Topic: Horowitz
In an Aug. 24 NewsReal post, David Swindle writes that Media Matters shouldn't be "throwing a fit" over Fox News' comparison of President Obama to Mafia gangsters.
Why? Because Saul Alilnsky associated with gangsters.
No, really. That's why.
Swindle explains that "Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a good number of their various political operatives have all been schooled in the Saul Alinsky methods of ‘community organizing.' " In other words, it's guilt (or, in this case, gangster) by association.
Swindle then writes:
Here's a question for the Left: how far would you go to get universal healthcare in this country? After all, it's supposedly a plan which will save the lives of millions and help liberate the lower class from the economic totalitarianism inflicted on them by their malevolent Fat Cat CEO taskmasters. How far would you go to save the world? If an influential conservative Senator stood in the way of "reform" and one could do something to embarrass or discredit him then wouldn't it be worth it? After all, we're talking about saving people's lives here. What's one man's reputation compared to millions of lives and the perfect world?
Think about that for a moment and perhaps the gangster comparison isn't quite as outlandish as one might suspect.
What seems to be happening here is that Swindle is justifying the gangster reference as an Alinsky-esque tactic, but failing to acknowledge his own embrace of it.
Here's a question for Swindle: Obama is clearly in your way of wanting to "liberate" Americans from the evil of liberalism. How far would he go to embarrass and discredit him? Would you smear him by calling him a gangster, then justify the smear by playing guilt-by-association? After all, what's one man's reputation in the pursuit of the "perfect world" of conservatism, right?
It seems that Swindle has answered in the affirmative.
