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
















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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What? You're just starting to sound sort of crazy now.
This, f'rinstance, directed at me;
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.
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.
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.
Imagine that!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
O'Reilly Guest To Juan Williams: 'Go Back To the Porch'
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.
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.
Randy
Remember, not all conservatives are racists, but most racists are convervative.
Does that not mean anything to anyone at all? That racially charged does not equal racism?
Anyone?
What Rush Limbaugh didn't say:
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?
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.
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.
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.
Anything at all?
As to Ballentine, basically calling Juan Williams a porch monkey is not racist in your view?
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
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.
Randy
Your depiction is far more damning to Obama than what Palin said that you feel deserves so much scrutiny.
let me clear this statement up with 2 words for you
Bill Clinton.
nuff said
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.
Judging by the passage from her book quoted above I'd say no.