You may have gathered from this post that poking around into the doings of ACORN isn’t exactly a high priority of mine. Anyone who looked at what I have to do over the next few weeks would certainly understand that, regardless of his point of view. But it extends beyond that.
The ACORN stuff is just the kind of spin-cycle junk that does not interest me. Does that mean I don’t think voter fraud is a serious matter. No, of course not. It’s just that I don’t see it as that big a factor. Nor do I agree with this writer, who holds the precise opposite point of view of those who are worked up over ACORN:
By George Curry
The Philadelphia Inquirer
There have been some blatant and indefensible voter-registration violations committed by people acting on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). But the greater threat to preserving the integrity of the ballot box on Nov. 4 is voter suppression.
You see, liberal Democrats and their ideological fellow-travelers get extremely indignant over the idea that somewhere there’s somebody who’s legally (or at least, in their view, morally) entitled to vote and yet will not be allowed to. Conservative Republicans and their fellow-travelers get just as indignant over the idea that somewhere there’s somebody voting who either legally or morally should not be.
And you know what I think? I think humans, and the systems they devise, are imperfect. I think that in any national election, there are going to be a certain number of people (or imaginary people) voting who shouldn’t, and a certain number who are entitled who won’t be allowed to. But I think that with the two groups of people who are worked up about those two problems being all over it, and with a system that tries in good faith to avoid either problem, those two categories will be kept to a minimum, ohne mich. And overall, the competing effects will be something close to a wash.
You want something to worry about? Consider this: Neither problem will involve nearly as many people as the number who are entitled to vote who won’t bother, or the number who WILL vote who are clueless about who or what they’re voting for. It’s an imperfect world, and therefore a fundamentally flawed system for choosing our leaders. It’s just the best we’ve been able to devise so far.
Back to ACORN — yes, I understand that some people think the ACORN scandals provide a window into the character of one of the men running for president. I just don’t find that narrative all that persuasive. I find the Ayers and Wright connections much more relevant, and I don’t even consider those to be central — just relevant, something to take into consideration.
Anyway, that’s my view on the matter. What’s yours?