[H/t Heather]
Lou Dobbs and Co. (in this case, "reporter" -- and we use the term very loosely indeed -- Drew Griffin) have earned a new title: Masters of the Well-Beaten Mummified Horse Corpse:
In March, a House subcommittee looking into lessons learned from the 2008 election, heard from a Republican lawyer from Pennsylvania, accusing ACORN of a multitude of violations. In response, Democratic Congressman John Conyers, a fierce partisan who defended ACORN during the presidential campaign, surprised fellow members when he called the accusations a pretty serious matter. Conyers asked New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler to conduct a subcommittee hearing on ACORN. Here is what happened next.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Let me just say that I would certainly consider a hearing on ACORN, if I ever hear any credible allegations.
REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN: Whoa. Wait a minute. This is a member of the bar here that got a successful partial injunction against ACORN.
NADLER: The chairman makes a good point and we will certainly consider it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GRIFFIN: Lou, they didn't apparently consider it very long. Congressman Nadler's office tells us there will be no hearing on ACORN. When we asked why, we were told Congressman Conyers changed his mind. When we looked for a statement there, this is what we got from Congressman Conyers' office.
"Based on my review of the information regarding the complaints against ACORN, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time." That's just about a month after he called the whole affair "pretty serious." Lou?
DOBBS: Obviously Congressman Conyers is not the only fierce partisan on that committee -- a stunning reversal and no further explanation.
GRIFFIN: Nope, we actually asked for an interview. We asked for an explanation of this very statement which says really nothing at all, what kind of evidence they reviewed that changed his mind. This is all we got in return, Lou.
DOBBS: Drew, thank you very much and ACORN is -- well I think we would have to say an interesting and unique organization that deserves a lot more attention, if not investigation on the part of all of us.
What Dobbs and Griffin seem to have trouble wrapping their little heads around is the reality that there's no there there.
Even in cases like the Nevada prosecution, the problem appear to be an issue regarding individual miscreancy more than organizational corruption. And how serious is the problem, exactly?
Continue reading »