Depends on What the Meaning of "Is" Is

Not to be melodramatic, but I remember thinking at the time of Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony that leadership standards had just been permanently revised, downward. No matter how hard I try, I can't imagine Washington or Lincoln or Truman or Reagan looking into the camera and declaring with a straight face: ...it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

So here we are 11 years later, a new president and the standard just sunk again. President Obama appeared on five Sunday news shows yesterday and there were plenty of noteworthy moments (watch the interchange between Obama and Stephanopoulos on the definition of the word "tax"--apparently presidents' can not only question the meaning of words they can re-define them) but the moment that made me boiling mad was Obama's answer to a single question about Acorn.

I won't take the time to recount the many problems with Acorn from voter registration fraud to the current pimp scandal, you can read James Taranto's article in the WSJournal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416833436798004.html

for a recap of the latest.

But the comment that made me MAD?

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.

With $8.5 billion in "stimulus" funds headed to Acorn I'd like to know who is paying attention. I want to know where the follow-up question was. I want to know why no one is asking the tough questions. Would we accept that answer from a corporate executive? We know Obama was once the head of Project Vote--an Acorn affiliate. We know he was at one point legal counsel for the organization. We know his campaign hired Acorn and paid them $800,000. OK. Problematic to be sure. Our media should be looking into those ties just as we have with past presidents, just as we did with Bill Clinton's intern problem. But more importantly, they should be asking the routine, follow up questions.

I'ts not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.

Really? Why not?