Luntz likened Clinton's praise of Alinsky in her senior thesis to praise of "people from Germany in the 1930s and 40s"
On the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) treatment of community activist Saul Alinsky in her senior thesis at Wellesley College: "In the language she uses she holds him up almost like an icon. ... I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s."
Alinsky was a community organizer born in 1909 to Russian-Jewish immigrants. He earned an archaeology degree from the University of Chicago in 1930 and became known for founding the Industrial Areas Foundation as well as co-founding the Back-of-the-Yards Neighborhood Council. Back-of the-Yards was a poor community near the stockyards on Chicago's southwest side that became prominent after the 1906 release of Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle.
A March 3 MSNBC.com article reported that Clinton's 1969 senior thesis "examin[ed] the tactics" employed by Alinsky. But as co-host Alan Colmes noted in response to Luntz's claim that Clinton treated Alinsky "almost like an icon," her thesis is, in fact, "critical of Alinsky in many instances." Indeed, according to the MSNBC.com article, while Clinton noted his "compelling personality" and "exceptional charm," she concluded that his belief that "the 'ventilation' of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board 'social catharsis' cannot be prescribed."
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: And if you actually look at this, she's critical of Alinsky in many instances. She talks about the kind of empowerment that conservatives talk about and lack of government involvement in even things like the poverty program.
LUNTZ: And yet she holds him up. In the language she uses, she holds him up almost like an icon. And if you are --
COLMES: Because of his organizing skill, though, not because of every -- pieces of his policy.
LUNTZ: That's like -- I want to be care -- I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s.
COLMES: Oh, come on.
LUNTZ: That's what I'm trying --
COLMES: Was he a Nazi? Was he a totalitarian?
LUNTZ: That's why I did not use the word. But you've got to acknowledge that she is praising this individual who used the most aggressive, the most dictatorial --
COLMES: She didn't agree with all of those things. She praised his skills as an organizer, didn't praise every one of his tactics.
WOW!! Heaven forbid I run for office... my senior thesis paper in high school was on Ezra Pound- and, no, Clutz, I wasn't fawning over his sympathy for the nazis, I was critiquing his LITERARY works... just to nip this in the bud now..
Very nice. I was wondering if maybe Luntz thought every single person in Germany was a Hitler-loving, cold-blooded Nazi in those decades.
Now let's find George Bush's senior thesis.Did he push the envelope and do it on Jesus, or play it safe with an essay on the cuteness of kittens?
No, it was "why I'm proud of grandpa's hitler youth knife - a study on doing business with the Nazi Party and cutting through government red tape".
Sorry to be one of those crude blogger types the media is always hyperventilating about - but Luntz isn't fit to scrape Alinsky's jockstrap.
Saul Alinsky was a Jewish Tom Paine. Reveille for Radicals is a vision of politics that actually serve real Americans. I magine that!
Saul Alinsky was a genius as well, and--believe it or not-- a fairly mainstream individual by the early 70's-- he sold lots of books.
Remember Alinsky's 'baked beans' tactic-- where he'd advocate serving baked beans to packed meeting rooms full of obstinate folks? It's supposed to have worked to galvanize them into action.
Luntz is a know-nothing punk, who gets his ideas of the 50's and 60's from old copies of National Review, as well as all the bitter right-wing fa%rts who were so on the outs during those days.
Does even Luntz know what he's talking about?Does the average FOX viewer (other than the ones that were around in the 1930s and 40s)?
Luntz makes me want to puke.
tomorrow hannity analyses hillary's fifth grade science project with guest bay buchanan.
analyzes
You spelled it right the first time ;-)
don't think so. analyses the plural of analysis, a noun.
Yes, but in the English written in England (where they should know), the verb to analyse is spelled with an s, as is socialise, realise, civilise.
I know you made a typo, I'm just having some fun - and hoping to make another convert to Commonwealth orthography. It's a labour of love!
"This just in: Hillary Clinton was a big fan of a children's book advocating peace, love and understanding when she was 9 years old. Does she take terrorism seriously enough to be Commander in Chief?
This just in: Hillary flip-flops on the pork industry. She's a fan of "Green Eggs and Ham". Does she hate ham, or does she like it?
This just in: Hillary sometimes hangs the toilet paper roll with the loose end over the top, sometimes with the loose end coming from behind. We'll talk to a prominent psychologist about her inability to take a firm stand.
On other news: Bill of Rights in tatters, health care a shambles, economy drowning in consumer and public debt, gap growing between rich and poor. We'll be back after this message from Viagra...
Luntz
I see he is continuing with the radical hatefilled GOP talking points.
Aarrgh!
When will liberals learn to stop playing by GOPper rules?
Colmes' response, kind of "Golly gee whiz, you know, she didn't really praise him all that much, she criticized him, too" not only made it a type of "he said she said" thing, it left the slander of Alinski untouched.
Colmes asked if Alinski was a Nazi but failed to follow it up. He should have pursued that, attacked on it. Instead, he left Luntz get away with a non-answer, leaving the outstanding question as one only of how much praise Hillary Clinton gave to some "dictatorial" "Nazi" type.
LUNTZ: That's like -- I want to be care -- I don't know how to say this, but that's like holding up some of the people from Germany in the 1930s and '40s...
COLMES: Was he a Nazi? Was he a totalitarian?
LUNTZ: That's why I did not use the word.
No, he just tried to leave the impression. This is Luntz's stock-in-trade as I mentioned on a previous thread. He may be one of the least photogenic of media conservatives, but he is quite talented at advancing false talking points under the radar. Larrye above rightly called Colmes's lackluster performance as a cross-examiner into question here. (And I say that as one who does not have a knee-jerk reaction against Colmes for his affiliation with Fox.) The average viewer who knows nothing about him will walk away with the false impression that the Jewish Saul Alinsky was some sort of, if not a Nazi, a fellow-traveler with them (and that Hillary by association has a soft spot for Hitler). Give him credit, as a propagandist, Luntz is sort of like that little club-footed media maven from Germany in the 1930s and 40s (I won't say his name, so no harm and no foul).