nutty business

From an excellent, fair and balanced article in The Guardian about ACORN, the latest distraction from Fox “News” and their ilk:

Here are the facts. Acorn verifies the legitimacy of every registration its canvassers collect. If they can’t authenticate the registration, or it’s incomplete or questionable in other ways, they flag that form as problematic (“fraudulent”, “incomplete”, et cetera). They then hand in all registration forms, even the problematic ones, to elections officials, as they are required to do by law. In almost every case where you’ve heard about fraud by Acorn, it’s because Acorn itself notified officials about the fraud that’s been perpetrated on them by rogue canvassers. Most officials who run to the media screaming “Acorn is committing fraud” know all of the above but don’t bother to share those facts with the media they’ve run to. None of this is about voter fraud. None of it. Where any fraud has occurred, it’s voter registration fraud and has resulted in exactly zero fraudulent votes.

You’ll hear that Donald Duck, Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Mickey Mouse and (new this year) the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team have all had fraudulent registrations submitted in their names. That’s true. And we know this, why? Because Acorn told officials about it when they followed the law and turned in those registrations, flagged as fraudulent.

What you won’t hear is that federal law requires anybody who does not register to vote in person at the county office to show an ID when they go to vote the first time. So, unless Donald Duck shows up with his ID, he won’t be voting this November.

When you pay people to register voters, as both major political parties do, you are going to get some fraudulent registrations. ACORN is aware of this and follows the law as required. There really is no story here, outside of these rogue canvassers turning in registrations that will never result in a vote.

Today’s fun link: Palin as President. Absolutely hysterical until you click the red phone. 😦

but you lost

The phrase I said most often last night that was directed at the television: “But you lost!” This is just like that time when the Arizona Cardinals and Detroit Lions played in the conference championship. It was historic these two long-suffering franchises were one step away from the Super Bowl. And remember the final score?! Detroit won, 54-51. Wow! It was the most points ever scored in a conference championship game. But what was really odd was when the Clintons Cardinals refused to leave the field. Even though the game was over and they had 45 points on the scoreboard to the opponents’ 48 points, they argued they were still the better team … because they were favored before the game, because they scored more touchdowns rather than field goals, because their head coach had won a Super Bowl before, blah, blah, blah. Late addition, since I almost forgot that strange part where the losing team’s quarterback felt entitled to go on to the Super Bowl as the backup quarterback for the winning team.

"screw 'em"

“Screw ’em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.” Hillary Clinton, in 1995, talking to her husband about working-class Democrats. (5 Things at salon.com)

Yep … that’s the same Hillary Clinton who is now out throwing back a shot and a beer with the working class folks of Pennsylvania.

So which is the real Hillary? Is she the presidential campaigner of today who can relate to the working class, is not elitist, and is in touch with working class voters? Or is she the same old politician who will do anything or say anything to get elected, and who once in power governs by what people can do for her, instead of what she can do for the country?

UPDATE: Harvard Professor Theda Skocpol, who also attended the 1995 meeting referenced above, weighs in at Talking Points Memo: “Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices — usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is.” Also: “I think this whole angle of ‘gotcha’ politics about snippets of speech transposed from one context to another is ridiculous and pathological for democracy in America … it is particularly despicable of (the Clintons) to criticize Obama for the sort of observation/analysis that was routine in and around the 1990s Clinton White House.”

“Despicable” indeed.