Martin Karne on 20/11/2009 at 03:04
Polling a poll about what poll should be polled next.
Shug on 20/11/2009 at 04:53
perhaps they should have pursued this more thoroughly around Bush's first term
Starrfall on 20/11/2009 at 05:30
Quote Posted by CCCToad
link?
Oh right sorry I'll just grab that from my file of links I keep around in case someone asks me to prove that I read a few news stories eight months ago.
Matthew on 20/11/2009 at 12:24
(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27184285/) Whelan said ACORN staffers separate applications with missing or false information and flag them for election officials. All applications, including problematic cards, are handed in because some state laws require it, he said.
Aerothorn on 20/11/2009 at 12:38
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I just remember hearing about how they submitted some obviously false registrations.
And I heard that Obama shows signs of the antichrist. WHERE did you hear it? Was it a reliable source? Or was it a bunch of Republicans grasping at straws for ways to slow the momentum of Obama's campaign? OMG ACORN HAD SOME BAD EMPLOYEES AND OBAMA ONCE REPRESENTED ACORN IN A CASE THEREFORE HE IS BEHIND MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD
Sorry, that was a bit harsh. I just get very frustrated that the mainstream media gave the ACORN "scandal" as much attention as it did.
Rug Burn Junky on 20/11/2009 at 18:13
This is why there's currently no equivalency between the tactics used by the right and the left.
The ACORN allegations all have a nugget of truth - "They turned in false voter registration cards!" - leaving out the important details about them being required to do so, and flagging them themselves. This is just enough to let the smears linger and build a narrative. This is pure propaganda.
On the other hand, there is actual, documented voter fraud and suppression on the part of the Republican Party. From (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4992730.ece) Nathan Sproul to (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/22/uselections2008-republicans) Mark Jacoby, to (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html) James Tobin. These are not hypothetical, and they potentially affected election results. This is also not an independent organizing group - these are paid operatives squarely within the Republican party mainstream, and speaks of a certain institutional culture that tolerates such dirty tricks - at least within a small subset of the party. Does it taint ALL Republican election results? Obviously not. But it's still news, and it's still damaging in the instances in which it occurs.
So, the ACORN propaganda serves two purposes (in addition to the direct smear tainting Obama in the immediate here and now). The obvious: in this instance it distracts from actual voter fraud scandals on the right. But even more powerful are the meta-effects of delegitimizing the discourse.
Short term it provides political cover for scandal. But by getting into these he said/she said pissing matches - with just enough truth to continue the conversation - they can make the claim that "They do the same things we do. After all: we accused them of voter fraud, they accused us of voter fraud." Superficially, that's true, but it leaves out the important point that only one side knowingly engaged in politically expedient falsehoods, and instead paints the whole exchange as being the same cynical agitprop. It's the Atwater/Rove tactic of painting your enemy with your biggest weakness in order to soften criticism of the same about yourself. And it's being applied to the tactic itself. It's disinformation about disinformation - propaganda squared.
By doing this over and over again, one can create traction for one's own falsehoods, while at the same time creating doubt about any negative truths. It's a powerful tactic, but it's so transparent, especially in this instance, that it makes the ignorant claim of "both sides do the same thing" that much more frustrating.
demagogue on 20/11/2009 at 19:08
Here's a question: how many presidents are elected that aren't under a cloud?
Let's make a list just for fun ... (and I'm just caricaturing the doubts raised; a lot of them don't hold water):
- Teddy Roosevelt, assassination president. Was picked VP by the boss system precisely so he couldn't be president.
- Taft was TR's hand picked successor and elected on that platform, just for him to renege the entire TR program and hand power back to the bosses.
- TR then completely torpedoed Taft with his Bull Moose run, splitting the Rep vote and stealing the election for Wilson (who received less votes than the other Democratic candidates of his generation.)
- Harding, Coolege, and Hoover were Boss Machine picked presidents; Congress ran the country in these years.
- FDR, okay, extraoridnary times. Great depression. But Daffy duck probably could have beat Hoover.
- Truman - assassination president; a cloud over 1948 election ("Dewey Defeats Truman")
- Eisenhower, pretty legit, though he banked almost entirely on wartime popularity.
- Daley stole the election for JFK!
- LBJ, assassination president, stole his senate seat, and the only election he won after JFK's assassination was virtually unloseable.
- Nixon ... uh, Watergate & resignation for the '74 election, maybe.
- Ford, first unelected President.
- Carter, pretty legit, but running against Ford.
- Reagan, already making deals with Iranians for his '80 election.
- Bush 1, pretty legit, nasty campaign though.
- Clinton, Perot split the Rep vote again.
- Bush 2 ... even the Supreme Court said the Florida business violated equal protection but they wouldn't give a remedy because of the "delay", then said their decision couldn't be used for precedent purposes, which is their way of saying this is basically a fig leaf over more or less naked partisanship.
- Obama, whatever this business is. I'd say, looking at it in context, he's doing much better than most of his peers.
Rug Burn Junky on 20/11/2009 at 19:24
Quote Posted by demagogue
- Truman - assassination president;
Holy Shit! Who killed FDR?
We need to get an investigation on this PRONTO!
Aerothorn on 20/11/2009 at 21:28
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It's a powerful tactic, but it's so transparent, especially in this instance, that it makes the ignorant claim of "both sides do the same thing" that much more frustrating.
It certainly SEEMS that way. But clearly it isn't transparent enough that 38% of the country doesn't believe it.
demagogue on 20/11/2009 at 21:56
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Holy Shit! Who killed FDR?
We need to get an investigation on this PRONTO!
Lol.
O shit!
