Yes, of course. A reference to The New York Times is nice. The notion of one of its editors saying that it is is an elite Liberal media source deserves to be referenced as to which editor where and when he said it, and which publication that statement appeared in. The acknowledgement of The NYTimes as being Liberal by people on the paper sounds a bit of a stretch, given the range of coverage it publishes, and the use of the word "elite" by an editor of the Times seems a bit out of character. Many of us Liberals find the use of the word 'elite" used in describing us smacks of distortion and even propaganda; and for an Editor of the Times to agree to use it suggests that there's something odd going on that needs to be clarified. It may be possible, but the way you've got it phrased here raises all sorts of red flags.
Secondly, if you are going to reference the New York Times, I'd like to be able to check the article out myself. Therefore it would be helpful for me to have enough of a citation to do so. A link would be helpful if you can get one, but the date of the article would be helpful as well.
Third, this is more announcement of prosecutions. It says nothing of the value of the case or even of the constitutionality of the law it is brought under. Why should Nevada wish to limit the number of new voters a person could register in a day when any false registrations are already wrong? Does this seem to be a bit strange to you? Because it does to me.
I was always encouraged to vote when I reached 21, and here is Nevada trying to discourage people from doing so by limiting the number of voters a community organizing organization can afford to register. This seems to be at cross purposes with those American ideals that I was taught as a child.
What your response does do is underline the avidity with which the Right is seeking to convict ACORN of voter fraud somewhere. ACORN is mentioned often and in a universally negative light in the speech of the Right in both Houses of Congress, in the mouths of the Right leaning talk show hosts, and in the mouths of the rank and file of those on the right. The name is almost always attached to reports of convictions and allegations of illegalities and investigations. The reports of the investigations are true, at lease some portion of them. The allegations of illegalities have not been proven and as far as I know there haven been any convictions.
And in the posting that I am responding to here, Ringo is suggesting the same general thing. He is not stating it, he is suggesting it. We are justified in whatever the Right choses to do to ACORN because of the certainty that at some future time ACORN will be proven guilty of something, which will justify this whole mess.
I would suggest that in this country we are supposed to punish people after a guilty verdict in a court of law. The punishment does not come first. You do not hang somebody then grant them a speedy trial. Though that is what seems to be happening with ACORN.