ACORN

Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'd rather see all the information about him be out there so there is no reason to claim media bias is influencing the election. I think you would rather not see the information be out there. But you don't feel the same way about Obama's opponents.


Talk about making false assumptions. I have criticized Obama any number of times. I stopped financial contributions to him as a result of his FISA vote. I have no problem getting all the information out there and I posted a link to the NYT story about Ayers myself. What I do have a problem with is unfounded rumors. I was one of the first here to say that the "Bristol is the mother of Palin's baby" rumor was false and not worthy of discussion. You went to great lengths to defend Palin regarding the issue of victims paying for rape kits (despite that there is much more evidence supporting that then the Obama/ACORN story), but have a much different view about this story. Why is that?

If you have specific information about Obama's ties to ACORN, post that information. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in rumor-mongering.


I can't post about it. I don't think it's entirely unfounded rumor, but I haven't done the reporting myself. You're right, though -- I shouldn't be engaging in discussion of it on this board.

The reason I have a different view of this story is simple: I know journalists are sitting on some information and I know they're doing so because of their personal views. If you don't think this happens, you're wrong. Do you remember when the NYT ran a front-page story alleging that John McCain had an "inappropriate relationship" with a lobbyist? The Times ran with that on the basis of significantly less hard information than some journalists have about ACORN. Do you think those journalists would hesitate to run with this story if it were about McCain? Editors and reporters make these decisions every single day. In this election cycle, personal views are making a real difference in the coverage. That's just wrong, okay? My undergraduate degree is in journalism, I worked in journalism for years, and to a certain extent I still do work in the field. This is wrong. The press are not supposed to play the role they are playing in this election. I understand that you don't agree with me. But Stuart Taylor is a widely respected fellow at Brookings and National Journal is as nonpartisan as it gets. If you read his column and you don't agree with his conclusions, I can't say anything to persuade you. Try to understand, though, that I can't see what's happening and not feel that it is ethically acceptable. We are long gone from the days when Ben Bradlee made Woodward and Bernstein examine their personal views to ensure that they weren't engaging in a personal vendetta against Nixon. That simply doesn't happen anymore.

But I concede that you're right on the point you made about me posting here. I shouldn't do it. Point taken.
Anonymous
PP here. Sorry, should read "ethically unacceptable."
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
In this election cycle, personal views are making a real difference in the coverage. That's just wrong, okay? My undergraduate degree is in journalism, I worked in journalism for years, and to a certain extent I still do work in the field. This is wrong. The press are not supposed to play the role they are playing in this election. I understand that you don't agree with me.


I'm not sure why you think I would disagree with your general point. I would disagree that this only happens in Obama's favor. I am extremely upset that the Washington Post found it necessary to publish not one, but two articles (one on the front page) about rumors that Obama is a Muslim. One article did not even bother to point out that the rumors are false. I am sure that you are aware of the controversy surrounding Ron Fournier, the AP's Washington bureau chief who interviewed for a position on McCain's campaign staff and was buddy-buddy with Rove (telling him to "Keep up the fight" in an email). Not surprisingly, Fournier's coverage has been very pro-McCain. This is to say nothing about Fox, which is an entire network that acts like a branch of the RNC.

Frankly, I think the idea that reporters can be unbiased is naive. Of course reporters have biases. The nature of the field, with its emphasis on examining an issue from all sides -- lends itself to liberal thinking. Hence, a great number of reporters are liberals. However, in terms of management, the exact opposite is true. The mind-frame associated with accumulating the wealth necessary to own a major newspaper or television network is more likely found among conservatives (or even worse, corporate owners). Rather than all the play acting we do about "objective media coverage", I prefer if journalists are just open about their biases. Fox News should not bother with the farce of saying its "fair and balanced". Olberman has no pretensions of being objective, though I do think he has pretensions about being more liberal than he really is. I love Rachel Maddow now and I love that she has Pat Buchanan on her show. I don't think you will get BS from either of them.



Anonymous
I don't know about ties between ACORN and Obama but the irregularities with their voter registrations are way beyond the norm. Speaking of bias, I am an unabashed party-line Democrat but this organization has stepped over the line. You don't want to defend them, Jeff.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I don't know about ties between ACORN and Obama but the irregularities with their voter registrations are way beyond the norm. Speaking of bias, I am an unabashed party-line Democrat but this organization has stepped over the line. You don't want to defend them, Jeff.


I don't like ACORN either, but I haven't heard anything that sounds outrageous. What is the count of contested registrations?

If you want outrageous, check out the NYT article on the illegal voter purges. This is scary: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't know about ties between ACORN and Obama but the irregularities with their voter registrations are way beyond the norm. Speaking of bias, I am an unabashed party-line Democrat but this organization has stepped over the line. You don't want to defend them, Jeff.


I don't like ACORN either, but I haven't heard anything that sounds outrageous. What is the count of contested registrations?

If you want outrageous, check out the NYT article on the illegal voter purges. This is scary: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html




How about FBI investigations active in 13 states, including ALL of the battleground states.

From Investors Business Daily today:
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?

For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")

What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.

The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.

Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.


I think most American expect fair and honest elections - not perfect but not gamed either. This reeks of gaming the system, and tarnishes the Obama "Change" brand.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
From Investors Business Daily today:


This article has a lot of misinformation. I can understand why you would not be willing to take my word over that of the Investors Business Daily, but I'll point out the errors anyway:

1) Obama's campaign did not pay $800,000 to ACORN. The campaign paid Citizen Services, Inc. The purpose of the expenditure was misreported, but the recipient was correct;

2) ACORN was not involved in Project Vote when Obama was involved.

The only real involvement Obama has had with ACORN is that he represented them in a lawsuit.

Also, its fair to point out that to the extend ACORN employees have turned in fraudulent registrations, ACORN is the victim. ACORN is required to turn in all signed registrations, even if they are known to be fake. That's the law. If ACORN's employees fake their work, ACORN is paying for fake work and, since it must turn in the registrations anyway, takes the PR and legal hits.

There have been no allegations of attempts to cast fake votes. These are only registrations, not actual votes. If someone registers "Mickey Mouse", it is unlikely that Mickey Mouse will show up to vote.

People really need to get a grip. Obama is not plotting to steal the election. To the contrary, he is up 11 points or so in Gallop's national tracking poll. Obama will win handily. Focusing on ACORN is just part of the McCain strategy to focus on everything except his shallow platform.


Anonymous
Thanks for posting that link. I was going to post something similar proving the Obama campaign's misrepresentation of the ACORN ties, which are real.

I agree Obama will win. But I am disturbed by the media. As a journalist covering the 2004 race, I was frustrated by our right-leaning coverage. I think because nearly all political journalists vote Democratic we were overcompensating. Now in 2008 I see the reverse trend-- an understanding that in 2004 we didn't prove our integrity, so we might as well help our guy!
Anonymous
Weren't some of these Mail In Ballots?
Anonymous
Obama's "fact-checking" website on Thursday: "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." On Monday: "Ok, fine, he was, but they didn't pay him"
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:Obama's "fact-checking" website on Thursday: "Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." On Monday: "Ok, fine, he was, but they didn't pay him"


Yeah, Obama basically attended a meeting four years ago. They decided to call it "training". A community organizer meets with all kinds of people and groups. That's their job. Sitting in on another group's leadership meeting and offering a few words of advice is hardly what most people consider being a trainer. You have to get into some pretty deep semantics and hair-splitting to turn attending a meeting into being a trainer. But, if its all you got for this campaign, go for it.

Editing to add: It turns out that McCain has also attended ACORN events. So, maybe McCain was an ACORN trainer as well.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html


Anonymous
Any comment on today's WSJ editorial? I know the editorial board is conservative, but I'd be surprised if a paper of this stature would be willing to run the risk of a libel suit by including false claims in an editorial.
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:Any comment on today's WSJ editorial? I know the editorial board is conservative, but I'd be surprised if a paper of this stature would be willing to run the risk of a libel suit by including false claims in an editorial.


I hadn't see the editorial until just now. Thanks for pointing it out. The editorial basically takes several unrelated issues, lumps them together, and makes them sound scary. As I said in an earlier post, community organizers work with all kinds of individuals and organizations. Nobody ever claimed that Obama never came into contact with ACORN. Of course he did. He also represented them in a lawsuit. His co-counsel in the case with the US Dept. of Justice -- that well known commie front organization.

The Obama campaign paid Citizen Services, Inc to conduct "get out the vote" activities. "Get out the vote" is not voter registration, and Citizen Services, Inc is not ACORN.

ACORN very likely has a problem with the people it hires to conduct voter registration. If those people turn in false registrations, ACORN is required by law to turn them in. ACORN has itself identified a number of fake registrations and flagged them. In fact, many of the investigations are probably a result of ACORN's own identification of fraudulent registrations.

One line from the WSJ editorial stood out to me:

Acorn uses various affiliated groups to agitate for "a living wage," for "affordable housing," for "tax justice" and union and environmental goals, as well as against school choice and welfare reform.

That's the real issue that Republicans have with ACORN. ACORN works on behalf of the poor and minorities and engages them in the political process. This is not an issue of vote fraud -- no one has even charged that there has been vote fraud. The issue of fraudulent registrations is a red herring. Maybe the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup was fraudulently registered in Nevada, but nobody believes that the Dallas Cowboys were really going to vote in Nevada. McCain said he wanted to turn the page from the economy and this is just one effort to do that.

BTW, enjoy this video of McCain at, gasp, an ACORN event:




Anonymous
jsteele wrote: This is not an issue of vote fraud -- no one has even charged that there has been vote fraud. The issue of fraudulent registrations is a red herring.


Only a red herring until legitimate voters try to exercise their rights at the polls only to find that their registration was not processed due to ACORN/fraudulent registration delays/backlogs.

It is disingenuous to say this is not a vote fraud issue. Maybe we need to use purple dye here in the states to make sure everyone only votes once.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: