And BO wonders why some people think he's a radical. Perhaps it's because he surrounds himself with radicals and the old birds-of-a-feather thing.
Obama campaign senior adviser and Whitehouse interim communications director Anita Dunn said this:
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Theresa."
That's Chairman Mao, who's responsible for the deaths of over 40 million Chinese. That's 40 million people who didn't agree with the chairman. And liberals wonder why conservatives fear BO and his agenda.
"First was Van Jones, the Obama "green jobs" czar who once signed a petition supporting the "9/11 truther" movement; who was a self-professed communist during much of the 1990s; who supported the cop-killer Mumia abu-Jamal; and who accused "white polluters" of "steering poison into the people of color communities." Under fire for his extremist views, Jones disappeared in an unusual middle-of-the night resignation on Sept. 5."
"One of Obama's senior aides has run into controversy by revealing the extent to which his presidential campaign manipulated the media. Anita Dunn, the interim Communications Director at the White House and a top adviser to Obama's campaign is shown in a YouTube video admitting "very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control.' " (emphasis mine)
The one media that she didn't control was Faux News. Let us all take a moment in silent prayer in thanks for Faux News.
I heard a good interview with Andrew Breitbart and Laura Ingraham this afternoon as I was driving - about the media and how Andrew used to be a liberal while in college and then started noticing the bias in reporting. 1st step to becoming more skeptical. And Laura used to be liberal too. I felt like I was listening to my own story.
"For what it’s worth, Saul Alinsky’s 12th rule from his “Rules for Radicals” reads: “RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.”
But what’s a little shocking is an elected leader picking a media outlet like this and attacking it so viciously. If this were a Republican President the liberals would be screaming from the rooftops about fascism and the crushing of dissent."
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
That's amazing, if only because both ends of the political spectrum are experts at using all of those tactics to "win". Trouble is, everyone else loses.
For example, I wonder how judgement can be pronounced without affording equal benefit to the entireity of her sentence? Y'know, within context and all that.
Which was, again:
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices.
The wording of her two favorites being Mao and Mother theresa? In retrospect, perhaps not the wisest choice as irony at times doesn't translate well. On the other hand, I found it rather blatant and it appears her audience of 17 and 18 year olds did as well. Particularly, again, within context.
So I guess I have a new wonder.
I wonder why we seem to have become a nation where it might be wisest for our public figures to participate only in forms of public discourse aimed at no higher a comprehension level than the average high school junior?
I appreciate you posting this--especially for posting the entire statement. If I have time today maybe someone'll get a chance to post clips of Senator McCain or the great Republican strategist Lee Atwater quoting Chariman Mao within context as well.
Might be harder to find, though. If I recall, there wasn't much of a media focus/public outrage regarding it then.
I wonder why.....
"If this were a Republican President the liberals would be screaming from the rooftops about fascism and the crushing of dissent."
Really? Nah...
Unless there's a differing understanding of the criticism? A misinterpretation of statements made in favor of some agenda? Then I suppose. Maybe.
Under a repub. admin., I think if a 'liberal' network had a similar record of heavily documented faux facts/opinion journalism they'd just give up the pretense of legit 'news', take their ratings and $$ and call it a day. Call it the DNC network, who cares?
No one's crushing anything. Take back some integrity and call a spade a spade
Many in the communications field afford much praise to Dunn, et al specifically for their media strategy during the campaign as 'strict control' of a candidate's message in dealing w/the press is, by definition, kinda their whole reson for being there.
Perhaps the controversy exists primarily among those finding it tricky to distinguish between a candidate and an office holder? What do you think?
Regardless, glad there's so many information outlets for all no matter what any individual's understanding of the process as a whole might be.
Rules for Radicals
Search Tags
World News & Politics