The only people who benefit from politicizing the poor are the organizers, not the poor themselves. Obviously, if the poor stop being poor, the organizers who exploit them lose influence.

ACORN isn't an altruistic enterprise. They're in it for a reason. They're simply a political organization that uses the poor as a constituency. Conason calls that honorable service to the dispossessed and the impoverished. It isn't. Politicizing the poor is a dysfunctional strategy. It keeps them poor.

If Acorn was such a "force for good" the Republicans would not be going after it. Joe Conason is being totally illogical, unless you believe that Republicans are truly evil. Besides Joe is forgetting or ignoring how many Democrats voted to defund the corrupt organization. Hey Joe, your check from ACORN is in the mail.

It sure doesn't seem fair to hold only these "bad apples" up to the light to exemplify and demonize the entire organization...oh wait...err...isn't that exactly what the liberals are doing with the Tea Party goers and those select few who hold signs of Obama as Hitler or as a tribal chief?

A little re-write required, Joe Conason (Mr. 'bomb them with butter').

Instead of:

For many years the combined forces of the far right and the Republican Party have sought to ruin ACORN, the largest organization of poor and working families in America.

Let's try it in the proper context:

For many years the combined forces of the far right and the Republican Party have sought to expose the shameless illegal and fraudulent activities of ACORN, so that the the largest organization of poor and working families in America might simply practice it's stated goals of helping folks.

Note. If a conservative backed organization operated in the same manner as does ACORN, the leftist groups and the MSM most definately would spend huge effort in trying to ruin any such group.

(;~/ gary

Just another frothing leftnut propaganda parrot.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill

You know what I see in those videos?  I don't see them helping the poor.

 I see a bunch of people, particularly black people, endorsing brown slavery and the exploitation of the impoverished.

 That doesn't sound like an organization that helps the poor, it sounds like an organization that promotes their exploitation. 

ACORN®...LOL...pretty sure their name is safe from being stolen...LMAO!

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Yeah, right, I want my taxes to fund a highly partisan group tied to SEIU, an arm of the Democrat Party, itself a Democrat Party Arm, to register Democrats in the numbers of 2 million.

"ACORN's troubles should be considered in the context of a history of honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished…

 

Among the most popular canards on the right, repeated constantly by conservative pundits and politicians, is that ACORN has been found guilty of engaging in deliberate voter fraud, using federal funds. In reality, ACORN has registered close to 2 million low-income citizens across the country over the past five years -- a laudable record with a very low incidence of fraud of any kind…"

 So, let's talk about 'honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished' here.

Would that be the War on Poverty?

On 9-6-2006 Human Events' Corsi and Blackwell wrote:

"Do we have to wait another ten years before we declare the War on Poverty a failure? Should we keep trying until the year 2064, when we will have wasted one hundred years on an effort that was doomed to fail from the start? President Reagan believed a quarter of a century was enough. In 1988 he declared that poverty had won. We doubt that the political Left will ever admit that the War on Poverty has failed. It’s much more likely that the political Left will simply argue that the Great Society’s original stated purpose of eliminating poverty was never meant to be taken literally, but was rather a lofty goal, a metaphoric statement of intent. Moreover, the Left will claim any reduction of poverty has resulted from governmental action, not from the historic expansion of the U.S. economy that we have experienced since the 1960s.

Maybe money could have solved the problem of poverty, but only if the money had not been distributed through a government bureaucracy. Perhaps we would have achieved greater results if a different solution had been considered, a solution that relied predominately upon the private economy to produce the desired results of eliminating poverty. Whatever made us think that a huge government bureaucracy with nearly unlimited funding could eliminate poverty? Perhaps President Reagan was right—if we do not reinforce family structures, we will never eliminate poverty. Maybe he was also right in arguing that government welfare programs actually destroy the family structures of those Americans remaining in poverty since the start of the Great Society. Reagan’s vision was that no amount of dependence upon government bureaucracy could ever substitute for the fundamental values only a family can instill in a person. This is a vision religious leaders would understand. Considering the degree to which the political Left has become radicalized in a secular direction, we expect this message will fall on deaf ears in that corner of the political spectrum. Nonetheless, we intend to advance the theme in the pages that follow."

 So, that would be the failed War on Poverty, right?

So many illusions, so little time...

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)