The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : ACORN Apologetics -- UPDATE

Text Size

ACORN Apologetics -- UPDATE

By Joseph Lawler on 9.17.09 @ 12:33PM

GREENWALDIAN UPDATE BELOW

You would think that with the recent evidence people would be done covering for ACORN. I know if I were on the left I would think there were better uses of my time than defending a institution that relishes in the prospect of prostituting of underage immigrants for political campaigns.

And yet here is Glenn Greenwald, a professed civil libertarian, trying to turn the tables on investigators of ACORN. He argues that ACORN's misdeeds are so small in comparison to the banks' and military contractors' ripoffs that even reporting on ACORN is a trap set by the right wing:

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.1 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes...

And yet the very same article that he references for the $53 million number has the subheadline: "Now Eligible for up to $8 Billion More." The point: ACORN is now a joke, thanks to these undercover reports. But mere months ago ACORN was respectable enough in the public eye that realistically major funds could have been directed toward them.

For Greenwald to set ACORN's detractors opposite Wall Street bailouts is grossly misleading. In fact it is our own correspondent Matthew Vadum who is probably the most prominent investigator of ACORN and appears on Glenn Beck and other programs regularly to talk about ACORN. It is laughable to suggest that Vadum reports on ACORN to distract from the larger issues of predatory businesses, as Greenwald suggests. It is hard to imagine a more vocal opponent of bailouts for Wall Street than Vadum. And when Greenwald mentions in particular, "...Goldman Sachs itself has a virtual lock on the top Treasury positions no matter which party is in power" he must not have realized that Vadum wrote an article entitled "Goldman Sachs Government" detailing the bank's outsized influenced in Washington.

In general, it is the same right wing that uncovered ACORN's crimes that opposed the same marriage of state and big business that Greenwald complains about.

So with this massive pillaging of America's economic security and its control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America's intense economic anxiety being directed? To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy -- could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?

But the whole point of the investigations Gleenwald is impugning is that ACORN is manifestly not a group "devoted to provide minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line." It's as if he didn't watch the videos or had no understanding of the argument whatsoever. ACORN does not help the poor. Think of the worst abuses of defenseless people within the limits of your imagination -- for instance the systematic forced prostitution of immigrant children to fund a political campaign -- and that is what ACORN is demonstrated to condone. How is this fact lost on Greenwald?

Most of all, what's so pernicious about all of this is that the same interests who are stealing, pillaging and wallowing in corruption are scapegoating the poorest and most vulnerable in order to ensure that the victims of their behavior are furious with everyone except for them.

Is Greenwald really unaware of the events of the past few weeks? That the folks who brought ACORN down were not FOX News or any other large corporation, but only two kids with a video camera acting more or less alone? The assertion that they are "the same interests who are stealing, pillaging, and wallowing in corruption" could not be further from the truth. When I met James O'Keefe just three years ago, he was a penniless student who could not afford a decent-fitting suit. Now he writes for an independent blog.

Glenn Greenwald's work is valuable and he does a great job tracking Washington's abuses of power, but his inability to distinguish between guerilla journalism and a vast corporate-government conspiracy in this case reeks of paranoia.

UPDATE

Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for the link. He says a lot of things to counter my argument, but as I read him the crux of his argument is:

The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are (and the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit; they (like every other group in the U.S.) are theoretically "eligible" for any stimulus funds in the areas in which they work, but they haven't received a penny of it, and the chances they'd receive all or most of it are, and always have been, zero).

By "someone" in the second paragraph, Greenwald means the people behind the furor at ACORN: "Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey."

Where Greenwald ventures into the territory of paranoia is in conflating a few huge, rich media outlets with the very few and relatively powerless people who actually broke this story despite the willful ignorance of most of the mainstream media. Two points:

1) As far as I can tell, three people have done almost all of the legwork in exposing ACORN over the past year or so: James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, two kids posting on a blog, and Matthew Vadum, a lone researcher and freelancer working long hours. Yes, these folks are somewhat "obsessed" with ACORN, but they also happen to be proponents of limited government.

2) Yes, their work has been picked up and trumpeted by mainstream outlets such as Fox, Rush, etc., who may have partisan purposes in mind. But note well that the outlets that are not promoting their work (the majority of media outlets) are also doing so for partisan reasons. It's not as though MSNBC and CNN are ignoring the ACORN videos because they are too busy exposing Goldman Sachs and Halliburton, as Greenwald wishes Fox and Rush would.

Furthermore, the "stealing, pillaging and wallowing in corruption" interests will always be a problem. That does not mean that the media should focus solely on them until they are forever vanquished. If a remarkable story comes up -- such as the fact that a notable group of "that helps the poor" is in fact in favor of forcing the poorest into prostitution to fund Democratic politicians -- then the media should focus on them for a time.

(A few other notes on Greenwald's response.

He suggests that the tea partiers do not represent a cohesive opposition to "extreme corporate influences." I would be willing to bet that a poll would show that tea party attendees are overwhelmingly (more than 95 percent) opposed to any kind of corporate welfare, especially bailouts. I would bet that a sizable percentage of them are in fact Goldman conspiracists.

Greenwald also states that "the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit" yet as I said that is a line from the article he cited. So he has no problem relying on sources that engage in pure Beckian deceit?)

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:02PM

"Goldman Sachs itself has a virtual lock on the top Treasury positions no matter which party is in power" he must not have realized that Vadum wrote an article entitled "Goldman Sachs Government" detailing the bank's outsized influenced in Washington."

How many articles is AmSpec devoting to corporate ownership of Washington, and to the corruption inherent in it, and how many is it devoting to ACORN? The issue is not that ACORN deserves no reporting, it's that ACORN *dominates* the right wing media as though its significance exponentially outweighs that of the corrupt corporate dominance of Washington, when the exact opposite is true. You people here have a valuable platform you could use to oppose the political-corporate complex that dominates Washington and pillages the fortunes of America's citizens, that grew exponentially under Bush and even moreso under Obama. Instead, ACORN dominates your pages. If ACORN is put out of business, nothing will change. It is absolutely *insignificant* in the grand scheme of things. It is only a "story" because it serves as an indirect attack on Barack Obama. In short, your magazine works feverishly to empower the corporate-owned GOP over the corporate-owned Democrats instead of working to empower the American people against the perfidy of the corporations that own both parties, that corrupt our Constitutional system of government, plunder our hard-earned wealth and destroy our traditional way of life.

JP| 9.17.09 @ 1:03PM

I have a suggestion for Mr Greenwald that would satisfy quite a few civil libertarians: Slash the federal government expenditures by 1/3 and return the money to the taxpayers (ie cut taxes). You can't have the kind of Beltway corruption that he and others complain about without trillions in taxpayers money.

Of course, not even the most conservative GOP politician would boogey to that.

Jeff| 9.18.09 @ 12:49PM

Balderdash. Bush's congress just approved a $700 trillion bailout while running the biggest deficit in U.S. history, after cutting taxes for 8 years. Cutting taxes would be relevant if our government operated under a balanced budget, but it does not. Slashing federal government expenditures in a deficit economy won't yield up greenbacks, it just reduces the number of I.O.U.s you have to repay. My suggestion for the American economy: Its time for the entire government to declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:08PM

"I have a suggestion for Mr Greenwald that would satisfy quite a few civil libertarians: Slash the federal government expenditures by 1/3 and return the money to the taxpayers (ie cut taxes)."

Better yet: slash the federal budget, the size of the gov't itself, to a third of what it is. Devolve all the functions that the fed can no longer do to the states. If we accept Lord Acton vis a vis the corrupting influence of power, one must conclude that decentralization is the only way to prevent absolute corruption.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:36PM

Per my just-conducted very unscientific survey on Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 219 from spectator.org for "Goldman Sachs"

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,200 from spectator.org for ACORN

octogalore| 9.18.09 @ 11:45PM

Results 1 - 10 of about 146,000 from Huffington Post for "Goldman Sachs"

Results 1 - 10 of about 272,000 from Huffington Post for ACORN

Results 1 - 10 of about 42,000 from Daily Kos for "Goldman Sachs"

Results 1 - 10 of about 130,000 from Daily Kos for ACORN

Conservative Bob| 9.17.09 @ 2:05PM

Mr. Toddard
You and I have crossed verbal sabers on this site in the past.
However I could not agree more with your 1:08PM statement today.
I think 1/3 of its current size is still too large, but I will accept your position as a good start.
The constitution sets out very explicit powers for the federal government and then further affirms those limits in the 9th and 10th amendments.
The people of this country must band together and drive the political class and the government they have created back within the confines of those enumerated powers and from there to their individual states to repeat the process of re-establishing citizen control of limited government.
I agree with you whole heartedly, limited and decentralized.

Missy| 9.17.09 @ 2:17PM

What are the odds ACORN would be given a pass if it were a conservative organization? Slim and none.

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:28PM

So what are the odds conservatives would care about child sex slavery if it came from a right wing, warmonger group like Blackwater??

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgE7nZsFpDk

Paulio| 9.17.09 @ 2:19PM

Mr. Lawler completely misses the point, and in so doing reinforces Glenn Greenwald's point. It's not that ACORN shouldn't be reported on, and that Goldman Sacks should be. It's how disproportionately the coverage of these two subjects is, given the respective impact of each. Lawler wants to continue that disproportional coverage, no doubt for the same reasons Greenwald suggests in his op-ed. He throws a bone to the big issues ("Oh, and Matthew Vadum has written about Goldman Sacks too, so there!") before getting back to awful ACORN, that is threatening to fell the mighty oak of American Democracy.

Fail.

Jeff| 9.18.09 @ 12:53PM

Paulio wins the prize for hitting the nail squarely on the head. Kudos, Paulio.

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 2:36PM

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ACORN Apologetics « CelebrityTwitterGossip.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

CelebrityTwitterGossip.com Home About CelebrityTwitterGossip.com Uncategorized Sep 17 The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ACORN Apologetics Your Ad Here www.celebritytwittergossip.com – AmSpecBlog ACORN Apologetics By Joseph Lawler on 9.17.09 @ 12:33PM You would think that with the recent evidence people would be done covering for ACORN. I know if I were on the left I would think there were better uses of my time…

JoshCon| 9.17.09 @ 3:23PM

So, really? That's what ACORN is in the business to accomplish? Helping prostitute children? That's the mission statement, and that's what they do all day every day? Did you properly diagnose Terry Schaivo from a ten second video quite as succinctly? And as inaccurately?

Or is it more likely a totally contrived scenario that could AT BEST be described as an anomaly?

But no, really, what they do across the board is best described as what they are, "demonstrated to condone"? Are you really that cynical? Three employees of ACORN get hoodwinked into making some very ill-informed recommendations (which get them fired) and suddenly the whole organization is a nefarious plot to whore out Salvadorian teenagers? This is all too stupid for words.

Yeah, how is this fact --that ACORN exists to funnel cash from pimps to Democrats-- lost on Greenwald? Because he's a free-thinking individual.

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 3:30PM

Greenwald responds. Ouch!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

The American Spectator's Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN ("it is the same right wing that uncovered ACORN's crimes that opposed the same marriage of state and big business that Greenwald complains about"). Sorry, but that's just ludicrous. I have no doubt that there are people attending these protests who are non-partisan, non-discriminating and principled in their opposition to government corruption, expansion and excesses. That's because there's no real coherent message to these protests; it's just amorphous anger which likely has numerous causes among the various participating constituents: Ron-Paul libertarians, paleoconservatives, LaRouchians, Southern race resenters, social conservatives, GOP operatives, standard dittohead liberal-haters, etc. Each group has a different agenda, often wildly divergent. The only thing they seem to have in common is that they hate Obama.

But look at who the lead supporters are: Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio generally, business groups led by Dick Armey. Does anyone actually believe that was motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government? Please. They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power. It's nothing more noble or profound than that. In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power. From the expansions of the Surveillance State and endless imperial power to strident opposition to lobbyist reforms, they support the very policies that most empower those corrupting groups and further the government-corporate merger. If they're so concerned about excessive government power, debt and corporate influence and corruption, where were they during the Bush era? Cheering it all on. They didn't discover their "small-government principles" until Barack Obama was inaugurated and it became a means for undermining his administration and recovering from Republican political ruin.

As for ACORN, nobody is apologizing for them or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. Any group that large will have individuals in it who do bad things. The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are (and the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit; they (like every other group in the U.S.) are theoretically "eligible" for any stimulus funds in the areas in which they work, but they haven't received a penny of it, and the chances they'd receive all or most of it are, and always have been, zero).

ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support [by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.

Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.| 9.17.09 @ 3:34PM

Venality and corruption abound in Washington. Nobody questions that there is waste, fraud and abuse in all areas, and that Wall Street has that problem as well. Whenever people are exposed to huge sums of money, be it public or private money, there is bound to be some graft and corruption. It is something we all agree is a bad and should be fought, and prosecuted whenever misconduct or malfeasance it is found. When comparing ACORN to Wall Street, however, let us remember that despite all the faults that one may find with the financial industry, at least they never showed a willingness on multiple occasions to give aid, comfort and support to people in setting up a criminal enterprise to traffic in young children across international borders to be used as sex toys for degenerates, and to out and out defraud the government in the process. Stealing money is one thing, sex slavery of minor children is quite another. And to think, ACORN is up for 8.5 billion in stimulus cash... Makes one wonder how many kiddie brothels ACORN could help fund with that chunk of change... Hey ACORN... Can you say R.I.C.O. ???

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 3:58PM

"despite all the faults that one may find with the financial industry, at least they never showed a willingness on multiple occasions to give aid, comfort and support to people in setting up a criminal enterprise to traffic in young children across international borders to be used as sex toys for degenerates,"

Did ACORN do that? Because I was under the impression they fired those people.

"and to out and out defraud the government in the process."

Over the past year they have defrauded the American people out of over a trillion dollars.

Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.| 9.17.09 @ 4:31PM

Reply to S.L. Toddard:

"Did ACORN do that? Because I was under the impression they fired those people. "

Yes, they fired them...After video tapes were made public showing ACORN employees giving said aid and advise on setting up kiddie brothels and staffing them. That doesn't excuse them. As to the relativism of billions in waste and fraud of Wall St. versus giving billions to an organization that shows systemic willingness to commit fraud, tax evasion and to assist in trafficking of child prostitutes... I will leave it to you and others to decide which is worse... relatively speaking of course... Firing bad employees does not excuse ACORN. It's corporate culture of supporting those who are so willing to commit crimes against children, demonstrates that those in charge have shown a decided lack of moral and ethical leadership and oversight. They may have even given tacit approval, but we can't be sure of that until a proper investigation is done by the FBI and the Justice Dept. This should be done at once as they have received millions and are slated to receive billions in public money.

That's just common sense in my opinion....

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 4:52PM

What a bunch of idiots, but then again, what else is new? « Alix Reads Too Much links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Whitewater and Vince Foster’s murder. There’s nothing more valuable than petty, dramatic “scandals” to distract attention from what is actually taking place. The American Spectator ’s Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN (”it is the same right…

Betty Pawsheifer| 9.17.09 @ 4:56PM

Stealing money is one thing, sex slavery of minor children is quite another.

Jeez, can you say "straw man".

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:30PM

Oh, yes, sex slavery of minor children- the real stuff, not the imaginary sex slaves of ACORN- would be quite another thing.

Im sure right wingers would NEVER support such a thing.....

or would they?

Rewqwe| 9.17.09 @ 5:06PM

Reply to Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr:

"As to the relativism of billions in waste and fraud of Wall St. versus giving billions to an organization that shows systemic willingness to commit fraud, tax evasion and to assist in trafficking of child prostitutes..."

Wait a second... fraud, tax evasion, and supporting prositution are why we should be more concerned about ACORN? Uhm...I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that Wall St engages in those 3 things to a greater degree than ACORN.

Ken Sisson| 9.17.09 @ 5:19PM

ACORN as an organization has committed NO crimes, you despicable liar.

gregor| 9.17.09 @ 6:07PM

Thou doeth protesteth a vee bit too much. Someone hit a nerve?

I am not an expert, but gather that ACORN is a huge organization that has been around for more than a decade. If you have found evidence of wrongdoing ia couple of branches, all glory to yoy and then well and good, but why essentially seek to destroy the whole organization?

Did you ask for the abolition of tax exempt status of the Catholic Church when so many case of child sexual abuse were found there, and some evidence was found that the church leaders looked the other way? If you had done that I would consider your stance on ACORN more sincere.

Obviously you and the right wing in general are driven to destroy ACORN because of your ideology. Even when no evidence of the wrong doing by their employees existed, one could here loud calls for ACORN to be banished from the face of the earth.

Paulio| 9.17.09 @ 6:39PM

TO BENJAMIN SNOWDEN:

"As to the relativism of billions in waste and fraud of Wall St. versus giving billions to an organization that shows systemic willingness to commit fraud..."

Note: ACORN is not and never was going to receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money. So far they've received about $50M. If you can't stick to the factual terms of this debate, you probably shouldn't be involved.

Now, when you compare $50M versus trillions that the corrupt financial sector has received, which case do you think is the more serious one?

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 6:51PM

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ACORN Apologetics — UPDATE · entertainment lif links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…done covering for ACORN . I know if I were on the left I would think there were better uses of my time than defending a institution that relishes in the prospect of … More: The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ACORN Apologetics — UPDATE This entry was posted on Thursday, September 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm and is filed under ACORN. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a…

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 10:15PM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ACORN Apologetics [spec links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Philip Klein amspec American Spectator 110 Show more Shortened Links Linking to the spectator.org page http://bit.ly/4KF7P info http://bit.ly/8oOuk info 3 tweets Tweet The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : ACORN Apologetics spectator.org/blog/2009/09/17/acorn-apologetics – view page – cached You would think that with the recent evidence people would be done covering for ACORN. I know if I were…

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 10:22PM

Donkasaurus » Blog Archive » What Are the the Tea Bag Protestors, Protesting About? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Or is such vehement anger really just about the economic stimulus recovery package, and a health care plan that very few on either side really seem to understand?? [Greenwald] UPDATE II: The American Spectator ’s Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN (”it is the same right…

anon| 9.18.09 @ 12:18AM

What is the real accusation here? That ACORN routinely helps pimps and hos get federal housing loans? That they're a huge, corrupt organization whose primary purpose is to defraud the government? Doesn't that sound insane? Is that SERIOUSLY the accusation that caused the organization to be completely stripped of federal funding?

The arguments about ACORN are so intellectually dishonest, its a joke. You people don't really care about democracy, have any depth of knowledge about election law. You want to fake a bunch of outrage and make a "welfare mothers" attack to win points against an organization that registers voters you don't like. ACORN is not a real threat of voter fraud or defrauding the government so pimps can get subsidized housing. Do you know how much that argument makes you sound like a racist grandmother?

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:26PM

Of course it is dishonest. If they cared about government corruption, debt and corrupt special interest organizations they would be all over the BLACKWATER child sex slave scandal.

I'm sure the billions Blackwater is getting will be Vadum's next investigative report.

Oh wait, they are a right wing organization who only kills and rapes worthless A-rabs, so, I'm not holding my breath....

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 12:36AM

We are not "trying" to destroy ACORN.

We ARE destroying ACORN!! Ha-Ha!

Just like we are destroying ObamaCare and Cap'n'Tax.

And how we destroyed Van Jones!
And how we WILL destroy Sunstein and Holdren.

You can't stop us!!

Bootlegger| 9.18.09 @ 11:30AM

Your appetite for destruction is impressive. Too bad it isn't matched by your grasp on reality.

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 6:38PM

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps you should stop reading the Area-51 Free Press, take off the tinfoil hat, and get some REAL news.

You seem to have missed that Van Jones was thrown under the bus by B.O.

Cap'n'Tax won't see the light of day. And the Baucus bill is "dead on arrival".

Not to mention that B.O. is continuing President Bush's war policies. Ouch. How HOPE'n'CHANGEY, huh?

Sorry to have to crush your make-believe world, Bootlicker.

Marcos| 9.18.09 @ 1:26AM

Can anyone, including Mr. Lawler, provide credible evidence that ACORN implemented or conspired to implement "systematic forced prostitution of immigrant children", as opposed to a few stupid and ethically misguided employees offering tangential support for something that didn’t actually exist (i.e. can you offer evidence of institutional malfeasance – an organizational policy, or widespread pattern, of exploiting or attempting to exploit children - as opposed to the individual failings of rogue employees?)?

JoshCon| 9.18.09 @ 1:32PM

Seriously. Marcos and I would like an answer to this goddamned question from you breathless fundies out there.

Did ACORN get outright scammed by some ambush-style non-traditional media (sources which, lo it might be mentioned, tried and failed in more venues than it succeeded), or is ACORN at the center of some apparently Soros-funded, nefarious plot to have pimps and prostitutes take over America from the bottom up?

Cripes almighty. For as much as you chickenhawk dipshits love banging (and by banging, I mean after paying for it) underage ass on the side (see: Rush Limbaugh, David Vitter) you sure do have your feminist panties in a bunch over ACORN's "condoning" it.

Lit3Bolt| 9.18.09 @ 5:38PM

Kudos to O'Keefe and Giles for their reporting. Corruption and lawlessness should be exposed, in all of its ugliness, by brave reporters putting it on the line.

However, Mr. Greenwald's point about disproportionate coverage and response stands, whether the coverage is done wittingly or not. I'm not concerned about the partisan cheerleading by Republican dominated media outlets so much as I am over the disproportionate response based on an employee's crime. When the Madoff scandal broke, did Congress censure Wall St. as a whole? When the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal hit, did we put the bishops responsible for those priests in orange jumpsuits? When the Tailhook scandal occurred, did the entire Navy have its funding cut off? Or should the Army be disbanded because of Abu Ghraib?

The scandal itself is not manufactured. But the response and continuing coverage and broad generalizations drawn are disturbing.

bushbasher| 9.19.09 @ 10:29PM

exactly. the fact that bush and rumsfeld are war criminals doesn't make the whole republican party a criminal organization.

Pingback| 9.20.09 @ 8:52PM

Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch About drasties Contact Us Chat Room Private Chat Room Laatste reacties JANdeWIT op Wie dit kaartje bekritiseert, is in de aap gelogeerd JANdeWIT op Wie dit kaartje bekritiseert, is…

warpublican| 9.21.09 @ 8:26AM

I wonder how the AmSpec's Vadum would respond if an alter boy had recorded a priest at a catholic church trying to have sex with him - would Vadum decide that the whole church were corrupt? or how about if we discovered a Republican governor lying about an affair down in South America - is the whole republican party corrupt? How about if we discovered that a few cops had plunged the end of a broomstick up a man's behind in a room in a police station - are ALL the cops - the very INSTITUTION - corrupt? Of course not - but ACORN - which has been the subject of a right-wing smear campaign - well, they HAVE TO GO. When I hear these same right-wingers calling for the catholic church to lose it's tax-free status and the police in NEW YORK to be disbanded, then I'll give a hoot about ACORN...

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:22PM

I wonder why *imaginary* child prostitutes at ACORN get the war-and-debt loving right in a tizzy, but real ones in the GREEN ZONE get a shrug....

if they don't care about child sex slaves, what is the real agenda here??

ignatov| 9.25.09 @ 12:23PM

Remember Tom "Twinkle-toes" DeLay and Jack "Jail-bird" Abramoff's sex slave scandal in the American protectorate of Saipan? That unsavory incident included forced abortions and "Made in America" labels on child-slave-produced products but I don't think it got one percent of the media coverage that ACORN is getting.

http://www.tompaine.com/articl.....rtions.php

Pingback| 10.22.09 @ 4:20AM

Fold/Spindle/Mutilate 2.1 » Blog Archive » The distracting benefits of ACORN hysteria links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Foster’s “murder.” There’s nothing more valuable than petty, dramatic “scandals” to distract attention from what is actually taking place. UPDATE II: The American Spectator ’s Joseph Lawler responds by claiming that the tea-party movement is every bit as devoted to combating the extreme corporate influences I highlight here as it is the likes of ACORN (”it is the same right…

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 8:58PM

Never frown, Ink Pigments
even when you are sad,Organic Pigments because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.

The American Spectator

View all comments (49) | Leave a comment

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:02PM

JP| 9.17.09 @ 1:03PM

Jeff| 9.18.09 @ 12:49PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:08PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 1:36PM

octogalore| 9.18.09 @ 11:45PM

Conservative Bob| 9.17.09 @ 2:05PM

Missy| 9.17.09 @ 2:17PM

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:28PM

Paulio| 9.17.09 @ 2:19PM

Jeff| 9.18.09 @ 12:53PM

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 2:36PM

JoshCon| 9.17.09 @ 3:23PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 3:30PM

Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.| 9.17.09 @ 3:34PM

S.L. Toddard| 9.17.09 @ 3:58PM

Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.| 9.17.09 @ 4:31PM

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 4:52PM

Betty Pawsheifer| 9.17.09 @ 4:56PM

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:30PM

Rewqwe| 9.17.09 @ 5:06PM

Ken Sisson| 9.17.09 @ 5:19PM

gregor| 9.17.09 @ 6:07PM

Paulio| 9.17.09 @ 6:39PM

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 6:51PM

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 10:15PM

Pingback| 9.17.09 @ 10:22PM

anon| 9.18.09 @ 12:18AM

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:26PM

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 12:36AM

Bootlegger| 9.18.09 @ 11:30AM

Nick| 9.18.09 @ 6:38PM

Marcos| 9.18.09 @ 1:26AM

JoshCon| 9.18.09 @ 1:32PM

Lit3Bolt| 9.18.09 @ 5:38PM

bushbasher| 9.19.09 @ 10:29PM

Pingback| 9.20.09 @ 8:52PM

warpublican| 9.21.09 @ 8:26AM

LeftLibertarian| 9.21.09 @ 2:22PM

ignatov| 9.25.09 @ 12:23PM

Pingback| 10.22.09 @ 4:20AM

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 8:58PM

Leave a Comment

More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler

December 16, 2011 | 8 comments

December 15, 2011 | 3 comments

December 15, 2011 | 0 comments

December 14, 2011 | 39 comments

December 14, 2011 | 4 comments

Aaron Goldstein

Aaron Goldstein

W. James Antle, III

W. James Antle, III

W. James Antle, III

Quin Hillyer

Ross Kaminsky

Matt Naugle

Jed Babbin|363 comments

William Tucker|216 comments

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi|26 comments

David Catron|341 comments

Ben Stein|10 comments

Dan Peterson|43 comments

G. Tracy Mehan, III|142 comments

Larry Thornberry|14 comments

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

David Catron | 2.6.12

G. Tracy Mehan | 2.6.12

Jed Babbin | 2.6.12

William Tucker | 2.6.12

Geoffrey Norman | 2.3.12

Quin Hillyer | 2.3.12

George Neumayr | 2.3.12

Dan Peterson | 2.6.12

Jed Babbin | 2.6.12

David Catron | 2.6.12

William Tucker | 2.6.12