Political Animal

Blog

January 31, 2012 9:40 AM “Alinsky Tactics”

By Ed Kilgore

A “story” careening around the right-wing blogosphere this morning involves complaints from Rhode Island anti-choice activists that Occupy folk are systematically disrupting RTL rallies in that state and elsewhere.

What makes the “story” a bit questionable are some of the details provided by the RTLers about the disruption of their annual event at the Rhode Island State House:

The pro-life organization’s executive director, Barth E. Bracy, told LifeSiteNews.com that, near the end of the rally, the Occupiers “strategically fanned out with military precision.”
That’s when they “started showering condoms down on some of the girls from a Catholic high school.”
They gathered around speakers at the podium, shouting them down or otherwise jostling them and members of the audience.
Bracy, who finished only a quarter of his keynote address before being drowned out by chants and catcalls, said the Occupiers - who carried a large sign reading “Occupy Providence” and wore distinguishing arm bands - physically bumped several people. “They’re touching you. They’re swarming you,” he said.
The Providence chapter openly planned its actions on its Facebook page, Bracy said.
Bracy said he was disappointed when he tried to ask a man from the national Occupy Wall Street movement, who identified himself as “Dallas,” what opposing the right to life had to do with economics. “You can’t have a reasoned conversation with these people,” he said, “They simply try to taunt you. They’re smug, snarky, arrogant. You won’t get a straight answer.”
Dallas told Bracy he was on a 13-city national tour to teach Saul Alinsky tactics to local organizers.

fanned out with military precision…openly planned its action…man from the national Occupy Wall Street Movement….national tour to teach Saul Alinsky tactics.

Not too hard to see the picture the anti-choicers are trying to paint, particularly when you understand how much these people love Nazi analogies and how desperately they want to appear persecuted instead of opposed or ignored.

Without being there, it’s hard to say what really happened at their rally. The Providence Journal report on the incident doesn’t mention the condom showering or anything else other than Occupy folk chanting slogans, and the video of the event doesn’t show much disruption. There really isn’t any national Occupy organization, and the man supposedly from there traveling the country teaching “Saul Alinsky tactics” is probably either some self-appointed Johnny Appleseed or a figment of someone’s imagination (truth is about the only people who sit around reading Alinsky are the wingnuts who believe he is Obama’s messiah).

From what little I know about “Alinsky tactics,” I’d say the Rhode Island anti-choice leaders, with their flair for drama, are the only practitioners of them in this story. But in some circles, it will add to the increasingly distorted view of the Occupy movement as a combination of every right-wing nightmare.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • martin on January 31, 2012 9:51 AM:

    Sounds like Teap Party Tactics to me.

  • Oh my on January 31, 2012 10:01 AM:

    wore distinguishing arm bands

    Lol.

  • TR on January 31, 2012 10:02 AM:

    Bill Maher had a great piece on his last show about "who the fuck is Saul Alinsky?" Worth tracking down. These idiots really do believe everyone on the left, from Obama on down, is taking marching orders from Alinsky. It's insane.

  • Danp on January 31, 2012 10:04 AM:

    I'm surprised the Occupy spokesman wasn't named Sunbeam, or wearing a crown of daffodils. Bad fiction writers can't resist too many cliches.

  • beejeez on January 31, 2012 10:08 AM:

    Is it fair to tie the OWS movement, such as it is, to its occasional nutjobs? Maybe not. Is it inevitable that it will happen? You bet your life, and that's why OWS protesters should do their best to police their ranks in anticipation of such criticism. Nobody expects OWS to behave perfectly, but the closer it gets to that goal, the more successful it will be.

  • chopin on January 31, 2012 10:11 AM:

    Wake me up when the OWS tactics even begin to approach the nastiness of the orchestrated Tea Bagger disruptions of the town hall meetings. These A-holes really do suffer from a severe case of projection.

  • theAmericanist on January 31, 2012 10:12 AM:

    Let me get this straight, Ed: are you saying that you don't believe Sarah Quenon has read Saul Alinksy? (I believe she went to school in Austin, Texas, btw, so it's not like it'd be a huge shock that she'd know a guy from Texas.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ua73Aej-6Q

    Or are you saying that you don't believe she showed up at a Right to Life rally to lead an organized effort to shout the speakers down?

    Which is it, pray tell?

  • rfb on January 31, 2012 10:19 AM:

    Ah the eternal problem: What do do about teenagers having too much sex

  • berttheclock on January 31, 2012 10:20 AM:

    @martin, you do know Dick Armey has given copies of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to Tea Party members, do you not?

  • J on January 31, 2012 10:22 AM:

    What little I know about the real Saul Alinsky makes him sound like a good guy--sounds like time to find out more. Next up for wing-nut bogeyman status: Michael Harrington? Dorothy Day? Dr. Schweitzer? Cezar Chavez? Harry Belafonte? Randolph Bourne? It's anyone's guess.

  • berttheclock on January 31, 2012 10:26 AM:

    Perhaps it could have been worse. The RTLers could have met in an auditorium and the protestors could have staged an Alinsky "fart-in" as planned in Rochester, NY for and uptight symphonic crowd.

    Still love Alinsky's comment "I love this god damned nation and we are going to take it back". Plus, he refused to join any party.

  • Anonymous on January 31, 2012 10:30 AM:

    Ah, Saul Alinsky. My rightwing family has been on the Saul Alinsky kick for some time now. I figured it was the nom-du-jour of RW excitement machine. My 93 year old mom even sent for a copy of "Rules for Radicals" from Amazon. I suspect this was instigated by a 62 brother who thinks Drudge is the bomb. Family, ya gotta love 'em.

  • Kris on January 31, 2012 10:31 AM:

    Having grown up in a church that organized RTL marches and prayer meetings outside of Planned Parenthood facilities, this story will resonate amongst the Ture Believers of the base, but I suspect nobody else will remember it by next week.

  • rea on January 31, 2012 10:32 AM:

    I've actually lived in Texas, Mr. "Americanist," and I can assure you that Saul Alinsky is the constant subject of conversation among the residents of that state, most of whom, of course, know each otehr.

  • emjayay on January 31, 2012 10:32 AM:

    I think you meant flair, not flare, for drama.

  • Josef K on January 31, 2012 10:37 AM:

    Ever notice how the right wingnuts invoke particular names like they're personal totems? Before it was "John Galt", and before that it was "Ronald Reagan". Now its "Saul Alinksy", who I hadn't even heard of until last week.

    Maybe its a tribal thing. Maybe they really have regressed to more primative modes of thought and action. Maybe they're just so damned scared of their own shadows they'll grasp any icon to feel secure.

    Whatever it is, I expect they'll switch to someone new in the near future. "Karl Rove" maybe.

  • Kathryn on January 31, 2012 10:37 AM:

    The likelihood that "Dallas" exists is slight, the likelihood that he told Ms. Bracy that he was on a 13 city national tour to teach Saul Alinsky tactics is zero. Were the demonstrators wearing arm bands, tape should show that, raining down condoms on Catholic school girls, tape should show that, condoms would be on the ground.

    What value does Occupied expect to gain by protesting a pro-life rally? I could be missing something, but the purpose or the gain from that is lost on me. I think the movement should concentrate on economic inequality using a peaceful Martin Luther King approach and large crowds. Many of the older commenters here can remember the backlash in 1968 to violent t demonstrations at the Democratic Presidential Yes, the police overreacted massively but, it still aided the Republicans big time. There is nothing that unites smug, old white folks as much as angry, young people who can be portrayed as dirty, lazy hippies. Further, I'd expect infiltrators, like that little weasel who brought down Acorn, to be actively making trouble.

  • DAY on January 31, 2012 10:46 AM:

    Ho-hum. Another Outrage du Jour.
    Remember the MoveOn ad about General Betrayus?

  • chi res on January 31, 2012 10:47 AM:

    Like many subjects these days, the fringe right is terribly confused and ambivalent about Alinsky. On one hand, they characterize him as the devil incarnate; on the other, they teach and emulate his principles and tactics.

    There are scores of organizers working today who trace their roots directly to Saul Alinsky. Few, I believe, who would consider the protest of an anti-abortion rally with Occupy troops to be a good use of their time.

  • theAmericanist on January 31, 2012 10:51 AM:

    LOL -- I worked for the late Barbara Jordan, rea: I assure you that she knew who Saul Alinksy was. So do most people who do any kind of political organizing, no matter from which side.

    It's important to distinguish two very different things here --

    1) Alinksy. He was a great patriot, a royal pain in the ass, and something like a genius. I'm personally most fond of his objections to flag-burning, which he pointed out did nothing but insult and inspire the adversaries of whatever-the-cause was that the flag-burner supported. He also noted that burning the Constitution was one of the worst things William Lloyd Garrison ever did for abolitionism, ranking right up there with his opposition to the Civil War: "wayward sisters, go in peace." What Alinksy recommended instead of burning the flag, was washing it -- publicly. It's a great little tactic -- get a VERY big flag and (be sure of this) water-based inks, then write in big ugly letters across the stars and stripes the name of whatever it is you're against, hold it up, complain, then wash it out. Works beautifully, if you have a flag that's big enough. (and if the damned ink washes out)

    2) Whether this incident actually happened. Ed says it didn't. I posted a video of the woman involved, who did radio interviews.

    Well? Anybody think she doesn't know who Saul Alinsky was? She seems a competent, motivated experienced political organizer. For somebody like that not to know who Saul Alinsky was is like a baseball player who's never heard of Sandy Koufax.

    Anybody doubt she showed up at a Right to Life rally? Um, you do know that she SAID so, don't you? She's kinda proud of it, actually.

    Anybody doubt that she led folks to shout down the Right to Life speakers? Um... why?

    LOL -- my point is that y'all shouldn't let your ideological blinders hide facts from you so easily. It's embarrassing.

  • Peter C on January 31, 2012 10:53 AM:

    I'm 48, a liberal, and I've been politically active all my life, and I never read anything written by Saul Alinsky. I don't really care who he is (was). I think for myself; that's one of the things that makes me a liberal. Just because the Evangelicals are monomaniacally attached to a single text does not mean that everyone else is, but the idea that we liberals are all basing our lives around Saul Alinsky is absurd.

  • sjay on January 31, 2012 10:57 AM:

    There is a video on YouTube of OccupyDC protestors disrupting a RTL rally in Washington a week or two ago.

  • Quaker in a Basement on January 31, 2012 11:01 AM:

    The "shower of condoms" sounds suspiciously like the rain of oreos supposedly suffered by Michael Steele.

  • estamm on January 31, 2012 11:03 AM:

    I'm on the bad side of 50, progressive, and probably am more up on politics (lefty and otherwise) than probably 99% of everyone out there. I read more than my share of lefty blogs, and feel I am pretty 'with it'. Recently I started hearing all about 'Saul Alinsky' and frankly wasn't sure at first whether he was a righty or a lefty... only that the wingers were always going off about him. So I had to look him up on Wikipedia. I think now I am even MORE puzzled as to why he is so far up on the wingnut list of hates, somewhere between ACORN and the Black Panthers. Sometimes it seems like wingers are almost literally from a different planet.

  • Joe Friday on January 31, 2012 11:06 AM:

    Interesting that in past weeks I've seen much of the RightWing pundits, like Kathleen Parker, Rich Lowery, George Will, and David Brooks, all proclaiming that 'Occupy/We Are the 99%' was an insignificant fizzle, but more and more we're starting to see the RightWing trying to make the point they are a national menace.

    Which is it ?

  • chi res on January 31, 2012 11:10 AM:

    now I am even MORE puzzled as to why he is so far up on the wingnut list of hates

    Pretty simple really. Obama began his political career as an organizer with the Gamaliel Foundation, an organization that traces its roots to the work and teaching of Saul Alinsky.

    ANYTHING having to do with that Black man in their White House, particularly someone who so strongly influenced his thought and development, goes on the fringe right hate list.

  • slappy magoo on January 31, 2012 11:19 AM:

    Plus the name "Alinsky" sounds really foreign, you know? You hear a name like "Alinsky," you know that's a dude that wants to take all your money and give it to hippie farmers who get ministerial licenses online so they can kidnap your children and force them to gay marry your dog...whom they've also kidnapped.

    It's a massive conspiracy. The fact that no one is talking about it only goes to show you how insidious it really is. You don't even know it's happening.

  • Rich Horton on January 31, 2012 11:19 AM:

    "fanned out with military precision…"

    I'm not sure why you think there is anything particularly fishy about this aspect of it. Since 1981's coordinated protest campaigns in New Zealand against a travelling aprtheid era South African rugby squad such things are pretty common. (I've seen lectures at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and the University of Illinois back in the 80's and 90's where these tactics were taught to campus activists. More recently I've seen similar seminars teaching the tactics associated with the "Arab Spring" movements.) The more confrontational such protests are the more likely they are to be interpreted as being militaristic, especially by those targeted by the protesters.

  • theAmericanist on January 31, 2012 11:28 AM:

    LOL -- Rich, the reason Ed finds this suspicious is simple: he's never THOUGHT about it.

    Ed comes from the foundation grant, think tank wing of the Left. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's ever organized a demonstration, nor for that matter GOTV. He generally hangs out with folks who agree with him, and his curiosity about the possibility that Lefties engaged in counterproductive tactics ends with reading ProJo and concluding that since they didn't write it up exactly the way the pro-life propagandists did, nothing they said could be true.

    It took me I think 12 seconds to Sarah Quenon's name AND the video of her representing OWS while teaching people how to stage a demonstration.

    Like I say (kind of a lot around here), it's embarrassing to serious folks.

  • buckyor on January 31, 2012 11:39 AM:

    I feel like such a failure as a liberal. I did not even know who Saul Alinsky was until I googled him a few minutes ago. Never heard of him until a week or so ago, when my RWNC acquaintances started dropping his name in conversations. I'm sure most of those using his name don't know either, they just use it as shorthand for "radical Jew."

  • Danp on January 31, 2012 11:44 AM:

    chi res hits the nail on the head. Once they demonize Alinsky's name, he's the new William Ayers. The irony here is that while many protest movements today, including tea potters, use tactics similar to Alinsky's, you'd be hard pressed to find an example of Obama encouraging any of the disruptive ones. But if you're a Republican, that really doesn't matter much, now does it?

  • chi res on January 31, 2012 12:07 PM:

    you'd be hard pressed to find an example of Obama encouraging any of the disruptive ones

    Very true. Alinsky may be relatively well-known for writing about "disruptive" tactics (although those who worked with him have told me they remember few, if any, of these tactics actually being employed), but his genius was in effectively organizing the "have-nots" and their allies into serious, disciplined power organizations who could do battle and win concrete victories over their monied political and corporate oppressors.

    Much of the training supplied to Obama field organizers in the 2007-08 campaign was textbook Alinsky, as interpreted by veteran community organizers from the Gamaliel Foundation, Industrial Areas Foundation and others.

    Those who watch carefully can see clear reflections of Alinsky's "rule" that issues must be "immediate, specific and winnable" in Obama's policy initiatives. To paraphrase Alinsky: Poor people know all about losing; they've been doing that their entire lives. The organizer's job is to help them win.

    Although they lack the focus and discipline of the organizations developed by Alinsky, Occupy's presentation of the "1% vs. 99%" accurately portrays his "haves vs. have-nots" worldview.

  • theAmericanist on January 31, 2012 12:19 PM:

    I'm gonna speak up AGAIN for the real Alinsky, who would have told Sarah Quenon off.

    EVERYBODY who does political organizing or stages demonstrations of any sort uses Alinksy tactics, whether they know it or not -- and if they're any good, they generally DO know it. He's that influential.

    'Course, most folks don't have any particular reason to know who Alinsky was, any more than everybody who flips a light switch needs to know Edison from Tesla from Westinghouse from Steinmetz/

    But in an example like this, which is CENTRAL to Alinsky's purpose in life, it really helps to know something about him.

    F'r instance, one of his ethical rules was: "The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory."

    Does anybody seriously think that pro-life folks are about to outlaw contraception? So what is the ethical imperative to force Catholic institutions to choose between remaining employers or remaining Catholic? Or heckling pro-life speakers?

    Another, from his rules on power: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

    What's the constructive alternative for folks who will lose health care when Catholic hospitals close, or who will be forced into wrecked public school systems when the Catholic grammar schools close (e.g., Baltimore)?

    One more: "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside."

    I noted above that -- not for the first time -- Ed didn't even consider the possibility that the pro-life propagandists were essentially telling the truth: Sarah Quenon, representing OWS and the Anti-Sexism League, really did show up at a pro-life rally with her organization to heckle the speakers.

    That's counterproductive -- and Alinksy would have been the first to say so.

  • caffiend on January 31, 2012 12:22 PM:

    Peter, we are the same age, but I have been a fower, if that is the right word, of Alinsky since I got pissed off when I was 13 over the fact my cohort was gunned down in the Sowetto rilts. Then I discovered punk and all bets were off and the nuns started suggesting my mom just shil me off to college early.

  • Mithrandir on January 31, 2012 12:28 PM:

    I noted above that -- not for the first time -- Ed didn't even consider the possibility that the pro-life propagandists were essentially telling the truth

    That they threw condoms at schoolgirls? That someone called "Dallas" openly admitted to teaching Saul Alinksy tactics?

    You sound concerned.

  • kevo on January 31, 2012 12:42 PM:

    The grandest irony?

    Authoritarian thinkers fearful because the way they see it, the Nazis are coming, the Nazis are coming! -Kevo

  • HelpThe99ers on January 31, 2012 12:43 PM:

    Remember, if you're on the fringe of the right, you can't spell "Occupy" without A-C-O-R-N -- the fringes need a group to demonize and to use as a source to manufacture their outrage.

    Also, it takes a fine sense of irony (again, for those on the right) to complain about "Alinsky tactics" when two of their organizers and authors (Leahy and Kahane) have published "Rules for Conservative Radicals" that explicitly incorporate those tactics.

  • chi res on January 31, 2012 12:44 PM:

    Alinsky believed that people should build collective power to have control over the decisions that are made about their lives. This would clearly include decisions made by women about their own bodies.

    The REAL Alinsky would have been more than willing to help organize and strategize with employees (particularly if they were unionized) who were being short-changed in health insurance benefits by their powerful institutional employers.

  • Werewolf on January 31, 2012 12:54 PM:

    buckor has it right-Alinsky=radical Jew (much like Soros).

  • Area Man on January 31, 2012 12:58 PM:

    I noted above that -- not for the first time -- Ed didn't even consider the possibility that the pro-life propagandists were essentially telling the truth: Sarah Quenon, representing OWS and the Anti-Sexism League, really did show up at a pro-life rally with her organization to heckle the speakers.

    There goes that name again. Who is Sarah Quenon and what does she have to do with this story? She is mentioned neither in the RTLer's story nor in the Journal story. It appears that you found someone somewhere who had a plan to "disrupt" a pro-life rally, and in a bizarre display of twisted logic, decided that this means that the hysterical claims of the anti-abortionists must be true. This is what is known as a non sequitur.

    We actually have evidence in the form of a video and it validates none of the crazy claims of the anti-abortionists. It looks like the pro-choicers were staging a rather mundane counter-protest and were being relatively civil. Keep in mind that this was at the State Capitol where no one has an exclusive right to their own private rally.

  • theAmericanist on January 31, 2012 1:05 PM:

    LOL -- the real Alinksy would have kicked Ed's ass for giving the other side credibility, when they publicized something that happened, and he insisted that it didn't when he didn't know.

    Area: at your age, you're still fed by somebody else's spoon?

    "Occupiers say the protest was actually organized by the Rhode Island Sexism League. While the Occupy Providence General Assembly voted unanimously to endorse the protest, the protest was actually conducted by Sexism League.

    Bracy compared the protesters conduct to that of Mussolini’s black shirts, “there was nothing civil about this, there was nothing in their behavior that was encouraging a dialogue or exchange of ideas. They came to shut us down and completely shut down our right to civil speech in the state House. I think it was atrocious and I think they have a lot to answer for.”

    Bracy said that the group was obstructing the democratic process and the pro-lifers right to free speech. “It is a sad day for democracy when people are bullied and intimidated and harassed and shouted down in the very rotunda of our state house,” said Bracy. “It is behavior completely unbecoming to people who claim to be democratic citizens.”

    "It’s their right to feel that way. I personally feel attacked when someone goes to lobby at the State House to take my right to make a decision over what happens to my body away from me," said Sarah Quenon, member of RI Anti-Sexism league and also a member of Ocuppy Providence.

    I also have the freedom of speech to go there and protest against people doing that in the State House."


    http://630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2382498&spid=37719

    Who was Sarah Quenon? She's a OWS organizer. What does she have to do with this story? Um, cuz she IS the story?

    She was there. You didn't know it. That makes you ignorant. I pointed out that she was. You didn't bother to find out this was true. That makes you a fool.

    I also noted that Alinksy was sorta the king of knowing when tactics like this work, and when they don't. One easy way to know the difference is to read my first sentence in this post -- and understand it this time.

  • paul on January 31, 2012 1:09 PM:

    "Military precision" is pretty clearly intended to evoke armed thugs. For anyone who doesn't want to give that impression, I strongly suggest "balletic precision" instead.

  • berttheclock on January 31, 2012 1:16 PM:

    "fanned out in military precision"

    Hey, down at Ft Lost in the Woods, Missouri, we did fan out for police call in "military precision" and we were not armed thugs. Geez, I once found a 10 dollar bill while on police call.

  • Anonymous on January 31, 2012 1:39 PM:

    Anybody who believes that the 1:05 post has any credibility should go see what a conservative POS radio station WPRO is.

  • Trollhattan on January 31, 2012 1:42 PM:

    @theAmericanist,

    Pro tip: stop typing "LOL."

    --S. Alinsky

  • TCinLA on January 31, 2012 2:08 PM:

    The pro-life organization’s executive director, Barth E. Bracy

    Barth E. Bracy? That's a real name, you didn't make it up? Geez, as a writer, I gotta say these guys are so far beyond parody - you just can't make this stuff up, and people would laugh at you if you tried.

    I mean, Reince Priebus???? Barth Bracy??? Newt Gingrich??

    These nutbags really do live in a multi-generational alternative universe.

  • TCinLA on January 31, 2012 2:13 PM:

    Nice to see that our bad penny, "The Americanist" is back with his daily demonstration that bipeds lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can indeed use modern computers. His obvious inability to use the English language starts with his "name."

  • Area Man on January 31, 2012 2:34 PM:

    Who was Sarah Quenon? She's a OWS organizer. What does she have to do with this story? Um, cuz she IS the story?

    She was there. You didn't know it. That makes you ignorant. I pointed out that she was. You didn't bother to find out this was true. That makes you a fool.

    It's as if you're going out of your way to make yourself look like the biggest idiot possible. Most people do it by accident. You're in a different league.

    Once again: The mere presence of this person that no one has ever heard of at the rally is proof of nothing. If I told you that John Smith was at the rally, I would likewise be bereft of a rational argument. Maybe if she had specifically said they were going to throw condoms or do the things that the anti-abortionists accused them of, you might have a case, but you've provided not one shred of evidence for this. Your entire argument is merely that she was there. You have provided zero evidence that what the anti-abortionists are claiming is true.

    Also, your obsession with this apparently irrelevant woman is creepy to the point where I suggest you seek counseling. Let's not have this end with a stalking conviction, m'kay?

  • CDW on January 31, 2012 2:46 PM:

    @beejeez

    Is it fair to tie nut jobs to the occupy "movement"? Why not? The movement's lack of defined purpose is an open invitation to nut jobs.

    I admit that I am not an occupy fan. I think it's a tremendous waste of time, energy and talent(maybe talent) that could be used in positive ways to make real change.

  • theAmericanist on January 31, 2012 2:48 PM:

    LOL -- you guys are funny.

    Area huffs that Sarah Quenon wasn't in the ProJo story.

    I noted that she was interviewed by WPRO, the biggest news station in RI, and I gave her quote, bragging about how she had organized a protest to heckle the pro-lifers.

    Something about somebody knowing what he's talking about confuses you, Area?

  • Daniel Kim on January 31, 2012 3:18 PM:

    Describing the protestors' 'military precision' is a way to make them scary and threatening. This helps rally supporters against them. An interesting article on the Serbian resistance movement against Milosevic (Otpor and CANVAS. Article is called "Revolution U" at ForeignPolicy.com) described how pranks were used to make the regime look stupid, while the movement looked relatively harmless.

  • Mary on February 01, 2012 12:28 PM:

    Sarah Quenon is everywhere, bragging about shouting down the speakers, hurling foul invective about them. Several other Occupy Providence thugs gloat about it on their Facebook page.

    Sorry Ed, you can't deny the facts here, so you'll have to shift to defending the right of these thugs to shout down everyone they disagree with. Perhaps, like the other commenters, you can defend it by saying "the tea party does it, too."

    The analogies to the tactics of the Nazis and Mussolini are quite apt.