Al Giordano has put up an explanation of what went down with his hasty departure from Rural Votes. As I suspected, it was a combination of an over-reaction by a advocacy group about a non-issue post and an absolutist who felt hurt and betrayed by the censoring of his written piece.
I must preface my opinion with the note that I really am not sure who Saul Alinsky was. The post that caused the level 3 crap-storm doesn't seem too out of the ordinary in my opinion, and does seem to touch on some good points about the grassroots movement that Obama has used so well.
I'm not sure who those so-called donors are that get so panicked about some blog post that mentions Saul Alinsky. Apparently the brave way of handling political hot potatoes is censorship and conceding to Faux Noise talking points, instead of hitting them head-on.
It would be one thing if Al Giordano had proposed blowing up dams, or leading violent protests at meetings of international leaders. Had he advocated following the rules set forth in Mao's Little Red Book, I would have left immediately. But the rules he set forth in that post, as radical as they may have been in 1970, sure as shit weren't too radical these days. Hell, I recognize a bunch of them being used by sleaze such as Karl Rove or Mark Penn, not exactly known as radical leftist activists.
Deb at Rural Votes biggest mistake was panicking without waiting for a reply from the author. Its too bad that she seemed to place rich donors ahead of those who gave in small amounts (including yours truly), most of whom apparently had no issue with this non-starter of a controversy.
By jumping the gun and getting nervous, she set forth a path of ruin that lost her site a popular writer, sullied the name of a group that is truly trying to do something important, and made sure many previously loyal supporters will do otherwise. Not exactly the best model of successful advocacy, is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment