oldroy wrote:
Woody, as a rule I always supported someone in the primary but we don't have Presidential primaries here in Kansas so I just held back this time. I wasn't a Trump supporter till he was nominated. I stopped being a Democrat when they nominated an obvious Socialist, McGovern, and swore to never vote for one of those. One of two people was going to be elected so I just did what I had told myself since 2000 and that was vote for anybody but Hillary. He was going to win if she didn't and I have been very satisfied with him since he was inaugurated.
I slept so good when I heard that he had won and she didn't. She did write her graduate paper on Alinsky, didn't she?
Woody, as a rule I always supported someone in the... (
show quote)
Hi Roy, Missed a couple of replies I intended due to the dreaded "old guy not felling good" blues..
but this is a bit..
from the prospect.org.... They will not let the link be copied.. darn..
onsider Carson’s inflammatory Lucifer comparison. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, written in 1971, opens with blurbs about three figures—Lucifer, Jewish religious leader Rabbi Hillel, and Thomas Paine. He described Lucifer as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”
It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Satanism, but as a comment about the long tradition in history of dissent and protest.
That’s the only mention of Lucifer in the entire book. It wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Satanism, but as a comment about the long tradition in history of dissent and protest.
Carson took additional liberties with the truth by identifying Alinsky as Clinton’s “role model.” Hilton Rodham—who was student body president at Wellesley, graduating in 1969—did indeed write her senior thesis about, and interviewed, the controversial activist. But she was actually quite critical of Alinsky’s views.
Summarizing her 92-page political science thesis, “‘There Is Only the Fight’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” The New York Times observed:
Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’ s central critique of government antipoverty programs—that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals. But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent’ and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system.
In 2003, while she was a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton discussed Alinsky in her memoir, Living History. Clinton “agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves,” she wrote. “But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”