October 8-11, 2008
Oct 08 23:19 Biden Whines About Despicable McCain-Palin Campaign Oct 09 03:32 Cindy McCain Criticizes Sen. Obama for Defeatist Iraq Vote Oct 09 10:44 What Type Of America Do YOU Want to Live In? Oct 09 14:08 Obama: "That's My Story & I'm Sticking to It" Oct 10 02:12 ACORN: They're Not Just About Voter Fraud Anymore Oct 10 03:30 Bob Collins' Credibility Crisis Oct 10 14:46 ACORN's Assault on Honest Americans Oct 11 04:08 ACORN Goes On The Record
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Biden Whines About Despicable McCain-Palin Campaign
According to Salena Zito's post , Team Barry sent out an email 'from' Joe Biden that says that Sen. Biden "has heard 'unspeakable' things in this campaign season that are 'deeply offensive smears.' The email then says that McCain-Palin is running a 'dishonorable" campaign and he and Barack are fighting back but they need my help."
Frankly, that comes across as downright whiney. Wimpy fits, too. The email didn't offer specifics on what the McCain-Palin ticket. That didn't stop Ms. Zito from offerening specific examples of Sen. Biden's habitual whopper telling. Here's one such example:
Joe recently told voters he understood the threat posed by Afghan extremists because his helicopter was "forced down" on "the superhighway of terror."Ms. Zito then compared the FMSM's coverage of Sen. Biden's whopper with their coverage of Hillary's Bosnian tall tales:
That super force? Snow.
When Hillary Clinton said this past winter that her plane had enemy fire problems in Bosnia the press had a field day with that whopper, Biden's claim, well, not so much.There's a simple explanation for the differnt coverage Hillary's whopper attracted and Biden's. The FMSM is forced to take sides when it's D vs. D. By that time, the FMSM had picked Obama as their candidate. They were perfectly willing to do whatever they could to 'guarantee' their candidate winning.
Now that it's GOP vs. Dem, the choice is even simpler; they'll willingly hide anything that might destroy their candidate's credibility.
Here's the truth about Biden's Afghan trip:
The truth? Well last winter Biden and fellow senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry were in Afghanistan flying in a helicopter when a snow storm hit, the pilot decided they would be safer on the ground, so that is where they went. A couple of hours later they were picked up by a convoy with U.S. troops.It isn't surprising to anyone who's followed politics to find out that Joe Biden has told a whopper. It's tradition with him. It isn't that surprising that the Agenda Media is suddenly covering these things up.
Just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean it's acceptable. Quite the contrary. It's time that Sen. Biden, Sen. Obama and the Agenda Media are held accountable. It's up to the New Media to do this because it's blatantly obvious that the FMSM isn't interested in holding anyone accountable.
Posted Wednesday, October 8, 2008 11:19 PM
No comments.
Cindy McCain Criticizes Sen. Obama for Defeatist Iraq Vote
When I read this Politico article , the first thing I thought was that I wish her husband had said this during his debate. Here's what I'm referring to:
"The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body let me tell you," Cindy McCain said in introducing the GOP ticket. "I would suggest Sen. Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying."John McCain would've been justified in saying this. Though FactCheck.org says that this is misleading, which is itself misleading. Here's the time that Sen. Obama voted against funding the troops :
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st SessionThis U.S. News & World Report article puts that vote in perfect historical context:
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Concur in House Amdt. to Senate Amdt to H.R.2206 )
Vote Number: 181 Vote Date: May 24, 2007, 08:26 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 )
Measure Title: Making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:
YEAs 80
NAYs 14
Not Voting 6
NAYs ---14
Boxer (D-CA), Burr (R-NC), Clinton (D-NY), Coburn (R-OK), Dodd (D-CT), Enzi (R-WY), Feingold (D-WI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Obama (D-IL), Sanders (I-VT), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha and "supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of US troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself." The legislative strategy "will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with...Bush." The one unknown factor on the planners' mind as they get ready to implement their strategy: "Why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged." Perhaps, as the AP reports, "many rank-and-file" Democrats, "particularly moderate newcomers who rode to Congress on a wave of public discontent about Iraq, are wary of casting any vote that could be construed as ending funding for the mission."This article was written for the Feb. 14, 2007 online edition of U.S. News & World Report. Ninety-nine days later, Barack Obama voted to not fund the troops. Not surprisingly, Hillary voted against it, too. This came at a time when the anti-war fringe organizations were exerting alot of pressure on Democratic politicians to end the war.
As extensive as the pressure was on run of the mill Democratic politicians, it was 100 times more intense on presidential candidates. Sen. Obama felt that pressure. He knew that he didn't stand a chance of getting the nomination against Hillary if he played the same triangulation game that Hillary played.
Put in this context, it's difficult for me to agree with FactCheck's rating Sen. McCain's statement as misleading. It's certainly factual that Sen. Obama voted against funding "just once." It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Obama didn't cast that vote because it was great policy. It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Obama cast that vote because it was imperative if he wanted to take a serious run at the Democrats' presidential nomination.
Democratic politicians can't argue that voting for John Murtha's slow bleed bill was anything but a vote for American defeat in Iraq. Let's remember that winning wasn't Rep. Murtha's priority. Rep. Murtha's highest priority was for Democrats to stay on the right side of the anti-war wing of their party.
One last thing must be pointed out, too. Joe Biden said during the vice presidential debate that the vote that John McCain took was essentially the same as the vote Barack Obama took. That's pure nonsense. John McCain voted for the only plan that could've stabilized Iraq. Sen. Obama voted for a bill that would've guaranteed instability in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
That isn't taking the same vote. Sen. McCain's vote was the total opposite of Sen. Obama's vote.
Posted Thursday, October 9, 2008 3:33 AM
No comments.
What Type Of America Do YOU Want to Live In?
The first thing that popped into my head after seeing the latest McCain-Palin video, appropriately titled "Ayers", goes straight to the point. What type of America do you want to live in? Here's the video:
Though the video is a relatively length 1:40, it barely scratches the surface in terms of the questions that Sen. Obama should be asked. A standard Obama defense is that he was only 8 when Ayers committed these acts of terrorism. That's true but it's an artful dodge. Sen. Obama wasn't 8 when he started working with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Sen. Obama wasn't 8 when Ayers hosted a kickoff fundraiser for Obama in 1995.
We know that Ayers' 'reforms' weren't reforms; they were plans for indoctrinating Chicago's youth. Here's a list of questions I have for that subject:
- What specific projects did Sen. Obama work with Ayers on?
- What was the budget for each of these projects?
- What was the stated goal of these projects?
Let's be clear about something: This isn't about whether a politicians flip-flopped. This is about Sen. Obama's attempt to hide his adult connections to radical indoctrinationists.
There isn't a politician alive who hasn't backtracked from this or that campaign promise. There's lots of politicians that've said no to working with radicals. Taking that a step further, there are lots of politicians that radicals steer clear of because they know that politician wouldn't associate themselves with radicals.
I return to the fact that I want everyone asking themselves after viewing this video is "Is this the type of America I want to live in?" If the Obama/Ayers vision isn't the vision you want to work toward, then it's you obligation to your neighbors, co-workers, family and friends to (a) vote for the McCain-Palin ticket and (b) encourage your neighbors, co-workers, family and friends to vote McCain-Palin, too.
After all, the only thing that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
Posted Thursday, October 9, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment 1 by Freealonzo at 09-Oct-08 11:29 AM
Here's the link that lists all the board members of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Funny it includes democrats, republicans and other movers and shakers of late 1990's Chicago society (including current McCain supporters). I guess they all are terrorists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge#Board_of_Directors
Looking forward to a similar expose on Todd and Sarah Palin's ties to the Alaska Succession movement.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-08 11:37 AM
There's no such thing as Republicans in Chicago. They're just a little to the right of Democrats but they're as tied into the Daley Machine as the Left is.
Obama: "That's My Story & I'm Sticking to It"
This ABC article highlights how Sen. Obama has circled his wagons around the "Ayers did despicable things when I was eight-years-old" mantra. Here's what he said during his interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson:
"I'll repeat again what I've said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois...And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that...I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points."I'll simply repeat the questions I posted here :
- What specific projects did Sen. Obama work with Ayers on?
- What was the budget for each of these projects?
- What was the stated goal of these projects?
"Frankly, you know, Senator McCain ended up lurching from place to place on this issue," he said. "And that, I think, is not the kind of leadership that we're going to need if we're going to be able to guide the economy out of this perilous position."Sen. Obama stayed as far away from that crisis as possible. He didn't lurch "from place to place on this issue" because he avoided dealing with it at all costs. Instead, he did what all great leaders do: He made a bunch of speaches in a bunch of places while avoiding participating in serious negotiations. I'm confident that that isn't a portrait in leadership.
I'd further state that his hands aren't clean in this mess. His relationship with ACORN can't be ignored by thoughtful, truth-seeking people. The Obama News Network isn't interest in seeking the truth. They've avoided seeking the truth like the plague.
If they weren't totally disinterested in seeking the truth, the Agenda Media wouldn't let Sen. Obama get away with being this secretive about his relationship with a terrorist/indoctrinationalist.
Posted Thursday, October 9, 2008 2:08 PM
No comments.
ACORN: They're Not Just About Voter Fraud Anymore
If this report doesn't stun thoughtful people everywhere, then it's safe to say that outrage has died. Here's what the Las Vegas Journal Review is reporting:
State Department of Corrections officials say the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN) was using convicted criminals to conduct registration drives.What guarantee is there that these convicted criminals won't attempt to vote using some of the phoney names that they 'registered'? I certainly won't trust them to do the right thing. Here's the article's closing paragraph:
Corrections officials say they were work release inmates and was brought to their attention at the end of July. At that time corrections officials told organizers to immediately stop using the inmates.
State investigators are looking into whether names on ACORN's voter rolls are fake. The group claimed to have signed up around 80,000 low income Nevada residents.All summer and fall, we've heard that the registration numbers for Democrats have jumped dramatically. With convicted criminals working on voter registration drives, why shouldn't we think that these registration numbers aren't up dramatically in part because of ACORN's activities?
I'd further suggest that state investigators not wonder whether "names on ACORN's voter rolls are fake." I'd rather that they wonder how many "names on ACORN's voter rolls are fake." It isn't a matter of if. It's a matter of how extensive the fraud is.
This Washington Times article speaks volumes about the other corrupting influence ACORN brings to the table:
Mr. Boehner explained yesterday why the influence that ACORN has on politics and policy during these gloomy economic times is not prudent. "Sources of federal funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development or any other agency must be stopped," he said. "Contracting for services between candidates for federal office and ACORN, as Senator [Barack] Obama has done, must end. Now that the taxpayers own Fannie Mae, any funding from Fannie Mae's nonprofit foundation to ACORN must stop."Not only is ACORN in the voter fraud business but they lobbied Congress for the Community Reinvestment Act, which eventually pushed banks into giving sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford them. They did this by pushing the euphemism of affordable housing.
More to the point, Mr. Boehner said: "ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America's economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections, making American voters question the fairness and accuracy of the exercise of their most fundamental right under the Constitution. Now it is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive."
It's time for ACORN to be disbanded and for those members of ACORN that filled out fraudulent voter registration applications be sent to prison. Politicians attempting to protect ACORN should be punished at the ballot box.
It's time that we eliminated this type of corruption because it totally undermines the starting point for democracies.
Posted Friday, October 10, 2008 2:13 AM
No comments.
Bob Collins' Credibility Crisis
MPR's Bob Collins might be facing a credibility crisis soon. Thursday, Larry Schumacher posted something on his Political Quarry blog titled "Bob Collins Hearts Steve Gottwalt?" Here's what caught Larry's attention:
A glossy campaign flier from Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, contains an unusual endorsement. Or does it?Then Larry quotes this from Rep. Gottwalt's lit piece:
I have been impressed with Rep. Steve Gottwalt. He may be, I think, the most articulate speaker in the House. He makes extremely lucid arguments that make you reconsider your position if you disagreed with him in the first place. Seems to be well-liked...I didn't hear a personal slam from him all session. Good addition to the House." -- Bob Collins, Minnesota Public RadioTo make a long story short, Larry emailed Mr. Collins asking if this meant he was endorsing Rep. Gottwalt. Here's Mr. Collins' reply:
"I used to get upset when people would use my stuff out of context in campaign stuff to make it look like an endorsement. In my advanced years, however, my sense of charity now plays a more critical role in my reaction to things. I figure anyone whose campaign needs an out-of-context quote from Bob Collins to gain an edge, probably desperately needs one for a good reason," he said.I didn't think it was likely that Mr. Collins was endorsing Rep. Gottwalt for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, why would endorse anyone who represents a district 50 miles away or more? Secondly, why would a liberal like Mr. Collins endorse a conservative like Rep. Gottwalt?
Those questions aside, let's look at Mr. Collins' statement. He complains that Rep. Gottwalt took his words out of context. First, let's look at what Mr. Collins said about his Senate MVP:
MVP - Senate. Ann Rest. Only Linda Berglin, I think, gives Rest a run for her money. Rest has been the very embodiment of political power. Seven of her bills have already been signed by the governor. Tackles a lot of, if you ask me, boring and technical issues, the kind of things that keep things moving in the state. I wish she'd smile more often, though.That seems like a fairly straightforward statement. Now let's return to Mr. Collins' statement about Rep. Gottwalt. Does Mr. Collins think that the entire statement was taken out of context? Does Mr. Collins think that only parts of the statement is taken out of context? When he says that "anyone whose campaign needs an out-of-context quote from Bob Collins to gain an edge, probably desperately needs one for a good reason", is this Mr. Collins' cheapshotting Rep. Gottwalt?
Considering Collins' past ethical problems, I can't rule it out. Here's what Michael Brodkorb reported about Collins in March, 2006:
Below is my timeline.It appears as though Mr. Collins violated the Terms of Agreement. What gives him that right? I'd like to know if Mr. Collins thinks that he isn't required to abide by the agreement.
##
1. Bob Collins, an employee of MPR, gets a copy of the Party's CD from a colleague Tom Scheck.
"Reporter Tom Scheck just gave me a copy of the CD the Republican Party is mailing out to voters in certain districts." Source: Polinaut
2. To access the presentation on the CD, Bob Collins, an employee of MPR, must have agreed to the "Terms of Agreement" on the CD.
Included in the terms:
"4. You may not use, copy, or modify this Software or materials or any copy, modification, or merged portion, in whole or in part. You may not sublicense, assign, loan, rent, or otherwise transfer this Software to any other person without Our prior written consent. You may not reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, temper with or alter this Software."
3. The "Terms of Agreement" that Bob Collins, an employee of MPR, agreed to specifically states that you may not "decompile" this software, yet Collins asks on his blog "Anybody got a good decompiler?" Source: Polinaut
4. In violation of the "Terms of Agreement" on the CD, Bob Collins, an employee of MPR, works with someone to decompile the CD.
Whatever he thinks, Mr. Collins' actions are reprehensible. I almost said that he's a disgrace to the profession of journalism before catching myself. Jounralism has sunk to such a low that it's almost impossible to sink it much further.
Posted Friday, October 10, 2008 3:30 AM
Comment 1 by Bob Collins at 10-Oct-08 03:36 PM
Unfortunately, for those of us who make our living blogging, you've singlehandedly -- well, actually you're not alone at all -- displayed why we'll never be taken seriously no matter how hard we try.
You've printed your version of reality without bothering to check whether any of it was true. It's the same mistake that Brodkorb made when he printed his version.
There's more to informing people then doing a Google search and then just guessing... or -- worse -- manipulating the presentation to support your version of reality.
I appreciate your sending me an email this afternoon (to which I replied), however I have to ask: Why did you wait 12 hours AFTER your printed your distorted view of reality?
And you think *I* have a credibility crisis?
For the record, what you've quoted was not, in fact, my response to the question the St. Cloud Times asked me. It was my "afterthought" to the question the St. Cloud Times asked me, which they didn't print.
Second, you accuse me of being a liberal. In fact, there's no such proof that that is the case, as -- had the St. Cloud Times printed my response -- you would've learned.
In fact, I am a typical person. I don't subscribe to a party dogma. There are some things I agree with that Republicans say, and some things I agree that Democrats say.
Long before you were born, perhaps, this was standard among Americans. We would get the facts, weigh them, and then try to come up with our own, usually conflicted, opinions.
For far too long, those who have an allegiance first to their party and then to their country, have worked to create an "us against them" society. Good vs. evil.
In this case, ironically, the very reason I wrote what I wrote about Rep. Gottwalt (which I hope you'll print ) is the very opposite of what I found when I read your blog post.
Here's a bulletin: Minnesotans, and on a wider scale Americans, are good people. Some of them are Republicans, some of them are Democrats. We work hard at our jobs, we raise our kids as best we can, we want the best for everyone -- not just those with whom we agree -- and we can't be pigeonhold into the narrow labels that those who are trying to tear us apart want us all to fit.
I understand why you chose to do it to me personally, without ever contacting me, or --as far as I know -- meeting me or asking me any questions.
But that doesn't mean I think that's a credible and productive way to keep people properly informed.
Comment 2 by Bob Collins at 10-Oct-08 05:28 PM
Here is the actual response I sent to the St. Cloud Times:
Did I just endorse Gottwalt re-election big? Of course not. The post was written before there even WAS a re-election bid. There'd barely been an election. You have to understand: I'm not one of those people who needs to look at everything in the context of being a Republican or a Democrat. I'm sort of and old-school, in-the-middle guy. I like a good argument. I like to learn a little from BOTH sides of the debate. And I almost never agree with the entire philosophy of a given debate and certainly of another candidate.
That's why people like me often feel left out, because the loudest voices in politics automatically assume that if you agree with someone on issue #1`, you agree with them on issue #2-#10.
People like me believe that we don't need more Democrats or more Republicans in office. We need more people who can rise above the name-calling and articulate an argument maturely and insightfully (as opposed to, I guess, incitefully). I don't recall the full text of the article I wrote but I might have mentioned Ray Cox. He was one of those people who did the same thing from the Northfield area. In fact, he did it so well, he upset his own party.
I would also put Rep. Marsha Swails, DFL-Woodbury, into the mix although I didn't select her in '07 because she didn't do that much diretcting of floor debate as Gottwalt did. But, looking back, she did something better. My wife wrote her on an issue for which she held a lot of passion. Rep. Swails then voted the opposite way and sent my wife a four page, single spaced, explanation that was heartfelt, personal, and logical. My wife will vote for her just as long as she runs.
The DFL and GOP STILL doesn't understand why Jesse Ventura got elected. They prefer to just consider him a boob wrestler. But he won the moment he opened his mouth in the first debate because people thought he was talking honestly, even if they disagreed with him, Politicians haven't figured out that people will follow a leader even if they disagree with elements of his platform (if they believe he's not speaking down to them and is speaking honestly).
Now, I'm not saying that Steve Gottwalt is that person. I'm not even saying he's a Marsha Swails. I'm saying for the one session I followed him in the House, he was among legislators on both sides of the aisle who I thought provided some hope that political issues can be intelligently discussed.
Was he the only one? Of course not. But let's just say that of all of Minnesota's problems, one of them is not that we have too many people able to logically and articulately state their positions, then shut up and listen to the other side, so that those of us trying to weigh both sides can do so.
How other people feel about it is entirely up to them.
ACORN's Assault on Honest Americans
Reform is one of the words that make up the acronym ACORN. That's insulting to anyone who thinks things through. If I played a word association game on ACORN, the last word I'd think is reform. It'd be great if ACORN underwent a series of reforms but that isn't likely to happen. CNN is reporting that ACORN is being investigated in Indiana:
More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana's Lake County by a liberal activist group this week have turned out to be bogus, election officials said Thursday.It's long past time for the FBI and other investigative organizations to gather the information necessary to disband this renegade organization. We can't afford to have this type of organization casting doubt on the election system.
The group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, already faces allegations of filing fraudulent voter registrations in Nevada and faces investigations in other states.
And in Lake County, home to the long-depressed steel town of Gary, the bipartisan Elections Board has stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony .
"All the signatures looked exactly the same," Ruthann Hoagland, a Republican on the board. "Everything on the card filled out looks exactly the same."
This isn't the first year that ACORN activists have been investigated for filling out fraudulent registration forms. I've used John Fund's writings several times to highlight ACORN's corruption. Here's what Mr. Fund has written about ACORN:
Local officials refused to accept the registrations because they had been delivered after last year's Oct. 7 registration deadline. Initially, Acorn officials demanded the registrations be accepted and threatened to sue King County (Seattle) officials if they were tossed out. But just after four Acorn registration workers were indicted in Kansas City, Mo., on similar charges of fraud, the group reversed its position and said the registrations should be rejected. But by then, local election workers had had a reason to carefully scrutinize the forms and uncovered the fraud. Of the 1,805 names submitted by Acorn, only nine have been confirmed as valid, and another 34 are still being investigated. The rest, over 97%, were fake.ACORN's workers get paid for each registration they bring in. If an organization cared about eliminating voter registration corruption, they'd eliminate the incentives that tempted these employees into filling out these fraudulent registrations. This isn't the first election cycle ACORN employees have done this, though. We know through John Fund's writings that ACORN was doing this in the 2004 election cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if ACORN has been doing this before that.
It's likely that ACORN isn't interested in eliminating the voter registration fraud. If Democrats thought that ACORN's voter registration drives weren't registering hundreds of thousands of voters, ACORN's usefulness would be limited to threatening banks if that didn't meet ACORN's quota of loans to major credit risks.
Posted Friday, October 10, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment 1 by Freealonzo at 10-Oct-08 03:59 PM
Let's make one thing clear here. The fraud is being perpetuated upon ACORN. They foolishly pay per registered "voter" so these bums are just adding names to the rolls to collect higher fees.
Since these are false names attached to no specific person, the likelihood that someone would show up at a polling station claiming to be one of these fake persons on a list is about as close to nil as possible.
It's fraud in the sense that someone is on the voter rolls who doesn't exist or isn't eligible. However there is no evidence that these illegal names could be used to perpetuate illegal VOTING.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 11-Oct-08 02:21 AM
Freealonzo:
You see that is where people opposing voterid comes into play. A person can claim they are Terrell Owens or Tony Romo in Nevada and if they aren't forced to show ID they can cast a ballot.
Also note while everybody thinks that Terrell Owens is in Dallas there might be a real Terrell Owens in Nevada who has registered to vote and will need to show ID to vote.
But one of the arguments that Democrats have made look at how we have registered voters. Well when 105% of the population in Indianapolis gets registered you're seeing Chicago politics being spread out.
And this isn't just acorn. In 2004 the mayor of Milwaukee protested a horrible act of voter disenfrancishment. What was it? Milwaukee county decided to give just one ballot for every potential voter in the city of Milwaukee. Apparently the mayor didn't think that was enough ballots for the city of Milwaukee. Wow no wonder why Gore won the state. Maybe he got the winning margin illegally from Milwaukee since the city of Milwaukee didn't care who was voting.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
ACORN Goes On The Record
You aren't gonna believe this video. Jamie Colby sat in for Greta van Susteren on Friday night's On the Record. She interviewed Scott Levenson of ACORN. If you watch no other video all weekend, this is the one you'd better not miss. Check this out:
Here's a partial transcript of the conversation:
JAMIE COLBY: There is more breaking news that affects all of us: your vote. For the past few days, we've been reporting about a group called ACORN. Their members hit the streets to register low income voters. The organization is currently under investigation for voter fraud or registration irregularities in at least 13 states.I knew this was a spin job right at the outset. When Mr. Levenson said that "the real story" was that ACORN had registered 1.3 million voters, I knew that the rest of what he said would be of questionable truthfulness. When Mr. Levenson said "We spot, proactively, by ourselves, any questionable voter registration forms and proactively notify the appropriate authorities at the time that we collect it", I felt insulted. That's the biggest pile of BS I've heard in ages.
There also questions that have arisen about Sen. Obama's possible ties to this group. Well, joining us now on the record in exclusively in his first interview is Scott Levenson. Scott Levenson is the national spokesperson for ACORN & Scott, thank you very much for choosing us to talk to us about this.
First of all, tell me about these investigations into ACORN. Every day, we hear new information who can't even remember how many times they were encouraged to register by ACORN representatives.
LEVENSON: Let's talk about what the real story is because it's actually a great story. ACORN, along with Project Vote, registered 1.3 million folks over the last year. We saw record numbers of people interested in and excited about this election in ways that we never saw before. There were poor people and young people participating in this election in ways they never participated in before. That's our mission. Our mission is to enfranchise the disenfranchised and empower the disempowered.
CROSSTALK
COLBY: You have registered alot of voters. I'm not sure you can personally answer but if you can, how many of them are legal voters and have the right to vote? Why just the poor and the disenfranchised because perhaps that benefits one party or antoher or one candidate or another because there are alot of wealthy people who are apathetic and who might not vote? Why don't you do a general get out the vote?
LEVENSON: In fact, we are nonpartisan. We don't ask people about their income level. We don't ask people who they're voting for. We don't ask people what party they belong to when we register them to vote. And we've entered a bit of the silly season in politics. You know, all these stories that have come out over the last week.
COLBY: About raids on your offices.
LEVENSON: But the real story here is because we, by law, are required to hold onto and turn over every single voter registration form that's filled out.
COLBY: And your position is that the election boards and commissions should be responsible for checking out these out and that your job is just to...
LEVENSON: Let me jump in here because it's really important for the public to understand what's gone on here. We spot, proactively, by ourselves, any questionable voter registration forms and proactively notify the appropriate authorities at the time that we collect it. We have been turning over registration forms to the authorities in these states weekly.
CROSSTALK
COLBY: But to do your job properly...
LEVENSON: I'm sorry, just one more point. The timing of this is so curious when we've been turning over these forms and there've been investigations in state after state...
It isn't possible for ACORN to "spot, proactively, by ourselves" "questionable voter registration forms" and "proactively notify the appropriate authorities" if the bipartisan Lake County, Indiana Elections Board spotted 2,100 fraudulent registrations out of the 5,000 registrations ACORN turned into them.
That storyline doesn't fit with the Nevada Secretary of State's investigation into ACORN and their seizing of documents and computers from ACORN's Las Vegas office . Judges aren't in the habit of issuing warrants just on a 'trust me' assurance. They won't issue a search warrant unless law enforcemnt gives them ample documentation.
This is the lamest spin I've heard in ages:
It is difficult for voter registration operations to fully protect themselves against fraud by some of their employees or volunteers, because of the nature of the work they do, Ms. Hayden said.Organizations have supervisory staff. How difficult is it for those supervisors to spot 2,100 voter registrations whose signatures appear to be identical?
"We hire people directly from the communities we serve, and we at ACORN pay them $8 an hour and ask them to collect between 15 and 20 signed voter registration cards in five hours," she said. The problem arises "when you have some lazy people who might choose to sit at a McDonald's and fill out the forms themselves instead of hitting the pavement and collecting good registration signatures from people," Ms. Hayden said.
Thanks to Mr. Levenson's going On The Record and thanks to Jamie Colby's interview skills, we now have video of ACORN's spin. We should always be that fortunate.
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:09 AM
No comments.
