The American Spectator : Don't Let Alinsky Win

Text Size

Don’t Let Alinsky Win

By Quin Hillyer on 4.21.11 @ 6:10AM

Careful strategies are needed. A crisis can only help Obama. That is his goal.

Conservatives itching for an all-or-nothing showdown with Barack Obama risk playing right into his hands. A crisis is exactly what he wants. To understand this, it is necessary, once again, to understand that most of his playbook comes from radical organizer Saul Alinsky, and that his playbook also assuredly draws on the work of professors he encountered at Columbia University, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength,” wrote Alinsky in Rules for Radicals. “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step….”

Cloward and Piven, meanwhile, called for “a political crisis… that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.” They propose actions that “would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions…. [B]y the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.” And: “Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.”

A crisis is Obama’s friend. An angry reaction is his ally. Disorder is his goal.

His mortal enemy (speaking tactically), on the other hand, is steady, sober, thoughtful, rational pressure by political adversaries who are willing to take the time to consolidate gains, explain themselves, reassure the public that it (the public) has nothing to fear from them (Obama’s adversaries), and which constantly calibrates their words and actions to make it evident that they are keeping the moral high ground. A government shutdown does not fit this model. Forcing a debt crisis does not fit this model. Incendiary rhetoric doesn’t fit the model, nor do all-or-nothing ultimatums.

This is not — repeat, not — to advocate a weak cautiousness. Boldness in trying times is definitely a strength. But it should be a well-planned boldness of considered actions — preferably “gamed out” in advance — rather than a reactive or (even worse) angry recklessness. Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan, for instance, is probably the boldest proposal put forth with unified Republican support in well over a decade. Yet it didn’t come out of nowhere. It was carefully crafted, carefully rolled out, and sold by a man of high intelligence whose looks and demeanor are more that of the reliably do-gooder brother than they are of the ogre the liberals want to portray. It is exactly the right sort of gambit.

Tea Partiers may not yet recognize it, but Obama knows he lost a bit more than he won on the $38 billion deal on the Continuing Resolution, and he knows he has been outflanked in the short term at least by Ryan’s plan as well. Obama is rattled. His own budget speech last week showed it. His tone was hostile, petulant, incendiary/demagogic and, in a word, unpresidential. NBC’s Chuck Todd, an astute observer but hardly a raging conservative, wrote Tuesday that Obama’s speech seems to have backfired. (This is in marked contrast to some of Todd’s earlier impressions of or interviews with Obama and.) Todd’s political antennas usually are pretty well attuned. He rightly senses that Obama is off his game. The reason Obama is off his game is that Republicans did not force things to a crisis level: Obama knew that if he turned down Speaker Boehner it would be he, the president, who looked radical — but he knew that if he went along, he would both anger his base and cede the rhetorical ground of saying that “investments” by government should outweigh short-term deficit concerns. He suffered a similar narrow loss when he was forced by Mitch McConnell in December to renew the Bush-era tax cuts.

For a guy who thrives on crises, it must really gall him that he hasn’t found a way to force a crisis from which he can benefit, while meanwhile realizing that the tide continues to flow (albeit slowly) in the direction away from his government-corporatist/semi-socialist (at least) proclivities.

Conservatives should keep the pressure on. Conservatives should use all the weapons in our arsenal. But we should not play into his hands by firing wildly, or by rushing Pickett-like over open ground. Perhaps an NFL analogy will help: For the last four years in the aggregate, the New Orleans Saints have produced more yards of offense than any other team. But the Saints aren’t known for being particularly reckless in throwing the long ball; they mix dink-and-dunk passes with just enough “bombs” to make the “big play” a real and effective threat. That model should serve conservatives, too. Keep the pressure on, keep gobbling up ground, and then look for the right opportunity for the deep strike rather than forcing a big play that just isn’t available.

Conservatives may worry that there is no time to waste. They are right that time is somewhat short — but wrong to think we’ll go belly-up within months or even a year if we don’t achieve massive savings. There’s still enough “play in the joints” for the bond markets not to panic, and for the international markets not to abandon the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, for another two or three years. The key thing is to avoid the panic. Think back to the “economic crisis” of 2008. Yes, the underlying fundamentals were weak. Yet there was no reason for an immediate collapse. A softer landing could have been engineered, if only Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson hadn’t started running around yelling that the sky was falling. When panic ensued — and only when panic ensued — it was then that the big-government advocates seized their chance. It was then that they passed TARP, and took over the car companies while giving major ownership to the unions, and upended the banking system in favor of Goldman Sachs, and passed $800 billion of misnamed “stimulus” spending.

Panic and crises play into the hands of the left. Reason and a firm steadiness of purpose play into the hands of conservatives. Obama wants to goad us into a huge mistake. We must not let him do so. The Tea Parties collectively are the best thing that has happened to American politics in at least 16 years, and maybe since the ascent of Ronald Reagan to the White House three full decades ago. But they will remain the best thing only if they don’t succumb to the downside risks of precipitous action. Let the unions be the ones who look like thugs: We’ll beat them at the polls, as conservatives did in 2009, 2010, and in the Wisconsin judicial race. Let the left, not the right, lose its cool. Let Obama be the one who loses his equilibrium. In short, learn Alinsky’s lessons, without adopting his immoral tactics. When an Alinskyite like Obama can’t goad his opposition into mistakes, when his simplistic stratagems don’t work, then he has little of substance or tactics to fall back on.

This government needs major shrinkage. The way to do that is for conservatives not to throw Hail Mary passes, but instead for them to move down the field and then win at the polls in 2012 — in all branches of government. That’s how James Madison and company designed the system. That is the system’s genius and glory: It resists radical change in any direction, while usually requiring several election cycles for full course corrections. Conservatives should be Madisonians: indefatigable, determined, but flexible enough to see that long-term goals can be achieved in zig-zag fashions. Ordered liberty is our watchword. Disorder is Obama’s preferred solution, one which puts our liberties at risk. We must not give it to him.

American Spectator senior editor is a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (162) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

drudge ette obama| 4.21.11 @ 6:24AM

Alright, you have me convinced. I think we need a coach, though. I will, in the meantime, keep talking and writing and voting, despite a growing inclination within to lead an uprising with my pushbroom.

old white guy| 4.22.11 @ 7:24AM

your push broom better be well armoured. these commies are not going to roll over for anything. they aren't concerned about votes or the republic in any way. they want control and eventually they will get it unless the people arrest, jail and execute those guilty of treason and there are a hell of a lot of people that are guilty.

martin j smith| 4.21.11 @ 6:44AM

Hillyer: Obama's POLICIES ARE CREATING A CRISIS--i really do not know what the heck your talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!! FURTHER MORE--THE S&P WARNING WHICH OBAMA DISMISSES. --
What me need are some people with big mouths who challenge Obama's POLICIES noit namby pamby stuck on stupid. THAT WILL BRING US A CRISIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mames| 4.21.11 @ 10:01AM

Every GOPer needs to continually educate that this behavior is ON PURPOSE not with good intentions but will the intention of collapsing the economy as Alinsky designed. CRY IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS. What are the chances of that happening?

vtwin| 4.21.11 @ 10:18AM

Oh, Quin is scared. The Republicans have dunk the Tea and over played their hands. The radical Governors are down in the polls, Wisconsin, Florida, New Jerseys, Ohio, and in Wisconsin Republicans Senators are facing recall, Paul Ryan finds hostile constituency in town hall meetings, Donald Trump after becoming a birther moves to number one. The polls agree with the Democrats and the President leave Medicare, Social Security, and public employees alone and raise taxes on the wealthy. Cut government sure, foreign aid.

Looks like four more years?

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:27AM

Yes, Quin is running scared.

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 11:07AM

And Rove, NRO, and every other pundit you can imagine.

It's getting to be a big Y A W N > > > .

People want him in the mix because he says what everyone thinks and no politician will.

It doesn't mean we would actually *elect* him.

Get over it and stop having a panic attack.

Teaghan| 4.21.11 @ 10:43AM

Go suck an Easter egg vtwin.

jothepro| 4.21.11 @ 10:45AM

hey vtlose, why don't you go to a blog where you might get some respect. reasoned and smart people don't care for your hyperbole !!!!!!!!!!!!

Jive Bomber| 4.21.11 @ 11:14AM

No, vtwin is running scared - and faster than ever before - but I'll use his math:
So, some GOP leaders are "down in the polls"? Well, Barack "Limbo King" Obama is down in the polls too. ("How low can you go?") I guess his hand is played out too, ay? One very sure thing: Obama's leadership abilities have plateaued.
(I tells ya, I don't know what's more of a hoot; making fun of Obama, or making fun of his worshippers.)

Albert| 4.21.11 @ 11:21AM

Considering the state and direction fo the economy, one must wonder just what is it about President Bozo that you admire? Massive debts? Freebie handout programs that buy votes? Inflation and a devalued dolar? High oil prices? His inability to speak intelligently on any subject? Why do you worship this complete idiot in the White House, this puppet for wealthy international socialist elites? Does Bozo give YOU money? He takes mine. The economy is suffering because of decades of too much government and your idol is growing government more than even FDR. Governments do not, have not, and never can build economic prosperity. Governments take from prosperity. Governments do not invest for profit, they spend to buy votes, and apparently this government has bought your vote. Did you sell cheap? You really have nothing to contribute here or elsewhere. You really know very little and most of that is mangled. You offer nothing insightful or valuable in any way. You just parrot the same stupidities that have been proffered for decades and have caused the deep economic slide we are in now. You are really not very bright and it seems your only ambition is to annoy others and collect the price for your cheap vote. When the AS webmaster advises contributors "don't feed the trolls," he is referring specifically to you. You are a waste of time and I will waste no more of it.

mames| 4.21.11 @ 1:08PM

Using the Constitution as the rule of Law then by definition abiding by it is anything but radical, it is faithfulness to Law as king not the other way around . It justs feels radical because after 70 years of socialism so many are used to eating shit and enjoying it.

Oldefarte| 4.21.11 @ 2:11PM

Stupid fool, Barry is in the low 40's in the latest surveys........WHAT A DUMBARS!!!!!!!!

Anthony| 4.21.11 @ 1:06PM

Dear Quin, What you don't undersand, or perhaps more to the point, what you perceive through the prism of leftism or Alinskyism, is that it will be the conservatives who will bring about the disorder this time, not Obozo or the left.
It is we the people who are ready to grab the pitchforks and do a little Chicago '68 on Washington and the political elites, if they don't wake the hell up.
Obozo and friends haven't figured it out yet, (nor have you) but the left's tactics work both ways; we too can play rough and cause a little disorder, like our forefathers did.
The more the left pushes this country to the edge of the abyss, the closer we get to doing a number on them, we just need the right leader.
It never occured to the great radical, Mr. Alinsky, or his acolytes, that when pushed far enough, or tormented to our limits, that the mild mannered bourgeois class would stop running, turn, and fight like hell.
Can't wait to see the reaction from the radical left when we kick their asses in real time.

martin j smith| 4.21.11 @ 6:57AM

One more point: The election in Wisconsin--was almost lost--no, I think what is needed is indeed tactical, but assertive confrontation directly with Obama on his POLICIES and HOW THEY ARE DESTROYING THIS NATION. AND, with regard to 2012 election very high level of caution and assume the need to block voter fraud.

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 11:15AM

Should be a huge warning to states that still have open primaries.

The dems will have nothing to do but go in and vote for who you don't want.

Alky| 4.21.11 @ 1:05PM

Maybe the new Republican Governors should get right on that and plug the hole if it applies to their state!

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 2:05PM

Problem with our new Republican Gov is that he was the result of cross-voting.

They knew a dem could not win and voted for the Republican most friendly to their cause.

Grega| 4.21.11 @ 2:10PM

Not to mention independents, as well, voting for another "McCain" type. Republicans should nominate Republicans! DUH

Tina B| 4.21.11 @ 6:57AM

right there with ya drudgette, right there with my pen, my voice and my vote.

Mimi| 4.21.11 @ 7:00AM

I don't know ....Quin ! With all the DAMAGE done in the last two years...The incompetence, the DOWN-RIGHT EVIL...purposeful wasteful spending....I don't think we can SLOW-DANCE with the DEVIL !!!

Tina B| 4.21.11 @ 7:01AM

And MJS I agree with your second post, especially in the matter of potential voter fraud, the "Chicag0" way.

We must be ready with cameras and recorders at the polls - our phones! They're still legal to carry, right?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 7:04AM

Let's get this straight.

Obama can issue ultimatums. You on the other hand cannot.

Obama threatens to shut down the government, you on the other hand can not.

Incendiary rhetoric does not fit the Hillyer model.
That's precisely what Obama has engaged in and will in the future.

Essentially the article describes a situation where the Republicans has to sit on their hands or when they are shoved away from the seat when the music stops, they shouldn't fight back.

That sounds eerily like compassionate conservatism which doesn't work. Before Alinsky there was Niccolo Machiavelli:

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.

Mike D.| 4.21.11 @ 7:18AM

Ultimately this communist will fail here as all others have done previously elsewhere. Problem is the destruction that we will all have to endure as the cure demands for recovery.

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 4:44PM

Well said.

Ted| 4.21.11 @ 10:04AM

"Essentially the article describes a situation where the Republicans has to sit on their hands or when they are shoved away from the seat when the music stops, they shouldn't fight back."

Bill, you missed his point. We will fight, but we are going to fight in a way that will not allow the opposition to use our actions against us. Think of the military analogy to which the author alluded: Pickett's Charge. It was ineffective because Lee sent Pickett against the Union center. Lee would have been much more effective and likely won at Gettysburg had he followed Longstreet's advice to outflank Meade, threaten Meade's flank/rear, and get the Army of Northern Virginia between the Army of the Potomac and Washington, D.C.

Lee did not follow Longstreet's advice. He lost Pickett's men and the Battle.

So, we will not sit on our hands. At the same time, we will not attack where our opponent wants us to attack or where he expects us to attack. We will fight on the ground at a time and place of our choosing.

This is not compassionate conservatism - this is taking the fight to the opposition in a smart way. This, in short, is what winning is all about.

Karl Lucifer Marx| 4.21.11 @ 11:15AM

Ted: That's ludicrous because the Republicans do not act like a military unit. This isn't like Pickett's charge since the opposition is not armed with the same materials.

And further, the Republicans do have the luxury of choosing the battles when they choose.

In fact, the Republicans just followed Quin Hillyer's strategy and lost BIG during the spending debate precisely because they didn't want to face the music.

Well you have to have the courage to play the music and face the music.

Keep whittling away your time convincing yourself that you have to play to the oppositions tune and soon the song will be over and you're out in the cold.

That's not winning. That' s not even a strategy.

In fact, it's just plain stupid.

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 11:36AM

Ted,

Your explanation of the analogy is good. The big advantage we have now is that we see this through the lens of history. Had Pickett's charge succeeded, events would have unravelled in a completely different way.

We are playing high-stakes poker and we cannot see the outcome. Mr. Hillyer is Longstreet, here. He may or may not be right; history is not yet written. But Mimi makes a good point that one cannot slow-dance with the devil.

All in all, I find Mr. Hillyer's points well worth considering, but I find no playbook in them. He seems to think we can lose the electorate by improvident action. That is the essential point worthy of consideration. With the people united against Obama, he falls. The central question becomes "Do we lose the electorate through a thoughtful and careful and very strategic Sumo match (and look like the status quo) or by more hard-lined, principled and easily seen and understood actions?" We do live in interesting times.

Quin| 4.21.11 @ 1:01PM

I thank you for your thoughtful comment. I wish others read as carefully as you did. EVERY time I advocate caution in ANY respect, people react as if I have advocated running scared, etc. That is exactly the opposite of what I wrote, though. I am a firm advocate of bold action. Anybody who bothers to read my columns for a while can see that. My point is that bold actions must be planned out and gamed out, and that boldness must be tempered by the nature of our constitutional and political systems themselves. In other words, always press hard -- but pick our spots for really trying the long ball. That's hardly capitulation.

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 2:54PM

Quinn, we know this about you, and what you are saying is true.

People want to see more Tammy Bruce's and that's what Trump does because he has a mic anytime he wants one.

Also, he provides a good distraction and I think that as long as Obama's people think Trump will run it keeps them distracted.

Time enough for the Paul Ryans, and other serious contenders to make bold plans for the sweet spots.

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 4:49PM

Who was it that said the other day.. Trump is in effect "preparing the way", for the others to step boldly. In that, I can agree. Just not Trump for Prez.

big bob| 4.21.11 @ 3:03PM

Quinn,
Ok, fine. "bold actions must be planned out and gamed out". Then you invoke the Constitution and our political systems.

Yet....we have a fox in the chicken coop. And the fox does not play like the chickens. And it rarely goes well for the chickens. We are miles behind in the catch-up process. So for those of us painfully aware of just how FAR behind we are, your suggestion that "we plan, ...temper,... but pick our spots", sounds like a recipe for further dalliance. And that is something we CANNOT afford right now. We need to have someone who can think quickly on their feet and who does not need 25 committees to make a decision. Oh, and they need a backbone and voice. If you are in agreement with that, then we are on the same page. Short of that, we will still be planning to plan when Obama is sworn in for his 2nd term.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 3:00PM

There has been improvident action. The spending cut. It was ludicrous and everyone saw it for what it was and was not.

It didn't work and it's quite likely the phony cautious move caused a loss of confidence, unless you want bigger government. If that's the case you got what you wanted.

If anyone thinks any of this is impressive I would like to know who you think it impressed and why.

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 3:33PM

Republicans need some good hackers on their side. And for once not blab every damning thing they find, but use it.

Civil War strategies have been analyzed to death.

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 3:42PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin,

Did I say I was impressed by the CR? If so, I don't recall doing so?

What I said is, Mr. Hillyer may be right, or wrong, but his points are not worthless, and that we cannot alienate the electorate if we are to succeed. Also that this is high-stakes poker and the outcome is not predetermined.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 8:03PM

John: I never implied you stated anything. I asked someone for an example of leadership shown so far.

I'm still waiting.

As far as whether Quin's points are worthless or not that's not up to you to decide for everyone.

As far as alienating the electorate the Republicans are currently doing that without any help from the Democrats.

It's only high stakes poker for the public, not the politicians. The public pays for this, the politicians in both parties simply get richer.

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 10:21PM

Wait no more! No one was impressed by the CR. The Left is complaining, the Right is complaining, you are complaining, I am complaining. What is your point?

I am unpersuaded that your conclusion is constructive.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.22.11 @ 4:57AM

If not pointing out that a losing strategy fails to have a point, then there is no point.

One thing that is never constructive. Pretending that things are going well when in fact they are not.

So far all the Republicans have done is talk and produced no results. That's hardly constructive either.

John Navratil| 4.22.11 @ 9:33AM

Pretty strong words from one who chastised me for (supposedly) speaking for others.

BHO: "As far as whether Quin's points are worthless or not that's not up to you to decide for everyone."

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 7:20AM

The Big Government Ruling Elite Motto: " Let's Fool These Dumb Bastard Sucker Voters Again".

"As the parties argue over who who won the months-long budget battle that resulted in a deal to cut $38 billion in federal spending, the Congressional Budget Office offered this total buzzkill: the budget cuts were really only worth $352 million. That's less than 1 percent of the touted total"

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 8:07AM

Actually, if you go further into the CBO report they point out that the budget deal lead to a 3.3 billion dollar increase.

In the meantime you are told to mind your manners and that issues are't worth fighting for, just raise the white flag.

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 8:19AM

That's Right Bill,when you add in War Spending.

Dan Hirsch| 4.21.11 @ 10:08AM

They are telling us to raise the white flag because then they won't have to defeat us, which they actually cannot - unless we quit.

They never quit - look at Wisconsin, they lost the Assembly, Senate, and the Governor's office last November. They don't like the legislative process, so they unconstitutionally boycott it, there's an election for the swing vote on the State Supreme Court.

In that race find 10,640 partial ballots (only the Supreme Court race is voted) in Madison's Dane County that puts the Union's puppet (useful idiot?) candidate 200 votes ahead of the conservative candidate according to the press reported totals. Just like Al Franken's race in Minnesota. Oh and the court supervising any recount is under the leadership of a justice for whom the useful idiot candidate once clerked...

However, Sigmund Freud is on our side! One County Clerk forgot to add one city's ballots to her county's totals to a report to the PRESS. Those votes were actually duly recorded and reported to the official counting office in a timely manner, she just goofed up the report to the Associated Press.

Voila! Liberal puppet goes down to defeat - oh wait no,she wants a recount, even though the vote totals have been certified and verified that the incumbent has a 0.488% lead of 7,316 votes. Even in Bush v Gore, the vote totals were a tenth of that quantity - in Florida, a state with three times the population of Wisconsin. Fat chance - they are just trying to dishearten us!

I say we take Obama's advice, get in their faces, do not give them the benefit of the doubt, let no casual slam, slight or slur go unresponded to.

They are bringing our country down, exactly why should we let manners interfere with our freedom that so many have DIED to get us?

No, they never give up, and until we make it clear that we will never, ever consider giving up they will keep trying. To win a battle you must defeat the enemy in his heart - don't let these progressive, thieving thugs wear down your heart. The sooner we start laughing at them, the sooner this will subside.

Don't tread on me!!!

Franklin| 4.21.11 @ 12:42PM

So are you happy that we were hoodwinked by the Republican leadership? We were promised spending cuts and what did we get? I'm afraid we went at this budget cutting thing the wrong way and the ammunition has been given to the opposition.

Appleby| 4.21.11 @ 7:34AM

When will somebody start pointing out that most of the Hollyweirds who support Obama have plenty of spare change, and pressuring them to make open displays of writing certified cheques to the government? Is Charlie Sheen going to give some of his $2 million per show that he earned, as a free gift to Obama? How about Lady Gaga? Can I see her cheque?

Why not start naming names and asking Obama to lead his friends to the giant money pot and start them throwing in the cash?

Teaghan| 4.21.11 @ 10:45AM

Yup! The US Treasury will happily take your check Ms Streisand!

JF| 4.21.11 @ 3:20PM

I absolutely agree. Any millionaire / billionaire who believes he or she isn't paying enough in taxes should not only be pressured to write a check to the US Treasury, but the Treasury should make public the names and gift amounts it receives. I would love to see Obama cough up an additional 202,906.00, which is the difference between what he paid in taxes for 2010 and what he would have paid prior to GW Bush's tax cuts. Let's see the liberals LEAD on this one - we'll "sacrifice" when THEY do.

scott| 4.21.11 @ 7:36AM

Rope-a-dope.

Big Tony| 4.21.11 @ 7:38AM

Excellent article! I only hope Sean Hannity and his ilk read and fully understand this. Because Hannity seem determined for the political opposition to fall into the Alinsky/Obama trap. Obama is the one that is impatient with the politcal process let him dig his own hole.

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 7:38AM

The Alinskiite Tactics:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "

We Tea Party Patriots Will Eat Their Lunch.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Franklin| 4.21.11 @ 1:13PM

So you are advocating following Alinsky's strategy? Really?

big bob| 4.21.11 @ 3:07PM

Why the heck NOT? It seems to be effective and the drive by media love it. It is worth giving a try. I give the book to anyone I talk to who does understand the evil resident in the WH. I say we turn the tools on him. WHY NOT?

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 4:58PM

We Are In Our House.

Animal House.
Bluto: What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst. "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer... Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic... but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: [stands up] Yeah, I agree. Let's go get 'em.
Boon: Let's do it.
Bluto: [shouting] "Let's do it"!
[all of the Deltas stand up and run out with Bluto]

K962| 4.21.11 @ 7:47AM

Good strategy overall. The Left is losing it's cool. The proof is in Wisconsin where they are beside themselves after losing the judicial race. THEY are the ones who are panicking!

Teaghan| 4.21.11 @ 10:47AM

But Barry, for the most part, remains cool.
And he calls the right "radical"?

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 8:02AM

Quin , remember when arguing with our version of MoveOn.org, "convince a fool against his will and he's of the same opinion still."

Many who claim to be conservatives are in truth populists and right-wing nihilists -- the same people who swallowed Ross Perots fecal delights and gave us Bill Clinton and through their uninformed attacks on President Bush and the last Republican Congress helped create the Reid/Pelosi Congress & the "Obamanation."

Fortunately, they are a minority and the majority of right of center Americans and conservatives understand Reagan's pragmatism was a good thing and being adults in Obama's age of juvenile antics and angst is running out of steam.

Tom Osterman| 4.21.11 @ 10:33AM

Recall that Perot wasn't running against Reagan, he was running against Bush 41, who discredited the GOP brand by reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge, thereby giving Perot his opening. The lesson, which the GOP establishment refuses to learn, is that credibility is crucial to appeal to the independents, because they won't listen to someone they perceive as lacking conviction.

Conservatives backed Bush on '92 but held their noses. If that's the level of enthusiasm the GOP gets from its base, how does it expect to get any beyond its base? We can't count on Obama being damaged goods going into 2012.

Jim Feeney| 4.21.11 @ 11:21AM

Mr. Tomlinson,
I've read many of your posts over the past few years and noticed that the majority of them seem dedicated to disparaging various type of conservatives that don't seem to agree with you.

They are often described, like today, as fools, populists, extremists, kooks and other similar verbiage.

I am also puzzled by your knee jerk defence of anyone who is an establishment republican since they are obviously partly responsible for the problems we are facing today.

Lastly, president Bush and the Republican Congress didn't need any "uninformed attacks" to swing the country over to Obama, they accomplished that themselves without any help.
Also,let's not forget the wonderful candidate the GOP wanted us to hold our nose and vote for.

You seem to be a 1 trick pony Sir, and the trick is wearing thin.

Deborah D | 4.22.11 @ 12:46AM

Thank you.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 4:08AM

Jim I know there are many who prefer unanimity of thought, but that isn’t the historic conservative position. The essence of real conservativism is freedom of thought.

As long as people like you relentlessly and often inaccurately attack the GOP (the current political bulwark against the Democrats) then I will defend them when I think they're right – if that offends you or hurts your feelings too bad.

Did you vote for Obama is that why you’re so easily offended by those who don’t swallow the same Kool-Aid you drink? “Lastly, president (President) Bush and the Republican Congress didn't need any ‘uninformed attacks’ to swing the country over to Obama . . .” Roughly half the voters didn’t swing to Obama – I never did or will.

You know what’s a one trick pony jumping on the MSM bandwagon and disparaging Republicans. If that’s what you want log onto Daily Kos you’ll feel right at home.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.21.11 @ 8:09AM

Quin,
A good reminder. Thank you.
The one problem I have is the seeming inability or unwillingness on the part of our congressional leadership to stand on the capitol steps every single day for a press conference hammering nails in the communists', (pardon the shorthand), political coffin.
To use your own analogy...we need some first downs we can cheer about.
Sir, we are ONE single Supreme Court Justice away from disaster.

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.21.11 @ 12:21PM

Ken's idea of conservative congressmen/women and senators being a "TRUTH squad" will give additional PR to educate citizens about the Marxist/Democratic LIES. Such a truth squad will add daily power in a rational and respectful manner to Hillyer's strategy.

cuban pete| 4.21.11 @ 4:57PM

We are one Supreme Court Justice away from disaster..
You are on the money. I have a tendency to forget this so thanks for the reminder.
Yikes!

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 8:13AM

Ronald Reagan:
"I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party” - when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 8:52AM

Is this the same Reagan who gave amnesty and citizenship to millions of illegals, raised taxes by billions of dollars, grew the Departments of Education and Energy, cut a deal w/ Democrats to kick the can down the road in reforming Social Security, until Obama had the highest deficit as a percentage of GDP and refused to fight Muslims who murdered Americans?

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 9:11AM

Aaaand, how's that Amnesty Thing workin' out for America Micky ?

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 9:17AM

Aaaand, How's That Tax Thing & Education Thing & Social Security Thing Working Out For America ?

That's Why There's A Tea Party, Sport.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Dustoff| 4.21.11 @ 10:10AM

Don't forget..... The dem's "refused" to fund the border.

Reagan tried to fix the problem by working with the dem's..... except the dem's never followed thru. So becareful with that blame game!

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:31AM

What border? There are no borders.

This is the Obama/Soros goal--one world government.

George S| 4.21.11 @ 10:36AM

Sounds like the kind of guy you could for... so why didn't you?

Karl Lucifer Marx| 4.21.11 @ 8:20AM

First Issa tells you cuts are hard.

Now, Hillyer, tells you please be quiet and go away.

The ruling class has learned nothing yet.

R Martin| 4.21.11 @ 8:27AM

"...and upended the banking system in favor of Goldman Sachs..."

Eh? The banking system looks pretty much the same today and Goldman, which was trading at $250 before the crisis, sank to $50 in the aftermath and has recovered to only $150 today. I doubt GS thinks they have many friends in government.

Q, sometimes I think that part of your brain which cannot resist wildly off the mark predictions on golf tournaments clouds the acuity of your political thinking.

For example, "It resists radical change in any direction, while usually requiring several election cycles for full course corrections." Pelosi, Red and Obama would not agree with that.

TruSkeptik| 4.21.11 @ 8:35AM

The Quin Hillyer article regarding the Obama/Alinsky connection is, unfortunately, spot on. The question is, of course, what to do about it. Hillyer’s apparently reasonable response is “steady, sober, thoughtful, rational pressure by political adversaries who are willing to take the time to consolidate gains, explain themselves, reassure the public that it (the public) has nothing to fear from them (Obama's adversaries), and which constantly calibrates their words and actions to make it evident that they are keeping the moral high ground”. The problem with this tactic is that it is predicated on at least two questionable premises. First, that the American public is not already too far gone with respect to its ability to think critically about such matters, and second, that Alinskyites don’t have something in their playbook to emasculate such a maneuver.

One the first point, it is and has been eminently clear that from the days of the Founders the general population cannot be realistically viewed as the font of pure political wisdom. It cannot be denied that time and time again a majority have opted for the promised “free lunch”.

With respect to the second point, Hillyer blindly ignores the very words he quotes. Nearly all of the statements he cites deal directly with the intentional fomenting of crisis, chaos and ultimately, the destruction of the American republican system of government. Putting aside for the moment whether therefore Mr. Obama is treading close upon the soil of treason, these folks are not playing by “the rules”, Mr. Hillyer and you must recognize that fact before any effective countermeasure can be formulated. In truth, compared to the stark reality of the matter, Mr. Hillyer’s suggestion seems merely academically utopian. If he believes that Alinskyites will be overcome by logical, earnest discourse he is spending far too much time hanging about ivory towers.

Nelson| 4.21.11 @ 9:47AM

Good comment, and I have to add that the opposition not conforming to expectations and manufacturing a crisis which they can exploit is not only possible, but very likely. Case in point is the economy, which could very well implode well before the 2012 election with the result that the President assumes sweeping powers and calls his opponents obstructionists who do not have the country's best interests at heart. When the electorate is angry, scared and confused they may not be as receptive to cool, rational arguments. I am not arguing in favor of demagoguery, all I am saying is that the Left has weapons in its arsenal and is just as capable of 'shaping the battlefield' as we are.

JimH| 4.21.11 @ 8:58AM

One thing thats really off putting to Americans is that so many politicians from both left and right always seem so angry and self righteous. A great thing about the Gipper was that he could discuss serious problems and be perceived as having the necessary gravitas and yet be cheerful and optimistic. The candidate we nominate needs to be able to do that so we are not perceived as just the grumpy party.

Dee See| 4.21.11 @ 9:01AM

Alinsky's merely an operative engineer.

GO to the source ---open, audit, investigate,
prosecute and END the ultra-rich, tax free,
EUGENICS driven, Social Darwinist capstone
foundations.

Cut the funds and all the rest will melt away
wonderfully.

WE GUARANTEE IT

Paul Ashley| 4.21.11 @ 9:05AM

"His mortal enemy (speaking tactically), on the other hand, is steady, sober, thoughtful, rational pressure by political adversaries who are willing to take the time to consolidate gains, explain themselves, reassure the public that it (the public) has nothing to fear from them (Obama's adversaries), and which constantly calibrates their words and actions to make it evident that they are keeping the moral high ground."
But are we geting that from the GOP, or are we getting unilateral disarmament without a fight, a pu;;ing of the wool over our eyes (declaring the last deal a victory) and yes, crying? That won't cut it. Paul Ryan does indeed make good use of the pulpit he has but many others in the GOP do not. The "leaders" need not only avoid handing the ball to Obama but to encourage their own base as well. The sense of many out here in flyover land is that GOP leaders are following Trent Lott's lead and trying to "co-opt" the Tea Party. Please guys, try to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 9:10AM

In 2010 Republican candidates who sounded reasonable and practical won. Those who were extreme, weird, kooky and odd got shellacked by second rate pols -- Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, two of the worst candidates in history, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

2012 is the year Obama will go down like Jimmy Carter unless critical independent voters are driven away by Sharron Angle/Christine O'Donnell apologists and the rights on MoveOn.org types.

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:34AM

Harry Reid defeated Sharron Angle with SEIU/illegal alien voters.

Christine O'Donnell was attacked by the elites of her own party. The Republicans of Delaware worked against her because she had the nerve to defeat the RINO Castle in the primary.

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 9:24AM

Duuuhhhhh !

"Independents’ approval of President Barack Obama has dropped sharply in the past month, a new poll suggests.

Obama’s approval rating among independents fell to 37 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Wednesday, down from 47 percent a month ago."

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 9:42AM

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15"

Louis Jenkins| 4.21.11 @ 9:24AM

"A softer landing could have been engineered, if only Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson hadn't started running around yelling that the sky was falling."

And what guarantee do we have that the sky will not fall again Mr. Hillyer? An excellent article, but many of the readers do not have much left of value. Another such event and they will be done for regardless of whether we proceed calmly or panic. Time is now crucial. We do not have a lot of it left.

Kevin| 4.21.11 @ 9:34AM

Interesting point regarding playing into their hands. Sure do wish we had face to attach to all of the disconnected wisdom out there.

davelnaf| 4.21.11 @ 10:28AM

Caving-in to these people is not an option. The dems are in it to degrade the Republican Party down to a bunch of contented RINOs. They will keep these few around to convince the rubes—and maybe themselves—that the country hasn’t become a one party theftocrcay.

The good news is that more people are aware of what makes BHO tick, and they are not looking at his rogue’s gallery of moral shortcomings as if they are isolated to him. They know that he and his Chicago minions have introduced a heightened criminal element into a willing Democratic Party that Clinton and his moll could only dream of.

9th ID| 4.21.11 @ 10:41AM

Question to the Hillyer "End Justifies the Means" crowd: How does the GOP maintain what you call the "moral high ground" by lying to their constituents and breaking their campaign pledges? You are no better than the Alinskyites that you claim to want to defeat with your Rovian games. Hypocrites fiddle while Rome burns...

Quin| 4.21.11 @ 1:03PM

There was no lie, and there was no campaign pledge broken. When this year is OVER, then we can judge the campaign pledges.

John| 4.21.11 @ 10:43AM

Have we not seen these typical calculated reactions from congressional republicans over the last twenty-three years. We see and live with what their caution or timidity has reaped. Is there no greater example of a man unwilling to draw a line and fight than Bush. Look at the bogey president the left made of him, warranted or not. No more!

9th ID| 4.22.11 @ 10:49AM

My Congressmen and the GOP I read made quite a big deal out of that so called $100 Billion Pledge, which after the elections became $61, and then$38.5, and then, according to CBO and others, $385 Million. LIARS all!

Grimsky Boxerstein| 4.21.11 @ 11:18AM

Where was this advice when Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell were being attacked by the party elite?

Apparently it's OK to attack your own members including Sarah Palin, but don't after Obama. His name starts with an O, and it's O so forbidden by the power elite.

Mark Shepler| 4.21.11 @ 11:21AM

illyer wrote, “…move down the field and then win at the polls in 2012–in all branches of government” Sigh. Before I set to writing I had to google Hillyer to see if I could come up with a pic so that I might judge his age, the “Senior” in his title meaning little nowadays as regards age or relative longevity in one’s career or position. I see he is almost a half-century old and will, or should, know the answer to what I ask now.

Do you mean “in all branches of government” like in 2000? Remember those sunny days of Republican Hegemony Quin? It was a first in our lifetimes. The Reps retook the Presidency and had both houses of Congress, albeit with razor thin majorities, and preceded to do…what? Implement all the ideas and principles we’d heard them espouse for 25 years? OK, with a majority of a mere nine house seats and only Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote in the Senate ushering in a new Conservative Age was not in the cards. But did they even try? Even a little? Well, they got through Bush’s “tax cuts” that we’re arguing about even now and some changes in operating philosophy in the executive branch but aside from that what happened?...

Last week we traded analogies of Grant's Overland Campaign in which you argued Boehner's CR maneuvers were comparable to Gen. Grant's. Could it not be instead that maneuvering the Republicans into retreat or sitting defensively in our lines, as Grant did to Lee, is really Obama's strategy, not our own? Could it be that far from playing our game of biding our time while we husband our strength for the day we mean to come out and win a decisive battle while losses battles as Lee hoped to, we are really playing his? Could Obama actually be Grant to Boehner's Lee- "Moving by the left flank" and driving Boehner out of his latest entrenched position to fall back towards ever more spending, more borrowing and another day closer to the catastrophe of losing the war? Because Obama has certainly stuck to his guns, taken the electoral casualties but is still on the march of his choosing while we retreat from one line after another....

Forgive the cheesy plug, but you can read my take in its entirety at: www.rightwingmuse.com | What If Obama Is Alisky's Gen. Grant?

smokedaddy| 4.21.11 @ 7:58PM

Great analogy Mark. BHO"s actions are strategically brilliant. Unlike Grant, though, there's not a near bottomless pit of men and resources and public opinion for him to draw on. Quin makes some very valid points. But with respect to the govt shutdown and debt limit the game theory was played very badly by our side. Tonally, it is important to remain calm & steady. But in terms of "gaming", it is vital to both push the blame over to Obama & Dems. Otherwise, Obama & Co. simply take you at your word that you won't let the govt shutdown or default and will simply stonewall and keep on winning the budget battles forever knowing you'll cave.

Now, the smart course for Boehner & Co in the debt limit fight would be to demand big concessions to begin with, but primarily, remind the press that there's enough $ to cover the interest payments indefinitely. That Obama will need to make tough but necessary choices over which other priorities will get $ and which will get cut, and just stay calm. The McClintock bill mandates that payments toward interest are priority #1. If the troops don't get paid or SS is cut while govt funds stay in accounts meant for ethanol or rail projects, then that will be on Obama. All the prez and Dems need to do to get authorized spending is to agree with the GOP bill. Give them a bone or two, but basically wait them out and calmly explain how the prez has control over the allocation of funds.

Dave | 4.21.11 @ 11:26AM

Got a quick question here that I never seem to get answered. Howcumitz the Dems, Reid, Pelosi and ObamaBinLadin can ram a scam like OBAMACARE, et al down our collective throats and flip America the bird while doing it?

How-cum-that-iz??

Meanwhile, a few pundits plead to those of us in vigorous opposition to quietly slip into John Boehner mode: Begin dabbing our eyes and weeping while watching reruns of Old Yeller and whimpering to Nancy's Boys: "OK, do what you gotta' to do, just go easy this time." Then turn and ask: "W-w-was it good for you, too?"

Me? Well, if memory serves, a quick move to the nads usually stopped the schoolyard bully. Sooner or later, the class nerd will finally get fed-up with having sand kicked in his face and having his lunch money stolen.

Anyone else tired of the sand and having your money ripped off? Or should we just step back (again) and ask Principal Boehner if we can borrow one of his Kleenex?

Your thoughts?

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 12:28PM

Amen, brother.

Quin has gone off the deep end of bleating Beltway GOPism lately. The same geniuses who brought us Bob Dole and John McCain.

Joe Oliva| 4.21.11 @ 3:07PM

I'll go with Vince Lombardi: The best defense is a strong offense!

Forget this tactical manuevering around the edges and lets get this game going. Time is what is on Obama's side, and the longer we stretch out the game, the more time he gets to lie and cheat.

He and the left need to be put on the defensive by a stronger offense coming at then from every side: deficits, debt limits, entitlement reform, tax reform, state's rights, union pensions, failing schools, etc., etc., etc.!

What in the world are we waiting for. Get out the troops and start attacking, and the Ryan budget plan and the debt limit are the places to pick up steam.

Our Governors are carrying their share of the load, so lets move. No more hesitancy, no more shady deals, no more co-operating with the likes of Reid & Schumer. Just get after it .

Attack, attack, attack! Now!

Warrior | 4.21.11 @ 11:28AM

Quin, if the system resists radical change, how do you explain Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama? Your incremental mentality is part of the reason why we are now on the brink of collapse. If you were advising the Founding Fathers back in the day, today we would all be listening to BBC1 and threatening to cut off drinking tea if the crown doesn't slowly pull the taxes back.

Since Lincoln torched any semblance of what the Constitution meant, those safeguards from Jefferson and Madison have long ago gone by the wayside. We need someone to be a leader, instead we get politicians with plans. Either the states need to use nullification or shut the damn thing down until someone is ready to restore Consitutional government.

Don L| 4.21.11 @ 11:31AM

I fear the left has already won, because deceit and evil has no limits, no conscience, and they face mostly weak hedonists as guardians of freedom . They don't need Alinsky - dumping God, marriage, encouraging free sex of any deranged type, abortions, free lunches, medical care, like bait on a hook or cheese on a mousetrap - free everything, including propaganda disguised as education, has already taken its toll.
The left is is like a skunk urinating - it takes but a second or two to contaminate everything and forever to rid America of the smell -unfortunately few seek to try to stop them. You can't beat a skunk by arguing logic -the conservatives default and naive answer.

darcy| 4.21.11 @ 3:57PM

Don L, you state the situation we face, exactly. The very reason we teeter on the rim of the abyss is that for 100 years our side has sought above all else to appear reasonable, has been uncertain -- in the face of "progress" and a hostile media -- about its own convictions, and vulnerable to the temptations of power, wealth, and prestige (the hedonistic guardians to which you refer).

So Quin's plan is to offer up yet more reasonableness and to alert us to the dangers of falling into the hands of the Alinsky strategists, and in this way we won't scare away the prized independents -- by making any BIG mistakes that would have that same hostile media crucifying us as they will do regardless. So we've signaled that we've already lost, that we haven't the courage of our convictions, that the deck is stacked against us, that socialism is inevitable, and that we just have to keep the "far right" in its place while we maneuver behind the scenes to perpetuate the status quo and not jeopardize our cushy government pensions.

As another commenter noted, when Republicans had the power and the opportunity they did not rollback the progressive agenda successes; slowed it down, maybe. But the truth of the matter is that the Republican Party does not believe in the Founding the same way that the Democrats believe in their Marxism. The only question for the independents is whose horse is going to win -- that's the horse they'll follow because they are of all people the ones with the fewest convictions about anything. And we want to give up everything for them, for their approval, for their votes? Then we deserve to lose. American political history since 1900 tells me that this is what we've done, acquiesced -- out of fear and greed -- to the undoing of our Founding.

Our side, our political leaders, cannot even begin to TALK about what needs to be done to reverse course: Dismantle the Dept. of Education, Repeal the 1965 Immigration Act, Dismantle Medicare, Faze Out Social Security. These four alone are all 20th Century inventions of the New Deal and the Great Society: SOCIALISM WRIT LARGE. And no one, not anyone, is even discussing that there was a time in America before these hallmarks of socialism existed -- and that we managed without them and managed our fiscal responsibilities a darn sight better than we are today, too. Every one of these "programs" was bought with the smooth language of fairness; yet every one of them is little more than a vote-buying scheme used to enslave American taxpayers, in one manner or another, and bring us all under the thumb of a rapacious central government.

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 5:14PM

What we need is a darcy in the body of a Paul Ryan.
The gusto~ SPEAKING PLAINLY and TRUTHFULLY about the REALITY of how and why we got this way with the HOW TO get us out of the mess analytical brains of Paul Ryan~ all rolled into one!!
Well said, darcy.

I think Quin's right~ and so are YOU!!

A-a-a-a-MEN!

darcy| 4.21.11 @ 10:46PM

Margie, I've just been reading J. Robert Smith's "Has the GOP Surrendered?" over at AmericanThinker, and I must say that after reading the reader comments, too, I feel quite depressed.

There is plenty of fire out here in the heartland, sufficient anger and energy to wrest control away from the Marxists if it weren't for the timidity of the GOP leadership to force a showdown, if it weren't for the entrenched entitlement mentality at every level of society that has been carefully nurtured by the left to savage what remains of America. (And that speaks only to our fiscal nightmare; other problems, equally calamitous, gurgle just below the surface.)

I'm beginning to understand that our only national salvation must come through collapse -- when the piper must be paid, when we finally run out of other people's money, to paraphrase Dame Thatcher. A day of reckoning is coming.

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 11:02PM

I know, darcy. Sorta like the alcoholic who has to hit rock bottom. :^(

The Big E| 4.21.11 @ 12:13PM

Quin,

While part of me wants to agree with your conclusion, most of me can't help but notice that your analysis of Alinskyite tactics is flawed.

My understanding of Alinsky's rules is that they were for people who were OUTSIDE the center of power, for people who believed themselves to be "Revolutionaries," and who were trying to overthrow the powerful and replace them. Once his "community organizers" had overthrown the system, they would then maintain power through effective governance, not by continued to use the same tactics that brought them power (which in his mind, would no longer be necessary, since once everyone learned what a paradise socialism was, they wouldn't want to go back anyway).

In other words, it seems to me that you may have the situation completely backwards. It is the people who are in power who need to steadily move the ball down the field toward their goal, because their efficiency and consistency will be rewarded at the ballot box as a sign of good governance. We, on the other hand, being out of power, need to keep the curveballs coming, need to keep the pressure on, and need to show at every opportunity that those in power CANNOT manage crises, and are therefore unfit to lead. Obama has demonstrated over and over that he cannot manage a crisis from the standpoint of someone who is in power. He is uncomfortable in that situation. So why exactly do we want to help him stay in his comfort zone?

Rinophobe| 4.21.11 @ 2:36PM

Quin, I think you are exactly right; cooler heads must prevail. The trick is in being able to discern Obama's manufactured crisis from the real ones. He will tell us exactly how we should trust him to manage a crisis which he either creates himself, or makes out of a Republican proposal, like Ryans budget, or a Deepwater Horizon BP crisis. In the case of BP, his ineptitude as a leader surfaced and played out for all of us to see. He had no recourse and had no strategy b/c he did not manufacutre that crisis. If so, he would have benefited from it, but he did not. If perceived accurately, he lost any potential benefit from that crisis. On the other hand, if a government shutdown occurred, which is what he wanted, he could have blamed and berated Republicans all day long and quite possibly have succeeded in convincing gullible Americans (dependent on the State) that more governemnt, not less, is preferable.
No argument is perfect, but in defeating this radical, reason, logic, and calm must win the day until things are once again copasetic. Perhaps not the best choice, but we cannot give the Left the ammunition they seek. We do not have the tactical advantage yet, so we must hold out and fight his strategy wisely, with the proverbial gentleness of doves while having the cunning of serpents. We must get them to respond to our game, not the other way around. In other words, like cheese in a mousetrap, the smart mouse doesn't take it. I for one sure as hell hope we get this right.

The Big E| 4.21.11 @ 3:11PM

I see no reason to fear a fabricated crisis by Obama, especially since we cannot prevent him from fabricating one anyway. And I do not like the idea of shying away from confrontation on occasions when confrontation is the right thing to do. I'm not saying that confrontation is always the right response, it is not, but there are times when the choice is between confronting evil or accommodating it. Choosing to accommodate evil is ALWAYS the wrong choice, regardless of who's in power. And yet, the very strategy you espouse, and that espoused by Mr. Hilyer, is one of accommodation. Why? Why should we fear going toe-to-toe with someone whose veneer of competence has been so completely washed away? Why are we afraid to stand and fight on what we believe? Do we not really believe it? Or are we afraid of not being liked?

I say we should say what we mean and stand by it, defend it, fight for it. If it means a confrontation, have the confidence in our beliefs to defend them, and the courage to fight for them in the face of those who hate us - because make no mistake about it - they hate us. If Obama uses our willingness to stand for what we believe to manufacture a crisis, so what? Hammer him over the head with it. Call him what he is - a LIAR. Tar him with the truth, feather him with his own lies.

Accommodation is not a strategy. It's an excuse for failure. I'm sick of excuses.

CalMark| 4.21.11 @ 12:26PM

"Be careful! No confrontations! Play nicely! All is probably lost!"

Quin Hillyer, Beltway Republican bellwether.

David T| 4.21.11 @ 12:30PM

Mr. Hillyer is absolutely right. The slow, steady voice of reason will win the day. Obama and his cronies want crisis to reign because that gives them the excuse to take drastic, "bold" measures. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" should not be our rallying cry.

Joe D.| 4.21.11 @ 1:15PM

LET'S GET ON WITH THE FIGHT. Quinn, if you can not stand the heat get out of the kitchen. And that goes for the Republican so called leadership.

mames| 4.21.11 @ 1:17PM

Full speed ahead. Kill the political enemy (metaphorically of course) and bury them 40 feet down. IN this world there has really only been 3 forms of govt, collectivism, autocracy (really just a form of collectivism on a more narrow scale) and Limited Republics. Collectivism has been the food of the USA for 70 years and as time has passed people have gotten used to that shit, they eat it up. It will take a jolt to wake them up. No slow as you go - constantly educate( as they do) that O is trying to do economic damage ON PURPOSE and move ahead with our agenda. Good Lord where do these spineless "conservatives" come from?

Controse| 4.21.11 @ 1:27PM

Let us all keep in mind that we only win one way and that is in the voting booth. Every clever tactic, every clever strategy should be bubbled to the top by one thought only: will it get more voters voting our way into the booth? Who makes the juices flow? Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin? We need a leader that goes on the offense and stays on the offense. Let me through out a few catch phases for you and see if you flinch. 1) death panels 2) little fella 3) fight like a girl 4) WTF 5) we're here, we're clear, get use to it. What has Mitt said that makes you flinch?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.21.11 @ 3:11PM

Controse,
thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 4:13AM

It is unlikely Romney or Palin will be the nominee. Though either one would be better than Barack Obama.

MacDaddy| 4.21.11 @ 1:29PM

OK, I get it, it's a chess match, not WWE wrestling, we have to choke them step by step, move by move, rather than simply rush across the ring, grab them by the shoulders and throw their azzes out the ring.... But, damn, that's what I want to do. I don't want these criminals eased out of office. I want them THROWN out, as far and as hard as possible. I don't want them to wake up and wonder how it happened that they narrowly lost, I want them completely humiliated by the repudiation....I don't want them thinking they have a chance to get back in....I want them in abject misery and realizing that their chance to ruin America is lost forever...

So, I will wait. And pray that there is enough time.

Doug| 4.21.11 @ 1:30PM

All I ever hear from conservatives is, "pull back, be careful, watch over your shoulder." You are all so chicken shiite that you willing give away the fight. You don't have to worry about a crisis, you are already talking surrender.

Who Knows?| 4.21.11 @ 1:56PM

The Ugly American lives, and is DYING!

What could possibly be uglier than politicians, especially those who claw their way atop the D.C. pyramid?

So far, against all odds, the American experiment in self-government is barely surviving, but there is ONE irrefutable law, which must be obeyed---

Desire is INFINITE!

And, in the economic realm, we can surely see this in action, when freshly minted HS graduates are exposed to their legal RIGHTS, but have learned practically no RESPONSIBILITY. What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine! A giddy new youth who is just starting his or her adulthood of work is sorely tempted by this idea, and indeed probably thinks that anyone who doesn’t buy it is a fool.

Also, in the political dimension, the top achievers are driven by INFINITE desire, which means they want to be an omnipotent GOD on this earth, expressed as a totalitarian dictatorship---Obama truly wants to be the ONE and ONLY: all bow down to Him!

Who are these opponents, Like a Paul Ryan?

Don’t they know who Obama IS?

I don’t care how brilliant Quin is about the proper tactics in the next couple of years---there IS a crisis, and there’s no way to not deal with it: band aides won’t stop a hemorrhaging gash.

The American body economic-politic is facing a period of---AMPUTATIONS.

I, too, just saw the Civil War PBS programs, again, and here’s the proper analogy, IMO---

The weapons used by the “rebels” who want to “secede” from the Union---you know, the socialists like Obama, who don’t believe in America---are as terrible as the ones used in that war, in social-economic-political terms.

So, just as so many soldiers had to have legs and arms cut off to save their lives, America is NOW in the same dire state, in terms of all things having to do with the economy.

Buy GOLD.

Buy Beethoven’s Late String Quartets and listen to them every day so you’ll at least be reminded of what still can be.

Besides, since the other most basic rule of human nature is self-definition, as an ego, who inevitably calcifies into rigid beliefs, all the blah blah blah by people fixed in their opinions won’t change much, anyway.

Proof?

Individuals continue to be sure of themselves about “needing” sugar drinks, even as they daily add weight, on their way to a wallowing life of pain and suffering, disease and death.

Google Dr. Lustig + sugar is poison + youtube, and watch his radical talk from July 2009. A million hits---so, at least SOME hope exists for America.

martin j smith| 4.21.11 @ 1:59PM

Hillyer: The reason republicans lost in 06 and 08
is exactly because they followed what you have described AND the were willing partners with the Socialist in spending. They are and were the problem. Now they are ahead in the 2010 election: Why ? First people voted AGAINST OBAMA and second, the Tea party. The vote was NOT a vote for the REPUBLICAN PARTY--better get that straight!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, it appears to be --"here they go again" seeming to want to ally with the Socialists once again while Obama rips ANY OPPOSITION with LIES!!!!!!!!. And, you want to be quiet. Hillyer why not retire and try to suggest that Boehner and Mitch you know who to do the same--unless they can find some courage.

Quin| 4.21.11 @ 6:06PM

Not exactly. They lost in 2006 and 2008 not because they moved too cautiously in the right direction, but because they were moving in the wrong direction entirely. Starting in the fall of 1998 I was busting their chops for doing so. I advocated strong, bold conservative action throughout those 12 years. But circumstances are different now. We have a smaller foothold in Washington, and we have a different sort of adversary. Different circumstances require different tactics -- none of which involves running scared, but all of which involves playing it smart.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.21.11 @ 2:23PM

If you choose to cower at the Aleinsky playbook then at least use actual examples and results of our dealing with the Marxists in our history.
Did Kennedy not install the blockade (good, they backed down)? Did not Kissenger capitulate when we had the North Vietnamese on their knees (bad, we backed down)? Did Reagan back off when we had finally achieved parity or superiority with his all out funding of the National Defense (good, they were defeated)? If you stand up to this type of doctrine you win, if you dally or capitulate you lose.
No government, party, or movement has ever won unless they have been willing to give up as much as they could gain. I know one thing for sure and that is what we have been doing and the people we have placed in office have not worked out. The historical GOP which many here seem to revere and preserve is part of the problem. You people seem to do the same thing over, and over, and over; you seem to support the same people that over, and over, and over are willing participate in the destruction of our country.
The authors and pundits, such as Quinn, are leading you down the primrose path. At the end of that path is the gallows. There is no doubt in my mind that if we do not immediately halt the spending, the expansion of the government, and the beltway mentality of our representatives the country will fail, and it will fail soon.
Do what you want, we have at least that much freedom left, but I am not alone in my beliefs and I will help you no longer. No money for any [R]’s, no more marching in parades for [R’s], no more serving in campaign staffs for [R’s], and no more signs on my property for [R’s]. I will call you out on your hypocrisy, your foolishness, and your stupidity at every turn.
This country was founded by patriots that drew a line; the country was ruined by politicians who have forgotten that simple fact. There are only two types of people in the discussion; those that are willing to unconditionally fight those destroying our way of life, the other is those that simply offer up partisan blame for our destruction. Blaming the progressives is useless, they do not care.
I am spoiling for a fight, but I hate to waste any effort on people such as you that don’t know what it takes to win; let’s get to the main event.

Rinophobe| 4.21.11 @ 2:48PM

I agree with the substance of your sentiment Michael, and have for very long felt the same way. But, one flaw in your example that I see and humbly point out that in all three examples, Kennedy, Kissinger, and Reagan were all in power and had the upper hand. They bargained, backed-down or retreated from a position of power. We do not have that advanatage yet, and this time, if it be the first time, must strategize our way back into power by defeating the Leftists, and then holding our elected victors accountable instead of just assuming that since our people are in power they will do the next right thing. IN that failure we are all culpable; we must be as vigilant once we elect our chosen leaders as much as we are in fighting back the Socialists and retaking the same ground once fought for many times over. The fight is just begining and must never wane even when victory is achieved.
Reasons for fighting in Vietnam and that whole strategy is another discussion entirley.

Oldefarte| 4.21.11 @ 2:50PM

Quin, With my usual ALL DUE RESPECT to your historical political experience/knowledge, I'll possibly show my ignorance by disagreeing with your logic [maybe, maybe not]. First, if memory serves me, it was not the Bush administration/ Paulson who paniced with TARP, but rather the Obama administration [the latter began wildly dispensing its funds to GM, each/every Democrat-snowball stand etc imaginable], while the former restricted same to the major banks in solely attempting to prevent a financial collapse from a run on the banks by consumer-depositors. That said, I completely agree that the proper political course should be a rational-reasoned agenda of logic and intelligence. However, when dealing with humans [and against RADICALS], sometimes that is not entirely possible. People get PI**ED when faced with STUPIDITY and a radical takeover of their country [which is now occurring], and sadly react hastily in anger [me, NO/NEVER]. What has now brought about the current wave of conservative Republicans and the IN YOUR FACE CONFRONTATION with the current administration is the wonderful/blessed folks of the Tea Party movement, who are simply FED UP WITH IT AND WON'T TAKE IT ANY MORE! They have been [though angry] restrained and logically/intelligently putting forth their message of conservatism, and this needs to grow and continue going forward [many of them have worked their rears off for their entire lives, raised families, supported their government etc and gotten the SHAFT for their efforts]. It won't be the RINO's way any longer, and the Tea Partiers will insist upon same. It's over. No more! Times up! No third-world type revolutions/riots, etc; but a continued election of conservative representatives that will eventually take over/back THEIR GOVERNMENT from the liberals/socialists/communists/domestic terrorists/labor unions/government employees etc who now are in charge. American taxpayer-voters used to [when I first joined the workaday world many decades ago] be so involved in working, raising families, etc; that they didn't have time/energy for things political/government [and the political opening left by same gove the liberal Democrats the open field to accompolish their radicalisms throughout government policy as it currently exists]. As a consequence to same, we've had the GREAT SOCIETY, MEIDCAID, WELFARE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING [IE THE CURRENT REAL ESTATE CRISIS], OBAMA, REID,PILOSI,THE KENNEDYS,GORE, KERRY, HUMPHREY, SCHUMER,DURBIN,ETC AND THE GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING AND TAXIATION THAT IS NOW CRIPLING THIS COUNTRY PRESENTLY. It will take time, energy and determination [as you state] to effectively right our ship of state, but the RINOism that you seem to promote is not the way to go IMO. We need the controlled revolutionary policies of the Tea Party to continue and grow. We've had BushI&II;, Nixon,Dole,Ford etc who played by the Queenbury rules to their/our detriment. We need a Palin, a Bachmann, a Trump, a Ryan, etc to CALL A SPADE A SPADE, IN YOUR FACE STYLE [but as you say calmly, thoughtfully, reasonably]. If we continue with this historical political RINOism, we and our country are TOAST! As Clint would say, it's time to wip out the ol 44 mag and say coolly [while wiming it directly at the target]: ARE YOU FEELING LUCKY, PUNK??????????????????

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 3:18PM

Your ancient flatulence has hit it out of the park. The days of playing nicely, avoiding bold moves, and playing it safe are done. People are starving for bold, straight, assertive, clear, and FIRM leadership. We want leadership that is out there. Confronting with truth, standing their ground, getting their ideas and solutions out to the public, unafraid and not intimidated by a state run left wing media. Taking charge of the message and taking the offensive position not the defensive.

Bob Grant| 4.21.11 @ 5:37PM

Bold, straight, assertive, clear don't necessarily translate to competent, effective, clever, or judicious.

With all due respect to you and ancient flatulence.

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 6:52PM

It's implied. Add effective solutions and workable ideas. I still believe that conservatives or should I say Americans, in general, can solve these problems. Clever and judicious is relative and in the eye of the beholder. Bold, assertive, straight, and clear served our founding fathers quite well. They are a good starting point and sorely missing today among our mamby pamby generation of man-boys. With all due respect.

Wayne | 4.21.11 @ 3:50PM

Well said. Imagine telling the Patriots in 1776 to wait another 20 months as we figure out how to avoid crises.

One small point. Bush was the first to give GM a bailout, leaving the door wide open for an 85 Billion dollar giveaway to the union.

Oldefarte| 4.21.11 @ 4:15PM

I've heard that previous re: Bush/GM, but haven't seen documented proof of same, and until I see the WHITES OF THEIR EYES....so to speak, I'll continue to believe otherwise. Later!

Oldefarte| 4.21.11 @ 4:19PM

PS: It was announced today that the taxpayers/government will take a $11billion loss/haircut by selling their remaining shares of GM stock/ownership. TARP's bailout of GM was all about politica payback to the labor unions by Barry & Co anyway, since GM's survival was NOT critical for this country's economic well-being [as was the financials/banks']!!!!!!!!

Bob Grant| 4.21.11 @ 5:24PM

11 Bil ???....PFFFT!

That's not much. It's only about the cost of 4 measly Cash-For-Clunkers Programs.

skip| 4.21.11 @ 8:20PM

11 billion?

This is the amount our national deficit grows every 2.5 days.

Tjs | 4.21.11 @ 9:19PM

Amen, and well said...! Your point of people working and doing the right thing while trusting and expecting their elected officials to do the right thing is spot on. Except, the elected morons chose power over doing the right thing. We are out here, still busting our behinds to make a living, and/or run a business, but are itching for the fight that finally puts the political elite in their place..!
I think the author has a valid point on strategy, but there does come a time when evil needs to be struck down and defeated point blank.
The time is now..

hoads| 4.21.11 @ 2:58PM

Here's one way to tweak our strategy:

Demonstrate how government is "spreading the revenue" instead of making a difference in people's lives.

I'm all for a social safety net but, it is obvious that the Left doesn't care about actually lifting people up and helping those who need it most. No, the Left's goal is to entice people with free money while turning a blind eye to the fraud and abuse so prevalent in welfare and entitlement programs.
Those dependent upon government need to see how accountability in government would help those in need the most. Create divisions within government dependents. Look at the Pigford case. Those black farmers who were the original claimants recognize how the program has been abused while their potential claim amounts have been diluted by the number of fraudulent claimants.

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 4:03PM

Yeah, picture this...a commercial comes up on your TV during election season promoting conservatism. Pictures of everday Americans of all stripes struggling to make it, feed their families, live their dreams splash across your screen. A spokesman comes forward and sits on a stool..introduces the idea of what conservatism means and stands for. The commercial ends with the statement, "We want to offer you a job and chance to have a family, not a welfare check and a chit for an abortion".

Warrior | 4.21.11 @ 4:08PM

Nobody should be dependent upon the federal government. There is no enumerated power that gives the federal monster that ability. By expressing to the voters that the federal government is in the business of entitlements, but only those who really need it, you are just attempting to stake out a position a little less liberal than the hard core leftists.

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 4:21PM

Exactly. This should be our central selling point of conservativism. This federal government should only act in ways that assist and encourage the private sector to create prosperity and opportunity through good stewardship of our taxes and intervention only in circumstances that enhance private enterprise and freedom. The federal government should not be in the business of entitlements or safety nets. The states are responsible and more able to create these safety nets when needed.

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 3:07PM

Conservatives do not loose heart. Stay strong, stick to your principles. Do exactly what we have done so far. The Tea Party and conservative activists need to follow the same strategy that won them a landslide in the last election. Do not trust Quin, the Rino establishment, and our little ruling class and their sycophants in the beltway. Reach out to your neighbors, your freinds, and your relatives....educate, agitate, speak out, and keep reminding the Rino establishment that they are next. Do not live by double standards set either by Quin or the Left. Keep your money and contributions flowing to Tea party candidates not the GOP. Keep your messages clear and bold in the public arena and do not apologize for your conservativism. Yes, never let the Left define you, play you, or allow them to not play by the rules. Keep exposing their agendas, their lies, and their manipulations with clarity and boldness. The time for timidness, incrementalism, and capitulation is over. Remember, We won this last election..we, the conservatives and Tea Party brought about this historic land slide..NOT the Beltway sycophants, the GOP establishment, Boehner and all the rest. Keep that in mind...always.

Oldefarte| 4.21.11 @ 4:31PM

ST: Bless you for your well-spoken words of patriotism, but please don't demean conservative writers such as Quin. I've followed his literary efforts through several states including his present DC locations, and I know for a proven fact that he's as conservative as any/all of us. There would probably be NO Tea Party agenda today if not for the literary/political efforts of those like Quin. Let's all disagree when necessary with these writers, but try to remember [and I do due to my advanced age] that once upon a time there was no TAS, Newsmax, Fox News, Limbaughs, Palins, Bachmanns, etc [there were solely the NYT, CBS, NBC, WaPo, SF Chronicle, ABC, Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, etc]. Conservatism was the RED-HEADED STEPCHILD IN A ROOM FULL OF FLAMIN LIBERALS!!!!!!!!

Quin| 4.21.11 @ 6:08PM

Thanks, Oldefarte!

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 6:30PM

Quin..this is not personal..I just think you are seriously wrong in this particular article and appear lately to be too ready in apologizing for the actions of GOP leaders...all of which we have very good grounds not to trust.

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 6:22PM

You may indeed be right about Quin's intentions and work over the years. I do not know him personally, of course, so I have to go on what I read in his articles published over the past year. My intention is not to demean him personally. But I think he is very mistaken and has incorrectly applied some of the concepts of Alinsky, radical movements, and social change dynamics to the struggle that we are facing right now. I read all of the Alinsky material thirty years ago and studied social movement theory while obtaining my first of six degrees. So, this where I was coming from. I too have grown to the age where I do not automatically give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to those in the media, the ruling elite, or those who have spent a great deal of time in the beltway. Quin has a great deal of power, unlike you and I, to shape public opinion and a forum to do it in. This is a great responsibility. We are living in some very trying and dangerous times and much is at stake here. So, when he starts giving advice and criticism that sounds awfully suspicious, apologetic, incorrect, and backsliding, I feel I must point out to people that they must be careful, think critically of what is being offered, and trust themselves. It is very easy to just follow the so-called experts. We have been relying on these experts, pundits, and educated elites for too long...and have forgotten what self government really is...or how to form our own opinions and analysis. This is what the Tea Party is essentially is...the last chance for a people to think for themselves and rule themselves. I respectfully disagree with you in your claim that there would be no Tea Party agenda without Quin and all the others. Quin like all of us is just one man...right sometimes..wrong others. So this what I meant when I said do not put all your trust in Quin, the Beltway pundits, some savior, the GOP, or whatever.

Bob Grant| 4.21.11 @ 7:44PM

Simon, I agree with everything you if all it took was to just TAKE the whitehouse but we do need a few of those independents, blue collar democrats, and libertarians to win. I'm sure you would agree. No? How do we attract those voters with someone who comes across as sorta loopy?

I will not mention any candidates' names for fear of hurt feelings.

simon templar| 4.22.11 @ 12:25AM

I am not sure who you are thinking of as loopy but yes we need to attract as many people as possible. One thing here, however, is often overlooked. This is not just about elections. It is more about educating those independents, blue collars, etc., to the realities of what is happening in this country. It about giving people information and truth with conviction and reminding people of those rock bed American values and foundational principles that have been lost. It is about exposing to them what will be the consequences of not being informed and not understanding what the LEFT is attempting to achieve. The independents are leaving this poser in droves. There is hope. I will let you in on a secret about the Left and the progressive movement. They started out very small and continued to inflate their numbers when they began. They invented grass root mobilization, infiltration, and grassroot education (propaganda) within small groups and institutions until they brainwashed an entire generation and eventually grew there numbers and took over whole sectors, industries, and institutions. This process of social change is what is now happenning in the Tea Party movement as it has grown. It always starts with a few people and grows and grows. So, next time you attend a tea party rally drag a couple of those independents and blue collar freinds with you to it. this is the basis of power and social change, not politicians and candidates, loopy or not. The candidates will come forward as they did in the last election. Maybe one of them will be YOU!

Oldefarte| 4.22.11 @ 2:53PM

ST: I'm not disagreeing with your always intelligent commentary and/or your experience. As such, you absolutely have your individual right to your opinion, which is indisputable. All I'm trying to suggest is to compare conservative writers such as Quin to the traditional MSM-types; and to ask yourself WHICH DO YOU PREFER? I hope suspect that you're much younger than myself [thankfully] and I can only confirm to you that in my lifetime there was Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, Theodore White, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, Atlanta Constitutional, SF Cronicle, Chicago Tribune, which were all influenced/dominated by the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Humphreys, the Johnsons, the Carters, the Gores, the Clintons, and now the Obamas. Need I say more [hopefully not]? Have a good one!

simon templar| 4.23.11 @ 1:15PM

Quin is not a MSM type. He is light years away from these people. I appreciate many of his comments and insight into issues and I am sure he has been in the fight to bring the truth to the public for many years. I see sometimes a weakness in conservatives born out of some high intentioned thinking; a thinking that is also incorrect and self defeating. They often accept double standards that they unwittingly go along with and an display an inability to know when to play it soft and when to hit the enemy hard. I think his overall message is to pick your battles and not waste your 'pop' and play into the enemies hands by showing a strong hand too soon for fear of your message being not understood. This is wise in many cases. But I disagree with many points in this particular article as I have outlined in the other posts. I believe we need to be more aggressive and assertive right now, particularly in controlling and getting the message out to the public and exposing these progressives for what they are. Did you see West last night with Greta on his comments about the socialist agitator? This is what I am talking about. The gloves need to come off...but with conviction, strength, and focused attack...not swinging wildly.

Bob Grant| 4.21.11 @ 7:37PM

You forgot to mention Morton Downey Jr. Heh.

Oldefarte| 4.22.11 @ 3:02PM

Hopefully you're not seriously considering anything suggesting credibility with this drug-crazed/alcholic moronic [un]actor [whose claim to fame rests almost entirely with IRON MAN]?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.21.11 @ 3:17PM

Simon,
well spoken.

Wayne | 4.21.11 @ 3:45PM

Some of this sounds good. Problem is we don't trust the GOP, especially the beltway GOP. They got us into this trouble in the first place. They let Bush get away with very large deficits. They avoided crises by insisting we drill in ANWR and we got high gas prices. They avoided crises by allowing Pelosi and Frank to turn Fanny and Freddie loose on our housing market.

The Art of War is to pick your battles. What better battle to pick than cutting the purse strings and taking the fight to Congress and away from the White House.

We don't want to sit around and wait for Pearl Harbor.

Oldefarte| 4.24.11 @ 2:40PM

My one and only point is that if you don't trust the Republicans, do you therefore trust the Democrats? There are only two political parties, so which one is WORST? I'm only suggesting that you/me/we initially focus upon the Democrats, and thereafter, the Republicans. Don;t put the cart before the horse, okay? The Democrats are the problem [and have been my entire life]. The Republicans have not been true to the conservative agenda of Goldwater/Reagan, BUT THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATS! Democrats have been the CAUSE of AFFORDABLE HOUSING [now collapse of the housing market], OBAMACARE, MEDICAID, GREAT SOCIETY WELFARE, etc; while Republicans have [due to lack of political numbers] been dragged along for the ride. Let's concentrate on Democrats first and thereafter, weed out the problem Republicans, please!!!!

Pecos| 4.21.11 @ 3:49PM

I have no interest in negotiating a surrender agreement with the Democratic Communist Party.
In Texas my forefathers painted a cannon on their white flag and the words " Come And Take It".

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.21.11 @ 4:54PM

American Thinker
Has the GOP Surrendered?
By J. Robert Smith
Go read the responses if you actually think Quinn is mainstream here.

simon templar| 4.21.11 @ 5:41PM

Just finished reading it. It was excellent. basically and eloquently explained why the GOP better get some gutts and balls together fast.
Loved the following from the article,
"Washington Republicans -- Boehner and McConnell, conspicuously -- argue that the 2011 budget fight wasn't the right ground to really contest the Democrats' spending and borrowing ploys; not the fight to try to turn the tide. Neither is the debt ceiling vote, as referenced. GOP leaders will attempt to wring some -- modest -- concessions from the debt ceiling vote, make some "progress," as their spin would have it, but the real fight is over the 2012 budget -- or so they're claiming. "
Yes, exactly..And I predict that in 2012 we will be hearing that it is not the time to fight for a 2012 budget and real cuts but it will be neccessary to get the thing out of the White House and concentrate on the Presidential election. At that time, Quin will come out with an article, once again, attepting to convince of us that this is absolutely necessary.

Oldefarte| 4.22.11 @ 2:57PM

If you read enough of the AT, you'll realize that it has a liberal bent, and is somewhat affiliated with the Atlas Shrugged website [which has a very narrow partisaned political agenda]!!!!!!!

cyberdog| 4.21.11 @ 4:58PM

The 2008 election was between a liberal and a communist. True Republicans wont vote for a liberal and Democrats can't tell the difference between the two. So now we have the communist. The Republicans had better take this next election serious or we can just say adious to what was the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Bob Grant| 4.21.11 @ 5:32PM

Quin, if you're so concerned about the republicans turning radical and creating the perfect conditions for an Obama re election, then why don't you, as a national journalist, call to petition the names of the people who you feel would be successful running against Obama? I would be all for it. I have a list of my favs:

Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan

Do it. Let's get is started right here!!!

Nite| 4.21.11 @ 11:09PM

Obama and the Democrats have been spending like drunken sailors for the past two years. If Obama is re-elected, he and his radicals will totally destroy this country. Strong actions must be taken.

J. Pulley| 4.21.11 @ 11:55PM

Thanks, Mr. Hillyer. I, for one, have spent too much effort trying to divine Mr. Obama's motivations: Is he a blunderer or a wrecker, a dumb believer or a cagy cynic? And whatever he is, is he acting with the ultimate aim of euro-socialism, or some weirdly derived retro-anti-colonialism, or just old-timey ward heeling?

You remind me that at this point motivation hardly matters. Whatever he's up to, I don't like it, and your comments regarding intelligent resistance are spot on.

OhioGuy| 4.22.11 @ 10:34AM

As I read articles on Alinsky, Clower and Piven, I'm struck by the constant acceptance that their theories are right. Why is it assumed that they have inside knowledge that "the masses" will react the way they predict? Biographies of Alinsky state that one of his efforts was to improve the conditions in the Black ghettos of the US. Some track record of accomplishment.
He may have been good at organizing, but I don't see much evidence that his efforts reached the goals he was aiming for. Ditto his student in the White House. How's that Hope & Change workin' for the masses?
As for Clower & Piven, they are typical academics sitting around the faculty lounge, devising their theories as to how their plans for anarchy will result in a new utopia of social justice & beauty. Where's the evidence that their plans will work the way they expect?
I'm reminded of when Grant took over the Army of the Potomac. He told his subordinates, "Why don't we quit worrying what Lee is going to do and start thinking about what we will do!?"

philfl63| 4.22.11 @ 9:58PM

Quin. Is that a boy or girl's name? Just wondering, because Quin sounds like a whiny little girl. No Quin! No! (I just hit Quin on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for peeing on him/herself). You have to be more brutal and terrrifying than the enemy. Yes, you can be disciplined as were the Roman legions fighting in ranks until the bloodlust was too much for their commanders to contain and then they were turned loose to rend flesh, spill blood, and shatter bone. I spent three tours in Iraq. I can tell you Quin that being a meal on wheels while handcuffed with rules of engagement amongst a primitive yet determined enemy was a recipe for failure. You take the fight to the enemy and stomp out his guts. If we had been allowed to do that, you Quin would not be paying $4.00 a gallon for gas and we would have 25 million new helots working for our benefit (or else). This is the real world Quin. It is time to stop being nice. Have a nice day Quin.

Wrongster| 4.23.11 @ 2:00PM

This article reflects why Republicans are ineffectual whims.

First, look at the stakes: preventing a financial collapse. This doesn't have a tomorrow.

The idea that you always wait and wait and wait is not a way to win. These issues can be confronted whether or not Obama is president and whether or not Obama gets re-elected.

Politics isn't some silly game where the politics are more important the goal. The issues and active public engagement and education is the goal.

Case in point, Walker has been incredibly powerful in Wisconsin, at the perception of his own political expense. Mass protests, fleeing the states, calling for a recount in a Supreme Court race without a close margin has drawn public attention to true threat of unions to the taxpayer.

Elections themselves are not the be all and end of politics. Elections are merely battles, the war is the culture and mindshare.

Cowardly avoiding political issues to appease Obama is exactly why I was thrilled when the Republicans lost in 2006 and elated when the incompetent boob McCain lost in 2008.

I want strong Republicans that are willing to take political risks and actively engage the problems. Not do-nothing Republicans fearfully cowering away and lying to themselves that it is a tactic.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I don't see a role for weenies willing to sell out their principles for re-election in that sentence.

No one is going to buy the "hope and change" thing again. Obama may get re-elected in 2012 (I sort of doubt it) but even in such a case, you still actively pursue fixing this country and it can still be done.

Wrongster| 4.23.11 @ 2:14PM

Addendum: Defaulting on the debt should be an option on the table because the liberals "tax and spend" culture would immediately come to an end. They have plenty of reasons to come to the bargaining table and agree to spending cuts. Their politics depends on spending money we do not have.

dennis| 4.24.11 @ 9:07PM

these days are quite dangerous, i has been presented to you all from prophets long ago. certainly one can not know how things will play out the one true thing that has been established is who the puppet masters are. after watching these things for all these years the only time things change are the deaths of the rats who claim to be in control. the lord above will see to the end of all things, it is ordained we shall suffer for a time then the wrath will make them succumb to his power. it was written and it will be done

Dee See| 4.25.11 @ 11:17PM

DON'T like Alinsky and social subversion?

---Then move to audit, dismantle, prosecute and
DESTROY their sponsors ---the Rockefeller/Ford/Carnegie Foundations.

They are the REAL poison behind things.

THINK 'social progress' (ie subversion and
'radical movements') ---and, as ever, EUGENICS.

KEEP THINKING-------------------------------------

John Sutherland| 5.5.11 @ 7:38AM

Quin, you wrote:

"Conservatives should be Madisonians: indefatigable, determined, but flexible enough to see that long-term goals can be achieved in zig-zag fashions. ..."

I would counter by suggesting that we once again become Jeffersonians - strong believers in state sovereignty over the federal government. The states originally created what is now a runaway central government that has shown itself to be non-responsive to our laws, our states, and our sovereign citizens. One would be hard pressed to identify one lawful action made by the federal government in recent years that was done in support of either the states or the citizens.

The mad rush into the destruction of the America by the communists in power has to be stopped and reversed, and the states are the proper and legal forces to do so.

I keep wondering where the constitutionally irate governors are. Where is the resistance by the state governments against destruction caused by the unconstitutional central government? Where?

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:58PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|79 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|58 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|81 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|25 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 3:45PM

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

Streetcar Line

Don’t Let Alinsky Win

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (162) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

drudge ette obama| 4.21.11 @ 6:24AM

old white guy| 4.22.11 @ 7:24AM

martin j smith| 4.21.11 @ 6:44AM

mames| 4.21.11 @ 10:01AM

vtwin| 4.21.11 @ 10:18AM

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:27AM

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 11:07AM

Teaghan| 4.21.11 @ 10:43AM

jothepro| 4.21.11 @ 10:45AM

Jive Bomber| 4.21.11 @ 11:14AM

Albert| 4.21.11 @ 11:21AM

mames| 4.21.11 @ 1:08PM

Oldefarte| 4.21.11 @ 2:11PM

Anthony| 4.21.11 @ 1:06PM

martin j smith| 4.21.11 @ 6:57AM

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 11:15AM

Alky| 4.21.11 @ 1:05PM

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 2:05PM

Grega| 4.21.11 @ 2:10PM

Tina B| 4.21.11 @ 6:57AM

Mimi| 4.21.11 @ 7:00AM

Tina B| 4.21.11 @ 7:01AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 7:04AM

Mike D.| 4.21.11 @ 7:18AM

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 4:44PM

Ted| 4.21.11 @ 10:04AM

Karl Lucifer Marx| 4.21.11 @ 11:15AM

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 11:36AM

Quin| 4.21.11 @ 1:01PM

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 2:54PM

Margie| 4.21.11 @ 4:49PM

big bob| 4.21.11 @ 3:03PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 3:00PM

USSAlabama| 4.21.11 @ 3:33PM

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 3:42PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 8:03PM

John Navratil| 4.21.11 @ 10:21PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.22.11 @ 4:57AM

John Navratil| 4.22.11 @ 9:33AM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 7:20AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.21.11 @ 8:07AM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 8:19AM

Dan Hirsch| 4.21.11 @ 10:08AM

Franklin| 4.21.11 @ 12:42PM

Appleby| 4.21.11 @ 7:34AM

Teaghan| 4.21.11 @ 10:45AM

JF| 4.21.11 @ 3:20PM

scott| 4.21.11 @ 7:36AM

Big Tony| 4.21.11 @ 7:38AM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 7:38AM

Franklin| 4.21.11 @ 1:13PM

big bob| 4.21.11 @ 3:07PM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 4:58PM

K962| 4.21.11 @ 7:47AM

Teaghan| 4.21.11 @ 10:47AM

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 8:02AM

Tom Osterman| 4.21.11 @ 10:33AM

Jim Feeney| 4.21.11 @ 11:21AM

Deborah D | 4.22.11 @ 12:46AM

Michael Tomlinson| 4.22.11 @ 4:08AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.21.11 @ 8:09AM

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.21.11 @ 12:21PM

cuban pete| 4.21.11 @ 4:57PM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 8:13AM

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 8:52AM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 9:11AM

Clint| 4.21.11 @ 9:17AM

Dustoff| 4.21.11 @ 10:10AM

loulou| 4.21.11 @ 10:31AM

George S| 4.21.11 @ 10:36AM

Karl Lucifer Marx| 4.21.11 @ 8:20AM

R Martin| 4.21.11 @ 8:27AM

TruSkeptik| 4.21.11 @ 8:35AM

Nelson| 4.21.11 @ 9:47AM

JimH| 4.21.11 @ 8:58AM