It’s not being a writer for the WSJ that makes him a tool. It’s being on the editorial board of the WSJ that makes him a tool. Pre-Murdoch, you’ll find that even liberals respected the neutrality and accuracy of the actual news journalism of the WSJ. Post-Murdoch, it’s still too early to tell if he’s going to stick his finger in the works or not.
Especially when it’s McCain. From 2006:
Of course, this was about immigration and I know how frothy righties get about immigration.
Lipitor for dessert no doubt.
Um, not register unqualifed people? It’s not like they have a gun to their head, forcing them to register them. What about the guy who registered 72 times?
Those invalid registrants still can’t vote. The ACORN workers were obviously just lazy shitheads who wanted to fill their quota and cash their paycheck. If it can’t vote, why does it matter if my cat is registered in Pinellas County?
She is against Democats.
Says a lot about their hiring and management practices, doesn’t it?
They sometimes hire assholes, and don’t keep them in line properly. What company hasn’t been guilty of that?
What does it say, precisely?
One of my coworkers was arrested a couple of months ago for stealing a potentially explosive chemical from here at work. Does that mean my company is to blame for his actions?
Is George W. Bush responsible for the actions of everyone he ever hired? Hmm. I have a feeling you aren’t going to agree to that one.
It has been pointed out repeatedly in these threads that ACORN is required by law to turn in all registrations they receive. So, they have two choices: One, continue to get and turn in registrations; or two, stop getting and turning in registrations.
I say some chaff doesn’t make the wheat bad, so I say they should do the first one. You say what?
Why are they collecting so many fraudulent registrations?
The registration effort in Las Vegas–the one with the raid that started off this whole mess–turned in 300 bogus registrations out of 80,000. That’s less than 1/2 of 1%. Ask anyone here who manages people what they’d think about an organization where the employees did the right thing 99.5% of the time.
So yeah, it says a lot about their hiring and management practices, but not what you seem to think it does.
Because they are sending people out to collect registrations and when you send people out to do something some of that “something” is not going to be up to snuff.
If you make a million widgets, some will fail widget quality control.
If you are required by law to ship said faulty widgets, some people will be angry at their lousy widgets. But you’re complying with the law and the only alternative is not to make widgets at all.
So, again, two choices: One, continue to get and turn in registrations; or two, stop getting and turning in registrations.
Which do you go for? I go for one.
So, when confronted by actual facts, the right-wing indictment deflates from “ACORN is corrupt and is giving kickbacks to Obama” to “ACORN has sometimes hired lazy or incompetent workers and failed to supervise them properly.” :rolleyes:
Mind you, I think that ACORN should take some criticism for having unreliable workers add to the amount of garbage in the electoral system. But the right wing’s attempt to spin this as a scathing expose of political nefariousness is just silly.
And the level of condescension and elitist exclusion displayed toward poor people by many of these right-wingers just staggers belief. Okay, if conservatives are worried that ACORN might be corrupt or incompetent, why aren’t conservative organizations out there working to register low-income voters and boost electoral participation with the integrity and fairness that they claim ACORN is lacking?
As far as I can tell, a lot of conservatives’ attitude seems to boil down to “Well, poor people wouldn’t be likely to vote for us, so we would rather they didn’t vote at all. We’re certainly not about to encourage them to do so, and we’ll try to discourage and discredit their electoral participation as much as we can.” :eek: Way to support democracy, folks.
Not precisely an answer to the question she asked, there, Carol Stream.
Ever heard of caging? Voter suppression is a Republican first-resort tactic.
No, but I think it’s a fair question for someone to ask at first. Now that her question has been answered (more by DoctorJ than by me), I’d love to have answers to my questions.
You’re the very heart and soul of graciousness, jsgoddess. Carol Stream, I beg of you not to let her gesture be in vain…
It does, but it speaks nothing to their motives, if any, for collecting and passing on those registrations. As has already been discussed by minds far greater than yours in the GD thread on the subject, it was within their requirements of the law to pass on those registrations. A non-governmental third party has no business invalidating voter registrations, that’s the job of the state. The only thing they can, and should, do is flag them as suspicious and pass them along. And yet somehow you would prefer it to be their responsibility and within their scope of power to toss out registrations.
All the while managing to not answer any of the questions that have been posed to you, instead trying to redirect those questions towards something that feels relevant to you. I wish you’d get over yourself, you miserable little bitch, and start answering some of the things that have been asked of you instead of trying to play with smoke and mirrors like you know what you’re doing with them.
It always seems so clear and simple ,until you get involved. Much voter verification is done by data base matching. Lets say your name is William. You may have signed as Bill on your license. You may have used your middle initial on another. You may have used Will on another. It always sounds like suppression or incompetence but it may not be. We do not have national standards. If you want to find if your voting rights are active you can generally find out on line. Some states have a site where you put your name ,address and county in and it will show if you are OK. Sometimes you go to county websites for the info. But you have to match your name exactly.
David Iglesias seems to have been fired because he refused the pressure by Sen. Dominici and Rep. Wilson to accelerate prosicution, and inform them about confidential matters related to such, of prominant NM democrats so it would be in the news prior to the 2006 election. I’ve been following the AG gate story pretty closely. Iglesias was a late addition to the list of fired USAs, seemingly as a result of pressure by Sen. Dominici. Sorry for the innuendo tone of this post: Due to convienient lapses of memory, obfuscation, contempt of congress, etc. hard facts are rather thin on the ground.
Overall, the firing of the USAs DOES seem to be focused on refusal to play ball with regards to vote suppression efforts, so it is understandable that ACORN would lump Iglesias in with the other fired USAs.