Say what?

lose lose (0.00 / 0)

yes - this is a lose lose situation - -

What they did is entirely intolerable by any measure.  Do we want to get on the side of people that would help foreign born, underage, prostitution?  

We'd better do a better job than this if  we want to get continued support of groups that do good works.  

For most groups that I'm familiar with, the activities here would be entirely impossible.  Don't defend them.

Move on.

This incident presented the delegation with this no-win situation whatever they did.

PJ  

---

by: Peter Joes @ Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 22:03:52 PM UTC

Congress should not be denying due process. Period. (4.00 / 1)

Your observations are based on video created and edited by Republican operatives posing as something they were not. They refuse to release the unedited footage, and the police records show that they lied about ACORN employees failing to call the police.

This should go through the same kind of investigation as any other kind of criminal matter, and the guilt or innocence of the people involved should be determined by the judicial system. The funding for the organization for which these individuals work should be retained or removed via the processes that exist to ensure fairness and justice, based on whether or not the organization properly handled the people involved, once the allegations were brought to their attention.

Once again: Congress should not be denying due process. Period.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 00:01:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

no argument (0.00 / 0)

sure - - no argument on the merits of what you are saying.  It kind of ignores the political realities of the situation.

If what is purported to have happened didn't, by all means get the story out.  Otherwise the story stands.

I'm not saying that congress should get into the act here, they shouldn't.  However, I'm saying that they have won the political fight here so we should move on and find more strategic things to fight over.

In terms of picking your battles - - trying to cut down Sanders and Leahy on this, after the fact, is, again, a  loser situation.

Holding their feet to the fire on an issue like the public option is where our energies should go.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 00:40:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"They have won the political fight"?????? (4.00 / 1)

Only because the DC Dems did their very best to cut a panicked retreat from a position of overwhelming strength.

So I wouldn't say "they" won any political fight. I'd say the DC Dems (including our own Sanders and Leahy who won't stand up for honesty and Welch who voted directly against honesty) baked a victory cake in the oven, smeared it with home made victory icing ... and then helped "they" eat the damned thing!

PS. For me this isn't about attacks. This is about accountability. Period.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 10:18:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sauce for the gander (0.00 / 0)

Okay, let's say that malfeasance by a government contractor is reason to discontinue all government funding. Can we expect a similar move by Congress to cut off Blackwater and KBR, to name just two high-profile contractors who have done far more horrendous things in our name and with our tax dollars?

ACORN has been in existence for decades. It has done an incredible amount of  valuable work. Now, based on some (probably illegal) "gotcha" videos, showing a handful of ACORN staffers giving admittedly obnoxious advice, we're completely cutting the whole organization off?

If only Blackwater had limited itself to "admittedly obnoxious advice."  

---

by: jvwalt @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 00:01:12 AM UTC

The law, as written (0.00 / 0)

Would put pretty much every federal contractor on the chopping block.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 00:02:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ask him this (4.00 / 1)

The question really is how Congress could legally pass a bill of attainder which is specifically prohibited in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively of the Constitution.  Per Wiki: A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.  How did they get around that?

---

by: bcw @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 18:13:33 PM UTC

Good question! (0.00 / 0)

Why don't you e-mail it to him and see if you can get an answer for us?

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 18:44:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

technically (0.00 / 0)

they are not "convicted" of anything (no jail, no fines, etc.)

Congress certainly has the power to determine rules for the expenditure of public funds; I believe the "bill of attainder" clause is to prevent Congress from crossing the line into matters rightly left to the courts

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 18:53:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thus the odd wording of the bill (0.00 / 0)

Which will place pretty much any government contractor on a tightrope from here on out. In any given single contract, the contractor may have to fill out literal reams of paperwork, and may employ tens of thousands of people.

One incorrect statement, one typo, or one bad apple in the entire organization, and their project funding could be yanked unceremoniously, without a hint of warning, just because someone somewhere complained about them for something that may not even be true.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 05:34:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]