The irony of Obama and the New Party association

posted at 2:10 pm on October 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Is Barack Obama a socialist?  That seems to be the question after the discovery of documentation showing Obama’s endorsement by Chicago’s New Party, a group that intended to provide cover for socialists seeking public office in Illinois.  The group used its endorsements to highlight members or sympathetic politicians seeking election through the Democratic Party, and according to the documentation discovered, seemed particularly enthusiastic about Obama.

Rick Moran remains skeptical, and a little irritated:

Besides using these radicals to get ahead and making common cause with groups like ACORN and The New Party, it is a legitimate question to ask if Obama shared their ideology. The answer is almost certainly no. I believe that there is something about these radicals that attracted Obama. Perhaps it was their utter certainty and belief that they are in the moral right. Or maybe it was that their personalities are so driven and single minded. Given Obama’s own doubts about his place in the world as a young man as well as his apparent aimlessness early on, it stands to reason that people who believed so strongly in something and seemed to know where they were going in life would be able to interest the young, ambitious politician.

Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants “capitalism with a human face.” He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.

I detest conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word “fascist” when describing conservatives. I’m sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).

An Obama presidency will have more regulation, more “oversight,” more interference from government agencies, more paperwork for business, less business creation, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities. It will be friendlier to unions, more protectionist, and will require higher taxes from corporations (who then will simply pass the tax bill on to us, their customers). But government won’t run the economy. And calling Obama a “socialist” simply ignores all of the above and substitutes irrationalism (or ignorance) for the reality of what an Obama presidency actually represents; a lurch to the left that will be detrimental to the economy, bad for business, but basically allow market forces to continue to dominate our economy.

In other words, Obama is much more of an opportunist than anyone dedicated to socialist principles.  When he needed a boost in the South Side, he flattered the New Party.  When he needed a boost from the Chicago Machine, he allied himself with Richard Daley.  When Obama decided to run for President, he turned into a reformer, the only one who has never actually attempted to reform anything.

I suspect Rick’s closer to the truth on this, but there is a certain irony in this.  The Obama campaign tried to paint Sarah Palin as a dangerous radical and an unpatriotic politician by claiming she belonged to a separatist political party.  It turned out to be drizzly horse manure, which the McCain campaign proved by showing her entire record of party registrations.  We should demand the same from Obama.  Was he always a registered Democrat, or did he register as a member of the New Party at any time?

Rick is also correct in noting that Americans don’t really have a grasp of what socialism means.  In most cases now, what people generally mean is a tendency towards European quasi-socialism, probably most like the Christian Democrat party in Germany.  Bernie Sanders might come close to the real Socialists in France, but most Democrats favor the flabby European hybrid of capitalism and socialism, with its cradle-to-grave entitlement system and its high-tax model for private enterprise.

However, given the economic misfortune of Europe, that’s bad enough.  Barack Obama comes from exactly that kind of political philosophy.  If the New Party endorsement helps make that more clear, then we shouldn’t quibble over terminology.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Next Debate. “Senator Obama are you willing to take a lie detector test that:
1. You didn’t know about Bill Ayers bomber history when you launched your political career at his home?
2. Were you a member of the New Party, a socialist organization.

marklmail on October 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval….

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded “r” word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.

Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that’s made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

************

Let’s see who do I trust some blogger or the editorial staff of IBD?

TheBigOldDog on October 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM

My theory?

Opportunist that morphs into totalitarian after the election.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:14 PM

>>>>

Obama is what Yuri Bezmenov would call a useful idiot. He thinks he’s going to be top dog, but Bill Ayers and his friends are in contact with Chavez, Castro, and other world communists. By the time Obama realizes he’s not needed any more, he’ll be under the bus – or, as Bezmenov says, lined against a wall and shot.

That’s why we need to know why Ayers would have given so much responsibility to a total stranger in a city where “We don’t want noboby nobody sent.”

Somebody needs to send Rick Moran the link to Bezmenov’s interview.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

justincase on October 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Not the kind of “Christianity” most of us learned about in Sunday School, is it?

AZCoyote on October 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM

No, not at all. My pastor is black. If he had said anything that even hinted at the things Jeremiah Wright has said – or this whackjob Cone has said – I would have left years ago.

Why didn’t Obama leave?

Why are ALL of Obama’s mentors and associates radicals?

capitalist piglet on October 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Relax folks. The “God Damn America”, “U.S. of KKKA”, are coming. GAME-CHANGER

marklmail on October 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Here’s a post from Sweetness & Light blog about the Democratic Socialists of America endorsing Obama and the fact that Obama’s platform is practically identical to that of the Communist Party USA…

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/democratic-socialists-of-us-endorse-obama

CP on October 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM

I suspect Rick’s closer to the truth on this

Looking at the polls–I am praying that you are right and that these associations and associations and associations are not heartfelt or an indication of what is going to happen to America under his leadership. But if that is true– how is anyone’s politics ever to be judged… if not by their associations and past?

petunia on October 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Relax folks. The “God Damn America”, “U.S. of KKKA”, are coming. GAME-CHANGER

marklmail on October 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I sure hope so. Unfortunately, all these “acorn” registered idiots drink the Obama Kool-aid and agree with J. Wright.

HornetSting on October 9, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Well done.

Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2008 at 2:46 PM

It is sad that even our own no longer understands socialism/communism. what the education system has done is amazing. I took one look at Obama early on in the election cycle and said socialist. His programs are right out of the books of Marx. from each according to ability to each according to need.

unseen on October 9, 2008 at 3:05 PM

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

From your mouth to McCain’s ear. Don’t know why he avoids this.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:05 PM

From Newsbusters: (emphasis mine)

The ‘New Party’ was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards.

Isn’t it interesting how Obama’s “change from the bottom up” theme matches the New Party’s mission.

BacaDog on October 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM

This guy is really jumping through hoops to not recognize the obvious conclusion about Obama, the cultlike behavior of his campaign, and the common ideology of his key associates. Does a puzzle really need to be 100% complete to see the whole picture? A very average human mind will automatically in the blanks to complete the pattern, despite Rick Moran’s protestations of ignorance.

econavenger on October 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM

Obama’s policies in a nut shell:

from each according to ability to each according to his need.

unseen on October 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM

I don’t know if people have seen this, but the Chicago Annenberg Challenge went through almost 400 million dollars and had “little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.” It other words, it was a bust and a waste of money.

ERIC

Blake on October 9, 2008 at 3:08 PM

It = In

Blake on October 9, 2008 at 3:08 PM

See, I even left the word “fill” out there and the reader fills in the blank.

econavenger on October 9, 2008 at 3:08 PM

TheBigOldDog on October 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Money.

WisCon on October 9, 2008 at 3:09 PM

It other words, it was a bust and a waste of money.

ERIC

Blake on October 9, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Not for them, comrade. It’s been funding the revolution, don’t ya know.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Obama is a fascist. If elected, he’ll be designing his own uniforms in the first year. He is everything that they are painting McCane to be, and everything that McCain has fought against.

Do you think Blacks dancing around in camouflage and singing to their leader, Obama is a fluke? I used to laugh at elderly Whites, who thought there was some sort of racial storm brewing, and now I’m not so sure. Obama is supposed to take them to the new world, and bring this nation down in the process.

Hening on October 9, 2008 at 3:10 PM

This guy Rick Moran is a horse’s patout.

james23 on October 9, 2008 at 3:11 PM

I detest conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word “fascist” when describing conservatives. I’m sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions.

Balderdash
. I grant you that Wiki is not the final authority, but this is what the term is commonly understood to mean. If that’s “detestable”, so be it:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Buy Danish on October 9, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Anybody who’s studied socialism should know about Fabian socialism–the Webbs, Shaw, Wells, et al. Their concept was to say whatever it took to make their political aspirations palatable in order to gain office and implement their real agenda. >>

Sounds like the Islamic doctrine that lying and living like a non-Muslim is acceptable if it furthers Islam. Maybe why Islamist terrorists enjoy booze and prostitutes before they martyr themselves – it helps them stay undercover.

justincase on October 9, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Rick Moran is now an authority on Obama, Ed?

He’s obviously clairvoyant:

Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).

Has Moran ever heard the term “incrementalism?” Or “big oaks from little acorns grown,” or better yet, “neo-Stalinism?,” as practiced currently in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

No, Rick presents the extreme argument as typical of all but his enlightened self, then proceeds to lay out his brilliant insight into what will be, while belittling anyone who disagrees with his enlightened and highly superior view. So shut up, everyone — Rick knows best.

No thanks.

Nichevo on October 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Why would one think that Obama has socialist, communist, or Marxist leanings????

In Obama’s book he talks about attending Socialist conferences in New York and went out of his way to choose Marxist professors as his friends.

Obama’s early mentor “Frank” that he mentions in his book is Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist front organizations.”

Bill Ayers is a Marxist; to quote him: “I am a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist …Maybe I’m the last communist who is willing to admit it. The ethics of Communism still appeal to me. I don’t like Lenin as much as the early Marx.”

Rev. Wright is a Marxism believer – that is what is Black Liberation Theology is about.

And Obama has connections to the Democratic Socialists of America. (In 1996 he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat.)
Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist.

Obama openly campaigned for socialist candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

If Obama did not believe in socialism and communisim which traces trace roots back to Marxism, why did he spend so much time associating with those type people and groups?

albill on October 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I need to read Ayn Rand. I see her quoted here all the time….

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:39 PM

GASP!

A virgin?

Put down the gruel and get thee to the bookstore post haste.

BTW, does anyone else see vague similarities between Palin and Dagny Taggart?

turfmann on October 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit.

Obama will set up a government agency to plan energy, medical and (following the bail-out) financial sectors of the economy. That’s a huge chunk right there.

Obama will require companies to meet “green” quotas, setting up a 10 year plan for production of alternative energy, fuel standards, emissions etc…

He will redistribute wealth, to what degree remains to be seen.

Seems socialist to me.

coondawg on October 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

BTW, does anyone else see vague similarities between Palin and Dagny Taggart?

turfmann on October 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

I think that’s the undercurrent about her whether people realize it or not.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Their concept was to say whatever it took to make their political aspirations palatable in order to gain office and implement their real agenda.
justincase on October 9, 2008 at 3:14 PM

That’s pretty close to the strategy of Carl Davidson, radical friend of Bill Ayers, and someone who says he met Obama through the New Party:

To win elections, Davidson emphasized that there are two necessary coinciding factors. First, a passive majority… Secondly, a militant minority, which came to fruition for the Right wing with the Christian Coalition…

Hence Davidson emphasized that in this historical period the Left’s strategy must be electoral politics not revolution. Consequently the Left must galvanize the “majority” – the working class and poor… Moreover the democratic left needs get active in the New Party which has won 20 of 30 local elections. Thus a short-term strategy of working with the Democratic Party and in the long-term work with the New Party.

Buy Danish on October 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM

From NewsBusters.org:

Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.” [...]

“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

Sounds like these guys are worried about O’s socialist leanings too.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Why even cover this when stories like this are being ignored:

74% of CEOs Believe Obama Would Be Disastrous for the Nation

TheBigOldDog on October 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Dow down 400pts today. thanks dems.

unseen on October 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM

BTW, does anyone else see vague similarities between Palin and Dagny Taggart?

turfmann on October 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM

I think that’s the undercurrent about her whether people realize it or not.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Since I have been so deprived… is this a good thing or a bad thing?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Sounds like these guys are worried about O’s socialist leanings too.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Sounds to me like the Dems will use this as an attack point, though. “See, BIG BUSINESS is worried about ME becoming president! They think I’ll lose them money! Well they’re right!” Blah blah blah….

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Meanwhile, the market is getting b*tch-slapped again today. Oy….

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:47 PM

I, for one, think two things: 1 – bloggers are over saturated adn think people know all the stuff they’ve already been exposed to. They don’t, and I’ve heard Ayers being talked about now offline. 2 – it’s a setup for a string of “questions” about Obama’s calling card, his judgment. I think it sets up the remainder of what is coming, it’s not a one-shot deal.

1776 has a point with the first one. Personal anecdote – couple of weeks ago, I found myself stuck in a car for about 15 minutes with an Obama supporter from Maryland (we ‘went to the store’ for a few things). I asked the guy why he was planning to vote O. He dribbled out some slogans, but kind of dried up after about a minute or so. When I asked him if he had heard anything about 1) Ayers, 2) Annenberg, or 3) ACORN. He hadn’t. Not a thing. And he found the information very disturbing. He wasn’t so in the tank for O that he went off on me, but I could tell he would be doing some Googling when he got the chance. And I’m pretty sure that once he knows the facts, he’ll be one of many registered Democrats who’ll vote McCain in November.

My guess is that it would take someone armed with the facts about as much time or less to discourage many of his lukewarm supporters who haven’t been exposed to this stuff to bail on him.

Wind Rider on October 9, 2008 at 3:48 PM

http://www.marianland.com/marx01.html

This links give you an idea of what people associate with Obama want to do to the US.

pukara61 on October 9, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Since I have been so deprived… is this a good thing or a bad thing?

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Very good thing.

genso on October 9, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Does Moran get upset when people use the world ‘liberal’ to describe Leftists also? After all, it too is technically inaccurate.

No, Obama’s worldview is far closer to Marx’s collectivism and one-world government than to Locke’s individual liberty and our Founding Father’s American Exceptionalism.

I consider Obama a socialist. The shoe fits.

chalons on October 9, 2008 at 3:53 PM

My guess is that it would take someone armed with the facts about as much time or less to discourage many of his lukewarm supporters who haven’t been exposed to this stuff to bail on him.

Wind Rider on October 9, 2008 at 3:48 PM

You’re lucky. Most of the Obama supporters I know either refuse to talk politics unless you agree with them – to the point of “shut up about it or I’ll slug you” or similar epithets – or will go on ranting tirades not to prove or disprove any of the rebuttals but just blind rampant attacks on Palin and McCain. Those that don’t fall into either group are mostly “I don’t talk politics period” types.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Try talking to some of the SMALL businesses in your neighborhood and see what they have to say. I spoke to one today and they say Obama’s tax plan would bankrupt him.

Buy Danish on October 9, 2008 at 3:54 PM

The strongest indication that Obama is a more than just a “liberal democrat” is the fact that his followers see this election as the REVOLUTION they’ve been waiting for. Make no mistake about that.

nyrofan on October 9, 2008 at 4:03 PM

I agree – this is another example of Obama’s ramant opportunism. He’ll say anything that his current audience wants to hear in order to advance his own fortunes. The man is utterly lacking principles. I don’t think he really believes in socialism because I don’t think he really believes in anything.

That said, there is every reason to rake him over the coals for the past associations his opportunism produced. He chose to lie down with these dogs now he has to take the flea bites that come with them.

DamnCat on October 9, 2008 at 4:13 PM

The Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Barack Obama in 1996, in their newsletter, New Ground.

New Ground 45

cryptojunkie on October 9, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Rick Moroan:

“Nothing to see here… Look the other way… Look over there.”

Three-Card Monte

franksalterego on October 9, 2008 at 4:18 PM

So, lemme’ see if I got this straight…

Without knowing the FULL DEPTH of the relationship between Barack Obama, and Bill Ayers – a COMMITTED COMMUNIST, you’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama, and say he’s not a “Socialist”… He’s just an “Opportunist”

pffffffft

franksalterego on October 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM

If Mr. Moran wants precision in identification, he should recognize that what he has listed are the defining qualities of Fascism, as a cursory study of pre-WWII Italy and Germany would easily show.

Does that apply to a great many Republicans, as well? It certainly does. The issue is one of degrees. The degree in Mr. Obama’s case, as it is for Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and many others, is so extreme that the distinction is unimportant. Fascism is a species of the more generic category, Socialism.

If he believes otherwise, he should study up on Rand’s Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, or Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels, or any of dozens of similar books that discuss the subject in depth.

JDPerren on October 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Obama has publically condemned Bush for “letting the market run wild” even though that is kind of what happens in a free market. He also wants to send taxes into the stratosphere and nationalize industries once run by businesses. How is he not a socialist?

Oh, right, some guy said he isn’t. My bad.

R. Waher on October 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM

If Mr. Moran wants precision in identification, he should recognize that what he has listed are the defining qualities of Fascism, as a cursory study of pre-WWII Italy and Germany would easily show.

Fascism in its Latin and Teutonic forms appealed to authority figures and the ancient past and was unmistakably patriarchal in its understanding of the family and other social relations. It is totally removed from any contemporary ideology.

aengus on October 9, 2008 at 5:50 PM

cryptojunkie on October 9, 2008 at 4:17 PM

These groups, as well as the CPUSA, always endorse the Democrat in a presidential election. That is common. What is so incredible about this story is that it very much appears that Obama was an actual member of this socialist party.

capitalist piglet on October 9, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Is Barack Obama a socialist? That seems to be the question …

Ed

Dude. If it is a question to you, then you need to do some more reading. It’s not a question to me. Yes, he’s a socialist.

The only question to me? Will he consciously attempt to destroy this country, or will it be the unanticipated result of a nitwit with Marxist philosophical underpinnings who can impress fey intellectual RINOs with his thoughts on Niebuhr, but doesn’t understand the economic result of Marxist policies?

Jaibones on October 9, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Why even cover this when stories like this are being ignored:

74% of CEOs Believe Obama Would Be Disastrous for the Nation

TheBigOldDog on October 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Wait – I thought 84% of the CEOs had donated the limit to Obambi?

Jaibones on October 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Well, it’s not like he ever attended a meeting of the Alaskan Independence Party. He may have socialist tendencies, but at least he doesn’t support the right of people to make the laws under which they live.

There’s a really loony concept for you.

/lib

JohnJ on October 9, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Rick often does a yeoman’s job and has some great pieces, but he can also be kind of a jerk, and be in love with his own opinion to the exclusion of contradictory evidence. Let’s face it, Rick has no idea what Obama might try to do – nobody outside his circle knows – period.
Ed, why would you soft peddle documents that call him a member of the NP as merely an endorsement?

rhodeymark on October 9, 2008 at 7:39 PM

I’m very sorry, but Rick Moran is wrong. Obama has held close associations with radical groups his entire life, until he started relying on the Chicago political machine to generate votes for him. There is no reason from his life, his employment history, or his legislative record to imagine that he holds any position that’s significantly different from the radicals he’s counted as his closest friends and associates all that time. Nothing he’s said in the last 18 months can be taken as anything but press fodder, since the man so readily and breezily lies about anything that might jeopardize his election chances.

If Obama does stop short of creating full-blown, Stalinist/Maoist-style authoritarian socialism in the US, it will be because he’s limited by the laws and institutions of the nation, not because he doesn’t believe in them. He will certainly cede US sovereignty the UN in every way he can get away with, as well, which plays directly into the hands of World Socialism.

Furthermore, I find it offensive and repulsive that Moran wants to associate our literate, sober, research-based assessment of Obama’s socialist roots with the mindless, ignorant blather of leftists who don’t know a fascist from a potato pancake. I have to put up with more gratuitous insults to my education and intelligence from leftist fools in any five minutes I spend on those sites than I should have to face in one lifetime; I don’t need more of the same from my own side. Moran, stop being a putz, and come down off your high freakin’ horse; if you disagree, you disagree on judgment, not because you’re smarter or better educated. Criminy.

philwynk on October 9, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Brit Hume covers the NP story briefly on the Grapevine.

Obama spokesman’s response was BO ran as a dem in that race and said “Don’t believe the trash you read on the internet”

artchick on October 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Opportunist AND Socialist. This dychotomy required hogwash is just that. Obama is a traitor to this country and not only in the hip pocket of George Soros and Sandler family but leading their cause to overthrow this nation through non-violent means. No excuses any longer. If Obama wins this nation will become the Socialist States of America.

ilitigant on October 9, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Ed, if you haven’t read this,

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

please do so. It may change your thinking. It demonstrates an ideological linkage among radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox, Barack Obama, ACORN, Saul Alinski, and others, all working toward a common goal: the creation of economic and social crises that will undermine and ultimately destroy America.

If Obambi is a willing and eager participant in this movement, or simply an ambitious tool? Either way, he is dangerous, now that he is so close to the center of American power, and every bit of evidence we can put before the American people before the election might help stop him.

He won’t call himself a ‘socialist’, but we can. Personally, I suspect he’s a Communist.

MrLynn on October 9, 2008 at 8:37 PM

philwynk on October 9, 2008 at 7:39 PM

Ah, I see you’re throwing either the change up or split finger. Good idea.

a capella on October 9, 2008 at 9:29 PM

When I asked him if he had heard anything about 1) Ayers, 2) Annenberg, or 3) ACORN. He hadn’t. Not a thing. And he found the information very disturbing.

.
Umm – that’s why I assemble and bcc: link filled emails to all the Democrats I know (plus the Providence NBC ombudsman, who asked me why I thought the media was biased). Nobody yet has asked me to stop. Get busy – there are plenty of cut n’ paste opportunities to inform non-lefty Dems.

rhodeymark on October 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM

We know all we need to know about Obama.
We know all we need to know about Obama.
We know all we need to know about Obama.

(Post-hypnotic mantra of the fatally incurious.)

profitsbeard on October 10, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Re The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA, with which the New Party was affiliated):

According to US commentator and former leftist, David Horowitz’s website, Discover the Network, DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. . .

from this website,

The Socialists Behind the “Progressive Caucus

link posted on the Power LIne Forum, here:

Barack Obama, Socialist? (post no. 69).

MrLynn on October 10, 2008 at 12:05 AM

Geeze, I can’t believe I missed this whole thread until now.

While I have read some interesting stuff from Ol’ Rick before, I’m pretty sure that his name is misspelled and that a is supposed to be another o.

Dale in Atlanta on October 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Excellent post… I knew all that individually, but have never seen it laid out so plainly and nicely in one spot. Than you.

LegendHasIt on October 10, 2008 at 3:23 AM

“capitalism with a human face” is what the socialists call their economics now, becuase most people remember the bread lines in the USSR.

What buffonery. Ed, wake up. If you don’t think Obama is a socialist, your clearly not paying attention.

VolMagic on October 10, 2008 at 4:10 AM

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON OBAMA AND NEW PARTY

Ballot Access Expert Richard Winger has confirmed to Libertarian Republican blog that the New Party, which was an arm of the Democrat Socialists of American, changed its name in 2000 to the New Families Party. They still have affiliates in many states under that banner, and do run ad endorse candidates.

Oddly, some of the affiliates endorsed Obama this year, and at least one, the New York Chapter, had their endorsement accepted by Obama.

This means that Obama accepted the endorsement of the heir of the original New Party of which he was a member of, in at least one State Chapter. This is a very recent connection between Obama and the Democrat Socialists of America.

ericdondero on October 10, 2008 at 7:19 AM

Moran; “Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government.”

I guess that belief is reserved for the Bush/Paulson Pelosi/Reid crowd.

What a stupid comment.

percysunshine on October 10, 2008 at 7:44 AM

Dale in Atlanta on October 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Excellent post… I knew all that individually, but have never seen it laid out so plainly and nicely in one spot. Than you.

LegendHasIt on October 10, 2008 at 3:23 AM

Ditto. I copied and saved it in my Obambi reference folder.

MrLynn on October 10, 2008 at 7:47 AM

However, Spain is run by a socialist party. I don’t think anyone in America would consider Spain “evil.” Do you?

terryannonline on October 9, 2008 at 2:48 PM

This is an argument from impressions, not from facts. Most of us don’t know enough about Spain, good or bad, to actually make an assessment like that. We only have impressions from a lifetime of Rick Steves episodes and Zoro flicks.

Check out the Spain of Pan’s Labyrinth or The Devil’s Backbone, or even of Volver, and you get a different image, but even those are just media images, not facts. It’s not enough to make a reasoned guess; but “reason” is not really your goal here, is it?

Here’s a fact about Spain that most people don’t know, however. Spain has the lowest birth rate in Europe, running at somewhat less than half of replacement level. I don’t know about Spain’s policies, but something has infected the nation that’s causing it to die off. If that’s not evil, it’s at least stupid and self-destructive, and I’m not inclined to imitate it. Are you?

philwynk on October 10, 2008 at 8:01 AM

Ditto. I copied and saved it in my Obambi reference folder.

MrLynn on October 10, 2008 at 7:47 AM

http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=215
http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=396

philwynk on October 10, 2008 at 8:03 AM

If conservative blogs buy into turning the US into a Socialist state…then we have surely screwed the pooch. Bush is a moron.

percysunshine on October 10, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Ah, I see you’re throwing either the change up or split finger. Good idea.

a capella on October 9, 2008 at 9:29 PM

Please pardon my obtuseness (obtusity? obtusion?) but I don’t get your point. Are you saying I’m taking a slightly different direction on the Ayers topic than the straight-down-the-middle “bad judgment” fastball?

FWIW, I’m definitely in Phillies Heaven this morning, which is a region seldom visited…

philwynk on October 10, 2008 at 8:13 AM

Mr. Moran and anyone else “irritated” by the use of the term “socialist” in relation to Obama can kiss my a§§.

Feel free to go on at length being “more precise” about what O’bama wants for this country and how he intends to go about it.

Feel free…only until Obama’s goons get their tentacles around you.

Fine, so Mr. ZerO doesn’t explicitly say it.
Fine, so he doesn’t want the government to take over everything right away.

HE IS THE PATH (I’ll avoid “Road To Serfdom”) TO SOCIALISM – and NOTHING LESS. I grew up visiting relatives in Eastern Europe every year, and you don’t need to see hammer-and-sickle signs to understand the difference between our freedom and that “system” of tyranny.

Unless there is a specific circumstance (i.e. among a certain audience) in which indeed it would devalue an argument by using that term, I consider labeling Obama – and at a minimum his policies – SOCIALIST appropriate.

(I mean, geez…just last weekend there was a page 1 article in the WSJ which had an avowed Socialist claiming that Obama’s policies “weren’t really socialist”…I mean, c’mon, folks…just because the extremists say “he isn’t extreme like us”…is that supposed to make him “mainstream”?!)

Please read from today’s American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_communist_connectio.html

Lockstein13 on October 10, 2008 at 9:03 AM

Gateway Pundit On A Roll, Ayers, Obama, Pfleger, and More

Instapundit reports! Good stuff and lots of it, link and keep scrolling.

Mr. Joe on October 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Oh so now everyone is getting a clue! It’s a little late for that don’t you think? Shoulda been looking out for your brothers along time ago cause it’s over man……………….

sonnyspats1 on October 10, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Do ya know the difference between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh ?

Ayers beat the rap, became a teacher and has an alliance running for President.

Scary Halloween huh ! ! Boo ! !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA77kpXm3HE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w

Texyank on October 10, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Psychobabble, pedantry and name-calling — hawt argument, there, Moran.

Claire on October 10, 2008 at 11:05 PM

today’s cut n’ paste special (via Ace via TopsecretK9):
———————————————-
HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO SMELL?
.
Before the New York Times can afford to spare some of their “Alaska Infantry”?

PALIN GUILTY!! except she was within her rights to dismiss Monegan

Barack Obama was involved with Project Vote in a leadership role. According to Chicago Magazine,
a 31 year old rising star literally changed Chicago’s electoral landscape in 1992:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

Now – suppose I told you that research has established original documents that place the
mailing address of:

ACORN
PROJECT VOTE
THE NEW PARTY

all at the same location. Do you think that would be enough to get so-called professional journalists
to maybe square the Messiah circle? I am not holding my breath …

ACORN: http://tinyurl.com/4hodkn (scroll down to “ACORN fall close to tree”) = 88 3rd Ave
PROJECT VOTE: http://tinyurl.com/3l7jh2 (WHOIS domain registration) = 88 3rd Ave
THE NEW PARTY (proven front for the Democatic Socialists of America): http://tinyurl.com/4hm4d9
= 88 3rd Ave

Again – how bad does it have to smell? When will the media do their job? After the election – maybe?
————————————————-

rhodeymark on October 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM

I don’t care what Rick Moran’s opinion is, how do we know what Obama believes? No one knows except for his Presidential seal, his tour of Europe, his love of all that is tax and regulations. His association with terrorists, anti-Semites, communists and socialists. If you don’t believe in any of that, even if you are an opportunistic politician, some of it has to rub off and he has never denounced any of those views. Hoping that The One is not a socialist is not enough! We have to know that he is not a socialist!!!

flytier on October 11, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2