GOP's hopes for wooing young voters will be for naught if the party's ideological allies on the Court block marriage rights for gay couples next year. The conservative legal movement, just like conservative elected officials, is on the wrong side of history. The stances they take now will color voter perceptions for decades to come.

Obama To Nominate Sen. Chuck Hagel to Defense

Soon the guessing game will be over. Senior White House officials said Tuesday that President Obama will likely announce his picks for secretaries of state and defense within the next two weeks. On the alleged short list for the top Pentagon spot is none other than former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. According to White House sources, the president is still thinking of nominating embattled U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for secretary of state, but has concerns she would face a tough confirmation battle because of her comments on the Benghazi attack. The White House is still deciding whether it will roll out the new nominations one by one, or wait to announce them all together later this month.

Read it at Reuters

WHY THE GOP JUST CAN'T QUIT THE RIGHT

Republican elites have been pushing the party to moderate its image in order to stave off losses as the national electorate becomes increasingly diverse. But all the preening is unlikely to amount to substantive change. Sure, Republicans can talk about softening their tone against undocumented workers, or agree to hypothetical tax hikes, but when it comes down to it, they are still indebted to the right-wing base.

Take Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. He was among the first Republicans to turn on Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Late last month, he claimed he cared "a lot more about [the country] than I do about Grover Norquist" during a radio interview with a Georgia station. Since then, he's stuck to his rosy bipartisan rhetoric. "I’m very open at home that I’m going to continue to work hard to solve problems because our country’s in trouble, and you can’t do it without Democrats and Republicans working together,” Chambliss said Monday.
The willingness to reach across the aisle could drive Chambliss out of his party. Public Policy Polling ran the numbers and Chambliss looks to be in trouble when he's up for re-election in 2014. The senator dominates the general-election field, but would struggle to win his own party's primary. Just 38 percent of Republicans would like to see him serve another term, compared to 43 percent who would rather send a more conservative senator to Washington. Herman Cain—the erstwhile presidential candidate who loves pizza, has a bizarre obsession with the number 9, and ended his last campaign after allegations of sexual harassment hit the news—trumps Chambliss 50-36 percent among Republican voters.
Perhaps Chambliss will ignore the threat emerging from his rightward flank. But more likely, he'll abandon those thoughts of compromise once a bill comes to a vote. Especially when conservative donors like Brent Bozell keep running to the press with threats against any Republican who dares cave. "The only people who should be funded are those conservatives who don't break their word," Bozell said, "and the primary opponents of the ones who do."

Speaker John Boehner Punishes his GOP opposition

House GOP: Looks like there's been an interesting behind-the-scenes wipeout of some of the most notorious dystopian wreckers who've been a thorn in Speaker John Boehner's side. The GOP Steering Committee has removed Reps. David Schweikert (AZ-06) and Walter Jones (NC-03) from the Financial Services Committee, and Reps. Justin Amash (MI-03) and Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) from the Budget Committee—reportedly all for failing to support their own party with sufficient gusto.

Indeed, Roll Call says that committee members "reviewed a spreadsheet listing each GOP lawmaker and how often he or she had voted with leadership," so it's no surprise to see that this quartet failed to make the cut. Jones has been an occasional gadfly from the left (mostly on foreign policy), but the other three, especially Amash, practically live to give Boehner agita, as I've written about before. Amash has been the biggest offender when it comes to voting against Republican budgetary measures, and renegades like him brought Boehner close to the brink more than once last year.

And you'll also recall that Schweikert defeated fellow Rep. Ben Quayle in a redistricting-induced primary earlier this year. The well-connected Quayle was the favorite of House leaders, and John Boehner went out of his way to fluff him. That led the Club for Growth to threaten Boehner to stay out of the primary—which he did, but in the end, it seems like he'll get the last laugh: It's a pyrrhic victory for the Club if Schweikert gets neutered in terms of committee assignments.

But you have to wonder if this kind of payback will actually succeed in bringing the Club and other conservative meddlers to heel, or if it'll just inspire them to fight the establishment even harder. The Heritage Foundation's action arm is already furious, in particular calling Schweikert's removal "unthinkable," but will it still be worth winning all these primaries if Boehner reduces all their favorites to backbencher status?

I'm going to guess they won't give up, though—these organizations have no purpose except to drive the GOP as far rightward as possible. They are predisposed against ever going along to get along. And that'll just mean that the GOP's intra-party turf wars will continue on their current trend and grow ever nastier, damaging the Republican brand further and occasionally even handing seats over to the Democrats (as we saw in this year's Indiana Senate race). Hey, I'm not complaining.

From Daily KOS

Limbaugh Urges GOP to Jump Off The Cliff

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh encouraged GOP lawmakers to take the existing game of political brinksmanship regarding the fiscal cliff and bring it to its next logical step: Backing out of negotiations with President Barack Obama entirely.

On his program on Thursday, Limbaugh advised Republicans to completely withdraw in order to "find out just how willing [Obama] is to take the country over the cliff."

"The way to handle that, the way to call his bluff on this is to not negotiate with him and leave it up to him what happens," he said. "Very publicly walk away from the talks so that whatever happens vis-à-vis the cliff is perceived to happen -- well, the real point will be to flush Obama out, find out. I would suggest to people who really believe Obama is concerned about his second term and his legacy -- he doesn't want a recession -- the only way to flush that out is to come dangerously close to allowing it all to happen."

(Audio via Media Matters below)

Limbaugh isn't alone in his assessment that Republicans have little to gain from engaging with Obama and Democrats on crafting a deal that would avert the fiscal cliff. Earlier this week, former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich advised congressional Republicans to "back out of all of this negotiating with Obama." And conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer suggested Thursday that they "simply walk away" from the bargaining table.

While Republicans haven't yet heeded this advice, they have repeatedly sounded glib about the lack of progress on finding an agreement.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner presented Obama's proposal to Republicans, outlining a plan with $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade, a new round of stimulus spending and a loosely outlined $400 billion in cuts to entitlement programs to be negotiated next year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly laughed out loud at the blueprint, while other Republicans responded angrily to what was contained in it.

Despite the outrage, the offer was actually presented to them earlier this month by President Barack Obama at the White House, according to a well-placed Democratic source, and confirmed by two GOP sources involved in the talks.

What surprised Republicans wasn't the newest offer, but who delivered it. The original offer, delivered by Obama, simply wasn't taken seriously. Republicans assumed that Obama's initial offer floated to congressional leaders would go like many others he's made in the past, and quickly soften amid staff talks. That seemed to be happening, which left them taken by surpise by Geithner. Acknowledging that Thursday's offer was essentially the same as the one presented by the president, a GOP aide said that White House "staff has been back-channeling flexibility up until now. This was the first time their staff echoed his fantasyland numbers." A second senior GOP aide called Thursday's offer "a more detailed version" of Obama's. "The day after the White House meeting, we gave them our framework. It took them 10 days for them to give us theirs and it didn't reflect any of the conversations we have had since then," he said.

UP With Chris Hayes Podcast Dec. 1st 2012

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

House Dems try to force vote on middle-class tax rates

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday announced Democrats would circulate a discharge petition that if successful would force a House vote to extend tax rates on households with annual income below $250,000.

The Senate has already approved the extension, but Republicans object because they want all of the Bush-era rates to be extended regardless of household income.
The move by Pelosi comes as President Obama has increased public pressure on Republicans to bend on the issue.
Read the story here.

Thousands of workers will be without retirement perks, but 19 Hostess executives will be taking bonuses from a pool of $1.75 million after a federal bankruptcy judge approved the union-opposed plan Thursday. The executives will be overseeing the company’s liquidation, which is “significantly beyond the type of jobs that [they] were doing at the start of this case,” according to the judge. On the bright side, 3,000 other employees will be getting paid beyond their salaries, and Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn declined a bonus for himself.  Read More.... 

Hostess Executives Get Bonuses

Obama's Lunch With Mittens

Mitt Romney has been as elusive as Bigfoot since he lost three weeks ago, blurry photos and all. But on Thursday he emerged from the shadows. After six long years of running for president, Romney finally waltzed into the Oval Office to lunch with re-elected President Obama. Over white turkey chili and Southwestern chicken salad, the two former opponents spoke for an hour. According to a press release from the White House, they discussed "America's leadership in the world and the importance of maintaining that leadership position in the future." And, like true frenemies, "they pledged to stay in touch."

It's hard not to read that shiny, happy description from the White House with skepticism. Their lunch was closed to the press—just the two former rivals chit-chatting with no aides present. We don't know what they talked about, but one can use one's imagination. Which Mitt Romney showed up? The old Massachusetts moderate or the bitter loser? Did he tell the president that Obamacare is the end of Western civilization? Did the president, known for his snark, launch any barbs about presenting Romney gifts? Perhaps Romney apologized for falsely centering his campaign's foreign policy on the fictitious claim that Obama had apologized for America? Or, more likely, the two slurped their soup through strained grins, anxiously checking their watches and counting down the minutes until the political photo-op was done with.

Obama Campaign Polls: How The Internal Data Got It Right

Obama's 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina sat down with Mike Allen at POLITICO's Playbook Breakfast held at The W Hotel on 11/20/12

Summing up the lessons learned from a massive investment in data and technology, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina has a blunt messagefor pollsters: "We spent a whole bunch of time figuring out that American polling is broken."

At a Politico forum on Monday, Messina spoke about the campaign's "three looks at the electorate" that gave him a deeper understanding of "how we were doing, where we were doing it, where we were moving -- which is why I knew that most of the public polls you were seeing were completely ridiculous."

David Simas, the Obama campaign's director of opinion research, provided The Huffington Post with more details about those three sources of polling data:

• Battleground Polls. The Obama campaign never conducted a nationwide survey. For a broad overview of public opinion, it relied on lead pollster Joel Benenson to survey voters across 11 battleground states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) at regular intervals throughout the campaign.

Benenson conducted the aggregated battleground polls once every three weeks during the spring and early summer of 2012, every other week during the late summer, and twice a week for the final two months of the campaign. These surveys were used to test messages and to glean overall strategic guidance, but not to make individual state assessments.

• State Tracking Polls. To gauge the battleground states, the campaign conducted state-specific tracking polls on a similar schedule, shifting to three-day rolling-average tracking in each state after Labor Day, with sample sizes ranging between 500 and 900 likely voters every three days. The surveys were conducted by a team of Democratic pollsters: John Anzalone, Sergio Bendixen (among Latino voters), Cornell Belcher, Diane Feldman, Lisa Grove and Paul Harstad. These surveys helped drive message testing and strategy but also tracked the standings of Obama and Mitt Romney in each state.

• Analytics. Overseen by its internal analytics staff, the campaign also conducted parallel surveys in each state to help create and refine its microtargeting models and to provide far more granular analysis of voter subgroups. These surveys used live interviewers, very large sample sizes and very short questionnaires, which focused on vote preference and strength of support, with no more than a handful of additional substantive questions. During September and October, the campaign completed 8,000 to 9,000 such calls per night.

SCOTT WALKER FIGURES IT OUT

What does a 2016 presidential aspirant do when his state votes Democratic? Rig the next election, of course. Wisconsin didn't turn into the swing state Scott Walker, Mitt Romney and the GOP had wished, with Obama carrying it by more than six percent and Democrat Tammy Baldwin winning an open Senate seat. Walker, the union-busting Koch brothers buddy, has pinpointed the source of the GOP's woes in Wisconsin—its liberal voting laws. "States across the country that have same-day registration have real problems," Walker said over the weekend, "because the vast majority of their states have poll workers who are wonderful volunteers, who work 13-hour days and who in most cases are retirees."

Those senior citizens aren't Walker's real problem, of course—it's Wisconsin's voter-friendly election laws. Since taking office he's been itching to dismantle them. In 2011, Walker signed a bill to implement a photo-ID requirement. The courts eventually overturned the proposal as unconstitutional. Dismantling same-day registration, however, likely wouldn't violate the state constitution—but could prove just as suppressive as a photo-ID law. The eight states with same-day registration have, on average, seven percent higher turnout than the national rate. That's good for little-d-democracy as well as for capitol-D-Democrats, who fare better when more people cast a ballot.
Thanks to Wisconsin's same-day registration policy, more than 70 percent of the state's eligible voters voted this year. But the governor may be able to toss aside the rule. Obama and Baldwin won the statewide races, but thanks to a district map created by Republican lawmakers, the GOP retook control of the state Senate and maintained its majority in the House. Next year, Walker and his allies will have carte blanche to implement their reactionary policies—at least until the next recall.

House GOP Sends Anti-Rice Letter

President Obama hasn’t nominated U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to replace outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yet, but that isn’t stopping Republicans from preemptively protesting.  Ninety-seven House GOP members—who have no say in the confirmation process—sent the president a letter arguing Rice either “willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi affair.” The letter is the latest GOP attempt to block Rice’s nomination, after Sen. John McCain vowed to keep her from the job. Rice has several defenders, who say she based her controversial comments on CIA-vetted intelligence.

READ MORE...

Rush's Dream Journal

Republicans drifted through much of 2012 in trickle-down fantasyland, self-deporting to a mystical world where Mitt Romney's rightward shift during the primary helped their candidate. Election Day shook the party awake, forcing Republicans to reckon with their purity problem. Louisiana Governor and 2016 wannabe Bobby Jindal disavowed Romney's they-just-want-gifts comment all last week, and the Sunday shows featured a barrage of Republicans disparaging the man they had envisioned as president. "We’re in a death spiral with Hispanic voters because of rhetoric around immigration," said Senator Lindsey Graham. "And candidate Romney and the primary dug the hole deeper."

On Meet the Press, GOP strategist Mike Murphy shared the view that "the biggest problem Mitt Romney had was the Republican primary." But Murphy strayed a little too close to the third rail of conservative politics when he said the party shouldn't base its views on "Rush Limbaugh’s dream journal." Rush, of course, never takes a critique lightly. "The Republican primary, as far as [Murphy is] concerned, there were too many conservatives in it saying too many stupid things," Rush said on his radio show this afternoon. He also mocked the claim that his audience—15 million strong—is an unrepresentative slice of America. "Okay, so you people are all white, 65 and over, and you live in the sticks. And you are screwing up the Republican Party, because you are believing what I say. This is their explanation for having lost."

The media and political class quickly embraced that explanation on November 7, and Rockefeller Republicans reappeared shortly thereafter—you know, the conservatives who just want to limit government, not destroy it; who can find a middle ground on immigration reform instead of expelling 12 million people; who don't mind gay marriage, just want it left to the states. But you can't look to the rhetoric of political elites to judge whether the Republican Party will actually change the substance of its policy. That's a decision in the hands of the conservative base: Rush and his 15 million friends who reliably decide GOP primaries. And they seem none too happy about the party's return to moderation.
 

The GOP's credibility gap

By: Jennifer Granholm

The Republican Party is looking for a new identity. And they’re looking, literally, everywhere. At the Republican Governors Association in Las Vegas, former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour was the most … shall we say … direct, proclaiming, “We’ve got to give our political organizational activity a very serious proctology exam. We need to look everywhere.” Lovely. Other Republicans in Vegas echoed Barbour’s comments, though with less colorful language. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell noted that, the party needs to “figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout - all the things that are required to win elections.” Bobby Jindal, who has been all over the airwaves with his suggestions, told reporters at the conference, “We need to stop being a dumb party, and that means more than stop making dumb comments.” I’m loath to give the Republicans advice, but I’d humbly suggest that rather than giving their organization an uncomfortable exam just to change their tone, technology and turnout, they consider changing their ideas. And I’d suggest they start by looking at their position on freedom. The Republican Party has a major credibility gap on that issue. Why? The Republicans are for free enterprise, but not free people. And that is their fundamental problem. Ask any Republican about the party’s core values and they’ll list a bunch of variations of the word, “freedom.” Free enterprise, free markets, free trade, economic freedom, freedom from taxation and regulation … liberty, unchaining the private sector, “Don’t Tread On Me” flags … basically get the government out of the way so private action can flourish. Like a bunch of “Bravehearts,” they just want their “freeeeeeeeeedom!!” But their freedom only applies to businesses, not individuals. For Republicans, it’s businesses that ought to be free of barriers to freely pursue commerce, but citizens must be burdened with barriers to freely exercising their rights, like the right to vote. Businesses must be trusted to act in any way they wish, but women cannot be trusted to make even their own health care decisions. Businesses ought to freely cross global borders to enjoy the global free market, but the tired, poor and hungry who yearn to be free … they’re not free to cross our borders. Business must be free to make contractual agreements, but individuals are not free to contract in marriage to whomever they may love. Businesses must be free to take risks, without regard to the size of the consequences, but individuals cannot be free to engage in personal risk-taking - like using marijuana - regardless of how small and isolated the costs may be. The reason why the GOP will continue to lose elections is because they do not understand that you cannot be the freedom party if you want to regulate the most intimate and sacred of people’s personal lives. Here’s how the demographic groups that the GOP lost hear this two-sided message: We trust business to be free, but we don’t trust you. But you cannot have liberty for only some, without lessening the liberty of all. As you do your existential soul-searching, GOP, listen to the groups you have alienated, the people from whom you have tried to deprive freedom. Minority groups and students want the freedom to vote. Women want reproductive freedom. Gays and lesbians want the freedom to marry for love. Americans with immigrant families want the opportunity for their loved ones to apply for citizenship. You will never be the party of freedom until you embrace freedom in the personal sphere as well. What the GOP must learn is that, to 99 percent of the country, economic freedom without personal freedom is no freedom at all. In short, it’s not how you sell your ideas, it’s the hypocrisy of the ideas themselves. Jennifer Granholm is the former governor of Michigan, serving from 2003 to 2011. She is now host of “The War Room” on Current TV. She is also a visiting public policy and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Follow her on Twitter @JenGranholm

Anonymous Claims to Have Hacked into Karl Rove,Vote Stealing Computer Program

Thus Stopping His Vote-Switching 

As expected, any Romney supporter (with heavy financing), was shocked at the final outcome from November 6th, the night President Obama retained his seat. We have all heard the whining, crying, finger-pointing, foul, and so on and so on. But there were a couple of items which stood out more than others.

We all know that Karl Rove flipped out on FOX News when they announced Obama won Ohio. The video is below if you haven’t seen it. Basically, Rove just could NOT understand what was happening, which is what I expected. Although he did have a very shocked “the sun just rose in the west” look on his face, and that is what surprised me. Even more shocking was hearing many top supporters and chiefs cry that Romney was supposed to win with a landslide. That is NOT what the polls had been showing the entire time.

.

Karl Rove Questions Ohio Call for Obama Victory

These cyber “protectors of what’s right” – who refers to themselves as “The Protectors” – said that they had been following the digital structure of Rove’s operation and of ORCA, a Republican get out the vote software application. After finding open “doors” in the systems, they created a “password protected firewall” called “The Great Oz,” and installed it on servers that Rove planned to use on election night to re-route and change election results “from three states.”

“ORCA Killer” was launched at 10am EST followed by “The Great Oz” at 8pm EST on November 6th. Both sides watched as ORCA crashed and failed throughout Election Day. Rove even mentions computer problems while on FOX News that night. Rove’s computer techs tried 105 times to penetrate “The Great Oz” using different means and passwords.

Is this what happened to Kerry back in 2004 in Ohio when he ran against Bush? A server went down for approximately 90 minutes. When it crashed, Kerry was clearly in the lead. When it finally booted back up, Bush had taken the lead. How? Read on for a theory.

The Ohio Computer Crash in 2004

On the night of 2-3 November, 2004, the computer designated to count Ohio votes was cut out of the loop. Its web address was diverted to a private company in Chattanooga, TN, named SMARTech.

The web redirection on Election Night of 2004 went a step beyond this: Not only did the official website of the Ohio Department of State look just right, but it had the right address: http://election.sos.state.oh.us . Any citizen or press service looking for real time election results from the state of Ohio would have been directed here. In every sense, this SMARTech site became the official vote tabulation for the state of Ohio.

SMARTech leases computer servers to the Republican National Committee, and the 12-digit ISP address to which the Ohio Department of State was diverted for the 2004 vote count falls between two ranges known to be leased to the RNC. This raises the suspicion that it was an RNC computer, impersonating the state of Ohio computer, that performed the official vote tabulation in 2004. This diversion is so unusual (and brazen!) a ruse, that it is inconceivable that it happened without Blackwell’s explicit consent.

Perhaps Anonymous decided that these spoiled rich boys could no longer have their thieving, cheating way any longer. Here is the letter which was supposedly put out by Anonymous explaining how they hacked the hack. LOVE IT!!!  Oh, click on the image to pull up a PDF file.

Here is a warning from Anonymous released before the election. I wonder if Karl saw this and completely dismissed it, or if it never caught his attention.

Anon2Rove

---

References:

Occupy for Accountability: Karl Rove Loses Election After Being Checkmated By Cyber Sleuths?
Democratic Underground: Anonymous Claims It Stopped Karl Rove From Hacking The Election By Hacking ORCA
Democratic Underground: Pivotal Ohio 2004 Vote-Kerry Was Ahead-Then Server Went Down for 90 Minutes-Result-Bush Had Lead!
Wonkette: ANONYMOUS CLAIMS IT STOPPED KARL ROVE FROM HACKING THE ELECTION BY HACKING ORCA, WE THINK