Media Matters: Fox News' incomplete, misleading ACORN coverage is just nuts
If you get your news from right-wing talk radio and Fox News, you probably think America is being overrun by a hyper-corrupt organized prostitution ring headquartered in the White House.
In case you missed this story: Two conservative activists, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, visited a host of ACORN offices around the country posing as a pimp and prostitute. They asked for help establishing a brothel, and even stated that underage girls would be working for them. They had a surveillance camera and recorded at least four interactions with ACORN employees and claimed these employees provided them with assistance. All of the employees implicated have now been fired, and federal aid to ACORN has been cut off.
Still, the story at this point really has a lot more to do with Fox News and conservative media activism than with ACORN. The undercover videos first appeared on BigGovernment.com, founded by Andrew Breitbart, a protégé of Matt Drudge and a conservative with a long record of highly partisan and inflammatory statements. Giles, daughter of conservative blogger Doug Giles, attended the National Journalism Center in Washington, one of the many right-wing institutions conservatives have established to flood the field with young, motivated, and rabidly partisan "reporters." For his part, O'Keefe has been a far-right activist since college.
Breitbart has developed a direct line to Glenn Beck, and so it wasn't long before the videos were being presented breathlessly on his TV and radio programs. This week, following his 9/12 rally, Beck escalated the attacks over ACORN. "But good God almighty, what is wrong with us," he said on Tuesday, "that we don't right now get into the cars and drive back to Washington, and surround the Capitol and say, 'What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you soulless? Are you dead inside?' "
It was just the beginning. "Obama is Van Jones, Obama is ACORN," right-wing pundit Monica Crowley said on Wednesday. "Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism," Rush Limbaugh parroted the sentiment on Thursday. Radio host Jim Quinn said that we were all living in the "United States of ACORN," and Fox News' Megyn Kelly had Karl Rove on to talk about the tapes exposing what was now a "remarkable criminal enterprise." The stakes couldn't be higher. ACORN, after all, was on tap to receive "eight and a half trillion dollars of stimulus money," according to Sean Hannity -- a number that was a thousand times greater than the equally fictitious billions that Beck had accorded to the organization on behalf of the government. ACORN had suddenly ballooned from an organization which had received $53 million in federal funds over 15 years to representing 67 percent of America's gross domestic product.
Fox was running so wild with the story that they were willing to lower their already dubious standards. The first problem was one of logic. Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. It was the opposite of how a credible investigation is supposed to function, in which conclusions are withheld until after all the facts are in. By comparison, here, the conservative media had a few isolated facts but were willing to extrapolate an entire thesis from them.
More important, Fox News failed to vet the tapes. This was made painfully clear with the case of the San Bernardino ACORN office, which was featured in the fourth video to be released. In the footage, ACORN employee Tresa Kaelke claimed that she had murdered her former husband following a period of domestic abuse. On September 15, Beck and Sean Hannity both broadcast Kaelke's assertion. Beck, who had reported on the supposed confession during his radio program, added on Fox, "She never spanked her kids, but she did shoot her husband dead." Later that night, Hannity played the same clip, and in a rare moment of intellectual curiosity, asked about the veracity of the murder claim. "We're working on it," Giles said, which was enough for Hannity. The following morning, on September 16, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson repeated the allegation, saying, "She killed somebody? Despite this, some lawmakers want to keep funding the group."
But Kaelke's ex-husbands are alive. The San Bernardino Police Department confirmed this simple fact on September 15, releasing a statement that read: "Investigators have been in contact with the involved party's known former husbands, who are alive and well." (Kaelke was soon quoted in an ACORN press release saying that she had made the claim because she was seeking to mislead the undercover videographers, whom she was suspicious of.) In spite of these developments, the next day, Hannity was still treating the San Bernardino tape as fully credible. He even hosted Giles again but failed to ask her about her own investigation into the truth of the claim. (Here's a full timeline of the attention the San Bernardino video received.)
In the meantime, another pivotal hole in the story began to present itself. During interviews, Breitbart, Giles, and O'Keefe had all asserted that the undercover team had never been kicked out of an ACORN office. Bertha Lewis, ACORN's CEO and chief organizer, had already said this was a falsehood by the time a Philadelphia ACORN employee, Katherine Conway Russell, publicly claimed to have done just that, adding that she had filed a police report after a visit from the conservative pair. The police report was soon produced, raising further serious questions about the credibility of the entire ACORN exposé. It was another major side of the story that Fox News simply hadn't cared to look into.
On the offense, Breitbart has lashed out at the mainstream media for supposedly burying the story. "The behavior of Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN," he said on Friday, "has been despicable during this." Many mainstream reporters were indeed worthy of criticism, but for the opposite reason that Breitbart cited. Their real failure was discussing the ACORN issue on Fox News' terms and ignoring the network's role in pushing the smears.
The New York Times covered up conservatives' well-documented ACORN obsession in its reporting. In their reports, all three network evening news broadcasts -- ABC's World News, NBC's Nightly News, and the CBS Evening News -- left out substantive facts about the incidents that mitigate the accusations, exonerate ACORN employees, or undermine the credibility of the filmmakers. Moreover, none reported that Fox News, in its aggressive promotion of this story, had made false accusations.
On MSNBC, Chris Matthews was content to report that the right had simply "claimed another victim," as if the campaign had been entirely legitimate. "They know what they are doing because they are getting an audience from this," he added, uncritically. And MSNBC's Dylan Rattigan allowed conservative activist Carter Clews of Americans for Limited Government to ask Bertha Lewis, "How much money did Barack Obama funnel to you ... with his buddy-boy Bill Ayers?" David Shuster and Juan Williams provided some of the week's few media bright spots by focusing on Fox News itself and providing the story with some perspective.
Fox News is already teasing its next round of ACORN attacks. If credible journalists don't stand up for their craft, then Fox News will keep enjoying its position in the driver's seat.
Other major stories this week:
Dropping Lou Dobbs
After years of Lou Dobbs using his CNN platform to promote the work of hate groups, spread racially charged conspiracy theories, and engage in hate speech, Media Matters joined more than 15 national organizations (including NDN, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Council of La Raza, among others) this week in launching the Drop Dobbs campaign.
The coalition also launched DropDobbs.com, a new website that demonstrates Dobbs' history of xenophobia and nativism and will monitor his misinformation in the days and weeks to come. Those visiting the site are encouraged to take action by signing a petition telling Dobbs' advertisers to stop sponsoring his hate.
Watch this compelling video to learn more about why dropping Dobbs is so important.
Dobbs obviously isn't taking news of the campaign well. He went on the attack this week by targeting many of the groups in the coalition, calling Media Matters "fleas" and claiming that "Hispanic activist groups" "brand" him a "racist" because he "opposes illegal immigration." Dobbs also slammed various groups for "denigrating the United States for not being sufficiently welcoming" to undocumented immigrants and told what he characterized as a "pretty good joke": that calling him a racist "would make you likely a member of La Raza."
On September 15 and 16, Dobbs appeared at the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" rally and legislative advocacy event in the nation's capital held by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- an organization labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. More on FAIR, its racist founder, its ties to eugenicists, and the racially charged comments of some of its staff can be found here.
Media Matters' Eric Burns sent an open letter to Klein, the CNN president, noting, "Mr. Dobbs represents an ongoing threat to CNN's credibility as a serious news organization, in no small part because of his polemical coverage of immigration issues and his continued use of his CNN show to lend prominence to groups such as FAIR. The attention and legitimacy he gave to the 'birther' movement -- and CNN's condoning of his actions -- did real damage to that credibility. His participation in the upcoming FAIR rally would do further, serious damage."
In the end, Dobbs promoted a "very special broadcast" from the FAIR event, going so far as to thank the anti-immigrant organization for hosting a "great town hall event" on "amnesty." During his broadcast from the FAIR event, Dobbs embraced discredited birther Jerome Corsi, whom he called a "pretty good guy to talk to" about immigration. He also hosted KHOW's Peter Boyles, a man who once said of a Hispanic accused rapist: "It's, you know, jobs Americans won't do." During his stint as Dobbs' guest, Boyles said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "looks like Lady Macbeth."
Though Dobbs claimed that "CNN has no role" at FAIR, "it's me, it's this radio show," he and CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester discussed the FAIR rally on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight -- of course, they made no mention of Dobbs' involvement in the event. After Media Matters pointed out their lack of disclosure, Dobbs suggested that Media Matters was a "hate group" for calling attention to his FAIR ties.
While Dobbs remains a serious problem, Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, had some fun at the CNN host's expense, claiming that he'd lost to Dobbs in his bid to set the "record for the most insults to Mexico in a single nightly news broadcast."
First the "birthers," now the "czar-ers"?
Media conservatives, particularly the folks at Fox News, have been on a crusade of late to rid the Obama administration of czars. You know, because the term sounds foreign ... perhaps Russian ... definitely commie. Of course, in order to fall in line behind their logic, one has to ignore the fact that Republican and Democratic presidents have used the term to identify top advisers for decades. As we noted last week, "In fact, 'czars' were such a non-issue at Fox News during the Bush years that Bill O'Reilly called for the appointment of several new 'czars' to handle immigration, charities, and disaster relief, and not once was he denounced by his colleagues for advocating a 'shadow government' with 'unchecked power.' "
Well, this week was no different. The czar hysteria continued.
Fox News actually set out to explain to viewers why Obama's use of czars was so much worse than President Bush's. The conservative network falsely claimed that The Washington Post reported that Bush had 16 "czars" and that Obama has "twice as many." In fact, in the article Fox News cited, the Post reported, "By one count, Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his eight years as president."
Taking a page from the Fox News book, Dobbs also downplayed Bush's use of czars, stating that prior to the Obama administration, "the highest number of czars that we were able to document in our own reporting ... was during the Clinton administration, and he had only 10 czars." I guess Dobbs and his researchers don't read The Washington Post.
Dobbs' report did net the conspiracy-minded CNN host a new nickname, however. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann dubbed Dobbs a "czar-er" in designating him the "Worst Person in the World" for downplaying Bush's use of czars.
This week's media columns
This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at Michelle Malkin and the anatomy of the 2 million protester lie, and Jamison Foser explains how Time magazine enables Glenn Beck's lies.
Greg Lewis tells us how Limbaugh takes race-baiting to puzzling extremes in The Friday Rush, a review of Limbaugh's radio shows over the past week.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.


















If another news program fails to report on a story, they are part of the "liberal media". If they do report on the story, then they help Fox spread their manufactured news stories beyond their gates, but if that other news program questions the original story, or investigates further, they are cast aside into the "liberal media" pile. Either way, it is a lose-lose situation for the opposition of Fox News sham journalism, and Fox News understands this.
Consider James O'Keefe, who used this strategy in his sting operations against Planned Parenthood, and then later with ACORN. The organizations can either act on his report, or they can ignore it, but either way, they would be viewed poorly in the public arena, and O'Keefe, or any other activist would win.
Obama surrounds himself with people who have very strange beliefs...Does none of this worry you? I do not trust him or this Administration in any form~
God Bless.
I would hate to be an organization caught in the crosshairs of O'Keefe or, for that matter, ACORN, that used, and continues to use, similar strong arm tactics to bully the results they seek.
Sad but interesting times in which we find ourselves.
How is it that that the other networks get it wrong. If they report the news, and that news is not spun to your liking, its wrong?
I wrote this at DailyKos earlier, regarding CNN's attempted pushback against Fox:
For example - SC Rep Joe Wilson is claiming that liberals are USING his "You lie" comment to their advantage. Like liberals made him make a fool of himself! Like it's our fault, and our misdeed, to be pointing out that what he said was totally out of line. We're using it to our advantage, and that's wrong. Huh? What's wrong is that you said it in the first place, Joe.
I guess he represents Fox News in Congress, being that he knows as much of the facts as any of the other pundits on that channel.
He is not some hapless doof, he is a fraud.
Months ago you couldn't get congress to even look at ACORN's voter registration fraud or look into a mysterious missing one million dollars (tax-payer money, mind you) among calls from former members, and now both chambers voted overwhelmingly to cut funding. Considering the previous comments by the congressional leadership, it must be something pretty big to have a vote of that magnitude, and the opinion ACORN is corrupt is certainly not (no longer at least) out of the mainstream.
Oh really? In actuality, Carl Rove pushed his justice department to do just that, and fired one person because the person realized the attack was partisan. ACORN has never been convicted of voter fraud, despite all the allegations.
The New York Times reported on July 9, 2008, that Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, was found to have embezzled $948,607.50 from the group and affiliated charitable organizations back in 1999 and 2000.[1] ACORN executives decided to handle it as an internal matter, and did not inform most of the board members or law enforcement, and instead signed an enforceable restitution agreement with the Rathke family to repay the amount of the embezzlement.
By the way, they did NOT repay it, the 'Tides' foundation did.
The last time an ACORN board raised too many questions about the books and goings on of ACORN, they were forced off the board.
If ACORN is not corrupt (which seems an incredible and fantastically deluded pipe dream at this point), then some transparency on their part and full disclosure should be nothing for them to fear.
We have a local non-profit hospital which had almost a million dollars embezzled by a high level employee and an outside vendor . . . was it the hospital's fault that their employee took money from them?
Unless someone can show that ACORN ordered, approved and had prior knowledge of any of its former employees' illegal activities, it will be impossible to show that, under the theory of respondeat superior, ACORN is responsible for ANY of its employees' illegal activities.
Turn off Fox. Of all the stories that are out there right now, ACORN is probably one of the least significant.
If this were about a "conservative" group you would be all over it and there would be public hangings. Instead you choose to "kill the messenger" because it does not suit your agenda. As long as you continue this you are simply feeding FOX News ratings.
Just keep throwing that gas on the fire... sooner or later it's bound to go out.
So... now you can delete my comment.
Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees.
It's not like this is the first time that ACORN has been in the news. Remember the voter registration issues last year? This was just four more examples of their corruption. ACORN has provable ties with the SEIU, and the SEIU just this week posted this at their Website:
These extremists will attempt to shut down and shout down anyone with a different point of view. Let's be clear who we are talking about--call them attack dogs, call them Teabaggers, call them Glenn Beck. Their lies, their stunts and their smears will not silence us. Glenn Beck, FOX News and their pals have demonstrated that they don't care about what janitors, security officers, nurses, teachers, and other hardworking Americans go through each day trying to give their kids a better future. But make no mistake--these hardworking women and men will not be the next casualty of the cruel and cheap attempts of a loud and venomous minority to silence people who want to restore the American Dream.
Wow! Talk about the SEIU stirring the pot and telling whoppers! I have been to four tea parties and there were just regular folks among the thousands! Janitors, security officers, nurses, teachers, and other hardworking Americans were everywhere! Granted, there were a handful of wackos and members of the opposition there to cause trouble, but the majority were the very people that SEIU claims is bring oppressed by Fox News and pals!
And I have news for the SEIU and ACORN and anyone else who claims we are a bunch of lying, smearing, venomous, Fox-bot attack dogs. You have the right to say whatever you want, but it does not make it true. Facts prove otherwise.
You have the right to say whatever you want, but it does not make it true. Facts prove otherwise.
"Say what you want, but I'm going to believe what I want to believe and there's nothing you can say to make me think otherwise. Ha!"
Why even bother entering into a discussion if you are completely unwilling to modify your point of view with new information? That obstinacy, shared by many people right and left, is what allows outlets like Fox to purport and spread their PROPAGANDA.
THIS ISN'T FOOTBALL! THERE AREN'T TEAMS. THIS SHOULDN'T BE ME AGAINST YOU, WE'RE GOING TO WIN, YOUR TEAM SUCKS!
This should be a discussion, and if there are differing points of view, then we assess the RATIONAL information and come to consensus. Screaming from the sidelines leaves the authority to debate in the hands of those who claim they have your interests in mind, but will essentially say whatever they can to keep your support and keep them elected. Trust me, they love your "you can say whatever you want, but I'll believe what I want" mentality. BAAH.
Yep. The people who profitted off the fake registrations were prosecuted. Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter didn't vote. The fraud was perpetrated ON ACORN not BY ACORN.
But Ann Coulter did vote twice.
I have been to four tea parties and there were just regular folks among the thousands!
Lots of regular folks who are misinformed, uninformed, and who want to take their country back from the black man.
You said that the tea baggers and town hallers (those who want to take their country back) are unpatriotic? That is the same BS tactic used by the Republicans! Calling dissention unpatriotic is wrong no matter who uses it. Our Constitution upholds the right to dissent - to disagree. Let us hope that right never gets taken away.
You suggested this:
...maybe instead of trying to take your country back you should work WITH the majority of people in this country who are tring to make a difference and move forward...
Therein lies the rub. I can no more sit back and remain silent than did Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, JFK, Ronald Reagan, or Martin Luther King. And in my observation, it is the once-silent majority middle America that is ivolved in the Tea Party movement. Our numbers are growing.
well then i guess that clinton kept us safe as well, there were no more attacks on our country by terrorists after the 1st trade center attack either. (oklahoma was a right wing nut no al queda) and he did it without stripping our right away and locking up people for years with no charges.
Bush became overly focused on terrorism after 911.
is that why he abandon afganistan and took us into a totally unrelated war in iraq? that had zero to do with terrorism.
It is more like the past at least 50 years of taxing citizens to give to special interests on ALL sides of the political spectrum. Govt is too big, too
i love this arguement. if it has been the last 50 years then where is your outrage as to why none of this was fixed prior to january. i did not see tea parties when the right was in charge and had us involved in two unfunded wars while giveing tax breaks to the rich and to corporations. where was the outrage when bushed signed an unfunded medicare program. it seems suspect at best that now, when a democrat is in office that the right has suddenly seen the light.
town hallers (those who want to take their country back) are unpatriotic? That is the same BS tactic used by the Republicans!
really? because i did not see alot of support from the right when we on the left were calling for changes in policy enacted by the bush administration and the republican congress. all i heard on every talk show and blog was how if we on the left didn't like it we were free to move to france otherwise we should just shut up. of course i would love to see some links from posts you made back then show your support for our dissent.
By what twisted logic does 'presided over 9/11' equal 'kept us safe?'
'Bush kept us safe' might be the single greatest mass delusion of the American right.
So I guess if there's a massive terrorist attack tomorrow, then no more attacks for the remainder of Obama's term, we can say 'Obama kept us safe!'
Right?
If there was a attack tomorrow and it was found to be planned and organized during the bush admin the it would be Bushes fault.
or are they diluted by H2O or just too obese from eating freedom fries and watching crazy tawk from faux about the silver platter fairy tale.
Remember the first WTC bombing, in 1993? Those responsible were found, tried, convicted, and serve their sentences. No waterboarding, no domestic spying program, no Gitmo detention facility necessary.
Bush II was warned of the imminence of the attacks, had good intelligence on where and when they would take place, and chose to ignore it. At the very least, this makes him complicit in the attacks. Everything he did after had already been planned by PNAC, and 9-11 was just the handy excuse they needed to implement it. I distinctly remember high administration officials describing 9-11, not as a tragedy, but as an opportunity, for this very reason.
Thanks for playing, you win no prize, and your ignorance means you aren't even entitled to any parting gifts, not even the Rice-A-Roni.
I'm part of that "slient majority middle America," and I think you are full of the BS you pick up on Fox.
I live in the second most conservative area in the country--according to AOL poll--and the people like you are few and far between. You aren't a conservative, you are simply a groupie.
BTW, you are in the minority. The teabagger rally attracted fewer people than the UT-Texas Tech football game Saturday night in Austin.
If you want to cover your eyes and sing LALALALALA to avoid the reality of what motivates a large swath of these particular protests and protesters, then I would suggest holding back on the "fool" insults.
Not believe the President's Citizienship?
Call the President Halfrican
Paint Joker White face poster of the president
Have pictures depicting the president as a monkey
How can you definitively say that people are not racist in their statements of I want my country back? What do they want their country back from. What has President Obama done to harm the country that other Presidents have not done?
By the way, how is the stock market doing now? Isn't that how Repubs judge the economy?
Are you serious? The minority are the tea baggers. We had a big public even to see which ideas the American public liked better. It was called an election. And our side won.
As far as facts go, ACORN has never been convicted of voter fraud. Likewise, you haven't pointed out the problems with O'Keefe and Giles, the subject of this MMFA item.
That's the whole story. You're basically helping your Masters subjugate the peasants who reside a rung or two below peasants such as yourself on the socioeconomic ladder. Proud?
Proud? No. With or without ACORN the good news for you is that with bills like those being thrown around Washington today we'll have lots more company on the bottom rungs and that's the goal, isn't it?
You guys might want to blame the fraud on the registrars, but you ignore the illegal system ACORN set up to compensate these workers. Can you say "scapegoats?"
Others have mentioned the Rathke brothers (Rat brothers suffices for me) and dubious "business" practices have been and continue to be litigated.
They're a great bunch all right. The only confused lot here are you ACORN apologists.
EMPLOYEES of ACORN were convicted of voter registration fraud. You know why? Because ACORN delivered suspicious voter registration registration forms to authorities, as they are obligated to by law. ACORN did NOTHING wrong. There has been documented of voter registration resulting in someone actually voting illegally in the last 30 years.
For the record, I dont expect you comprehend any of this, so go right on gullibly blamin ACORN for country's problems, just like the real culprits in Wall Street, K Street, Iraqi contractors the Republican party want you to do.
Do you really think this disproves anything I said?
Voter fraud--a person with a phony registration for Mickey Mouse somehow shows up at the voting booth and is allowed by an idiot elections worker to vote illegally. The victim is the American public.
Voter registration fraud and voter fraud are two ENTIRELY different things. Voter fraud rarely occurs.
You're right as usual. It hardly ever happens. Only very very rarely.
Good grief, join us on Earth.
Dan Rather did a story based on forged documents (the guy that gave them to him stated they might be forged) about the President for 14 days, he was the reporter and executive producer of a NEWS show.
Glenn Beck is a talk show host like those dizzy girls on the view or like Oprah, he has never proported to be a joiurnalist.
The standards are clearly different, One reports news, the other an opinion!
My opinion is different. These teabaggers are selfish individuals and they don't want debate and that's why they went to the town hall meetings and shouted down congressmen and in one case chased them; shouted down Americans who had no insurance or were the victims of the private insurance industry; and spouted talking points from right-wing sources not knowing if the "facts" were true. A tea bagger actually called a Jewish guy a Nazi because he was explaining the virtues of the Israeli heath care system. These people are irrationality and ignorance among the tea baggers is astounding.
Also, by the looks of the crowds most of these teabaggers are on some government program or low wage earners and they're letting multi-millionaires lead them around.
Guess that all you can come up with when your trying to defend the undefendable .
Why didn't ANY of the speakers who stood on stage, request the crowds remove the wackos with the racist signs?
WHY didn't ANY speaker say to the crowd, all you folks with derogatory signs, pile them up in trash cans, that's not what this movement is about. If you folks see a derogatory signs, ask that person to put it in the trash, that's not what this movement is about.
But no one did ANYTHING.
You stood silent and continued to stand silent, while leading teabagger, Mark Williams, wrote racist, derogatory remarks about President Obama.
And NOW you want to complain because the news coverage shows plenty of racist and bigots as teabaggers?
Who's fault is that?
It's obvious that it's not just a few people spouting this stuff at these rallies, either. And you do know who is supplying the advertising, talking points, and money to start these things?
If you want to attach your taxes=bad libertarianism to a crowd of bigots and ignorant, uninformed louts, you'll find yourself joined at the hip with a pretty cold-hearted community.
Get a life and turn off the television. You might actually learn something.
I find it fascinating that there can be this much opposition to a President Obama in 8 Months because he is trying to provide health care for people who dont have it and he is trying to save our econonmy. I also find it is amazing that Obama is being called a socialist when Bush bailed out the banks and the autos.
What specific policies are the Tea Party people protesting? It really makes no rational sense to me.
I dont remember Bush getting this much oosition and large scale protests ( those that did protest were called unamerican) atleast had valid opposition. Tax cuts for the wealthiest people and the unnecessary war in Iraq.
And ACORN does stand to get 4.5 Billion dollars in the Stimulus package. Or are you one of the ones that didn't read it also?
Enough said.
WE ARE RIGHT! YOU ARE WRONG! END OF STORY! (Andrew Wilkow, Sirius, channel 144, 11:00 to 1:00 CDT)
Just curious.
CYA!
You're probably right, and isn't that just hilarious? The communists hated the czars, to the point that they overthrew the czar system. How many of these people know the difference?
That said, I don't know why there's the fascination with czars. It's not a partisan issue, but I don't get why anyone wants to have government officials remind people of brutal dictatorships. It just seems like a dumb title, even if it's unofficial.
I wish that they'd cook up a new name for these kind of jobs. Trying to load it with some kind of meaning that is somehow politically loaded for one party or the other is just the stuff that morons feed on. Save that for People magazine or the tabloids or the TV news - all of which is criminally inept.
Your hyperbole is palpable - interesting read but credibility is lacking.
They only got 3.5 million to begin with, so it hardly makes any difference. But now that they are not funded, it ceases to be a political issue. I know the right-wingers hillarously thought this would bring down Obama. Most people don't even know or care about ACORN.
(By the way, isn't a "key word" one word?)
So do you actually think ACORN's funding was not going up up up with the $5.2 billion allocated to CDBG/NSP programs by the stimulus bill? FactCheck says ACORN "would be eligible to compete for NSP funds ($4.2 billion)" as it already does for CDBG funds ($1 billion). FactCheck neglected to say what percentage of CDBG funds ACORN has received in the past. I wonder why.
FactCheck claims that competition for such funds is "stiff" but since "ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country" one would assume that they would have gotten their fair share of the funding, despite Bertha Lewis' claim that they "have no plans to apply for such funds."
FactCheck focuses on the "eligible" and "compete" part and there makes their "stiff" reference. Well, they are indeed eligible - there is no argument there from either side. As to whether or not they would have been competitive, well, given what was revealed about ACORN's accounting practices in the clandestine tapes, they would have been very competitive indeed.
I did comment about your second point in my initial post though, going so far as to quote Bertha and pointing out that ACORN's apparent accounting philosophy will make them competitive in seeking NSP funds. That will allow them to expand into new areas of fraud like home renovation. It's in their business model.
What I said in my initial post was "FactCheck neglected to say what percentage of CDBG funds ACORN has received in the past." You pointed out that the story said $1.6 million over the last four years. That still doesn't say what percentage of CDBG funds ACORN garnered. Is $400k/year 1%? 5%? It's relevant because one could extrapolate what piece of the $1 billion pie ACORN might have gotten (had they not imploded).
So both points you said I neglected to read were addressed correctly in my original post and (for future reference) your post was thus unnecessary. I accept your apology in advance.
And the second part of your first post is pure BS. ACORN did not apply for NSP funds because what the funds are used for is something that ACORN doesn't do.
If this is something you found, then my statement is still valid: FactCheck neglected to say what percentage of CDBG funds ACORN has received in the past.
Furthermore, your number breakdown does not account for what percentage of funds ACORN received in comparison to other community organizations doing the same work they are doing, nor does it speak to how "entitlement communities" and local governments administer CDBG funds. The PDF you provided does not answer the specifics of that and my guess is an investigation into how those funds are actually used would uncover a corrupt mess (my cynicism speaking). So you throwing 0.01% out there is the same to me as Hannity saying billions. Both dubious.
As for my second "pure BS" part, you note that ACORN doesn't do NSP-related activities and Bertha backs you up. That being said, I do not see it as a stretch at all to see them getting involved in that fresh pie.
Ironically (you're gonna love this), I think they should get involved in NSP if the money is out there. They could set up a system like Habitat for Humanity where the recipients of the housing get involved in the hands-on rehabilitation of the property and thus have a greater stake in maintaining it.
That sure would be better than the HUD system in my neighborhood (the three HUD properties within 200 feet of my home now look like hell and one is a well-known drug den. Go team!
"Entitlement communities" is a slap in the face to the people who live in poor cities. Perhaps inadvertently, it perpetuates the idea that people within such communities need to depend on the government for their needs to be fulfilled. Upon second thought, there is likely nothing inadvertent about it all.
You forgot to add this to the nuttiness....Your pal Eric said that Kennedy was killed by right-winged hatred.
But wasn't Oswald at tad to the LEFT in his political thinking?
Anywho, thanks for the entertainment value this site provides! Toodles :>
Speaking truth to/about progressives
You neglected to offer any evidence. An old complaint against you and so unfair I know.
Do you find equal entertaiment viewing old test paterns. The actual information gleamed by you from each seems equivilent.
Get some dentures, end your toothlessness.
What does this have to do with the post? Anyway, Oswald was a nut, someone hard to pin down either way. That doesn't mean right-wing hatred didn't kill JFK.
Yeah, Oswald was probably a member of the John Birch Society!! :>
Charles Guiteau kills James Garfield = Republican kills Republican
Leon Czolgosz kills William McKinley = Leftist Anarchist kills Republican
Lee Harvey Oswald kills JFK = Leftist Socialist kills Democrat (do any of you believe JFK would be a Democrat today?)
Sirhan Sirhan kills RFK = Leftist Communist kills Democrat (ditto)
Anybody see a trend there?
I have zero doubt that JFK would be a Democrat were he alive today. He wouldn't be happy with the Democratic Party for lacking the courage of it's alleged convictions, but he'd be a Democrat. He sure as h*ll would not be a Republican.
Entitlements
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
"Once you say you're going to settle for second, that's what happens to you in life."
"Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly."
"Things do not happen. Things are made to happen."
Government spending/taxation
"The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy."
"The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining."
Military
"A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed."
"Our growing softness, our increasing lack of physical fitness, is a menace to our security."
War/foreign policy
"Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place."
"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it."
"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war."
Communism
"Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both."
"When written in Chinese, the word 'crisis' is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity."
"There are many people in the world who really don't understand-or say they don't-what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin!"
(that last one sound like another American president?)
Israel
"Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."
Washington
"Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm."
God
"Those whom God has so joined together, let no man put asunder."
"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
And my favorites:
"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
And... you think that would make him a Republican? Because Democrats are against defending our country or something?
The quotes which you say adress entitlements don't adress entitlements at all. You're grasping at some thin straws there.
And as is typical, for Kennedy's quotes on taxes you parrot republican talking points which take these quotes idiotically out of context. The fact that conservatives wish they could bury is that the top-end tax rate was 90% at the beginning of his presidency. And he lowered this to the mid 70's.
And as for his comments on the military, your point is what exactly?
For war/foreign policy, did you not expect us to read those quotes? They sound either lukewarm or relatively dovish. The only quote that sounds conservative was the one regarding his worst mistake; escalation of the Vietnam war.
Furthermore, you're favorites don't reflect terribly well on conservatives. They seem to have a hard time with sacrifice when it comes to paying taxes for the good of society.
And I will further remind you that Kennedy insisted on separation of church and state, largely to keep people from perceiving his Catholicism as having undue influence on his governing.
The rest of the quotes are largely uncontroversial.
Yep, you took the most conservative quotes you could find from Kennedy, and still couldn't make him look conservative, that should tell you something.
Next you admitted that JFK lowered taxes on the rich (sound familiar?).
The military quotes were just to illustrate that JFK was not exactly PC in his defense of defense.
As for war/foreign policy, I can't see how you could translate those as being "relatively dovish." If Bush said, "I welcome it," pundits would still be using it to illustrate that he was a warmonger. Oh wait. He did say "Bring it on" and was lambasted for it (justly in my opinion). And, btw, would JFK's stance on Cuba be considered "dovish?"
My favorite line of yours though is "[Conservatives] seem to have a hard time with sacrifice when it comes to paying taxes for the good of society." This illustrates perfectly why you are a fiscal liberal (you feel the ever-growing burden on people through government expansion, i.e. higher taxes, is for "the good of society") and I am a fiscal conservative (imo the government today is the largest obstacle to prosperity for all classes).
And finally, something we can agree on. I wholeheartedly endorse the separation of church and state and abhor the typical "conservative" stance on the issue. I am an agnostic and feel the government should stick to what the First Amendment says without wiggle room. In other words, stay the hell out of the religion business and stick to what you're good at: robbing us blind.
"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." AND "This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably." (No comment.)
"I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office." ("So I figured I would quadruple it my first year in office. Size matters right?")
"Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today." ("And by taking all of our children's money, they won't need to worry about stressful little things like jobs or capital. Don't worry. The government willl take care of you.")
On that same vein: "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs." (All glory to the hypno-toad.)
"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world." (You lika da Socialist Party, no?)
"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." AND "I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." (How is that one panning out?)
"I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." (All of those lobbyists he brought on are working pro bono.)
"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator." (et tu, Abe?)
"John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded." (See? He had to cite someone else who actually believes it--though I'm guessing Naushon Kerry's hands are as soft as a newborn's.)
"To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent." AND "We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." (Cue laugh track.)
"This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands." (Cue screams.)
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times." (I...I thought we could actually...do that. Man, it's worse than I thought.)
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (YIKES!)
My favorite because I think this captures pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there." Take a look into the admin response to that whole mess and let me know what you think. Talk about New World Order.
October 2008, two white supremacists planning to go on a massive killing spree in Tennessee and then assassinate Barack Obama, were caught before they could act.
January 2009, a white supremacist went on a brutally violent killing spree in a Massachusetts suburb targeting Jews and non-whites. He killed two immigrants and raped and shot a third. Police were able to stop him before he reached his final destination: a synagogue where he planned to open fire.
April 2009, a white supremacist hopped up on anti-government conspiracy theories, ambushes and kills three Pittsburgh police officers.
May 2009, and anti-government and anti-abortion activist shot and killed a physician in Wichita, Kansas.
When Barack Obama was elected, extremist right-wing groups, especially white-supremacist organizations, were totally stoked about it. They knew this have them great material with which to recruit and radicalize new members. According to the DHS, right-wing extremists pose the greatest threat of domestic terrorism right now.
Also let's not forget that the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our nation's history was carried out by right-wing extremists.
Also, for the record, there's no doubt that Lincoln would be a democrat in this day and age. He wouldn't even recognize the Republican party.
Guiteau was a Garfield supporter and even claimed credit for helping Garfield get elected. His downfall was that he was apparently an unstable, highly religious individual. He believed he was told "by God" to kill Garfield. Again, political club membership, if any, was irrelevant.
Czolgoz was a registered Republican who became mixed up with a bunch of anarchists. While we know his political club membership, it is irrelevant.
Oswald was mentally ill, having been diagnosed with schizoid tendencies. He never completed a formal education, but read up on Marxism [would put him right up there with the neo-conservatives, but I digress]. Political party is irrelevant. And yes, I believe that JFK would have been a Democrat because he was raised to believe that it was his DUTY to care for the least among us. Today's Republicans aren't really known for that sort of feeling.
And you are WAY off on Sirhan Sirhan. He was a mentally unstable, anti-Semitic Palestinian Christian. He stated that he killed Kennedy because of his support of Israel. Political club membership is irrelevant.
Next time, before you post information from an e-mail or a blog post, research it. Otherwise, you run the risk of looking REALLY uninformed and REALLY foolish.
You said: "I believe that JFK would have been a Democrat because he was raised to believe that it was his DUTY to care for the least among us. Today's Republicans aren't really known for that sort of feeling."
Caring for the least among us can be summed up with the word "charitable." I don't have recent numbers, but here are the Catalogue for Philanthropy stats for 2004.
Notice something? Take a look at the top ten states. Is there a single "blue" state listed? I will also point out that the top ten include some of the poorest states. JFK's state (mine as well) ranks near last!
So what you call Washington's charity I call thievery. They are quite generous with our money, but when it comes to their own, they seem to be pretty tight fisted.
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/kennedy/lee-harvey-oswald.htm
face the facts, the trouble in this country right now is not the left. no, the people in office right now were elected with a clear majority of the country. the reason was because the right had messed stuff up so bad that it was time to try a new direction. the real problem is the right, out there screaming that you want "your country back" how do you figure it's YOUR country? and what do you mean take it back? if the fox new's and limbaugh's of the world are not calling for an overthrow and inciting hatred, then why are people showing up at presidential events carrying weapons? i know they "have the right" but with rights come responsiblity. how much does it take away the secret service from protecting the president if they have to babysit some nut who just wants to show off his stupidity? i will agree though that this is not about race, it's about losing power and wanting the people you like in charge. no matter the cost. the one thing you guys think you have going for you is the polls that show obama slipping. you can't even see that reality. the reason he's slipping is because of uncertainty on the left. after the health bill is passed you will see his numbers go back up because the left will be back on board. so, like i said before. the right needs to man up and help this country move forward. the country spoke and you guys need to get onboard, work in good faith for whats going to get this country back on it's feet and stop trying to sabatoge every policy just because you want your power back.
As for why Obama is slipping in the polls, I think it is you who "can't even see that reality." The reason you cite ("uncertainty on the left") is completely unfounded in reality.
According to a CNN survey released at the beginning of this month, Obama has a 90% approval rating among Democrats (up three points from the previous month) while 53% of independents now "disapprove of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House" (first time that majority was reached) and for Republicans it is now down to 15% (down eight points from a month ago).
So the facts go absolutely counter to your statement. It is Independents like me who are largely driving Obama's approval numbers downward. His friends on the loony left have actually rallied further behind him.
I will agree with you on one count: the country spoke. Unfortunately for you, many people are now realizing they didn't know what they were saying. Rather than "jump onboard" the Obama Titanic, there's a mad rush for the lifeboats. You go ahead and enjoy the band while it sinks.
I hate to say it, but I don't see how a CNN survey of Obama's approval rating could objective. That's like asking ACORN to appoint its own panel to audit the organization.
as for abamas slipping in the polls, i guess i was not clear. i did not mean he was losing support on what you refer to as the loony left. i was talking about the "blue dogs" who are still on the left but concerned about what the final bill will say. but, we can argue about the polls forever and never know for sure. in the meantime i am going to just wait and see what happens. i still think that after health reform passes that obamas numbers will go back up. only time will tell. and if i'm wrong i will gladly came back here and admit i was wrong. will you do the same?
As for the polls, I will repeat what I said before. Obama's support among Democrats has risen, not fallen, blue dog or not. I do believe you have the health care effects wrong too. If Washington rams through health care reform in the form the administration is seeking (against the vast majority of Americans' wishes), and especially if done through the so-called "nuclear option" of reconciliation, it will backfire tremendously and rather than see his numbers go up, Obama will watch them drop precipitously. If I am reading that wrong, I would definitely admit it (though I'm not really sure what crow tastes like - any ideas?)
I think I addressed the topic of this thread plenty in my comments, more than you I might add. So no, no attempts at derailing.
Either way, he was a Marxist and the neo-conservative movement was based upon his teachings. By no stretch of the imagination are they "conservatives."
The difference between neo-cons and ultra-libs, is the latter proudly and nakedly tout their Marxist ideology and the former Bush "New World Order" crowd do so behind the curtains. Still cut from the same cloth. Still can't sell us out fast enough.
This is part of what perplexes me about the recent fight against the Socialist label. Europe seems not to have any problem with the Socialist labeso why get all "wee-wee'ed up" since the European model is so often held up as THE example of transnational cooperation the left is so fond of?
Just admit it already. Hiding behind terms like "progressive" and "liberal" does nothing to disguise the true ambitions. Go read that beautiful UN-sponsored lullaby "Our Global Neighborhood" to get a better taste of where the left would like to eventually take us.
Wasn't Oswald kicked out of the USSR? He lived there for a while but I think they didn't want him.
Anyway, the peculiar circumstances that got us this bizarre choice of person for president was not because people wanted him so much as it was a referendum on the travesty that was the Bush administration.
I don't really want another Republican in the White House any time soon, but I would like to see someone more qualified and dignified in office. All I'm seeing so far is another skillful actor, a la Reagan, whose image is being guarded so zealously, and whose actions are not very impressive in spite of his smiling for the camera and trying to act presidential. I'll never forgive the appointment of Geithner. The man is so unqualified, he is a Wall St. insider and sure enough, his legacy will be his shameless rewarding all of his pals at Goldman. Why didn't Sheila Bair get the nod? or Roger Ferguson? who is black? and who has an unquestionable qualifications with his huge background in bank restructuring? Geithner is a Wall St. stooge and he's paying off for them, big time - with yours and my money.
The healthcare bill is a distraction and it's just public pandering. It is such a divisive issue and there has been so much meddling and tinkering with the bill and so much backpedaling from Obama on what will be in this plan, if it ever gets off the ground, that it's not going to rally the American people to inflate Obama's approval rating. It certainly won't get us the healthcare for everyone that we very much need in this country.
It would be wonderful if he'd actually fix the banking industry instead of just printing zillions of dollars to give the crooks on Wall St. that devalues all of our personal wealth and that is only enriching those jerks on Wall St. If Obama would be truly strong and focus on really fixing the banking industry and maybe bringing the conflicts overseas to some kind of conclusion, I think his numbers would be justifiably high. I don't think that the smart money is on him ever accomplishing that. I wouldn't bet mine on it.
I saw John, Robert and MLK assassinated . . . I see a lot of the same HATRED which caused these assassinations in your uninformed rhetoric. GROW UP! Your idiocy is destroying our country.
http://tinyurl.com/nnztuk
Lorie Byrd at Wizbang does an excellent job of highlighting this with her analysis of both FOX's and MM's versions of the commentary.
********
Glenn Beck: “This is twisted, bizarre, macabre. I mean, is this theater? I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a jury. Um, but gosh even to me it seems like this is a potential admission of murder and the way she was describing doing some groundwork beforehand, you know so everyone in town knew exactly what was going on, a case might be made for premeditated murder. In fairness, I don’t understand people who stay in abusive relationships. I don’t. I get it. I get it. And maybe a jury might conclude that it was justifiable homicide. I don’t know but we haven’t been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa’s husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he’s dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don’t know. Nobody is asking questions. See if the mainstream media will follow this one. This is shocking. It raises serious questions about what is going on inside of ACORN.”
I italicized the portion of the commentary Media Matters provided to their readers in the mishmash video they put together. The parts they omitted are not italicized. I put in bold the part of Beck’s comments that directly contradict Media Matters post.
********
It seems to me that Media Matters is the org that truly has to answer for their "tactics". I'm embarrassed for those of you who refuse to believe it.
While reading you comments yesterday, much time was spent insulting Glenn Beck - even now I see a few insults of Glenn. Does that make you feel like big boys? You attack the messenger, but offer little to refute the message. Glenn contacted the White House asking them to prove his report on Van Jones to be wrong – no reply – except for Van Jones resignation. Glenn went through a number of the CZARs’ background, again asking the White House to refute – they claimed 2 of the CZARs were “advisors” not CZARs – that’s it.
As for ACORN, there were 5 videos, at least 4 people fired and yes, one played the young couple and yes, FNC should have held off running the 5th video. But the videos along with to 50 indictments to date show they are corrupt. And if their fraudulent voter registration has produced fraud, explain how in MO – you know, Al Frankins election, one of the concerns was that there were more votes than voters – how do you suppose that happened?
And don't waste your time mocking as you liberal do, it will be a waste of time!
Let's start with the video of Ms. Russell, which is the only account from any ACORN eyewitness to the incident. Media Matters states that it "directly rebuts" the filmmakers claim that they were never "kicked out" for their attempt to get ACORN to "assist them in nefarious activities." It does NOTHING of the sort. Ms. Russell did not say she "kicked them out" because they asked for help with a prostitution ring. Rather, she says that she told she had to go to a meeting and could therefore not answer any additional questions. The issue of prostitution did not even come up. They asked one question about getting papers for some girls for El Salvador, and she said because they were a counseling agency they couldn't help with that. But she didn't "kick them out" because of that or any other question -- she simply didn't have the time to talk.
Media Matters cites the police report as evidence that Russell asked them to leave, and that she "called the police after the filmmakers asked suspicious questions." Another lie. Russell didn't call the police while they were there, and in fact didn't call the police at all. Rather, after they had already left, she called an ACORN official to ask why they had been referred to her office.
It was then that the ACORN official, Keith Crosby, first contacted the police. He filed a false police report, apparently claiming an emergency because the filmmakers were "causing a verbal disturbance with employees of ACORN." But Crosby knew that the filmmakers had already left -- and the report notes that the police advised him of this fact he obviously knew -- and Russell never asserted there was a "verbal disturbance" even when they were there.
So the filmmakers never lied about anything. Media Matters lied, and ACORN committed a crime by filing a false police report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcjpRSRuY8A&feature=player_embedded
Why was it cut in the article?
Beck: "I don't know but we haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa's husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he's dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody is asking questions."
Why didn't Media Matters include this quote when they first reported Beck's airing of the video?
Great question but the answer should be painfully self-evident: Media Matters is the house organ for ACORN, Obama and anything that is MSM Leftworks.
I came here thinking, naively, that there would be scathing exposure of ALL media's glaring omissions, transgressions and the rest. It turns out, this site is devoted to only presenting the liberal viewpoint, even at the expense of any opportunity to enlighten with unbiased and intelligent discussion. This article by Karl Frisch is par for the course. I just wish that they'd be more honest about who they are. They should have chosen something like Left Media Matters or Liberal Media Matters for their name rather than sneakily hiding behind a name that masquerades this site as being objective.
That's besides the point anyways. Why did MMFA leave out this key detail in Beck's original reporting?
Also, how difficult is it to confirm if that lady has a dead husband or not? Marriage certificates and death certificates are public records. Are you really telling me that Beck, with a huge budget and staff, doesn't have the resources to simply look it up before he talks about it on the air?
This is why the whole "Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990" internet meme took off; it's mocking Beck's own game.
If Keith Olbermann went on his show monday night and was like, "Well, there is a website out there claiming that Glenn Beck did, indeed, rape and murder a girl in 1990. While I cannot say if this is true or not, there has not been any evidence presented to disprove it." Wouldn't you think that was, to say the least, irresponsible journalism?
And, again, none of you are seeing the big picture. Giving ACORN federal tax money is unconstitutional let alone giving ACORN federal tax money to do illegal things. Why are you all so concerned with Beck and not what our government is doing?
It doesn't bother me in the slightest that ACORN doesn't get federal money anymore. I don't really understand why anyone cares that much about ACORN. To me, they seem highly insignificant. I don't see them as being an integral part of liberal America or something.
What bothers me is that Beck and Hannity and their ilk are so positively gleeful about hearing that somebody who works for ACORN might be a murderer that they can't even be bothered to verify their facts.
I wonder why they aren't similarly eager to cover the stories about the verified murderers of Blackwater, who have gotten obscene amounts of federal tax dollars?
Really? Are we gonna play this game? We're going to play the semantics game? The other three videos showed ACORN workers promoting illegal things. This last video showed an ACORN worker promoting illegal things. Kidding or not she was still promoting it. That's what our focus should be, not on semantics or whether or not this person was fibbing or not.
You don't think it's even slightly irresponsible to insinuate that this woman (who was being videotaped without her knowledge or consent) murdered her husband, without going through the trouble of pulling up some public records to check and see if the woman even has a deceased husband?
Offering tax advice to a prostitute is one thing, MURDER is a horse of a different color.
And, I will ask again, why is it that Beck, Hannity, & Co. don't seem quite so eager to cover the story of the ACTUAL, VERIFIED murderers of Blackwater, who carried out horrible atrocities while receiving oodles of federal tax dollars?
My best guess would be because it was of a military nature. Does it excuse them of any possible wrong doing? No. But this is just my guess as to why they didn't cover it. Are you even positive that nobody at FNC mentioned it? That's a lot of transcripts to pour through to be sure they never discussed Blackwater.
WHAT??????????
If he didn't know, DON'T MENTION IT UNTIL YOU DO!!! It's called being responsible.
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf
Louisiana Attorney General has subpeonaed records for all affiliates dating back to 1998 for ACORN and all affiliates. A subpeona has also been issued to ACORN's bank for all records dating back to 1998. The forensic accountants have been hired and the cookie is going to crumble.
I really am surprised by the outrage from the left. I would think you would want an honest organization assisting the poor and disadvantaged urban groups rather than an organization who apparently teaches them to commit crimes. But, heck, what do I know........
The MSM can't or won't report anything that might be negative about him. I guess their legs are just too tingly to do any real reporting.
The privileged snot-noses who were able to dupe a few underprivileged (ACORN) employees in this organization just to attain some sort of recognition and glory for themselves is pitiful. Now the Congress wants to pull the rug out from under all the good work they do. It makes no sense. But the Glenn Becks are so happy that the poor and forgotten will remain poor and forgotten. Good grief, there is no justice or mercy or kindness in this world and THAT'S A (FOX) FACT! Please sign the petition: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/4433/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=1851
You give no one credit or for that matter "facts" to make up their own minds.
What are you so afraid of?
ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis on Fox News Sunday claimed the behavior by some ACORN employees were reprehensible and as part of overall comperhensive reform of the organization she announced there would be no more walk-ins.
Don't get manipulated folks, Beck's actual statement in full regarding ACORN is available to you online, think for yourselves. If you get your "news" here, you will be ill informed.
Glenn Beck: “This is twisted, bizarre, macabre. I mean, is this theater? I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a jury. Um, but gosh even to me it seems like this is a potential admission of murder and the way she was describing doing some groundwork beforehand, you know so everyone in town knew exactly what was going on, a case might be made for premeditated murder. In fairness, I don’t understand people who stay in abusive relationships. I don’t. I get it. I get it. And maybe a jury might conclude that it was justifiable homicide. I don’t know but we haven’t been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa’s husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he’s dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don’t know. Nobody is asking questions. See if the mainstream media will follow this one. This is shocking. It raises serious questions about what is going on inside of ACORN.”
I italicized the portion of the commentary Media Matters provided to their readers in the mishmash video they put together. The parts they omitted are not italicized. I put in bold the part of Beck’s comments that directly contradict Media Matters post.
"I don’t know but we haven’t been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa’s husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he’s dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don’t know. Nobody is asking questions."
If this is the best the left has,Lou, I think your job is safe.
There's probably some hatred on the right but the left holds the all time record for hatred!!!
For your info, I was alive and well when JFK was killed and there was NEVER any speculation that Lee Harvey Oswald was right-wing. He was a communist, self proclaimed. The conspiracy nuts believed that the mob was responsible. But even Manchester's book, which I read, never tried to lay it at the feet of conservatives. And I don't remember any right wing hatred during that period. Everyone I knew was devastated by JFK's assination whether they agreed with his politics or not. Don't we have enough lies and hate w/o you adding to the pot?