Scary thought of The Day: ACORN Take Over

Crossposted at The Rockefeller Republican.

Apparently ACORN was planning a statewide take over of Oklahoma politics within five years. Brian Faughnan over at Red State posted this at his blog. Do other state ACORN offices have similar plans in action already? Scary thought considering recent revelations. Here are the highlights:

    “Oklahoma ACORN has been virtually non-existent since its glory days in Tulsa, over 20 years ago. 2007 is Year Zero.”

    “Therefore, the route to power is twofold: First, build powerful city organizations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa that can control these municipalities. Second, become an influential organization by shaping a handful of strategic legislative districts that, by themselves, can change who controls the state legislature.”

    “(W)e will be seen as the force that is making Oklahoma a progressive state in the way that it was 100 years ago.”

    “By using this power to win significant changes for working people, by the end of our 5 years, we will have legitimized the progressive takeover of the statehouse and head into 2012 with a real possibility of changing what Oklahomans look for and expect out of their Congressional delegation.”


About SteveB

  • Vote3rdpartynow
  • The Secretary of State Project.  You can thank them for giving us Senator Al Franken.    

    To Our SoS Project Supporters –  

    Since we launched in the fall of 2005, we have engaged in eleven races and have backed the winning candidate in nine states, including: Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia and Missouri. We lost only in Michigan and Colorado (and there by a tiny margin).  

    In 2008, we ran a sophisticated, highly targeted campaign in Montana which made the difference in a major upset – ousting the incumbent Republican Secretary of State. Most analysts anticipate a tough 2010 Senate race in Montana, and it is critical to have a fair Secretary of State in place. In Oregon last year we helped beat back a late unexpected surge to capture a critical open seat.  

    We are proud of our 2006 victory in Minnesota, where long time reformer Mark Ritchie pulled off a major upset, with our support.  He was under fierce media and legal scrutiny as he oversaw the recount of the Franken/Coleman senatorial race, and operated with transparency and integrity, such that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold the extremely close election results, finally sending Franken to the Senate, where his vote is much needed.  

    With your support, we have made a major difference. We can be sure that the Republicans and the opponents of honest elections will try triply hard to regain lost seats and capture seats held by reformers…

    …Now in 2010, we’re ready to defend the reform-minded incumbents and fight for progressives running for open seats

     One factor in the Minnesota race was the disenfranchisement of military voters.  

    In a state that prides itself on high voter participation–78 percent participated in the 2008 presidential election–Minnesotans should be ashamed to know that only 15.7 percent of its military voters were able to cast a vote that counted in the presidential election. Specifically, of the nearly 22,000 overseas military members and dependents eligible to vote in Minnesota, only 3,362 were able to cast a vote that counted. In addition, local election officials rejected at least 302 ballots or 8.2 percent of the total number of absentee ballots cast by military members, which is nearly four times higher than the rejection rate for non-military ballot. A vast majority of these rejected ballots–about 65 percent–were rejected because they were received after the election deadline. Finally, there were approximately an additional 2,100 military absentee ballots that were sent out but never returned–many of which were lost in the mail, sent to the wrong address, or received too late by the military voter to be returned.  

    Given these facts, it is puzzling that the contest court found no evidence of wholesale disenfranchisement. They had a military absentee voting population equal to one of the twenty-five most populous cities in Minnesota (22,000 voters), and only 15.7 percent were able to vote. When nearly 85 percent of a voting group does not participate, how could this be anything less than evidence of wholesale disenfranchisement? And, what about the fact that military absentee ballots were nearly four times more likely to be rejected by local election officials? Moreover, shouldn't there be some concern that nearly half of the absentee ballots sent to military voters never make it to the voter or make it too late to be returned? At the very least, Minnesota's military voters deserve some discussion as to why these facts do not show a systemic problem.


    The SoS Project's mission is clear.  Control the election process.

  • Festus Garvey

    …paranoid wing of the Republican Party?  (I used to write “fringe” instead of “wing” because it is apparent that the birthers, deathers and now acorners are a dominate part of the Republican party…maybe that explains how someone that purports to be a “moderate” buys into this crap…

    You make a silly charge that a group is trying to take over a state and you provide a link from Redstate, who provides a link to something called Oklahoma Watch Dog, who provides a link from something called Red Dirt Report

    What, not even a NewsMAX or FoxsNews “report”?  Really Steve, are you so desperate for street creed with knuckle daggers at RMG, that you blog this nonsense?…or are you a closet kook?