About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Rogue Fact: Palin absurdly claims McCain campaign "did not elaborate" on Obama's purported "relationship with ACORN"

November 16, 2009 9:23 am ET — 69 Comments

In her memoir, Going Rogue, Sarah Palin claims that the McCain campaign "did not elaborate on" what she describes as then-Senator Obama's "close relationship with ACORN, the voter-fraud specialists." In fact, McCain, Palin, and various McCain spokespeople all advanced ridiculous conspiracy theories about Obama and ACORN, and McCain campaign manger Rick Davis went so far as to suggest that the purported relationship placed the election under a "cloud of suspicion."

From Going Rogue:

On the campaign trail many had been hesitant to talk about legitimate fears that Obama's past comments and associations with anti-capitalist radicals would influence his economic policy. The press gave the impression it was the wrong thing to do. I was "going rogue" when I answered reporters' questions about candidate Obama's associations and pals. I wish we had talked more about them, and about Obama's close relationship with ACORN, the voter-fraud specialists. But we did not elaborate on any of that during the campaign. [Going Rogue, pp. 359-360]

In fact, McCain, Palin, and rest of campaign advanced ACORN/OBAMA conspiracy theories

 McCain repeatedly raised "Obama's relationship with ACORN" during presidential debate. From the transcript of the October 15, 2008, presidential debate:

MCCAIN: We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things need to be examined, of course.

[...]

OBAMA: Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.

It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.

[...]

MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So -- and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room.

OBAMA: That's absolutely not true.

MCCAIN: And the facts are facts and records are records.

OBAMA: And that's not the facts.

MCCAIN: And it's not the fact -- it's not the fact that Senator Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment. [Third Presidential Debate,]

 Palin: Obama is "fuzzying up his connections to ACORN." At an October 17 rally in West Chester, Ohio, Palin said (transcript accessed via Nexis):

PALIN:  Senator Obama won't tell you the full truth about his tax increases, and now he's kind of fuzzying up his connections to ACORN. (Boos.) This is the same candidate who's running ads that are distorting our plans for lower healthcare costs for all of you.

Now, ACORN is under investigation for rampant voter fraud in 13 states, and a front group for ACORN received over $800,000 from the Obama campaign. (Boos.) Now, Obama says that his only involvement with ACORN was when he represented the group as a lawyer, but what about the training that he provided ACORN in the past, ACORN staff, and his role in past ACORN voter registration efforts? And then there's the $200,000 that he got for ACORN when he was on the board of the Woods Fund, and the fact that ACORN endorsed him this year and they're working pretty hard on his behalf.

[...]

As for ACORN and voter fraud, now, they're under federal investigation and John and I are calling on the Obama campaign to release communications it has had with this group, and to do so immediately. (Cheers, applause.) And we are asking for this, not picking on someone or someone's campaign; we're asking this is in fairness to all of you, the American voters. You deserve to know. (Cheers, applause.) You deserve to know because we do need to know more clearly about the choices that we have on November 4th. In this election, especially here in Ohio, you're going to be asked to choose between a candidate who will not disavow a group committing voter fraud and a leader who will not tolerate it. (Cheers, applause.) This group needs to learn that you here in Ohio, you won't let them turn the Buckeye State into the ACORN State. (Cheers, applause.)

McCain campaign manager Davis discussed Obama's purported "relationship with ACORN" while asserting "cloud of suspicion" hanging "over this election." During an October 17 conference call on "Senator Barack Obama's association with ACORN," Davis said (accessed via Nexis):

DAVIS We believe that these issues are important in a close election. We believe that many of these states that are under investigation have had historical close elections and could be very close again and that we should do nothing in this campaign or in the press to do anything other than to ensure that there's a total confidence level that on Election Day, and more importantly, the day after an election, that people believe that they've had a fair and honest election and that the person who they chose to be the next president of the United States does so without a cloud of suspicion that seems to right now hang over this election.

It's pretty clear that Barack Obama decided not to use the opportunity this week to spell out what's going on with his relationship with ACORN. We talked about in the past how ACORN has been involved with him as far back as his tenure on the Woods Foundation, his comments on his website that he's fought along ACORN his entire career, his early training of ACORN employees, and he did mention that, you know, the ACORN representation in a court suit with the federal government. I don't understand -- I mean, unless they think there is a problem with his relationship with ACORN, why they wouldn't just come clean and talk about these things.

But more importantly, I think it's worth noting that there are still many questions about the $800,000 that ACORN got from his campaign within this last year. We put out a press release this week that touched on some of these issues, that we asked for full disclosure of those funds. What does it go to? What was the relationship with Citizens' Services, Inc., and what exactly was Citizens' Services, Inc.'s relationship with ACORN? They claim that virtually all of this money was spent outside the ACORN organization. Can they prove that? Can they elaborate on that? Can they explain what it was spent for?

I think that if they're going to use these kinds of excuses to diminish their obvious historical relationship with ACORN, that they owe it to the public and to the press to (scorge ?) whatever written communication that they've had with these organizations in order to establish confidence that there wasn't something more to it. Have they denied, in fact, that they have any ongoing relationship with ACORN? Just as recently as the financial bailout debate in the Senate in this last month, Barack Obama actively supported a Senate plan to cut ACORN into a percentage of the profits that would be generated by a massive trillion dollar bailout as part of -- as part of a failed negotiation attempt that Barack Obama and the leadership -- Democratic leadership in Congress claimed was the deal that John McCain upset the apple cart on. I think the American public are probably happy that that deal never transpired.

We also have suggested that, you know, we examine exactly what voter registration activity was compiled by ACORN as a part of this relationship with the Barack Obama campaign. What did they do in turnout? What were the nature of the functions that they performed, and did they -- what did they get for the $800,000 that they spent on this? You know, they claimed that this money was used in Ohio primary. We know how close Ohio has been in past elections. We know how a few votes made up the difference in many of the most recent elections.

Davis led conference call on "ongoing scandal ... related to ACORN and the Obama campaign." From the transcript of an October 30 McCain-Palin campaign conference call (access via Nexis):

DAVIS: It's an exciting close in the campaign that's going on, but we wanted to take a break from our daily activity to update everybody on an ongoing scandal that has been evolving over time related to ACORN and the Obama campaign.

[...]

I think that the reason we bring this up is because there are a lot of lingering questions that continue, even though we've learned more and more about ACORN over the last couple weeks. How did ACORN get this list from the Obama campaign? Did they pay for it? If so, how much? What was the value given? There's no record of a transaction in the FEC reports that we can find between ACORN and the Obama campaign related to a valuable fundraising list. If they did buy it -- if they didn't buy it, how did they get it? Who in the campaign was the principal point of contact for ACORN, and what beyond this list may have been done? We've learned from Ms. Moncrief that there was an active fundraising activity going between their organizations -- what other activities are going on that we haven't learned about yet? Why can't the Obama campaign come clean with their relationship with ACORN, and why do we have to constantly be learning about this from organizations outside the news media? I mean, we've learned more from the court system than we've heard from the press about the investigations into Obama's relationship with ACORN. It just seems to me a pattern that has been followed pretty religiously by the news media of not asking the hard questions of the Obama campaign. If this were a Republican organization, I daresay there would be a different attitude by the press as it relates to it.

One of the questions remaining, too, is did the Obama campaign hide in any way its relationship with ACORN as it relates to this fundraising? We know they attempted to hide their relationship with ACORN when they hired them with over $800,000 of their campaign receipts to perform get-out-the-vote activity. They originally posted it as event expenses until further requests by the FEC for more information -- they finally changed their disclaimer on it.

What's interesting about that is there's never been any real disclosure of what that money went to. ACORN itself claims in only received a tenth of that money, so where did the rest of it go? Is the Obama campaign in the process -- or in the habit of giving away $800,000 in a vacuum? If so, I've got a couple of campaign bills I wouldn't mind being paid. You know, they've got more money than we do. I wouldn't mind sharing the wealth a little bit. It seems to be something that there's a high priority by the Obama campaign.

So I think these questions are legitimate. We don't have answers to these questions. Maybe in the ongoing pursuit of justice in the Pennsylvania state court there will be more answers to these questions, but I would think that before Election Day, while we still have time, while there's still time to expose what is clearly a secret relationship between the Obama campaign and the ACORN organization, and why isn't it that Barack Obama isn't held accountable for specifically not telling the truth about his relationship with the ACORN organization.

McCain-Palin foreign policy adviser: "Obama's chief claim to experience is ... doing legal work with ACORN." During an October 20 McCain-Palin campaign conference call, foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said (accessed via nexis):

 SCHEUNEMANN: The next president of the United States will be tested. There are enemies of the United States that are awaiting the results of this election. John McCain's passed every test in his life. He spent over two decades wearing the uniform of this country. He spent over two decades travelling the world, learning the issues, getting to know the leaders, and taking very difficult positions. Senator Obama's chief claim to experience is leading in the front lines of community organizing and acting as -- doing legal work with ACORN. As Joe Biden said, Senator Obama would invite testing, and his responses would not be the right ones.

Davis refers to Obama's purported "relationship with the ACORN group that's under investigation right now." From the October 12 broadcast of Fox News Sunday (accessed via Nexis):

DAVIS: I mean, this is one of the reasons why I think it's a germane topic in this debate, because the press has basically given a free pass to Barack Obama so that none of his background gets challenged.

And so whether it's his relationship with Bill Ayers, his relationship with Tony Rezco, his relationship with the ACORN group that's under investigation right now, and many other things.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 9:45 am ET)
      8  
      Funny that, during the campaign, nobody bothered to point out to Ms. Palin that there is a big difference between voter registration fraud, and voter fraud. I wonder if she's figured it out yet?

      Yes, some minimum wage workers, who were sent out to register people to vote, simply made people up out of thin air in search of a quick buck. People like Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. ACORN turned in all registrations it received, and, as required, flagged any registrations it felt were suspicious and notified the election officials in the jurisdictions where this activity took place. That's voter registration fraud, and it was perpetrated against ACORN by it's temp workers, and it was attempted against the local election boards, which ACORN tried to prevent.

      Voter fraud? Well, for an expert on that, you'd need to talk to Ann Coulter. She might be able to, though, if the case against her is still ongoing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 10:28 am ET)
        4  
        I guess you could say it's true that the Grampy & Dopey campaign didn't elaborate on a lot of subjects, it was more fabricating.

        "elaborating" really implies having some substance to start with. The GOP 2008 campaign used the same tactics as their right wing media uses, hints and innuendo, vague "questions", buzzwords and talking points. It works best to repeat several times, then change the subject, without a lot of elaboration.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 10:58 am ET)
            7
          The obsessing over citizen Sarah Palin has devolved to the point of psychosis here.

          Honestly, you guys have to be embarrassed at this point. It seems to have given a great many people here some sort of meaning in their lives, that fact-checking a book of hers is making a difference.

          A true low point in America's political discourse.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 16, 2009 11:00 am ET)
              7
            Seriously. All press is good press. Wingnut derangement syndrome is rearing its ugly head again on the liberal side of the aisle.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 11:13 am ET)
            6  
            Hardly obsessing over Ms. Palin. More like, pointing out the false, and sometimes hysterically stupid things she has written in her most recent book. Had she published it as fiction, you wouldn't have heard hardly a word about it.

            And, she's the one who insists on following the media spotlight around like a lost puppy. She quit her last full time job, so, admittedly, she's got a lot of free time on her hands.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 11:35 am ET)
                7
              Go up to the top of the page and enter 'Palin' in the search bar, The_Cat. Close to two pages of stories in just this month. Look how many since just this weekend.

              THAT is obsession. That is psychotic and weird. This doesn't even take into account all the comments it's generated by folks like you that make the same comments over and over and for which are the exact same as what you'd see on every liberal blog that is also obsessed with all things Sarah.

              I had no idea she was going to make so many on the Left go the way of Andrew Sullivan and let it completely and insanely consumer them the way she has.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 11:47 am ET)
                7  
                Go up to the top of the page and enter 'Palin' in the search bar... Close to two pages of stories in just this month...
                THAT is obsession. That is psychotic and weird. (Hoosier)


                You're 100% right Hoosier. Our mainstream media is psychotic and weird. Do you understand this yet? Palin is a ridiculous political gimmick, packaged to appeal to the lowest common denominator of American voters.

                We're laughing at her, at our media for treating her as something important, and at those of you who think commenting on this love fest between the media, right wing fringies, and this dopey spokesmodel for the floundering GOP is obsessing.

                I really can't believe how many times you guys need the same simple concepts explained.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                  1 7
                  No, Colonel, you guys further it. You compound it, actually, by feeding in to it. Your explanations don't hold water, but you keep repeating the same old talking point designed to shield you from embarrassment that it's the MSM's fault that makes you keep talking about her.

                  Al Gore lost in 2000 and went on to make a whole series of really stupid comments and rants and was perceived as a serious contender for president again in 2004, at least in 2001-2003, but the right didn't obsess over him the way you guys are over citizen Sarah. Same with John Edwards in 2005 and beyond even though we knew quite well what a phony the guy was- in fact, the reason his phoniness has now been proven for all the world to see no one really cares because to most of those in the reality based world, this was not all that much of a surprise.

                  Compare and contrast John Edwards' phoniness to anything about Sarah Palin that you want to and the surrounding media attention and which sides' have paid to each person and then tell me which one is the far more obsessed about each one.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Edwards had an affair(and child) behind his wife's back (a bit of "phoniness" executed by millions of people every day), received much negative media attention, and it looks like his career is largely over.

                    Palin is , at her very essence, a phony; A pleasant-looking half-wit, pushed onto the national stage by cynical handlers, desperate to rally the most ignorant Americans to vote Republican.

                    She is being treated by the media, at this moment, as a relevant political figure.

                    Edwards is hardly a blip on the national media screen.

                    What were some of these really stupid rants you credit to Gore? I can't really comment on your vague references. You mean like when he said he invented the internets?

                    You really don't appear to think these things through.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
                        5
                      OMG, what do you mean? The guy like a hundred pounds and grew a beard and then went on rants about George Bush. Google his roar about betrayyyying the country. Do you guys not follow politics at all or did you just start getting involved when Barack Obama started getting traction on Hillary Clinton's candidacy?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
                        5  
                        The guy like a hundred pounds and grew a beard and then went on rants about George Bush.


                        What? You're just starting to sound sort of crazy now.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 17, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Wow. Talk about derangement. You defend Sarah Palin and say that proving her falsehoods false is derangement. Then you go after Gore and when you are called on all you can come up with is his beard and weight. That is true partisan derangement. I couldn't care less whether or not Palin stays hot. But, the fact that she has no issue with lying over and over again should always be pointed out as long as the right feels she is a viable leader.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Also, Hoosier, there's a lot of confusion in your posts, so I'm going to isolate bits that are especially incoherent, and maybe you can help me . I'm open-minded enough to allow that the problem might be mine, so I'll give you the chance to clarify.

                    This, f'rinstance, directed at me;

                    ...you keep repeating the same old talking point designed to shield you from embarrassment that it's the MSM's fault that makes you keep talking about her.


                    1. What is the "talking point"?
                    2. Are you saying that I'm "blaming" the MSM for "making" me talk about Palin?
                    3. What do you imagine I might be "embarrassed" about?
                    4. What am I using to "shield" myself from this "embarrassment"?

                    Thanks in advance if you can make sense of any of this.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
                        6
                      1. The talking point that you're not obsessed with her, but the MSM gives her legitimacy so you have to keep setting the record straight on her. She's treated seriously so you have to counteract that. It's BS.

                      2. It sounds like it, yes.

                      3. If I acted like you guys are doing about Palin, then yes, I would be embarrassed. I take from your dishonest answers that you have something to hide, thus you must be embarrassed to admit there is something very appealing about her that you obsess over her like you do. It's like David Letterman- you just know the guy has the hots for her. It's a weird obsession he has and its not unlike what the rest of the left wing has going for her, too.

                      4. Your dishonest excuse that you think you're doing a public service by analyzing everything about this woman...every statement she makes, everything she wears, every sentence she writes on her Facebook page, and every chapter of her book. Again, just look at the front page of this website. Weird, Colonel. Simply bizarre. You guys need to get a life, except that I guess the people here are getting paid for it, which is also kind of weird when you think about who is paying the salaries and if they believe it's money well-spent.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
                        6  
                        Thanks for taking the time, Hoosier. I was worried it might have been me not understanding what you were trying to say.

                        It's obvious that you're a complete lunatic. I would recommend you get help before sliding any further into this fantasy world you've created.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (November 16, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
                          4  
                          I also think Hoosier is a lunatic and has forgotten that when you write a book, it gets analyzed. I'm sure Obama's book was dissected by the nutjobs. Problem was, there were no lies to be found.

                          Imagine that!
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 17, 2009 1:01 pm ET)
                        2  
                        "If I acted like you guys are doing about Palin, then yes, I would be embarrassed." - hoosier

                        You mean if we were like obsessing about her weight and facial hair? Cause that would be crazy, right? Read your above comments about Gore if you're looking for an embarrassing obsession.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                7  
                No, it's not obsession. What it is, though, is a strong indication that Sarah Palin is a very vocal source of conservative misinformation.
                Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. [from the 'About us' tab]


                Note the word 'comprehensive', hoosier. With a book chock full of conservative misinformation due out tomorrow, a book she has spent weeks slinging on every talk show shameless enough to have her as a guest, it's hardly surprising that there have been many entries under her name. Say, how many in the last month from former president Bush? Hardly any, right? Because, since leaving office, he has mostly kept out of the media spotlight.

                obsession: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.

                That sounds an awful lot more like Sarah's delusion she's fit to be vice president than it does over MMfA's consistent fact-checking of every lie she comes up with, in my opinion.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 16, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
                    6
                  I think it's pretty unreasonable to think Palin has much real influence or power.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
                    7  
                    Perhaps, but she appears on shows that have very wide audiences, numbering in the millions of people. And, during her appearance, she faithfully utters truly inane and easily disproven conservative talking points. Want an example? All right. She still thinks that it was poor people defaulting on mortgages that caused the economy to collapse. Why? Because she's not very bright, and she doesn't understand economics. So, when she does this, it is important to point out her factual errors, and correct them. Each and every time she publicly makes them.

                    Now, if she would stay home, and just pull this bullspit on her kids, hey! we would leave her completely alone. How she raises her kids is her business. But, when she starts spouting this crap on Oprah, among other places, yeah, she's gonna get called on it.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 17, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
                       
                    She clearly has no power with the general elecorate. But, I think it is clear she has tremendous power over the far-right of the Republican party. Her influence actually pushed out a Republican candidate in New York for the "Conservative" candidate.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by ScienceBuff (November 16, 2009 11:55 am ET)
                5  
                You're confusing obsession with staying current. Palin is publishing her book and has been making television appearances. She's been in the news. That means that the misinformation from and related to her is the current topic. At various other times MMFA has been accused of being obsessed with Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Jerome Corsi, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many, many others.

                The attention paid to Palin doesn't rise above that paid to others in the media and the news. She does, however, provide for more entertaining discussions than do some of those others.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hugacat7374 (November 16, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
                  5  
                  And if we stopped paying attention she'd do or say something even more outrageous in order to stay in the spotlight. She's completely narcissistic and it would kill her to know that nobody's looking at her anymore.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
                    7
                  You're confusing staying current with obsession, ScienceBuff.

                  You guys are obsessed, pure and simple.

                  It's a cottage industry on the Left. There is simply nothing like this on the right. Absolutely nothing.

                  She's like a drug that you guys can't stop taking.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ScienceBuff (November 16, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
                    6  
                    You're just being silly, now. Weeks can go by here with hardly a mention of her. Don't you know yet that simply because you say something is true, the facts don't rearrange themselves to make it so? That's the case here. Palin is currently in the news and that's all there is to explain the large number of articles that pop up.

                    She was the republican party VP candidate a year ago. She dropped off the radar screen until she popped up in the news a few months ago when she abandoned the job she'd been elected to do. That made her newsworthy again. She faded from view again for a few months until this book thing came up.

                    You're imagining an obsession that isn't there. You've certainly provided no evidence to support it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
                        4
                      All the evidence anyone needs to see is in the search bar above, ScienceBuff. Again, tyoe in 'Palin' and you find 23 pages without any 'weeks' in between any of them.

                      She's the number one topic, and you guys are bizarrely obsessed.

                      What you've just asserted is simply untrue and you can you see for yourself with that simple one word search.

                      Please, all of you, for your own benefits, get a new drug.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by ScienceBuff (November 16, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
                        5  
                        Now you're really being silly. All it takes for a topic to pop up is for one single commenter to mention her name. She really has gone weeks without being the topic of an article.

                        She's been a topic this last week because of her book. She had one article with regard to her endorsement of the conservative candidate in NY-23 on 11/5. There were only 2 articles in October which were the result of mentions of her by conservative pundits. There were a flurry of mentions from 8/7 to 9/10 when the idiotic "death panels" were being discussed, along with several others.

                        ...tyoe in 'Palin' and you find 23 pages ... She's the number one topic, and you guys are bizarrely obsessed. - hoosier

                        That doesn't even stand up by your standards. Type in "Cheney" and you get 39 pages. "Beck" gets you 60. "Limbaugh"'s good for 99.

                        Face it, the obsession is on your side of the fence. If media people wouldn't keep making false statements about her and repeating her falsehoods she would never get a mention here except for an occasional comment. It's the sheer volume of falsehoods that makes her a topic. Most of us would be perfectly happy to see her quietly fade away.

                        I honestly believe that many conservatives believe liberals should just let them say whatever they want to about Palin and never challenge a word of it.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Um, hoosier? In case you hadn't noticed, it's mostly the right who keeps giving her a media platform from which to spout the misinformation that MMfA calls her out on.

                    The Media, as in the majority of media outlets in the country? They're conservative, not liberal. They're more liberal than FOX Propaganda, true, but that doesn't make them truly liberal, only liberal compared to the rabid fascism of the extremely far right. While the country itself tends to be center-left, the media run the gamut from center-right to far right wing-nuttiness. Before you mention Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, that's only three hours of programming, and former Republican representative Joe Scarborough, who regularly appears here, completely offset them. And, that's only one channel.

                    She's actually like a crackpot you guys can't shut up or refuse an invitation to.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
                      5  
                      Hoosier seems to be having a very difficult time understanding where the irrational obsession lies.

                      I'll use the same analogy I used the other day (not that analogies are very effective on the right wing brain, but it's fun to try);

                      Wingnuts complaining that the left is "obsessed" with Simple Sarah is like petty criminals (or their Public Defenders) whining that the cops and the courts are obsessed with petty crimes.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                          4
                        The proof is in the pudding, Colonel Sanders. Do your own search above. 23 pages of Sarah Palin left-wing hysteria right here. Watch MSNBC tonight. Go over to HuffPo and see how many comments she generates, or Andrew Sullivan, or Newsweek or Time Magazine. Go over to Al Gore's TV and see them calling her a ho and a TWILF. The Left cannot stop talking about her. Scared, obsessed, paranoid, freaked out with their heads in the sand, I don't know which, but something about her is driving them crazy.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
                          4  
                          Are you actually doing Google searches for Palin's name, counting comments about her at websites, and accusing others of being obsessed?

                          And how did you get into Al Gore's house?

                          Seriously, are you high or drunk, Hoosier? This is some major league projection, even for a right wing loony.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
                              3
                            No, just a casual glance at memeorandum, Colonel Sanders.

                            Here is what I'm talking about with Al Gore. And you would do well to read other websites besides this one, sir.

                            Al Gore's Current TV Calls Sarah Palin a 'Gun-Ho' and a 'TWILF'

                            No projection, Col. Just keen observation supported by evidence that I have provided. You, not so much.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (November 16, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                              3  
                              I try to visit as many different websites as I can, as well as print, tv and radio sources. I've also visited your source, Newsbusters, enough to know it's a pretty unreliable crackpot site.

                              Do you really think that Al Gore creates the cartoons that run on current's website?

                              I won't argue with you about your imagined observations or evidence, but I will admit I'm a little bored of entertaining your Sarah Palin obsession. Good luck with everything.

                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 1:27 pm ET)
                        7
                      Standard leftwing talking point that his complete horse dung, The_Cat. No way in the world does Joe Scarborough's show make up for the four hour long screech fest of Matthews, Edwards, Olby, Maddow. Scar is surounded by liberals- just because he's the smartest one in the room doesn't make it a conservative show.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Chris Matthews isn't really conservative or liberal, on a regular basis. I'm kinda surprised he doesn't walk bow-legged from the way he rides the fence, playing both sides.

                        If you want screech fest, tune into Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity. At least Olbermann, Maddow, and Shultz have facts on their side, and admit mistakes.

                        Glenn Beck still hasn't admitted he lied about Van Jones being a convicted felon who served six months in prison, has he? Sean Hannity still hasn't been waterboarded for charity, even with Olbermann's checkbook open and waiting. O'Reilly doens't believe Limbaugh is racist, so, how nutty is he?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
                            5
                          The_Cat, can you define what a racist is and exactly how or what Rush Limbaugh said makes him a racist by that definition. I watched that segment with O'reilly and Juan Williams and the examples the guy who hated Limbaugh (Warren Ballantine) brought up don't in any way make him a racist. So the guy resorted to a 30-40 year old unsubstantiated quote that Limbaugh may or may not have said when he was a shock jock under a different name and occupation. He also told Juan Williams to back to his porch. No on here ever mentions that guy being racist though.

                          O'Reilly Guest To Juan Williams: 'Go Back To the Porch'
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
                            3  
                            racism: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

                            racist: one who practices racism

                            Rush Limbaugh: We are being told we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black.

                            Rush Limbaugh: [I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering.

                            These two are the tip of the iceberg.

                            Just these two quotes clearly show that Mr. Limbaugh, at least on the air, does in fact discriminate based on race. If you follow the link, you will find this is a pattern, and not just two isolated incidents. Mr. Limbaugh is racist, and has gone to great lengths to prove it.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
                                5
                              Per MMFA, these were 'racially charged'. There is no allegation or charge of his being a racist.

                              And you make no case that he was being discriminatory or abusive to anyone, you just repeat this website and conclude that a series of statements in their entirety prove racism.

                              Have you ever made 'racially charged' statements? Most of us have discussed racial issues that someone else could perceive as racially charged. That alone doesn't make us racists. Logic would dictate that someone that you are so sure was a racist would have displayed behavior that you could more easily point to than what he's said on the radio over his 20+ years of daily 3 hour broadcasts. Like a membership in a racist organization, racist hiring practices, minorities that know him that swear he is a racist instead of the opposite being true. You don't seem to have any clear-cut examples such that you not only call him a racist, but by implication you believe anyone who doesn't think he's a racist is also by extension a racist.

                              Pathetic on your part.

                              Just pathetic.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by pilotx (November 16, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
                                3  
                                Telling a Black caller to his show to "take the bone out of her nose" is but one of the many racially tinged comments by Limbaugh. I will agree that it is nearly impossible to truly know if someone is a racist or not but that being said I personally cannot listen to him for more than a few minutes at a time due to his constant references to race. As far as Warren Balentine being a racist by your own standards what made him a racist? Do only Black people have porches? As a listener to Warren's show he is far from a racist but pushes for racial equality. My favorite Limbaugh quote was when he mistakenly referred to Sen. Sherrod Brown as "obviously an African America". Now what was obviously AA about Sen. Brown other than Rush's mispronunciation of his name? Now if that doesn't show racial insensitivity I don't know what does. BTW, I have many Black friends and family members and we ALL think Rush may not be racist but appeals to them.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by fantagor (November 16, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
                                  5  
                                  Remember: to a conservative, it's not racism till there are people and white sheets and a cross burning on a lawn.

                                  Randy
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by pilotx (November 16, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
                                    3  
                                    No, these days only people of color and Democrats can be the REAL racists.
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by foghornleghorn (November 16, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
                                    3  
                                    Randy -

                                    Remember, not all conservatives are racists, but most racists are convervative.
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
                                      3
                                    Not the case at all. Still, the burden of proof should be substantial and conclusive, and no one here can seem to provide either, only the MMFA list of which they do not call him a racist.

                                    Does that not mean anything to anyone at all? That racially charged does not equal racism?

                                    Anyone?
                                    Report Abuse
                              • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                                4  
                                What Rush Limbaugh said:
                                We are being told we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black.

                                What Rush Limbaugh didn't say:
                                We are being told we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his mother was white.

                                Now, choosing to make an issue of President Obama's father's race makes Rush Limbaugh a racist. Is that simple enough for you, or shall I draw it in crayon?

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
                                    2
                                  No, it doesn't. The point he was making was that because Obama was black, we have to do whatever he wants to ram down our throats- if we don't, we're racists. And Limbaugh was saying that because only his dad was black. It's an offensive statement, but it doesn't mean he's racist. Saying 'because his mother is white' would've made no sense because the left was using that tactic then of calling everyone opposed to Obama's policies racists. They've backed off that tactic a great deal since even last summer, but when Limbaugh made that statement it was quite popular to label alomost all conservatives as racists.

                                  Sorry, The_Cat, that was not racist and it doesn't make Limbaugh a racist. The Left's use of the racist charge to castigate and silence opposing viewpoints to Obama's policies was far more despicable than what Limbaugh said, which was 'what, you want to keep me silent because of the color of his skin, because he's black and we as conservatives are supposed to just STFU? And he's just as much white as he is black'.

                                  I wouldn't have said it that way, but it doesn't make him a racist to be disgusted at the left's tactics at the time of using race as an effective political strategy to marginalize the opposition.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
                                    3  
                                    Then, I guess there is no racism in your world. Happy you!
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                                    3  
                                    Rush could've said 'because his father was left-handed' or 'because his father was a foreign national' or 'because his father died when he was young' or 'because his father was tall'. Rush chose 'because his father was black' because race is how Rush judges people because Rush is racist.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
                                        1
                                      You don't understand, The_Cat. None of those examples would follow logic or anything that the left was charging conservatives with at the time. How was it in your world that it was perfectly fine for the left to call conservatives racists for opposing Obama's policies, but wrong for Limbaugh to complain that the left wanted conservatives to be quiet and just go along with everything he wanted to do or else be called racist, when race had nothing to do with opposing his polices, especially the pork-laden stimulus bill?
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by The_Cat (November 16, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
                                        2  
                                        Actually, I do understand, hoosier. The reason no other example fits logically only proves that bringing president Obama's father into it was done for one reason only: the color of his skin. That's racism. So, Limbaugh was trying to prove critics of the right wing in this country right in their belief? Really?

                                        How is it perfectly fine for the left to call conservatives racist for opposing Obama's policies? Well, on a case by case basis, you'd have to see if the charge was justified or not. The guy who e-mailed the picture of Obama photoshopped as a witch doctor? Racist. The cartoon published that depicted our President as a runaway monkey killed by white cops? Racist. Everyone who took part in the song Barrack the magic Negro? Racist. How many conservatives brought legitimate policy objections to what the President is trying to accomplish? Very very few. What did they claim they were? Ah, yes. The party of 'No!' As for the pork in the stimulus bill, Republicans demanded the lion's share of that, in order for them to vote for it.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Brabantio (November 17, 2009 7:57 am ET)
                                             
                                          The reason no other example fits logically only proves that bringing president Obama's father into it was done for one reason only: the color of his skin. That's racism.
                                          I don't think that holds up. It is perfectly possible to bring up issues of race without being racist, and there are people who have made accusations of racism against Obama's critics on shaky grounds. Even if this is spin and atrocious phrasing on Limbaugh's part, in itself it could be attributable to partisanship.

                                          Limbaugh doesn't say very many things that are explicitly racist. This is why MMfA didn't use that word on their list, because it requires a higher level of judgment (note to Hoosier:this means that MMfA's use of "racially charged" does not prove that they don't believe him to be a racist, or suggest that it's an unreasonable conclusion). The photo and cartoon you cite are better as stand-alone examples, while Limbaugh is generally very good about creating a context where there is some level of plausible deniability.

                                          That being said, the "man-child" phrasing is easier to call racist regardless of context. In his twenty years of broadcasting, surely there was some white Democrat discussed who he considered to be inexperienced. Has he ever used the term for someone like that? Not that I've heard of, and I can't believe some apologist or other wouldn't have mentioned it by now. So thinly disguising the use of the term "boy" would fall squarely into the category of racism.

                                          And there are instances where he really brings up race for no reason whatsoever. Talking about how Obama is trying to destroy a white policeman in the Gates case, for instance. Obama didn't claim that was racism, and the only reason the question was asked was because the officer was white and Gates was black. If the officer was black (or Gates was white), then the "stupid" comment goes unchanged. That's very clearly race-baiting on Limbaugh's part, as is your example of the school bus.

                                          Stay focused on the pattern, which you mentioned earlier. The discussion shouldn't be about whether that particular "ankles" quote is racist, it should be about whether Limbaugh is a racist. Reasonable doubt may apply to one or two instances, but the more that pile on, the more difficult it is to argue that the person behind those comments is just misunderstood in some way or another. Focusing on this one example and saying things like "choosing to make an issue of President Obama's father's race makes Rush Limbaugh a racist" just isn't that strong of a case, and there is a strong case to be made that Limbaugh is a racist jackass.
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by The_Cat (November 17, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
                                            2  
                                            Fair enough, Brabantio. I do admit to getting a little excitable, which is bad for objective and rational thought, at times. This was certainly one of those. Thanks for the post, and the thought that went into it! :)
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Brabantio (November 17, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
                                                 
                                              Thanks for the post, and the thought that went into it! :)
                                              Absolutely no problem! I should add that I figured it was just getting frustrated with having to explain why an obvious racist is, in fact, an obvious racist. I think we've all been there, where someone makes an argument so untenable that it gets you flustered, especially when the subject is something both serious and emotionally-charged such as racism. Typically you make very strong arguments, and it's certainly much appreciated here.
                                              Report Abuse
                                  • Author by pilotx (November 16, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
                                    1  
                                    Put it this way, 90% of the people I know think Rush is a racist and many of these people grew up in the 40's, 50's and 60's and have seen racism close up and first hand. I'm sure George Wallace and others of his ilk in the past also had defenders and people who did not think he was a racist but most liberals who believed in equal rights thought he was. Hell, according to Klan members it was "northern agitators" who were responsible for oppression in the south because they had their "negro problem" under control. Simply put, the people who benefit from racism are rarely the ones who are able to see it or even blame the victims of it. Once again I find it funny that you defend Rush with a long history of racist statements but call Warren Ballentine a racist after one comment that had nothing to do with race. We call that projection. To sum up, in the 60's 9 out of 10 southern whites would say there was no racism while 9 out of 10 Black people said there was. Who was right? Well 9 out of 10 Black people think Rush is a racist. Ya think?
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by pilotx (November 16, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
                                    1  
                                    Put it this way, 90% of the people I know think Rush is a racist and many of these people grew up in the 40's, 50's and 60's and have seen racism close up and first hand. I'm sure George Wallace and others of his ilk in the past also had defenders and people who did not think he was a racist but most liberals who believed in equal rights thought he was. Hell, according to Klan members it was "northern agitators" who were responsible for oppression in the south because they had their "negro problem" under control. Simply put, the people who benefit from racism are rarely the ones who are able to see it or even blame the victims of it. Once again I find it funny that you defend Rush with a long history of racist statements but call Warren Ballentine a racist after one comment that had nothing to do with race. We call that projection. To sum up, in the 60's 9 out of 10 southern whites would say there was no racism while 9 out of 10 Black people said there was. Who was right? Well 9 out of 10 Black people think Rush is a racist. Ya think?
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
                                        1
                                      Do you have any links or could you point me to any that would back up any of your assertions, pilotx?

                                      Anything at all?

                                      As to Ballentine, basically calling Juan Williams a porch monkey is not racist in your view?
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by pilotx (November 16, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
                                        1  
                                        "Basically" calling Juan Williams a porch monkey or actually calling him a porch monkey? He did not call him any racial epithets whatsoever. As far as evidence yes most of my post was hyperbole but look at interviews with "conservative" policy makers in the 50's and 60's and listen to how they describe the race problem in their eyes. What I am saying is that most racists do not see themselves as racists but the victims of such racism can see it quite clearly. Case in point, search Limbaugh and racism here at MMFA and see what you get. As a man of color I feel very uncomfortable listening to Rush because he regularly brings up race when it doesn't belong in the conversation. BTW, why did he mistakenly bring up the race of Sen. Brown? He said there was a "racial" component to his election. What was this component? Can you explain it to me? If not I stand by my assertion that he is a racist.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (November 17, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
                                        1  
                                        Hoosier is but yet another lemming in the long line of right-wing apologists who are currently redefining racism so that it only applies to people of color. If you dare call Limbaugh a racist, everyone gets up in arms to defend his indefensible statements. However, Obama and Sotomayor and Gates are all racists. And apparently Ballentine. This just has to be so.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by pilotx (November 17, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
                                             
                                          Exactly. We've seen this before, the problem in the south wasn't the Klan or racists it was "northern agitators" and the NAACP. Hell, I wouldn't mind listening to Rush to get a conservative opinion but he keeps on making it so damned uncomfortable with his constant race references that I can't do it. Damn, I thought in conserva world we are all Americans and according to Rush he doesn't see color. So he's a liar too.
                                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by fantagor (November 16, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
                    5  
                    You guys are obsessed, pure and simple.

                    But aren't YOU obsessed with insisting that any liberal who discusses Palin is obsessed with Palin? At what point is one allowed, by you, to be merely interested in setting the truth straight, as opposed to, as you put it, behaving in an obsessed manner? Seems to me the line you've set between obsession and interest is purely and simply arbitrary.

                    A straw man by any other name would topple just as easily.

                    Randy
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (November 16, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
                      3  
                      But a troll who gets everyone to talk about something besides the topic that should be under discussion succeeds every time.

                      Palin made an "absurd" claim that's not supported by the evidence. They harped upon Obama's connection with ACORN much more than was justified given the evidence.

                      But Hoosier is obsessed with us not discussing that, and so he brings up anything and everything he can to distract us from that topic. It's a strawman and much, much more.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by fantagor (November 16, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Absolutely, it's a self-serving misdirection from the issue. Nevertheless, I am fascinated by the inner workings of the neo-con mind.

                        Randy
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
                          3
                        DellDolly, you guys claim there was nothing wrong with ACORN, just a few bad employees. Why would it be an embarrassment to align Obama with ACORN or show commonalities?

                        Your depiction is far more damning to Obama than what Palin said that you feel deserves so much scrutiny.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
                        2
                      First, this place calls any disagreements 'lies'. Second, as I've pointed out, the front page of this website displays exactly the obsession I'm talking about. So does a simple search for 'Palin' in the search bar at the top of the main page.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (November 16, 2009 10:54 pm ET)
                        2  
                        First, this place calls any disagreements 'lies'.
                        I'd like to see examples to support that, please. I don't see the word "lies" all that often here, and I don't think I've ever seen it for a subjective disagreement.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by peace4all (November 16, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
                    5  
                    It's a cottage industry on the Left. There is simply nothing like this on the right. Absolutely nothing.

                    let me clear this statement up with 2 words for you
                    Bill Clinton.

                    nuff said
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hoosier (November 16, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
                        2
                      He was the President. Once he left office there was never the scrutiny or obsession with him anywhere close to what you guys are doing with Sarah America.

                      Not even when he came out with his book.

                      If you are sure that was the case and 'nuff said', perhaps you could point to an example or two of conservative websites that felt the compulsion to offer up 10-20 threads on disagreements or 'misinformation'. And he had a few whoppers in his book, too. At most, it was a one or two day story and then forgotten.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (November 16, 2009 11:34 am ET)
            4  
            I'm simply entertained by how absurd the book is turning out to be. Although MMFA's effort is appreciated, they don't even have to explain to me why Palin's revisionist history B.S. isn't true. All they have to do is quote her and it's good enough for a laugh.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (November 16, 2009 11:08 am ET)
        4  
        "Funny that, during the campaign, nobody bothered to point out to Ms. Palin that there is a big difference between voter registration fraud, and voter fraud. I wonder if she's figured it out yet?"

        Judging by the passage from her book quoted above I'd say no.
        Report Abuse