This is the kind of argument I really don't like. Yeah, the Free Beacon has its biases. But the article is largely structured in such a way that the origin of any particular factual claim is pretty obvious. It is full of citations to mainstream media publications and the academic publications of the people it criticizes. I think that anyone who doesn't already have reasons to dislike WFB would probably read your comment, then the article, and conclude that you're just being paranoid.
It should be much easier to point out that the article itself provides no evidence of doctors encouraging patients to vote in a particular way, nor that the anonymity or privacy of any voter has ever been threatened. The only "political influence" any doctor is cited as having on any patient is by wearing a (small) Palestinian flag pin, which is very weak, considering that both parties have a strong track record of murdering Palestinians for no good reason.
More importantly, there is absolutely no suggestion anywhere in the Free Beacon article of "ballot harvesting", or any connection between Vot-ER's efforts and the misuse of patient voter registration data for electoral fraud.
Statements from clinicians quoted in the article that encouragement to voter registration may constitute undue stress on certain vulnerable patient populations seem basically valid. The views of the "Vot-ER" executives — as referenced from the New York Times — are moderately concerning: ``The time for doctors "being impartial and apolitical," he said, "is over."''; ``he once told a patient recovering from an asthma attack to vote, since that was the "only way" to "take the smog out of the air."''.
Point taken, mostly because you have made quite a few very good points in your response. I did notice all those things but was not wanting to do a very lengthy reply and get the dreaded "TL:dr".
My one line mentioning the Free Beacon's hard right bias was twofold.
1. You can pretty much get any "damning" article you want if you have no standards as to what you cite. I try to cite stuff that's at least a little more mainstream. And..
2. The biggest bludgeon they used to pummel this organization was the supposed left bias of the people in it. So I figured it was fair game to cite bias in an article citing bias as one of it's main points.
Maybe I should have mentioned that getting out the vote in general normally benefits Dems more, and thus Dems usually put effort into "get out the vote" efforts as a whole. And that that's a perfectly acceptable tactic and hardly "vote harvesting". But ne'mind...
The most important thing I was wanting to point out in my post was the fact that Vot-ER helps patients in general to vote and that the article made it seem as if they were going to mental hospitals and targeting votes from the sickest people they could.
This simple fact, to me, was the feet of clay which made the statue tumble. Pointing out that the Free Beacon was focusing on one very very narrow aspect of what the organization does and acting as if it was a liberal conspiracy was extrememly misleading and also strange, evil, Machiavellian, twisted, what have you.
I do want to thank you again for your further, and very intelligent, analysis. I likely should have not included the line about bias.
However, I'll channel
@Mr. Krinkle for a moment here.
Free Beacon? C'mon. Ya want me to cite HuffPost to counter?
