I'm sure CBS will defend their position regardless. They will practice the "Big Lie" defense and jam it down the publics throat. The Democrooks and their supporters (CBS) are morally corrupt as much of the major media has become. Thus we can expect no honest actions on their parts.
wow. how did you find on that? nice work! I really think these Democrats (maybe republcians do this too) just get these witnesses and send them around doing their partisan bidding. Thanks to the Internet we can finally call them on it. A while back I was doing research on another 'expert' democratic witness. Remember Prof Lichtman, the Dem 'statistics expert in the Flroida recount?
this is from
http://www.neoperspectives.com/farenheight_911.htm
----
Professor Lichtman, who knows that as a matter of scholarly convention such data should be shared, also declined to provide it. (144)
----
Who is Professor Lichtman? Brief searches yielded some interesting results. He wrote an endorsement on the back of Bill Clinton's recent book, "My Life" (147). During a later redistricting dispute in Florida he was called as the main Democratic witness:
----
The Legislature called two political scientists who challenged the logic and conclusions of the Democrats' top expert witness, Allan Lichtman, the history department chairman at American University. (146)
------
He was also called as a Democratic witness in Arizona:
-------
But the Democrats had a statistics expert of their own. Professor Allan Lichtman, chair of the American University history department, cited studies that show the gap closing and called the year-old Commerce study obsolete. (149)
On January 14th 2004 he gave an interview with CNN:
-----
"Now you have George Bush coming along. His dad tried to get into space and failed. His dad didn't have the vision thing. So here is George Bush. He's not going -- he's now going to prove he has the vision thing that his dad didn't have." (148)
"He he's even going to top Kennedy. He's not just going to the moon, he's going to Mars. The problem is he doesn't want to make it hard. Where is he going to pay for it? Is he going to ask his rich buddies out there in corporate America to pony up and pay what could be a multibillion dollar price tag?" (148)
"What's on the table now won't do it. We needed that $5 trillion surplus that's has gone a glimmering and suddenly become a $500 million deficit." (148)
The other thing is there are lots of other goals that might be more relevant to life here. What about cutting fossil fuels by 50 percent? Or doing something about global warming or fixing up the electric grid? All those questions are going to be asked by George's Bush's critics. (148)
Professor Lichtman has a blog on the History News Network, which is filled with Bush bashing. A recent entry states:
------
Today, a charge by John Kerry that the Bush administration was the most corrupt in American history would also engender widespread skepticism. Yet there is good reason to believe that such a charge is once again correct. (149)
Besides his partisanship, Lichtman also has a personal conflct of interest - his academic reputation. On CNN:
WOODRUFF: Well, whatever the poll numbers are showing these days, history may be on Al Gore's side in his bid for the presidency. Allan Lichtman, dean of history at American University, some years ago, created a system for predicting the outcome of presidential elections. I asked Lichtman to explain the 13 keys to the presidency and what they bode for this year's presidential hopefuls. (150)
WOODRUFF: Now, and you're saying it's been accurate every time you've applied these keys since 1984? (150)
LICHTMAN: That's correct. Well ahead of time, it has predicted the outcome of every election from 1984 to 1996. (150)
WOODRUFF: But having said that, the pluses for Al Gore, you're saying, far out -- or outweigh the negatives? (150)
LICHTMAN: The pluses narrowly outweigh the negatives. That's why Gore is going to win. (150)
-----
In sum, from the brief research I have done it is certainly suspicious that: 1. The commission based it's majority report on hidden research which cannot be replicated (as the work has not been shared). 2. The 'expert witness' who did this research seems to be a partisan Democrat. If the majority commission was truly looking to come clean in their investigations, their actions make little sense. 3. The minority report neglects to mention that Dr. John Lott, their statistician, is clearly a staunch Republican as seen by his website. (151)