Chris Hayes Equates Gingrich Worker Committing Voter Fraud With 70 ACORN Convictions For It
Not just fuzzy math, shabby too.
Chris Hayes, guest hosting on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Thursday, opened a segment with the words, "From the Department of Shameless Schadenfraude." Department of Feeble Attempts at Moral Equivalence would be more accurate. (video after page break)
The ever-perky Hayes, MSNBC's answer to Katie Couric, lip-smacked his way through a description of Newt Gingrich condemning the now-deservedly defunct ACORN in a September 2009 op-ed.
In the op-ed, titled "The real ACORN scandal: Its enablers," Gingrich wrote, as quoted by Hayes --
... this is not ACORN's first documented violation of the law. ACORN has a long history of engaging in voter fraud. Seventy ACORN staffers in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud by adding such notables as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to the voter rolls.
... ACORN is in fact the political dirty tricks muscle of liberal Democrats. ...
Republicans should propose and Democrats should support a thorough, independent investigation of ACORN'S octopuslike structure, including all of its associations with organized labor and its sources of federal funding.
To which Hayes added, "Because obviously any politician who funnels money to an enterprise that commits voter fraud needs to be scrutinized. Heck, penalized. So, hmm, interesting. I wonder what Gingrich of 2009 would say about this admission by Gingrich of 2011," Hayes asked, followed by a clip of Gingrich interviewed a day earlier --
Oh, it was just a mistake. We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. I mean, we turned in 11,100, we needed 10,000, but 1,500 were turned in by one guy who frankly committed fraud.
Gingrich was referring to his failure to qualify for the Virginia primary ballot, which he blamed on a paid signature collector turning in 1,500 fake signatures. "So, when it's ACORN," Hayes responded, "call in the federal government to investigate the political dirty tricks muscle of liberal Democrats. When it's Newt's own campaign (Gingrich's remarks heard again), oh, is that all? Well then, never mind."
And if 70 people from the Gingrich campaign end up convicted of voter fraud, by all means, call in the feds. Heck, even a fraction of that might be evidence of a pattern -- unless you're an MSNBC host still smitten with the voter-fraud felons and child-prostitution enablers at ACORN.
Also worth noting from Thursday's Maddow show was a tongue-tied Hayes struggling to describe scientists discovering the cause of the winged frenzy that inspired Hitchcock's "The Birds." In particular, Hayes' imaginative take on the word "foggy" (1:24 in a clip I placed on YouTube) is worth a gander, one of several verbal challenges he encountered.
Hayes was one of four former members of the notorious lefty JournoList to appear on the show that night, along with Ezra Klein, Spencer Ackerman and Dave Weigel. Surprisingly, Ackerman refrained from making baseless accusations of racism against conservatives, nor did he urge that any be shoved through a plate-glass window, if only rhetorically.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Is it just hormones...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 8:40pm.
...that make Chris Hayes such an angry women all the time?
Who is this
Submitted by grammajane on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 8:52pm.
guy?? Another air-head hired by msdnc? Wow, wonder where they find these arrogant, uneducated hot heads that know zero about politics or much of any-thing-else. Would ask if he is a friend of Madcow but, doesn't appear to be her type.
This Rachel Maddow Look-alike...
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 11:34pm.
... fits right in as MSLSD. She's an ignorant, lying, left wing loon.
He is angry, he knows that he
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 4:19am.
He is angry, he knows that he is the best female talk show host on MSNBC but he still has to play second fiddle to maddow.
The finest conservative reasoning!
Submitted by mflo999 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 6:18am.
So let me get this right ... If Newt's campaign commits voter fraud, then Newt ADMITS it committed voter fraud ... it doesn't actually COUNT as voter fraud, unless it happens more than once? Positively brilliant!
Reading Comprehension
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 7:59am.
That's what the article said right? Idiot.
Roger that!
Submitted by mflo999 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 1:11pm.
Roger that, Sentry! IOKIYAR!
IOKIYAR?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 5:37pm.
Sorry bud, I didn't get that libspeak decoder ring for Christmas.
IOKIYAR
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 5:45pm.
It's OK If You're A Republican
Thanks 26CX
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 5:57pm.
I guess I was hoping for something more witty. At least we know he still hasn't overcome that reading problem.
Trolls don't spell very well
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:36pm.
That's why they use acronyms.
We Are The 53%
Yep, the Democrats tactic of
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:52am.
Yep, the Democrats tactic of deny, deny, deny, even though the cases are rampant and on a National scale, and then cry foul, change your name and continue to beg for more public funds to continue the deceit and fraud are a much better way to go.
Ummmmmm
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 3:29pm.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Newt actually call it 'fraud' by one of his staffers?
Didja miss that little bit there? Maybe you were referring to Obama actually defending fraud by ACORN.
As you seem to be incensed at
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 6:27pm.
As you seem to be incensed at the horrific violations of Newt's campaign i.e. voter fraud, then would I be correct in assuming that you support the complete and total withdrawal of any kind of Federal funding from ACORN, based on the repeated convictions of its employees for voter fraud?
That you would also support a complete Federal investigation into the administrators and Executive Officers of ACORN, to determine to what extent they were involved in what appears to an organized effort to subvert the vote and illegally influence the outcomes of local, State and Federal elections?
Additionally I would assume that you have been a vocal opponent of said Federal funding since you were made aware of the systemic corruption of ACORN and that you have been persistently calling for Federal investigations from the news of the very first conviction of an ACORN employee for voter fraud?
Or are you simply another dip shiite troll that screeches and squeals at any and all perceived violations with regards to Republicans and Conservatives while turning a blind eye to egregious violations of both the law and basic human decency on the part of Democrats and Liberals?
That moans whines and kvetches that having 70 some employees in 12 different states be tried and convicted of violations of the voter fraud laws is equivalent to having 1 employee in one State on the hook for turning in false signatures?
I would be interested in your answer but I can guess that if I actually get one it will be rife with nonsense, baseless accusations, vitriolic hatred and venomous bile spewed out at any one and everyone that disagrees with you.
Or you could actually be as concerned about the actions of ACORN and groups like them as well as those politicians that supported them over the years as you seem to be of Newt's campaign and their one bad apple.
of course pigs could fly out of my a$$ too.. but I find it as likely to be true as the second option mentioned above.
Except Newts campaign didn't commit voter fraud.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:23pm.
The names on the petition were not votes. Not voter registration, had nothing to do with voting. It had to do with a petition to get something on a ballot. It was fraud not VOTER FRAUD. What ACORN did was VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD.
1 person on Newt's staff committed fraud. Newt admitted it and probably fired the person. Nobody is defending what the person did. Unlike when ACORN was convicted on multiple counts, the liberals defended their actions by trying to say that it didn't happen and that it was just part of the vast right wing conspiricy.
We Are The 53%
Attn Lib Trolls:
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 7:41pm.
Newt's staff didn't commit "voter fraud". It could be called "petition fraud" or "signature fraud" but it in no way had anything to do with effecting the final tally of legitimate votes, which ACORN's activities did.
Now, please go F yourselves.
"Voter fraud" exists mostly in your head, mailman...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 8:36pm.
Here's a report on the subject from 2005 which should prove educational. So E yourself.
Oh yeah...the frantic hand-wringing claims of a flagrant ACORN/Franken 2008 election heist in Minnesota: A big, fat nothingburger. Coleman didn't even raise the issue.
Jer
Excuse the interruption, Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:17pm.
Isn't the Brennan Center funded by George Soros?
And here's some more recent information about voter fraud in Minnesota.
Thanks.
That quite alright, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:32am.
You mean information compiled by Minnesota Majority, one of the most politically partisan outfits in the nation?
Puh-leez...
You're welcome.
Jer
Being politically partisan is a bad thing ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 3:05am.
only when done by the opposition, right?
MD
Jer, Master of Hyperbole,
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:44am.
are you implying that Minnesota Public Radio, which you referenced, is not a politically partisan organization? And do you discount out-of-hand the number of convictions and pending trials for voter fraud described in the Minnesota Majority article?
And is it only your opinion that Minnesota Majority is "one of the most politically partisan outfits in the nation" or do you have facts to support your statement?
Since you ignored my question about the Brennan Center for Justice, I will follow up to point out that Justice Brennan has been described as being "known for his outspoken progressive views" and that one can only assume that a "Center for Justice" established in his name and supported financially by George Soros would take a strongly progressive point of view towards issues.
And since voter fraud seems, on its face, to be a tool progressives employ in ensuring their candidates' victories in an election, I have to assume that asking a progressive organization to determine whether voter fraud is a problem is like asking a defense attorney to determine whether her client is guilty.
CX...Master of the hollow accusation
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:50pm.
Honestly, CX...I assumed your question about the funding of the Brennan Center [I'm certainly not privy to any special--i.e., generally unavailable to the public--information regarding the institution's financial support or the identity of its backers] was essentially rhetorical, particularly since the opening sentence of the wiki page you linked noted that it is "Soros funded". However, having no desire to invite a repetition of the charge of ignoring your question, I will without further hesitation answer as follows: "Yes, CX, it appears to be Soros funded."
Regarding the partisanship ot the Minnesota Majority, I will concede the degree of political tilt is largely an expression of (my) opinion. That said, the fundamental bias of any website which posts a fake picture of a Democratic congressman holding a fake picture endorsing voter fraud is self-evident.
Finally, your assumption about progressives and voter fraud is a matter of polemics, not proof. The same argument has been advanced by progressives regarding the employment by conservatives of identical tools.
Jer
Like requiring voter photo I.D., that Holder says---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:28am.
disenfranchises minorities - ?
Yep, them conservatives are full of voter monkeyshines, alright.
Stealth supporters of the actions of ACORN, they were.
MD
Thanks, Jer!
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 6:29pm.
Thanks for acknowledging that I am correct about the liberal bias of the Brennan Center.
And thanks for acknowledging that comment about the degree of partisanship of the Minnesota Majority was your opinion.
With regards to your comment about the fundamental bias of a website that posts a fake picture, I have two comments. First, it stretched credulity to think that anyone saw that for other than what it was: a political commentary. Second, I assume your disdain for groups posting fake pictures of politicians would extend to MSNBC also. Is that a fair assumption?
To respond to your comment that my "assumption about progressives and voter fraud is a matter of polemics, not proof" I refer you, again, to the article talking about the number of convictions of progressives for voter fraud and ask you whether that does not constitute proof? Would the numerous nation-wide voter fraud convictions of Acorn representatives not constitute proof? Would you not agree that the overwhelming majority of voter fraud convictions have been brought against Democrats/liberals/progressives/The Left or whatever you prefer to call them?
Lastly, the mere fact that the same argument had been used by progressives has nothing to do with the validity of their accusations.
I could expect voter fraud
Submitted by ant on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 9:15pm.
I could expect voter fraud previous to the 2005 'report' to have been largely ineffectual, or we would have suffered a John "lurch' Kerry presidency.
In my head?
Submitted by Dave the mailman on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:00pm.
No, they're from reports newer than 2005. Just last month 4 dems pleaded guilty to voter fraud in NY. But since that doesn't support your claim, you wouldn't have heard about that. Yes, they forged voters signatures and voted for them. One was quoted as saying that voter fraud was "business as usual" and happens all the time.
But Newt's campaign DID commit voter fraud
Submitted by mflo999 on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 10:05pm.
Don't take my word for it ... I am quoting the Newtster himself
LIAR TROLL
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 01/01/2012 - 11:30pm.
Where is the quote? Newt said his campaign hired someone who committed fraud. He never said his campaign committed voter fraud.
We Are The 53%
Trolls cant read*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:39am.
La was one of the most corrupt voting in the country while in total command of democrats for over a hundred years. In 2005, La passed a voter ID law. No fraud since then and no dead voters. We also now have a Republican Governor and a republican legislature. The dems are furious.
Voter fraud is rampart thoughout the country interestingly in D states.
And here is an example of very recent fraud
And I find it very interesting that voter fraud is going down in states with voter ID requirements but minority voters participation rose. The dems are fearful that the "dead" will no longer have a right to vote.
Excellent
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 1:36am.
I guess voter ID puts a crimp in their policy of paying drug-addicts and vagrants to unduly sway elections too. Bummer.
It's not exactly a jaw-dropping, top-secret, blockbuster
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 2:34am.
revelation that the most glaring, persistent, and deeply-rooted voting irregularity from an historical standpoint has been the systematic suppression of the southern black electorate.
Jer
Fade that heat, Jeringo, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 3:02am.
with another blinding glimpse of the obvious.
What 'historically happened' to the southern black electorate was so bad it sorta kinda justifies Lib-Dim voting monkeyshines these days, huh?
MD
So...is Jer saying Obama is a
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:39am.
So...is Jer saying Obama is a 'reparations' President? Two wrongs don't make a right.
MD
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:52am.
This is a classic example of Jer's use of deflection to change the course of a discussion when he finds himself on shaky ground.
CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:28pm.
Amplifying one of the very points made by cajun regarding the history of voting corruption in a southern state is neither deflection nor evidence of the condition of the ground where I "find [my]self".
Your resort to ad hominem--turning the discussion into a personal criticism of me or the style of my commenting--is, however, a classic example of deflection.
Jer
A left leaner, voicing---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:33am.
leftist Democrat opinions on a conservative site, being criticized, you say?
Get out of town.
That has got to be against some type of law.
MD
Yes Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:29pm.
And that suppression has been engineered by DEMs for decades. And read my link again. It states that blacks and minorities participation in elections has risen in every state with voter ID. Give that some thought.