October 14, 2008

10/14: ACORN Wars

The debate over the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, is heating up. For the past several weeks, conservative bloggers have been criticizing ACORN on a daily basis, accusing the group of deliberately submitting thousands of fraudulent voter applications in a massive effort to help elect Barack Obama. Today, conservative bloggers are buzzing about a new report from CNN's Drew Griffin (video here), which finds that ACORN submitted at least 2,100 (and possibly up to 5,000) fraudulent voter applications in Lake County, IN. Righty bloggers are complaining that ACORN is trying to "steal" the election and are calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the group. John Hinderaker darkly observes: "News reports have suggested that Indiana, traditionally a Republican state, may be in play. We're beginning to understand why."

Liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against allegations that ACORN is trying to steal the election. Many lefty bloggers are pointing out that registration fraud and voter fraud are two different things, and that there has been little evidence of the latter. Jane Hamsher writes: "A handful of people could feasibly submit 2100 non-legitimate registration forms out of a desire to get paid an hourly wage without actually doing the work. On the other hand, finding and mobilizing 2100 people to vote fraudulently would be a massive organizational task requiring the work of many. Occam's razor, people."

Liberal bloggers are also arguing that conservatives are attacking ACORN for political reasons. Josh Orton complains: "The right-wing noise machine is shamelessly using ACORN's work registering low-income voters as both a character attack on Obama, and as a means to justify acts of voter suppression in swing states." Other lefty bloggers believe that the right is attacking ACORN in an effort to portray Obama's eventual victory as illegitimate. Ezra Klein writes: "[This is] a preemptive project to leverage racial resentment and mistrust in order to a create a rightwing counternarrative that paints Barack Obama's election as the illegitimate product of black voter fraud. Charming."

ACORN: Stealing The Election?

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about a new report from CNN's Griffin (video here), which finds that ACORN submitted at least 2,100 (and possibly up to 5,000) fraudulent voter applications in Lake County, IN:

• Power Line's Hinderaker: "This is one of those news stories you can hardly believe. In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 new registrations. The authorities there started reviewing them, and quit after they found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent. The mind boggles: ACORN turns in thousands of new registrations, and not a single one represents a legitimate voter. [...] News reports have suggested that Indiana, traditionally a Republican state, may be in play. We're beginning to understand why."
• Glenn Reynolds: "More reports of massive voter fraud by ACORN. [...] Where's the Department of Justice on this?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Do remember that these are the people that Barack Obama paid 800 grand for get-out-the-vote efforts -- although I do credit him with having sufficient cunning to at least try to lie about it."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "What does Acorn do? It steals elections. [...] Who does Acorn steals elections for? Ah, well, that's a little harder to figure out from the CNN report. But the Obama campaign gave 800 grand from its many illegal foreign contributions to Acorn. [...] As I said to my pal Alan Colmes on Fox last night, unlike us poor chumps on the other side, the Dems have a glamorous charismatic candidate who, according to the polls, is on course to win. Why do they need Acorn to steal it?"

Hot Air's Allahpundit is impressed with CNN's reporting: "Not only is CNN sticking with this story but they're actually building it out. And not just this one. Remember, Drew Griffin's also responsible for that clear-eyed, bolt-from-the-blue look at Obama's relationship with Ayers. What on earth's going on over there? Are they worried that MSNBC will be the Obama administration's mouthpiece of choice so they're slapping him around a bit as a warning not to make enemies of them?"

That said, Allahpundit thinks some on the right are overstating ACORN's capacity to impact the election: "How, precisely, do people think ACORN's going to influence the election? The worry, as I've understood it, is that the race will narrow and we'll end up a la 2000 in a cliffhanger with one or two counties in some swing state deciding who wins. In that scenario, a few thousand phony votes would be monumental. Judging from some of the e-mail we're getting, though, true believers think something bigger's going on, as though an Obama win by a few percentage points -- which would mean a margin of a few million votes -- would be inherently shady. Explain to me how ACORN's supposedly planning to convert these bogus registrations into actual bogus votes on a mass scale."

ACORN II: Stealing The Election, My A**!

Liberal bloggers are pushing back fiercely against allegations that ACORN is trying to steal the election:

• Firedoglake's Hamsher: "The anti-ACORN juggernaut that seeks to delegitimize the election and/or drive John McCain into the White House is operating at full speed. [...] There is not one example of voter fraud in the ACORN case. Not. One. Single. Example. It isn't voter fraud until someone votes. That is a pretty simple distinction, but one that many seem incapable of grasping. In an election that will largely be determined by votes cast by people of color, the wingnuts just can't wrap their heads around the fact that this could legitimately happen in the United States of America. Thus inconvenient facts must be shoehorned to fit into an extremely emotional narrative. [...] A handful of people could feasibly submit 2100 non-legitimate registration forms out of a desire to get paid an hourly wage without actually doing the work. On the other hand, finding and mobilizing 2100 people to vote fraudulently would be a massive organizational task requiring the work of many. Occam's razor, people."
• Ezra Klein: "I dealt with ACORN a couple times in 2005 and 2006, and the idea that they're the genius architects of some national effort to rob Republicans of the election they're already going to lose is pretty amusing. At the time, I largely stopped using ACORN on stories because I found their press shop too amateurish. Among other things, their communications guy found e-mail to be an intimidating and needlessly complex tool. [...] Some segments of our political system have decided it would be helpful to argue that the black guy got elected through massive voter fraud that wherein poor and minority voters illegally registered and then came out to steal the election. I think we're not allowed to call these people racists (so shrill! so accurate!), but they're certainly racial opportunists engaged in a preemptive project to leverage racial resentment and mistrust in order to a create a rightwing counternarrative that paints Barack Obama's election as the illegitimate product of black voter fraud. Charming."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "I've written time and time again about the Right's inability to distinguish between registration fraud and voter fraud, and the media's gleefully panicked reporting on the subject. Yesterday the McCain campaign sent out an email suggesting that it was within ACORN's ability to 'steal' the election through voter registration fraud, which would actually be impossible."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "John McCain might want to worry about his large, outside-the-margin-of-error [deficit] in both national and state-by-state polling before he worries about the prospect of someone voting in Florida, then coming back and trying to vote a second time under the name 'Mickey Mouse.'"

TPM's Josh Marshall: "You can judge the magnitude of the smashing defeat Republicans believe they are approaching by the scale of lying and bogus charges of vote fraud. But organized lying from partisans should not surprise us. What does deserve censure is how readily mainstream media organizations, including CNN, are picking up these bogus stories and running with them."

ACORN III: Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is McCain

Liberal bloggers are accusing McCain of hypocrisy for attacking ACORN even though he attended an ACORN rally in 2006 (a picture of McCain at the event is also making the rounds):

• MyDD's Orton: "As we've documented, the right-wing noise machine is shamelessly using ACORN's work registering low-income voters as both a character attack on Obama, and as a means to justify acts of voter suppression in swing states. But not only are the accusations a lie, they're flatly hypocritical coming from McCain. Observe the Republican nominee back in March of 2006, attending an ACORN co-sponsored event that McCain himself headlined. [...] So make no mistake: the right-wing efforts to demonize ACORN is pure political desperation."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[The 2006 rally] was a great event, and I'm glad McCain headlined it. But it does make it a bit more difficult for his campaign to press this line of attack, doesn't it? We even have a picture. [...] This campaign is one of a kind. Every time it settles on a line of attack, it always undermines it days later."
• Serwer: "It would be interesting to get the full transcript of McCain's remarks that day...I somehow doubt that McCain was there to lecture ACORN on not stealing elections, though. Do you think the campaign thinks things through before they pick their bogeymen?"
• Firedoglake's Ari: "Republicans are trying to pretend ACORN is part of some grand Democratic conspiracy. What are they actually doing? Registering new voters -- the horror, the horror. Most hypocritically Republicans have been working with ACORN for years. Earlier today I posted a picture of John McCain at an ACORN rally. [...] According to the Sun-Sentinel, McCain was the 'principal speaker' at the 'immigration reform town hall rally' organized by 'the Archdiocese of Miami, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, ACORN, People for the American Way, and the Service Employees International.' Why would McCain speak at such an event? Maybe because ACORN was backing his immigration bill."

On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin criticizes McCain for his past association with ACORN: "If you want to know why see-sawing John McCain has had to be goaded, prodded, begged, and dragged into spotlighting Barack Obama's radical ACORN roots, here's your answer: Turns out John McCain had no problem calling ACORN members his friends during his ill-fated illegal alien shamnesty crusade. Ugh. [...] ACORN is now gleefully reminding McCain of his common cause with the group to paint itself as bipartisan -- while at the same time issuing the usual strident, anti-conservative statements that ought to be immediate grounds for revoking its non-profit tax status. 'I'll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep,' McCain said in February. That's not working out so well now, is it?"

MCCAIN: Reinforcing The "Erratic" Meme?

The New Republic's Christopher Orr critiques the McCain camp's roll-out of its new economic proposals:

"Over the weekend, the McCain campaign signaled that it would unveil a series of new economic proposals to deal with the financial crisis, and trotted surrogate [SC Sen.] Lindsey Graham out to preview the 'very comprehensive approach to jump-start the economy.' But sometime late yesterday, they evidently changed their minds, telling the Times, 'the Republican presidential nominee would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some,' and basically pretending they had no idea what Graham was talking about. Now, less than 24 hours later, Marc Ambinder reports that the campaign plans to address the economy tomorrow and will, contrary to the latest reports (but in keeping with the ones immediately preceding them), be unveiling new proposals. Be sure to check back though. Plenty of time for them to change their minds again before dinner."

Several liberal bloggers are mocking the McCain camp's conduct:

• Marshall: "So first it was the bold new economic proposals from McCain. Then that was called off. Then it was a bold new speech. Now we have late breaking news that the bold new economic proposals are back on."
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "So now McCain will have a plan -- tomorrow, mind you -- when a few hours ago he had none. It's like magic! Right after Obama rolls out a plan, abracadabra! McCain announces he has one too! This feels like campaigning by younger irritating sibling in the back seat on a long cross-country car ride screaming Me too! Me too! Me too!"

Other liberal bloggers are portraying the McCain camp as "erratic":

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's almost as if they're trying to look erratic, unable to deal with the pressure of a crisis."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "So, call me crazy but if the number one criticism about you is that you act erratically and it's sticking because, well, you're undeniably acting erratically, wouldn't it be wise to stop? To start acting with purpose, with some modicum of discipline? Wouldn't that just be Politics 101?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Let's just put this in perspective: The McCain campaign knows its being closely watched. Their repeated stunts, combined with the ugly negative attacks, have caused the McCain to drop precipitously in national and state polls. Yet, against this scrutiny, McCain and his campaign honchos only reinforce the idea that erratic behavior reigns. It's quite stunning. No wonder so many Republicans are fleeing from the McCain campaign."

OBAMA: C'mon Guys, Spread The Wealth

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for saying, "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody":

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It really doesn't get any clearer than this, although a close look at Obama's tax policy makes it almost as obvious. He doesn't want to penalize your success! He just wants to take a big chunk of it and give it away to people he likes better."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Those who buy into the politics of envy and resentment will think it's just fine that the government starts taxing -- not simply to fund the functions that are necessary -- but to enforce Obama's vision of 'equality.' More clear-headed people realize that when 'the rich' (a group that includes a sizable proportion of small businesses) are paying more in taxes, that means that less capital is available to hire people, expand their business, donate to charity, or purchase goods and services (an activity that creates jobs and keeps the economy humming)."
• Hinderaker: "Spreading the wealth around is, in fact, the essence of Obama's tax plan. It isn't really a tax plan; rather, it's a tax and welfare plan. Obama likes to say that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But 40% or more don't pay any federal income taxes, so how can their taxes be 'cut'? [...] Obama's 'tax' plan would in effect undo the greatest accomplishment of the Republican Congress, welfare reform. It would reinstate the federal welfare system that we thought was gone for good with the repeal of AFDC. Not only a welfare system: a welfare system that would rapidly grow from more than a half trillion to over a trillion dollars a year."

Steyn: "This is a rare, clear moment of explicit self-revelation from Obama. If McCain can't get traction from it, he's Bob Dole and that's that."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case Against Tipping

Ezra Klein:

"The main takeaway of this long article on the resilience of restaurant tipping even in the face of folks who try to do away with the practice is that...some folks actually like tipping. But why? It's always struck me as an idiotic custom. I don't tip doctors for doing a good job, but I tip bartenders for reaching beneath the counter and pulling out a Yuengling. Is good service from a bartender more important to me than good service from a surgeon? Are bartenders more responsive to economic incentives than medical professionals? It's hard to see why that would be. I tip, of course, because I understand that the tip is central to the bartender, or waiter, or cabbie's, income -- but for that very same reason, I never tip low, and don't really vary the amount I tip based on service. And nor do most folks I know. And nor, it seems, do most folks in general. [...]

Rather than simply paying a price that reflects a fair wage for their work, I'm instead laying down a voluntary sum and hoping others do the same. It's a wage model that's reliant on charitable donations enforced through social pressure, and in that way, a little demeaning. I think I'd feel less guilty about the interaction if I knew they were being paid fairly, and it wasn't part of their job, in theory, to vary their performance to my whim so that I might leave an extra dollar. Now, most folks in tipped professions don't seem to vary their service to ensure the tip, and I don't seem to vary my tip to reward service, and so we've hit some rough equilibrium, with the byproduct being I have to pull out my tip calculator at the close of each meal. But still: Down with tipping!"

LEST WE FORGET: Financial Planner Advises Shorter Life Span

From The Onion:

"TUCSON, AZ -- After reviewing his client's income, assets, and personal budget Tuesday, Morgan Stanley financial adviser Henry Dalton determined that Jason Hutchinson, 43, could make the best use of his portfolio by dropping dead at the age of 62. 'Taking account of inflation and the rising cost of living versus the projected direction of the economy in the coming decade, I told Mr. Hutchinson that he could significantly reduce his spending by simply living less,' Dalton said. 'After looking at his investments, I calculated that he really shouldn't live a day over 62 -- or 59 if he wants a funeral.' In order to help his client plan for his financial future, Dalton presented Hutchinson with several of the company's comprehensive suicide packages."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at October 14, 2008 01:18 PM