Inside the Beltway: Many uses

This is mendacious. McCain and many in the Republican party have worked and supported ACORN. One of the problems with ACORN is that that it uses young volunteers. They often make mistakes -- which in the total picture are small. Obama is extremely cautious and he would not employ anyone that is controversial (This is a criticism not a compliment). My experience is that the Republicans make less mistakes because they pay registrars who are often professional registrars. They often do it through faith based organizations making it easier to conceal mistakes. There is also the factor that Democrats are reluctant to criticize religious organizations. Lastly, ACORN is vulnerable to attacks because the Democratic party washes its hands and won't defend any organization that is not under its control. Moreover, many of its elected officials don't like ACORN because it has criticized them.

rudyacuna, Who in the hell do you think you are fooling with this pathetic piece of whitewash. ACORN is absolutely in the pocket of the Democrats.

rudyacuna - Obama would not employ anyone who is controversial? What you meant to say is that Obama will dump anyone who is controversial once they are exposed as working with him. So for instance, Jim Johnson worked for Obama. Obama quickly dumped him when it was brought up in the media that Johnson helped run Fannie Mae into the ground at a cost to taxpayers of around $300 billion for that bailout earlier this year. And of course Obama gave $800K to ACORN to help with their registration drive. ACORN technically is not "employed" by Obama but that's just like arguing the meaning of the word "is". Obama helped train ACORN workers for just the sort of bank intimidation they carried out. So not only does Obama "pal" around with Raines and Johnson, who cost the taxpayers $300 billion this year, but he also has yet another connection to the current house mortgage induced financial crisis.

"There is also the factor that Democrats are reluctant to criticize religious organizations." Like what you just did by implying that faith-based organizations cover up voter fraud?

Rudy-- Don't know many democrats who are hesitant to criticize religious organizations, especially those conservative bible-believing, who they pigeonhole as "radical right-wing fundamentalist". These so-called bible thugs apparently are intent on destroying everything sacred to a liberal, or so they say. To hear them tell it, there's actually a modern Spanish inquisition going on; it's got to be true 'cuz the liberal screeches say so! Honestly, I come across a lot of Christians and while I don't agree with all of them, find most of them to be courteous, generous, and willing to help even those who don't like them in hopes that some will become saved. As another point in the hypocrisy, Bill Clinton famously went to black churches to campaign, even was endorsed from the pulpit (in violation of tax-exempt status), yet any republican going to a church resulted in democrats calling for investigation and sanctions on that church, or have you forgotten when democrats ran the country (into the ground). Does any democrat shy away from criticizing Sarah Palin and her beliefs? Does any speak in defense of her freedom of religion? Especially if they could find something that makes her look "fanatical". So forgive me if I appear skeptical on your defense of ACORN. In close elections, the fraudulent voting can greatly affect the outcome, as we’ve seen in 2000 and 2004. It would appear that the democrats have found a way to ensure that they can’t lose by fraud. Arguments that it’s only a few “mistakes” here or there fall flat—the whole Florida election and Presidential outcome was decided by only a (relative) few votes. Is that how you intend to win—by cheating!? We all subscribe to one citizen, one vote. No more, no less.