Establishment Frantically Closes Ranks
to *Try* to Stop Buchanan

Ed Note: This is a copy of a full page ad that ran in New Hampshire prior to their 1996 Primary. Radio ads also ran during the same period.

Suddenly a Champion has arisen in our midst, Patrick J. Buchanan is striding the political world like a colossus, as the Establishment frantically coalesces to try to stop him. It is more than disappointing to see Rush Limbaugh, Alan Keyes, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich and George Will, among others, giving aid and comfort to the Establishment at this decisive moment.

Did anyone notice that CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN have taken the EXACT SAME LINE in hyping the attacks on the Buchanan Campaign this week? . . . just as these same media outlets took the *exact same line of attack* agaisnt his 1993 Convention Cultural War speech on the morning after.

Please take note: these 4 big media outlets--ALL OF THEM--have been uniformly wrong in regard to the polls they have released in this campaign so far. ALL of them said that Buchanan was doing poorly at the time he won Alaska and Louisiana--besting Dole 2 to 1 in Alaska, and effectively delivering a knockout punch to Phil Gramm in Louisiana.

Then, right up until the last minute in Iowa, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN--ALL OF THEM--saturated the airwaves INSISTING that their polls were showing it was a Forbes-Dole race, and that Buchanan was well behind. Then, on the last weekend before Buchanan's tremendous showing in Iowa, when the big networks' very credibility was on the line, ALL OF THEM suddenly said Forbes was dropping like a rock and there was a large group of "undecided."

Now these Big Media outlets--ALL OF THEM--have abandoned Forbes and are subtly pushing Alexander, while simultaneously attacking Buchanan. If one goes by the track record of these Big Media polling "experts" thus far, one might logically conclude that Buchanan is 10 to 15 points ahead in New Hampshire. And we believe he will score a decisive victory over Dole and Alexander IF we can get a fair count.

We challenge CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN to show any physical evidence--outside of their own reports--that Alexander is gaining meaningful support in New Hampshire. Why are his audiences so small and listless, on average, compared to Buchanan's? Can Alexander show that he is received hundreds of thousands in small donations like the Buchanan Campaign has already proven by its filing with the FEC?

It is our considered opinion--and we are entitled to one--that these Big Media outlets are now baselessly hyping Alexander--just as two weeks ago they baselessly hyped Forbes--in hopes of playing a decisive role in the Stop Buchanan effort. Let NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN prove us wrong by doing what they never do: release how they do these incessant polls, what were the questions, who was polled, etc.


Time Magazine Reports NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN Get Their Exit Polls From Same Company!

Now here's the bombshell: In the March 2, 1992 issue of Time magazine, in a side bar trying to explain away why early media reports stated that Bush and Buchanan were running neck and neck in the 1992 New Hampshire primary, we find this sentence (page 22): "Most of the early reports were based on an exit poll of 1,848 people by Voter Research and Surveys, the polling arm of the four major networks."

Later in 1992, Voter Research and Surveys was merged into Voter News Service.

What is Voter News Service (VNS)? VNS is the company in charge of ALL those exit polls and election night projections we hear about on election day. So while the networks have attempted to convey the impression that they are in hot competition with each other to be first with those *incredible*--and we _do_ mean INCREDIBLE--election projections, they have in fact been receiving polling data from the same source--a company they jointly rely upon!

Now try to explain this: At 7:01 PM Central Standard Time--1 minute after the caucuses opened!--the Associated Press sent a newswire (copy on file) to KDTH/KAT FM radio stations in Dubuque, Iowa, as well as thousands of other outlets: "Bob Dole wins Iowa Republican Caucuses." How was it possible for Voter News Service (VNS) to have its field people interview people at enough of the polling places, report the supposedly hundreds of citizen questionaires to VNS headquarters in New York City, and then for the VNS office people to collate the information and turn it over to AP wire service, so that AP could announce an "accurate" projection of the winner--all by one minute after the caucuses started, and clearly before any actual votes had been cast?

You're welcome to exercise an act of blind faith in this "process," but it is our considered opinions--and we do have the right to one--that the whole process is absurd on its face.

Let the record show that another AP wire (on file) announced that with 98% of the vote counted by 11:20PM on Iowa Caucus night (Feb. 12, 1996), the counting was suddenly halted! (Bedtime curfew for the folks at VNS?)

Let the record further show that by Midnight, Sunday, Feb. 18--six full days after the Iowa Caucuses--VNS and the Republican Party of Iowa had still been apparently unable to count the remaining 2% of the precints, and were refusing requests for a release of the final results. Incidentally, everyone in Iowa is still waiting for some of the results from Dubuque and Sioux City, two Buchanan strongholds.

All of which points up the need for everyone to do his or her part to insure a fair count today by following the instructions under ACTION as far as possible. We believe the future of our country is at stake tonight.

WARNING: State Officials, "Establishment" Republican Party Bosses--As Well As ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN with your mysterious Exit Polls and Election Night Projections--Be On Notice--We will be watching you and the vote tabulation on primary election day, Feb. 20!



There is one thing Buchanan Supporters, and all other New Hampshire citizens, can do to insure a fair, honest, and verifialbe vote count in the Feb. 20, 1996 New Hampshire primary:

Teams of Buchanan volunteers, as well as volunteers from every other Presidential Campaign, should show up at each and every one of the 300+ polling places in New Hampshire on Tuesday night at 7 PM. You will find that in small towns representatives of each campaign will be allowed to watch the hand count of the paper ballots by the neighborhood people--before the ballots leave the precint.

New Hampshire deserves credit for having this kind of honest, verifiable election in so many of its venues. However, in some of the polling places, you will find that the *Accuvote* or *Optech* voting systems are being used. Under these systems, the ballots are marked by pencil or marker, and then "read" by some kind of a scanning system, then stored on an "unknowable" computer chip. (In effect, the computer chip is a "black box" into which the neighborhood people cannot look.)

When the polls close at 7 PM, the officials activate the computer chip to print out the "results." At these precints NO HAND COUNT is allowed to double check the computer chips! It is in these "computer chip" precints that Buchanan will--we fear--be cheated out of a well deserved victory. Recount? Yes, but only after the votes have been spirited out of the public's sight for weeks--plenty of time to switch ALL the ballots if necessary, thereby making the computer chip "result" appear to be accurate.

Such effort on the part of dishonest power-mongers is a SMALL price to pay for control of the oval office. We are NOT accusing the local citizens who valiantly help at the polls of any dishonesty. They are to be commended, but few of us, if any, ever check what happens after we go home from the Polls on Election Day.

Action 1: Call the Governor and your Board of Elections today--right now--to insist that they insure a handcount of the ballots to double check the computer chips the precints where those systems are used.

Action 2: Call your candidate's campaign and tell the appropriate person which polling place you and your friends can monitor tonight at 7 PM. *We implore the Buchanan Brigades to especially swing into action.*

Action 3: While monitoring your polling place at 7 PM, determine the answers to the following questions:

a) What precint are you monitoring?

b) How many people voted at the polls that day?

c) How many people cast a write-in ballot that day?

d) Did the officials at your precint allow each campaign represented to witness a handcount of the ballots?

e) What system was used at your precint: Optech, Accuvote, handcount of paper ballots, or some other system?

f) What was the final total for each Presidential candidate?

When you obtain these answers, please mail a copy of your report to:

Citzens for a Fair Vote Count

Richmond, New Hampshire 03470 (address now defunct)

The information you gather will allow us to verify all results and to compare the trends at hand counted precints (a verified result) against those precints that do not allow a hand count in order to double check the computer programming which may be defective, have accidental errors, or been deliberately tampered with (an unverified result).

These measures will insure a fair count for Patrick J. Buchanan, as well as for ALL the other candidates. If a fair count is insured, we believe Buchanan will win handily, which would reflect the incredible enthusiasm of the large crowds wherever he appears--compared to the subdued atmosphere at most Robert Dole and Lamar Alexander events, usually before much, much smaller crowds. We ask everyone to pray daily for Pat and Shelly Buchanan.


You Will Never view TV News Coverage on Election Night The Same Way Again!

While we are not accusing anyone in New Hampshire, rigging elections is the oldest trick in the book. The computer age has moved the potential from retail (one vote stolen at a time) to wholesale (thousands of votes switched in the blink of an eye by accidental--or deliberate--misprograming of the computer). As computer expert Howard J. Strauss of Princeton University said to Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News broadcast (videotape available for viewing) on the eve of the 1988 Presidential election:

"When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It's not a door without locks. It's a house without doors."

The New Yorker Magazine published on Nov. 7, 1988 an article entitled "On the Dangers of Computerized Voting" by Ronnie Dugger which lays bare the problem. (Locate this article at your public library.) The book, "Votescam: The Stealing of America" by Jim & Ken Collier can be obtained by calling 1-800-888-9999. (While we do not necessarily endorse every line of this book, it is must reading if you want more information on the subjects lightly touched upon in this ad).


Fellow Buchanan Brigades:
Do Not Let Anyone Steal This Election!

None of the Presidential Campaigns have been consulted in any way regarding the placement of this ad. This is an independent expenditure to be filed with the Federal Election Commission. None of the Presidential Campaigns bear any responsibility for its contents. Paid for by Citizens for a Fair Vote Count, (address), (name), (title). Start a phone chain to your friends and tell them to read this ad! You can also copy it on an 11 1/2 x 14 in. page and fax it to others, or copy it and pass it out today, especially near the polling places.

Some Buchanan supporters, just as loyal as ourselves, expressed the concern that an ad such as this would play into the hands of the media by allowing them to label this prudent, vigilant effort as "paranoid." If the media even hints that this call for checks and balances on the ballot count is "paranoid" or scrupulous in any way, then that part of the media should be put under public scrutiny and suspicion.

Every worthwhile campaign handbook in history carries a prominent section on the necessity of making every effort to prevent vote fraud on election day. We reference Stephen Shadegg's classic work, "How to Win an Election", published first in 1964. In Chapter 14, entitled, "Don't Let Them Steal it From You", Shadegg admonishes all future campaigns: "This being an imperfect world, populated by imperfect men, it would be naive to expect that man's sinful greed which prompts him to steal, lie, cheat and wage war would be submerged or held in check when the contest is for a political prize...To insure an honest vote and an honest count, observers, supported by all contending factions, should police the activities in the polling place from the moment the doors open until the last ballot is counted."

Back to Archive