The Republican War Against ACORN

In recent days, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other major news outlets have recounted the "troubled" history of the poor people's advocacy group ACORN, but left out the five-year anti-ACORN campaign led by White House adviser Karl Rove and other Republican operatives. Full Story »

Posted by Patricia Blochowiak
Tags Help
Subjects: Other, Politics, U.S.
Member Tags: Acorn, karl rove
Stats Help
# Tweets: 0 (as of 2009-09-27)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Patricia Blochowiak - Sep 27, 2009 - 11:28 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Patricia Blochowiak - Sep 27, 2009 - 11:30 AM PDT

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
3.4
by Jim Lang - Sep. 27, 2009

This is a somewhat rambling piece that is more opinion than news report. It argues that ACORN is being singled out for punishment because of the misdeeds of some specific underlings while the excesses of the Republican war on ACORN, including dismissal of US Attorneys by the Bush administration, have gone unpunished. Some other points are made along the way but overall the looseness of the piece diminishes its effectiveness.

Yet, while bending to Republican demands to speak out against a poor people’s group, Obama continued to resist the notion that powerful Republicans from the Bush ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
N638965977_3994_thumb
4.1
by Ben Ross - Sep. 27, 2009

Attempts to cover much, maybe too much. Brings out some important connections between right-wing drumbeat against poor people. Compleatly miss FLA -D rep Alan Grayson and the repercussions of the bill against ACORN

Grayson is my hero of september 09...real lemonade from GOP lemons. MSM has not covered the flack ...yet!

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by Harry A Farr - Sep. 28, 2009
See Full Review » (5 answers)
P9110066_thumb
5.0
by Patricia Blochowiak - Sep. 27, 2009
See Full Review » (2 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.1
by Randy Morrow - Sep. 30, 2009

Dropped down the memory hole is the fact that ACORN was at the center of the so-called “prosecutor-gate” scandal, when the Bush ... More »

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Jack_dinkmeyer_thumb
5.0
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Sep. 27, 2009

This is what journalism should be all about. This excellent article recounts the history of right-wing escalating persecutions of ACORN in considerable detail supported by dates, places, people, quotes, and incidents. Right wing Republican distortions have finally become so blatant that even congress has finally awakened to right-wing harassment. A must read.

Looks like the right-wing nutcake Republican hostilities against ACORN have more to do with racism, Bushies’ federal prosecutor debacle, and voter ... More »

See Full Review » (20 answers)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by alan segal - Sep. 28, 2009

Because it is factual and offers an in depth report on a issue of the day the main stream media is being bullied to not examine or report in depth on. Instead the mainstream media is just publishing accusations with no factual push back.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Silhouette_sml
3.8
by Jon - Sep. 27, 2009
See Full Review » (5 answers)
Silhouette_sml
2.4
by Philip Kreck - Oct. 2, 2009

The depth and relevancy of this article (in terms of timeliness) are praiseworthy, but it is extremely unfortunate that the author allows his obvious position on the issue to shape the tone and content. Every Republican is an "operative", and every action or statement (regardless of the actor or speaker) against ACORN is part of an "attack". The author's tone makes his allegation (or unsupported assumption) clear: every negative claim about ACORN must be motivated by this ... More »

See Full Review » (9 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.5
by Roger Merritt - Sep. 27, 2009

Yes. Opinions are supported by facts from named sources.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.2

Good
from 8 reviews (45% confidence)
Quality
4.3
Facts
4.3
Fairness
3.9
Information
5.0
Insight
5.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
3.8
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
5.0
Context
3.8
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
4.8
Expertise
5.0
Originality
5.0
Relevance
4.4
Transparency
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.3
Credibility
4.2
# Reviews
4.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!