What's Wrong With Saul Alinsky?

[angrysoba]

Obama was 11 when Alinsky died.

How do we know that Saul Alinsky isn't Obama's father?

 

[angrysoba]

The fact that I note Alinsky tactics in the pseudo-educated responses of various people and define them as such does not mean that I "like or dislike" them. Often we note the presence of Alinsky methods substituted in lieu of actual debate based on premises, facts, and idiotology or ideology, take your pick.

Generally speaking, Alinsky tactics are a subset of propaganda tactics and methods.

If you or some other has "never heard of him", why should that be of any importance to me or anyone else? It is simply, as the OP admitted, an expression of ignorance.

I don't think you are impressing anybody with your claims to knowledge when it is coupled with such a staunch refusal to provide evidence of this knowledge.

I like the use of "admitted" there as well. You are probably copying the use from people who have smacked you down in previous discussions and think you have scored some kind of point which is a bizarre thing to think when I said from the beginning that I was curious about somebody I had never heard of before. Have you never asked a question out of genuine curiosity?

 

[johnny karate]

The fact that I note Alinsky tactics in the pseudo-educated responses of various people...

... people do what they are going to do irregardless...

It could be argued that the holiday stands on it's own merits irregardless of the founder.

... relaxed standards for loans irregardless of credit rating...

Irregardless, for Texas, this is largely in control of the local school board...

... pretty much irregardless of his party affiliation...

I guess "pseudo-educated" is better than uneducated.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't think you are impressing anybody with your claims to knowledge when it is coupled with such a staunch refusal to provide evidence of this knowledge.

I like the use of "admitted" there as well. You are probably copying the use from people who have smacked you down in previous discussions and think you have scored some kind of point which is a bizarre thing to think when I said from the beginning that I was curious about somebody I had never heard of before. Have you never asked a question out of genuine curiosity?

Personally, I don't think mhaze has sufficiently communicated just how unimportant the OP is to him. I hope he posts a few more times in this thread to really drive that point home.

 

[mhaze]

I don't think you are impressing anybody with your claims to knowledge when it is coupled with such a staunch refusal to provide evidence of this knowledge.

I like the use of "admitted" there as well. You are probably copying the use from people who have smacked you down in previous discussions and think you have scored some kind of point which is a bizarre thing to think when I said from the beginning that I was curious about somebody I had never heard of before. Have you never asked a question out of genuine curiosity?

Being in possession of a book by the jerkoff is a "claim to knowledge"?

That is rather weird of you. What I think is going on is you'd like people on the Internet to provide information to you. Why? Well, clearly it's cheaper than 5 or 6 bucks to get a copy of the book. But what is ridiculous about your attitude is that you think that somehow I'm obliged to indulge you in your fantasy. I'm not.

I'm fine with your state of ignorance.

 

[RandFan]

Being in possession of a book by the jerkoff is a "claim to knowledge"?

That is rather weird of you. What I think is going on is you'd like people on the Internet to provide information to you. Why? Well, clearly it's cheaper than 5 or 6 bucks to get a copy of the book. But what is ridiculous about your attitude is that you think that somehow I'm obliged to indulge you in your fantasy. I'm not.

I'm fine with your state of ignorance.

There is nothing wrong with a forum member asking a question. There is nothing wrong with another forum member ignoring the question. However, you are off topic and not advancing the discussion.

 

[Unabogie]

The only modern politician I know who's praised and used Alinsky's playbook is Dick Armey.

Yes, THAT Dick Armey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html

Dick Armey, one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, recently praised the methods of Saul Alinsky, the leading tactician of the New Left. These days the same people who are buying Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” on Amazon.com are, according to the company’s software, also buying books like “Liberal Fascism,” “Rules for Conservative Radicals,” “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” and “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.”

Weird. Somehow, there isn't a corresponding story about President Obama praising Alinsky.

 

[crimresearch]

Being in possession of a book by the jerkoff is a "claim to knowledge"?

That is rather weird of you. What I think is going on is you'd like people on the Internet to provide information to you. Why? Well, clearly it's cheaper than 5 or 6 bucks to get a copy of the book. But what is ridiculous about your attitude is that you think that somehow I'm obliged to indulge you in your fantasy. I'm not.

I'm fine with your state of ignorance.

In other words, you challenged knowledge based on pages and chapters in a book, and now that your bluff has been called, you are flip-flopping.

 

[leftysergeant]

Okay, right-leaning fanatics, listen up. If you want us to believe that there is anything nefarious about Alinsky's wriotings, spell it out and cite it, but do not expect us to waste our time reading a tract from some author we do not consider relevant to our times.

If Obama is using Alinksky's tactcs, then there must not be anything wrong with that. He got elected and the dithering old Navy airplane driver and the whackadoodle from Alaska didn't.

America is better off for that.

But then, much of what I do heart righties attribute to Alinsky sounds like the crap that the right-wing blather machine is selling.

 

[mhaze]

In other words, you challenged knowledge based on pages and chapters in a book, and now that your bluff has been called, you are flip-flopping.

If you want to criticize me for telling you "Si se puede!" well, I guess go right ahead.



BUT there isn't any "bluff that's been called", and in fact the only reasonable response to my comment goes like this...

I'll discuss book xyz, you pick the page and chapter, etc.
RESPONSE: No, thanks. OR Okay, chapter 3.

Not complicated. But go ahead with the polemical discussion, be my guest.

 

[angrysoba]

The only modern politician I know who's praised and used Alinsky's playbook is Dick Armey.

Yes, THAT Dick Armey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html



Weird. Somehow, there isn't a corresponding story about President Obama praising Alinsky.

In fact, the link that mhaze provided also shows that Dick Armey has learnt some tactics from Alinsky. It also says that Obama is not known to have been influenced by Alinsky. Of course, I have no idea what mhaze was trying to say when he quoted that CNN blogpost. It is possible he didn't read the whole thing like the book he says he has but doesnt want to divulge any information about.

 

[RandFan]

If you want to criticize me for telling you "Si se puede!" well, I guess go right ahead.



BUT there isn't any "bluff that's been called", and in fact the only reasonable response to my comment goes like this...

I'll discuss book xyz, you pick the page and chapter, etc.
RESPONSE: No, thanks. OR Okay, chapter 3.

Not complicated. But go ahead with the polemical discussion, be my guest.

• You haven't answered the question.
• You don't tell us what buying the book will accomplish (what point will be served by discussing the book?).
• You are off topic and not advancing the discussion.

 

[angrysoba]

If you want to criticize me for telling you "Si se puede!" well, I guess go right ahead.



BUT there isn't any "bluff that's been called", and in fact the only reasonable response to my comment goes like this...

I'll discuss book xyz, you pick the page and chapter, etc.
RESPONSE: No, thanks. OR Okay, chapter 3.

Not complicated. But go ahead with the polemical discussion, be my guest.

Mhaze, we don't need to have an intellectual discussion but I was hoping for an adult discussion.

But given that I have already told you I don't know who Saul Alinsky is and its rather obvious corollary that I haven't read his book the only reasonable response to your rather petulant comments (Ha ha! You are ignorant!) is to put you on ignore.

Sayonara!

 

[Unabogie]

In fact, the link that mhaze provided also shows that Dick Armey has learnt some tactics from Alinsky. It also says that Obama is not known to have been influenced by Alinsky. Of course, I have no idea what mhaze was trying to say when he quoted that CNN blogpost. It is possible he didn't read the whole thing like the book he says he has but doesnt want to divulge any information about.

Look, Alinsky was a guy who wrote books years before Obama became an adult. Jerome Corsey tried to say in his "Obamanation" book that somehow Alinsky and Obama were tied together. All right wingers now see this as truth. They are seriously deluded, but there you go.

Oh, my Teabagging neighbor also learned from that book that President Obama had a connection with his "tribe" and some despot name Odingo. I kid you not, he used the word "tribe".

Right wingers believe strange things.

 

[RandFan]

A video from CNN that attempts to answer the question.

Who was Saul Alinsky?

CNN supports what others have said. Gingrich's invoking of Saul Alinksy is nonsense.

• Besides being a community organizer there is no link.
• Perhaps it's Alinsky's ideas for how to help the have-nots.
• Dick Armey credits Alinksy for some his (Armey's) tactics.

I'm guessing that other than a bizarre offer to join a book club we aren't going to get anything from anyone on the right to support Gingrich. Oh well.

 

[johnny karate]

There are some good background information this article:

Gingrich Making Saul Alinsky Famous All Over Again

Some interesting tidbits:

After the Detroit riots in 1967, Michigan Gov. George Romney (father of Mitt Romney) consulted with Alinsky on ways to help poor people organize their own economic development efforts. After Romney met with Alinsky, the New York Times reported that George Romney “said he endorsed any legitimate legal movement that was intended to rectify social injustices.”

Alinsky died in 1972 but, as of Monday, his book ranked number 11 on the Amazon.com’s best-selling political books list, perhaps due to the free advertising Gingrich has provided.

 

[leftysergeant]

A strategy the is effective in working for the public good can be perverted to work serious harm on the people, just as tactics used by evil people can be turned back against the evil doers.

I thus see no problem if Obama does, occassionally, employ a tactic of which Alinsky would have approved to break the power of the monied classes over working people.

Totally pisses me off when a jerk like Dick Armey does it. The dude has no good in mind for us in the 99%.

 

[SezMe]

Obama was 11 when Alinsky died.

Doesn't matter. Books live beyond the author's death.

To the OP, I don't think there is any direct substance to Newt's mention of Alinsky. The latter has become a symbol of Obama's supposed socialism so using his name is a dog whistle to the far right that Newt is right there with them. IOW, it's a way to yell "Socialist" without yelling "Socialist".

 

[fishbob]

I'll discuss book xyz, you pick the page and chapter, etc.
RESPONSE: No, thanks. OR Okay, chapter 3.

Here's a clue: Nobody is interested in discussing a book with you.

Newt doesn't have a clue about Alinsky either - he is just trying to sound intellectual (smart and stuff) to his uninformed admirers. Newt really isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

 

[stokes234]

*Organizations* take 'the ends justify the means' too far... a lot. A whole lot. Especially when there are millions at stake.

If the outcomes are equivalent, as in the case that no matter which party 'wins', the folks at the top benefit most, I fail to appreciate the distinction.

That hasn't really clarified anything. "Organisation" is a pretty vague term that covers alot of things. Are you saying he helped create specific organisations that did more bad than good, or used unacceptable tactics? Can someone name them?