Yep, count me among those who are a bit tired of the constant railing on ACORN and Alinsky, and your attempts to tie both to President Obama. I'm not defending ACORN, but I'm certain that there are many quasi-political organizations favoring both parties that are the beneficiaries of federal funding that all don't operate on the up-and-up.

On Alinsky, take a look back on the 2008 Presidential campaign. Both political parties applied almost all of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals in the conduct of their campaigns. Re-read rules 4 thru 10 and tell me that only one of the political parties or candidates applied those rules.

I found rule 10 particularly interesting. It reads, "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Boy, does that sound familiar. Lots of people in the "party of NO" seem to embrace Alinsky's rules that worked so well back in the 1930's.

I'm not defending Barney Frank. I think the voters of Massachusetts ought to toss him out on his ample butt. They won't, of course. But was he the candidate that ran a campaign based on the change you refer to, Bucco? Your constant criticisms based on your disdain for Alinsky and attempts to tie him to President Obama are one big mixed metaphor, I think.

Re-visit the Rules For Radicals and see if they don't sound like familiar modern-day political campaign strategies, by both political parties... http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html