30 total posts
If or not...........
...he worked directly for ACORN, or one of it's organizations, is
irrellavent, as is if or not he worked on a Tuesday or Friday, or
wore a black or grey suit.
His activities served the best interests of ACORN, as he foresaw
ACORN serving his own best interests in politics in the future.
Take a look here: http://www.gop.com/obamaacorntree/
I'm still confused...
During the Republican National Convention, the GOP seemed to indicate that Obama's experience as a community organizer -which would include his time with ACORN - was trivial and insignificant. Is the GOP and McCain now saying they were wrong to downplay that period in Obama's professional life?
Has anyone asked Rudy for a comment?
That's some spin
What they are saying is that it was NOT a positive, and in fact seems to be a negative.
The convention was a while before the full effect of the economic problems became clear.
Ummm... they laughed at his experience.
Laughing would seem to indicate they thought little of his claims to any sort of experience... ne? Now... the claim is that he was part of a corrupt conspiracy. To laugh about something like that seems to me to be, well, it would seem to indicate a flippant attitude not in line with the seriousness of the situation. When I am looking to a political party for leadership, the last thing I want is a group of people who laugh at a serious problem. Consequently I would have to assume that the GOP was either incompetent in it's original assessment of Obama's experience, or that their new take on his former work is based on political grandstanding.
So... were they (the GOP) wrong before... or are they wrong now?
His "experience" claim WAS laughable...
"My experience as a community organizer qualifies me ro be President." Not a laugh?!
Just how harmful his experience actually was is now becoming clear.
So, spin away. That's all you are doing.
Should not be that hard to figure out that
there could be two issues brought forth from the one association. One could be that the experience he would have gained from the association was of minor importance on his resume....small potatoes, if that works better....and the other could be his association with the group itself. It becomes a "not only, but also" thing when numbering his liabilities. Now, supporters of ACORN could just as well take the complete and opposite posture....that it did give Obama a type of leadership experience as well to giving him exposure to their philosophy and methods of goal achievement which they would consider an asset. Does that help?
I was watching FOX this morning...
... and they had a former employee of ACORN who was promoting his blog about ACORN. He said that in his tenure there, that he had been told by ACORN that he would be participating in illegal activities. When asked by the FOX reporter if he could substantiate his claim with proof, he admitted he could not. Now it strikes me that if ACORN's activities were so blatant, that there should have been plenty of evidence of Obama's involvement with questionable activities while working there. Evidence that would have been revealed when the GOP did their research into Obama's life when they prepared their strategies for the next 3 months after the convention. The fact that they laughed at his resume before the economic crisis... and claim corruption now, speaks more to the competency of the GOP than is being asked IMHO. Logically, the GOP is incompetent, or they are contriving to make political hay from the panic in the stock market. If criminal charges are not pending for Obama - let alone the former ACORN employee that was interviewed on FOX - then I can only assume that the current GOP concerns is little more than hot air.
Any personal experience with members of ACORN?
I have....more then once. It's been a while since they've been on my doorstep and I was a bit naive to their ways back then but it does come together now. If you read up on ACORN training, you'll find they are not taught to appeal to peoples "bleeding hearts" but to their self interests. This one former employee could well have been holding onto his still. Enough about that, but Grim...can't see this is a card game BOTH sides are playing. You only play the lowest card you have that you think will take that round and hold onto the rest to use as needed. I'm not of the mindset that one political party is incorruptible and the other already a goner. If you are, tell me which is what.
LOL... I'm not playing to win.
I'm just the guy who walks around the table and points out where each side is kind of cheating. The republicans did it with their clever reminders about the flip flopping of John Kerry. I'm just pointing out that the GOP said Obama's experience with ACORN was inconsequential.
If they knew then, what they knew now, then they would have decided it was not a laughing matter... unless it was.... and they were right then... which would make them wrong now.
Either way you look at it... their skills of picking the right information as relevant seems less than spectacular - if you go by their current track record.
This thread is about this issue. If you want to start a thread about what screw ups Pelossi and Reid are, I will be happy to contribute my lowest card, short term game to those subjects as well.
Excuse me for saying this but if you're
"just the guy who walks around the table and points out where each side is kind of cheating" (underline is mine)
I need to tell you that you seem to be standing in one place focused on finding the dirt there alone when it's just as grimy anywhere else you could amble. Maybe you think not but, to me, it's more than obvious. No, I'm of no mind to discuss Pelossi or Reid or any other loud mouthed "wingers" in either party. They are, IMO, not worth the effort.
Focused on finding the dirt ?
Look at the past 3 or 4 pages of thread on SE. On average, how many were started about one party versus another. Heck, most are straw men arguments designed to open up a chance to attack someone if they don't agree with the original poster in the most vigorous manner.
statement: "I think he was wrong"
response: "But I don't hear you condemning him for his actions"
Heck Steve, you're kinda doing this same thing here, by suggesting that I don't take sides often enough to be fair to both sides. I don't have enough time in the day to respond to every post here, and the most obviously partisan shots are made by the same people. That may be why I seem a bit targeted in who I disagree with. I don't make responses to many of the more liberal here because the most liberal ones are, well, kind of nuts...
The reality is that much of this poppycock is an insult to the intelligence. The issue of which party is responsible for the economic crisis is just more partisan BS. First the seeds for the problem were said to be planted 30 years ago... next, the problem was created just a few years ago. In either case, to state that Obama is somehow a significant player in this situation is to overlook the minor responsibilities he has had at each of these so called critical points.
The reality is that the GOP laughed at Obama for the time he spent working with ACORN, before it became worthwhile to lambast him for it. Is it wrong to point out that this is the same as saying your job didn't matter until it became convenient for it to matter? To me... that is the same as any other opportunistic attempt at pandering.
No sir... find me some legitimate issues to discuss and I will be happy to argue about the issue. Try to spoon feed me a bunch of party driven propaganda and I will listen until I see the most egregious of contrary facts. I'm a maverick like that...
If it bothers you that much, walk back from it rather than "around" it.
and miss all the fun ?
Come on Steven, in the past, I would have been all over everyone of these threads !
BTW... I would like to point out...
... that my position here has as much to do with my comments here... Why I can't vote for McCain
I feel that this whole argument about the significance of Obama's association with ACORN is as contrived as Rudy Guliano's laugh was when he played down Obama's association. McCain has been drawn away from his strengths of character, by trying to play to the short term game of negative campaigning. I could have even gone back to McCain if he had stayed true to his promises of sticking to constructive discussion that he had made this past spring. Instead, he compromised himself and his campaign to follow what the republican party had laid out for him as a winning strategy.
Bottom line is that Obama has stayed relatively true to his professed values... McCain has not. McCain would have been better off to have stayed a real "maverick" instead of toeing the party line. When I have pointed out the flip flopping the GOP has done, I am not pointing my finger at McCain. If McCain choses to claim the GOP line as his line though... well, that makes him just the same then.
I always thought you were one of them
high falootin' "Moderate/independents" that thought it would be horrible for one party to hold congress and the White House.
It's amazing to how many of them that said that in 2004 are solidly behind Obama.
You are so busy confirming your own opinion...
... that you often loose the message that anyone is trying to communicate.
"That doesn't make any sense"
I hate to belabor this....
no, not really, but since you mentioned values and made this remark,
"Bottom line is that Obama has stayed relatively true to his professed values"
allow me to go back to a question I asked earlier to which you did not reply. Do you have any personal experience with ACORN? I do have some. While I didn't tally the contacts, it was in the neighborhood of 1/2 dozen or so. With each successive encounter, I grew angrier at them. I found them not to be intimidating but insulting and pushy. They were obviously well trained in how to pile on the guilt and make a person feel low if they didn't care to continue conversation or offer their support. I now see, after reading something of their training methods, what was actually going on. Now, if Obama's values and method of operation are true to the days when he was with ACORN either doing training or defending them as a lawyer, I'm going to have a difficult time grappling with that. Being true to one's values is an asset but it's sort of important to look at what those values are, I would think.
ACORN in WV? Not to my knowledge...
No, I have no face to face dealings with these folks. Pushy you say? Anymore pushy than the 10 or more phone calls I get from solicitors every day? Any pushier than the guy who was asking me to switch to a different church yesterday? Any pushier than the street beggars that stood outside the train station's front doors last time I went through Chicago? Any pushier than the bulk of the posts on SE?
Now, as to how much of Obama's values and methods were shaped by the time he spent with ACORN ? Well, only he can really say. The thing is though... that he has already been characterized as a liar about his religion, his name, where he was born, and every other particular detail of his life that could be misconstrued ad infinitum. Are any of the people who say this really issue with ACORN matters, going to take any sort of explanation or evidence at face value, or are they only going to be satisfied by McCain winning the election?
I was watching the Oklahoma vs. Texas game yesterday, and a comment made by one of the announcers is very apropos here... It isn't so much that Texas won the game, as it is that Oklahoma made the mistakes that caused them to lose. I view McCain like this... with his every move to appease his GOP handlers, he has betrayed the core values he has publicly stated he believed in. That is why I said he has seemingly betrayed his own values, because he has not been consistent to what he has promised earlier.
I will ask you this Steven... did or did not John McCain make an appeal for the election to not go negative this past spring, and was not his campaign the first to go overtly negative?
going back to spring
remember public financing promises?
March 1 ? Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party?s presidential nomination.
April 11, 2008 - Which two senators, now running for president, promised last year to accept public financing if the other party's nominee did so as well?
Which one is sticking by his promise and which is not?
Obama did not keep his word with McCain. why should McCain treat someone who lies to him with respect.
Obama practices the 'use em and lose em' approach in his rise to the top of his party.
Obama went negative in his acceptance speech in Denver
McCain was reduced to carrying his own bags, no money and counted out as a candidate. his indomitable spirit brought him to his nomination. he like Obama has to appeal to the base.
I do not see Obama turning down any support from the Clintons and others he did not agree with. He chose as his VP a person that did not think Obama was qualified to be President. Joe Biden was right. the Democratic ticket is upside-down.
the NYTimes link requires membership--here's the text
I don't have one either. I went to the page via Google backdoor.
here's the rest:
WASHINGTON, March 1 ? Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party?s presidential nomination.
The promises by Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are an effort to resuscitate part of the ailing public financing system for presidential campaigns.
In every election since Watergate, candidates have received limited sums of taxpayer money on the condition that they abstain from raising or spending any more. But this year, the leading candidates are all sidestepping the system in a competition to raise far more in private donations, more than $500 million each, according to most projections, compared with $150 million in potential public financing.
But there is a chance that the obituaries for the public system may be premature. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that he would take up Mr. Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.
Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.
Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.
The manager of Mr. McCain?s campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed the decision.
?Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,? Mr. Nelson said.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, ?We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.?
Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would ?aggressively pursue an agreement? with whoever was his opponent.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have backed changing campaign finances.
Thanks for posting the extra info...
I had already found out the NYTimes link required membership and was trying to look up my old password for that site.
I had been somewhat aware of the gentleman's' agreement that these fellows had made. I'm taking some time to look into it so your links are appreciated.
Since you asked, and after some searching
I was able to come up with this
It's Cindy McCain saying that John is against such and won't participate in that manner. So, I would have to say you are correct. If he did say he wouldn't engage in negative campaigning, he definitely was not true to that word. What I have also searched for is comments from Obama about negative campaigning and what his stance would be. Unfortunately, I've found nothing written about it but this doesn't mean he's not made any claims of his own on the matter. I'd like to hear some. Perhaps McCain was asked to comment on it and Obama was not. Who knows? I believe it's fair to say that both candidates have done their fair share of negative campaigning. Obama, having a comfortable lead in the polls at this point, enjoys the advantage of being able to take a rest from that tactic. This will make the differences in the conduct of the candidates show a bit more. I'd hope that your asking this of me doesn't suggest you think it's ok for a candidate whose made no promises to conduct themselves any way they wish...nice guy or meanie...and it's ok with you but that the other must be held to "nice guy" if claims he will. If mean is bad, it's bad from the start, IMO.
I have been disappointed by the overall tone...
... presented by both candidates. I will give them both credit that neither has gone as far as the radical elements of either side would like to have seen.
There have been numerous indictments and even convictions, some spearheaded by Democrats. Obama's work with ACORN is well documented. I guess you'll have to see him doing the perp walk before you face reality.
If there was even a whiff that this was being done by or in behalf of Republicans you'd be out there with the torch and pitchfork!
I hope you enjoyed that Kool-Aid.
Doing a google search...
Bush indicted = 2,180,000 hits
ACORN indicted = 122,000 hits
4 workers were convicted of voter fraud in Ohio. Was Obama their boss?
As I said before... the GOP laughed about it, before they figured out it was a politically exploitive issue. Will this become Obama's Willy Horton? We will find that out in about a month.
That makes as much sense as anything else you have said...
In other words, none.
The Google search is useless, In fact Bush has not been indicted for anything and the ACORN group has, and more are likely on the way. No one claimed Obama is their boss. That's a straw man. His ties to ACORN are well documented. He shares their philosophy and they are working to get him elected.
C1ay, take note. This proves what I said about people not acting rationally in the face of evidence, no?
Willie Horton? You believe the myth that that was significant in Dukakis's defeat? Come ON!
He Grim, check this! It made google
That is funny
I have run into this same phenomenon a couple times in the recent past. I don't know, but suspect that the new ownership of cnet may have set up a google web tools notification system that sends immediate updates to the google web data base rather than waiting for the web crawler to eventually get around to caching the pages at its' own pace. As it is, the first time I saw this happen, I got very excited to find a link that exactly met my own search wording, only to find that google found me a post of my very own words !