The comparison between ACORN having bad apples, and Blackwater, with arguably bad policies top-down, and how the vocal right demonizes one and not the other has been mentioned in places on the web. One of the better posts that way, is this blog link.
Clearly ACORN is on the rightwing hit list.
They want it done in, not for the anectdotal YouTube video postings showing individuals in ACORN advising sting operatives on how to adapt abusive housing practices, as if that were widespread as a practice in the organization, or policy set at high levels in ACORN. Advice on navigating the system, and the line between good ideas and misconduct is indistinct, and nobody can suggest the wealthy do not game the system in ways they believe they can get away with and not face the risk of legal sanctions.
The uber-right wants ACORN done in for entirely different reasons. The uber-right mainly hates ACORN because it has been effective in its aims which fit neither the desires of the uber-right, nor of the wealthy, with those groups substantially overlapping at decision makiing levels.
ACORN's "sin" has been its effectiveness in the thankless task of trying to somewhat empower the poor - or trying to do so against massive counterforce of government and allied money interests wanting to keep the poor entirely powerless.
And voiceless.
And passive.
Anxious, uncertain and fearful.
Bullied.
And subject to arbitrariness and exploitation without recourse to tools that the wealthy have to protect themselves and their aims.
Try using the uber-right's logic against this clearly embezzlement riddled operation.
Doing that is kind of silly, isn't it. One bad apple, culled, does not toxify the entirety, regardless of what criticisms can be leveled against what the entirety actually is.
So, how is it different to give that "embezzlement riddled operation" a free pass while nodding approval for the uber-right attacks presently being launched in the media and elsewhere against ACORN?
The difference is the size of the wallets of those in one organizatin or the other, and on the voting preferences generally reflected in each, there being little other difference in terms of right to speak, and to associate freely, and to petition government seeking to right perceived wrongs.
Some might say one organization involves higher quality people.
That kind of thinking should be discouraged, and while I believe ACORN prevails that way, I do try to be open minded.
But not to a fault.