Regular readers know I don’t ordinarily cover the big, sensationalist stories that go viral through the blogosphere, unless I feel I have something to contribute, so I haven’t said much of anything about these shocking videos of ACORN workers advising an undercover “pimp” and “ho” as to how they can get housing, evade taxes and -most repellent- traffic in underage prostitutes brought in from Latin America.
I had incorrectly and naively assumed that given the nature of the relationship between President Obama and ACORN (recall he promised the organization in 2007 that they would have a voice in shaping his policies) the Obama-loving mainstream media would feel obligated to report on these stories.
I should have remembered that Newsweek tried to spike the Monica Lewinsky story before Drudge broke it wide open. I should have known better than to think any story that could possibly besmirch a Democrat president would be disinteresting anathema to the press, or -as the sycophantic ABC Anchor Clown Charlie Gibson has sneered, “maybe this is one you leave to the cable networks.
The mainstream press is trying not to report it. In reporting that the Census Bureau was dissolving the “partnership” with ACORN, the NY Times did not assign a writer to the story, but worked off of an already-vague AP report, to render the story void of all troubling details, and did not mention anything about President Obama or his administration.
As they give the briefest coverage to the Senate GOP’s calls for the IRS to similarly dis-associate from ACORN, most mainstream reports carefully omit any reference to underage prostitution.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Pelosi’s congress has not been able to bring itself to vote on defunding ACORN. 130 House Republicans have signed this letter to President Obama, urging him to halt all taxpayer funding of ACORN.
The press wants to clean this up as much as it possibly can, because they spent all of their credibility on electing this president, and they do not want to see him tainted by association, with this dubious organization.
And why should the president’s name be dragged into this, you ask? Well, recall that as a “community organizer” President Obama helped to train ACORN workers. His stimulus plan included 8.5 Billion dollars for ACORN before the Senate voted to cut all federal funding to the group yesterday afternoon.
You would think at the very least, the press would have a few questions for President Obama on this issue, wouldn’t you? Surprise! They don’t. This story has been ongoing for five days, now, and the president has not said a word about it, and the press has not asked. Cozy.
And it goes without saying, if ACORN was called, oh, I don’t know, TUMBLEWEED, had been associated with, say, President Bush for years and had even benefited from his tutelage, the press would be similarly silent and incurious about this story “best left to the cables.” They would allow Bush the privilege of pretending none of this is happening, and gift him with their silence. Of course.
Doug Ross writes that -can you believe it- Obama’s ongoing website has scrubbed mentions of his association with ACORN. And it seems the Google cache is scrubbed, too.
What a remarkable presidency. History always begins today!
President Obama will be doing Five of the Sabbath Gasbag shows this Sunday, avoiding only Fox News. Do you think David Gregory, George Stephanopoulos or the rest will ask him about any of this? Will Jay Letterman?
So, here we are, the Breitbart crew presents Episode #4 in the Adventures of a Cartoonish Pimp and Ho at ACORN, and this time, the ACORN worker admits – hey, she doesn’t have a problem with killing people, if you can believe her.
Confederate Yankee says ACORN.com is down, the server likely overwhelmed, and he wonders if Mrs. Pelosi thinks they should be defunded, yet.
Ed Morrissey mocks the press for their frank unwillingness to address this story. Writes Ed:
Let’s pose the question this way. If the Federalist Society, which got a heaping helping of demonization during the John Roberts and Samuel Alito confirmation hearings, started giving advice to prospective pimps and hookers on tax evasion and hiding child-prostitution rings, does anyone think that the Charlie Gibsons and the Papers of Record in the US would let that slide to the cable networks? Or would it headline their outlets, complete with a dissection of Federalist Society support for Republicans?
Ace: we, as taxpayers, sure as hell shouldn’t be paying cold hard cash for the amazing advice “just don’t pay your taxes, put your money in a tin can and bury it.”
More:
Charlie Gibson Audio
Gay Patriot: Boxer’s office says “never spoke with her”
Allah: ACORN Murder in CA?
MSNBC’s Norah O’ Donnell: wonders if this is entrapment. Because all those old 60 Minutes undercover stories, they were entrapment, too? Is Breitbart the new Don Hewitt?
Will: The More Obama talks, the less anyone believes him
Riehl: goes slightly unreal
Radio Patriot: things are coming undone
Rich Lowry: ACORN is the EF Hutton of Prostitution
Conor Friedersdorf: Hurrah for Alternative Media
Maura Flynn: Media coverage would be good, but media outrage would be better
Instapundit: Another story getting no coverage
September 15th, 2009 | 6:48 pm | #1
So how exactly is Obama tarnished by association with an organization with thousands of workers just because it has a few bad apples? You say he helped to train ACORN workers? What’s your point, that he trained them to commit voter fraud and other, worse crimes? Otherwise, there is no point, just a charge of guilt by association. Of course his website no longer mentions ACORN. That’s because of blog entries like this.
September 15th, 2009 | 6:53 pm | #2
On top of all the ACORN news, I’ve just been watching the news of Obama singing to his choir (the auto labor union) in some state (can’t remember which) now that he has slapped a 3 year tariff on the Chinese for their tires. Nice way to repay big labor. (Can’t wait until the Chinese retaliate with tariffs of their own so we consumers can pay for Obama’s payoff).
Another item that sure is a bone thrown to media to help them focus on something else is: Bernake (today) saying our economy is in recovery without the needed 2 quarters that the definition of recovery requires. Sure would be nice if Bernake would stick with the true definition of recovery. Why lie? Who are they trying to dupe?
I’m not sure if Obama is Thug-in-Chief or Liar-in-Chief? I may respect the office of Presidency, but I think there is a time that it is necessary to call a spade a spade. I’ve never seen such disdain and sneering condescension towards average American citizens. It’s painful to watch.
I can only have sympathy for the senator who could not contain himself and blurted out, “Liar!” during Obama’s speech last week. I don’t like being lied to either.
Yeah… it’s a lousy day… a lousy week… and lousy year, so far. I’m sick over all the lies, scams, cheats, and thugs in D.C. Thanks for letting me vent.
September 15th, 2009 | 7:01 pm | #3
The utter lack of credibility in our national media is one of the most troubling aspects of the 2008 election and beyond. To tread a maudlin line, the trust is gone. It’s going to take a lot to get it back, and I probably won’t ever go back to watching CNN or reading the New York Times.
I actually argued with my husband, as recently as three years ago, that the NY Times was not a bad paper. I used to so look forward to the weekend edition while I lived in Queens, and its online version was my staple source of news while I lived overseas. Now I absolutely agree with Michelle Malkin that it is fish wrapper at best.
September 15th, 2009 | 7:03 pm | #4
Bobfan writes: “Of course his website no longer mentions ACORN. That’s because of blog entries like this.”
I think that pretty much says it all. Websites aren’t scrubbed when criticism is unfounded.
September 15th, 2009 | 7:08 pm | #5
Bobfan,
You obviously did not see the speech Obama gave to Acorn and SEIU where he said that both groups would be close advisors, right in the room with him, as he developed policy.
Oh, that’s right, his word can’t be trusted, so there really is no connection.
So, you tell me. Was he lying or does he have a close connection to Acorn? If he does, then why scrub his site?
September 15th, 2009 | 7:15 pm | #6
Shannon Love at ChicagoBoyz introduces her blog post on the subject with this:
“Back when I did computer tech support, we had a rule of thumb for evaluating the significance of reports of unusual and previously unreported failures .
* One report of a failure is a fluke.
* Two reports of a failure is a coincidence. It might just be two users making the same error.
* Three reports indicates a pattern of failure that arises from the hardware or software itself.”
Read the whole thing and then decide if the “few-bad-apples” defense is plausible.
September 15th, 2009 | 7:34 pm | #7
[...] this a mighty mess might be an understatement. Sphere: Related [...]
September 15th, 2009 | 7:39 pm | #8
“Because all those old 60 Minutes undercover stories, they were entrapment, too.”
You probably meant Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series for a while back – which ended quite abruptly a year or two ago, I don’t remember why…
September 15th, 2009 | 7:58 pm | #9
Saint Bobfan:
I would not be so quick to use that specific-to- general and very old “bad apple” metaphor when it can so be conveniently extended to things like “spoiled barrels.”
Unfortunately for ACORN, your mindless defense of corruption does not appear to be shared by the Senate.
I don’t know whether you are paid to post or it just comes from some sort of worldview that is based on an understanding of truth as the intensity of belief. Either way, I enjoy reading your comments , even if it is only for the passing curiousity as to why you are always so quick to defend the indefensible. Methinks you could be on a payroll, but then again, I may just be a conspiracy kind of guy.
September 15th, 2009 | 7:59 pm | #10
Uh, his campaign paid a subsidiary of ACORN $800,000.
ACORN and Obama have had direct ties since at least 1992, when he was organizing for Project Vote, which, according to an ACORN official [Toni Foulkes], was in partnership with ACORN. As reported by Stanley Kurtz: “At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns — his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were “old friends,” says Foulkes.”
Not “just guilt by association.”
And for an interesting article on how Catholic moneys have gone to fund Obama and ACORN, see, “The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost: Obama, ACORN, and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development”
9/28/2008 1:38:00 PM By Stephanie Block
[Note, if you are going to put unencoded url's into comments, they're going to end up in the spam filter. See here for an easy tutorial on how to make links -admin]
September 15th, 2009 | 8:04 pm | #11
Sorry, my earlier comment was in reply to Bobfan.
September 15th, 2009 | 8:26 pm | #12
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sistertoldjah and B.A. Rogers. B.A. Rogers said: RT @sistertoldjah Google caches scrubbed of ACORN/Obama refs. Remarkable presidency; history always begins today! http://tinyurl.com/meg52k [...]
September 15th, 2009 | 9:23 pm | #13
[...] Great roundup of reactions at the Anchoress [...]
September 15th, 2009 | 9:52 pm | #14
SjB, Bernanke did not say the economy is in recovery, he said that the recession is very likely over, followed by a “but” with bad news. And yeah, I’m sure Obama told him to say that now to distract from a story only people who hate him and mock him as the Messiah and wouldn’t change their minds if he really walked on water think is a scandal! And your outrage that a politician might not to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth would be touching in an adolescent.
“I think that pretty much says it all. Websites aren’t scrubbed when criticism is unfounded.”
You miss my point. That bit of history is no longer mentioned because people who can’t say how Obama is implicated in a scandal insist he is anyhow.
Rich, see my answer to SjB above. And then please answer my question to our hostess: how is Obama in any way responsible for the behaviour at issue? And even if you want to say that these scandals are not aberrations, that ACORN’s leaders are implicated — note to Jack: I’m not dismising that idea out of hand — where is your evidence that Obama had any knowledge of them when he said these groups would advise him? Because if he didn’t have that knowledge, again, where does the scandal touch him?
Paid to post?? Where do I sign? An awful lot of politics is indfensible, isn’t it? I mean it’s hardly pure. I agree with you all that Obama has fallen short of the truth in all kinds of ways, more than I had hoped, and that disappoints me. But when you saw Alberto Gonzalez fire prosecutors for political reasons and Scooter Libby lie under oath and Dick Cheney say he’s not sorry our interrogators broke American law, did you feel the same revulsion so many here express outright for President Obama? Do you say of George Bush, the man ultimately responsible for these crimes, that his word literally can’t be trusted? My point is that the anger I see here has at least as much partisanship in it as principle.
September 15th, 2009 | 10:13 pm | #15
Bobfan,
I think calling The Anchoress, our hostess, is a good point. It means we are her guests and guests should remember their manners by not trying to start arguments.
If you find that you do not enjoy what the hostess serves and the other guests’ opinions, then you may want to consider going to a party where you like the food and the other guests.
There are oodles of blogs where your opinions would be welcomed. I’m sure you would prefer their company over ours and life is too short to purposely cause discord.
Thanks and best wishes to you.
September 15th, 2009 | 10:21 pm | #16
Bobfan – No one is saying he’s responsible for this particular action, that’s a strawman. What we are saying is that ACORN is a particularly dirty organization that President Obama has been intimately associated with for years, just like Dohrn, Ayers, Wright, etc. To paraphrase Ed Morrissey, if the Federalist Society, which was dragged through the mud during the John Roberts and Samuel Alito hearings, had been advising people on how to dodge taxes and hide child-prostitution rings, do you think the MSM would have covered it?
September 15th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #17
Ok, ACORN has some questionable people in it doing very questionable things….maybe even a lot of questionable people in it doing a lot of questionable things.
And your point is?
Here is how the just made up foolishness works:
I haven’t said much of anything about these shocking videos of ACORN workers advising an undercover “pimp” and “ho” as to how they can get housing, evade taxes and -most repellent- traffic in underage prostitutes brought in from Latin America….And why should the president’s name be dragged into this, you ask? Well, recall that as a “community organizer” President Obama helped to train ACORN workers….You would think at the very least, the press would have a few questions for President Obama on this issue, wouldn’t you? Surprise! They don’t. This story has been ongoing for five days, now, and the president has not said a word about it.
Now this is the real stuff, not just made up. All of it can be verified and certainly the Anchoress thinks, at the very least, that the cozy, cozy press should be asking the President about it all.
Of course, since the President had no known direct connection whatever to the parties of the sting operation I see very little to ask him about it, other than to draw from him the affirmation that tax evasion, housing fraud, and trafficing in teens for immoral purposes are both very bad ideas and highly illegal.
But what happens to it is something like this:
Proud To B Conservative links and says, The Anchoress is taking on ACORN, the MSM, and Obama. She wonders why Obama has not had anything to say about ACORN fraudulently getting housing, evading taxes, and underage human trafficing from Latin America
Now you notice this is not quite true, not quite what our dear Anchoress wondered and not quite the facts that she presents.
Then John Galt Rules links to both the Anchoress and Proud To B Conservative and says, There is reason to think that Obama might have taught ACORN workers how to evade taxes, defraud public housing authorities, and import underage prostitutes from Latin America. Why is he hiding from these issues?
So here we are a little farther from the Anchoress’ clear statements of verifiable fact, since we have heard no evidence at all about what Obama actually did train them to do.
Christian, Conservative and Cranky then has this to say, Valiant bloggers all across the sphere are doing the legwork the MSM refuses to do about Obama’s involvement in evasion of taxes, housing fraud, and human trafficing of teens from Latin America to fill the empty stables of the inner city pimps with more ho’s.
Mistress Mind Your Politics: It stinks. A President pumped up by Leftists as a “community organizer” has used ACORN as a front to evade taxes, launder money, corrupt Bolivian teenagers, and turn public housing in Chicago into well-known houses of ill-fame. It really stinks. We should be thinking about impeachment. If these aren’t “high crimes and misdemeanors” I don’t know what would be.
Stop The Radical Left: It is now a known fact that Obama did money laundering and was a bagman for bribes to the public housing authorities and the Chicago police to turn a blind eye to the prostitution rings operating under the sleazy front of ACORN
Jack of Trades, Ace of Clubs: When, oh when will the slimy Democrats in the Senate and House abandon this criminal-in-chief and allow him to be impeached? I’ll tell you when. When it’s finally hung around their neck at the voting booth.
Robinette Rialto: So this is the list we have [so far] of Obama’s crimes: money laundering, bribery and corruption, procuring, tax evasion, conspiracy to defraud, immigration violations stemming from the further crime of human trafficing from South America, and various racketeering charges indictable under the RICO law.
Of course, at this point the Anchoress links to Rialto as an invaluable and devastating summary of Obama’s high crimes and misdemeanors in the growing scandal that the MSM [conveniently] continues to cover up.
Finally, Glenn Beck on Fox Noise: So what do we have here?…..Is This The Corrupt End Of Racist Obama?
[A long exposition, Joe, but really the BIG running theme of my post was not "the end of racist Obama" (I don't think of him as racist, not could any sane person think this "the end") but basically: where is the press on this; if Bush had half the association with this sort of group, it would SURELY be news, news, news, and he'd be held (unfairly) responsible at least to the point that he'd have to address the actions of these folks. It would be unfair to hold Obama responsible for what they did, but QUITE FAIR to ask him about it. They are all, instead, quite mum. At no point did I suggest that Obama trained these people to do what they did (please don't put words in mouth) I simply said he has had a long association with ACORN. My note about this being TUMBLEWEED stands. If this were Bush, I am sure you'd be telling everyone to be fair about it, and we should be. I am not accusing, have not accused and would not accuse Obama of knowing anything about this matter...but I do expect the damn press to cover it, and cover it with the same verve and passion they would have covered it had the president an R after his name. Call me a dreamer. I hated how the press treated Bush but at least they were shining a light, however unfocused, on the president, which they should do - it is their jobs. And it was preferable to the press' refusal to shine the same light, focused or not, on anything that might create a "difficulty" for Obama, who did -let's face it- make sure there was BILLIONS in the stimulus for Acorn -admin].
September 15th, 2009 | 10:33 pm | #18
Obama surrounds himself, invests himself in, and expresses great appreciation for those with whom he has great affinity.
What we are seeing, at long last, is that his entire youth and adult life have been spent in association with radicals, self-declared communists, and yes, “community organizer” organizations that have at their core, an ethos drawn directly from the dregs of Alinsky… where morality is a convenient fiction for furthering your bigger aims.
He isn’t responsible for the actions of ACORN. He’s responsible for associating with them, encouraging them to destroy what is good and ignore their moral compass, and for funding them to accomplish his end purposes without regard for the immorality of the means used.
Bottom line: Obama is responsible for the corruption his leadership has radically multiplied in our nation.
To whom much is given, much is required.
September 15th, 2009 | 10:38 pm | #19
SjB, our hostess has every right to ban me, but most of the blogs with enabled comments I’ve seen are debate sites. My purpose for posting here is to try to understand her thinking and that of her fans. This is from both intellectual and spiritual curiousity. I want my political views challenged and I want my knowledge base expanded, and I want to understand why many of my fellow Christians hold radically different views. And yes (the thing I’ve been most criticized for), that includes trying to discern if and where some of your views depart from scriptural mandates, but also if and where mine do the same. “Saint Bobfan”? Hardly.
Since I often don’t understand, I post questions and challenges. And I don’t intend offense, but I don’t know how to understand a mind that objects to my doing so as other than complacent.
September 15th, 2009 | 10:49 pm | #20
Walter, yes, the MSM is often partisan. And that is Obama’s fault how?
Yes, Obama has been “intimately” associated with it for years. Why?? Because it represents people who don’t have money and don’t have education and therefore don’t have a voice. Now believe me, many of these folk are not my favorite people, particularly when they drive by my house blasting Kanye West. But here’s the thing: God loves the least of us. And if Obama does too, I’m darn sure not going to blame him when a people who throw in with him on the pretense of serving the needy turn out to have abused them instead. These guys want to traffic them; Obama wants to provide them with health insurance. And the common denominator is????
September 15th, 2009 | 10:52 pm | #21
“I am not accusing, have not accused and would not accuse Obama of knowing anything about this matter…”
acknowledged
“but I do expect the damn press to cover it, and cover it with the same verve and passion they would have covered it had the president an R after his name.”
But why then? Why is it a big story?
[Not repeating myself, Bob, or engaging in your usual passive-aggressive stuff. Read my piece, read my response to Joseph. To suggest that this is a "nothing" story that would not be covered no matter who was president, or to suggest that there is nothing amiss with the reportage is simply intellectual dishonesty. And that will be my only response to you in this thread. Have fun playing dumb with the others, I will not waste my time. -admin]
September 15th, 2009 | 10:56 pm | #22
I’m convinced that at least 25% of media bias and incompetence problems could be remedied if conservatives were better at feeding and even befriending MSM journalists.
Conservative movements are sometimes entirely grassroots affairs. Their leaders do not understand how to navigate the media establishment and how to establish themselves as credible sources.
A partisan effort can rely upon friendly outlets to communicate to its base. A movement that intends to supplant the establishment must know how to win over the indifferent and the hostile.
September 15th, 2009 | 11:05 pm | #23
St. Bobfan:
Well, I guess it just boils down to the fact that you are simply a curious and well-meaning soul who just wants to politely confront the obvious with the irrelevant on a blog full of people who obviously and fundamentally disagree with you on about everything you say. Now do you understand?
What Scooter Libby, Roberto Gonzales (and if you want to toss in a Halliburton contract, a WMD lie or whatever, be my guest) have to do with a increasingly expanding scandal of an organization long affilliated with the President’s background and election is beyond me.
Maybe I am just being racist here….whataya think?
September 15th, 2009 | 11:12 pm | #24
Bobfan – the common denominator is Saul Alinsky. And no, I don’t share your belief that President Obama has somehow been duped by this organization – that somehow “It’s not the ACORN I knew.”
The focus of the post is on the MSM’s lack of coverage of an organization that the President of the United States has freely associated with for years, that has received millions of our tax dollars, and was scheduled to receive billions more. This appears to be the MSM’s continued dereliction of duty due to its undying devotion to the President it so obviously supported. It’s shameful.
September 15th, 2009 | 11:25 pm | #25
Nice try, Joe.
Barry not only worked as a trainer and attorney for ACORN back in the day. His campaign paid $800,000 to that organization. He explicitly stated that it would help set his agenda. This happened before these videos were released, but after it was widely reported that, on multiple occasions, ACORN personnel were involved in voter registration fraud and mortgage fraud.
He has had five days now to completely disassociate himself from this racketeering gang and call for all federal funding to be immediately halted.
Two final words, Joe.
crickets
chirping
September 15th, 2009 | 11:51 pm | #26
I am saddened by our current state of discourse.
I voted for Candidate Obama hoping for a modicum of respect for other points of view.
Unfortunately, it now seems some views are shouted down for no other reason than they question the Obama administration’s position on any of a variety of subjects.
Why is it wrong to highlight the failings of an organization like ACORN?
Why hasn’t President Obama made a clear statement of disgust toward the organization that he clearly has/had a relationship with?
Why do some people feel it is wrong to even bring this topic up for discussion?
As I said, I am saddened.
September 15th, 2009 | 11:58 pm | #27
Now Anchoress, it was not my intention to put words into your mouth. Rather, I wanted to show how quite truthful statements of yours [or if not your statements, then those equally true made by others] can be snowballed into an utterly ridiculous and unsupported fantasy about the whole affair through the process of internet linkfest combined with lack of common sense about the people whose political views you all oppose.
I think this process has occurred many times in the last 9 months both in regard to Barack Obama and the attempt to deal with the cost of health care.
At this point, what do you expect the press to ask Obama that would result in anything but affirmation that the ACORN people shouldn’t be advising clients how to break the law?
I’m perfectly certain the content of whatever training he may have given there didn’t include such things and also that what he actually did train them to do was described in detail during the campaign and was in no way linkable to incidents like this. Nor would any speeches he may have made to them be linkable to it either.
This is precisely what I mean about using common sense about your opponents. It is highly unlikely that Obama, who is a very intelligent man, a member of the bar, and a legal scholar in the bargain, has left behind any such obvious ammunition to be fired back at him. And unless you can find some, scratching after it is a waste of time.
You have written that you do not “trust” Obama. But just exactly what don’t you trust Obama to do, or what do you think he might do that you don’t trust him to avoid?
You may have answers to these questions. But without asking them your “distrust” is merely a free-floating affect that interferes with common sense about someone you completely disagree with. Most of your peers are in the grip of such free-floating affects and have no clear view of either the man or the politics he is presenting.
See it this way: There are those things you wouldn’t like Obama to do that any Democratic President with a Congressional majority behind him would probably do. Well, gee, you know, people do have different views of issues and are inclined to act on them when they can. The mere fact that you dislike them is no compelling reason for someone who doesn’t have your views to dislike them.
Then there are those things Obama might do that stem from his character as we find it. He has not been shy about presenting himself, and I would ask you just what do you infer from what you have actually seen of him that warrants your distrust. Or, what do you reasonably think might be there in his personal character to distrust that we do not see?
Finally there are those things he might do because of behind the scenes agendas and commitments which we do not know of. But there is absolutely nothing in what you have presented that can be realistically linked to any action of the man as President, or, indeed, any past contact he might have had with ACORN.
Until such a realistic link emerges [and the mere fact that you don't trust him and don't like ACORN is not a realistic link--it is also a free-floating affect] there is nothing to ask him about that would not merely draw forth the conventional answers that any politician would give.
My little [purely fictional] linkfest is the sort of thing that happens when you distrust or dislike someone, but have nothing definite to say about him.
I made it all up. But I know the difference. And if any of it appears on someone else’s blog tomorrow as well established fact all I will be able to do is try to keep from hurting myself while I roll on the floor laughing.
[Oh, come on, now Joseph -all your merriment and playing aside - none of this changes the fact that there IS a story here, and it IS a story that, under a Republican president, would be covered ad nauseam by the press, who would be demanding answers into the length of association and wondering why a president who gave his time, expertise, campaign money, political attention and federal monies to this organization of long-association was not the first out of the door to denounce their foibles and get them defunded and disbanded. If this were a group having a long-association with President Bush, you would -quite rightly- be appalled at the groups willingness to defraud the government, withhold taxes and, most importantly, their willingness to turn a blind eye toward the sexual exploitation of minors, and you'd be wondering, again quite rightly, why this president seems to have kept so much dubious company over the years, and what it says about the man. Finally, you would be defending (rightly) the press' intense focus on the story and (wrongly) their relentless attempts to weaken Bush by association. Let us be honest about this. Newsweek tried to spike the Lewinsky story, but had Reagan or Bush received oral sex in the Oval Office, that story would have been run and the presidents hounded from office. Now the press is trying to bury or at least minimize a story touching a president they love, so there is "no story" there, it's "left to the cables." The double standard is wrong, and pretending that Obama does not have to talk about this, does not have to make a move, here, to distance himself from this group is dishonest. Obama WILL eventually make that move -he will be obliged to morally- but he will do the bare minimun and the press will accept that and say "story over." THere will be no deep investigation into this, as for instance the press' incredible, months long, interviewing everyone investigation into the Bush TANG story -which (it recently came to light) even Mary Mapes knew was garbage as she peddled it. But there SHOULD be a deep investigation into this. This involves tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and an organization that seems to wish to work outside the law; there is no reason not to look into Obama's association with same. He doesn't get a pass, just because he has a D after his name. You know I do not jump on every conservative frenzy -note my disdain for the birthers and my utter disagreement with the far right on immigration. But this is a genuine story, and Obama is a genuine player in it because, yes...he is the president of the united states. -admin]
September 16th, 2009 | 12:11 am | #28
Remember the old saw about what happens to those who make assumptions. Don’t assume that ACORN’s clientele are all poor, Bobfan. What many ACORN clients lack isn’t funds, it is legitimately earned funds. There is a huge difference.
These tapes have touched several nerves on Capitol Hill. ACORN has long been suspected of advising its clientele not to declare cash income. I was a CPA in Chicago for two decades. In the world of tax preparation ACORN’s participation in an IRS progran to prepare returns for lower income people is almost as notorious as its voter registration drives when it comes to fraud.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:14 am | #29
Gerry–
I was busy answering the Anchoress and didn’t see your comment until now. All I will say is this: none of what you present links Obama in any way to what happened in the video sting. None of it. You are in the grip of a purely projective fantasy that it does so. Most of the people who are commenting here are operating on such purely projective fantasies which, frankly, keep them from effectively attacking either the man or the politician.
Obama is not invulnerable. But in order to effectively attack him you will have to start looking at what he is currently doing, not what he has done in the past. In the Conservative Mutual Admiration Society you all may care about such things, but no one else does.
Your effectiveness in the health care battle stems from raising fear among the rest of us about stuff we really are interested in and care about, even if the stuff has largely been just made up. What all the rest of us care about is what Obama is actually doing or failing to do now that he’s in the Oval Office. You will not effectively attack him until you attack that.
["...you will have to start looking at what he is currently doing, not what he has done in the past. In the Conservative Mutual Admiration Society you all may care about such things, but no one else does." Just as, of course, no one on the left or in the press cared about President Bush's past. The drunk driving citation, the fake "AWOL from TANG" story...none of that mattered. No one cared. Consistent? -admin]
September 16th, 2009 | 12:18 am | #30
ACORN certainly has grown into a mess, hasn’t it? This is what our tax dollars have been supporting, all these years?
I look forward to the release of the rest of the tapes, but I also dread them!
September 16th, 2009 | 12:20 am | #31
nohype, thanks for the link. No, I’m thinking this really can’t just be a case of, “A few bad apples.”
September 16th, 2009 | 12:37 am | #32
Yes, Anchoress, I remembered the fuss about Bush’s drunk driving citation at the time, as well the TANG affair, the Scooter Libby affair, the accusations that he stole the election—the Left was obsessed with Bush’s past.
ACORN really can’t be relegated to history, not yet; they’re still around (and asking for more funding). As long as they haven’t been disbanded, questions about their connection with the president: how much help he gave them, how much money he managed to get for them, are going to arise, and need to be answered.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:46 am | #33
Here’s me. In deference to Bobfan, I will try to be more succinct when I join in these lively discussions.
When you ‘post questions and challenges’, Bobfan, I get the impression that you think this forum is filled with the unenlightened. This isn’t the first time I’ve said that, is it? There is an inherent hostility; it goes beyond ideology – like you can’t understand why those of us who are, apprehensive, shall we say, about the Obama administration, just can’t get it through our heads that he’s just a good old boy who only wants to help.
I don’t need to quote anything here because everyone knows that in order to ‘help’ a few, this administration is going to harm many, both financially and in terms of our personal freedoms. Compelled charity, i.e. raising taxes to fund social programs for others, is not charity at all then, is it? It’s theft. And it’s not just theft of money; it’s stealing people’s time, which is all we really have when you get right down to it. And that’s just one aspect.
And this particular Catholic is curious about why you have such radically different views; views that you obviously hold very closely because you are willing to argue for them here.
Religion and politics are a difficult combination to deal with. I think Bobfan sees his support for a man who supports the Robin Hood approach as somehow superior to people like me, who think that there are better ways to raise up the poor.
Bill Clinton lied under oath when he was a sitting president. Kind of hard to compare what he did, and Dick Cheney saying in essence that he’s glad whatever took place in the interrogations kept us safe.
Finally, guilt by association is enough.
There are so many good posts here – I can’t even touch most of them. Mr Marshall, I leave you to Anchoress and Bender. I don’t even understand most of what you write.
September 16th, 2009 | 3:12 am | #34
“Meanwhile, Mrs. Pelosi’s congress has not been able to bring itself to vote on defunding ACORN.”
Once again, Mrs. Pelosi fails to follow the lead of America’s Catholic bishops. At least they woke up and defunded their links to ACORN.
September 16th, 2009 | 7:47 am | #35
“The focus of the post is on the MSM’s lack of coverage of an organization . . .”
“Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe”
[Please learn how to make links so that the next time you want to post a headline makes my own case for me I will not have to insert the link. -admin]
September 16th, 2009 | 7:58 am | #36
Bender’s Cheerleader, if compelling “charity,” i.e. raising taxes to fund social programs for others, is theft, then I’ll ask you the sort of questions Bender wouldn’t answer twice. Are you a flat-taxer? Why should the very rich pay taxes that pay for Medicare and Medicaid? Are you going to make darn sure that you don’t take more than your fair (paid for) share of Medicare? Is Medicare inherently unjust?
I don’t think in categories like enlightened and unenlightened, and I respect conservative principles, conservative apprehension, but not conservative hostility that seems eager to believe the worst about opponents.
Of course Clinton’s lying under oath was reprehensible. And with that you that and the excuse that Cheney kept us safe (the evidence that illegal tactis worked is mixed at best) you dismiss the fact that he sanctioned breaking the law?
September 16th, 2009 | 8:22 am | #37
“Just as, of course, no one on the left or in the press cared about President Bush’s past. The drunk driving citation, the fake “AWOL from TANG” story…none of that mattered. No one cared.”
CBS essentially fired Dan Rather for inaccurate reporting prejudicial to Bush.
September 16th, 2009 | 8:23 am | #38
St. Bobfan and Others of His Ilk:
The issue is not Obama. The issue is information bias. Got it?
[Oh, but Jack, after having their hands forced, because (as with the Van Jones story) events have finally gotten too far ahead of them, the press is finally beginning to report on this story, vaguely, mentioning the president's affiliation with Acorn as little as possible, biased headlines, the usual. But now you'll hear "look they are reporting it, and it's still a non-story! There is no compelling reason to report this story!" The same argument Dan Rather (and Newsweek) tried, initally, on the Lewinsky story. -admin]
September 16th, 2009 | 8:48 am | #39
Hell yes Bobfan – I’m a flat-taxer. As far as this government goes, where we are all created equal, what is more equal than everyone paying the same portion from each dollar earned? What is the problem with that? That the people you call rich, most of whom have worked damned hard to get what they have, might just be able to buy a Benz when you have to drive a Chevy? That’s the only argument I’ve ever heard against a flat tax. ‘The Rich’ have more left over. Sounds like envy to me. Not to mention, there is ample evidence that when taxes are lowered the economy rights itself.
Your argument that one is only entitled to claim what they put in to Medicare or draw from Medicaid seems provocative at best. In any case, I think most government programs suck.
Guess what else I’m in favor of? Eliminating the deduction of income tax from the paycheck; and, I believe the only people in this country who should be entitled to vote should be PROPERTY OWNERS. Why in the hell should someone with NOTHING to lose be able to vote one friggin’ penny away from any of the rest of us? There should be something of value on the line before you step into the damned booth.
September 16th, 2009 | 9:11 am | #40
Jack, the charge that the MSM is witholding information because they’re biased only stands up if there is a compelling reason to report it in the first place, and that compelling reason, to quote our hostess, is “the nature of the relationship between President Obama and ACORN.” And no one has yet shown how Obama is in any way responsible for the disgraceful acts, or had knowledge of them, or, really, that they typify the large and geographically decentralized organization.
But the Times has a story this morning. The Washington Post has had seven in the past five days. The story was discussed today on Morning Joe. ABC, CBS and NBC New York have all had stories in recent days. You have your facts wrong in the first place.
September 16th, 2009 | 9:17 am | #41
Bender’s Cheerleader, I only have a second to respond, but the fact is that while you say you favor the flat tax, unless you’re quite rich, you benefit, and will when you get older will benefit even more, from the progressive tax system that you say robs the rich to pay for services for, well, you. And that’s why I asked you if you’re willing to put your money where your mouth is.
September 16th, 2009 | 9:39 am | #42
Saint Bob:
But “the “Times” (London, New York or Wasilla?) has a story this morning”, huh? Wonder where these watchdogs have been for the last week or so? Hiding out with Van Jones? And why would they bother to jump in now in light of implications that ACORN is a non-story?
Yep, “get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” ….Mark Twain.
September 16th, 2009 | 10:59 am | #43
The Untold Story Of Obama’s Mother
September 16th, 2009 | 11:04 am | #44
Didn’t anyone watch Candid Camera or Punk’d growing up? The entire shows were built around the fact that people are inherently cooperative and will go out of their way to help people. The shows would regularly put clerks, admin’s and secretaries in situations where they were being asked to deal with an absurd situation and the hilarity would ensue as they twisted themselves into pretzels to accommodate the request.
I bet if you went into 10 H&R Block offices and asked the same questions about how a Pimp/Prostitute should file taxes, you would get a similar result in at least a few of them.
ACORN got Punk’d, that’s about all it shows me.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:20 pm | #45
Allen Funt – I completely disagree with your statement that H&R Block would help people break the law with their tax advice. I have to think you are completely separated from the world of finance to even make that suggestion as a joke.
Bobfan – here’s my problem with arguing with “people like you”. You cannot stay on topic, but rather start throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. It’s quite possible to discuss the Cheerleader’s point without going into the discussion of the flat tax and medicare, etc.
To bring all those issues in is to muddy the waters so much as to make everyone forget the original statement being discussed. The lack of focus is frustrating to everyone.
I have a friend like that – while Bush was in office, I was visiting with her and her girlfriend. They both despised Bush. They made a remark and I replied factually and concisely. They replied with a related question, and as I was opening my mouth, they threw out 10 more unrelated questions.
I replied that I was more than willing to have a discussion about one item at a time, to end when either side felt the specific topic was done. They preferred not to go that road. Thus, the conversation ended.
I see you in the same light. Rather than drill down on one thing, you pull in everything at once. I cannot discuss things with kitchen-sinkers. Perhaps no one can. It’s rude and counter-productive.
How is it that Dry Valleys can disagree and not cause nastiness? How is it that Joseph can disagree without the same result that you get?
I think you need to look at their methods (although some may disagree with me on Joseph) and refine your methods.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:43 pm | #46
JuliB, how is it possible to evaluate the tuth of Cheerleader’s assertion that raising taxes to fund more social programs is theft without discussing who is already benefitting from social programs? I find your complaint absurd.
“How is it that Dry Valleys can disagree and not cause nastiness? How is it that Joseph can disagree without the same result that you get?”
Answer 1) I am responsible for Jack’s namecalling (yes it’s very mild)? He just can’t help himself, he has to go ad hominem?
Answer 2) Probably because they don’t challenge people like I do.
“why would they bother to jump in now in light of implications that ACORN is a non-story?”
Read the Times story. You’re playing dumb.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:49 pm | #47
JulieB, I have to agree with you about H. & R. Block; they did my taxes for years, and always struck me a law-abiding, and conscientious; not the sort of people who’d go along with a criminal operation. They have a reputation to maintain, and they want to stay in business.
As for Bobfan. . . really, I think the Anchoress nailed him in her earlier post; “Passive/aggressive”, “Playing dumb”; not really worthwhile trying to engage him.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:53 pm | #48
“President Obama will be doing Five of the Sabbath Gasbag shows this Sunday..”
And the President will also be appearing on Letterman on Monday.
The “snarky” side of me wonders how much this trip to New York will cost us? And explains why President Obama has not read any of the Health Care bills presented in the House or the Senate–he hasn’t had time, poor man!
I get the feeling that these appearances are part of a “Bread & Circuses” routine, meant to distract us.
September 16th, 2009 | 12:55 pm | #49
Bobfan – my assertion is that rich or poor – we should all pay the same. If you have nothing, you pay nothing. If you have a lot, you pay more. My assertion that soaking the rich to pay for (questionable or wasteful) entitlement programs is theft and I stand by it.
JuliB – what you said. Yeah!
September 16th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #50
Cheerleader, now you’re changing your argument so that it hangs on the efficacy of the programs in question. Of course no one should have to pay for wasteful and unneccesary programs, but to tax someone for a program wrongly believed to be needed and effective is not theft, it’s bad judgment (and your implication now becomes that the poor don’t need health insurance like everyone else).
That’s elementary logic, but not as satisfying as emotionally as blasting your opponent.
September 16th, 2009 | 1:46 pm | #51
The obvious reason why Obama hasn’t come out and condemned what a relative few ACORN employees have done is that there are a lot of people like yourselves determined to associate him with the scandal, as evidenced by your demand that he be investigated even though when asked what he should be investigated for, the best you can come up with is that he’s the president of the United States. Does that make him president of ACORN or something?
Again, he was a lowly community organizer years ago. Where is the slightest evidence that he is responsible for or knew about the voter fraud, most of which took place after he worked for them, or the brothels, which were set up after he left?
All you guys have is guilt by association. By that ridiculous measure, if anyone of you belonged to parishes where priests abused children, you should be investigated for what you knew and when.
September 16th, 2009 | 1:49 pm | #52
Good grief, don’t all you people ever sleep? I ended up writing until 1 am Eastern when I absolutely had to quit.
Just as, of course, no one on the left or in the press cared about President Bush’s past. The drunk driving citation, the fake “AWOL from TANG” story…none of that mattered. No one cared.
I hardly think you can say that these attacks were particularly effective against GWB. In fact, they backfired because somebody just made stuff up. And they were about a President who had already done things that people cared about.
Now the swiftboat attacks against John Kerry, which were about his past, worked largely because all he had to present was his past and he overplayed how he presented it.
The ACORN furor has already happened and Obama was elected in spite of it. It simply won’t recycle well unless somebody can dig up some serious new charges about Obama and not about ACORN.
Now let’s play Dick Tracy and Sam. You get the snazzy yellow hat and the good looks and I get the puffy face and the battered fedora.
What kind of truly newsworthy thing about Obama might still be there? Any dirt digging on him is at a tremendous disadvantage because of his swift rise to prominence. In the Illinois State Assembly he didn’t have much to offer anybody either for a bribe or a quid pro quo. In the Senate, he hadn’t even gotten fully established and hooked into The Club so he had no favors to offer there either. And it is only bribery or quid pro quo that would give the story legs.
But there is one thing that might be there. ACORN was under criminal investigation for voting fraud. What happened there? Did the Bush Justice Department start a Federal probe that was terminated when Holder became Attorney General?
If so, that’s where to look for something serious to ask Obama about. There simply is not much else there new about Obama.
September 16th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #53
Those arguing that ACORN has nothing to do with Obama should take a look at the e-mail correspondence between a New York Times reporter and a liberal whistleblower who had worked for ACORN, as reported by Michelle Malkin, who has the actual emails up in PDF:
“By October 6, 2008, [New York Times reporter] Strom had thrown in the towel in the wake of blistering phone conversations with the Obama campaign. She wrote:
‘I’m calling a halt to my efforts. I just had two unpleasant calls with the Obama campaign, wherein the spokesman was screaming and yelling and cursing me, calling me a rightwing nut and a conspiracy theorist and everything else…I’d still like to get that file from you when you have a chance to send it. One of these days, the truth is going to come out.’”
Apparently Obama election campaign didn’t share your opinion that ACORN has nothing to do with him.
September 16th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #54
Link to the Michelle Malkin story I quoted above.
September 16th, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #55
Allen, there is incriminating video shot in four different ACORN offices, and in San Bernandino an employee boasted of having run an escort serice herself and having shot and killed her husband.
September 16th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #56
[...] O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have become the Woodward and Bernstein of this new generation. They have uncovered the criminal enterprise that is ACORN. Our young people are really sophisticated in the use of the new media and new technologies. I can [...]
September 16th, 2009 | 4:32 pm | #57
fershitsake Bobfan – I can’t keep up with you. No I didn’t change my argument – just because someone augments what they say doesn’t mean they’ve changed it. The government is a giant, big, fat, overgrown piece of crap and most of what comes out of it is waste.
And now I’m starting to feel like Anchoress – don’t put words in my mouth. I never said the poor don’t need health insurance, but guess what – THEY DON’T. NEITHER DO YOU. NEITHER DO I. NO ONE NEEDS FRIGGIN HEALTH INSURANCE. GET RID OF IT AND THE WHOLE DAMNED THING WILL RIGHT ITSELF BASED ON THE FREE-EFFING-MARKET.
God help me.
Beeennnnddddeeerrrr…..where are yoouuuuu….
p.s. people, me anyway, get so caught up defending themselves from your outlandish comments about them that the substance of what you originally said is lost, as is the substance of what the rest of us say.
September 16th, 2009 | 5:53 pm | #58
Cheerleader, I’m not going to bother going point by point again. Your arguments are incoherent.
September 16th, 2009 | 8:51 pm | #59
Cheerleader, Bender’s not here, but maybe I can help?
Bobfan is not worthy of honest engagement. He’s not here to debate, he’s here to confuse us, derail threads, move goalposts and change the subject. Judging from his posts, he doesn’t want any sort of criticism to be leveled at Obama, at all, and he’s punishing us (so he thinks) by showing up to browbeat, bully and wage senseless arguments, until (he hopes) we throw in the towel, admit Obama, and his programs, are simply wonderful, and we’re horrible human beings for ever believing otherwise. The Anchoress really pegged him with the passive/aggressive -playing dumb description.
I don’t know, and don’t care, if he’s being paid to do this, or if he really thinks he’s enlightening us with his antics. What’s obvious is that he really isn’t here, as he claims, to hear opposing opinions (heh!), or actually exchange ideas (ha!) with other posters. Best to just ignore him.
September 16th, 2009 | 9:22 pm | #60
Just a small correction, Rhinestone. I don’t believe Obama when he says his health care plan won’t cost a dime. And Secondhand Smoke has a post claiming that Obama would pay for abortions despite what he said, and while I’m not convinced, as far as I can see, he’s correct, and Obama is lying.
Also, I’ll debate you point by point on any subject you like. :-;
September 16th, 2009 | 10:08 pm | #61
Thanks for the support Rhinestone. My Better Half calls me ‘trout’ because I go for whatever someone is dangling before my nose.
It helps to have a cooler head looking out for me!
September 17th, 2009 | 10:45 am | #62
One girl, just glad I could help.
September 17th, 2009 | 11:21 am | #63
Bobfan,
I’ve yet to see you debate point by point. You throw in the kitchen sink!
DryValleys and Joesph do not, which is why it is possible to debate them. So yes, you do bring a lot of it on yourself.
“Why would they bother…” and then I’m playing dumb?
I searched my posts on this thread, and don’t believe I posted that. I think I will follow Rhinestone’s advice and ignore you. What you say is nothing more than what I hear on the news from Dems, so what is the point? You aren’t engaging the issues specifically, nor do you stay on target. I almost think you aren’t even aware of it. Nonetheless, life is too short.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact