During my trip around the Rightosphere this morning, 2 things are abundantly clear: 1) Mitt and the RNC don’t see what’s about to hit them from President Obama and 2) Mitt and the RNC don’t see the seething anger building up against them from the activist base. Two posts highlight that second point brilliantly. Let’s start with Erick Erickson’s post first:
The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.
While I don’t agree that Newt doesn’t have a chance, I certainly agree that Mitt’s people are delusional.
Dan Riehl’s post has a harder bite to it:
For Romney to attack every conservative from the Right, when he is so obviously and so far to the Left of them, demonstrates a complete lack of character and integrity. But slash and burn is all he has, as he has no core conservative principles and can’t articulate them in an authentic manner. As much as I hate Obama’s politics, as an individual, I have more respect for him today, than I do Mitt Romney. And I am far from alone. If the GOP doesn’t realize what that will cost in soft support, or no support at all in the Fall, they are delusional.
With the advent of new media, too many people are seeing, talking and connecting today. The GOP in Washington is not the party of Reagan, it is a party on its way to the political wilderness for a decade or more without serious reform. The clearest sign of that is the support a Ron Paul pulls. It is 2 – 4 times what it should be and is a telling sign of just how many people have written, or are in the process of writing off the GOP establishment.
I agree with everything Dan said. The leadership at RNC HQ sucks. In fact, I’ll add to Dan’s thoughts with this:
1. When it comes to social media and the internet, Mitt’s team, like the RNC, moves at the speed of government. You could see Mitt’s surprise last night when, during the break, CNN checked on whose ad was running the disparaging remarks about Speaker Gingrich. In fact, if you watch the tape, you’ll see Mitt deflate immediately after that.
2. It’s been 28 years since Reagan won re-election and the RNC still hasn’t figured it out that you can’t win elections if the base isn’t enthusiastically behind the nominee. It just won’t happen. Each election cycle, the Establishment tells us that squishies like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney have a shot at winning.
Initially, I thought ‘you’d think that they would’ve figured out that that isn’t true, especially after last year’s midterm romp.’ Then it dawned on me: These Establishmentarians figured you can win with conservatives but that isn’t what they want. They’d rather have ‘compassionate conservatives’ than true conservatives.
3. When has Mitt fought for anything? Has Mitt fought for anything? I haven’t seen proof of it yet. In Massachusetts, Mitt certainly didn’t fight to keep Planned Parenthood off the MassHealth payment policy advisory board.
4. We know that Newt’s a fighter because he’s fought his own president on tax increases. He fought for 16 years to create a GOP House majority. He insisted that we balance the budget ASAP.
5. This is the most important of all. Mitt’s scorched earth campaign will kill him next fall when the TEA Party activists work to elect conservative congressmen, senators and state legislators but don’t lift a finger to get Mitt elected. That’s what happens when the nominee torches each of his opponents.
6. If you think that the TEA Party got riled up in August, 2009 through the midterms, you ain’t seen nothing yet. After Mitt loses, there’ll be a major housecleaning at the RNC. The worthless strategists that collect nice salaries but don’t have 2 brain cells rubbing together will be dispatched.
Squishie enablers like NRO’s editorial board, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Hugh Hewitt, Jennifer Rubin, S.E. Cupp and Ann Coulter will be political roadkill. Good riddance.
Don’t say the activists didn’t try warning you.
UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.
PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.
Tags: RNC, Establishment, Mitt Romney, Bob Dole, John McCain, Social Media, Debates, Reince Preibus, RINOs, TEA Party, Activists, GOP, Elections
Here’s the message that will bruise President Obama’s administration this morning:
Real GDP increased 1.7 percent in 2011 (that is, from the 2010 annual level to the 2011 annual level), compared with an increase of 3.0 percent in 2010.
The increase in real GDP in 2011 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from state and local government spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
Put in Main Streetspeak, President Obama’s economic decisions have stunk. There’s no way a recovery in its third year should be growing at that anemic of a rate.
The main reason why GDP in 2010 was 3% is because stimulus spending artificially raised GDP, not because this administration has implemented a pro-growth economic strategy.
This administration has been a total disaster. No amount of spin will change that.
UPDATE: Apparently, Sen. Schumer hasn’t figured it out that the economy sucks:
Tags: GDP, Obamanomics, Obama Administration, Recovery, Democrats, Election 2012
Bob Dole’s repetition of Mitt’s Chanting Points was perfectly recited. Still, the “NRO staff” explains that Dole went nuclear on Newt. That’s insulting. Dole isn’t capable of matching up with Newt in terms of intellectual heft. Bob Dole is a true war hero. He deserves, and has received, this nation’s gratitude for his service to this nation. That doesn’t mean he gets to get away with this crap:
I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.
Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. But he hung on until after the 1998 elections when Newt could read the writing on the wall. His mounting ethics problems caused him to resign in early 1999. I know whereof I speak as I helped establish a line of credit of $150,000 to help Newt pay off the fine for his ethics violations. In the end, he paid the fine with money from other sources.
Bob Dole was the Senate Majority Leader but it was Newt that was the man who engineered the first GOP majority in the House in 40 years. Newt Gingrich had a vision and a plan for accomplishing that. Newt doggedly persisted in pushing that plan.
Part of that plan was using C-SPAN to broadcast conservative ideas after the day’s business had been completed. Night after night, Gingrich’s ideas were broadcast to the nation. Bit by bit, a seemingly impossible mission turned into reality.
Bob Dole didn’t lead that charge. Then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel didn’t help make it happen. Phase II of the Reagan Revolution was made possible because of Newt Gingrich’s persistence and Newt Gingrich’s intellectual heft. Without Newt’s vision and persistence, Republicans might still not have shattered that ‘political glass ceiling.’
Newt Gingrich put together a plan that triggered the biggest GOP landslide in ages. To this day, it’s only been topped once in the last century, that being in 2010.
During last night’s radio program, Mark Levin commented on Dole’s diatribe, saying that “of course Dole would speak out. He was part of the problem.” Bob Dole isn’t a visionary. That’s why he wouldn’t be my first choice to build a powerful election machine. I’m confident that he wouldn’t make it into my top 50 for that job.
Still, we’re supposed to take Tax Collector for the rich Bob Dole at his word that Newt would be a disaster for Republicans this election. I’ve had it with Mitt’s attack puppies telling us Newt’s an electoral disaster for Republicans.
Moderate McCain ran in 2008. How’d that turn out? Oh, that’s right. Because of that lackluster campaign, we got Obamacare and the stimulus and the bailouts shoved down our throats.
It’s time for the TEA Party to utterly abandon Mitt’s moderates. It’s time we shouted NO MORE!!! I’ve had it with these ‘only moderates can win’ types. If 2010, 1994 and 1984 should’ve taught us anything, it’s that bold and intelligent works.
Tags: Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, RINOs, Chanting Points, Media, Media Bias, Politics of Personal Destruction, Newt Gingrich, Reagan Revolution, Special Orders, GOP, Election 2012
I didn’t attempt to keep my allegiance to Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign a secret. I’ve disagreed a little, quietly, with Speaker Gingrich at times. I haven’t sat idly by while Mitt Romney attacked Newt with bald-faced lies. Apparently, I’m not alone. When Mark Levin saw Mitt’s attacks that Newt wasn’t a true Reaganite conservative, Levin used his radio show to interview Jeffrey Lords, a fellow Reagan administration employee. Here’s that interview:
To say that these gentlemen disagreed with Mitt is understatement. It’s fair to say that they questioned Mitt’s fidelity to conservative principles, both in the 1990′s and today.
Levin used his opening monologue to go after Mitt, Jennifer Rubin and Little Annie Coulter. Here’s that audio:
Mr. Levin pointed something out that had previously escaped me: that Mitt Romney used the same tactics against Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in 2008 that he’s using against Newt now.
There’s a reason for that, which I’ve said here before. Mitt can’t win by inspiring or persuading people. His only path to victory is by smearing his GOP opponents fiercely to the point that he’s dragged them down to his level.
If, God forbid, Mitt wins the GOP nomination, he won’t win in November. His Alinskyite tactics have turned off most of the GOP base. That’s right. He’ll have a difficult time getting votes from TEA Party activists and evangelical Christians to vote for him.
Mitt’s scorched earth campaign tactics have destroyed any goodwill he might’ve built with these important parts of the base.
Finally, I’m going on record with this because it must be said: Mitt Romney is a despicable person. I can’t trust him because of his disgusting, dishonest campaign tactics. I don’t have a problem with a candidate playing hardball politics.
Mitt isn’t using hardball tactics. He’s deployed the entire arsenal of the politics of personal destruction against Newt. As a Christian, I can’t sanction that. I’ll do everything in my power to defeat Mitt, preferably during the primaries.
UPDATE: Welcome anti-Mitt readers. LFR is a anti-Mitt haven. If you appreciate my analysis and proactive suggestions on revitalizing the conservative movement, please consider dropping a few coins in my tip jar in the upper corner of the right sidebar.
PS- Come back often & tell all your friends.
Tags: Mitt Romney, Saul Alinsky, Smear Campaign, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, GOP, Election 2012
Levin takes Romney to woodshed, Part I Mark Levin
Levin takes Romney to woodshed, Part II Mark Levin, Jeffrey Lords
Michael Reagan, Rush take Romney to the woodshed Jim Meyers Newsmax
Romney, Gingrich joust over ties to Reagan AP
Gingrich under fire from Establishment media AP
Chip Cravaack has done alot to get mining going again. Chip’s op-ed outlines all he’s done to get things going again:
There is consensus among the PolyMet advisory panel I assembled: Mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible minerals-exploration industry in northern Minnesota.
The PolyMet construction project will engage about 300 skilled construction workers and create 360 full-time jobs. A University of Minnesota Duluth study estimates more than 500 more ancillary jobs will be created in St. Louis County alone, generating an economic benefit of about $242 million, including products and services. Additionally, the project is expected to generate tens of millions of dollars annually in federal, state, and local taxes.
We are working hard to preserve our clean air and water on other projects as well. Recently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Citizens Board unanimously approved Keetac’s water-quality permits. Once all the other permits are secured, Keetac’s capacity can increase by more than 50 percent to 9.6 million tons of iron ore pellets per year.
Likewise, we have moved a step closer to success with the $300 million expansion of the Keetac mine and processing plant in Keewatin. The Keetac expansion is expected to create 120 permanent jobs and 500 temporary construction jobs for Minnesota.
The approval of the PolyMet and Keetac operations would result in direct and much-needed boosts to our economy, yielding a domestic resource of raw materials. Ultimately, this would lower the United States’ reliance on foreign sources and provide well-paying jobs for Minnesota workers at a time of high unemployment.
Chip’s working hard to get Iron Rangers working again. Chip put the PolyMet panel together to take positive steps in the right direction towards making PolyMet a reality. As a result of his leadership, it’s likely that PolyMet will become a reality this year.
Prior to Chip’s taking a leadership initiative, PolyMet was stuck in a bureaucratic wasteland for the previous 5 years.
When the PolyMet and Keetac operations are finally up and running, those workers will have Chip to thank. Not only that but those operations will give Minnesota’s economy a welcome shot in the arm.
Not only will PolyMet and Keetac create mining jobs but the operations will increase shipping operations in Duluth.
Minnesota’s State Motto is L’etoile du Nord, which means Star of the North. During Gov. Perpich’s administration, legislators half-kiddingly said that Perpich thought that it meant ‘The money goes north.’
If Chip’s leadership leads to a rejuvenated mining industry, L’etoile du Nord will mean ‘Prosperity returns to the North.’ That can’t happen soon enough.
Tags: Mining, Keetac, Polymet, Chip Cravaack, Permitting, Regulations, Leadership, Prosperity, Iron Range, MNGOP
Early in the night, I was prepared to say that Mitt was going to win this debate. Later in the debate, I thought Rick Santorum did well, especially at expense of Romneycare’s individual mandate. Sen. Santorum’s exchange exposed Mitt’s weaknesses on the issue.
Ron Paul had an up and down night. When they talked about Central American issues, Paranoid Ron appeared. After Sen. Santorum talked about strengthening relations with Central and South America, partially to help America prosper, partially to control Cuba’s and Venezuela’s influence, Paul went into his usual ‘we can’t afford more wars’ paranoid trance.
Sen. Santorum handled it smoothly, saying “I don’t know which question you were listening to but it wasn’t mine.”
Newt didn’t have a strong opening, getting hit harder on Fannie and Freddie than Mitt. That said, Mitt stepped in it when he called Newt “a spokesman for Fannie and Freddie.” Newt immediately pounced on that, characterizing that as utter fabrication.
While Mitt opened strong, he ended weak, especially when he admitted that Newt really was the heir to the Reagan legacy. It didn’t help Mitt to hear that Michael Reagan would be campaigning with Newt this weekend. This essentially trashes the advertising Mitt’s currently running.
Bill at Legal Insurrection noted something else that’s bound to hurt Mitt:
A lot of discussion of immigration, back and forth between Newt and Romney, they each hit some singles, no extra bases.
Romney denied knowledge of running an ad saying Gingrich referred to Spanish as the language of the ghetto. Here’s the ad, right on his campaign website. Blitzer then hammered Romney by pointing out it’s his ad and at end he says he approved it. Good moment for Newt.
Tonight’s debate isn’t a gamechanger for anyone. Sen. Santorum did well but he ended sounding like a sourpuss again.
The other thing that won’t get alot of play tonight was Mitt’s admitting that he’d changed his immigration policy since criticizing Newt’s immigration policy. Tonight, Mitt admitted that Newt’s idea that we wouldn’t deport people who’ve been here 25 years was humane. A month ago, Pandering Mitt said that that was creating a magnet.
If you didn’t like the Mitt you saw tonight, wait a week. He’ll change. Except when it comes to defending his indefensible Romneycare plan.
Tags: Debates, Newt Gingrich, Fannie, Freddie, Reagan, Conservative, Mitt Romney, Flip-Flops, Immigration, Negative Ads, Corruption, Goldman Sachs, GOP, Election 2012
Mitt Romney’s vicious, coordinated attacks on Newt have pissed off awakened conservatism’s biggest voices. Check out this article and you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about:
Even Rush Limbaugh, shocked by the Romney claims, chimed on his Thursday radio broadcast to say “This is obviously a coordinated attack to take Newt out here in Florida.”
Rush slammed the Romney-backed smear campaign against Newt.
“That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much,” Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh added that Newt has always been a conservative from his early days in national talk radio in the 1980s.
“He was perhaps the premier defender of Ronald Reagan,” Limbaugh said.
That’s only part of the anti-Mitt response. Here’s what Michael Reagan said in his official statement:
“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.
“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.
“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.
“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.
“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.
“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”
Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”
The message is unmistakeable. Mitt didn’t just go too far. He didn’t just say something that needed correcting. Mitt’s vicious, dishonest attacks have gone far beyond anything that these conservative giants will accept.
Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh aren’t bit players in the conservative movement. In many ways, especially in the pre-TEA Party days, they were, along with Newt, the heart and soul of the conservative movement’s idea factory.
While Rush was building the ‘product’ that is now the dominant conservative media empire, Mitt was telling Massachusetts voters that he’d been an independent during Reagan-Bush and that he wasn’t “looking to return to the days of Reagan-Bush.”
Suddenly, Mitt’s deciding to run for president and — Presto Change-O — Mitt’s a card-carrying member of the Reagan fan club, not to mention suddenly being a Lifetime Member of the NRA. Mitt the conservative is a joke and a hoax.
I’d say that Mitt’s a northeastern liberal Republican, not a conservative connecting with voters in America’s Heartland except that that isn’t telling the whole truth. Mitt’s a dishonest northeastern liberal whose team did some selective editing to make it sound like Newt was bashing Reagan. Here’s the truth about that:
The C-SPAN video, titled “Newt Gingrich bad-mouths Ronald Reagan in 1998” on YouTube, was part of a huge coordinated campaign against Gingrich that was launched on Thursday, five days ahead of the vital Florida primary.
But it cuts off before Gingrich explains what he means.
In the portion shown on YouTube, Gingrich talks about the Republican Party’s chances after Reagan leaves office. “On Election Day, the American people, given a choice of more of eight years or something new, will vote for something new,” he said.
But what the clip does not show is Gingrich’s rationale behind his statement, which shows he was not bashing Reaganism, but merely suggesting that then-Vice President George Bush needed to take it forward.
The entire clip, which was discovered by the website RiehlWorldView, shows Gingrich going on to say he wanted “A Republicanism of the ’90s that builds on Reaganism, but goes beyond Reaganism.”
He continues, “This is the country where ‘new’ and ‘improved’ are the two most powerful words in advertising,” and says if the two candidates in the 1988 election had similar stances and were equally “pleasant” the Democrat would win simply because it would signify change.
Mitt Romney needs to be drummed out of the Republican Party. He’s ruthless. He’s dishonest. He’s liberal. (That’s right. I don’t believe a split second of his I’m-a-conservative schtick.) He’s surrounded himself with parasites like Ann Coulter, with people looking for their next government job (TPaw) and other northeastern liberals like Chris Christie.
Mitt Romney’s days are numbered. Now that Michael Reagan and Rush Limbaugh have trained their sights on him, it’s time to get out the butter because Mitt’s toast. Newt’s got Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin on his side. Mitt’s got Hugh Hewitt, Chris Christie and Little Annie Coulter.
That isn’t a fair fight. That’s why Mitt’s desperate.
Tags: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Mark Levin, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Conservatism, Mitt Romney, Liberalism, Chris Christie, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, GOP, Election 2012
The past few days, Mitt’s attempted, as is his custom, to peddle the crap that Newt wasn’t a trusted ally of Ronald Reagan. This video puts that BS to rest:
While Newt Gingrich was leading the second wave of the Reagan Revolution, Mitt Romney was distancing himself from the greatest president in my lifetime:
The gutless wimp is now peddling the crap that he’s the conservative and that Newt’s the moderate. That’s crap and he knows it. It’s time to tell Mitt that it’s time he stopped trying to lie his way into the Oval Office. If he doesn’t stop his quasi-civil war against Newt, the TEA Party will rebel against him and let him suffer a defeat.
After all, it isn’t like TEA Party activists feel affection or affinity for Mitt.
Mitt’s desperate lies are being repudiated by people like Nancy Reagan. They’re getting repudiated by Michael Reagan. Here’s what Michael said when he endorsed Newt:
I am endorsing Newt Gingrich for President and here’s why:
Newt understands that we must reject and fundamentally change the course that Barack Obama has set for America.
Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama’s European’ styled socialism. Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed. Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.
In the 90’s Newt’s leadership brought us the Contract with America which changed Washington. I’m confident Newt can do it again.
We cannot afford a candidate backed by the same Washington insiders who repeatedly tried to undermine my father and the Reagan revolution.
It’s time to choose.
Do we go forward with bold ideas or continue with failed policies? So I ask my fellow Republicans and conservatives to join me in supporting Newt Gingrich for president.
Here’s what Michael Reagan said in a tweet he posted last Friday:
In the Race for the WH I would rather go dwn swinging with Newt then stuttering with Romney..After 5 yrs MR should be able to debate!
The two people nearest to Ronald Reagan both praise Newt Gingrich. Nancy Reagan said that “Ronnie” passed the torch he’d received from Barry Goldwater onto Newt. Michael Reagan said that “Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed. Strong national defense, lower taxes and smaller government.”
Meanwhile, Mitt couldn’t run from Ronald Reagan fast enough.
The general election won’t be time for choosing between President Obama’s Alinskyite radicalism or Reaganite conservatism if Mitt’s the nominee. It will be if Newt’s the nominee.
Before the nominee is picked, though, it’s a time for choosing between whether the GOP will revert to the Establishment GOP or Ronald Reagan’s GOP.
This isn’t a difficult choice. Picking Mitt is like picking John McCain without the war medals.
Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator, Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and I are leading the fight to prevent the anti-TEA Party candidate, Mitt Romney, from getting away with telling the biggest whoppers in GOP history.
This isn’t a formal coalition. It’s just that, in my daily trip through the rightosphere, it’s pretty obvious that we’re leading the fight against Mitt’s disgusting behavior.
Join us in rejecting the Establimentarian thinking that told us our core beliefs couldn’t get people elected. In 2010, We The People proved those chanting points false. Join us in fighting for the first principles that made this a great nation.
Tags: Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, Michael Reagan, Endorsements, Barry Goldwater, Jeffrey Lords, Newt Gingrich, TEA Party, Mitt Romney, Establishment, GOP, Election 2012
I’ve written about Saul Alinsky, the radical whose teachings inspired politicians like President Obama and Hillary Clinton. This article attempts to sanitize Alinsky’s image through omission. Here’s an example of that omission sanitization:
Alinsky was known for mobilizing poor people and minorities, getting them to the polls.
“I’m not sure why anyone would think that’s bad, unless you’re one of the people with power and don’t want to give it up,” said USF political professor Michael Gibbons.
Gibbons says by mentioning Alinsky’s name over and over, Gingrich hopes, perhaps, to try and make Alinsky a buzzword. It was the same kind of thorn in Obama’s side during the 2008 campaign when he was associated with ACORN and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
“I think that what Gingrich is counting on is that nobody knows who he is,” said Gibbons.
Let’s stipulate that “mobilizing poor people and minorities, getting them to the polls” is a good thing if that’s the whole story. Unfortunately, Prof. Gibbons omitted some things. This might fill in the holes about Alinsky:
In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3
“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6
“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage, the political paradise of communism.” p.10
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations…” pp.10-11
That isn’t the image painted by Prof. Gibbons, is it? In fact, it’s dramatically different than the sanitized edition of Alinsky. That’s only the beginning, though. There’s more:
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work…The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24
“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive, but real, allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means…The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26
“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means…” p.29
“The seventh rule…is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics…” p.34
“The tenth rule…is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time…Who, and how many will support the action?…If weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36
Suddenly, Prof. Gibbons’ description of Alinsky’s tactics sounds more like propaganda than truth, doesn’t it? Saying that ethical behavior is situation-based certainly doesn’t fit into the teachings of Judaism or Christianity. Apparently, that’s the whole point:
Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”
Considering these things, it isn’t surprising that this was the dedication for Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
Opening page – Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom, Lucifer.”
This isn’t the image of Alinsky that Prof. Gibbons painted. Apparently, that was Prof. Gibbons’ intent from the outset. More on that later.
The bottom line is that Saul Alinsky was a reprehensible, corrupt human being. There’s nothing worthwhile I see in his radicalism.
Tags: Saul Alinsky, President Obama, Radicalism, Marxism, Michael Gibbons, Academia, Democrats, Newt Gingrich, GOP, Election 2012