Election 2008

As grassroots,  online conservatives with a voice, we've got to do all we can to keep the GA Senate seat as a firewall to prevent a run-away liberal, Democrat Congress and Obama Presidency. 

I'm a graduate student in the Midwest, but I've decided to give $5 a week to do my small part.  I'm also making calls to friends I've got that live in GA.  We've all got to pitch in to do our part to keep this seat.  Make calls, donate money, give your time.  This is our chance to restart and rebuild by electing Saxby.

Saxby.org to donate and volunteer to elect Saxby Chambliss and keep this firewall seat.

As I write, we don't know the victor of most elections across the country, but there is one thing we know for sure about Election 2008: traditional ________ is dead.

Here are 10 items that could be filled in the blank:

1. Polling
2. Fundraising
3. Media
4. Announcing for Office
5. Advertising
6. Debates
7. Voter ID
8. Get-Out-the-Vote
9. Campaign Structures
10. Candidates

Enough said.

Cross-posted from NextGenGOP.

At this point, I don’t think that any of us can effectively predict what the outcome of tomorrow’s elections will be. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure that we’ll know the who the next President of the United States is going to be for many hours, if not days, after polls close. That said, it seems that there are three possible scenarios that could play out in tomorrow’s Presidential election:

1. Barack Obama wins in a huge landslide.
2. Barack Obama wins in a close race.
3. John McCain pulls off an historical upset in a close race.

Barack Obama Wins in a Huge Landslide

This seems to be the narrative that the Leftosphere would like us to believe. This scenario seems to be the most unlikely due to a number of factors, including the huge percentage of undecided voters (which should break for McCain), McCain’s success in raising doubts in the minds of voters about Barack Obama, and Obama’s struggles with working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nonetheless, if current polling is to be believed, then we should see a such a landslide with an electoral map looking something like this (this is pulled straight from the RCP “No Toss Up States” map):

Barack Obama Wins in a Close Race

Unfortunately, I strongly believe that this scenario is the most likely. Basically, I see Florida and Ohio departing from their current polling numbers and going for McCain. Obama is polling near, but not at, the 50% mark in each of the states, and I think that the vast majority of undecided voters will swing to McCain in these states, allowing him to win each of them, albeit closely. Thus, the final electoral map in this scenario would look like this:

John McCain Pulls of an Historic Upset in a Close Race

I am extremely hopeful that John McCain can pull off an upset tomorrow. Unfortunately, looking at the electoral maps above, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which he can accomplish such a difficult feat. However, if it’s going to happen, I think that in addition to Ohio and Florida bucking the current polling trends, so will Pennsylvania and, out of necessity, another state with a couple of electoral votes. Based on current RCP averages, I’m of the opinion that Nevada is the other state most likely to swing.

First, let’s talk about Pennsylvania. I’m Pittsburgh born and raised, and so I’ve lived in Pennsylvania my entire life. As a former Santorum 2006 staffer, I know that accomplishing a statewide victory in Pennsylvania is an incredible challenge for Republicans. However, I also believe that the dynamics of Pennsylvania’s electorate make it the next most likely state to flip from polling projections after Ohio and Florida. No, this isn’t because we’re racist or a bunch of rednecks (although I believe that Murtha’s comments may drive an increased number of Republicans in his district to the polls tomorrow, which is undoubtedly in McCain’s favor). Rather, I believe that the blue collar voters of Pennsylvania, although reliably Democrat, find it extremely difficult to swallow Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” policies – and as a result, they may either decide to not vote at all, or to pull the lever for John McCain. Additionally, there are a number of highly competitive Congressional races in PA in which an outcry of Republican voters could help turn the race in favor of McCain. Specifically, I look to William Russell’s race against John Murtha (which I mentioned above), but also to Lou Barletta’s race against the filthy Paul Kanjorski, in which I think Lou will defeat Kanjorski. With Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida going against polling trends, the electoral college stands at 270 for Obama-Biden to 268 for McCain-Palin, requiring one more state to flip for a McCain-Palin victory.

In my eyes, there are two other states that potentially could end up becoming red despite polling that indicates otherwise: Virginia and Nevada. Winning in either of these states will prove difficult for John McCain. However, he only has to flip one of them from its polling trends in order to win. So a McCain-Palin victory might look something like this:

The roadmap to victory for the McCain-Palin ticket is enormously difficult and quite improbable, although certainly not impossible. Some important questions to ponder over the next day or so: Can Barack Obama close? Will the GOP’s vaunted GOTV machine have the success we’ve seen in previous elections? Will young voters turn out in droves, and if so, will they really disproportionately vote for Obama? And, most importantly, does John McCain’s campaign have the ability to pull off an unprecedented and historic electoral victory?

This is just breaking on the Colorado Springs Gazette's website, but there are hour long lines for early voting Colorado Springs. Considering the Springs is supposed to be considered the heart of Colorado GOP action (as well as its conservative core), this isn't good news.

Why? The specifics poll sites that are overcrowded are located near the lower-income and more minority-populated neighborhoods. (I wish there was a better way to put that, it makes it sound like a ghetto, which it isn't.) In other words, the area of heavy voting today is most definitely not the region of El Paso County that is GOP-friendly and heavily evangelical.

I never thought I'd see the day that the Springs, my hometown, would become battleground territory. But evidence shows otherwise. Here's a story about Obama raising more money than McCain in the Springs. Here's Michelle Obama drawing an overflow crowd to the City Auditorium. Here's Joe Biden drawing 1,500 to a high school gym.

Sure, McCain draws people, and sure, Palin is wildly popular in evangelical circles, especially north and east of the Springs, but these Dem numbers are bad news.

I've read this site for a few months, but I'm gettin' involved now, as we will soon start to inspect the ashes of what we used to call the GOP and there will be tough questions in need of answering. For example, in re: Colorado Springs:

What does it mean? Why did it happen? I have my guesses (I think the GOP overestimates the fidelity of evanglicals to the party, for one), but please leave your guesses and theories below.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: With the presidential election upon us, many people are also focused on the economy. However, we know from history that we will be able to correct our economic problem even if it takes longer than our American tendency to want instant solutions for everything. However, because of the economic crisis, many voters are ignoring the most significant issue that our next president is directly responsible to address. That issue is the very real global threat to America's very survival. Since confronting this threat every day is not part of our personal daily routine and responsibilities (until it is too late), we tend to be myopic and look at the "me things."

If inexperienced or burdened down with domestic and economic cares, voters may not comprehend or may even forget the bigger picture -- surviving the very "real" foreign enemies that literally hate our culture, democracy, traditions, freedoms, religions, materialism, and way of living. In fact, they hate us (i.e., you). In our daily bickering over small things, we tend to ignore the big dangers because we can we do nothing about them individually.

To put "just one" of the threats into perspective, consider an article in the October issue of Imprimis published by Hillsdale College that addresses Iran. The article was adapted from a speech by Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served in the White House as a national security advisor and in the Departments of Defense and State. He is author of more than 20 books, including The Iranian Time Bomb. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator, International Economy, Commentary, and the Washington Times.

The article is too long to quote here so I encourage you to visit and the read the article online. However, below are Lendeen's closing words which highlight just one of the many countries whose government leaders hate America and who wish our demise as the principle leader of the 'free world":

"The bottom line is that Iran is our principal enemy in the Middle East, and perhaps in the entire world. It is also a terribly vulnerable regime, and it knows that—which is why it makes up stories about airplanes and missiles that it doesn’t have. As for the question of nuclear weapons, it seems hard to imagine that Iran does not already have them. Iranians are not stupid, and they have been at this for a minimum of 20 years in a world where almost every major component needed for a nuclear weapon—not to mention old nuclear weapons—are for sale. A lot of these components are for sale nearby in Pakistan. And if the Iranians do have a weapon, it is impossible to imagine that, at a moment of crisis, they will not use it. The point is, we have an implacable enemy which has no intention of negotiating a settlement with us. They want us dead or dominated, just as our enemies did in the 1930s and ’40s. You can’t make deals with a regime like that.

Our choices with regard to Iran are to challenge them directly and win this war now, to do so only after they kill a lot more of us in some kind of attack, or to surrender. There is no painless way out, and the longer we wait, the greater the pain is going to be."

So, who is best to challenge Iran and other enemies of our Nation - Obama or McCain? The most critical and therefore, important issue is not "change" but survival -- how will America continue to physically exist as a country and a democracy with guaranteed individual freedoms and rights. Who will be the best president to protect us from our foreign enemies (even while we continue our internal domestic bickering over almost everything)?

Do we pick Obama - a younger inexperienced (i.e., non-experienced) smooth talking candidate who is an anti-traditional family values advocate and unfortunately already has a past full of bad choices and savory associations? Following the mantra of "Change" is not the answer because the issue is then "change from what and to what" and importantly, the consequences of the "change." Change can mean a lot of things. We have recently experienced a lot of negative economic change which can be directly associated with Obama's associates in and out of Congress. And how can a person who voted "present" verses "yes or no" on a majority of his votes in the Illinois and US Senates be prepared to address the most important issues of our time? Voting present is not good enough when dealing with threats to America. Obama promises talk and compromise and appears willing to concede ground to our enemies (i.e., using an appeasement approach).

Or, do we pick McCain -- an older but scarred and proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is called a maverick for taking consistent stands and speaking the truth even within his own party? An experienced candidate who understands the threats to our country from outside our borders. A man who served his country in war and understands the pain and suffering. A man who while addressing the enemy understands compassion and forgiveness towards those who even tortured him. McCain is willing and able to clearly detail to our enemies (those who wish us harm and / or even destroy us) the limits of our tolerance and a clear understanding of the consequences for pursuing further aggressive acts, actions that threaten America.

The American people have voiced poll after poll their continued negative opinion of the present Congress lead by Democrats and have given the Democrat leadership the lowest ratings in history. It is from this pool of Democrats that a junior inexperienced member has come forth to be their candidate for president. Not a person who stood on principles against his own failing political party leadership but instead pandered for items he wished and voted absent or present on the other issues. If Obama were to become president, he will be again supporting these same failing "tax and spend" liberal leaders: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. And then who will save us from our enemies?

 Yes, there is a lot to admire about Sarah Palin; she did indeed get elected to the governorship of the State of Alaska so clearly she has political smarts. However, on the national stage a different kind of smarts is required - how about intelligence, curiosity, ability to grasp and deal with issues of import such as foreign policy, terrorism, acting as the commander-in-chief of the most formidable army in the world (and one that has been uselessly deployed in  in that quagmire known as Iraq so that W could get over his daddy issues).

Palin may be admirable for many qualities, but deep down at her core she is a vacuous non-entity without a wit of the intelligence and common sense that is required in a commander-in-chief. That McCain would have the temerity to insult the vast majority of the American public with her selection and try to pass it off as anything other then a hail Mary pass is indicative of his state of mind - which, given his performance over the last 60 days, is one of an old codger who is off his meds.

Sarah Palin is a curiosity - especially among the base. Those who go to the Palin-McCain rallies and then leave as soon as she is done and gramps begins to speak. Why do they leave when gramps gets up to speak - because he is boring and they know he is a loser; so why waste any time once the entertainment is over. 

Sarah Palin is a curiosity to the rest of America who continually wonders (to quote Peggy Lee) - is that all there is? Since she has not had many sit downs with the press and hasn't had the gonads to go on Meet The Press or any of the other Sunday morning political rituals - what do you expect? She keeps asking "Do we really know Barack Obama?"

The real question - even for the faithful - is do we really know Sarah Palin (Troopergate, NeimanMarcusgate, Expense Account gate, Bridge to Knowwhere gate; ad nauseum)? And, if she did face Meet The Press, what would she say? How could she possibly present her case to the American people absent prepared and staged remarks and with the aid of a teleprompter? How could she intelligently discuss her policy positions WHEN SHE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE VICE PRESIDENT DOES!

Does anyone at the RNC have a copy of the constitution?

Have they read it? (OH MY GOD - I forgot that Bush and Cheney have effectively cancelled the constitution for the last 8 years so she has a perfect, ready made excuse)

Why is that Republicans who always beat their breasts about the sanctity of the individual are so in favor of the intrusion of government in our lives and bedrooms - the disconnect in logic is so over the top that I wonder why any intelligent conservative can live with this hypocrisy - but then again commitment to party seems to comes before commitment to country; and propaganda and repetition will NOT change this fact.

At the end of the day who or what she is matters not. What does matter is the judgement of the Grumpy Old Politician who put her - unprepared as she was - onto the national stage to be a heartbeat away from the commander-in-chief chair. And if you think the thought of her having the ability to put her finger on the button is comfortable then you to are so far gone with partisan commitment that you have lost sight of the fact that we live in the 21st century and the person who has "command and control" needs to be first and foremost intelligent. McCain's choice of Palin is a straight indictment of his lack of judgement and will be one of the contributing factors to his total and complete defeat and the ultimate rout of the Republicans in 2008.  Mark my words his lack of judgement will mean majorities in the House and Senate and the loss of several governorships as well innumerable local races. The backdraft on the Republican brand - and all of the negativism of 2008 - will be enormous.

So with the results of this election rapidly shaping up, get ready to blame the Democrats for all that is wrong in the country as you will have the next 4 - maybe 8 - years to play the blame game. And no, I'm not getting cocky - I worry every night about this country and what we will be leaving to my grandchildren - but I am hopeful that the American public is NOT as stupid as Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt would have us believe and that common sense will prevail for once.

BTW Sarah Palin would make a wonderful talk show host - she is definitely a good entertainer. But potentially president of these United States - gimme a break!

PS. CNN reported an interesting fact tonight (courtesy of James Carville) - that other then elections in which a Bush or Nixon was on the ticket, the last Republican elected to the presidency was in 1928! Let's see, Eisehower-Nixon, Nixon-Agnew, Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush, Bush-Quayle, Bush-Cheney. N.B. Ford wasn't elected so he doesn't count.

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News: I received these first words from a reader and wondered how I could use them. Well this weekend's news provided the opportunity.

"Something to think about. Just a few points to ponder. Anyone who's gone through the Security Clearance procedures in the Military" (even Gen. Colin Powell), FBI, CIA, Secret Service or other agency requiring securing, processing and handing of classified information and documents "can verify that this is a valid point to ponder: If Barack Obama would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, he would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If he is elected President he would not qualify to be his own body guard!"

Kind of makes you wonder where General / Former Sec. of State Colin Powell's head was at when he endorsed Obama. Powell didn't resign his commission and therefore he is still responsible to his oath of office. Upon what valid basis did he support a person for Commander-in-Chief who may well have been disqualified for military service, etc. A man who used hard drugs which would not be waived for a commission as an officer. A man who has been associated in his past and present life with a former anarchist, shady Chicago back room deals, a black supremacist pastor, a communist mentor, and close family (blood) relatives and foreign leaders in an African country with ties to radicals and terrorists. It is beyond reasonable belief that one of our former popular Generals who served as a Republican leader and was sought by his party to consider running for president would now endorse Obama.

Obama's stated beliefs and principles are so diametrically different from those previously espoused by Powell. Also, Obama's actions and associations would not have been "becoming for a junior officer" under Powell's command. As a retired officer, I am still reeling from the above thoughts. Surely race could not have been a factor in Powell's decision. And yet, Powell related in his public endorsement that 'the prospect of Obama becoming the first African American president would 'electrify the world.'" More disturbing is the fact that Powell "expressed disappointment" of McCain's selection of a woman - Gov. Sarah Palin - to be his vice presidential running mate. In 2000, Powell campaigned for John McCain for President and may very well feel betrayed for not being selected for the VP nomination. One wonders at this late endorsement about Powell's feelings on a woman being selected over either Powell or another a person Powell would have approved of as VP. Powell calls Biden a good choice, when Biden and Powell were seldom on the same page on core issues or values.

Powell became a 4-star General, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, national Security advisor and Secretary of State under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W, Bush. Now this singular decision made by Powell to publicly influence voters for Obama over McCain, a fellow military man who "really served" his country, is almost too much to take-in. And the alleged reason for Powell's endorsement - McCain selected a woman for VP and Obama as a black president may electrify the world. Powell's decision left many feeling like the people must have felt when their "Knight" lost their "shining armour."

Yes, Powell has the right to vote and support whoever he wishes but now he joins the ranks of people like Wesley Clark, as empty suits seeking another moment of fame. My suggestion to all is "THINK, Before YOU VOTE!" The choice: Obama the young smooth talking inexperienced socialist who is also an anti-traditional family values advocate or McCain the older but scarred proven warrior who is the straight talking man who is a maverick by speaking the truth even within his own party. A maverick who chose a person - yes a woman - outside of Washington politics to help him stand firm for the American people against the onslaught of a Democrat controlled Senate and House led by an inept Harry Reid and the "beyond the pale" Nancy Pelosi. Again, "THINK -- THINK, Before YOU VOTE!"

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

Ozark Guru - Also read: Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism -- Follows is a flashback to a post by Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com, which addressed Barack Obama position on abortion and Freedom of Choice Act!

Barack Obama, the . . pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him . . . by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president. "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level. The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion. The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman." Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript) "I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument." Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc. Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act. . . . Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, . . . saying Obama . . . would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion. See related links: Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript) Senate version of FOCA House version of FOCA Editorial: The Hope of a Sophist: The Rhetoric of Barack Obama Obama says Sermon on the Mount Supports Same-Sex Unions

ARRA News Service - Dan Spencer reports that in Ohio, a state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit was against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The lawsuit alleges ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. It seeks ACORN's dissolution as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities. According to the press release, Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller of Mason, Ohio and Kimberly Grant of Loveland, allege that ACORN's actions deprive them of the right to participate in an honest and effective elections process:

They allege fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN dilute the votes of legally registered voters. "The right to cast a vote that is not diluted by fraudulent votes is a fundamental individual right," Buckeye Institute President David Hansen said. "ACORN appears to be recklessly disregarding Ohio laws and adding thousands of fraudulent voters to the state's roles in the process," Maurice Thompson, Director of the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law said. "Such voter fraud erodes the value of legally cast votes," he added. In the complaint, Thompson cites an accumulation of evidence showing numerous instances of admitted fraud by ACORN employees, as well as individuals solicited by ACORN. "In light of its hiring, training and compensation practices, ACORN should have known its conduct would cause fraud," Thompson said. "It also should know that its conduct will cause fraud in the future." In addition, the complaint cites conduct by ACORN in Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

TBlumer reports Obama’s name comes up at least three times in the complaint:

(Page 3) 18. Defendant is engaged in massive voter registration drives and political canvassing throughout the state of Ohio and the United States of America; some of this work is performed on behalf of current United States of America presidential candidate Barack Obama. (Page 3) 19. ACORN’s political wing has endorsed Barack Obama for president, and during the primary season, the Obama camp paid Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services according to Federal Elections Commission filings. Citizen Services, Inc. and ACORN share the same board of directors. (Page 9) 69. In Texas, where ACORN’s affiliate, Citizens Services Inc., has provided contract work on behalf of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the Houston Chronicle reported on August 17, 2008 that “About 40 percent of the 27,000 registration cards gathered by ACORN from January through July have been rejected or placed in limbo pending the gathering of more information, according to the county” while “about 6,600 were filled out by people already registered, and many others contained insufficient information.” A full copy of the complaint is available here.

See also: ACORN Registers a 7 Year Old Mickey Mouse Registers to Vote Obama Invites ACORN To Shape Presidency Stop ACORN Now