Long-time readers know that I am always on the lookout for good foreign blogs, especially those written in English. Now, via Brian Maloney at Michelle Malkin’s blog, comes word of a fine Italian blog called Right Nation. Go pay it a visit.
About the evidence regarding a manual recount: in April 2001 a media consortium led by The Miami Herald assessed how various recounts of “undervotes,” which did not register at all, would have affected the outcome. Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore. The third involved a standard that would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear. Since Florida law seemed to require counting such ballots, this standard almost certainly wouldn’t have been used in a statewide recount.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm’s findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
. . . .
The USA TODAY[/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder] study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this [fourth] standard were applied to undervotes. Because of the possibility of mistakes in the study, a three-vote margin is too small to conclude that Gore might have prevailed in an official count using this standard.
According to Krugman, Gore wins in 2 out of 3 scenarios; the third is unrealistic. The Gospel According to Krugman.
According to the actual study, 3 of 4 scenarios had Bush winning — and the fourth, where Gore won by 3 whole votes, was too unreliable to count because of the negligible margin.
Krugman’s prevaricating is, of course, a defense of his recent statement:
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida’s ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
In order to defend this statement in detail, Krugman resorts (as we have seen) to out-and-out misrepresentation of the study of undervotes.
Krugman’s latest column is titled “Don’t Prettify Our History.” How’s about just not lying, Mr. Krugman?
All this comes via the work of Richard Baehr, who provides the above analysis and much more. Baehr also skewers Krugman’s analysis of the overvotes, which (as far as I am aware) are never counted in recounts in any state anyway. But I stopped reading at the analysis of the undervotes. That was enough to conclude that, once again, Krugman is not telling his readers the truth.
If this were the only thing I had ever read by Paul Krugman, it would be enough to conclude that this man has absolutely no regard for the facts. His latest column is a disgrace, and he owes readers an immediate apology for his slipshod and dishonest work.
You will never see one.
UPDATE: Krugman doubles down in the form of a phony correction.
We have a letter to the editor in response to my op-ed on the L.A. Times‘s coverage of Cindy Sheehan. It is so predictable I could have written it myself. I’ll bold the parts that jumped out at me:
Patrick Frey’s misguided efforts to vilify Cindy Sheehan (“Peacenik paper fawns over antiwar mom,” Current, Aug. 21) are about as far off the mark as Michael Ramirez’s grotesque aberration (editorial cartoon, Opinion, Aug. 20) depicting Sheehan as a political dupe. Neither quite understands that though Casey Sheehan marched off to battle voluntarily, and volunteered willingly for a dangerous mission, and although Cindy Sheehan may have attempted to accept this administration’s initial justification for this war, she — like millions of Americans — has seen through the deception. She no longer accepts the ever-changing excuses for remaining in a deceptively justified and mismanaged war that costs innocent lives. Frey and Ramirez should forget about impugning her integrity and ask the hard questions of President Bush.
Two things, Michael Childers from Westminster:
1) My piece was not an effort to “vilify Cindy Sheehan” or “impugn her integrity” but to criticize the L.A. Times‘s coverage of her. To back up my charge that The Times has left out significant information about Sheehan, I had to specify what that information was. To claim that I tried to “vilify” her is to misread my piece, and effectively set up Ms. Sheehan as a figure immune from any negative press. This is exactly the attitude I was arguing against.
2) Rather than accusing others of not quite understanding the Sheehan story, Mr. Childers, perhaps you should read up on it a little more, since you obviously don’t quite understand it yourself. There is no reason to believe that Sheehan ever “attempted to accept” any justification for this war. She has been against it from day one. Didn’t you know that? (And if you did, then why are you pretending otherwise?)
I see no convincing evidence that the president has deliberately tried to deceive me, Mr. Childers — but I see plenty of evidence that our media tries to deceive the citizenry. Do you not care about that?
I suggest reading a news outlet other than the L.A. Times. It might clear up your thinking and leave you better informed.
P.S. You didn’t even give me a new quote for my upcoming testimonials feature.