Free Markets, Free People

Place your bets: who will be the first to use this talking point concerning Obama and ACORN

With ACORN’s reputation now exploding, the left will try to ensure that the shrapnel doesn’t hit Obama.

This is not a new problem, of course. It came up during the campaign because of ACORN’s vote fraud scandals. The talking point then was “Obama has never worked for ACORN”, which was technically true, but conveniently obscured several associations, including Obama conducting training sessions on leadership for ACORN.

With the new focus on ACORN, I expect this area to get some more examination. With Obama’s new car smell having faded, it might even get more traction this time. Certainly with Obama’s self-declared work as a “community organizer”, many folks who are not paying much attention will just assume that he must have some connection to a group with “Community Organizers” right there in their title. That’s pretty simplistic, and maybe even unfair, but it’s the state of play.

So we’ll probably see a new round of defense of Obama from the left, attempting to distance him from ACORN. Obama is doing his part to help them; I think I detected the beginning of a new talking point in this interview with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.[Emphasis mine]

What a great bit of misdirection! He only has to assert it, with no evidence. Absent someone digging up obscure committee hearings or memos, it will be impossible to disprove.

Of course, one could point out that Obama was a senator when some of those budget bills were passed that sent money to ACORN, which in any rational governmental system means he would have known about the money. However, he’s got the usual excuse that they don’t read what they vote for anyway. That seems to be enough for the sclerotic legacy media, so he probably won’t get challenged on his assertion.

Therefore I’m predicting some leftist will soon use that assertion as a rebuttal to someone asserting a connection between Obama and ACORN. “He doesn’t have anything to do with ACORN. Why, he didn’t even know they got federal money!”

Who will it be, and when? Place your bets.

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to Place your bets: who will be the first to use this talking point concerning Obama and ACORN

  • Dear Mr. Hollis: I’ll take the other side of the bet: I don’t think the Left will use this widely because it makes The Once look hopelessly out of touch. They will stick to silence, the “There’s nothing about it in the press so there isn’t anything there,” bit. I could be wrong. In any case, if you are right and this trick is widely used, it will be another data point in favor of this math equation:

    The Once = Dummy

    Sincerely yours,
    Gregory Koster

  • I gotta take Chris Matthews.

  • I’m damned sure not taking that bet. Remember, Obama can do no wrong. Look at the DIRECT associations he got away with during the campaign. Nobody who doesn’t preach to the choir called him on those.

  • Remember that Acorn is a fungible concept and that there are other organized superstructures around the corner salivating over the money that’s usually sent Acorn’s way. It’s work will get done, one way or another.

    Obama denying that he’s paying attention is a good one.

    The only thing connected with Obama that isn’t being overseen by Obama is Obama. His people aren’t afraid to tell him that his wife is a poll killer, but the only way they’ll get that message to him is if someone leaves a can of deodorant on his desk so that he finds it when he arrives in the morning.

    But a little beyond the edge, Obama remains an unusual figure, to say the least. I describe him as a fictional character out of a novel Orwell didn’t live to write.

  • Yep, you dimwitted Americans, I had NO IDEA that ACORN was getting funding! Considering that every news organization has said so in the past 2 weeks, nevertheless, I want to stand on my assertion that I had no idea.

    Also, to be honest, I had no idea that Israel was a country in the Middle East, I thought that Ahmadinejad was freely elected, and that the White Sox won the World Series last year.

    Yeah…that’s the ticket! Gross ignorance of the facts!

  • So sayeth The Clown™:

    Yep, you dimwitted Americans, I had NO IDEA that ACORN was getting funding! Considering that every news organization has said so in the past 2 weeks, nevertheless, I want to stand on my assertion that I had no idea.

    Also, to be honest, I had no idea that Israel was a country in the Middle East, I thought that Ahmadinejad was freely elected, and that the White Sox won the World Series last year.

    Yeah…that’s the ticket! Gross ignorance of the facts!

  • The talking point then was “Obama has never worked for ACORN”, which was technically true, but conveniently obscured several associations, including Obama conducting training sessions on leadership for ACORN.

    Who could imagine that a group that was trained on leadership by Barack Obama would mishandle a crisis so badly?

  • I’m sure we can expect Scott “Mao was swell” Erb to use it here

    • Gee, shark, I guess you’re joining the liars parade. Mao’s policies caused the death of 30 million in famine, the cultural revolution killed hundreds of thousands and ruined many more lives. His policies held China back, he was a brutal tyrant. To insinuate I’d ever say he was swell is absurd. You are a dishonest person shark — no wonder you use an alias.

      The only time I mentioned Mao was to note he talked in language as bad as Ahmadinejad, yet Nixon was able to negotiate with him. But in world politics you often have to negotiate with thugs. If you think you only negotiate with swell people, well, that explains a lot about your lack of understanding of world affairs!

      • Sorry Erb, I’ve seem the rhetoric you use here- I mean the REAL rhetoric you use, when the mask slips.

        I have no doubt what side you’re on.

        Seeing as you’ve told us time and again.

        Why I use an alias is not your buisiness pally, and don’t ever forget that.

  • So, Obama was “aware” of enough details to claim that a local police officer “acted stupidly” in a story that had not received a whole lot of media attention, but wants to claim that he isn’t “aware” that ACORN receives a lot of federal funding, a story that has been a big topic the last two weeks?

    Does he REALLY think that the American people are THAT stupid?

    That liberals excuse and dismiss this BS and maintain how intelligent TAO is and still want to talk about how stupid GWB was is ridiculously laughable.

    • Well heck, Scott, he expected us to believe he sat in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years and he wasn’t “aware” that the good Rev. gave anti-Semitic and anti-American sermons. And enough believed that such that he’s sitting in the Oval Office. So why wouldn’t he believe we’d buy into his claim he wasn’t “aware” that ACORN was funded to the level they were?

      • “So why wouldn’t he believe we’d buy into his claim he wasn’t “aware” that ACORN was funded to the level they were?”

        Having media cover certainly doesn’t hurt….

  • Acorn, like Rev. Wright, is an issue that will excite the political junkies, but be off the radar for most people. Also, anything going back to the 2008 election will be stale by 2012, old news. The right never quite realized that with Clinton, they could not believe all the mini-scandals had no impact in 1996 (whitewater, etc.) They were so convinced there were rumors of assassination, all the first campaign’s scandals. By 1996 they were background noise. Same with Obama. To know what might hurt or help him in 2012, you have to fast forward to 2011.

    • Erb: “Acorn, like Rev. Wright, is an issue that will excite the political junkies, but be off the radar for most people.”

      You hope so.

      But, then, Rev. Wright never went away. Obama won the election, but there is a growing, not a diminishing, awareness of Obama’s involvement with Wright and the church since the election. It went from being held outside of Obama’s media-generated context to becoming an increasingly important context that explains who Obama is and what can be expected of him. It’s an un-nerving element that gnaws at people in the background. They hear the word “racist” being thrown around by Obama apologists and suddenly Wright floats into the picture as context.

      As for the Acorn story, Glenn Beck drove that, and the “political junkies” in Congress and at the Census Bureau were busy throwing Acorn out the door last week. Beck is up around three million viewers a day at 5 p.m. EST. That’s a pretty much unheard of number for cable news.

      But what’s killing Obama’s numbers is his health care reform agenda. The other stuff is burning the ladder of good will he’ll need to climb out of it.

      The chickens are coming home to roost.

    • By 1996 the market indicators had recovered from the recession and already shown a steady improvement, as the dot-com bubble was starting to grow, and employment rose with it. I think that’s the main reason why the public resisted any attempts to investigate or criticize Clinton, no one really cared as long as things seemed to be going well.

      Reverend Wright and ACORN will only have traction as news stories if the economy has not recovered sufficiently by 2012. It’s possible that it will by then, and Obama will face a situation similar to Clinton in 1996– Republicans having made big gains in congress, but the President himself getting the benefit of better economic news heading into the election.

    • In the last few days I read someone or other claiming that the difference between Clinton and Obama might be that most people considered Clinton extremely personable. Frankly, I never saw it. I always thought he was sort of slimy, which I attribute to my female slime-ball radar, but apparently a whole lot of other women found him attractive. (Ewww.) Anyhow, be that as it may, the general “wisdom” was that Clinton had the sort of charm that let him get away from it.

      Does Obama?

  • The right never quite realized that with Clinton, they could not believe all the mini-scandals had no impact in 1996 (whitewater, etc.)

    What really assisted Clinton’s ’96 reelection was tracking right with with welfare reform, etc. Guided by Dick Morris and triangulation and of course by that time health care reform had met it’s “death panel.”

  • Hmmmm, my money’s on that always entertaining fella…..GIBBS. He’ll be the first….to give a smirky, shifty, weaselly look he has, grin while shrugging his shoulders …….and toss out something like……”Oh, ACORN was getting money?”…..shrug his shoulders and then jump to someone else in the pile…..to ask…’What’s YOUR question”…and it’ll be someone who’s been placed there to ask about the O’s opinions on sports or that Kanye/Kayne fellow……

    And the dance will continue, there’s no transparency….hell, there’s not even opaqueness ….it seems to simply be the dance of the Seven Veils. Thing is? The veils never really come off, they’re just rearranged time, and time, and time again.

  • Erb:

    “The right never quite realized that with Clinton, they could not believe all the mini-scandals had no impact in 1996 (whitewater, etc.)”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. One thing, and one thing only, got Clinton elected in both in ’92 and ’96.

    Perot.

  • I think that Gregory Koster is right: MiniTru won’t touch this. Quite aside from doing their usual work of covering for their messiah, they also don’t want to talk about how they’ve been scooped and HUMILIATED by a couple of kids and a “vicious, racist, right-wing” blog.