GarfieldJL Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 This has just came out and it sounds like it could have altered the results of the election, because it would have tied Obama's Presidential Campaign to ACORN. Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel: “Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’ Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.” --The Bulletin The article goes on to say: “If this is true, it would not surprise me at all. The New York Times is a liberal newspaper. It is dedicated to furthering the Democratic Party,” said Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of Political Science at Grove City College. “People think The New York Times is an objective news source and it is not. It would not surprise me that if they had a news story that would have swayed the election into McCain’s favor they would not have used it.”--The Bulletin
ET Warrior Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Yes, because nobody in America had heard of this mysterious connection Obama had to ACORN before the election. Except for the part where that is ALL THAT THE REPUBLICANS TALKED ABOUT. Get over it. Obama is president. The end.
Redwing Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I walk into the Senate Chambers for the first time in forever, and the first thread I see isn't even a debate thread? I found the dynamics of the last presidential election fascinating, and followed them in depth. I know what's meant here by "game-changer", and it's ridiculous. Obama's alleged ties to ACORN were completely irrelevant to the election, whether or not they should have been, as were many other things that perhaps should have mattered, did not, and would still have not with slight tweaking such as this. This story, even if 100% true, would have made ultimately zero difference. Incidentally, that's a very good reason to believe Mrs. Heidelbaugh is simply lying. That's besides her obvious motivations to do so. I find it hard to believe that the NYT believed something like this would be a "game-changer". Even if she is telling the truth, it just means the NYT were foolish. But this thread doesn't appear to be about that. It appears to be making an argument that this would have actually altered the outcome of the last election. No offense to the thread-maker or anything, but... Really?
GarfieldJL Posted April 2, 2009 Author Posted April 2, 2009 I walk into the Senate Chambers for the first time in forever, and the first thread I see isn't even a debate thread? Oh I don't know looks like it's turning into a debate now. I found the dynamics of the last presidential election fascinating, and followed them in depth. I know what's meant here by "game-changer", and it's ridiculous. Obama's alleged ties to ACORN were completely irrelevant to the election, whether or not they should have been, as were many other things that perhaps should have mattered, did not, and would still have not with slight tweaking such as this. This story, even if 100% true, would have made ultimately zero difference. You mean like the left-wing claimed he has "alleged" ties to all his other negative associations (i.e. claiming that it was nothing but a smear job). There were already accusations that Obama had ties to ACORN, and the fact the New York Times killed the story when Obama's campaign ended up being linked to this, and then compare that to the smear job the New York Times ran on McCain (which btw, they ended up getting sued over, and the New York Times lost the lawsuit). Incidentally, that's a very good reason to believe Mrs. Heidelbaugh is simply lying. That's besides her obvious motivations to do so. I find it hard to believe that the NYT believed something like this would be a "game-changer". Even if she is telling the truth, it just means the NYT were foolish. It's good to know you'll take the word of an organization that has had offices convicted of Voter Registration fraud, has been under investigation of the FBI, has also been under investigation for numerous other dubious incidents, over a whistleblower that they are happening to smear. But this thread doesn't appear to be about that. It appears to be making an argument that this would have actually altered the outcome of the last election. Considering other News Agencies are picking up on this story, and this would have directly tied the Obama campaign to the organization (and would have shown that he lied about not having an association with ACORN). Typically a politician is in deep trouble if they get caught lieing. No offense to the thread-maker or anything, but... Really? Okay since I haven't seen you around I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, what I'm curious about is does anyone else see this situation as troubling?
EnderWiggin Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 does anyone else see this situation as troubling? Umm..... no. No offense to the thread-maker or anything, but... Really? Oh, really. http://www.lucasforums.com/search.php?searchid=292195 _EW_
True_Avery Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 No offense to the thread-maker or anything, but... Really? It is pretty well established that Garfield comes in here to run a campaign, not debate. Don't mind him.
kipperthefrog Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Someone once said "Give the guy a chance, and his actions will speak louder than anybody's criticism."
GarfieldJL Posted April 2, 2009 Author Posted April 2, 2009 Umm..... no. Well I figured you wouldn't... UPDATE: You can throw in an audio tape and a potential congressional Investigation now (and the one calling for an investigation is a liberal Democrat). Whether or not this potential investigation will actually be serious or merely a typical whitewash remains to be seen. Looks more and more like the whistleblower is credible and ACORN is just trying to smear her.
True_Avery Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 I've yet to see the debate potential in this thread. This seems to be more of a blog post than an actual topic.
RoxStar Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 This seems to be more of a shout into the wilderness than an actual topic. fixed
GarfieldJL Posted April 3, 2009 Author Posted April 3, 2009 Okay this is a conservative blog site but the video that is embedded is of interest: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/02/video-smoking-gun-on-nyt-spiked-acorn-story/ If you don't like O'Reilly skip 45 seconds in and then the answering machine message starts. Ah the wonders of answering machines. If this is true, we're arguably talking about an offense that Obama could be impeached over.
SkinWalker Posted April 3, 2009 Posted April 3, 2009 I have to agree that there's little point of debate and that the OP reads more like a blog post than a discussion thread. I'm closing the thread to get ahead of the inane responses. If anyone wants to make a case to keep it open, PM me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.