STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?
OBAMA: You know, if -- frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.
OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're not committing to -- to cut off the federal funding?
OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.
To understand just how out of touch the President is all you need to do is look at the introduction that George Stephanopoulos made to this exchange.
It was one of the most popular topics among the questions you submitted to me for my interview with President Obama – the controversy involving ACORN.
So, the president doesn't think this is an altogether big deal but the American people, at least those that watch Mr. Stephanopoulos disagree. When our chief executive downplays corruption, everyone should be concerned.
That's what the president just proclaimed with this answer. No one is saying that the White House should drop everything and do nothing but prepare an investigation on ACORN. That said, this group has a long history of corruption. Dale Rathke embezzled near a million dollars. His brother covered it up. There's ERISA violations, past due taxes, voter registration fraud, among a slew of crimes.
Yet, the president thinks this is not a major issue. How much crime and corruption does one group need to commit before there is an investigation. I don't care if ACORN is entirely privately funded. They are corrupt. It is the job of the Attorney General to investigate corruption wherever it might be. The public clearly finds this an issue that should be investigated further.
So, what the president has done here is simply to admit that in his administration outrage over corruption is very selective. He paid lip service to the fact that the videos are obscene. He even paid lip service to an investigation but he certainly didn't commit to making sure that one would happen. So, how much must be brought forward before the president demands an investigation? What about embezzling $1 million? Isn't that much worse? What about covering this embezzlement? Isn't that even worse? What about voter registration fraud? What about past due taxes? What about comingling of funds? What about misuse of taxpayer funds?
The president has now been presented with overwhelming evidence that this group must be fully investigated immediately. To do so would be a politically astute move. Instead, the president downplayed the whole thing and said that there are many more important things. If a public official is presented with overwhelming evidence of corruption and they don't do everything in their power to stop it, that is no longer a politician I can trust. That should not be a politician anyone can trust. Nothing is more bi partisan than confronting corruption wherever it is. If the president is unwilling to do so in this case, he is simply not serious about confronting it period.