Good work, Gaar. Let's hope McCain forcefully addresses Obama's connection to ACORN.
On Sep 30, 1:16 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIy... > > Foundation Money > > Although it’s been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a > long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention > needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the > period of Obama’s service on the boards of two charitable foundations, > the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. > > According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those > foundation boards, “allowed him to help direct tens of millions of > dollars in grants” to various liberal organizations, including Chicago > Acorn, “whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate > race.” As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more > fully), Acorn maintains both political and “non-partisan” arms. Obama > not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm > in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for > the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his > long-standing ties to the group. > > Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its “non- > partisan” registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading > Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to > discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a > foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly > served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not > saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes’ account, > Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities > of “non-partisanship.” > > Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the > New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While > keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able > to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political > supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly > warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be > the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at > an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly > non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan > and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to > be pursued further. > > In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue > intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits > further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, “Voter > Turnout or Voter Fraud?” which includes a discussion of the nexus > between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once > resided. According to Bechtle, “It’s clear that groups that claimed to > be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome,” and reading Foulkes’s case > study of Acorn’s role in Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, one can’t help > but agree. > > Radical Obama > Important as these questions of funding and partisanship are, the > larger point is that Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most > politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are > wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non- > partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, > leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This > is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to > play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the > political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play > the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his > many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the > group was all about. > > The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama’s > stomping grounds, it found the park he’d helped renovate reclaimed by > drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate > feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as > the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to > save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the > “progressive” fashion. Unfortunately, Obama’s Acorn cronies have > blocked that solution. > > In any case, if you’re looking for the piece of the puzzle that > confirms and explains Obama’s network of radical ties, gather your > Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the > “President from Acorn” at his feast. > > — Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy > Center and an NRO contributing editor. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
