Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama dodges on ACORN
When George Stephanopoulos interviewed President Obama on Sunday, he posed some questions about ACORN. Just read this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?
OBAMA: You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.
OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not committing to — to cut off the federal funding?
OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.
After the interview, headlines proclaimed “Obama favors ACORN investigation” – but that’s not exactly what he said. He said what happened on the video should be investigated – not necessarily the organization’s activities as a whole. ACORN “investigated” what its employees did on the videos and fired them, but that doesn’t address the fact that this happened in several different ACORN offices in cities around the country.
Isn’t the bigger news that Obama wouldn’t commit to cutting off federal funds to ACORN, which is what a wide majority of Democrats and Republicans did in a House vote last week? And that the president who is trying to pay for his programs through cutting “waste and abuse” won’t even consider this an issue to “pay attention to”?
back to top140 Comments to “Obama dodges on ACORN”
Emily’s accusation against Obama for obstruction of justice is an outright, maliciolus lie.” Obama favors ACORN investigation” is exactly what Obama said. Obama placed no limitation on the scope of a potential investigation. To do so would be an abuse of executive power and illegal.
Shame on Emily.
Report comment to moderator
I had never heard of ACORN until the last election. Then I heard all kinds of blather about voter registration fraud. But in the last cycle only one person went to jail for election fraud, a Republican.
Now, apparently, a couple of people who work for them were taped making inapropriate comments.
This is grounds for taking away federal benefits? And lauching a Congressional Investigation?
Jiminy, if the same standards were applied to the RC church and their squadrons of sex abuser priests and conspirator bishops, we could raise some serious tax dollars. What’s a cathedral worth these days?
Report comment to moderator
Acorn is Obama. That was his job. The employees at ACORN did what they did because that’s what ACORN does. What surprises me is that they got away with this sting four times. After the first, a wise manager would have insisted on training sessions on how not to deal with pimps and whores.
Not only are they evil, they are stupid.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know which is funnier:
Stephanopoulos actually asking the question of Obama
or Obama’s reply
I always love a good laugh, or a bad laugh in this case.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Arcadia, but it’s more than the tapes. I believe one of its founders embezzled funds and is now working someplace else but still connected. Bertha, the head of this organization, refused to answer “yes or no” questions on Fox. She says she’s cleaning it up, and we’re supposed to take her word for it.
And quite frankly, there’s no doubt in my mind that what was said on those tapes was beyond appalling. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
We don’t decide whether to investigate by comparing an organization to the RCC. We decide to investigate when the situation merits investigation — and apparently, there’s a lot more going on here than we know. I realize I will be called a racist for what I am about to say, but the feeling I got from Bertha in her interview on Fox yesterday was: we’re black, we help the poor, it shouldn’t matter what else we do, criminal or not. And that to me is the height of racism, that they think they are above accountability.
Report comment to moderator
Someone on these blogs DID say that Obama wouldn’t allow ACORN funds to be cutoff.
Who needs to watch TV? The drama in Washington just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Will any of this end up in the history books?
How about a movie?
Nah…I didn’t like watching it the first time around.
Report comment to moderator
William Jefferson (D-La) has demonstrated that as long as your constituents get some goodies, it doesn’t matter if you siphon some off along the way.
Report comment to moderator
ACORN merits a thorough investigation, but the anti-Obama crowd’s obsession with the organization is ridiculous. He was right to tell George that it’s hardly the most pressing issue facing us right now.
And hey, I thought the liberal mainstream media would NEVER ask Obama tough questions. Isn’t that what Xion and Joel Mark keep assuring us?
Report comment to moderator
“But in the last cycle only one person went to jail for election fraud, a Republican.”
Woo. Great argument. woo. I’m underwhelmed.
Hey if you wanna go for numbers here…
Let’s see how many Democrats who were “working” for Acorn go to jail over all this criminal activity.
Report comment to moderator
“And hey, I thought the liberal mainstream media would NEVER ask Obama tough questions.”
Better late than never I suppose…
All I can say is that it’s about darn time.
Does you notice that his approval rating has dropped faster than any president to date? Why do you suppose that is?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
“No.”
Report comment to moderator
“Obama favors ACORN investigation” is exactly what Obama said.”
No, Emily has it right here. He was referring not to ACORN, but to the perps. I watched the tape this morning. BTW if he actually said your quotes, he would be talking to himself in the 3rd person…if you smell what the Rock is cookin…
He was also quick to mention that he hadnt been keeping up or paying much attention to it.
I would think our president…ought to be well informed…but he seems to like over using this excuse.
Report comment to moderator
Stupid, evil ACORN hires people who not long ago were pimps, whores, addicts, and homeless.
ACORN does a poor job of enforcing professional workplace standards in some of its offices. Praise God for the many good low-level employees in ACORN’s 40 offices who showed the door to the conservative clowns and called the cops.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, it was a good interview from George. He kept rolling out the questions. Obama looked a bit shifty, or squirmy.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see obsession. I see hard-earned taxpayer dollars going to people who don’t want to be held accountable. I also see people who want to play that down.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia has given us (at #2) the clearest evidence yet for how desperately corrupt, partisan and unjust today’s justice Dept and systeme has become. This corruption infests the highest levels of power and authority too. A concrete example of their willful dismissal of the most ebgregious criminal activity at the polls is the dismissal of the case against the armed Black Panthers intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia. The voter registration abuses and irregularities in 2008 were unprecidented too–the vast majority of which was in the Democrat’s favor. All this was ignored by those in power, to protect the left and get a leftist elected.
Report comment to moderator
First, Obama works for ACORN, embraces them enthusiastically, inspires them, uses them to get elected then a controversy rises and he hardly knows a thing about them.
Remember Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, it’s a lie for you and Emily to accuse Obama of shielding AcORn from investigation or absolving the organization of responsibility. That would be criminal obstruction of justice. Obama said he wants an investigation into “what I saw on that video.” He saw ACORN on the video, and he wants it investigated. That’s an unlimited investigation of criminal behavior.
For you and Emily to be demanding the impeachment of the president over an imaginary crime of obstruction of justice is deranged.
Get a grip.
Report comment to moderator
I think he won’t be able to equivocate his way out of this one. The organization is a fetid cesspool. But that fetid cesspool provides many of the brownshirts er, um ACTIVISTS upon whom this President and his party depend upon so heavily.
Doug Giles (father of the “prostitute” who helped expose ACORN) has a great piece on the whole thing at townhall dot com. A tad boastful, but informative.
I was told that a proLife group I belonged to couldnt endorse candidates due to its status under the US tax code. Yet ACORN has aggressively pursued a highly partisan agenda AND banked an estimated $53 million from Uncle Sam.
Some things just don’t add up or make sense.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t see this as a particularly tough interview. A tough interviewer would not let the President claim that he didn’t know they were getting a lot of money without questioning him further. He also would have insisted on a follow-up question, since he obviously dodged the last question written in the above section.
Perhaps George should have been more like Charles Gibson with Sarah Palin when she didn’t know what he was referring to when he asked about “The Bush Doctrine”, as if it were written out in a textbook.
Report comment to moderator
Obama worked with them. He had to know where the money comes from.
ACORN is set up differently so that it do things politically. If you watch the Fox interview from yesterday, they explain it.
Report comment to moderator
Praise God for the San Bernardino ACORN, which told the conservative clowns that ACORN would not help them. In ACORN, God raised up a shield between tax dollars and international sex traffickers and Democrat voter fraud! Despite all manner of attacks by the devil, ACORN has not established one brothel or caused one illegal vote.
Report comment to moderator
And how would you know that Scroopy without an investigation? Because the ACORN people on the videos were more than willing.
Report comment to moderator
Did they really, Scroop? I see you still haven’t seen those videos.
From the transcript p5:
James – They just look at the way she’s dressed
Theresa (Acorn) – Yeah.
James – and they assume it and we give some devo some more details and they’re like we don’t we don’t want to have anything to do with prostitution or sex rings
Theresa (Acorn) – Well, that yeah.
James – or international sex rings.
Theresa (Acorn) – Well see, you know, now okay and ACORN will tell you the same thing.
Hannah (Eden) – Yeah.
Theresa (Acorn) – They will. Um, I don’t. You might get an old timer like myself that you know really knows what’s up
Hannah (Eden) – Right.
Theresa (Acorn) – And, and could care less.
Just in case you think Theresa was an anomaly, keep in mind that they had the same reception at FOUR OTHER ACORN OFFICES. The offices that know what’s up.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/17/full-transcript-acorn-prostitution-scandal-san-bernardino/
Report comment to moderator
“Thorn, it’s a lie for you and Emily to accuse Obama of shielding AcORn from investigation or absolving the organization of responsibility.”
I dont think there was any claim of shielding, and he certainly isnt shielding those caught on tape. Simply that the reference was to the video, and not ACORN as a whole itself, which many other headlines were claiming. Considering our president is so for investigations into things like the CIA, he could have handled this already after seeing the video. It’s also difficult to watch him say he doesnt know much about it…despite having watched the video.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, is ACORN still around?
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP #22
Are you serious?
Report comment to moderator
#22 Scroop Moth
I am not sure if you are talking over that tongue in your cheek or whether I am misunderstanding you.
” In ACORN, God raised up a shield…”
Report comment to moderator
As long as the Dems are in control there will be no investigation into anyone connected to ACORN.
Besides, aren’t they busy investigating the CIA and the Bush Admin.?
Report comment to moderator
#1 Scroop Moth
“Emily’s accusation against Obama for obstruction of justice is an outright, maliciolus lie.”
Scroop Moth, I read and reread the piece by Emily and I didn’t see where she accused Obama of obstruction of justice. Please help me. Where did she say or infer that Obama was obstructing justice?
Report comment to moderator
And, and could care less – just like Obama.
Report comment to moderator
KI A tough interviewer would not let the President claim that he didn’t know they were getting a lot of money . . .
Perhaps you’re thinking of sAWGUNNER’s information that ACORN gets $53 million. You’re right, KI, how could ABC let that pass. Except that ABC knew the facts . . .
That’s $53 million over the past 15 years, compared with an annual budget of over $100 million dollars.
I’m in favor of a tough and wide-ranging investigation. I’d love for conservatives to do the investigation, but liberals would have to hold a gun to their head to force them to do it, in Congress or on the pages of this blog. For all EMILY’s lip-service to an aggressive investigation, conservatives won’t want to go there. Why?
Because an investigation will show what important and valuable work ACORN does and what a huge return on investment the public gets for relatively small change.
I’ve got to defend conservatives against an unfair criticism from the left (for example, from The American Prospect). Christian conservatives don’t hate ACORn for honorable work on behalf of low-income people. They hate ACORN for helping the poor without Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I missed it.
SCROOP #18 is claiming Emily and Thorn are talking about impeachment.
Was that on another blog?
Report comment to moderator
I, for one, don’t consider forcing Mexican girls into prostitution to fund a Democratic political campaign helping the poor.
Report comment to moderator
BOB –
Bob, where’s the ACORN brothel?
Who voted fraudulently?
Why would ACORN set up brothels or aid in fraudulent voting? There’s no crime and no motive.
Emily is saying OBAMA would investigate perps on the videos but not enable an investigation going up the organizational ladder of ACoRN. That would amount to interference. Interference with a criminal probe is obstruction of justice. Interference with an investigation by Congress is an impeachable offense. Both are abuses of power.
Report comment to moderator
The motive is to fund friendly politicians. Scroop, you have nothing to add unless you watch those videos. All you have is distractions and misinformation.
Your defense belies your commitment to the poor. You are obviously far more committed to Democratic causes, as was ACORN.
Report comment to moderator
OK, I missed it.
It’s elementary, NEWS2ME
If Emily and Thorn can jump from Obama’s demand for an investigation into “what I saw on that video” to the conclusion that Obama is shielding ACORN from an unlimited investigation, then they can jump to impeachment.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Obama told ACORN they would have a seat at his table and now he has no idea of the trouble they are in. The FBI director also told the Senate, he had no idea what is happen to ACORN. So much of keeping an eye on corrupting, oh wait unless it is Corp. corrupting.
I remind every one ACORN openly supported Obama and campainged for him.
Report comment to moderator
Since when did the Democratic half-billion dollar campaign relay on a former prostitute now workng at an ACORN office to funnel money to politicians.
Since when do international sex traffickers give money to political campaigns?
If they did, it’s likely to be Diaper Dave’s next senate campaign. This guy is actually bragging to Louisiiana that he has cut off federal funds to pimps and whores. He had no problem showering his Senate salary on whorehouses from New Orleans to DC.
Report comment to moderator
At least Obama watched the video before commenting.
Emily is saying OBAMA would investigate perps on the videos but not enable an investigation going up the organizational ladder of ACoRN.
No, she is merely saying that Obama did not say he favors an ACORN investigation, contrary to what was generally reported. She is trying to clarify what Obama said and what he did not say.
You are making things up out of whole cloth, as you did with your San Bernardino ACORN statement.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer “believe one of its founders embezzled funds and is now working someplace else but still connected” If was the founder Brother who left with haft a million and ACORN never reported. I heard a report that the founder of ACORN was in the weather under ground with Aiers. I have not been able to confirm that.
Report comment to moderator
Since when did the…
Scroop thinks the videos don’t exist.
I guess all politicians get their start with half-billion dollar campaigns.
Report comment to moderator
CHAS #7 William Jefferson (D-La) has demonstrated that as long as your constituents get some goodies, it doesn’t matter if you siphon some off along the way.
Jefferson’s constituents replaced him with a Republican, Chas.
They would have replaced him much earlier if it was not for the preachers! I would blame Jefferson’s outrageous tenure on the opiate of the people, CHAS.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Never did I suggest (nor do I infer) that Obama is obstructing justice or should be impeached. Let’s just get that out of topics under discussion.
Report comment to moderator
AMPHIPOLOS: Obama did not say he favors an ACORN investigation
OBAMA: what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.
Now you’re lying, too, AMPHIPOLIS. You are falsely claiming that Obama qualified “what I saw on the video” and is restricting what he means by “investigation.” You have no evidence for questioning Obama’s probity. Obama saw ACORN on the video. You, EMILY, and THORN are mendaciously claiming that Obama is shielding ACORN and proposing a limited investigation.
It is against the law for the president to hinder, limit, or influence the conduct of an investigation. It’s also immoral.
What you’re saying against Obama’s probity is slander.
Report comment to moderator
“Emily’s accusation against Obama for obstruction of justice is an outright, maliciolus lie.” Obama favors ACORN investigation” is exactly what Obama said. Obama placed no limitation on the scope of a potential investigation. To do so would be an abuse of executive power and illegal.
Shame on Emily.”
Scroop’s claims that Emily accused Obama of obstruction of justice, and implicitly called for his impeachment is an outright malicious lie. Shame on Scroop Moth.
“Stupid, evil ACORN hires people who not long ago were pimps, whores, addicts, and homeless”
How could we expect these people to have a conscience regarding the sexual exploitation of children? They’re the downtrodden, the poor, the homeless, the victims of evil right wing policies and we’ll exploit them for sympathy or blame them for wrongdoing, whichever best suits our leftwing talking points.
Report comment to moderator
SHAME ON YOU, Emily and Thorn, for most likely, possibly…I’m sure you are, implying impeachment.
Even Clinton refused to leave office.(and many others)
What does IMPEACHMENT mean anyway?
Report comment to moderator
EMILY, you accused Obama of limiting the investigation of ACORN to low-level workers. I’m glad you’re now backtracking, because that would be obstruction of justice and an impeachable offense.
Let’s just get Obama’s probity as chief law enforcement officer of the nation off the table, EMILY.
Report comment to moderator
What does IMPEACHMENT mean anyway?
Do you mean that literally, or is it a rhetorical question?
Assuming literally, impeachment is similar to an indictment, brought by the House of Representatives. It means the president is being formally charged with crimes in office.
If a president is impeached, then the Senate determines whether the evidence is strong enough to support a finding of guilty.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. He didn’t have to leave office because the Senate didn’t convict.
Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings could begin.
Report comment to moderator
The One was probably channeling Richard Nixon at that moment.
Report comment to moderator
POTUS has no say about where a criminal investigation of domestic matters starts or ends up. TO suggest that he does make these decisions is to accuse him of violating the law.
Report comment to moderator
deserves to be investigated
By whom, Scroop? ACORN has just announced that IT will investigate what happened. That would completely fulfill what he said.
He did NOT say that he favors a Congressional or any other investigation. The press said that – and that ACORN said it would not aid in child prostitution in San Bernardino – and you repeat what you read without questioning it, without watching the videos for yourself. What are you afraid of?
It is against the law for the president to hinder, limit, or influence the conduct of an investigation.
Straw man. Emily and I did not say that Obama is doing that. But Obama did NOT commit to a government investigation. Not. At. All.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop and SteveG want to talk about the impeachment of Obama. A nice juicy red herring that keeps us from looking into the largest liberal group in the country’s routine willingness to abet sexual slavery.
Report comment to moderator
ACORN has become a boogeyman of the Right, so some want to watch Obama excoriate them. What he said, though, is entirely appropriate to the situation. These incidents deserves investigation, and if organization-wide wrongdoing is found, only then does ACORN as a whole deserve investigation. Perhaps even criminal investigation up to the highest levels where fraud and illegality is found.
I fully and unreservedly support that, but only after an impartial investigation finds sufficient evidence.
It’s like Blackwater for the Left. As more and more of their misdeeds came to light, the Left began to demand investigation into the organization. At some point, a preponderance of scandal made an investigation of the organization in order. Unfortunately, they have so far skirted criminal investigation, and are even still receiving government contracts.
So in the grand scheme of things, ACORN is small potatoes. But the incident, and perhaps the organization, still deserve investigation.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: Scroop and SteveG want to talk about the impeachment of Obama. A nice juicy red herring that keeps us from looking into the largest liberal group in the country’s routine willingness to abet sexual slavery.
No I don’t. I answered a question. That was the first time I mentioned it.
Report comment to moderator
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT:
OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not committing to — to cut off the federal funding?
OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.
Obama clearly says that what he saw on the video deserves investigation. He clearly does NOT say the whole organization should be investigated, nor does he imply it. That doesn’t mean he necessarily opposes having the whole org investigated. But I would not be surprised if he’s just referring to the offices on tape and the offenses committed. He doesn’t seem to care a lot about it beyond what he (and the public) saw.
But if the President wants people to trust him when he claims to be able to fund much of his health plan with savings gained by reducing fraud, he better be willing to follow through by reducing the funding for the organization responsible for the wrongdoing in these videos.
Report comment to moderator
AMPHIPOLIS #40: You are making things up out of whole cloth, as you did with your San Bernardino ACORN statement.
Everytime you ask, you receive:
Giles and O’Keefe asked Kaelke, if ACORN could help them secure a home loan so they could buy a house and start a brothel, but Kaelke said ACORN could not help.
– San Bernardino Sun http://www.sbsun.com/search/ci_13352663
Report comment to moderator
Scroop
You can’t worship 2 Gods.
Obama is not good.
He is most convincing when he speaks. HE’s there FOR YOU.
And I love the sad photos of him. It looks like he lost his best friend.
Report comment to moderator
My understanding is that ACORN’s self-investigation will be done by folks who’ve been recipient of past ACORN largesse.
Not exactly like bringing in a disinterested auditor.
Reminds me of the time Kofi Anan did a self-investigation of the scandalous “Oil for Food” program in Iraq. Anan cleared himself of all wrong-doing.
And that was the end of that!!
Report comment to moderator
ACORN is being used to support obamacare.
They ARE important to Obama. And he does keep in contact with them as he told them he would.
Report comment to moderator
57 – Nice reference, too bad the Sun made it up and you credulously believed it.
Why don’t you watch the video?
Report comment to moderator
DJ, You left something important out of your analysis, Obama did not say what he saw on the videos. Perhaps he saw an organization that needs to be investigated! Is he stupid? We know he saw two things — employees and workplace management. It is unfair and malicious to conclude that Obama is avoiding a global investigation (which ACORN itself has commissioned) by Congress or the Justice Department.
Malicious is a strong word, I know. You are not a malicious person. But we have absolutely no basis for speculating that Obama would hinder, interfere, or limit any kind of investigation by Congress or the Justice Department.
Christians conservatives can’t help themselves from feeling a bit malicious towards an organization that helps the poor without Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth
Obama is quick to call for an in investigation into group that are against his views. But when it comes to groups the support him, he does not pay any attention to them.
“Christians conservatives can’t help themselves from feeling a bit malicious towards an organization that helps the poor without Jesus. ” Not at all, this group has a history of voter registering fraud. An the justify department has never look into it under any president not have congress call them onto the carpet to explain themselves. I am glad finial they are getting the attention they deserves.
Report comment to moderator
#61 — Then the media is making stuff up, not me, AMPHIPOLIS. I don’t lie.
#54 — Besides Blackwater, let’s not forget the CIA. Conservatives don’t care if the Bush justice department shoved one or two torturers into prison on a plea deal. They don’t want the organization itself to be investigated. They don’t even want the results of internal, biased investigations to be released. Given a choice between investigating war crimes or investigating stupid, evil poor people talking about doing pretend stuff that their organization would never actually do, Christians will of course investigate the latter.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, I wouldn’t say Obama is “avoiding” an investigation of the whole organization. We don’t know yet. Obama has a lot on his plate. He’s chosen an ambitious agenda (healthcare overhaul at a time of near economic collapse). I don’t blame him for not giving ACORN his undivided attention. But he has to have set up an administration that will zealously follow through with any and all serious, credible allegations of wrong-doing–particularly if the organization is receiving federal funds. Obama’s credibility regarding the ability to reduce fraud to fund healthcare is one the line as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if he personally oversees the process, but there should be swift action by his administration. Congress has acted and so should the Obama administration.
As for your claim that [c]hristian conservatives can’t help themselves from feeling a bit malicious toward an organization that helps the poor without Jesus”–I think you may be doing a lttle projecting there.
Conservatives don’t like ACORN because they fear the videos may be all too typical of the way ACORN “helps the poor”.
Report comment to moderator
There’s no voter fraud, PASTOR. Nobody, never, nowhere. There’s no logic or purpose to that business model, when ACORN can register vast numbers of real voters. ACORN actually has been the victim of homeless people who try to get paid for turning in registration sheets naming Mickey Mouse. County Registrars in lots of places now impose a big fee for unnecessary clerical work.
Poor people don’t fill out forms right. It’s not the decline and fall of the empire, Pastor.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: Nice reference, too bad the Sun made it up and you credulously believed it.
Why don’t you watch the video?
What’s your evidence that the Sun made it up? That’s a report about an ACORN office that’s NOT part of the video, where what happened in the videos made elsewhere didn’t happen. The right-wing “journalists” aren’t releasing the videos where ACORN employees behaved correctly, because that wouldn’t serve their agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Ok folks, let say Congress does an investigation into ACORN and it does uncover ties between Obama and ACORN or ACORN and the Black Caucus, or even ties between ACORN and the Dem. Leadership. Does anyone believe that the Dem. Party will not move to stop the investigation. The Dem. Party need groups like ACORN in order to win nexts year.
Report comment to moderator
#29 News2me!
Right you are!!
We need to focus on the real issues here. Calls to mind how the INS was all worked up in a tizzy about Elian but let the 9/11 skyjackers waltz right in with expired “student” visas.
The AG will investigate the Gitmo interrogators. But ACORN slime and corrupt mismanagemt? Not so much.
Report comment to moderator
I agree. The incidents in these tapes should be investigated by a neutral party. “Internal review” is not good enough.
DJ: Obama clearly says that what he saw on the video deserves investigation. He clearly does NOT say the whole organization should be investigated, nor does he imply it. That doesn’t mean he necessarily opposes having the whole org investigated. But I would not be surprised if he’s just referring to the offices on tape and the offenses committed. He doesn’t seem to care a lot about it beyond what he (and the public) saw.
Beyond what he and the public saw, what basis is there for an investigation? I know Glenn Beck has all kinds of conspiracy theories about how they’re tied to Che Gueverra and Lenin via Woodrow Wilson (yes, seriously), but you actually need evidence to start investigations of an organization.
What has been done so far is not enough, and what conservatives are calling for is too much. Just cutting off funds does not address fraud and illegality. But there is not yet any warrant for the sort of dismantling of the entire organization that many on the Right are calling for.
Investigate the offices involved thoroughly. If there is any evidence of organizational fraud or illegality, expand the investigation to include all of acorn. If actionable evidence can be found that someone broke laws, prosecute them. I don’t know the law, but offering to help someone set up a brothel of underage illegals sure sounds like it’s got to violate something. I guess the difficulty in court would be proving their serious intent.
Conduct this at exactly the same time you’re conducting your criminal investigation of torture, and I’d be happy as a clam.
Report comment to moderator
#65 DJ,
I’m with you. If the ACORN staffers were hunkydory with a brothel for illegal underage prostitutes, you gotta wonder what all else they’ve given their endorsemt, blessing and (our!) tax dollars to!!
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth
That right ACORN blame everty one else. Voter Registration Fraud not ACORN fault it is the people they hire fault. These video not ACORN fault it is the people they hire.
At what point is it ACORN Faul Scroop Moth?
Report comment to moderator
Image folks, if this has happen to Focus on the Family can you hear the call from the Dem. Party and those on the left for Congress to look into it.
Report comment to moderator
67 SteveG:
That’s a report about an ACORN office that’s NOT part of the video
No. You really should see the five videos.
From the article:
The San Bernardino video, posted Tuesday, appears to include the only footage in which an ACORN staffer says the group cannot help to a prostitution scheme
Scroop 22 turned this into:
which told the conservative clowns that ACORN would not help them
Please note how the Sun unaccountably did not quote from the transcript. A classic case of printing something to make it so. See my post 24, the one Scroop apparently ignored. I think that is the portion of the video the Sun was misrepresenting.
Report comment to moderator
This is about power.
All other values – helping the poor, stopping prostitution, women’s rights, child rape, etc – they all yield to power. That’s how the biggest leftist organization in America apparently operates. They could care less.
Think about what it would be like to have politicians who got their start through a criminal enterprise, politicians who owe everything to ACORN, politicians that can be blackmailed, politicians that can be completely controlled. It has happened before.
I wonder how many are out there. The organization claimed to be able to provide political cover for those it helps. We’ll see how it does with this.
Report comment to moderator
James – . . . they’re like we don’t we don’t want to have anything to do with prostitution or sex rings
Theresa (Acorn) – Well, that yeah.
James – or international sex rings.
Theresa (Acorn) – Well see, you know, now okay and ACORN will tell you the same thing.
Hannah (Eden) – Yeah.
Theresa (Acorn) – They will. Um, I don’t. You might get an old timer like myself that you know really knows what’s up
Hannah (Eden) – Right.
Theresa (Acorn) – And, and could care less.
I think your transcript backs up the SB Sun, AMPHIPOLIS. There are reports that this worker told the conservative activists a lot of stuff that she made up, just to play along. I donno. She needs to give statements to an investigator voluntarily or to a grand jury. If she’s using ACORN to set up brothels, we need to know. If she isn’t, I’ll be the first person to let you know, AMPHIPOLIS.
PASTOR – ACORN is definitely responsible for erroneous and negligent voter registration forms that street people turn in, and should pay the fees and penalties that Counties charge for unnecessary clerical work. ACORN needs to check the paperwork better before turning it in. ACORN is not guilty of voter fraud. ACORN is definitely responsible for unprofessional conduct of its employees.
However, this won’t be the last time. Any organization that uses ex-cons, street people, former pimps and whores, and the homeless will have to deal with bad behavior by low-level employes, if not also high-level employes. Even Christian orgs., pastor.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, if your attempting to suggest that Obama must investigate the whole entirity of ACORN, without obstruction, I whole heartedly agree with you.
However, the only sure thing we know as far as Obama thinks is that at least, please note “at least”, what he saw on the video should be investigated.
That’s all Emily, I, or anyone else has pointed out. That he wasnt specific, that in the context of the video, its practically another quick deflective answer and states nothing about ACORN as a whole. Normally youd be jumping up and down over WMB taking something farther than is spoken by the president.
There’s no claiming his obstruction or for impeachment…
Frankly, I’m sure there are several good ACORN offices out there, with alot of good people, trying to do alot of good work, and not what we see on the video is the norm. I dont think a witch hunt is necessary, unless the intitial investigation into what these individuals were doing on the video goes that direction. It’s not an obstruction to address only those individuals at this time, nor would it be for the president.
I’m wondering what else these kids have up their sleeves..I still woulda held back another 1 or 2 videos if I had them.
Report comment to moderator
#70 JJF
Maybe I should clarify what I meant when I said Obama’s administration should investigate the whole organization. You may be right in that there is only sufficient reason to open an investigation of the offending offices. But Obama is not willing to state unequivocally that this is sufficient cause to cut off all funding for the org as a whole. Non profit organizations are not just entitled to be funded by the public by virtue of being non-profit. Non profits that get federal funding should have to show that the money is being used for the stated purposes, and that reasonable care is being taken to prevent abuse of funds. The videos taken in different cities and states indicate that Acorn has compromised the public trust. All funding should be immediately stopped pending a full independent investigation as to whether that trust is well-founded enough to continue giving the whole organization funds.
I’m not out for blood from ACORN. There may not even be jail time involved as far as I can see, but clearly the funding should stop. And if it takes an investigation for that to happen, then I’m all for it. If Obama and Congress want to cut the funding, then I wouldn’t think we should spend an inordinate amount of time investigating unless there are signs of provable criminal wrongdoing. Permanently cutting the funding does take away some of the urgency, since the offense would then not be ongoing and would not resume.
As for a criminal investigation of past torture, I don’t know. If the law was clearly broken, then indict and prosecute. But from what I’ve heard, it sounds more like a difference of opinion on what the law actually is, so I can’t see prosecution going anywhere. And like I said, I’m not out for blood. We have enough problems without trying to score partisan points by questionable public vilification. But we do need to make sure that offenses are not ongoing—whether it’s with ACORN, the CIA, DOD, or whoever— because all kinds of corruption and abuse undercuts the public trust.
Report comment to moderator
A fascinating article from Andrew Breitbart via Washington Times:
Monday – Baltimore: Okay, so there’s one bad apple in the barrel, but don’t make a federal case out of it!
Tuesday – Washington: Big whoop! It’s just a glitch.
Wednesday – New York: I can’t hear you!
Thursday – San Bernadino: Despicable journalistic practices!
Friday – San Diego: Okay, we’ll clean up a little and be back better than evah!
Report comment to moderator
Personally I think that ACORN is such a great organization that we should take a couple million, no, no…..billion dollars or tax pay money and just give it to them because they are doing such a fantastic job of employing the poor, the downcast and the less fortunate law breakers of our society. I agree with President Obama that an investigation needs to be launched into the video tapes and that should the Justice Department find anything in the video tapes that Eric Holder finds offensive they should prosecute to the full extent of the law.
On a more serious note it is fairly evident from President Obama’s own words that he saw some things on video tape that need to be investigated and Emily did a fine job of presenting the president’s own words. Any argument from Arcadia or Scroop Moth about the president’s words should be taken up with Mr. Stephanopolous, not Emily or WMB bloggers or whomever you would like to make out to be the administrator of your current victim status.
Report comment to moderator
THORN– That’s all Emily, I, or anyone else has pointed out. That he wasnt specific . . .
I disagree. I think y’all jumped to an unfair conclusion about what Obama was referring to when he said he wanted to investigate “what I saw on that video.” Maybe Obama saw the same thing you did on the video — an organization that needs to be investigated. He’s smart enough, right? Why would he limit the inevitable investigation? He would have to be the second coming of Richard Nixon to get in the way of a criminal investigation.
Besides unfairly assuming that Obama looked at the videos with blinders on, which prevented him from seeing workplace mismanagement as well as workplace misconduct, y’all mistakenly assumed that OBAMA’s job description is to define the terms of an investigation (either to expand or limit an investigation.)
Report comment to moderator
” I think y’all jumped to an unfair conclusion about what Obama was referring to when he said he wanted to investigate “what I saw on that video.””
Your the one jumping to conclusions Scroop…
Report comment to moderator
I suspect Mr. Obama regrets not having his teleprompter programed and readily available. He is, as many politician are, a very good two stepper, spin dancer, and smoke producer. And when I say many, I speak of both sides of the aisle. I think that his defenders on this blog are desperate in their rear action defence tactics.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Another example of President Obama mixing rhetoric with reality from one of his interviews last night:
RHETORIC
President Obama: “For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” (ABC’s This Week, 9/20/09)
“STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.” (ABC’s This Week, 9/20/09)
REALITY
From p. 169 of H.R. 3200, as amended:
“SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. (a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of — (1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, or (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”
RHETORIC
President Obama: “Nobody considers that a tax increase.” (ABC’s This Week, 9/20/09)
REALITY
Sherry Glied, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services: “The individual mandate offers new options, but it also introduces risks. The mandate is in many respects analogous to a tax. …[T]he mandate will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.” (New England Journal of Medicine, 4/10/08)
Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council: “Economists have generally devoted little attention to mandated benefits – regarding them as simply disguised tax and expenditure measures.” (American Economic Review, May 1989)
Then-Sen. Barack Obama: “In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty.” (Democratic presidential debate, 2/21/08)
These are just some of the health care reform ideas out there that ARE fiscally responsible but not being seen:
House GOP Health Care Solutions Group Plan (Unveiled June 17, 2009)
Empowering Patients First Act (Republican Study Group Health Care Reform Bill, unveiled July 30, 2009)
Improving Health Care for All Americans Act (Shadegg Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 14, 2009)
Patients’ Choice Act (Ryan-Nunes Health Care Reform Bill, introduced May 20, 2009)
Medical Rights & Reform Act (Kirk-Dent Health Care Reform Bill, introduced June 16, 2009)
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act (Gingrey medical liability reform bill, introduced June 6, 2009)
Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009 (Johnson small business health plans bill, introduced May 21, 2009)
31 Common-Sense Changes Republicans Offered to Improve Democrats’ Health Care Bill (GOP Leader Alert, July 28, 2009)
House Republican Leaders’ Letter to President Obama [PDF] Outlining Areas for Common Ground on Health Care Reform (May 13, 2009)
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t he tell him ahead of time what the questions would be?
He probably wouldn’t have shown up.
Oops! Sorry, I’m on the road for healthcare. Too busy.
And where is he getting the money for that road trip?
Report comment to moderator
From what I read in the healthcare info.
The penalty money goes into a general pot of money and not to healthcare. That’s kind of odd. I guess that since you aren’t willingly giving your contribution to healthcare, then it’s not healthcare money. Is there a special place that all penalty money goes to?
Do we need a CZAR to watch that money?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop:
A laughable theory after watching the video, and the four others.
She helped them in any way she could.
She helped them. She was from ACORN. The article was wrong.
Theresa – call your business something else
later
They’re better off with these people than they are with he pimp they’re with
Report comment to moderator
Shocked. I am shocked. Pigs rooting among the acorns right here on worldmagblog.
Report comment to moderator
Shocked, I am shocked. Pigs trying to defend their hord of acorns right here on WMB. What say you RN?
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the thing though Amphi. Theresa says that ACORN will tell them “the same thing,” that they don’t want anything to do with prostitution. UNLESS they get “an old-timer” who “could care less.”
That sounds to me like it supports the argument that some individual employees are ignoring the rules, rather than it being a systemic problem.
Once again, we have no idea how many offices they tried this sting at. Did they try six and get hits at five? Or did they try forty and get hits at five? The answer to that question bears a great deal on whether this is evidence of a problem with the organization itself or a few unscrupulous individuals.
As I said up at #8, there should be a thorough investigation — and if that wasn’t clear enough, I’ll clarify that it should be by an outside entity without a vested interest in the outcome. But so far, we have evidence only that some people were willing to turn a blind eye. We don’t know if ACORN condones it, and we don’t know if it’s 90 percent or 10 percent of ACORN office workers who would do it.
Report comment to moderator
AmPHIPOLIS She helped them in any way she could. She didn’t help them open a brothel. Or did the conservative activists cut out that video segment?
Report comment to moderator
The same response at five different locations.
They were helped when they ought to have been shown the door.
Systemic corruption.
Watch the videos.
Report comment to moderator
Five. Out of five? Or out of a hundred? That matters.
I’m not defending them. If they’re aiding criminal activity, they should be punished and possibly some people should go to jail. But neither am I willing to condemn them based on videos which might have been edited to make people appear guilty,or which might reflect a small fraction of the locations where they tried it.
Investigate, and take appropriate action based on the results. Don’t rush to judgment.
Report comment to moderator
She didn’t help them open a brothel.
Oh, so they were discussing something else?
Hanah (Eden) – What do you think of my idea of disguising it as a spa?
Theresa (ACORN) – That’s exactly what I would do. Um, I would I would disguise it as and they’re all over the place. You know. Um, Thai Massage. You know. Swedish massage – you. I mean there are just a bunch of them.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not defending them.
Yes you are – one out of a hundred is unacceptable and you know it.
We are talking about abetting child prostitution.
Your comment is disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
I feel sorry for those ACORN ladies on the video on biggovernment.com.
When you are trained by the master and told that you can do anything you want because you are now covered by the highest office in the land. How can you go wrong?
So far they have gotten away with quite a lot of stuff.
I gotta say that they weren’t prejudiced against white people.
Another reason to have total control of the internet–which I understand that O is working on in the name of Nat’l security.
Report comment to moderator
If this keeps up, Obama won’t have much time to concentrate on healthcare.
I don’t see why he doesn’t just put the thing thru anyway. What opposition does he have? Oh, wait a minute, if he doesn’t have ACORN to get the votes for his Dems, what can he threaten them with? Would that make Dems vote against Obama’s agenda?
Maybe Organizing for America can become the new ACORN.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: Yes you are – one out of a hundred is unacceptable and you know it.
We are talking about abetting child prostitution.
Your comment is disgusting.
One out of a hundred is unacceptable, but it’s also evidence that the problem is limited and the fault of individual bad employees. 99 out of a hundred is unacceptable, and also evidence that the problem is systemic and likely comes from policy decisions made at the top.
The difference is important for deciding the best course of action. A good community organization with a few bad people needs to fire the bad ones and cooperate in their prosecution. It does not need to have its funding cut off.
A bad organization that’s operating as a front for prostitution needs to be disbanded, defunded and its leaders sent to prison.
Your refusal to understand this is telling.
Report comment to moderator
news2me – Maybe Organizing for America can become the new ACORN
you may be onto something
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – I believe 14 States were already looking into ACORN before this.
Report comment to moderator
“I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.”
Either he is lying (ehem!) or he has just defined “whole lotta money”. To Obama, 9 trillion dollars ain’t a whole lotta money. It’s chump change, used to pay off cronies, union thugs and campaign supporters.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it may not be the biggest thing facing the country, but that doesn’t mean we can’t investigate ACORN. Or is Obama only capable of doing one thing at a time? Other presidents did more than one thing at a time.
Report comment to moderator
A good community organization leader would be willing to face Congress. Bertha ain’t goin’.
Report comment to moderator
This is just plain nuts. Over the last 8 years, government contractors stole BILLIONS from the taxpayers in Iraq, the government itself LOST many millions, government agencies and contractors KILLED civilians in detention, and then tried to manipulate the terror-alert level to win an election, yet you folks want to launch investigations into an organization that gets $55 million? Because of some comments by a couple of employees? And raw rumors distributed by the likes of Pastor Joel Mark and Pastor Roy?
The willingess of so many here to blow these comments hugely out of proportion into some huge immoral carnal cabal of debauchery and lay it at the feet of the President is certainly evidence of something.
Of course it has NOTHING to do with the COLOR of many of the folks ACORN employs and helps or the color of the President… Nah, never…
Report comment to moderator
I think we should have Gerald Walpin, the fired Inspecter General of AmeriCorps, investigate ACORN. He’s very good at it. So good that Obama fired him for catching Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, misappropriating tax dollars in a community organizer kinda way. He knows how these orgs work, and how to audit them. I don’t see Obama or the Dem leadership living up to their most ethical congress evah!!! thing though, so I know it’ll never happen. This will go as the Black Panther prosecution in Philly. It’ll be dropped at the first opportunity. Or they’ll Charlie Rangle it at best, and tell you it’s being investigated. The press will ignore it and it’ll go away.
But the public has seen ACORN and Obama and his ilk for what they are. ACORN is community organizing Obama style. This stuff is adding up. Those of us who caught on before the election were ignored. That’s not the case anymore. Better late than never.
Report comment to moderator
Why did Congress vote to cut ACORN’s cash? I can certainly understand why Repubs would, if for no other than totally partisan reasons. By why would most Dems? Is it because they’re aware of who and what ACORN is in total, and thought it was best to be on record against that sorta stuff? Is it because they know what the American people think of this nonsense and are simply covering their butts?
A decent AG would open a RICO type investigation. Who besides taxpayers funds them? Who are the private doors? That’s where things will get interesting, which is also why it will be stonewalled by Obama. That’s the bigger story here. Who is ACORN? And where do they get their money? Who exactly is Obama and the Dem leadership in bed with? That’s what I would like to know.
Report comment to moderator
Acorn? Is that spelled with an ‘A’?
Report comment to moderator
OH this just gets better! This is the kinda stuff Obama can’t afford to have everyone aware of. He really needs this to go away.
“Rathke was also an organizer for the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), a group whose members physically occupied welfare offices, intimidating social workers and insisting that they be given every government welfare dollar that the law “entitled” them to.
They defined a model of political and economic subversion that called upon activists to pack the welfare rolls to spread dependency, bankrupt the government, and cause uprisings against the capitalist system. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani blames the Cloward-Piven Strategy for pushing his city close to bankruptcy in 1975.
The same year as his arrest, Rathke founded ACORN to carry out the strategy of upheaval and the agenda of welfare entitlement. That agenda manifests itself today in
the ACORN Tax & Benefit Access Center and the ACORN Financial Justice Center.
In other words, ACORN was created not to help people, but to get people on welfare in order to bring change to society.
ACORN created a new kind of tax preparation service based on the assumption that Americans have a “right” to welfare. Think of it as H&R Block for subversives. ACORN helps people claim the EITC, a make-believe tax credit that functions more as a welfare benefit. The goal is not primarily to help Americans in need but to pack the welfare rolls in order to expand the size and scope of government. It even strong-armed banks into counting food stamps as income on mortgage applications.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy remains relevant today especially because — in a move that just about nobody noticed — the spectacularly successful Clinton era welfare reforms were erased in language buried deep within the February stimulus package signed into law by President Obama. As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has documented, federal law has been changed to offer new financial incentives to states to increase their welfare caseloads.
ACORN, with its hundreds of tax-exempt nonprofit affiliates, has always operated on the fringes of the law. It contributed in its own way to the subprime mortgage crisis. Its history of lawbreaking, including poor treatment of its own workers and criminal trespass and squatting aimed at forcibly preventing lawful foreclosures, has been extensively documented.”
Now what do you think the average American would think of Obama, Dems, and ACORN, if the MSM would tell them who they are?
Report comment to moderator
oops…. forgot the link in 108.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/21/acorns-useful-idiots/print
Report comment to moderator
How Obama deals with this will be instructive about how he would deal with the historically bedeviled details and relevant regulations of any large government initiative (e.g., health care reform). It’s not the “biggest issue.” But its an arguably indicative case study.
We’re told over and over that in principle, there aren’t truly objectionable provisions in the health care plans the president supports, many of which are couched in language that would require subsequent regulative interpretation and actualization. So here is his chance to show how he deals with a program that’s ostensibly beneficial in conception but clearly prone to hideous perversion in practice.
“I don’t know much about ACORN” is not, at first glance, very reassuring, and in context of past association, a stance that approaches dissemblance.
Report comment to moderator
How can you legally represent an organization you don’t know much about?
Report comment to moderator
The willingess of so many here to blow these comments hugely out of proportion into some huge immoral carnal cabal of debauchery
Arcadia, have you watched the videos?
SteveG, have you?
Of course it has NOTHING to do with the COLOR of many of the folks ACORN employs and helps or the color of the President… Nah, never…
These people are being attacked for what they said. The only reason why you say this is that those who are criticizing ACORN are white.
Yours is the racist statement.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia:
The willingess of so many here
And an overwhelming number of Democrats in Congress, and the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427041636360388.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
and US News & World Report
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/09/21/the-case-for-acorn-as-a-criminal-enterprise.html
and the Justice Department
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/21/justice-department-inspector-general-launches-internal-acorn-probe/
Also, I would NOT assume there were only problems in five cities.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: I’ve seen some of the videos, not all.
Obviously there’s something very wrong with ACORN. The unanswered questions remain: how widepsread is it, and is it the result of some undisciplined employees or is it official policy? You apparently don’t think those questions are important. I do.
And Arcadia makes an excellent point in #104. I don’t recall any conservatives expressing much concern about some very real, costly and deadly abuses on the part of contractors. In fact I recall a number of conservatives defending outfits such as Blackwater and CACI as they looted the taxpayers and put soldiers in danger.
The ACORN scandal is a real one, although its scope is not yet know, but that one is too … and that one is much more costly to us. But it went on under a Republican administration and in the course of fighting a war that conservatives liked, so let’s not look too closely at that, eh?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia attempts a red herring in #104. This has nothing to do with Iraq, other than Iraq serving as the perennial liberal distraction of choice, their get out of trouble because someone else is bad card. I don’t recall the liberals expressing concern about rampant UN abuse, which is just as irrelevant to this serious issue.
There is a lot wrong with ACORN.
If you watched any of this embarrassing performance by ACORN mob boss Bertha Lewis Sunday you couldn’t help by conclude the woman is a pathological liar.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/09/so-acorn-doesnt-have-tax-issues.html
But the tax mess shows that the lawlessness starts at its headquarters.
ACORN is the largest liberal group in the country, closely associated with the president. Democrats have a lot to answer for.
If you care about anything you purport to care about, you will not attempt to shelter this group with your usual fallacies and distractions.
I thought arcadia cared about teen girls. Apparently arcadia is as ambivalent as Obama.
Report comment to moderator
I’m back, pussycats, the meanest fighter on WorldMag Professional Wrestling. You’ve had your turn winning, so shut up for a while and let me win again.
Report comment to moderator
I won!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Serious George (#110) that the ACORN situation makes a good ‘case study’ for how the Obama administration (and future administrations) might be expected to deal with the regulatory process that is being proposed for healthcare. If the President’s administration can’t even decide that the organization responsible for the fiasco playing out in living color on cable should be defunded, don’t tell me we’ll pay for healthcare reform with savings ferreted out from hidden fraud.
Report comment to moderator
DJ: But you know perfectly well that we believe in “innocent until proven guilty” in this country. (Well, us liberals do.)
What is “playing out in living color” is the actions of a half-dozen or so employees of a very large organization. What if those half-dozen are the only ones who would? Should the entire organization, which does a lot of good, be defunded because of the actions of six people?
This is why I say, investigate it. If the problem is truly systemic, in that the organization’s leaders approve of their workers enabling criminal activity, then take away their funding and prosecute their leaders. But if it turns out that some unscrupulous employees are doing this without the approval of the leadership, defunding the entire organization would be an injustice.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia – And raw rumors distributed by the likes of Pastor Joel Mark and Pastor Roy?
what rumors?
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
Non-profits are not entitled to receive any money, so taking away federal funding—even if they did nothing wrong—would not be an ‘injustice’. As it happens, ACORN has done something wrong. They have already fired employees over this, so that is an admission that there was wrongdoing. Obama’s administration must be proactive and suspend all funding pending a full investigation.
It is possible that ACORN is too big to properly manage all its affiliated offices. “Bigger is always better” has seemed to be the motto for many organizations in the past few years. This is a problem right now with many organizations including financials like Citigroup. Non-profits are not immune.
Obama’s credibility is on the line here, especially since the breach of trust was so public and closely associated with him in the public eye. Funding should be halted immediately until this is fully resolved. Period.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree. They may not be entitled to funding, but if they have funding, then cutting it off on the grounds of criminality before the criminality is proved would be unwarranted.
As you say, they’ve fired people. How do you know that that’s not all they needed to do, fire the few bad apples?
The bottom line is, we don’t know. All the rightwing hysterics who talk about ACORN as if it were the creation of Satan himself don’t know that the corruption goes any deeper than the surface, and ACORN’S staunchest defenders don’t know that it doesn’t.
Those of us in the middle of those extremes would like to see some outside auditor/investigator figure out just what’s what before handing down sentences.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – the problem is over the past elections ACORN has been caught with false registering of voters in different States. An ACORN responds has been the same it is not our fault you can not hold us accountability for a few bad apples. Nopw we have these videos and we are getting the same responds from ACORN you can not hold us accountability for a few bad apples. At what point do you hold them accountability for the bad apples?
Report comment to moderator
That’s too easy, DJ. There’s no funding decision to be made. Congress cut off ACORN’s $3.5 million.
The relevant point is in one of STEVEG’s posts above. The federal money that went (past tense) to ACORN, not a penny of which went to pimps and hos, is about a tenth of the government money that goes to a single executive on Wall Street.
The real test for the probity of government efforts to regulate private insurance companies will be Obama’s ability to regulate Wall Street.
Report comment to moderator
“I don’t agree. They may not be entitled to funding, but if they have funding, then cutting it off on the grounds of criminality before the criminality is proved would be unwarranted.”
Should we suspend Vick from the NFL when simply under allegations?
Should we suspend a police officer when his controversial action at a recent event comes under review?
Should the funding be suspended, at least until we are sure of innocence considering we arent under a judge?
It may be “unwarranted”, or not necessary by law at the time, but until the matter is resolved, it is often best to put a hold on the matter, would you agree? Especially with federal money.
If the investigation reveals a that the perps are limited to the individuals then you can easily reinstate the funding. If it’s the organization as a whole, then youve already cut funding, and you’ve not contributed any further to that organizations misgivings.
Report comment to moderator
Obama thinks he may have heard of Acorn once. They’re getting federal dollars? Huh! Who knew?
Report comment to moderator
Exactly Xion. Or as the WSJ put it, ACORN who?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427041636360388.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
“Mr. Obama took great pains to act as if he barely knew about Acorn. In fact, his association goes back almost 20 years. In 1991, he took time off from his law firm to run a voter-registration drive for Project Vote, an Acorn partner that was soon fully absorbed under the Acorn umbrella. The drive registered 135,000 voters and was considered a major factor in the upset victory of Democrat Carol Moseley Braun over incumbent Democratic Senator Alan Dixon in the 1992 Democratic Senate primary.”
“Mr. Obama’s success made him a hot commodity on the community organizing circuit. He became a top trainer at Acorn’s Chicago conferences. In 1995, he became Acorn’s attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law’s loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by Acorn employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names.”
“In 1996, Mr. Obama filled out a questionnaire listing key supporters for his campaign for the Illinois Senate. He put Acorn first (it was not an alphabetical list). In the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama became the leading critic of Voter ID laws, whose overturn was a top Acorn priority. In 2007, in a speech to Acorn’s leaders prior to their political arm’s endorsement of his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was effusive: “I’ve been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
“But the Obama campaign didn’t appear eager to discuss the candidate’s ties to Acorn. Its press operation vividly denied Mr. Obama had been an Acorn trainer until the New York Times uncovered records demonstrating that he had been. The Obama campaign also gave Citizens Consulting, Inc., an Acorn subsidiary, $832,000 for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states.”
Who???…….indeed.
Report comment to moderator
122 I don’t agree. They may not be entitled to funding, but if they have funding, then cutting it off on the grounds of criminality before the criminality is proved would be unwarranted.
Steve,
If there’s criminality there should be jail time. They should be defunded for incompetence if nothing else. Incompetence is already visible. As I said, it’s possible that they’re too big to be managed well and might profit from some reorganizing.
Receiving public money requires public trust, and whether it’s through incompetence or criminality, they’ve behaved in such a way as to lose the public trust. I don’t have a problem with government funding some non profits for specific things, but only if the organization is above reproach. At this time, ACORN is not. They should lose the money until they prove themselves trustworthy.
Report comment to moderator
That’s too easy, DJ. There’s no funding decision to be made. Congress cut off ACORN’s $3.5 million.
Scroop,
If that were true, Obama would not have refused to agree that the funding should be cut off when he was busy interviewing on Sunday. The Congressional resolutions were political cover (probably because they knew their constituencies would tar and feather them if they didn’t), but those resolutions don’t ensure that ACORN will not receive federal money. The executive branch has control over who gets grant money for the projects that it oversees. The fact that Obama didn’t indicate that ACORN would not be receiving more federal dollars pending a full investigation means there is no guarantee that they won’t.
As for Wall Street regulation, I am watching that as well, but that will be much more complicated than an investigation of ACORN—that should have been a gimme. Obama muffed it, but it remains to be seen how bad.
Report comment to moderator
Congress cut off ACORN’s $3.5 million.
They did no such thing. Yes, they voted overwhelingly to cut off ACORN funding. But that does not mean the funding is cut off.
The House and the Senate added defunding amendments to two different bills. There is no bill right now passed by both the House and the Senate to defund ACORN. The bills would go to a conference committee where anything could happen. As the furor dies down, the Democrats back off.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that Congress needs to gather more facts before it decides whether to cut off all federal funds for ACORN, the liberal nationwide network of community-based organizations.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54379
Also, I don’t think the Senate voted to cut off ALL funding, just HUD funding.
Incidentally, a declaration of guilt is not necessary for the government to not give ACORN taxpayer money. The government is not obliged to give them anything.
Report comment to moderator
AMPHI – I too demand meticulous prosecution of all violations of law, up to and including home use of ACORN office supplies, and I hope that the penalties are so fanatical as to evoke sympathy from wealthy moderates, if not Christians.
Do not worry, with blue dogs running pack with Republicans, the funding is history, every last penny.
ACORN is staring at the full Monty of fury over $3.5 million in taxpayer funds squandered on pimps and whores at 100 offices coast to coast. Although the conservative film makers neglected fly-over country, Congress will not stop until it uncovers the corruption in Witchitaw and Debuque.
The best part of the investigation will be watching Republicans stalk out of the subcommittee room following the film makers’s testimony, leaving empty chairs during the testimony of the poverty professors from the Kennedy School of Government.
Nobody knows what ACORN actually does, and nobody wants to. The investigation will give liberals the opportunity finally to put ACORN on the record, and make conservative commentators jump through hoops not to look spiteful, IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
You certainly don’t want to know what they actually do – unless you have finally looked at those videos?
Report comment to moderator
See this expose of ACORN’s housing assistance:
http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/UploadedFiles/ACORN_AHC_Report.pdf
It’s Documented: ACORN Housing Works for Its Donors, Not for the Poor
Report comment to moderator
ACORN – tirelessly helping the poor find housing, problems only a few bad apples
See Bertha Lewis in action:
http://www.rumur.com/news/acorn-forest-city-ratner-and-the-atlantic-yards/
Liberals do not care about the poor. Liberals care about power.
Report comment to moderator
whatever ACORN may or may not be guilty of, ACORN != “liberals.”
Report comment to moderator
(translating: != is the symbol for “does not equal.” I don’t wish to be misunderstood here.)
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG thanks for the symbol. That’s very clever.
Barney Frank says ACORN should not get any more government money.
Liberals should found a new organization containing the word “family.”
Report comment to moderator
And “American”
Report comment to moderator
Weave ‘free trade’ somewhere into the name, Scroop, and you might have a winner.
Report comment to moderator
Gee, ACORN == liberals a few months ago.
Scroop,
13 ACORN does a poor job of enforcing professional workplace standards in some of its offices.
32 Because an investigation will show what important and valuable work ACORN does and what a huge return on investment the public gets for relatively small change.
Scroop in his progressive haze thought ACORN was doing a great job. A few bad apples, that was all. They needed to develop professional workplace standards that do not include child prostitution. No problem at the top, a wise use of taxpayer money, excepting of course the current investigations revealing that their main office doesn’t pay the gov’t the withholding they collect.
If ACORN is not THE liberal organization, with its connections to labor unions, cities, Obama, every liberal cause there is, get out the vote, etc – nothing is.
ACORN is the result of liberal values that allow ends to justify means, that favor power over people.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!