This video from TPM has been making it’s way around the blogosphere all day today:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHQ3cN47Mkc[/youtube]
One thing left unresolved in this argument is what Lou Dobbs means by “ACORN or any organization like it.” He questions why these groups, “or any organization coming forward as a non-profit,” should be funded by the American taxpayer without ever defining what he means. Not surprising rhetorically, but worth discussing.
Michele Bachman concedes to Barney Frank’s point that ACORN represents a non-profit taking the role of what federal agencies already do. She declares that, “I do object to expanding the government to shift from non-profit to government. We just need to get out of this business altogether.”
I would submit that if we take the definition of Lou Dobbs’ premise from context, such as it is, we would have to include the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, to say nothing of legions of Faith Based Initiative organizations. Should we be giving as much scrutiny to these organizations, or just dump them altogether?
I’m not suggesting we should, and I’m not suggesting ACORN is a perfect enterprise. I’m simply saying that Lou Dobbs’ rhetoric is over-broad, just like Michele Bachman’s bill is (was).