Hmmmm, I didn’t know Acorn was active in Iran!m

> Ummm James. Acorn is not the same as OB’s rallies nor JM rallies.

I never said they were. The point was that OB’s victory was not out of the blue and that one did not not need conspiracy theories to explain the shock to one’s personal political beliefs.

> Dozens of Acorn employees have been either indicted, convicted or charged with voter fraud. It is not a matter of if they did – its a matter of how much they did.

All the evidence that I am aware of shows that a few employees made up names like Mickey Mouse to get paid without doing actual work, which Acorn noted as suspicious entries in the reports submitted. I am not aware of any proof of a concerted effort on behalf of Acorn, just a few pathetic cheats committing employee fraud for easy money. Nor am I aware of ANY evidence that a single vote was cast using the phony names in question. Absent that evidence, it is not unlike other conspiracy theories which also begin by citing legitimate or semi-legitimate concerns with the data but end up making mountains of mole hills.

Do let me know if you have anything to add to that or correct it.

James :
> Ummm James. Acorn is not the same as OB’s rallies nor JM rallies.
I never said they were. The point was that OB’s victory was not out of the blue and that one did not not need conspiracy theories to explain the shock to one’s personal political beliefs.
> Dozens of Acorn employees have been either indicted, convicted or charged with voter fraud. It is not a matter of if they did – its a matter of how much they did.
All the evidence that I am aware of shows that a few employees made up names like Mickey Mouse to get paid without doing actual work, which Acorn noted as suspicious entries in the reports submitted. I am not aware of any proof of a concerted effort on behalf of Acorn, just a few pathetic cheats committing employee fraud for easy money. Nor am I aware of ANY evidence that a single vote was cast using the phony names in question. Absent that evidence, it is not unlike other conspiracy theories which also begin by citing legitimate or semi-legitimate concerns with the data but end up making mountains of mole hills.
Do let me know if you have anything to add to that or correct it.

If that’s what you believe than you’re willfully ignoring facts.

The court records are public documents – go educate yourself.

A few editorials have argued that the Obama administration has been right up to this point to make only cautious statements about the Iranian election, lest the American administration be seen as supporting the “reformist” side, which the editorials suggest would discredit “reformist” elements within Iran and in the Middle East – guilt by association.

The thing is, I thought that Obama, as per his Cairo speech, was a fresh new breeze in the “Islamic World”? Why wouldn’t the “reformists” be proud that Obama announced his support for their cause? And wouldn’t Obama’s thunderous rhetoric be a powerful force against despotism?

Because in a completely fluid and vague situation it isn’t wise to make a hasty move, or thus would be a conservative approach at least. Anything Obama says in favor of Moussavi will be spun by the xenophobic and paranoid tongues of the government as delegitimizing Ahmadinejad’s opponents. Recall some right-wing voices holding Obama’s overseas support against him (summarization: “europens liek him so hes a mega-leftizt!”), and in Iran’s case up the rhetoric and employ brazen loathing of all things American; that’s how they will portray Obama’s support.

If only America had a history of not meddling in Middle Eastern affairs and a record of promoting democracy even when it didn’t suit its selfish interests. When any politician ready to employ anti-democratic measures to keep power was lauded as a “reformer” by the US simply because he was willing to let US corporations make money of his country, then talking a big game with a straight face isn’t so easy. Not saying Ahmadinejad can be defended or that the US isn’t correct in seeking to preserve legitimate interests for itself and Israel in the region, just asking for a historical perspective and some basic humility.

Perhaps someone can clarify for me. I’ve read commentary stating that people expected a wild win for Mousavi because the MSM made it seem possible and thus it seemed like much more of a rigged victory. But in reality, aren’t half the pop. youth (which were largely for Mousavi)? If that’s the case, claims that Ahmadinejad won by a large majority cannot be true. Anyone have any good sources on statistics?
Here’s a link I found that provides some of the coverage controversy:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/cnn_out_twitted_on_iran

“If you reject both real politic and self-interested democracy promotion (neoconservatism), do you favor some sort of altruistic foreign policy?”

That seems to be the last refuge for some of the War’s most ardent cheer-leaders: we got rid of Saddam and maybe made Iraq a slightly better place. Seeing as there was no national defense interests at stake in Iraq, the only last “argument” is that you can launch a war simply because you want to spread democracy. Well, if that is enough of a rationale to go to war, then why not haul off to Darfur if they are feeling so benign and democracy-promoting.

“Anyway, I thought GW Bush-era progressives were against democracy promotion in places alleged to be not suited to it”

“We” are against giving contracts to well-connected companies and ignoring most international limitations on warfare (designed to preserve the interests of civilians in countries attacked by another power) under a guise of generous guiding to democracy that is completely transparent. If the US wanted to just be nice and give Iraqis democracy at a great cost, then why did it give reconstruction contracts to corporations that built schools that could barely stand up? Why was the war so incredibly poorly planned and why did it seem so schizophrenic? Simply because the interests of the Iraqis was never a concern and once the WMD’s and Al-Qaeda links turned out to be non-existent (like everyone with half a brain had been saying) the “spreading of democracy” was invented, with the Bush administration effectively hiding behind Iraq’s population. At least the US didn’t issue a useless embargo that killed half a million people this time.

Kastanj: nice strawman argument. I never heard anyone say that the rationale for the Iraq War was purely democracy promotion. Rather, the administration gave a number of rationales all in pursuance of the national interest, inlcuding democracy promotion in the “Islamic World.” You might disagree with all of their rationales, but don’t lie about them.

That’s why I asked you if you supported the favored foreign policy approach of academic leftists everywhere: that the U.S. should only use force when it is being invaded, or better yet in cases when it is manifestly NOT IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS to do so. Indeed, by taking action for no other reason than to stop genocide, for example, the U.S. would be demonstrating it’s good faith efforts to set aside its long history of colonial hegemony and profit-motivated interventionism. Does that about describe your outlook on American foreign policy? If not, perhaps you’ll let us know what approach you do support instead of slandering the good names of heroic men and women of the U.S. military.

It is interesting that progressives and hard-left Iraq War opponents would largely blame the war and its aftermath for the recent federal deficits, but then would complain that we did Iraq reconstruction was done on the cheap (your schools example). If your response is, “I don’t begrudge the reconstruction dollars, but I demand accountability for how the dollars are/were spent in Iraq,” then maybe you and I have some room for agreement. If so, let’s start our partnership by demanding accountability for how TARP, stimulus, and other “recovery” monies are being spent.

> Sure here you go
> http://www.google.com/search?q=acorn
> Start at the top

Ignoring your condescending tone …

The first link is Acorn’s web site. The second is a link within Acorn web site. Third is an image editor for a Mac. Fourth is a National Review article on Acorn. 5-10 are various companies named Acorn.

In short, you don’t have any court document links at hand that you stated gave legitimacy to your specific unsupported claims.

If you are seeing different results, that might be because Google has profiled your web habits and is serving you results based on the sites you frequent.

> Only 7 Rudi? what level do you stop saying – it’s a rogue employee? Let me guess for lefties – 1,500?
> Google’s your friend Rudi – just Google Acorn and report back.

Since you obviously did not bother to read the links he posted, let me sum it up for you.

1. Acorn hires canvassers for registration. These are NOT regular Acorn employees.
2. A small number of them were bad apples and submitted fake names to get paid without working.
3. Acorn VERIFIED them and found the entries suspicious.
4. Acorn is NOT ALLOWED BY LAW to discard the entries they could not successfully verify.
5. As required by law, they submitted them after flagging them as suspicious.
6. Investigation simply confirmed Acorn’s flags and the law followed course.

Fraudulent registrations don’t directly go into the polling system. There are further several checks. And finally, the Mickey Mouses and Donald Ducks have to actually show up at the polling booth with an ID for it to actually become VOTER FRAUD. None of this has happened.

You throw around statements like “go educate yourself”. I gave you the benefit of doubt that you actually had some info that I did not have since I respect people who go directly to primary documents. They are not as quick reads as newspaper articles. However, I am mistaken. So far you have not demonstrated from your language or content, any hint of patience, respect or intellect, consistent with a person who actually does any of that.