Front Page      Who is Afraid of Trump's Election Observers?

August 24, 2016
by Alexandra Ares
Many people are afraid. Surprisingly (or not) even some key people at The New York Times. 
The New York Times Political and Opinion-Piece Units seem to be run by the political “sister” and “brother” of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: Carolyn Ryan and James Dao. The "grandfather" of the happy family is the distinguished Andrew Rosenthal, and the "Godfather" is, of course, the powerful executive editor Dean Baquet. No wonder that the former Public Editor left, and the new one, after a brave debut seems to have been called to tone it down. (More...) 

Almost every day there is a negative Clinton story spin that is left out, minimized or damaged controlled; there are so many that I would need a team of people like Zerohedge to point them out; and everyday there's a menu of anti-Trump articles exaggerating his sins and of anti-Trump opinion pieces rooted in Onion-style imaginary satirical conversations, or dubious ‘experts’ who dug out the strangest arguments to support their biased premises. Not that I am suggesting that Trump is the saint and Hillary is the sinner, I am not, but the discrepancy in coverage is both the most newsworthy and the most cringe-worthy aspect of this election. 

Most recently, the New York Times reacted with great unease to Trump’s proposal to have observers monitor the November Elections, although it is entirely legal. I don’t recall such unease when the Obama Campaign recruited observers in the last couple of elections.  

In response, the Gray Lady published an op-ed titled “Why Donald Trump’s Observers Are Such a Bad Idea,” by Jon Grinspan, a historian. Any journalist familiar with the New York Times format and concerned with a real debate, would have placed this topic under Room-for-Debate and asked pro and con opinion pieces from experts in current national and international election voting fraud; not a historian making the publicity rounds for a book about elections before the Civil War. 

In the comment section attached to this article, the voice of REPNAH, from Huntsvill, AL stood out: “Wow! Every so often the New York Times Editorial Board writes and selects an op-ed that shows how deeply biased they are. In support of their idea that Trump’s call for observers at the voting section is a bad idea, they find a historian to bring up problem with poll observers 130-180 years ago. And most of the examples cited were pre-civil war. How about we decide whether or not a carbon tax would be a good idea based on experiences from the 1800s? Or maybe we should discuss what worked or didn’t work in 1850 in discussing welfare, food stamps or healthcare policy? How about the Pentagon reviews its documents from 1860 in guidance for its war on terror?

The article is an interesting read for the state of the country in the early years. It has zero…I repeat, it has zero to do with Presidential election in 2016. And the length the New York Times went to portray everything Trump says in as a negative light as possible would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad and dangerous.

New York Times give us the news. Give us your opinions. And if you are trying to conclude that something is a bad idea try to back it up with examples that are less than 150 years old.”

Not by accident, this comment was not picked by the NYT Comments Editors, which points to another unit and point of collusion in the current NYT editorial team. If until last year the readers’ comments  had been largely un-tampered with,  this year we’ve seen how the comments of the readers who are cheer-leading the opinions espoused in the attached articles are quickly approved and then left there for hours to gain traction and votes;  and the opinions of the people who disagree with the published articles are not only rarely or never selected as NYT picks, but also left to wait for many hours before they get approved in a batch of tens or hundreds, so that they’ll pass as unnoticed and as un-voted as possible.

Another (unpicked) NYT reader, Said Ordaz from Manhattan, noted: “We send election observers all over the world to make sure elections go our way. Why is that legal for us to do to others but not here?  If it’s illegal here then we should not do it outside our borders as well.”   

Ar Gydansh from Los Angeles, another (unpicked) NYT comment stated: “I am not sure why anybody would be against election observers by outside monitors. The article describes a time when insiders were doing the observing, and creates a false analogy of what election observing has come to mean. I have to think anyone who comes against a procedure that ensures legitimacy has something to lose from it.”

https://petitions.whitehouse.g   ov//petition/petition-request  - outside-monitoring-2016-us-   presidential-election

Rice Pritchard, in Nashville Tennesse, another (unpicked) NYT reader comments wrote: “Any and every idea of Donald Trump is bad for The New York Times. I have never seen such bias and prejudice against any presidential candidate of any major political parties, ever. However, election observers are a very good idea especially in key states (follows a list of past examples from  1960 to 2000)…So yes, Trump should demand and request neutral observers in any and all states where Bush and Clinton crime families, now allies against Trump, might be stealing the election from him in November. In Ohio Governor Kasich is a sore loser who refuses to endorse Trump. In Florida the Republican establishment pretends to help Trump, while undermining his campaign. Donald Trump is right in calling outside monitors in November election. In fact he should call for U.N. voting monitors as well as from neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland…If Donald Trump wins or loses it should be “fair and square” by a clear majority of voters and electoral votes in a majority of states. Same with Hillary Clinton. Otherwise there could be revolt and violence in the streets of America.”          

And here is the top NYT Picked Comment for the article, which seems taken from DNC's handbook of framing Sanders supporters as violent "Bernie Bros" (as showed in the DNC email leaks) and only replaced the name Sanders with Trump:

Judehroybean in Ohio: "Intimidation by force is a bad idea. And this is what Trump is selling by sending his band of white thugs to polling stations." So all the 14 millions of people who voted for Trump are "white thugs" and so are any independents or democrats who will vote for him or volunteer to be observers. This is the (false) message The New York Times wants to highlight. It is insidious and ugly. 
If we take a look at various cases of election fraud all over he world, it is almost always conducted by the party in power when it is feeling threatened to lose the election to the opposition; or by an opposition party in a small country with a big international ally interested in a regime change (historically USSR or USA).
In US’s case, for this election cycle, the party in power feeling threatened is the Democratic Party, more exactly its corporate and neocon wing, which is supporting Hillary Clinton; not Sander’s progressive wing. For Hillary Clinton the stakes are particularly high, since she is likely to go to jail unless elected as President, and most people (about 70%) see her negatively, as untrustworthy. In free societies, the first sign of leadership is to be seen as honest and trustworthy, to inspire followers. Here Bernie Sanders fit the bill.  

Politico is right when saying that this is a rather unprecedented measure in the United States – if we forgo the observers for the Obama campaign in the last two elections. However, we live in times of unprecedented corruption, which has been leaked piecemeal by WikiLeaks and various hackers, as the corporate media – owned by six giant, intermingled corporations, which donated to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton – have abandoned their traditional role as watchdogs of democracy and due process and have taken highly partisan roles. 

The Democrats have a candidate who only this year has been the target of an FBI Criminal investigation, of a State Department investigation (both concluded with a negative review), a Judicial Watch investigation that resulted in several lawsuits and the release of additions 14,900 hidden incriminating emails, of the WikiLeaks revelation of DNC’s rigging the primaries to ensure her nomination, and of the embarrassing revelations of Guccifer 2:0. A candidate who is seen as a liar by about 70% of the population, with scores of video montages available on YouTube documenting her public lies. A candidate who didn’t hold an open press conference since December. A candidate who is pushed as the "lesser-evil" and sold as a “defective-compromised-though-  still-good-for-usage product” on the voters, with the help of a staggering 1 billion dollar marketing budget, and also with the help of a friendly media, a friendly government, and a friendly President.

In any corrupt, totalitarian regime election tampering starts when one candidate acts without consequences above the law and has the government, the media, and the big money colluding against the will of the little people.

This is why anyone who would like a fair, clear and undisputed win in November, not a win-at-all-costs whoever that may be, should support peaceful observers, voter identification (like everywhere in Europe) and paper voting instead of hackable machines.
Alexandra Ares is a Romanian-born, New York based author, columnist and filmmaker. She is the editor of Manhattan Chronicles and the author of, most recently, Brand New Americans