It would seem the blind squirrels over at the conservative smear machine have found their Acorn. While channel flipping last night I ran across a Sean Hannity special on the “radicalism of Obama”. The part I saw mostly focused on Stanley’s Kurtz’s article for the National Review where he attempts to link Obama with the group Acorn. I looked up the article myself this morning to see what Kurtz had to say. I encourage you to click though and read it as well.

The article is cleverly written. Facts are deftly interspersed with opinion and innuendo. Yet most of the article is simply a condemnation of Acorn as a radical group. Are they? Personally, I’ve never heard of them before. Kurtz claims they are “more radical” than MoveOn.org and Code Pink. At least I’ve heard of those groups. The code here is that “radical” is somehow equivalent to “subversive”. That’s clearly the tone. While I would certainly agree that Code Pink pushes the free speech envelope a bit, I’m unaware that they engage in dangerous, illegal, or subversive activities. In the article, Kurtz admits that Acorn stays within the bounds of the law, but pushes the envelope. One might even say the group exhibited Maverick-like behavior. That is, if one were so inclined.

But Acorn aside, the weaker link is the ties Obama has to the group. Yes, there seems to be some professional associations with members of the group, but even the article doesn’t assert that these ties were significant, influential, or long lasting. Much of the charges seem to stem from the reality that Acorn and Obama shared political goals at different points. However, this is not surprising given that they were both trying to aid the same constituency in Chicago. Most Democrats currently share political objectives with MoveOn.org. This hardly means that they are in league with MoveOn or unduly influenced by them.

Still, when read uncritically, the article conflates Obama, Acorn, and radicalism at every opportunity to great effect. It raises the specter of smoke and heavily implies that there is likely an undiscovered fire yet lurking. Obama’s camp has released a response to the attack, but I think the article is undamning on its own. It unravels under its own weight, but only when read objectively.

It’s interesting to note that all these new “radicalism” charges are coming out on the same weekend. Clearly the TV shows and articles have been in-the-can for awhile. All the investigations didn’t reasonably come to a head all at once. Palin unleashed the Ayers allegations and then everything else came pouring out. It’s curious timing. After all, if this is really news, why wasn’t it news during the Democratic primary? Does anyone think Hillary wouldn’t have used these charges if they were remotely credible? It’s news now, because the GOP is more desperate now. It’s not more complicated than that.

Ironically, this rather seems like a coordinated attack by conservatives. One might be inclined to note that it pushes the boundaries of free speech. I suppose one might even characterize it as radical. That is, if one were so inclined.