Tuesday, October 09, 2007


In response to earlier requests

In related comments in this and other blogs, HRC has been blasted by the right for: a) not having a plan; b) not having specifics; c) moving towards socialized medicine d) having no plan for cost containment; e) Having too specific and rigid a plan; f) Staying married to Bill when he's such an obvious cad; and/or g) Just being generally not warm and insincere.

I'm currently working on a list of health care things I believe to be true and where they logically lead us. I don't want to discuss them in the context of HRC's summary but I thought our interested readers on the left and right deserved to have the url.


At 1:45 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you ever read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?

At 2:16 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401 (K) retirement accounts.

The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.

At the same time, Clinton said she has given up another idea for a savings incentive—giving every baby born in the United States a $5,000 account to pay for college or a first home.

Instead, she said, her plan for what she called "American Retirement Accounts" will provide "universal access to a generous 401(K) for all Americans."

She outlined a program in which the government would provide a "matching refundable tax credit—dollar for dollar—for the first $1,000 of savings done by every married couple making up to $60,000 a year."

At 3:14 PM, October 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...


Yeah. I also had the experience, not pleasure, of meeting him. If I have to choose thugs, I think I'd have rather spent time with Che Guevarra.

In the "end-justifies-the-means" debate, I like for the advocate to at least acknowledge there's a tension between the "higher good" and the concept of "equal justice and ordered liberty". When the question raises no difficulty for the advocate, one suspects his view might be a little narrow.

I may write more on this guy and my time with hem later. The jerk most like him, strangely, that I've met in my life is Ralph Nader. No idea what that means, but there it is.

Why you ask?

At 3:19 PM, October 09, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I do hope the question is something more than an appellation to HRC's honors thesis . . .wonder if Newt ever got his hands on it? Issue is warmed over puke.

I've read it. It was pretty good. I especially liked the part when she thumped Alinsky for taking Dostoevsky in vain.

At 7:43 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


What is your understanding of the relationship between Hillary, Media Matters, the Center for American Progress and George Soros?

At 7:16 AM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No understanding, or just really not interested in seeing this to its logical conclusion. Alinsky ties in here too. You poo-pooed on the importance of the embarrassing Ruch debacle last week. It's important beyond the selling of soap.

Not much fun if you refuse to participate. Oh, well. Go Hillary!

At 9:29 AM, October 10, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Not blowing anybody off. Client emergency. Be patient.

At 12:03 PM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For 7:43, 10-9, what is your understanding of the relationship among the Olin family, the Coors family, the Mellon family, the Hunt family, the American Spectator, the Washington Times, the National Review, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Mahattan Institute, the Hoover Institution and that no-tax-dollars here college up in Michigan?

At 1:38 PM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I would classify that relationship as
close and/or strong. Not the point.

At 6:22 PM, October 10, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

The relationship between HRC and the whole Soros-lineage is very tentative at the moment. Soros basically broke into the democratic scene when incensed at the treatment of Bill Clinton by the RMS-backed Arkansas Project. There was an enormously tight connection.

As will often happen with zealots, the perfect (pacifism) became the enemy of the good (revised, enlightened, cooperative foreign policy) and the Soros sphere courted others and firebombed Hillary in one of the all time spam campaigns (you should see my designated Lefty propaganda in box).

HRC's response was to make herself look more inevitable and the MoveOns have now warmed a little bit to her.

Media Matters a little bit different but I'm in generalizing mood tonight.

I would say the relationship is cautiously cordial right now and its direction of travel is moving toward lukewarm, if not warm.

BTW, I can tell you from much bitter experience that herding cats is easier than keeping dedicated Bolsheviks at peace with the democratic party. It's "Love Me, Love My dog, Love my goldfish....."

I don't know what you are looking for and I don't have much left in me tonight so I'll close by repeating Alinsky was a self-righteous jerk and I disagree with so much of HRC's Honors Thesis as called him charming. Hearing him talk about "justice" was like hearing Michael Vick talk about genital herpes.

At 4:53 AM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

umr 622

The one comment a day moderation, although it is understandable, makes this too laborious.

That being said. The relationship between Clinton and the Soros funded media entities is much closer than you are willing to admit.

Clinton declared at the recent YearlyKos convention, she was the mastermind behind both The Center for American Progress (her think tank) and Media Matters (her media attack machine).

Hillary provides the name and political connections that Soros craves, and Soros provides the money. Quite a powerful partnership, what some might even call a conspiracy.

Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky's since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969.

His tactical fingerprints are all over her projection of the false "Centrist" image she is manipulating to garner political power. It's all in the book.

Case in point, the Hush Rush campaign. According to the Alinsky model of bloodless socialist revolution, Rush Limbaugh represents a Have as opposed to a Have-Not. Now what does Rush Have that Hillary Clinton and George Soros Have-Not? [A lot, actually, good ideas being perhaps the first thing that comes to my mind.] But in the current battle, what he definitely has is an established and quite verifiable reputation for unabashed patriotism. This reputation is so strong that as soon as someone attacks it, then real, living, American Armed Forces and Veterans immediately come to his defense.

They are using Alinsky's "basic tactic in warfare against the Haves," which Alinsky refers to as "political jujitsu." This tactic advises the Have-Nots to "club the enemy to death with his own book of rules and regulations." Rush is a great patriot, playing by the American patriot rulebook. But even a true patriot can be caught every now and then using one or two words, that when taken out of context, might be used to choke him on his own "petard".

After Air America crashed and burned, Clinton and Soros feel they must hush Rush and push to reinstate the "Fairness" Doctrine in order to completely control the message for Hillary's run on the White House.

In short, bringing down Rush -- or bursting the bubble of Rush supremacy, as George Soros might say -- would prove more than a political plum in Hillary's pudding. It might actually give her the throne of power in the Oval Office, with George Soros her backer and enabler.

At 5:28 AM, October 11, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Some of this is fairly delusional.

If Rush didn't exist, Hillary would have to invent him. The Repubs have taught us very well that we have to have an enemy/foil against whom to run.

Sorry about the pace. I have about three full time jobs.

You can have a refund of your subscription fee.

At 6:11 AM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Some" is "fairly"? Anyway, I would like my refund in nickels, the new ones.

At 10:13 AM, October 11, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

While I view Rush as trivial and just a seller of soap, he makes a nice foil for dem. candidates in swing and dem districts. "Hushing" him is against our enlightened self interest.

But, I thoroughly disagree with you that he qualifies as a "Have" in Alinsky's view of the power structure. Rush casts himself as opposing entrenched elites. You can't do guerilla citizen warfare against an elite that doesn't self-identify as one. In the Community Action model, Rush is a competitor for attention, not a Have to be overwhelmed.

Is this thesis of yours political science or a mancrush?

At 11:28 AM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has nothing to do with Rush. Substitute General Petraeus for Rush and MoveOn.org for Media Matters.

As far as the mancrush, I could ask you the same about your admiration for Hillary.

At 6:21 PM, October 11, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Go Back and read your 0453 and tell me it has nothing to do with Rush.

At least keep your story straight.

Petraeus is not an Alinsky "Have" either. The premise is that the target must be at least sensitive to community action.

You're trying to connect things that have no connection.

At 8:06 PM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The connections are there. Just because you choose not to see them doesn't make it untrue. Consider this:

Some of Soros' money goes to pay full-time listeners and media-watchers at Media Matters to monitor every word of the Haves.

In their battle to Hush Rush -- preferably before he gets a chance to skewer Hillary in the general election campaign -- Hillary and Soros are using their media attack machine, Media Matters, to apply Alinsky Radical tactics #8 and #10.

The eighth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 128):

Keep the pressure on.

Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event -- no matter how trivial - and turn it around to your advantage. Make a big deal of it. Keep doing it. Over and over again. Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win. And the bloodless revolution succeeds.

The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The operations of the revolutionaries must be cohesive, organized and constant. An action causes a reaction, which causes another reaction to the reaction, "ad infinitum." (p. 129)

And we see exactly how that happened with Rush.

MoveOn, another Soros front group, came out with their ad defaming our Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.

Because that was a political ad in a major public forum, The New York Times, and because it defamed an American General in wartime during his momentous testimony before Congress, the ad sparked a reaction in the Senate: a resolution denouncing the ad. Notably, while many Democrat Senators joined in condemning the MoveOn ad, Senator Hillary Clinton did not.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home