The Cosmopolitan Blog

Part 2 of my effort at fairness, looking at the serious criticism of Obama’s campaign (and of Obama himself).

Issue 2: The ACORN Issue

Arguably, this is a more serious issue than the Ayers issue, I think that was acknowledged by all parties.

1. CLAIM: ACORN has created fake voter registrations by using fake names: for example names of people who are actually deceased, even the name Jimmy Johns, the name of a restaurant where no actual Jimmy Johns worked at, they even created fake registrations for the entire Dallas Cowboys football team. Since Obama is linked to this firm in some way, and since 1+1=3, Obama is rigging the election.
2. FACTS:
   • ACORN has been under investigation for over four years
   • ACORN has created over 5,000 fake voter registrations in at least 6 states and continued to do so until a few days ago when it became a national issue
   • Obama’s campaign used ACORN’s services (it was actually a subsidiary, but fine, let’s simplify) during the primary campaign to register voters at a fee of $800,000.
   • ACORN endorsed Obama for president
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Obama used the services of a firm under investigation: YES
   • Should he have? NO
   • Would it have affected the outcome of the primaries NO the number of registrations was a few thousand, Obama won by much more
   • Does it make a difference that ACORN endorsed him? NOT REMOTELY, do you know how many companies endorse each candidate, 1/2 the time without the candidates even knowing it?
   • Will this affect this election? NO, since a. they’ve been caught, b. all registrations (fake or non) coming from them have been pulled, c. this was not actual votes, it was registrations for new voters to be able to vote

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

While I think this is a more serious issue than Ayers, because Obama’s campaign is to blame for having hired a firm under investigation, the consequences of his actions are, well, non-consequential. Again, this is a political tactic. McCain is trying to put doubts in voters minds by lining up a bunch of things that will make you question his judgment. What McCain doesn’t tell you is that he’s done just as bad, that it’s all part of the game of politics, and that even HE (McCain) doesn’t think this are big deal issues, he’s just grabbing at straws.

However, if you feel that your trust in Obama has gone because a guy who bombed the Pentagon organized a meeting to launch Obama’s campaign, and because he used the services of a firm under investigation, then you have the right to feel that way. That means McCain’s argument was persuasive. And i can’t fault you for this.

What I will say though, is don’t imagine ANYTHING here is black or white (and I’m not talking about the candidates’ skin colors). If you think there’s doubt to be cast on Obama’s campaign practices, then you should know there are is just as much to be cast on McCain? Why? Am i saying this because I’m bitter? No. I’m as calm as i can be when i tell you: it’s the name of the game, politics. You do what you can do to get ahead. You say what you can say.You promise what you need to promise. And if you think McCain is any better, because he seems nice, because he seems approachable, because he could be your next door neighbor, because you can relate to him, because he doesn’t flash a Harvard education around… then think again. He might very well be all of these things, but he’s not become a presidential nominee by being a nice guy, trust me.

And you know what? In 2000 and 2004, we elected and re-elected a guy that seemed nice and approachable. Look where that got us. *sigh* I feel a new post topic coming on whether a POTUS should be just like us… Stay tuned.

In a recent post, I promised that I would try to be fair, and not be the typical opinionated blogger. If i can post about McCain, then i can post about Obama, yes? I’ve spent enough posts expressing my dislike for the former, so here’s me acknowledging the faults of the latter. So you have serious issues with Barack Obama? OK, let’s address them.

Issue 1: Bill Ayers.

1. CLAIM: Supposedly, Obama and Ayers are friends. Ayers is the guy who bombed a bunch of public buildings, so is guilty of national terrorism. Therefore, since 1+1=3, Obama is also a terrorist.
2. FACTS:
   • Obama met Ayers at a general meeting on school reforms for their neighborhood.
   • Then, some years later, Ayers hosted a “coffee” meeting in the neighborhood for Obama’s democratic race kickoff.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
   • Does this mean that Obama and Ayers know each other casually? YES… and we all know that a politician controls every person he meets casually
   • Was it dishonest for Barack to spin it as “he’s just someone in the neighborhood”? YES
   • Is it a good excuse to say that Obama was only 10 when Ayers bombed The Pentagon? NO, I too believe that once a terrorist, always a terrorist, and I definitely think that someone who blew up anything is a national terrorist.
   • Does this mean that Obama and Ayers stay up nights discussing Ayers’ proudest moment when he blew up the Pentagon? NO
   • Does this automatically make Obama a terrorist? NO, this is simply a political tactic called “guilt by association”

COSMOCHICK’S RANT:

Guilt by association is simply a political tactic, believe me my Republican friends, I’m really not trying to con you when i say this. Does McCain believe that Obama is a terrorist? NO, of course not. He simply wants the general public to hear the soudbite (Barack, Ayers, terrorist), because he KNOWS that it’s all it takes for the general public to then blow it out of proportion and run leaps and bounds with it. Especially when you put it in the mind of you’re average Middle American who then combines it with another soundbite he’s heard (Barack, Hussein, Muslim), and now he becomes a Muslim terrorist.
See how easy this is? Oh, and just in case you’re a tad smarter than the average Joe-6-pack and you don’t believe that this makes Obama a terrorist, then for you smart person, all McCain wants to do is put doubt in your mind as to Obama’s honesty and transparency throughout his campaign.
I’ll say it again, guilt by association is a VERY dicy game to play. You want to take all those skeletons and bring them out of their closets? Really?? REALLY?? Seriously, please think long and hard about this before answering. If you want to bring the skeletons out of Barack’s closet, and there will be some, maybe even lots, then let’s take a look at McCain’s closet too, yes? And then it’s just a questions of who’s list is longer, that’s all, no one comes out pretty in this one.

Next Issue: ACORN.