Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
How totally refreshing to see INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM that is not partisan. We see it so seldom lately that it is almost shocking. Thank You, Rachel Maddow. The fellow from the Nation was also impressive. Thanks for posting, Gryphen.
Finally! Thanks Gryphen, I have been tying to tell friends about this-now I can send them straight over here. It is amazing how knowing the law and the constitution, and a few facts, help you to see the big picture. Ms. Madow has put out a very easy to understand segment that needs to be seen by everyone. Maybe we can now look at the real culprits in govmt fraud.
While I can't hear the video (boy, do I wish they would CC you tube and others!) we all know why ACORN is a target. They don't want poor, people of color to vote. Because when your poor, you'll most likely vote Democratic. Unless of course, you are rethuglican't. They always vote against their own self interests. And just like the tea baggin fools, they complain that Health Care reform won't be deficit neutral. Most of them don't even make enough money to pay Federal Income Taxes. They usually get the EIC refund. Idiots.
Go Rachel! I hope she has Peter Dreier back on next week to continue this investigation into the ACORN smear.
Yeah, let's shut down Blackwater & the others too, right, GOP (and Democrats who are voting with them)? What's fair is fair in terms of contractors. Why are we giving millions to contractors who have murdered on foreign soil?
Rachel Maddow is just fantastic, she put's this ACORN FOKKKs "News" crap in perspective. The millions that these defense contractors defrauded our country out of is astounding - and, that's before we talk about the other abhorrent criminal acts that Blackwater, KBR, Armor Group, Dyncorp committed. Rep. Alan Grayson was attempting to add other organizations who defrauded the government to the bill to defund ACORN. His interview with Glenn Greenwald is on Youtube - he states vociferously that most defense contractors have been convicted of fraud, unlike ACORN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFDmyIPm1kg&feature=youtube_gdata
Rachel is right on target - Rep. Alan Grayson was attempting to add these corrupt defense contractors to the Defund ACORN Bill. His interview with Glenn Greenwald is worth a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFDmyIPm1kg&feature=youtube_gdata
Looks like an attempt to excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.
If someone wants to propose de-funding defense contractors, or whoever, go for it. Right now, this is about ACORN.
We've had countless poundings of defense contractors, the military -- all the folks Rachel complains about -- in the past and present:
The NY Times went ape over Abu in Iraq for weeks on the front page, not to mention anything and everything they could dig up to bring shame upon the Bush admin., which was well deserved in some cases.
60 minutes, Dateline, Frontline for years went/goes after all sorts of corporations and defense contractor types.
And now finally conservative reporters/outlets do the same thing. But instead of "good, we don't need a huge organization helping people set up illegal circumstances using taxpayer dollars, good job guys", we get no coverage of the actual meat of the wrongdoing by ACORN, only a defense of them, by way of pointing out others' wrongdoing.
I think the real problem Rachel is having with acknowledging the depth of ACORN's depravity is because of its ties to, and history with, the POTUS.
I suspect this is the same problem so many other news organizations are having with, in many cases, even mentioning the story. At least Rachel is willing to talk about the subject, even if she's unwilling to shine the light in the proper direction at this particular moment, IMHO.
Grphen, So that we can get behind the story that Rachel is trying to tell and show the hypocrisy of it as compared to Firms like Blackwater... is there some sort of a petition to sigh or is there someone in Congress or the Senate that is defending ACORN. Who is on their side and how can we support them..? Our voices need to be heard. Do you have a list of the Politicians who voted to ' defund 'ACORN..? I want to see that list and see if my Politicians are on it. If they are they will be getting a phone call.I think we can safely say the ' donations ' they receive from defense Co's are the reason they won't call them out. Where can we find the Voting record on this Bill?
@12:50 - the "wrongdoings by ACORN" are NOTHING compared to the egregious acts of the defense contractors and other private (for profit) contractors currently in gov't employ. You want to compare murder and torture to what was caught on film in Baltimore?
The "ties to the POTUS" meme is bogus. Go review Part One of Rachel's piece and listen to Dr. Dreier talk about his media study. He will explain it all to you.
Where did I "compare" the actions of anyone? What I said was -- it's not a valid defense to simply point out equal or worse behavior on the part of someone else, just because it happens to be your time in the spotlight.
I'm all for whatever action is warranted against whomever. If congress decides to "defund" defense contractors, fine. But for now, large numbers of Democrats felt it was appropriate to defund ACORN, or it wouldn't have happened. They've GOT the majority by quite a bit.
Media study? How about simply searching the phrase "Obama's ties to ACORN" and "Obama's acorn speech"
It's a significant relationship, and Rachel knows it. Her part one didn't even touch on Obama's historical relationship with ACORN, at least not the part I saw.
I haven't seen the whole Maddow series, but my guess is that she's largely glossing over the real subject of what's been happening for the last few weeks: A couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute has apparently been consistently successful in procuring ACORN tacit support of their (fictitious) illegal/immoral activities/ambitions, and advice on how to keep it on the down-low. THESE TWO are the ones who have caused the recent shunning of ACORN Rachel, not the evil corporations that you talk about hiring someone to defame them with "grass-roots" websites. All those millions to lobbyists, and these two meddling kids do the job for 1300 dollars.
And of course the ACORN links to Obama also likely have not been high on her list of what she deems important information for her audience to be aware of.
According to O'Keefe and Giles, they didn't encounter ANY ACORN employees that turned them away in disgust, as one would expect of any decent person or legitimate organization. Exactly the opposite. Which is why the claims of all the supposed good ACORN does are highly suspect --- and that's really the point that Rachel is missing or ignoring.
@11:39, with all due respect, why are you trying debate something you haven't seen or read and know nothing about? Take some time to educate yourself on the issue. Stop smearing Maddow without knowing what has been revealed. Your suppositions about what's she's aired are meaningless.
Dr. Peter Dreier has co-written a whole study about the ACORN media smears. So why not take a look at his evidence before deciding what Maddow is doing? Too much Fox news for you, it seems. You don't even know the true story about O'Keefe and Giles. But you will, once their funders are revealed.
This is where I part company with most of the posters here. I absolutely agree that ACORN's books should be investigated, should have been investigated a decade or more ago.
The premise and mission of the organization is sound - I believe it was organized to respond to the 'redlining' loan reform legislation of the 80s, at least in part. Yes, that required grassroots organizations to help low-income people know their rights and, most importantly, register to vote.
But there have been abuses over the years, unless you prefer to hide your head in the sand and not look at them straight on. They often hire less than educated, low income challenged persons - there is nothing wrong with that - but then fail to provide these folks the proper training to help them meet their obligations professionally.
The organization needs to be cleaned up, most importantly for the clients they serve.
What the Right Wing IS wrong about are the supposed connections of Obama to ACORN. They are tenuous, indeed. OK, he represented them (and others) in a legal case. . .pretty standard for the time (and required for the new laws to be enforced propertly) and that was, ahem, only ONE CASE. What is surprising is that he was not involved in more.
It appears that he may have spearheaded some training sessions. . .great, they needed them.
But other than that, the trail is dead and cold, a lot like the 'Ayers' connection. Time and time again you read of Obama on the campaign trail very carefully lauding them at a distance, happy to support their (and similar) issues in parallel fashion, but not getting involved in any meaningful way. (Ed. Trans. needed the votes, supported the mission, but not interested in yoking his name to theirs.)
Take a second look at ACORN, do some research. Their voter registration supervision is a joke, and the guys at the top were, frankly, crooked.
Clean up this organization and set them back on their feet and then you got somethin' worthwhile. Just saying. . .
My intent is not to "smear" Rachel, in fact I'm a believer in watching both conservative and liberal leaning shows. I find that I learn the whole story that way, not just half, or three quarters. But in this case, there's not really two sides to this particular story. The operative FACT is that several (and reportedly more to come) ACORN offices have been exposed as being complicit in illegal and immoral behavior that large majorities of Americans find abhorrent. There's no getting around that simple unfortunate fact.
Now it just so happens that I didn't see the entire Rachel Maddow ACORN week. But the clear impression I get from various reports and clips was that her focus was certainly NOT on that FACT that ACORN offices around the country were consistently willing to embrace the idea of a young couple engaging in running a brothel for income and importing underage illegal immigrants to staff it.
No, her angle was to "defend" them by pointing out all the other nefarious things that go on in the world. Somehow, I don't think that would play very well in court. I think it would go something like this: ..... "Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant"..... "Sustained. Please, counselor, address the charges at hand. Whatever defense contractors may have done has no bearing whatsoever on this case".
Even if the two young meddlers had been bankrolled by someone, and I haven't seen any coherent proof of that, how exactly would that change the fact that the ACORN employees indeed did all take their bait? If it turns out that their taping was illegal and they have to go to jail, how exactly does EVEN THAT change how the ACORN employees behaved?
THAT'S what's gotten people interested and congress outraged and running scared. The FACT that they all so eagerly took the bait. And more to come, apparently.
Rachel chooses not to address this fact head-on, but to draw attention and focus elsewhere. My opinion is that this approach is not serving her audience well nor is it informing it properly. She may be filling in a little around the edges, and that's mildly interesting, but she's not contributing to the main narrative du jour.
That's not a "smear", it's constructive criticism.
@11:56 - once again, you answer incorrectly, in ignorance. Why don't you just go read the new study? That is not what the main feature of the first installment. It focused on a media study which recounted the historicity and funding of these ACORN smears.
I have no idea what your question is. I'm not arguing that ACORN hasn't received some unfair media coverage in the past, such as people using the phrase voter fraud instead of voter registration fraud, the latter being quite massive. (Even Democrat AGs have been taken aback by the amount of fraudulent registrations supplied by ACORN. Most people are disturbed by registration fraud, also, as lots of it tends to overwhelm the system.)
My question to you to add to my previous ones: How does Dr Dreir's study, which doesn't seem to in any way address O'Keefe and Giles' recent ACORN tour, change the fact that ACORN employees consistently were eager to help people engage in tax fraud and illegal activity?
Seems you're trying to do the same thing as Maddow and Dreir. Change the subject from what it really is.
That's fine. But don't you think it would actually behoove ACORN and those who support it to tackle this problem honestly head on, and make/demand some sweeping changes to assure the public that they have high standards of integrity?
Seems that efforts at obfuscation in this case can only be counter-productive and make their image even worse.
Yes, I did read the study back when you first pointed it out. I watched his appearance with Rachel. But neither are really RELEVANT to what's been happening recently re: O'Keefe and Giles. That's my point. Always has been.
Care to address any of MY (and many, many other people's) question?
To summarize: How does anything that Rachel or Dreier has said or written change WHAT HAPPENED in those ACORN offices that the two young meddlers visited?
How totally refreshing to see INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM that is not partisan. We see it so seldom lately that it is almost shocking. Thank You, Rachel Maddow. The fellow from the Nation was also impressive. Thanks for posting, Gryphen.
ReplyDeleteFinally! Thanks Gryphen, I have been tying to tell friends about this-now I can send them straight over here. It is amazing how knowing the law and the constitution, and a few facts, help you to see the big picture. Ms. Madow has put out a very easy to understand segment that needs to be seen by everyone. Maybe we can now look at the real culprits in govmt fraud.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can't hear the video (boy, do I wish they would CC you tube and others!) we all know why ACORN is a target.
ReplyDeleteThey don't want poor, people of color to vote. Because when your poor, you'll most likely vote Democratic. Unless of course, you are rethuglican't. They always vote against their own self interests.
And just like the tea baggin fools, they complain that Health Care reform won't be deficit neutral. Most of them don't even make enough money to pay Federal Income Taxes. They usually get the EIC refund.
Idiots.
Go Rachel! I hope she has Peter Dreier back on next week to continue this investigation into the ACORN smear.
ReplyDeleteYeah, let's shut down Blackwater & the others too, right, GOP (and Democrats who are voting with them)? What's fair is fair in terms of contractors. Why are we giving millions to contractors who have murdered on foreign soil?
Rachel Maddow is just fantastic, she put's this ACORN FOKKKs "News" crap in perspective. The millions that these defense contractors defrauded our country out of is astounding - and, that's before we talk about the other abhorrent criminal acts that Blackwater, KBR, Armor Group, Dyncorp committed.
ReplyDeleteRep. Alan Grayson was attempting to add other organizations who defrauded the government to the bill to defund ACORN. His interview with Glenn Greenwald is on Youtube - he states vociferously that most defense contractors have been convicted of fraud, unlike ACORN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFDmyIPm1kg&feature=youtube_gdata
Rachel is right on target - Rep. Alan Grayson was attempting to add these corrupt defense contractors to the Defund ACORN Bill. His interview with Glenn Greenwald is worth a listen:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFDmyIPm1kg&feature=youtube_gdata
Looks like an attempt to excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior.
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to propose de-funding defense contractors, or whoever, go for it. Right now, this is about ACORN.
We've had countless poundings of defense contractors, the military -- all the folks Rachel complains about -- in the past and present:
The NY Times went ape over Abu in Iraq for weeks on the front page, not to mention anything and everything they could dig up to bring shame upon the Bush admin., which was well deserved in some cases.
60 minutes, Dateline, Frontline for years went/goes after all sorts of corporations and defense contractor types.
And now finally conservative reporters/outlets do the same thing. But instead of "good, we don't need a huge organization helping people set up illegal circumstances using taxpayer dollars, good job guys", we get no coverage of the actual meat of the wrongdoing by ACORN, only a defense of them, by way of pointing out others' wrongdoing.
I think the real problem Rachel is having with acknowledging the depth of ACORN's depravity is because of its ties to, and history with, the POTUS.
I suspect this is the same problem so many other news organizations are having with, in many cases, even mentioning the story. At least Rachel is willing to talk about the subject, even if she's unwilling to shine the light in the proper direction at this particular moment, IMHO.
Grphen,
ReplyDeleteSo that we can get behind the story that Rachel is trying to tell and show the hypocrisy of it as compared to Firms like Blackwater... is there some sort of a petition to sigh or is there someone in Congress or the Senate that is defending ACORN. Who is on their side and how can we support them..? Our voices need to be heard.
Do you have a list of the Politicians who voted to ' defund 'ACORN..? I want to see that list and see if my Politicians are on it. If they are they will be getting a phone call.I think we can safely say the ' donations ' they receive from defense Co's are the reason they won't call them out. Where can we find the Voting record on this Bill?
@12:50 - the "wrongdoings by ACORN" are NOTHING compared to the egregious acts of the defense contractors and other private (for profit) contractors currently in gov't employ. You want to compare murder and torture to what was caught on film in Baltimore?
ReplyDeleteThe "ties to the POTUS" meme is bogus. Go review Part One of Rachel's piece and listen to Dr. Dreier talk about his media study. He will explain it all to you.
@ 6:50 --
ReplyDeleteWhere did I "compare" the actions of anyone? What I said was -- it's not a valid defense to simply point out equal or worse behavior on the part of someone else, just because it happens to be your time in the spotlight.
I'm all for whatever action is warranted against whomever. If congress decides to "defund" defense contractors, fine. But for now, large numbers of Democrats felt it was appropriate to defund ACORN, or it wouldn't have happened. They've GOT the majority by quite a bit.
Media study? How about simply searching the phrase "Obama's ties to ACORN" and "Obama's acorn speech"
It's a significant relationship, and Rachel knows it. Her part one didn't even touch on Obama's historical relationship with ACORN, at least not the part I saw.
I haven't seen the whole Maddow series, but my guess is that she's largely glossing over the real subject of what's been happening for the last few weeks: A couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute has apparently been consistently successful in procuring ACORN tacit support of their (fictitious) illegal/immoral activities/ambitions, and advice on how to keep it on the down-low. THESE TWO are the ones who have caused the recent shunning of ACORN Rachel, not the evil corporations that you talk about hiring someone to defame them with "grass-roots" websites. All those millions to lobbyists, and these two meddling kids do the job for 1300 dollars.
And of course the ACORN links to Obama also likely have not been high on her list of what she deems important information for her audience to be aware of.
According to O'Keefe and Giles, they didn't encounter ANY ACORN employees that turned them away in disgust, as one would expect of any decent person or legitimate organization. Exactly the opposite. Which is why the claims of all the supposed good ACORN does are highly suspect --- and that's really the point that Rachel is missing or ignoring.
@11:39, with all due respect, why are you trying debate something you haven't seen or read and know nothing about? Take some time to educate yourself on the issue. Stop smearing Maddow without knowing what has been revealed. Your suppositions about what's she's aired are meaningless.
ReplyDeleteDr. Peter Dreier has co-written a whole study about the ACORN media smears. So why not take a look at his evidence before deciding what Maddow is doing? Too much Fox news for you, it seems. You don't even know the true story about O'Keefe and Giles. But you will, once their funders are revealed.
This is where I part company with most of the posters here. I absolutely agree that ACORN's books should be investigated, should have been investigated a decade or more ago.
ReplyDeleteThe premise and mission of the organization is sound - I believe it was organized to respond to the 'redlining' loan reform legislation of the 80s, at least in part. Yes, that required grassroots organizations to help low-income people know their rights and, most importantly, register to vote.
But there have been abuses over the years, unless you prefer to hide your head in the sand and not look at them straight on. They often hire less than educated, low income challenged persons - there is nothing wrong with that - but then fail to provide these folks the proper training to help them meet their obligations professionally.
The organization needs to be cleaned up, most importantly for the clients they serve.
What the Right Wing IS wrong about are the supposed connections of Obama to ACORN. They are tenuous, indeed. OK, he represented them (and others) in a legal case. . .pretty standard for the time (and required for the new laws to be enforced propertly) and that was, ahem, only ONE CASE. What is surprising is that he was not involved in more.
It appears that he may have spearheaded some training sessions. . .great, they needed them.
But other than that, the trail is dead and cold, a lot like the 'Ayers' connection. Time and time again you read of Obama on the campaign trail very carefully lauding them at a distance, happy to support their (and similar) issues in parallel fashion, but not getting involved in any meaningful way. (Ed. Trans. needed the votes, supported the mission, but not interested in yoking his name to theirs.)
Take a second look at ACORN, do some research. Their voter registration supervision is a joke, and the guys at the top were, frankly, crooked.
Clean up this organization and set them back on their feet and then you got somethin' worthwhile. Just saying. . .
Anon 6:32,
ReplyDeleteMy intent is not to "smear" Rachel, in fact I'm a believer in watching both conservative and liberal leaning shows. I find that I learn the whole story that way, not just half, or three quarters. But in this case, there's not really two sides to this particular story. The operative FACT is that several (and reportedly more to come) ACORN offices have been exposed as being complicit in illegal and immoral behavior that large majorities of Americans find abhorrent. There's no getting around that simple unfortunate fact.
Now it just so happens that I didn't see the entire Rachel Maddow ACORN week. But the clear impression I get from various reports and clips was that her focus was certainly NOT on that FACT that ACORN offices around the country were consistently willing to embrace the idea of a young couple engaging in running a brothel for income and importing underage illegal immigrants to staff it.
No, her angle was to "defend" them by pointing out all the other nefarious things that go on in the world. Somehow, I don't think that would play very well in court. I think it would go something like this: ..... "Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant"..... "Sustained. Please, counselor, address the charges at hand. Whatever defense contractors may have done has no bearing whatsoever on this case".
Even if the two young meddlers had been bankrolled by someone, and I haven't seen any coherent proof of that, how exactly would that change the fact that the ACORN employees indeed did all take their bait? If it turns out that their taping was illegal and they have to go to jail, how exactly does EVEN THAT change how the ACORN employees behaved?
THAT'S what's gotten people interested and congress outraged and running scared. The FACT that they all so eagerly took the bait. And more to come, apparently.
Rachel chooses not to address this fact head-on, but to draw attention and focus elsewhere. My opinion is that this approach is not serving her audience well nor is it informing it properly. She may be filling in a little around the edges, and that's mildly interesting, but she's not contributing to the main narrative du jour.
That's not a "smear", it's constructive criticism.
@11:56 - once again, you answer incorrectly, in ignorance. Why don't you just go read the new study? That is not what the main feature of the first installment. It focused on a media study which recounted the historicity and funding of these ACORN smears.
ReplyDelete@7:41,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what your question is. I'm not arguing that ACORN hasn't received some unfair media coverage in the past, such as people using the phrase voter fraud instead of voter registration fraud, the latter being quite massive. (Even Democrat AGs have been taken aback by the amount of fraudulent registrations supplied by ACORN. Most people are disturbed by registration fraud, also, as lots of it tends to overwhelm the system.)
My question to you to add to my previous ones: How does Dr Dreir's study, which doesn't seem to in any way address O'Keefe and Giles' recent ACORN tour, change the fact that ACORN employees consistently were eager to help people engage in tax fraud and illegal activity?
Seems you're trying to do the same thing as Maddow and Dreir. Change the subject from what it really is.
That's fine. But don't you think it would actually behoove ACORN and those who support it to tackle this problem honestly head on, and make/demand some sweeping changes to assure the public that they have high standards of integrity?
Seems that efforts at obfuscation in this case can only be counter-productive and make their image even worse.
@9:53 - To repeat myself: "WHY DON'T YOU GO READ THE NEW STUDY?" There, did you get the question this time?
ReplyDeleteYes, I did read the study back when you first pointed it out. I watched his appearance with Rachel. But neither are really RELEVANT to what's been happening recently re: O'Keefe and Giles. That's my point. Always has been.
ReplyDeleteCare to address any of MY (and many, many other people's) question?
To summarize: How does anything that Rachel or Dreier has said or written change WHAT HAPPENED in those ACORN offices that the two young meddlers visited?