1. McDermott's vote: Maybe he agreed that there were more important matters to be considered before the body.

Larsen's Vote: ACORN has done a lot of good for people in need. In addition to acknowledging the organization's successes we also should admit that many tax advisers and attorneys give all sorts of similar advice to their clients on how to game the system. It may not be ethical, but its a fact. It is not surprising that there's an outrage over PIMP-gate, but lets not forget that its happens all the time between the rich and their counsel. Cutting funding to ACORN would be throwing proverbial the baby out with the bathwater.

Posted by: Ryan on September 17, 2009 04:18 PM

2. Yes Ryan, but when tax advisers and attorneys do it they go to jail. Plus, even if ACORN were such a laudable organization (and that's pretty doubtful), there are plenty of other organizations out there that do the same thing and would love government funding. (Not that any charitable group should be getting any sort of funding from the federal government, at least according to the US Constitution.)

Posted by: Mark Griswold on September 17, 2009 04:28 PM

3. A quick glance at Larsen's 2010 FEC filings show nothing from ACORN or SEIU and, other than the National Pork Producers Council : ), he's rather light on donations from what one might consider "left-wing" groups.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on September 17, 2009 04:40 PM

4. Ryan, so if ACORN doesn't have to pay taxes, *and* it gets my tax dollars to advice child prostitute pimps how to *not* pay taxes, that's... normal?

My God. People are really screwed up.

Hizbullah feeds poor people. It also blows a lot of kids up, but hey... let's not throw the baby out with then bath water.

Ryan, the feds and states like New York aren't even defending ACORN anymore. We don't need ACORN to help poor people.

It's rotten. It's been rotten for a long time while our government turned a blind eye.

No more.

Posted by: Gary on September 17, 2009 04:43 PM

5. I would contribute to Bart, or a differant GOP opponent, or a TEA Party challenger if i knew where to send the money.

Posted by: Mike on September 17, 2009 06:00 PM

6. Cutting funding to ACORN would be throwing proverbial the baby out with the bathwater.

"Confucious say, if a seed has been determined to be a rotten one, it is wise not to let that lone seed grow into an Oak of great strength and vast root system."

Alright, it wasn't confucious. Just me channeling him.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 17, 2009 06:20 PM

7. Just guessing here.... but since McDermott fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to defend his release of the Gingrich tapes on First Amendment grounds, he might feel especially strongly about Wilson's moral right to say whatever he wants. Of course the issues are pretty different (Wilson didn't do anything illegal, nor did anyone accuse him of doing anything illegal).

Posted by: Bruce on September 17, 2009 06:23 PM

8.
Who knows why Baghdad Jim didn't vote to reprimand Wilson. McDermott is probably one of the most dishonest and ethically challenged Democrats in Congress, so his vote was certainly based on some disreputable political calculus.

Not to worry: Baghdad voted to continue support for child prostitution, tax evasion, vote fraud, embezzlement of funds, and everything else that Acorn stands for. So he is behaving true to form there.

Posted by: iconoclast on September 17, 2009 06:30 PM

9. I am surprised McDermot voted correctly but I guess he really did realize there is more important things to do.

Regarding acorn, I do not see what they did as worthy of tax money even ignoring the illegal stuff.

Posted by: Lysander on September 17, 2009 07:01 PM

10. Ask Pudge about Larsen's vote...
He seems to think highly of him.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 17, 2009 07:14 PM

11. Ryan, NOT the attorneys and tax advisors I know. And if some are doing what you claim they often do (and I have my doubt that they're all fraudsters like ACORN), they are breaking the law. Sounds like you hang around some pretty shady people.

Posted by: Michele on September 17, 2009 07:15 PM

12. McDermott is a troublemaker. He realizes, at the very least, it could have been him for his Pledge of Allegiance idiocy. I didn't like what he did, but I don't think he should have been officially taken to task for it.

Larsen...no idea. He's got a death wish? Because there is no way that vote could help him in his district. He's won his last few elections easily, but his '00 and '02 elections were both 51-47 or so victories.

Anyhow, I don't think we have a realistic candidate against him, but his support has never been deep. He can lose against the right candidate in the right year. Unfortunately, we basically got wiped out the past two cycles in his district, so it might take a while.

I do think Mike Hope has potential provided he continues to hang on to his State House seat.

Posted by: Cliff on September 17, 2009 07:36 PM

13. Cliff:
People will forget about this by the time of the election next year and all he will have to say is he is better than the politician on the other team and cheerleaders from his side will support him regardless of how he voted.

The solution: Stop voting for people like him that vote for more government no matter what party they are from.

Posted by: Lysander on September 17, 2009 07:47 PM

14. Also weird about Larsens vote for continuuing to fund ACORN, which on tape is found to have been aiding and abetting the human traficking of underage children for the purpose of molestation/prostitution is his co-sponsorsing the following bill:

H.RES.109

Title: Supporting the mission and goals of 2009 National Crime Victims' Rights week to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States, and to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

His departure from common sense in this instance is why I detest most politicians in general, just to differing degrees.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 17, 2009 07:49 PM

15. ACORN shouldn't get tax dollars simply because they've become a hot potato. They can last on donations just fine.

Let's remember why ACORN became some hot potato. Some people employed by them faked voter registration forms. As far as we know, no one actually got registered fraudulently. And the election of Obama was overwhelming and certainly not a victory by fraud.

But the talk radio-listening right really needs to have a more serious contribution to American politics. From czars to ACORN to "death panels" -- my goodness. It is so completely unserious.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 17, 2009 09:15 PM

16. Let's remember why ACORN became some hot potato. ~ John Jensen

Something tells me you'd rather forget those vast amount of incidents John, but by all means, feel free to detail the recent criminal investigations nationwide against this organization prior to this weeks video. Back up your assertion that "let's remember why ACORN became a hot potato"" you posted above.
I'll be in the corner eating the popcorn.

Posted by: Rick D on September 17, 2009 09:33 PM

17. Rick, I follow politics very intently and I never heard of them before the voter registration incidents.

They are a pretty marginal player in politics. They had very little federal funding, and you can see that their funding has simply disappeared through House/Senate votes. The talk show-right is making them some standard bearer of progressive politics, which is ridiculous.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 17, 2009 09:49 PM

18. Actually Rick, while I do agree that Obama did not win through fraud (although there are certainly some pretty good indications that fraud was going on, much of it perpetrated by ACORN), there is at least one honorable politician who has, unfortunately, thus far been relegated to a quiet history because of ACORN's fraudulent voter registration involvement. And while it's little consolation to him and his supporters, several such fraudulent ACORN members are now serving time in jail for their actions. So while you may think it's a vast right wing conspiracy, there's at least one federal judge that disagrees with you. As for death panels and czars, well, you're wrong there too. There's little "unserious" about grandma being denied medical attention for her treatable cancer or someone bending the ear of the president to talk about putting sterilizer in the drinking water. But what do I know, right? I'm just another "talk radio-listening right winger".

Posted by: Mark Griswold on September 17, 2009 10:01 PM

19. John, there's at least one erstwhile governor-elect who would disagree with you. There's also a handful of ACORN voter registration workers sitting in a jail cell who probably wish you were right.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on September 17, 2009 10:04 PM

20. Sorry Rick, that last comment #18 was directed at John.

Posted by: Mark Griswold on September 17, 2009 10:06 PM

21. "Cutting funding to ACORN would be throwing proverbial the baby out with the bathwater. "

Ok so Hitler gassed a few Jew, but he made the trains run on time, so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Stalin, well so he killed millions of his own people, he he's not perfect perfect and who is? Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Posted by: Baby and Bath Water on September 17, 2009 10:08 PM

22. John Jensen wrote:

"They had very little federal funding, and you can see ..."

In the immortal words of Joe Wilson YOU LIE. Since 1994 ACORN received $53 MILLION in taxpayer funds. They are eligible for $8 BILLION of the $780 billin stimulus.

Posted by: You Lie! on September 17, 2009 10:14 PM

23. Looks like that ACORN forum in Everett was cancelled, after just about every last one of the all-Democrat panel bailed on the event (though they gave "no reason" for not going...hmm).

Posted by: seasaw on September 17, 2009 10:17 PM

24. ACORN FRAUD IN WASHINGTON STATE

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this," Secretary of State Sam Reed

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003806904_webvotefraud26m.html

-------------------------------------------------------------
Please don't use another person's name to identify yourself. This comment was originally from "Sam Reed". Although I would be delighted if the Washington Secretary of State commented here, I am 999.99 percent sure he did not., so I replaced "Sam Reed" with "??".

Posted by: ?? on September 17, 2009 10:18 PM

25. They are a pretty marginal player in politics. They had very little federal funding, and you can see that their funding has simply disappeared through House/Senate votes.~ John Jensen

To quote Bwaney Fwank, John- "On which planet do you spend most of your time."

At 400,000 members and an ever increasing public funding of their activities, it's almost borderline ignorant to call this organization "marginal players in politics". As pointed out to you @ 22, the monies obtained by ACORN hardly constitutes "very little funding" as you can see here. This national organization needs to be investigated under the RICO statutes and dealt with through the legal system just as any other organized crime organization would be.

If it weren't for that "vast right wing conspiracy" exposing them, this criminal enterprise would have had a hand in the 2010 census (marginal political players?), but the heat got too much and the census bureau severed ties to the group.

"Over the last several months, through ongoing communication with our regional offices, it is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 Census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts," read a letter from Census Director Robert M. Groves to the president of ACORN.

Posted by: Rick D. on September 18, 2009 05:30 AM

26. #17 "The talk show-right is making them some standard bearer of progressive politics, which is ridiculous."

Why? They are. But as you say, you had never heard of them before their vote fraud (in favor of progressives) was known.

They are supposed be a non-partisan, tax exempt group. The are not. They are extremely partisan.
The CEO gave a speech telling everyone to vote for Obama. And I'm supposed to fund that???

Do you think the DoJ should investigate them to see if their leadership promotes/encourages/winks at, what happens in the offices on each coast that just all happen to provide the same advice?

Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 05:56 AM

27. There you go again Jensen, or whoever you are. If you can't see what ACORN is about you must have a pathological mental disorder and most likely have a prescription for a drug that you are not taking. To be fair with you though, it could be that you don't have a pathological mental disorder, it could be that you just hope for the destruction of the U.S. in which case your tactics of bringing derision on any criticism of ACORN makes complete sense. There is one other possibility. If you are a male, you are most likely the product of a single mothers raising with no father influence.

Posted by: REBEL on September 18, 2009 06:02 AM

28. HA! Congressman Nadler says that cutting off funds to ACORN is... get this... 'flatly un-Constitutional'.

Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 06:57 AM

29. With or without federal funding, ACORN will continue to register low-income and minority voters, and will help get out their vote. This is just a skirmish. You lot are losing the war.

Posted by: ivan on September 18, 2009 07:10 AM

30. Ivan, if ACORN wants to continue doing that, fine. Just do it without my money. And no more tax-exempt status. They are not non-partisan.

Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 07:14 AM

31. My guess is that ACORN/SEIU has the goods on him. These people don't play patty cake and I would guess that he has something he (Larsen) doesn't want to come out.

Posted by: JDH on September 18, 2009 07:51 AM

32. I think that since Obama wants to just legalize illegals so that they can get free health care, they'll probably lower the legal age of prostitution to get around this whole ACORN problem that they have.

I mean, if they'll lower the grade you need to graduate in Seattle, why not just throw away all standards?

Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 08:22 AM

33. "With or without federal funding, ACORN will continue to register low-income and minority voters,..."

...and convicted felons, dead people, the insane, illegal aliens, and cartoon characters. Sometimes two or three times. Did I forget anyone?

Posted by: Jack on September 18, 2009 08:26 AM

34. My understanding is that ACORN is (was) just one of many "community activist" groups what have been signed on to "assist" in gathering census data. These leeching, agenda-driven organizations spring up and grow like hairy mold on dog $hit.

All I know is that no one representing any leftist fringe groups will enter my home with the census taker....and that the census taker will be provided only that information that I am constitutionally required to provide.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 18, 2009 08:30 AM

35. On CSPAN today:

Bertha Lewis slams James O'Keefe for dressing up like a pimp because that is what "a black and brown organization would go for."

-
Ha! I guess he was right! And she think this helps ACORN??? They *did* go for it!

Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 08:49 AM

36. @ 34........the census taker will be provided only that information that I am constitutionally required to provide.

I agree! In the 2000 census, I received a lengthy questionnaire and ignored nearly all of it. I never heard anything further from the Census Bureau. Hope I'm not on some enemies list now.

Posted by: Obama's Teleprompter on September 18, 2009 08:51 AM

37. I am a Republican in Larson's district, who has never actively supported is opposition in campaigns. I wrote him yesterday that his vote in this matter has shocked me to the extent that I will support with time and money whoever opposes him next time. I will also do what I can to remind Arlington voters of this vote come election time.

Posted by: Scott on September 18, 2009 08:52 AM

38. Guys, Rick Larsen voted to keep Acorn because

http://heraldnet.com/article/20090918/NEWS01/709189842&news01ad=1#Local.ACORN.event.called.off.

This should be leading off Sound Politics. Acorn, a supposed nonpartisan organization is in Everett, Washington sharing bloody offices with the Democrat Party and the Snohomish County Labor Council.

And before anyone listens to a rebuttal that, "they are in the same building, not same office" excuse, call them out. The Labor Temple which houses a ton of unions is an old, old and older building. For ventilation, room and doors are opened. For all intents and purposes they are in the same office. You need to see the building to appreciate if you get a rebuttal.

Rick Larsen sees nothing wrong with ACORN sharing offices with his party apparatti.

You can also go to www.campaignspot.com for a Jim Geraghty post. This needs to go viral.

Posted by: swatter on September 18, 2009 09:30 AM

39. Mark Griswald, ACORN, czars, and "death panels" are not serious issues.

ACORN has not applied for nor received a single stimulus dollar. They received less than $60 million federal dollars over the last decade -- almost all for housing. None for voter registration. None for tax attorneys. Maybe they should have received $0, but it's a drop in the bucket. I don't have a problem with them being de-funded, but to act like they are a huge player on the national stage behind every action is truly absurd. They mostly helped low-income folks get houses and registered minorities to vote. There isn't a single document case, not one example, of them casting a single fraudulent vote. Not one.

Bush had two more czars than Obama. It's a fake issue.

"Death panel" is simply a myth. It is a lie. Your scenarios you provided simply do not exist in any reform bill proposed, nor do they come close to existing.

These are the issues that right-wing radio talks about endlessly. None of them are serious political issues. They are side-shows. They are demonizations. They make listeners stupider, not more informed.

Posted by: John Jensen on September 18, 2009 03:34 PM

40. #39 "Mark Griswald, ACORN, czars, and "death panels" are not serious issues. "

Oh, okay if you say so, John.

Posted by: Gary on September 18, 2009 04:29 PM

41. Thanks for your support, Gary.

Let's compare the left's talking points:

- Universal health care
- Bending the cost curve of health care
- Environmental regulations and gay rights

To the right's talking points:

- ACORN
- Czars
- Invented death panels

Which set of issues do you think is worth talking one's ear off about about?

Posted by: John Jensen on September 18, 2009 06:36 PM

42. The second set.

Posted by: Gary on September 19, 2009 10:02 AM

43. I may have another item to add to the second set of John Jensen's talking points the Government imposed drought in in a certain valley in California in Favor of a 2 inch fish highlighted by Sean Hannity on his show on Fox News Channel.Employment in this valley is 40%!!Ouch!You may want to go to Fox News website or Hannity's website for more!

Posted by: Laurie on September 20, 2009 06:13 PM

44. Yes, Laurie. I imagine John would say that the state-imposed drought is not important. Just gay rights.

Posted by: Gary on September 21, 2009 08:41 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?