Sarah Weighs In
Mothership_Greg ·
Jan 28 at 1:41pm
Have fun with this one, folks:
As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.
- Comment (145)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Gus: thank you for actually posting the "Rules" for Alinsky tactics.
Katie: thank you for making clear that "politics" and "Alinsky" are not the same thing.
This election season has been full of so many distortions and all-too-easy-elisions, it is dizzyin--and that's just on our side!
Meanwhile, as to the matter at hand: if Sarah has made the case for Newt that he's being unfairly besmirched by Alinsky tactics by Mitt, then Phil Klein is just as guilty of making the charge from the opposite side.
Um, guys--its the Democrats who use Alinsky tactics. Can we please get serious (beware: that link has the ability to make narratives collapse. It is Newt Gingrich "anti-establishment" supporter Thomas Sowell writing in the "establishment" National Review. Stand by for the rupturing of the space time continuum.)
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Katievs: Has anyone else been listening to Mark Belling? He's as non-establishment and conservative as they come, and he's appalled that Gingrich has gotten has far as he has. He's completely convinced that if he gets the nomination, Obama will win in a landslide.
That's not true. That's impossible.
Everyone who has ever voiced a word of criticism against Gingrich is by definition an Insider/Establishment/Elitist shill. Someone needs to expose this Mark Belling for who HE REALLY IS immediately. I'll bet he's funded through an elaborate network of transactions that ultimately stem from George Soros.
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
R. Craigen: I can't prove a thing, but I can't help suspecting that there is a hand at work that is quite hostile to conservatism, and some of these guys are dupes (or worse), unknowingly responding to an Axelrod or similar individual with "plans within plans", deftly pulling strings, unseen to all. Sorry, I know "no conspiracy theories" ... Are we allowed to have "conspiracy suspicions"?
I'm glad you gave voice to this suspicion because I think it is one that is running around a lot of people's heads.
This idea is the most powerful single aspect of the establishment/anti-establishment rhetorical device. The enemy is somehow all around us, but unseen. He's within our ranks, but posing as something else. He's nameless, but he has a title. He is one unified and well-directed organization, working always toward one end, and has the absolute power necessary to pull all strings in that direction.
Captivated by this idea, even though we can't see the enemy, we direct our fire blindly in the direction of a treeline in the hopes of hitting something--and we manage only blue on blue in the process.
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Barfly
Sarah, if you're reading this, the time to go all in is right now.
Wait, wait, wait. Mitch Daniels is guilty of cowardice and betraying his country because he chose not to get in the race for family reasons, but Sarah Palin isn't? (not that you in particular, Barfly, made that charge--your post on this thread just gave me the opportunity to broach the question).
Even after the "will she or won't she" show?
My head is reeling.....
May '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Sarah Palin has been savaged more since the last election than most who are running in this one. NYT et al soliciting for muckrakers to sift through her 25,000 emails, in just one example. Look at her Madison speech for an example of how she has done more to defend and advance the cause of conservatism than most people who try to detract from her reputation. Personally, she's not my pick. But I'll defend her. Unlike those who toy with the idea of running, Sarah has been fighting all along. Seeing her chased out of public life has been a failure of the right to recognize it's self-interest.
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Haakon Dahl
Have you read Alinsky? Have you read Breitbart on Alinsky? Have you read Clinton on Alinsky?
Saul Alinsky was a genius, working to destroy our country. He is well worth learning about, learning from, and learning to combat. At a minimum, we should help make his name a dirty word.
This is brilliant stuff. He knew that you had to keep your army of miscreants entertained, or they will stop. They have to have enough sheer joy in causing directed mayhem that they are never at a loss. · 3 hours ago
I understand that Saul Alinsky should be studied by conservatives. He was the most skilled Communist agitator in the U.S. to date. His precepts are genius. But not every darn political machination is an "Alinsky tactic." The overuse of the phrase, as katiev mentioned, strips it of meaning, and applying it to either Romney or Gingrich is outright wrong. (However, rules 1-4 and 8-10 are pretty basic politics, if you ask me.)
Feb '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
katievs
This is my biggest worry re: Romney too.
I swear, people. We should be rallying behind Santorum. Who cares if he sometimes sounds strident or petulant? Or if he brags. And wears a sweater vest. I mean, for crying out loud! We have a country to save and we have to be serious.
I'm enough of a Santorum fan to have sent multiple contributions to his last campaign.
But he just doesn't ring up as a president to me, alas.
Feb '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Leigh
If he is President and does not work to repeal Obamacare -- if there is any credible perception that he is not fighting sufficiently to repeal it -- he would not be reelected. He might even lose the nomination. (Say Paul Ryan or some conservative Senator lead the repeal fight and it fizzles for lack of presidential support -- imagine the pressure for them to run).
I rather think Romney knows this. Hope so. ·
Yeah, but if he gets elected and then decides it's just too hard to repeal- what then?
The GOP disintegrates, is my view.
There was a post here a while back about a potential Romney plan that would only start granting those touted Obamacare waivers starting in 2017.
That sounds like something the establishment would come up with- we can't repeal Obamacare now but if you turn out and work real hard to keep us in office we'll get you waivers for our next term with Mittens.
That's what I expect from them, and I'm not interested in playing that sort of game with the GOP anymore.
Feb '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Palaeologus: To be clear (ahem) Bondi was terrible in that interview.
Terrible.
But the claim that she said Romney wouldn't repeal Obamacare just isn't true.
The problem is that I've been watching these people a long time. When I think of what Norm Coleman said, and I remember the waivers-starting-in-2017 plan, I immediately believe a story about another Romney fan claiming they won't repeal it.
Know what? I don't believe Romney will try very hard to repeal Obamacare, no matter what he says. I expect a quick vote in the senate, filibustered by Harry Reid, then Romney immediately moves on to talking about reform.
Betrayal, in other words, and I've seen that from the establishment GOP over and over again going all the way back to the no new taxes pledge of Bush 41.
It's grown exceedingly tiresome, to put it mildly.
Apr '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Pseudodionysius
I completely agree. ·
Santorum is a decent, honorable, man who was jointly endorsed by National Review in the "Not Newt (or Perry, but mostly not Newt)" endorsement.
In talking to political professionals, I've talked to a bunch of guys who hate Romney, and a bunch of guys who hate Newt. I do not believe I've ever talked to a guy who hates Santorum on anything other than "homophobia" grounds. Some people get angry about this vote or that, but he is not viewed as a terrible human being. People do not, in general, feel betrayed by him, other than on the Toomey endorsement. Even that was a matter of loyalty, though.
Newt is hated for being Newt more than he is hated for being a McCainish policy "maverick". Santorum is neither.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Gus Marvinson: ....
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. · 9 hours ago
I'll just say again that for Sarah Palin to call recent political attacks on Newt "Alinsky tactics at their worst" diminishes her and guts the term of its meaning.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
She has been the victim of Alinsky tactics. She deserves to be defended against those.
But she shouldn't be defended for over-the-top rhetoric.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Xennady
katievs
This is my biggest worry re: Romney too.
I swear, people. We should be rallying behind Santorum. Who cares if he sometimes sounds strident or petulant? Or if he brags. And wears a sweater vest. I mean, for crying out loud! We have a country to save and we have to be serious.
I'm enough of a Santorum fan to have sent multiple contributions to his last campaign.
But he just doesn't ring up as a president to me, alas. · 1 hour ago
Who does, of the remaining options?
Feb '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
katievs
Who does, of the remaining options? ·
Gingrich. At least he thinks big, and he has the right enemies.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Xennady
katievs
Who does, of the remaining options? ·
Gingrich. At least he thinks big, and he has the right enemies. · 32 minutes ago
We all have to call it as we see it.
Nov '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Crow's Nest: Gus: thank you for actually posting the "Rules" for Alinsky tactics.
Katie: thank you for making clear that "politics" and "Alinsky" are not the same thing.
This election season has been full of so many distortions and all-too-easy-elisions, it is dizzyin--and that's just on our side!
Meanwhile, as to the matter at hand: if Sarah has made the case for Newt that he's being unfairly besmirched by Alinsky tactics by Mitt, then Phil Klein is just as guilty of making the charge from the opposite side.
Um, guys--its the Democrats who use Alinsky tactics. Can we please get serious (beware: that link has the ability to make narratives collapse. It is Newt Gingrich "anti-establishment" supporter Thomas Sowell writing in the "establishment" National Review. Stand by for the rupturing of the space time continuum.) · 6 hours ago
Thomas Sowell, as usual, is exactly on target. I would note that I do not subscribe to this whole "establishment" vs "outsiders" mythology - there are people with principles, and there are people with no principles. Would that we had more of the former.
Mar '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
katievs
Gus Marvinson: ....
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. · 9 hours ago
I'll just say again that for Sarah Palin to call recent political attacks on Newt "Alinsky tactics at their worst" diminishes her and guts the term of its meaning. · 2 hours ago
Assuming that you chose #11 because you thought it an example of the worst of Alinsky tactics, do you honestly believe that it hasn't been used against Newt?
Look, these tactics aren't the original creations of a genius, they are simply a collection of effective tactics gathered by an observant and motivated jerk. They, in part or whole, have been used by power seekers since Adam let his wife talk him into eating the forbidden fruit. Palin did not "diminish herself" or "gut the term of its meaning." Using the term "Alinsky tactics" is simply a better way to package these methods and is an effective reminder that our side is supposed to be the one that stands for truth, morality, and vigorous, but honorable, competition.
Edited on Jan 29 at 8:22amMay '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
I chose number 11 just because it was the last on the list. I didn't want to quote the whole thing.
Alinsky tactics "at their worst" are the kind of thing ACORN does: voter fraud, bank shake-downs, intimidating protests at bankers' homes, planting evidence, fomenting violence, lying and manipulating the ill-educated and vulnerable.
The worst tactics against Gingrich these last two weeks seem to me very like his against Romney. They are Alinski-like in so far as they are more focused on doing maximum damage than they are on honest persuasion.
But they certainly aren't ACORN-like; they aren't even untypical for Presidential campaigns.
Dec '11
Re: Sarah Weighs In
When I heard Mitt attack Newt being against Reagan during the Reagan presidency it didn't really even phase me. I grew up with hearing stories of how Newt fought against the democrats during the Clinton years. Newt has been a flag bearer of the republican party and the conservative movement like few other could even hope to claim. There are a few big exceptions. Times when for whatever reason he sided with the democrats(climate change is one that comes to mind).
So I mostly just chalked it up to a failed tactic employed by Mitt. You can't tell me Newt is establishment and he is so out there that people will think he's an extremist. Pick one. Even if he doesn't just a campaign tactic nothing more. He's just trying to see if something sticks. This one for me didn't even register.
May '10
Re: Sarah Weighs In
Palin's point of view in a nutshell:
The guy most capable of overcoming Alinsky tactics in October is being crushed by Alinsky tactics in January.