READER COMMENTS ON
"Maddow: Shameful Response of GOP to ACORN 'Pimp' Hoax v. Deadly BP Disaster"
(14 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
Mark E. Smith
said on 6/11/2010 @ 3:27 pm PT...
But ACORN helped poor people.
BP helps a lot of rich people, like Members of Congress, by contributing to their campaigns.
Don't forget that many Democrats voted to defund ACORN, and Obama, who benefitted from ACORN's drive to register voters, signed the unconstitutional Defund Acorn bill of attainder.
BP, like Israel, gives money to the right millionaires in DC and won't be penalized.
Our Constitution was designed to ensure that those who owned this country, the people with the most money, would rule it, and it is still doing the job it was designed for.
It is so pathetic when people vote for officials they know they won't be able to hold accountable, and then futilely beg those politicians to represent their constituents instead of their big donors. When you delegate your power to people you can't hold accountable, particularly if those people have committed crimes or protected criminals previously, you aren't just aiding, abetting, and legitimizing criminals, you are demonstrating your own personal criminal insanity. Never give power over your life and your country to people you can't hold accountable.
Unless you really don't care.
And if you really don't care, please stop calling those of us who do care, and who won't vote to delegate our power to people we can't hold accountable, "apathetic." I haven't spent years begging people to stop voting for genocide because I don't care--I do it because I care.
It is those who delegate the power to commit genocide to people they can't hold accountable who don't care. Oh, they might care about whether or not their votes are counted, but they don't care if the only candidates with any chance of winning are both pro-war.
War is bad for the environment and other living things. Candidates who vote for, fund, and support wars of aggression, who protect war crimionals from prosecution, and are themselves war criminals or complicit in crimes against humanity, aren't very likely to do oppose any other crimes.
Well, except crimes against poor people--that's the only kind of crimes that rich people perpetrate and condone. Attack poor people and they'll support and protect you all the way. Try to help poor people and you're a terrorist, a Communist, a socialist, or some other evil being, and you deserve to be defunded, if not murdered in cold blood.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 6/11/2010 @ 5:00 pm PT...
HOORAY FOR RACHAEL!!!!
I am so grateful for Rachael Maddow, and for the wonderful work that she does so well!!
Her insightful critiquing of political process certainly goes so far and above what one can expect from most news commentators.
And with respect to this particular clip, I think that the specific questions she is posing definitely need to be answered by the very same politicians whom she is citing (including the President.)
Politicians who voted for the Defund ACORN Act, whether right or left, need to explain their judgements as per the revelations that they were viewing doctored material from a completely unreliable source.
While it is typical for the government to work so much more slowly on more clear-cut issues, they need to explain their rush to judge without considering their source, or even attempting to get a fuller story.
They last time they forced policy on falsified data, we wound up invading Iraq. They need to explain why they would radically force policy without proper & reliable data, or even the requirement for it.
That lack of scrutiny can have (and has had) dire consequnces in other in other venues.
Then, these same politicians need to answer why they don’t hold companies like BP or Haliburton up to the same rigorous standards which they pretended to uphold when defunding ACORN.
Why doesnt BP or KBR get the same thorough, swift and streamlined reprisal for their real crimes, as ACORN had received for its falsified crimes?
I agree with Mark E. Smith’s assessment above; that sadly, the fact that BP is rich, while ACORN serves the poor and underprivileged, means that the former has so much more influence and “friends up top”, than the latter. I think that is absolutely the bare, cold and unvarnished truth about this matter.
Still, I would really like hear how one of those politicians would honestly answer Maddow’s question.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 6/11/2010 @ 6:09 pm PT...
Rap it down, Rachel. Put that lie about acorn in context, and who the players are. Great reporting.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 6/11/2010 @ 10:04 pm PT...
Great reporting, but we all know who really broke this story. Answer to the the "jeopardy" question:
Who is Brad.
This is not an environmental disaster? The congressman kids, SURELY he kids!
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2010 @ 4:23 am PT...
Rachel's show is 'must see tv' in this house!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2010 @ 5:03 am PT...
Not good enough - she doesn't mention Halliburton as the cause of the blow. None of the networks are really giving enough of the story and all media should be calling for the ban of Corexit immediatley.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2010 @ 3:27 pm PT...
Brilliant comparison and analysis.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 6/12/2010 @ 3:49 pm PT...
Marzi @ 6 said:
Not good enough - she doesn't mention Halliburton as the cause of the blow.
And your evidence that Halliburton was "the cause of the blow"?
You wouldn't be British by any chance, would ya, Marzi?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2010 @ 1:56 am PT...
Here is the e-mail I sent to Rachel after watching this segment on her show:
I thought that your BP vs. ACORN segment was brilliant. It really points out the total hypocrisy and corporatism that is rampant in congress today. Too bad every Fox News viewer won't be seeing that.
I have one quibble with your report. You continually pointed the finger at Republicans for taking ACORN down. While they were absolutely the driving force behind that, the Democrats held a majority in both houses of congress and the White House. So it couldn't have happened without the cowardice and complicity of Democrats, and I believe that for you to ignore that is to act as an agent for the Democratic party rather than for the absolute truth. When you do things like that, it lends creedence to complaints from people like my aunt, who watches CNN because they are allegedly neutral compared to FOX which is for Republicans and MSNBC which is for Democrats.
This is far from the first time that you've given Democrats a pass, or failed to hold their feet to the fire. I'm a Democrat (nominal at this point because I have concluded that Obama and the current congress are nothing more than Republican lite - the left wing of the corporatist party), but I am a liberal first, and a seeker of truth and honesty above all. While I feel your reporting is honest and well informed, I do feel that you intentionally or perhaps subconsciously bias your reporting to assist the Democratic party, and as a seeker of truth, I find that troublesome.
The Democratic party does not deserve to be let off the hook for their role in the destruction of ACORN, no matter how much more odious and deserving of condemnation the Republicans are.
Just to clarify, it is my aunt who perceives CNN as neutral and MSNBC for the Democrats. I don't believe either to be true, but the more I see Rachel and Keith provide cover for bad behavior by Democrats, the less of an argument I have about MSNBC not having a bias.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 6/13/2010 @ 7:30 am PT...
CTPatriot you're 100% correct. I've been so disappointed with Olbermann and Maddow for refusing to hold Obama and the Democrats accountable for a sundry of violations which equal or exceed Bush's most gross misdeeds. Giving the Democrats a free pass on their role in knocking out ACORN is just the most current example. It's a lie of omission. Keith and Rachel fancy themselves as very smart. And they are. However, they should never consider themselves smart enough to fool their audience. Clearly they're putting party loyalty over principle, truth and law. Isn't this exactly what made Republicans so reprehensible?
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 6/14/2010 @ 9:31 am PT...
Is the scuffle with Rep. Etheridge another Breitbart creation?
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 6/19/2010 @ 1:14 pm PT...
Rachel is the best news reporter/journalist in the biz.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 6/25/2010 @ 10:47 pm PT...
I am an independent voter & I cant listen to Maddow or Oberman. Likewise, I cant stand Limbaugh on the right. Same reason, stand by your party no matter what. Listen, I havent heard Rachell come down once on Obama (now I am not a regular watcher). But, to say Obama/dem's are right on everything, come on. Is there a statue of limitations on Bush bashing. Why not blame George Washington policy for the oil crisis? Be realistic and we in the middle may listen to what you have to say. She may be brilliant but I see her as the offspring of Joanie and Chachi. Oreilly on Fox may lean right but he is as close to the center that I can figure. I turn off at 9 when I get the TV version on Limbaugh (Hannity). Cant stand that either.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 6/26/2010 @ 12:05 pm PT...
Um, yeah, Trach724? I don't think you're all that "independent". Apparently you are more than just "not a regular watcher" of Maddow. You haven't watched her at all. If you think she (or even Olbermann) believe that "Obama/dem's are right on everything", then I suspect you've never watched either of them in your life.
For the record, she has been brutal on the Obama administration re: the oil spill. So the wingnut talking point on "statue of limitations on Bush bashing" miss by a mile.
Keep up the bad work. Might I recommend you turn on the Maddow Show and educate yourself a bit? Just a suggestion for your folks "in the middle".