Sunday, April 15, 2007

Say Anything Hillary

April 15, 2007

Typical campaign tactic of a Clinton, other than the total destruction of your opponent, is the continual speaking out of both sides of the mouth. B.J. Clinton was notorious for it in 1992 and 1996, but third party candidate votes helped him squeak by with barely a higher number of votes to hold the White House and America hostage for two full terms. Seeing Hillary following the same example makes one wonder if that tactic isn’t hers that she encouraged B.J. in following.

From what I have been able to read, she wrote her College Thesis on Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer from Chicago. The thesis titled, "There is Only the Fight ... An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” is said to reveal her ideological attachment to the radical Alinksy by some. Others claim she concludes that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict."

It didn’t help the mystique of her thesis for the Clinton’s to request Wellesley College to seal it away during their time in the White House, leading her former professor and thesis adviser Alan Schechter to label the move, “a stupid political decision.” No longer sealed, copies have not been made public, which makes me wonder, considering her penchant for saying whatever a crowd wishes to hear, if Alinksy didn’t leave a larger impression upon her than realized.

With that in mind, a look at examples of statements made recently to statements made prior seems in order.

In an April 13 article, she says that Cynicism Is Our ‘Birthright' in regards to how the populace looks upon politicians and government and that her plan would remedy that.

Yet, in 1998, as details of her husbands sexual affair were coming to light, she labeled that cynicism as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" “that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president” As B.J. admitted to the affair, no apologies or withdrawal of the claim were made. Instead, she said it was possible her husband gave gifts to Lewinsky but said, “if that is true it is because he is gregarious and giving to everyone he meets.”

In further slamming of her opposition, she cited a few examples of voter irregularities in 2002 to resurrect the vast right wing conspiracy in March 2007. However, she neglected to list the voter irregularities by members of the Democrat party. ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ Redux.

Hillary also acknowledged “We know government isn't the answer to all our problems.” Yet, isn’t she the one who advocates a National Health Care System?

Taking a page from the campaign of 1992, she resurrects "Reinventing Government," or REGO, a program launched in B.J.’s administration and run by Al Gore. Although it was credited with saving taxpayers more than $136 billion by cutting the federal work force, trimming layers of management and cutting subsidies, how many of those cuts were actually to our defenses and intelligence that allowed us to be blind-sided by the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001? B.J. proposed a $60 Billion cut over 4 years, but after attaining office, the cuts proposed to the Military grew to $120 billion. During the “reinvention of government,” of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. A Guide To The Political Left, Bill Clinton.

At a time of war, facing a Global Enemy of Jihadists bent on the destruction of Western Civilization, a “reinvention of government” in the example already made by the Clinton’s would be sheer suicide.

Hillary said her proposed changes would be made through executive order and others through legislation. Is it any wonder she demands the war be finished by January ‘09?

Clinton also claimed, "You're not invisible to the rest of America and you're certainly not invisible to me," adding, “when we take back the White House, you'll no longer be invisible to the president of the United States."

Anyone who watches even the anti-Bush reports on TV can see how people flock to him and he embraces them. Unprecedented for any President is Bush’s private meetings with families of fallen heroes.

Contrast that to accounts of Hillary found in the book I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words by Thomas Kuiper. It is filled with attributed quotes of rudeness and superiority over others around her.

Unlike other ‘cut and run’ Democrat candidates, Hillary refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing the battle in Iraq in the Greater War on Terror. Instead, she now lays claim to "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." Yet, she told Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard in late 2003, “[T]he intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In April 2004, to CNN’s Larry King, she said, "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Echoing what she previously stated in regards to the lack of WMDs found, she said, “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”

In addressing Fred Barnes, she said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD. Hillary Gets Tough.

But now, she claims she was “misled by faulty intelligence from the Bush administration.”

Returning to the thesis on Saul Alinksy, Hillary wrote to be effective he needed “an enemy in order to translate community interest into community action.” She also wrote, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound 'radical.' ” Additionally, she also wrote that Alinsky, "is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene McCarthy or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of all political faiths -- democracy."

I think it is very obvious just who and what she has decided is the enemy she needs to propel herself back into the White House, but not as the First Lady this time. She seems to have embraced Alinsky’s “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

Lew

3 comments:

coboble said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coboble said...

(ok, I will try this again and see if I can type in something that makes it look like I have at least an average grasp of the English Language).

Maybe I am far from the typical voter, but I am going to vote based on who I am voting FOR not who I am voting against.

What I would love to see right now, is a candidate being pumped up by their supporters, rather than one being shot down by those who want their opponent to win.

If the Republican party offers such a candidate, I could vote Republican (I have once or twice before, although I tend to go third party more often).

I am going to pledge to myself, starting right now, to not read anything negative about prospective candidates.
I can then vote based on the most positive candidate, instead of the least negative.

I will be looking to people like you Lew, a right leaning blogger who I still respect enough that I read the blogs with a somewhat open mind; to be pointing out the positive aspects of the candidates they support.

Lew Waters said...

Coboble, I appreciate your confidence in my discussing who I end up supporting.

Realistically, it is much too early for me to throw my support behind anyone (the reason for the lack of supportive posts to date).

Democrats don't have a single person running that I care for, not too surprising there.

Republicans aren't offering very much either, to date.

I am leaning towards Duncan Hunter and waiting to see if Fred Thompson jumps in.

If you aren't familiar with Duncan Hunter, click on the link under "Conservative Choices" to the right and visit his site.

Unfortunately, negative campaigning has become a way of life for us at election time. I don't consider using their own words against them as negative, but that's me.