Author Topic: Hillary Was Almost VP in 2012 and Christie Was Eliminated Over Ethics Concerns  (Read 5936 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Regarding Hillary, this just further proves that people vote the top of the ticket.  Replacing a dumbo like Biden with her wouldn't have made a significant impact (per their own findings).

Report: Ethics troubles complicated Christie's chances for 2012 ticket
By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN
Fri November 1, 2013
 
Washington (CNN) -- Ethics troubles complicated New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's chances of becoming Mitt Romney's running mate last year, The New York Times reports is in an upcoming chronicle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The Times reported that too many questions remained after Christie completed the vetting process and Romney had lingering concerns.
The details come four days before New Jersey voters head to the polls to determine if Christie gets a second term.
During a campaign stop Friday, he dismissed the report and told CNN that the authors are "just trying to sell books."

Christie's challenges were first reported Thursday night by Times national political correspondent Johnathan Martin and based on details of the book, "Double Down: Game Change 2012."

The highly anticipated book about the presidential election by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, is expected to be a juicy tell-all about the inner-workings of the presidential campaign.

Those concerns included a Justice Department investigation of Christie's expenditures while he was a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.

A 2010 report by the department's Inspector General concluded Christie — among five top prosecutors investigated -- was the "the U.S. attorney who most often exceeded the government (travel expense) rate without adequate justification."

He also offered "insufficient, inaccurate or no justification" for most of those costs, and refused to meet personally with investigators about the discrepancies.

Christie was not identified by name in the government report, but government sources have said he was "U.S. Attorney C," CNN confirmed.
Romney adviser Beth Myers, who ran Romney's vice presidential search committee, told CNN that "Governor Christie complied fully with the Romney campaign's request for documents in a timely manner, including a complete medical report from his internist and cardiologist."

Romney ultimately chose Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate.

Biden vs. Clinton

President Barack Obama's closest advisers may have secretly considered replacing Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton on the 2012 ticket, but White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday that it was never a remote possibility.

"Campaigns and pollsters test a lot of things," he told reporters at the daily White House briefing. "What I can tell you without a doubt is that the President never considered that and if anyone brought that to him, he would have laughed it out of the room, would never take it seriously."
Carney earlier told CNN's "New Day" that he knew "for a fact" Obama never considered it, later saying the idea was never brought to him.
He answered affirmatively when asked if Obama thought Biden would be a strong chief executive, saying that he had been an asset to the President in two campaigns and throughout the administration.

"Sure. I think the President picked Joe Biden as his running mate for the right reason, which is, if necessary, the vice president could be president. That's the first item on your checklist when you're picking your running mate," Carney said at the White House.

Asked about sizing up the potential Republican presidential field, Carney replied, "I think they all ought to run. It would be awesome."
Bill Daley, who was then Obama's chief of staff, said the swap wasn't necessary.

No one "thought that that was a good idea or needed to be done or should be done," Daley said on "CBS This Morning."

The Times obtained a copy of the book and reported that the President's top aides conducted "extensive group-sessions and polling in late 2011" to gauge whether dumping Biden could help bolster Obama's waning re-election hopes.

The book says Daley spearheaded the effort, despite their "close personal rapport," before ultimately deciding against the move when data showed that adding Clinton to the ticket wouldn't "materially improve Obama's odds."

Daley pushed back on the notion.

"Not for a moment was there a serious discussion or a belief that Joe Biden should be replaced, period," said Daley, a CBS contributor.
A difficult political year

Like Carney said, Daley admitted that it was something he considered and that polling and research were done to explore the possibility because it was his job to "look outside the box."

"But in 2011," Daley said, "it was a very difficult political year, and so my sense was we ought to look at everything here because this is a very -- it was a very difficult period, politically."

Polls conducted by CNN at the time showed that the President was struggling politically a year out from Election Day 2012. In the late summer and fall of 2011, Obama's approval ratings hovered around 45%, a 10-point drop from January of that year.

There was much speculation over whether Biden would be on a second-term ticket in late 2011 and early 2012.

Wolf Blitzer wrote on CNN.com in October 2011 that White House sources told him that the President was "very high" on Biden and "deeply appreciates his advice."

He said he asked Clinton, then Secretary of State, if it was something she would consider but she said, "No."

Obama's former deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, told CNN's Erin Burnett in January 2012, "Even privately, President Obama would tell you that one of the best decisions he's ever made in politics was putting Vice President Biden on his ticket."

"He's not leaving the ticket," Burton added.

According to Jonathan Martin, the Times' national political correspondent, the book provides a thorough account of the effort by senior officials inside the campaign and the White House, namely Daley, to measure what effect swapping Clinton for Biden would have on the polls.

The potential switch was a closely guarded secret within the Chicago campaign infrastructure and inside the Oval Office.

Only half a dozen of the President's closest advisers -- including Daley, former Obama campaign chief Jim Messina, and former White House senior advisers David Axelrod and David Plouffe -- knew the change was under consideration.

Messina, Plouffe and Axelrod took to Twitter to push back on the report.

Plouffe denied the White House or the campaign ever contemplated the swap.

"Never any consideration of (Biden-for-Clinton) switch," Plouffe wrote in a tweet.

The move was "not ever entertained by the only person who mattered. Or most of us. Back to Halloween," he added.

Axelrod tweeted: "VP swap never in play. Biden's taken on many tough assignments. He's been loyal friend and wise counselor. POTUS lucky to have him," Axelrod wrote Friday.

And Messina said: "Let me be clear: VP-HRC switch never considered by POTUS or anyone who mattered in the campaign. #sillyseason"

A significant investment

But Martin pointed out that it was, in fact, considered.

Martin told CNN's Anderson Cooper the re-election campaign made a significant investment in finding out whether the move would pay dividends at the polls.

"Campaigns don't spend the kind of money on polling and focus groups unless they're seriously considering something," he said on CNN's "AC360."

He said on the program that he asked Daley whether his then-boss knew about the potential shuffle. While Daley said he doesn't think the President "was aware" of the potential change, the former chief of staff admitted that it's "possible" Obama knew.

Martin added that "Double Down" does not definitively answer whether the political probing reached Obama's desk.

As to whether Clinton knew, Daley said on CBS that if she did know, she "didn't find out from me."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/politics/obama-campaign-biden/

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
I'm gonna read the book and decide but I suspect that this is a smear to eliminate at least one of Hil's threats.
L

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
I'm gonna read the book and decide but I suspect that this is a smear to eliminate at least one of Hil's threats.

Definitely possible.  They've already started to demonize Cruz.  Part of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41756
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Definitely possible.  They've already started to demonize Cruz.  Part of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals. 

and Cruz ended up 100% correct about ObamaCare

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
and Cruz ended up 100% correct about ObamaCare

True.  Now he needs to get out of the way and let it implode, while offering a good alternative to the good parts of the law. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41756
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
True.  Now he needs to get out of the way and let it implode, while offering a good alternative to the good parts of the law. 

Obama needs to be impeach and jailed for treason for what he did. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
How can anyone read that article and determine that "Hilary was almost VP in 2012"?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Obama needs to be impeach and jailed for treason for what he did. 

That's never going to happen.  Republicans need to start working on a clear message, that isn't just anti-Obama. 

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33642
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
HAHAHA @ Hillary having any 'threats'.  Who are they again?  Cruz?  Christie?  Maybe Trump will run again huh.

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
That's never going to happen.  Republicans need to start working on a clear message, that isn't just anti-Obama. 

True that.

But what message?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
HAHAHA @ Hillary having any 'threats'.  Who are they again?  Cruz?  Christie?  Maybe Trump will run again huh.

No idea, but it's pretty silly to in 2013 that Hillary is unbeatable in 2016. 

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33642
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Anyone is unbeatable when the opposition can't nominate a candidate that generates more interest than yesterday's dog shit.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Anyone is unbeatable when the opposition can't nominate a candidate that generates more interest than yesterday's dog shit.

Nobody is unbeatable.  Especially when the people running haven't been nominated, there have been no debates, we have no idea how the economy will be, and it's three years away. 

What we've seen in 2008 and 2012 is even a ridiculously unqualified person can be elected president.  Who knows what condition the country will be in, but if things continue down the current path, the election will be wide open. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Definitely possible.  They've already started to demonize Cruz.  Part of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.  

It's been 8 years since Obama started using these tactics.  Repubs and the right-wing media should have found ways to combat these strategies by now.  They've been complaining about this shady-ass playbook for 08, 10, and 2012 elections now.  Defeat it already.  Or proclaim it as unbeatable and put your balls back in your purse.  Every time I hear whining about this playbook, it's like, dude... come up with a counter-attack... if this liberal, radical book is still pwning your party 8 years later, maybe you dont have the balls/brains to lead.

I'm gonna read the book and decide but I suspect that this is a smear to eliminate at least one of Hil's threats.

Definitely possible.  Reminds me of how Bush wrecked Mccain with the robocalls in SC in 2000.  

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Nobody is unbeatable.  Especially when the people running haven't been nominated, there have been no debates, we have no idea how the economy will be, and it's three years away. 

What we've seen in 2008 and 2012 is even a ridiculously unqualified person can be elected president.  Who knows what condition the country will be in, but if things continue down the current path, the election will be wide open. 

LOL @ ridiculously unqualified

he met all the qualification requirements in 2008 and certainly having been POTUS for 4 years (especially if one is capable of remember the shit storm he was handed) made him more qualified BY ANY STANDARD than any Repub contender in 2012

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
It's been 8 years since Obama started using these tactics.  Repubs and the right-wing media should have found ways to combat these strategies by now.  They've been complaining about this shady-ass playbook for 08, 10, and 2012 elections now.  Defeat it already.  Or proclaim it as unbeatable and put your balls back in your purse.  Every time I hear whining about this playbook, it's like, dude... come up with a counter-attack... if this liberal, radical book is still pwning your party 8 years later, maybe you dont have the balls/brains to lead.


lol @ "right-wing media."

No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals.  Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently. 

But don't let the facts get in the way. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
lol @ "right-wing media."

No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals.  Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently. 

But don't let the facts get in the way. 

Really?

here is glenn beck on the air complaining about Saul Alinsky back in Feb 2010. 
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

I'm sorry if you don't listen to as much Beck as I do.

Rudy Guiliani talked at length about Saul Alinsky in 2008:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-right-wing-resurrects_b_1663154.html

Dick Armey talked about it nonstop in 2009.  Same link.

Dude, I bet on getbig alone, Saul Alinsky was discussed by 33386 back in 2008, 2009 and probably earlier, with references to the Right Wing media articles.

beach bum, if you are only hearing about SA in 2013, I have to say, you need to pay closer attention to FOX, brietbart, and drudge - they're doing GREAT work in exposing these shady tactics.  And they've been doing it for years.  Those are the facts.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
lol @ "right-wing media."

No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals.  Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently. 

But don't let the facts get in the way. 

Did Carson mention that right wing groups like Freedom Works give copies out to their top leadership members?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
No, "they" have not been complaining about Alinsky's rules for radicals.  Only person I've heard talking about them is Dr. Ben Carson, very recently.  

Actually, YOU posted a great article.  In 2009.  Where Limbaugh talks about the danger of Saul's tactics.  

Really good article, reading it 4 years later.  Republicans spent a great deal of time in 08/09 exposing Alinsky tactics.  It's a shame, 4 years later, they're still powerless to stop them.  :(


Conservatives Aren't the Extremists

Friday, June 5, 2009 10:14 AM

By: David Limbaugh    Article Font Size  

America's liberals and squishy Republicans routinely mischaracterize mainstream conservatives as extreme, when the liberals actually are the real extremists, by any fair measure.

Conservatives are not the ones who:

# Sermonize about tolerance yet demonstrate intolerance toward conservative and Christian thought

# Support exterminating babies in the womb

# Apologize the world over for America

# Or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States.

Conservatives aren't the ones who:

# Have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government

# Judge people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character

# Pit economic groups against one another, stoking the flames of envy and greed

# Punish success, reward failure, and promote mediocrity

# Side with the world's tyrants and dictators

# Slavishly attach themselves to leftist propaganda about impending environmental catastrophes

# Promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition

# Or morally equate the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques to save innocent lives with that of beheading innocent people.

Conservatives aren't the ones who:

# Seek to criminalize policy differences and, like a thuggish Third World dictatorship, prosecute previous administration officials for implementing EIT that their party's leadership was briefed on and approved

# Have a party leader who falsely accused the CIA of lying concerning those briefings

# Or who voted to give President George W. Bush authority to attack Iraq because they believed, based on our best intelligence at the time and that of the intelligence agencies of every other major nation, that Iraq had WMD and then spent the next five years attacking Bush for attacking Iraq and lying about Bush's alleged lies — contending that a man they painted as the dumbest president in history duped them into believing WMD existed.

Conservatives aren't the ones who:

# Actually blocked military ballots and falsely accused the other party of suppressing black voters, with absolutely no evidence.

# Publicly declared that President Bush delayed the federal response to Katrina because of his alleged racism, with utter disregard for the abominable lie it was and the untold damage that message would do to race relations

# Aren't honest about their beliefs, fearful the voters would reject them outright if they were

# Are using government money we don't have to fund community organizing groups to manipulate the census, gerrymander districts and register illegal voters by the thousands

# Or consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky to target, freeze and demonize private citizens who dissent from their policies.

Conservatives aren't the ones who:

# Seek to silence the opposition on talk radio and college campuses

# Support eliminating secret ballots for union membership to intimidate workers into joining the unions, and then have the audacity to call it free choice

# Oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools

# Reverse welfare reform despite its proven successful record; believe it's kosher for judges to twist the Constitution into whatever judges want it to say and consider foreign law in interpreting it

# Favor nationalizing healthcare instead of implementing market reforms in the face of overwhelming evidence that socialized medicine has been a disaster everywhere and every time it's been tried

# Glamorize the world's tyrants and the conditions in their thugocracies

# Ignore the verdict of history that socialism destroys the human spirit and cannot work in the real world — assuming it would be desirable if it could, which it most certainly would not

# Promote wide-open borders and universal amnesty for illegals

# Or believe government should be the primary arbiter of philanthropy in the United States.

Conservatives do want to:

# Restore constitutional principles, knowing we owe our liberties to our uniquely structured government and the Judeo-Christian principles undergirding it

# Recognize evil in the world and favor a strong national defense and peace through strength

# Believe in the individual and want to unleash his entrepreneurial spirit and provide him equal protection under the law

# Protect the lives of the unborn

# And defend traditional values — values that have been instrumental in making this the freest and most prosperous nation in history.

Republicans must cease this self-destructive tendency to emulate Democrats. They must grow more comfortable in their own political skin and return the party to its conservative roots by articulating, without apology or reservation, mainstream conservatism. They must quit allowing the left to define them and the terms of the national debate.

This is a war whose outcome will determine whether our children will live in freedom and prosperity, so let's answer the call.

http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Limbaugh_liberals_extreme/2009/06/05/221930.html

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Really?

here is glenn beck on the air complaining about Saul Alinsky back in Feb 2010. 
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

I'm sorry if you don't listen to as much Beck as I do.

Rudy Guiliani talked at length about Saul Alinsky in 2008:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-right-wing-resurrects_b_1663154.html

Dick Armey talked about it nonstop in 2009.  Same link.

Dude, I bet on getbig alone, Saul Alinsky was discussed by 33386 back in 2008, 2009 and probably earlier, with references to the Right Wing media articles.

beach bum, if you are only hearing about SA in 2013, I have to say, you need to pay closer attention to FOX, brietbart, and drudge - they're doing GREAT work in exposing these shady tactics.  And they've been doing it for years.  Those are the facts.

This is really funny.  Stop trying to portray yourself as some Republican or conservative that follows conservative media.  lol

No, I don't listen to Beck's show. 

I doubt you heard Dick Army talk about anything nonstop in 2009. 

No, I didn't hear anything about Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals until 2013. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Actually, YOU posted a great article.  In 2009.  Where Limbaugh talks about the danger of Saul's tactics.  

Really good article, reading it 4 years later.  Republicans spent a great deal of time in 08/09 exposing Alinsky tactics.  It's a shame, 4 years later, they're still powerless to stop them.  :(



This isn't an article about Alinsky's rules for radicals.  But keep looking. 

It's a shame people like you voted for Obama, despite his use of the Alinsky's rules.

And Republicans didn't do anything to expose Obama or Alinsky's tactics.  They spent most of their time imploding, overall screwing things up during presidential campaigns, and paving the way for an incompetent, unqualified, dishonest community organizer to get elected. 

You and the other people who voted for that should be proud.   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
From Wiki which referenced a Wall Street Journal Article

Quote
Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.

Kind of hard for right wing blowhards to piss and moan about it without mentioning that there side uses it too

Remember all the assholes screaming at town hall meetings

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
This is really funny.  Stop trying to portray yourself as some Republican or conservative that follows conservative media.  lol
No, I don't listen to Beck's show.  
I doubt you heard Dick Army talk about anything nonstop in 2009.  
No, I didn't hear anything about Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals until 2013.  

I do follow conservative media, dude.  patricularly FOX radio - Beck, Rush, Hannity and Levin.  I think a lot of repubs here on getbig will vouch for that.  

I can bump what is probably dozens of "tonight on Rush's show, I heard..."  or "What do you think of what Levin said tonight" or "Is beck right" throughout the days.   But I don't see a need.  Getbiggers know I discuss these shows all the time with examples from that day, and I have for years now.   Recently I even started a "Rush's show starts in 15 minutes... what will he say about..."  lol... I mean, I'm doing countdown to FOX radio shows now haha.  

Just because I'll argue anything doesn't mean I don't respect their points of view and really enjoy their shows.  

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
And Republicans didn't do anything to expose Obama or Alinsky's tactics.

I have to disagree here.

Sept 2008 - Rudy Giuliani claimed on the television talk show Meet the Press that Obama had been recruited to Chicago by "a Saul Alinsky group" with "a very core Saul Alinsky kind of almost socialist notion that [government] should be used for redistribution of wealth."

Spring 2009 - After Obama entered the White House, Fox News' Glenn Beck constantly linked him to Alinsky, whom Beck viewed as a Marxist Machiavelli whose ideas for radical change had infiltrated the Democratic Party and mainstream liberalism

April 2011 - Bill O'Reilly told his audience that Alinsky "is in the great tradition of Karl Marx [and] Lenin." Commentator Monica Crowley said, "This is the very essence of socialism... The tactics of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama are geared toward wealth redistribution."

March 2012 - Sean Hannity invited Andrew Breitbart's editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro for a special FOX segment about the Obama-Alinsky connection.

Mitt would have loved to use the line about Saul, but since Mitt's own father used Alinsky for advice in 1967, it would have been awkward.

Beach Bum, Repubs have been revealing the shady connection and horrible tactics for 5 years now.  The problem is that most repubs WERENT LISTENING.  When Rudy, Rush, Beck, Hannity, and others all yell about it for 5 years, and staunch repubs like yourself assert as FACT that it only started being discussed in 2013, well... it's a shame when a lib like myself knows way more about Right wing coverage of alinsky than a repub like yourself.  And you lecture me about facts... come on man, I admit when i get shit wrong, I'm wrong every day.  No need to belittle me with "facts" talk when I'm actually correct on this point.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66386
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
I have to disagree here.

Sept 2008 - Rudy Giuliani claimed on the television talk show Meet the Press that Obama had been recruited to Chicago by "a Saul Alinsky group" with "a very core Saul Alinsky kind of almost socialist notion that [government] should be used for redistribution of wealth."

Spring 2009 - After Obama entered the White House, Fox News' Glenn Beck constantly linked him to Alinsky, whom Beck viewed as a Marxist Machiavelli whose ideas for radical change had infiltrated the Democratic Party and mainstream liberalism

April 2011 - Bill O'Reilly told his audience that Alinsky "is in the great tradition of Karl Marx [and] Lenin." Commentator Monica Crowley said, "This is the very essence of socialism... The tactics of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama are geared toward wealth redistribution."

March 2012 - Sean Hannity invited Andrew Breitbart's editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro for a special FOX segment about the Obama-Alinsky connection.

Mitt would have loved to use the line about Saul, but since Mitt's own father used Alinsky for advice in 1967, it would have been awkward.

Beach Bum, Repubs have been revealing the shady connection and horrible tactics for 5 years now.  The problem is that most repubs WERENT LISTENING.  When Rudy, Rush, Beck, Hannity, and others all yell about it for 5 years, and staunch repubs like yourself assert as FACT that it only started being discussed in 2013, well... it's a shame when a lib like myself knows way more about Right wing coverage of alinsky than a repub like yourself.  And you lecture me about facts... come on man, I admit when i get shit wrong, I'm wrong every day.  No need to belittle me with "facts" talk when I'm actually correct on this point.

I'm neither a Republican, nor a "staunch repub."  But you like to just make stuff up.  That's you're history on the board. 

Who cares if you found a snippet or two about somebody on Fox mentioning Saul Alinsky??  That's not the Republican Party.  Find me a convention speech devoted to Alisnky.  Ads run by the RNC and McCain or Romney.  Something in the party platform.  I doubt it exists.   

But you did get one thing right:  yes you are a liberal.