© Per Helge Berrefjord
Forlaget Fritt og vilt

Inntil 10 sider kan skrives ut i ett eksemplar til eget bruk. Utskriving/nedlasting av mer enn 10 sider til eget bruk er å betrakte som shareware; tillatelse vil bli tilsendt når
kr. 200 er innbetalt til
giro 1640 20 08087,
Per Helge Berrefjord
Grønsundåsen 55
N-1394 Nesbru

Ved ønske om videredistribusjon, kopiering, linking etc. vennligst klarer denne bruken med berrefjord@vitex.no

OBS: Forlaget selger klassesett av boken til redusert pris.

Bokbestilling

Presidentvalget i USA

21. januar 2001: George W. Bush – også kalt «Dubya» – er tatt i ed som ny president. Denne temasiden lukkes dermed for videre oppdatering. Men dramaet er ikke over. Følg med på Fritt og vilt MAGASINs «DubyaWatch». (Dubya er lokal utale av «W» og Bush-tilhengernes klengenavn på presidenten hvis etternavn assosieres med en tidligere president). Valgoppsummering Innsettingstalen. President George W. Bush holdt sin innsettingstale som ny presiden 20. januar 2001. En studie i nasjonalistisk talekunst. Medienes rolle: Selv en måned etter valget kunne tittelen (på vårt oppslag selve valgdagen) «Gore vinner», likevel vise seg å bli den riktige til slutt. De som fulgte nøye med via nettet fikk dessuten klare indikasjoner på at hvis Bush ble utropt som vinner, så blir det ikke lenge før man får "Watergate" rennende på nytt i amerikansk presse – skulle man tro, dersom amerikansk presse har litt igjen av de talentene som skapte det første Watergate. Når valgsirkuset nå er over, venter alvorligere beskyldninger enn tukling med stemmesedler. FAIR-L"; Nyhetsbrevet "Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Media analysis, critiques and news reports" sendte ut et klart varsel allerede 17. november. Morgenbladets Lasse Midttun leverer en meget god oppsummering av valgskandalen i avisen som kom ut 22. desember. Selv om mye av journalistikken i de store mediene er håpløst nasjonalistisk, og dermed pro "vinneren" Bush, skjer det også ting som peker i retning av det nevnte Watergate. Valganalysen fra vår danske kollega 6. november viste seg ikke helt å holde stikk, men den ga i alle fall et godt innblikk i hvordan valgordningen i USA er. Alle stemmene i Florida skal telles 10. januar 2001: Åtte av USAs største nyhetsmedier har gått sammen om et prosjekt der man skal avdekke hva som ville ha skjedd dersom USAs høyesterett ikke hadde nedlagt forbud mot en oppteling av samtlige stemmer som ble avgitt i Florida. Bush's seier betviles av så mange som 30 prosent av de amerikanske velgere, som mener resultatet ville ha blitt seier til Gore dersom alle stemmene var blitt med i opptellingen. De åtte medieinstutusjonene har engasjert National Opinion Research Center (NORC), som skal undersøke de 180,000 Florida-stemmene som ikke ble med i den avgjørende tellingen. I alt seks millioner stemmer ble avgitt her. På dette grunnlag skal forskningsenteret skrive en raport om hvilket utfall presidentvalget ville hatt dersom alle stemmene var blitt med ved den nyopptelling som ble satt igang, men stoppet. Prosjektet har fått et budsjett på $500,000. Tre uavhengige grupper ved NORC skal gjøre hver sin grundige opptelling av stemmene som ikke kom med i den offisielle Florida-opptellingen. De skal videre llage en database med detaljert beskrivelse av det man finer på hver enkelt stemmeseddel. Blant oppdragsgiverne som skal betale undersøkelsen er The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, CNN og Associated Press. Kilde: Yahoo / Reuters Massemediene i USA er en underholdningsindustri, med svært få «fjerde statsmakt-medarbeidere» igjen i første rekke, påker FAIR-L i en oppsummering 22.desember 2000: Media Lovefest for Gore, Bush and Centrism 22-12-200. The end of the presidential race has produced one thing media can virtually all agree on: The time for fighting is over. Reporters like Tim Russert had predicted a potential "political civil war;" when it didn't happen, that seemed reason enough for celebration. Unfortunately, for many reporters the "ceasefire" in the ballot battle signaled an end to tough reporting as well. The media's bipartisan joy was overwhelming-- so much so that conservative CNN pundit Tucker Carlson (12/14/00) mocked: "The morning after has come, and it's all puppies and lollipops." The day after Gore's concession, Chris Matthews (CNBC, 12/14/00) was more patriotic: "What was good about last night, if you like this country, is that both parties-- the vice president and the new president both agreed on basically ending the war, at least signing an armistice for a while." After Gore's concession, NBC's Tom Brokaw found Bush's acceptance "another graceful speech from the new President-elect talking about the issues, specifically, around which Democrats would have a hard time not uniting." The central issue facing the country after one of the most hotly contested U.S. elections in history, according to the near-endless media repetition, was whether or not any "work" could get done in Washington: "Given that division and the protracted presidential race, can anything be accomplished?" (NBC Nightly News, 12/13/00) Of course, the election raises serious questions about the electoral process, and real differences do exist among elected officials-- that's politics, and political reporters shouldn't be hoping for an end to it, as Time's Eric Pooley (12/25/00) appeared to do when he wrote that "this time there's so much at stake that only [Bush's] most churlish enemies could root against him." "Healing" In that spirit, much of the media saw the close of the presidential campaign as a time to heal wounds and move on; anyone raising critical questions about legitimacy or policy was marginalized. One CNN report (12/14/00) explained that "as the players prepare to write election 2000's final chapter, not everyone wants to close the books"-- illustrated, naturally, with a clip of Jesse Jackson. When Newsweek's Howard Fineman (CNBC, 12/13/00) explained that "Jesse doesn't mean that much in himself," Chris Matthews interrupted: "Would you like to address that letter to him, please, at some point?" If Jackson was criticized for insisting that the problems with the Florida vote were meaningful, Al Gore won instant media approval for his concession. In descriptions that bordered on the absurd, pundits and reporters showered Gore with adoration for "this quiet, beautifully delivered speech in which you were reminded, this is a human struggle" (ABC's Jackie Judd, 12/13/00). NBC's Tim Russert thought Gore struck "the perfect tone.... It was personal and poignant, incredible." CNN's John King marveled at this "great moment in history," while historian Douglas Brinkley reminded viewers that Gore "always has been a great healer." Even conservative pundits could hardly contain themselves: Laura Ingraham, appearing on Fox News Channel (12/13/00), praised Gore: "This was the best speech that I've ever heard Al Gore give. Didn't seem snooty. He seemed like a natural, normal person, and you know, how odd it is that this is the time that we see Al Gore the man." A gracious, defeated Gore was the candidate the media finally praised, but it didn't take long to be reminded why they had less interest in the "other" Gore. As Cokie Roberts explained, "So often during the campaign, when he came on TV, he was annoying. There was nothing annoying about this." Moments later, Roberts gave some indication of what might have annoyed her about Gore-- she seemed to think Gore's campaign strayed too far to the left. Gore "was very instrumental in trying to bring the Democratic Party back to the middle," said Roberts, but "then in this campaign, he seemed to move back." Roberts offered similar advice to Clinton after the 1994 election (11/8/94), urging him to "move to the right, which is the advice that somebody should have given him a long time ago." A similar post-game analysis came from MSNBC's Chris Matthews (12/13/00): "One of the reasons many people-- well, I'm one of them-- who believe that Al Gore didn't roll up the score against Bush and win his own state and everything else was that he ran a negative populist campaign based on resentment, especially class and economic, even ethnic resentment, and that the American people just wanted to tune that out." Matthews seems to have forgotten that Gore won over 300,000 more voters than his closest competitor. The media's post-campaign advice for Gore was similar to some of their advice for president-elect Bush-- namely, that Bush needed to chart a centrist course to be effective. CBS' Bob Schieffer (12/17/00) recommended that Bush resist the more conservative members of the Republican Party and "find a middle ground occupied by friends, allies and-- if I may say so-- most of the American people. It won't be easy, but only from there and with them can he hope to get anything done." Ignoring the "distracting details" In their quest to heal, the media was often eager to forgo tough questions in favor of showing sympathy for the president-elect. After Bush's victory speech, CBS's Bob Schieffer was optimistic: "Let's hope he succeeds. It will be the best thing for the country." (12/13/00) CNN's Candy Crowley declared: "But this is not about politics or even philosophy. This is now about practicality. George Bush will need to move this nation forward. But first, he must pull it together." (12/14/00) Bush's campaign seemed to rely on creating low expectations for the candidate, and the media have done their part to put a positive spin on that strategy. Bush is a "a man of great self-confidence," according to CNN's Crowley, someone who is "not one of those that is threatened by power around him." Time's Walter Isaacson (12/25/00) noted that Bush is "impatient with distracting details," whatever that might mean. Newsweek observed that Bush's hands-off approach dates all the way back to college, where Bush was known to sit in the back of many of his classes. Newsweek explains that such students "sat back and listened, taking in the scene, contributing consensus-building observations from on high." Newsweek adds: "There is a doggedness to him, the willingness of a man only too glad to recognize his limitations and operate accordingly." Given Bush's hostility to "distracting details," his Cabinet choices are crucial, but his early picks have received little critical scrutiny. Naming Colin Powell as secretary of state was widely praised throughout the media. Though many outlets did criticize points in Powell's foreign policy doctrine, certain facts about his record have generally been omitted. For example, Powell played a role in whitewashing atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam, including the My Lai massacre. In response to a soldier's letter describing attacks on civilians by the Americal's 11th Brigade, which included the unit that carried out the My Lai massacre, then-Major Powell replied dismissively in a 12/13/68 memo: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." (For more background, see: http://www.fair.org/extra/9601/powell.html .) According to Newsweek (12/25/00), "Powell's sensitivity to the world's disadvantaged is a theme running throughout his career." That was certainly not true in the case in Vietnam, and it's doubtful it will apply to the U.S. position on sanctions in Iraq, which Powell vowed to "re-energize." Newsweek also offers the president-elect some advice on handling the media: "Start meeting with small groups of reporters. Mix big shots and little, but surprise media with accessibility. Promise that everyone will get his turn. Avoid giant pressure-packed East Room press-conference deals until you're ready." Bush may take Newsweek's advice on handling reporters to heart, but with kid glove media coverage like this, one wonders what he'd need to worry about. Allegations of voting rights violations need investigation 17-11-2000: Since November 7, major media outlets have devoted enormous attention to the aftermath of the presidential election in Florida. But one critical aspect of this story has received relatively little attention: the allegations of a pattern of voting irregularities and discrimination against African-Americans and other minority groups that may violate the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Upon request from major civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Justice Department is deciding whether to pursue a federal investigation into allegations of significant harassment of minority voters in Florida and elsewhere throughout the country. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 makes it illegal to intimidate, threaten, coerce or prevent any individual from exercising his or her right to vote. These are some of the disturbing and highly newsworthy charges that deserve more media attention: --Charles Weaver, publisher of Community Voice, a Fort Myers African American weekly paper, witnessed "intimidation, harassment and apparent illegal activity" at a polling place he visited. ''There were illegal poll watchers, threatening people, telling them, 'I know where you work. You're going to get fired,''' Weaver told the Inter Press Service (11/14/00). The same article reported that Tallahassee police set up traffic checks at the entrance to a polling place in a black neighborhood; that police in Newport News, Va. stopped people at checkpoints; and some black voters were turned away from polls in St. Louis for not having voter registration cards, even though registration cards were not required from white voters. --In an NAACP public hearing held in Miami (C-Span, 11/11/00), Stacy Powers, a former police officer who currently serves as news director for Tampa radio station WTMP, spoke of witnessing numerous voting irregularities in her election day travels through city neighborhoods. Powers testified that she saw people being turned away from several polling places in the black community after being told their names were not on voting lists. When Powers reminded poll workers that an individual can legally sign an affidavit and vote even if their name isn't on an official list, she said, she was ejected from several polling places (Daily News, 11/17/00). -- Miami's Donnise DeSouza testified that she was denied the right to vote after being shuttled to several polling places and told her name was not on the list. When she checked with the elections board the next day, she said, she found her name was in fact on the list. Many other voters were told they'd been dropped from the rolls as convicted felons, even though they had never been arrested, and that names of black college students who registered this summer never showed up on voter lists, according to the NAACP hearings (Daily News, 11/17/00). --According to the New York Times (11/17/00), more than 26,000 ballots were disqualified in the largely Republican area of Duval County-- four times the total in 1996. The Times notes that nearly 9,000 of these ballots were cast in predominately African-American communities around Jacksonville, which registered support for Al Gore over George Bush at a ten-to-one ratio. (The November 17 Daily News places the number of rejected African-American votes in Duval County at more than 12,000, nearly 60 percent of disqualified ballots). --Derek Drake, an editor of the black weekly newspaper Central Florida Advocate, told the London Financial Times (11/16/00) that Haitian Americans and Hispanics, unlike whites, were often asked for two forms of identification. "There was either something of a conspiratorial nature going on or there was mass incompetence," Drake said. In a recent column for the Los Angeles Syndicate (11/12/00), the Reverend Jesse Jackson noted that ballot boxes in black communities went uncounted, voters were turned away after being told there were no ballots left, and Creole speakers were not allowed to assist Haitian immigrants voting for the first time. Such exclusionary voting practices are hardly limited to Florida, or to racial minorities. According to a Federal Election Commission report cited by the Center for an Accessible Society, more than 20,000 U.S. polling places fail to meet the minimal requirements of accessibility, depriving people with disabilities of their fundamental right to vote. (Some of their stories are documented by the Center's magazine, Ragged Edge Online, at http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/1100/1100votestory.htm .) In New York City, Columbia University journalism students reported that citywide voting irregularities included broken ballot booths, the denial of translation assistance and insufficient instructions given to first-time Russian voters hoping to support a write-in candidate, and the transposing of the Chinese characters for "Republican" and "Democrat" on wall posters at polling places and on columns in ballot machines (City Limits Weekly, 11/13/00). As Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News noted (11/17/00), "Congress passed the Voting Rights Act specifically to dismantle the Jim Crow laws -- including poll taxes and literacy tests -- that kept blacks from voting in the South for most of the 20th Century." Major media should investigate the allegations of fraud, harassment, intimidation and voter profiling in Florida and throughout the country, to determine whether or not the 2000 election included civil rights violations akin to latter-day Jim Crow voter discrimination. 6. november 2000: «Min egen, private valg-analyse viser, at Gore er næsten sikker på at blive USA's 43. præsident», skriver min danske journalistkollega Børge Kristensen (6. november - like før amerikanerne i USA gikk til urnene). Han er spesialist på bruk av internettet til reserach (men gikk på noen uforutsette valgminer likevel). Her Børges analyse om morgenen 6. november: Al Gore er bagud i meningsmålinger, men han fører med 4 valgmænd over Bush! Valget vil blive afgjort i 11 "swing states". Samtlige af disse stemte demokratisk ved sidste præsidentvalg. Vi kan meget vel komme i en situation, hvor flest amerikanere støtter Bush - og flest stater støtter Bush, men Gore bliver præsident! Det er rent faktisk Al Gore, der fører lige nu (mandag 6. november): VALGMÆND LIGE NU: - Bush: 216 - Gore: 220 Det er noget sludder, når medierne fokuserer på procenttal i meningsmålingerne. En meningsmåling siger fx, at 49 % vil stemme på Bush, mens 42 % vil stemme på Gore. Men dette er irelevant: Man kan sagtens vinde valget, selvom de fleste amerikanere har stemt på den anden kandidat. Det er ikke vælgerne, der afgør, hvem der skal være præsident - det er staterne! USA er ikke et land; det er en union. Det amerikanske præsidentvalg er stort set afgjort i 39 stater. STATER: - Bush: 26 - Gore: 13 + D.C. Bush fører dog kun i småstater. Ud over sin egen hjemstat (32 valgmænd) har han ikke én eneste stat, hvor der er over 20 valgmænd. Gore er derimod sikker i gigant-stater som California (54) og New York (33). Derfor fører han rent faktisk valget lige nu med 220 mod 216 valgmænd. (Der er naturligvis forskel på, hvordan man definerer en "swing state". Yahoo/Reuters mener, at Bush fører med 209 valgmænd mod Gore's 196). Man skal have 270 valgmænd for at vinde valget. Det er nemmest for Gore at nå op på dette tal: SWING STATES: I 11 stater er der dødt løb. Swing-staterne udgør i alt 103 electoral votes. Gore behøver under halvdelen: 50 - for at afgøre valget. Samtlige disse stater stemte demokratisk ved sidste præsidentvalg! Ved de seneste tre præsidentvalg har disse stater til sammen givet ....: - 25 valgsejre til Demokraterne - 7 valgsejre til Republikanerne SENESTE VALG I SWING-STATES - OG GUVERNØRENS PARTIFARVE: Washington: DDD    Guvernør: D Oregon: DDD    Guvernør: D Nevada: RDD    Guvernør: R New Mexico: RDD    Guvernør: R Minnesota: DDD    Guvernør: [Reform Party] Iowa: DDD    Guvernør: D Missouri: RDD    Guvernør: D Arkansas: RDD    Guvernør: R Tennessee: RDD    Guvernør: R West Virginia: DDD    Guvernør: R Florida: RRD    Guvernør: R Kilde: http://www.newsday.com/campaign/electmap.htm Gore kan nærmest ikke tabe. Erfaringen viser, at tvivlende amerikanere i sidste øjeblik vil hælde til det "regerende" parti, hvis økonmien er god - og til oppositionspartiet, hvis økonomien er dårlig. Skulle nogen være i tvivl, så er den amerikanske økonomi god! 20. januar er jeg derfor sikker på, at det er Gore, der indsættes som USA's næste præsident. Det spændende bliver, om Lieberman kommer ... Den 20. januar er ifølge forfatningen den dag, præsident og vicepræsident skal indsættes. Uheldigvis falder det på en sabbat, hvor Lieberman har religiøst forbud mod at køre bil og bruge elektricitet - fx til mikrofoner! PARTIFARVE I SWINGSTATERNE I forlængelse af min amatør-valganalyse har jeg lige regnet ud, hvordan de registrerede vælgeres partifarve er i swing-staterne: De fleste er registrerede demokratiske vælgere! - I 6 af de omtalte "swing states" registreres vælgere efter partifarve. - I 4 af disse stater er der flest registrerede demokrater. Kun i 1 af disse stater er der fleste registrerede republikanere. I 1 er der nøjagtigt lige mange. Bush skal altså "omvende" flere vælgere end Gore skal for at vinde flertallet i de 11 stater. Endnu en grund til, at det er sandsynligt, at Gore vinder. De 11 swing-stater har tilsammen valgt 11 demokratiske senatorer og 11 republikanske. Close race! Stat for stat - herunder. Kilde: Washingtonpost.com OnPolitics: Races by State http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2000/states/ Florida Registrerede Demokrater 45 % Registrerede Republickanere 40 % Øvrige/ingen parti-registrering 14 % Senators: 1 D, 1 R West Virginia D 63 % R 29 - 8 Senators: 2 D Tennessee: Voters do not register by party Senators: 2 R Arkansas: Voters do not register by party Senators: 1 D, 1 R Iowa: D 32 R 33 - 35 Senators: 1 D, 1 R Missouri: Voters do not register by party Senators: 2 R Minnesota: Voters do not register by party Senators: 1 D, 1 R New Mexico: D 54 R 33 - 14 Senators: 1 D, 1 R Nevada: D 41 R 41 - 14 Senators: 2 D Oregon D 40 R 36 - 21 Senators: 1 D, 1 R Washington State: Voters do not register by party Senators: 1 D, 1 R

Gamle medier må gi tapt: Tramper i klaveret og setter valgordningen i fare 10. november 2000: Flere døgn etter selve valgdagen lever verden fortsatt i uvisshet med hensyn til hvem som vinner presidentvalget i USA. Bare noen få stemmer til eller fra i Florida vil avgjøre om det blir Gore eller Bush. Dermed er jakten igang på uregelmessigheter som kan ha påvirket resultatet på ulovlig eller uetisk vis. Det siste rammer nyhetsmediene hardt. Kjente fjes på skjermen skammer seg og tar selvkritikk, men hva hjelper det? Professor Allan Lichtman, American University - Washington DC om TV-reportasjene valgdagen: ''I've got three words for the networks. Shameless, shameless, shameless...The entertainment culture has engulfed everything. Entertainment, excitement, keeping the viewers appears to have trumped giving accurate information.'' Professor Anthony King ved Essex University i England mener innholdet i sendingene valgdagen har hatt avgjørende betydning: ''The network calls were taking place long before the polls had closed in a very large number of states. Heaven knows how voters might have been influenced by the belief that Al Gore had taken Florida.'' Kilde: BBC News Følg presidentvalget i USA på nettet NB: Nå i ettertid kan disse linkene muligens føre til historisk relevante saker. http://www.newsday.com/campaign/electmap.htm viser electoral votes - i stedet for medienes vås om prosenter. Og når det gjelder resten av nyhetsbildet – Yahoo! slår de tradisjonelle mediene helt av banen: Valgvake: http://news.yahoo.com/election2000/ - hver dag med valg-kartet øverst på forsiden. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Presidential_Election_2000/ - Nyheter, debatt, websites, magasinartikkler, video, lydklipp, vitsetegninger, kandidatliste ... alt sammen på en side. Alle nyhetshistorier har hver gang en av kandidatene nevnes linker - inne i stoffet! - til siste nytt pluss websites om vedkommende: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001105/pl/election_electoral_dc_1.html

 

 

Nettstedet «Den femte statsmakt»

• Nyheter og publiseringshistorikk
• Kapitlene i boka
• Dialogen om bokas innhold
• NOTISER fra dypet, småstoff fra nær og fjern

Følg presidentvalget i USA på nettet – linkene finner du her