My question: why if "Acorn is a radical, activist grass roots group that grew out of a welfare state platformed organization have registered 1.3 million new voters this year", is it a BAD THING? I think voter fraud is bad, but that will happen with any group which pays people per voter they have signed up. This is the part that should be outlawed. But how is it that 'radical' and 'activist' are paired as though there were something evil about either?

radical: 1. marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional

2. extreme--tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions (of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change)

Sometime if the existing, usual, or traditional institution,views, or habits are detrimental to the well-being of society, group, or culture they may need radicalism to pry the group which is benefitting from the status quo away from their position of dominance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical[1]

"welfare state" 1 : a social system based on the assumption by a political state of primary responsibility for the individual and social welfare of its citizens
2 : a nation or state characterized by the operation of the welfare state system

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare%20state

In the Judeo/Christian ethos are we not supposed to care for those less fortunate, and espouse progress and moral responsibility?

"have registered 1.3 million new voters " This is a bad thing? Again, just in case you missed my avowal, I abhor dishonesty, purchasing voters, or misrepresenting voter numbers; but by registering 1.3 million voters, this country and its government will be more truly representative of the will of the people. Do not assume that being "radical" is necessarily a bad thing.