Penn & Schoen's Competing Touch Screen Company

What is the reaction of the Penn company at the moment?

If you aren't aware, on the anti-Chavez side of the blogosphere, the opposition supporters post various conspiracy theories in light of the international recognition of the Chavez victory.  The most noted one is regarding the voting machines used; -- the claim is asserting that the machines have had caps programmed that limit the number of total Si votes (per machine).

That theory, which the opposition leaders are mouthing right now, fits very well with the competing interests of the Penn polling firm.  I wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.

And what an interesting set of answers from a U.S. State Department, in the transcript of today's press briefing, a State Department that has never been a friend of Hugo Chávez, but that continues to admit that the referendum vote was fair and free.

I've got a copy of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 for anyone who can identify the sleazy "reporter" trying to instigate, with falsehoods, a scandal out of nothing...

QUESTION: Venezuela. Thank you.

QUESTION: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: A storm seems to be brewing down there as evidence mounts of a great deal of fraud with electronic voting machines. They have offered to take a sample of one percent of the total of something like 8,000 districts, I think. And this has been refused by the democratic opposition, which is calling this the greatest fraud in Latin American history and pointing to the fact that it will have serious repercussions throughout Latin America. And there's a great outcry. People are saying, "Is the United States going to do what it did, leaving the boys on the beach in Cuba?"

What is the U.S. position? We've seen -- we've seen -- you started out by saying that you were very happy to see the Venezuelans vote; you hope there was transparency. Then you -- I think --

MR. ERELI: Let me characterize the U.S. position. The U.S. position is, as we've said very clearly, that preliminary results from the elections, as reviewed and endorsed by the Friends of Venezuela and the Carter Center and the OAS, indicate that President Chavez received a majority of the votes.

We believe that the -- we called for, at the very beginning, a transparent and constitutional process, and we believe that that's -- that the Venezuelan people have fulfilled that criteria.

At the same time, we note that there are charges of irregularities and that it's important that those charges be addressed in a transparent manner, in a complete manner, in order to demonstrate the credibility of these results.

For that reason, again, as was announced the day before yesterday, the OAS and Carter Center will be conducting an audit of 150 polling stations for the purpose of investigating the accuracy and validity of those charges. That is something that we support, that we think is important, important to validate the results of the elections, and important, moreover, to creating the kind of national reconciliation that is needed for Venezuela to move forward toward ending this political crisis.

We urge the international observers to investigate exhaustively all credible concerns regarding the electoral fraud expressed by the opposition, and we likewise urge all those concerned about possible electoral fraud to present their evidence to the OAS and Carter Center. This is what is needed in order to, I think, reasonably and responsibly address the concerns and resolve them in a way that serves the interests of all Venezuelans.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that evidence has been and continues to be presented to the Carter Center. And I just wonder what you mean when you say that the Venezuelan people fulfilled a transparent election process. They certainly don't think so.

MR. ERELI: Well, our view is that what we called for before these elections was met, which was an environment that allowed Venezuelans to go peacefully to the polls and express their views free of intimidation and harassment.

There were some cases, as we said before, of intimidation that we noted but, overall, we think that the process was credible and met international standards.

QUESTION: Adam, do you understand that what's being claimed is not the count of the votes by the centers, which is, of course, conducted under the government control, but actually the process in the machines, whereby there was manipulation of the results. Now, I --

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry. I understand that there are allegations of fraud and allegations of rigging. I also understand that the international observers who were responsible for observing the elections are taking those concerns seriously and conducting an audit and investigating them and establishing their validity and are going to pronounce on that investigation.

So I would simply say that we are taking the concerns seriously, they are being investigated, and we are awaiting the results of that investigation.

I don't know what more you would -- I don't know what more would be reasonable to call for.

QUESTION: Well, there's a definition of what is transparency.

MR. ERELI: Okay. That's not a debate or discussion that I'm prepared to get into.

QUESTION: Well, it should -- shouldn't it be, according to what you've called for?

MR. ERELI: We believe what we have seen meets the criteria of transparency that we called for.

QUESTION: Adam, a follow-up to this. There is an American polling organization that says their polling at the polls saw that the populace throughout much of the country was counter to what actually occurred following the election, and they've been harassed ever since. Is that above board, or do you want to ask for further investigation?

MR. ERELI: No, I think -- I think we stand by what we said earlier, and what the Friends of Venezuela said earlier, and what a number of others have said earlier, which is that the international observers, the Carter Center and the OAS, have, based on their observations and their work, said that the preliminary results are accurate.

Note that he says that the polling organization is being "harrassed." How is that? Does he mean that the facts about that polling company are finally coming to light?

Who is this guy with a press pass at the State Department briefing session today?