The First Look At Hillary Health Care Documents
By Ed Morrissey
Judicial Watch has tried to gain access to the records from Hillary Clinton’s task force on revamping the American health-care system, and has been met with considerable resistance. After seeing the first batch released by the Clinton library, one can certainly understand why. In a press release from Judicial Watch earlier this evening, they excerpted some explosive passages within the documents, passages which will create some uncomfortable questions for Hillary on the campaign trail.
First, an internal critique of Hillary’s plan marveled at the unprecedented scope of government control over a private industry — at least in peacetime:
A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…Is the public really ready for this?… none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”
The other two excerpts paint the effort in an entirely new and darker light. First, Senator Jay Rockefeller proposed that the federal government conduct smear campaigns against the opponents of the plan:
A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism.
Rockefeller had allies in mind for this effort:
Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”
Wow. Media Matters should contact Rockefeller to disabuse him of the myth of the liberal-biased press!
Some might wonder about the notion of the White House digging up dirt on its critics in order to shut them up. Of course, this memo came from Rockefeller to Hillary, and no one can say whether she responded affirmatively or scolded Rockefeller for his dangerous suggestion. We can say that the suggestion came up earlier:
A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.”
Anyone remember Craig Livingstone and the 700 FBI raw-data files that the White House obtained illegally? The story broke in 1996, but the files got accessed in 1993 by the former director of the White House Office of Personnel Security. Judicial Watch sued over the case, attempting to uncover the reason the highly-confidential files were requested by the Clinton White House.
Even without that, the idea that the government should essentially spy on its critics as a means to extort their silence or to discredit them publicly is completely noxious. If nothing else, Rockefeller should have to answer for his proposal, and Hillary should produce her response to it. Voters should pay particularly close attention to this and remember how the Clintons worked and how they would undoubtedly work again if allowed back into the White House.
NOTE: Judicial Watch’s website is down for some reason at the moment. I’ll link to the specific documents when the site comes back up.
UPDATE & BUMP: Judicial Watch’s website has come back up, with no word on what caused it to go down. The memoranda can now be read in full, and the Rockefeller memo has some interesting passages. He offers the suggestion that opponents should have their "lifestyles" exposed at least twice, and argues both for engaging lobbyists and smearing them.
Rockefeller also offers a little intellectually honest advice at least twice. When discussing abortion, he gets very terse (emphasis mine):
Response concepts: … Full Reproductive Services. Do not engage on this topic.
When it comes to actually discussing the plan in detail, Rockefeller had this advice: don’t do that, either. He wrote that the effort to mobilize public support should focus on providing only a "broad" picture of the benefits and costs, and that the Task Force would "LOSE by focusing on the mechanical details". Opponents of the plan had to be shown as "perpetrators" who had to be "isolated" from each other.
And remember, this isn’t a political action commitee or an electoral office campaign. This was the elected government of the United States discussing how it would steamroller opposition to nationalizing an entire industry by smearing them and by avoiding discussion of the policy itself. It’s an amazingly appalling piece of work, and West Virginians should ask themselves why Rockefeller continues to represent them. Voters nationwide should ask themselves if they want to return the Clintons to power and once again risk this kind of autocratic abuse of power.
Source: Captain’s Quarters
- Long time looker first time poster. I think I have figured out this sight w/that said. If HRC wins the Dem nod the election will be one of the most contentious in history. I have from sources that the people in Cuyahoga County need to be extremely vigilant when it comes to the voting machines (even the proposed changes).
Conservatives are empowering HRC by passing on various smear emails (although as reported this summer those rumors (and probably the emails themselves) originated from HRC. These Emails continue to be passed around even though, O’Reilly, the ADL, various actual video footage, Wold net daily (I could go on) have al refuted the claims.
The Clinton’s are smart (and arrogant) and were well aware that many conservatives would initially spread the rumors. Also, as documented most of the MSM media owners are HRC fundraisers (including Murdoch who is well not an idle fundraiser). If you really wanted to stop HRC you would make an email/youtube (short one) that had the above info in it and pass it around.
HRC is conducting an actual propaganda campaign through the net by the use of sock puppets/paid posters/ and possible bots. They have been caught (Blue New Hampshire and some Vegas sights) from time to time, but the MSM will not look into it. Even conservative posters on various sights have noticed it. (I belive a actually know at least one person who does this).
On many liberal, and MSM blogs, if someone post certain info that is not vulgar, or even in reference to any Clinton scandals, but that contains thoughtful analysis, comments about the 22nd amendment, actual video (of any quote about the subject) or even voting records, those comments go into moderation and many are not posted. However, those same sights will allow post that contain vulgarity and out right racist slurs etc, about HRC competitors.
If HRC were to become Pres, and if you think that she is a closet "extreme radical" she would first purge those who did not support her. That is not conservatives, but instead liberal profs, and college students (probably all). This is somewhat similar to Pol Pot. War, would allow HRC to control more aspects of life, therefore IMHOP, she would seek war (I must admit there may be reasons to do so but I do not believe she would go to war for America, instead I believe she would go to war to control more of America).
The problem is most people in this country would not really bat an eye @ this bc of the concept of anti-intellectualism and misrepresentations that the media would make. Make no mistake most Profs (who are liberal to extremely liberal) know that HRC has gone beyond the pail/would go beyond the constitution. Also, many (including feminist scholars) are tired of the fight, and have started (in the past several years) to study the flaws of their own movement. Feminist scholars-are into 3rd wave which is not just about women/but all people. Hence the rejection of most feminist profs of HRC (it’s sexist to say vote for a women bc she’s a women).
Students (from high school to grad school) are I think, skeptical of everything and are less likely to see the world in terms of good v. evil -this is the culture shift. It is an entirely diff. moderation. The "Hipster" (which might span to generations) are seen as irreverent and highly cynical, they "snark" at everything however that also allows them a certain clarity. That is the real reason campuses reject HRC’s message. Growing up w/boomer parents allowed many to be able to spot hypocrisy in an instant.
If you believe that HRC is a "radical" then you should see that it could be likely that she would seek to actually oppress/punish/reform/ or eliminate a generation that most opposed her. While @ the same time, seeking to educate/indoctrinate a new generation. So I do not believe you/ conservatives are most @ risks, (as this blog has stated she needs enemies). It would be the younger (and especially males) under 30’s who would be most at risk.
The reason that some older Dems love HRC is bc she demonizes conservatives. Younger people see that as a false dicotomy. That is what they see in Obama (bc he explicitly states that most republicans are good people and good Americans).
Again the problem I have seen in many conservative blogs, is that while they claim to reject the MSM and the Clinton talking points they still use the media framing of Obama in saying that he does not have explicit policy speeches.
-I could tell you a long story about an AP reporter who harassed a student until the student answered the question in the way that AP reporter wanted it answered but I will not.
Most of the younger generation do not romanticize the Clinton area for the economy, bc they saw their parents start to live off credit cards.
Look, as an indepedent and no fan of Bush I must honestly say the economic "stuff" happening did not start w/Bush. There were many things that were passed/or repealed that were in Clinton’s time. Blaming just Clinton’s would but liberals in a rage, so again to save this country (if you really think HRC would be that bad for it) people have to come to terms w/the fact that various presidents had some hand in the current housing ills.
The Econ can sink the Clinton ship.
There is a lot more that I could actually say but I will leave w/this thought. It is actually something pretty scary.
, HR Clinton and Obama are both liberal, however I feel Obama respects the rule of law more. Illustrated in this key vote on Guns:
"Official Title of Legislation:S Amdt 4615 to HR 5441: To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."
"Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:Vote to pass an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters. (Sec. 540) "
Basically this was an act that was trying to make it illegal for the Goverment to confiscate guns if they felt it was a time of emergency"
HR Clinton N Obama Y
The no vote here is confusing for many bc of the language used but HR Clinton’s vote of N meant that she was okay (yes I know I am using simple language) w/the prospect of letting the goverment have the power to confiscate guns in a time of emergency.
Obama yes vote means that he wanted to limit the goverments power to do so.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.ph?cs_id=V3872&can_id=55463
Most Democrats voted N most Republicans voted Y
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3872
Here is a 49 minute video of an interview Obama had w/a Nevada newspaper. Watch it, (it is surprising actually) then compare to the 40 minute interview of HRC (it is one the same page). This will illstrate my point more.
Sorry this is so long, but I think it is important to get a different perspective. I hope this helps. Sink or swim we do it together.
Please ignore my grammer mistakes!