No more ACORN!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-acorn-bankruptcy-20101103,0,549666.story

Quote :

"Reporting from Washington — ACORN, a national organization whose mission included registering and turning out low-income and minority voters, announced on this election day that it was filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Founded in 1970, the Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now had in recent years become a target of conservatives who accused the group of engaging in widespread voter fraud. It was forced to scale back its efforts after a scandal erupted, centered around undercover video footage that purported to show ACORN staff helping young activists posing as a pimp and prostitute engage in illegal activity. Subsequent investigations found that the footage had been substantially edited, but the damage was done. Congress ultimately passed Republican-backed amendments to appropriations legislation that ended federal funding for the group. "For over 40 years ACORN has fought the good fight," Bertha Lewis, the group's CEO, said in a news release today. But a "barrage of unmitigated accusations certainly took its toll," and the "ongoing political onslaught caused irreparable harm." "We have spent our remaining resources trying to dissolve the organization with integrity, while continuing to respond to the extremist attacks," she said. "Let us all learn from the past, and march boldly into the future.""

Thoughts?

You can probably guess mine.

11/3/2010 4:48:19 AM

Because that totally explains 1994. . .

How about Teabagger perpetuated hysteria coupled with a down economy.

11/3/2010 4:54:59 AM

Because Democrats suck at coming up with a concise and clear message during elections. That's one thing the Republican mouthpieces are really good at.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 10:09 AM. Reason : a]

11/3/2010 10:09:34 AM

make sure you listen to Rush today and report back with your opinions afterwards

11/3/2010 10:19:55 AM

I like how you people think one party is any better for the country than the o ther.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : how]

11/3/2010 10:28:53 AM

Quote :

"you people think one party is any better for the country than the other."

Quote :

"We should all oppose bipartisanship.... ...Because two wrongs don't make a right. "

11/3/2010 10:37:52 AM

I know the rabble between the two sides around here is great. Rawr Obama is a Jew hating socialist Muslim who wants abortions for all and faggots on every street corner. Rawr republicans want to eat our children and kill the poor.

11/3/2010 10:38:23 AM

and everyone on both sides is hitler!

11/3/2010 10:41:23 AM

^, ^^

11/3/2010 11:48:58 AM

Starting with HCR was an epic fail on behalf of the Dems and that is why they lost. They should have started with jobs and infrastructure to help bring this country into the 21st century. As it stands we continue to fall behind much of the world on this and the GOP will not improve that situation. Chris Matthews made a good point saying China has a train that exceeds 300 mph (maglev) and we have Amtrak.

11/3/2010 11:58:32 AM

Quote :

"Starting with HCR was an epic fail on behalf of the Dems and that is why they lost. "

They lost because the economy sucks. Anything else may have affected things +/- a percentage point or two.

11/3/2010 2:06:20 PM

^ Exactly. They should have hit hard on the economy out of the gate rather than focusing on HCR.

11/3/2010 2:26:30 PM

It's not that they didn't focus on the economy. They looked at symptoms of this recession - high unemployment, falling prices on some goods (homes), faltering industry (big auto), and rising health care/insurance costs. Democrats then tried to pass legislation that would improve those measures directly. However, those problems are caused by structural inefficiencies, and because they were unwilling (or unable) to strike at the root of the problems, things have only gotten worse.

11/3/2010 3:48:31 PM

d357r0y3r's post needs reiterating. I'll even bold the important words.

Quote :

"It's not that they didn't focus on the economy. They looked at symptoms of this recession - high unemployment, falling prices on some goods (homes), faltering industry (big auto), and rising health care/insurance costs. Democrats then tried to pass legislation that would improve those measures directly (They treated the symptoms). However, those problems are caused by structural inefficiencies, and because they were unwilling (or unable) to strike at the root of the problems, things have only gotten worse."

If you have appendicitis and you go to the doctor and he treats you for a stomach ache and constipation, chances are likely you will die if an appendectomy is not done. I feel like we needed an appendectomy and all we got with the stimulus bill and HCR were some misdiagnosed antibiotics.

Not trying to put the blame in any one place, I think it lies throughout the house and senate.

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ( * )( * )]

11/3/2010 3:55:07 PM

Did Controversial Roll Call Votes Doom the Democrats?
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/11/did_controversial_roll_call_vo.html

Quote :

"Did Obama's ambitious agenda -- specifically, health care reform, the economic stimulus, cap and trade, and his vigorous support for TARP (even though he wasn't president at the time) -- contribute to the Democratic seat losses? What does this model tell us about roll call votes on these four bills? Simple answer: they mattered. A lot. A Democratic incumbent in the average district represented by Democratic incumbents actually lost about 2/3 of a percentage point for every yes vote. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that's for incumbents in districts that voted 63% for Obama. For Democrats in the least Democratic districts (Chet Edwards of TX or Gene Taylor of MS), the model suggests a loss of about 4% for every yes vote. Does that mean poor Chet lost 16 points on roll call votes alone? No, because he wasn't a big supporter of Obama's agenda. But he did vote for both TARP and the stimulus. In fact, virtually every Democratic incumbent on the ballot yesterday supported at least one of these four bills. That support was costly. What might have happened if vulnerable Democrats hadn't voted for any of the four bills? I'll define "vulnerable" as any Democratic incumbent who lost. The graph below shows the balance of power as predicted by the regression, and then what it might have been if everything else was the same but these vulnerable Democrats had voted "no" on everything. The result is stunning: The Democrats gain back 32 seats, enough to retain control of the House. The margin of error around that prediction crosses the majority control line, so we can't be fully confident that Democrats would have maintained their majority, even with these predictions. But the difference between the actual result and the counterfactual is itself outside the margin of error, so the effect is large no matter how you slice it. "

[Edited on November 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM. Reason : ./.]

11/6/2010 11:08:59 AM

If you believe that the non-presence of ACORN in this election changed the outcome, then you also believe that voter suppression is why the Republicans won.

I believe neither BTW.

11/6/2010 11:33:34 AM

Personally, and this is just me talking here, I think it's because they got fewer votes in many if the races.

11/6/2010 2:02:49 PM

^begging the question

11/6/2010 3:01:04 PM