ACORN

[Anonymous]

Funny, the issues with ACORN haven't even been brought up on this board.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the issues with ACORN haven't even been brought up on this board.

That's because there are no "real" issues with ACORN. Rather, there is simply a Republican attempt to prevent voter registration and drum up false charges of voter registration fraud.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the issues with ACORN haven't even been brought up on this board.

That's because there are no "real" issues with ACORN. Rather, there is simply a Republican attempt to prevent voter registration and drum up false charges of voter registration fraud.

What? Are you kidding me? When the voter registrar from some Missouri county shows on camera 12 different voter registrations with the same name, same signature, 12 different DOBs and SSNs this is a Republican voter suppression attempt. When the Ohio ACORN states on the record "We cannot control these fraud activities" this too is a Republican conspiracy.

Honestly, to think that Democrats are all peace and love and Republicans are all greedy and racist is the height of ignorance IMO. Please, neither are perfect.

However, I am not surprised by the lack of honest discussion on ACORN here - in fact I expected it.

[Anonymous]

I completely agree with the PP.

Jeff, you're usually mostly sometimes accurate about most things political...Im surprised at your response to this.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you're usually mostly sometimes accurate about most things political...Im surprised at your response to this.

ACORN turns in thousands of registrations (possibly hundreds of thousands). Does anyone expect each and every one to be perfect? No way. Yes, out of all the registrations, they found 12 bad ones. If registrations collected by any other organization were subject to similar scrutiny, the results would be similar. ACORN is being targeted because of Republican pressure and very tenuous ties to Obama (he once defended them in court). This is simply another campaign tactic by people who no they have no chance to win a legitimate election.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't that speak to the broader veracity of the voter registration initiatives?

This wouldn't be so bad except it seems to be systemic across different states.

[Anonymous]

I read that it was hundreds not just twelve

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read that it was hundreds not just twelve

Absolutely right. The FBI has investigations open in Ohio, Missouri and Nevada that I know of from the news last night.

If you pay people based on the # of registrations that they turn in, don't supervise, SURPRISE! Some portion of the canvas crew will be dishonest, look to maximize this income, and go to town on registrations.

The system IMO is designed to subtly encourage fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I completely agree with the PP.

Jeff, you're usually mostly sometimes accurate about most things political...Im surprised at your response to this.

I too, am surprised that you would defend ACORN. None of the bad press is news to people who have had dealings with them. It's sad really, what started out as a wonderful idea has been corrupted.

[Anonymous]

Instances of voter registration fraud happen all the time. But they are usually the small, contained actions of a few people. I don't particularly like ACORN for my own reasons, but they are not better or worse than any voter registration drive, Republican or Democrat, because they rely upon large groups of individuals taking down names and information from the general public. Any Joe Blow can write something fake down, and it may not even be the organization's employee or volunteer.

The real manipulation racket is in setting the rules for who can register, when they can register, or whether they need to show ID. Because this has a much bigger effect on the voter turnout, this is where the RNC and DNC get heavily involved. If you want veterans to vote, allow registration at every VA facility (go Republicans). If you want young or poor people to vote, sign a motor voter bill (go Democrats). If you want to deny a vote to the homeless, go to court to block them (go Republicans). If you want to prevent military from voting, make it tough to do absentee ballots from abroad (go Democrats). Lastly, if you think people who have been foreclosed on are a threat to you, try to use their foreclosure to revoke their residency and voting rights (go Republicans).

So I agree that manipulation of the voting process is a serious business. But you have to know where the game is played. It's not in the hands of ACORN, but in the hands of the lawyers for the two parties.

[Anonymous]

I live in VA - am moderately conservative, and I think motor voter registration is fabulous! You need ID and residency proof to do it - I am all for it.

And before I get flamed that the people who don't drive are discriminated against, this also applies to state issued ID cards - what you need to fly if you don't have a driver's license.

I wish everyone would get on board with it. My mother, due to declining health, had to surrender her DL and she was immediately issued a state ID card instead. So if your parents are elderly and don't drive any more, they can still vote too.

Paying per registration without supervising the process is an inherently flawed system. It incentives fraud.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you're usually mostly sometimes accurate about most things political...Im surprised at your response to this.

ACORN turns in thousands of registrations (possibly hundreds of thousands). Does anyone expect each and every one to be perfect? No way. Yes, out of all the registrations, they found 12 bad ones. If registrations collected by any other organization were subject to similar scrutiny, the results would be similar. ACORN is being targeted because of Republican pressure and very tenuous ties to Obama (he once defended them in court). This is simply another campaign tactic by people who no they have no chance to win a legitimate election.

Well, I think there's a bit more to the "tenuous ties" than that. I believe Obama provided leadership training to ACORN at one point, and that his campaign provided the organization with some funds to register voters. I'm not sure, though, because the MSM has embargoed this story for many months and no one writes openly about it except the right-wing bloggers (and perhaps some of their publications, though I'm not sure of that). This is simply another case in which the truth is probably not that bad but the campaign, with the help of the media, has kept it out of sight. The few major MSM people I know are not planning to write about it. Do they support Obama? "You betcha." I do too and I think it's essential that he win, but I'm uncomfortable and disappointed with the lack of journalistic ethics the MSM are displaying this campaign cycle.

Stuart Taylor, a Brookings Fellow, recently wrote in National Journal, "I no longer trust the major newspapers or television networks to provide consistently accurate and fair reporting and analysis of all the charges and countercharges. This in an era when the noise produced by highly partisan TV hosts and blogs creates a crying need for at least one newspaper that we can count on to play it straight." While Taylor was referring in large part to the distortions both candidates have been relying on, his central point is a larger one: "The media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis." I think he is right. That bothers me more than anything else this election cycle. The column can be found here:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/print_friendly.php?ID=or_20080920_5368

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Well, I think there's a bit more to the "tenuous ties" than that. I believe Obama provided leadership training to ACORN at one point, and that his campaign provided the organization with some funds to register voters. I'm not sure, though, because the MSM has embargoed this story for many months and no one writes openly about it except the right-wing bloggers (and perhaps some of their publications, though I'm not sure of that).

Its pretty funny to talk about media distortions when your post is full of distortions about which you are "not sure". Obama did not provide leadership training to ACORN. Obama's campaign did not provide funds to ACORN to register voters.

Here is what Obama has to say about his relationship with ACORN:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor

The mainstream media has never hesitated to cover negative information about Obama. I know that this is a fundamental belief of Hillary supporters, but the idea that the MSM is embargoing truthful stories about Obama is simply not true. The right wing has been working overtime to manufacturer stories. Starting with anonymous emails, leading to the right-wing blog echo chamber, then to Drudge, then to Fox News, and finally -- and most disappointingly -- repeated by supposed "Obama supporters".

It is really sad that you will accept the word of right-wing bloggers, but not spend a minute doing your own research about ACORN. Have you even been to ACORN's website to see what it has to say in its own defense? Do you know anything about their procedures? Would it surprise you that ACORN itself informed Nevada election officials about registrations its internal procedures found to be fraudulent?

More importantly, at a time when voters are being disenfranchised in record numbers, is a handful of fraudulent registrations (remember, these aren't even votes, just registrations) really the most important issue?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, I think there's a bit more to the "tenuous ties" than that. I believe Obama provided leadership training to ACORN at one point, and that his campaign provided the organization with some funds to register voters. I'm not sure, though, because the MSM has embargoed this story for many months and no one writes openly about it except the right-wing bloggers (and perhaps some of their publications, though I'm not sure of that).

Its pretty funny to talk about media distortions when your post is full of distortions about which you are "not sure". Obama did not provide leadership training to ACORN. Obama's campaign did not provide funds to ACORN to register voters.

Here is what Obama has to say about his relationship with ACORN:

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor

The mainstream media has never hesitated to cover negative information about Obama. I know that this is a fundamental belief of Hillary supporters, but the idea that the MSM is embargoing truthful stories about Obama is simply not true. The right wing has been working overtime to manufacturer stories. Starting with anonymous emails, leading to the right-wing blog echo chamber, then to Drudge, then to Fox News, and finally -- and most disappointingly -- repeated by supposed "Obama supporters".

It is really sad that you will accept the word of right-wing bloggers, but not spend a minute doing your own research about ACORN. Have you even been to ACORN's website to see what it has to say in its own defense? Do you know anything about their procedures? Would it surprise you that ACORN itself informed Nevada election officials about registrations its internal procedures found to be fraudulent?

More importantly, at a time when voters are being disenfranchised in record numbers, is a handful of fraudulent registrations (remember, these aren't even votes, just registrations) really the most important issue?

I haven't read anything on right-wing blogs about ACORN. All I know about it is what I've been told by MSM friends who are, at this point, deliberately choosing to not publicize this story, or whose editors have made that choice. As usual, you're making a lot of assumptions, some of which are completely wrong. I understand that your black and white views of the candidates (no pun intended) restricts your ability to be objective. The cognitive dissonance would just be too much. As for your perception that the media have always happily covered negative material about Obama, I guess we'll just have to disagree. No reporters I know agree with you, and studies consistently show that he receives far more positive coverage than any opponent.

As for ACORN, some of my left-most friends have a son who worked as an organizer for the group for 2 years after finishing his undergraduate degree. I think I know a little bit more about it than you assume.

The bottom line is that Obama is a politician like any other politician. He does have problematic associations, as they all do. He has a history of very left-wing associations that he jettisons as they become too politically difficult for him. He is still the better candidate for president. But I don't have to think he's perfect in order to vote for him, support him, and raise funds for him. 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.

[jsteele]

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.