There are claims that, just as the ACORN story was coming to the surface before the November 2008 election, it was suppressed to protect the election chances of Barack Obama.
Powerline reports today on the New York Times' denial in killing the story to protect Obama ... and how the denial appears to help prove the point that they possibly did have a hand in being sure a "game-changer" situation did not occur:
In today's New York Times, Public Editor Clark Hoyt reveals the result of his investigation into the charge that the paper killed a story during the 2008 Presidential campaign in order to help Barack Obama. Hoyt concludes that the claim is "nonsense."There are many questions about ACORN and it is a story waiting for an investigative reporter to pursue. Glenn Beck has been talking with ACORN insiders who have asked questions of their own and been thrown out ... people who were brave to come forward after beating their heads against a wall trying to find answers.
...
But the facts as related by Hoyt don't rebut the charge; they support it.
The many layers of ACORN ... stay tuned.
1 comment:
Eh. That campaign was so polarized, I don't think most people would have given the story much credibility if it had been given more airtime. As it was, it had enough airtime to solidify the impression that Democrats were trying to get more minorities to vote, and Republicans were trying to get less. Nothing unusual there, and neither side seemed to be behaving more overtly illegally than the other.
If it turns out a lot of voter fraud actually occurred, obviously that's not good. But while such things probably could have swayed close elections and need to be prosecuted, the election of Barack Obama was anything but close. Neither the fraud (if there was any), nor the story (if there was one) would have made any difference.
Post a Comment