Lampley’s description of President Bush’s re-election as the biggest crime in American history is emblematic of the state of liberalism in America.

So what is the biggest crime in the history of the United States?

Most would probably point to the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that took 3,000 lives and launched our war on terrorism.

Some of the older generation might remind us of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 that prompted our entry into World War II.

Others still might not point to a single event but rather to a stain on our history that might not ever entirely be cleansed. The slavery of blacks comes to mind. Ever after their emancipation, blacks were deemed second class citizens for nearly another century.

But according to Jim Lampley, the biggest crime in the history of the United States is not slavery. It is not the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor is it September 11th.

For Lampley, the biggest crime in the history of the United States is the 2004 Presidential Election.

To be exact, the elections themselves were not the crime but rather their outcome.

Lampley, who has been a sportscaster for the past three decades and is probably best known for his coverage of the Olympic Games and for championship boxing on HBO, made his foray into politics this past week with a column on the newly christened website, www.thehuffingtonpost.com (launched by former California gubernatorial candidate, Arianna Huffington). And he did so with a left hook.

Lampley claimed that the election was fraudulent because the odds makers in Las Vegas had favored John Kerry by a 2 to 1 margin. The Vegas book makers based their assessment on exit polls. Lampley writes:

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.

And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil…NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush’s favor. Coincidence? Of course not.

Enter Byron York. The White House correspondent for National Review replied to Lampley’s post and reminded readers that the exit polling was unreliable because of the over sampling of women. York then teased Lampley by questioning the reliability of odds makers in Vegas citing the unexpected outcome of that weekend’s Kentucky Derby:

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted horse racing experts and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that Bellamy Road would win the Derby.

And he most certainly would have, at least if the race had been run fairly and legally. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, with the 50-to-1 Giacomo winning the race, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure on our soil.

Lampley was not amused. He described York’s argument as “typical neocon disingenuity” (whatever that meant) and claimed that his response “proved nothing.”

York responded by citing a report by pollster, Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International. The report indicated that exit polls overestimated support for John Kerry in 26 states and overestimated support for President Bush in four. Notwithstanding this overestimation it made no difference in the projected winner in any of the 50 states.

With the exit poll argument essentially shot to hell, Lampley said that the Mitofsky report was irrelevant. “Make no mistake: my argument is that the final official vote tally is anything but accurate, that it is a product of massive vote fraud carried out through the programming of Diebold voting machines and various other machinations aimed at suppressing, destroying or losing Kerry votes,” Lampley writes.

So the biggest crime in the history of the United States was caused by voting machines and various other machinations rather than exit polls as Lampley first stated. Funny, Lampley did not mention the alleged role of voting machines until his third post.

What should one make of Jim Lampley?

I think Lampley is an excellent sportscaster with an impressive body of work. How many people can make claim to have covered both the Miracle on Ice by the U.S. hockey team at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid and then have witnessed James “Buster” Douglas’ shocking knockout of Mike Tyson in Tokyo almost exactly ten years later? No doubt he could regale the public with having witnessed some of the greatest feats in the history of modern sport.

But Lampley may be overreaching when it comes to analyzing Presidential elections. His prose is something that one might find inside the pages of The Socialist Worker. Perhaps Lampley was struck by an errant blow from a pugilist he was trying to interview.

Or I might not be giving Lampley enough credit. The election took place more than six months ago and look at all the reaction he has received for these posts. Lampley has put up a nice smokescreen.

Quite frankly I don’t believe that Jim Lampley gives a fig about exit polls (or for that matter the reliability of voting machines). What if the Vegas oddsmakers had projected that Bush would be re-elected but Kerry won instead? Would Lampley have written an article calling it the biggest crime in the history of the nation? Not a chance.

Besides, if Lampley really cared about exit polls and the validity of elections why not speak out against the travesty of last summer’s Venezuelan referendum? Exit polling done by Penn Schoen indicated that 58% of the electorate were in favor of recalling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and 42% opposed, yet the official results were the mirror opposite. Why doesn’t Lampley speak out?

Well, one could argue that Lampley lives in the United States and not in Venezuela. Fair enough. But consider the number of Venezuelan athletes that enjoy athletic careers in the United States. There are currently more than 50 Venezuelans who currently play Major League Baseball. Because of their wealth, the players and their families back home are subject to violence. Richard Hildalgo, currently of the Texas Rangers, was shot and wounded after an attempted robbery in 2002. Last year, the mother of Detroit Tigers pitcher Ugueth Urbina was kidnapped and held for ransom. Since Hugo Chavez was elected President in December 1998, kidnapping and murder have increased by 150% and 124%, respectively. Minnesota Twins pitcher Johann Santana, who won the 2004 American League Cy Young Award, told the Washington Post last September, “It worries me. It worries all the Venezuelans that live there. The situation has turned ugly.” Last month, ESPN Sunday Night Baseball showed a clip featuring Santana standing alongside Chavez at a ceremony held in his honor. The pensive look on Santana’s face showed that he wanted to be anywhere except in the company of Chavez.

Lampley is, of course, entitled to his opinion about the election. Yet Lampley can freely express his opinion in opposition to President Bush. The opposition in Venezuela cannot do the same without fear of kidnapping, imprisonment and even murder. Whatever Lampley may think of President Bush he can take comfort in the fact that President Bush will be leaving office on January 20, 2009. The people of Venezuela have no such assurance with Chavez, who is looking like a President for Life with each passing day.

Lampley’s description of President Bush’s re-election as the biggest crime in American history is emblematic of the state of liberalism in America. Lampley, like many liberals, had a beef not with the election process but its outcome. Lampley, like many liberals, simply cannot accept the fact that President Bush was re-elected fair and square. Lampley, like many liberals, cannot fathom that a critical mass of their fellow countrymen proudly support President Bush. Lampley, like many liberals, cannot fathom the thought that there might actually be people who hold opinions that are different from their own. Lampley, like many liberals, are unable to distinguish real tyrants like Chavez from imagined ones. Lampley, like many liberals, is bankrupt and bereft of ideas. If Lampley has a better idea as to how this country should be governed let’s hear it. But instead of putting forth viable alternatives, Lampley and the liberal ilk are content to scream “fraud” and engage President Bush and those who support him with childish name calling. It is this kind of behavior that we are presently witnessing from Senate Democrats (and sadly, a few Republicans) concerning John Bolton and the President’s judicial appointments.

Lampley is no more sophisticated than the Senate Democrats. Come to think of it, Lampley is no more sophisticated than the folks who walked away from Kerry’s “victory” party in Boston’s Copley Square. Those people pushed, shoved, spat and swore at anyone who was wearing a Bush-Cheney ’04 sticker or was chanting, “Four More Years!!!” So much for an exchange of ideas. Lampley may not have physically accosted anyone or used foul language. But like those who awaited a Kerry victory and did not get one, instead of graciously accepting the setback and living to fight another day, Lampley has demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a poor sport.