| |
Mediamatters.Org - In a September 30 post on the Politico blog The Crypt, Daniel Libit uncritically
repeated former House Speaker and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich's
false claim that Democrats wanted "provisions to provide money to" the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now (ACORN) in the financial bailout bill.
Libit did not challenge the claim, despite his colleague Ryan Grim's having noted in a September 28 post, also on The Crypt, that
ACORN "was not specifically directed any funds in the ... proposal." Moreover, on September 27, Grim quoted a spokesman
for Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
stating that "[a]bsolutely none" of the
potential bailout profits would be earmarked for ACORN.
As Media Matters for
America has documented, in recent days,
media figures have falsely accused Democrats of attempting to direct millions
of dollars to ACORN. Under the provision,
ultimately removed from the version of the bill that the House rejected on September 29, 20 percent of any profits realized
on troubled assets purchased under
the bill would go to two
funds -- the National Housing Trust Fund, to be distributed by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development in the form of block grants to
states, and the Capital Magnet Fund, from which the U.S. Treasury
Department would award grants.
From Libit's September 30 post:
Gingrich sharpened his attack from
the last few days on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who he against called on
to resign from his post. Paulson, Gingrich said, "represents a very
narrow Wall Street view." Gingrich also cast a large share of the blame upon
"liberal Democrats," and took a numerous shots [sic] at provisions to
provide money to ACORN.
The former Speaker said he was
surprised that that the bill hadn't passed, finding out after he touched
down yesterday in Oklahoma City.
He added that he "thought Sen. [John]
McCain had empowered [House
Minority Leader John] Boehner [R-OH] and the Republicans."
From Grim's September 28 post:
After several days of rage from
conservative activists regarding a provision in the bailout bill that would
send some of the profits from the sale of distressed assets the goverment [sic] buys into an affordable
housing trust fund, congressional negotiators have removed section 105(d) of
the bailout proposal, according to aides on both side.
ACORN, a Democratic ally, was not
specifically directed any funds in the previous proposal, but money that went
to state and local governments could then have been divvied out to the
organization, which the GOP said was a deal breaker. Fevered opposition to the
provision had become a viral sensation.
From Grim's September 27 post:
"The draft bill includes a
left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a
discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one [Republican]
leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with
controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration
activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any
profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want
to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in
getting Democrats elected to office."
In the end, how much of the
bailout's potential profits are
earmarked for ACORN? "None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state
and local governments," said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney
Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead
negotiator.
The opposition has grown so intense
that critics refer to the measure in arcane legislative lingo. Erick Erickson
titled a Friday morning blog post at RedState: "Section
105(d) of the Bailout Must Go."
Media Matters - Politico 's Libit repeated Gingrich's false claim days after Politico reported such claims were inaccurate {...} In a September 30 blog post, Daniel Libit uncritically repeated Newt Gingrich's false claim that Democrats wanted "provisions to provide money to" ACORN in the financial bailout bill, despite the Politico 's having noted two days earlier that ACORN "was not specifically directed any funds in the ... proposal." {...} Published: October 2, 2008, 4:16 am - Indexed: October 2, 2008, 10:09 am - Page Size: 16KB |