New Party: radicals, redistribution, and ACORN
posted at 9:10 am on October 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Stanley Kurtz continues his efforts to be proclaimed an Enemy of the State in a prospective Barack Obama presidency with his essay today on Chicago’s New Party. While the Tanning Bed Media continues to report on Joe the Plumber’s driving record, only a handful of journalists appear interested in the record of an actual politician. Kurtz discovers that Obama’s affiliation with the New Party brought him into alliance with hard-Left progressives, Socialists, and into a partnership with ACORN:
During his first campaign for the Illinois state senate in 1995-96, Barack Obama was a member of, and was endorsed by, the far-left New Party. Obama’s New Party ties give the lie to his claim to be a post-partisan, post-ideological pragmatist. Particularly in Chicago, the New Party functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). So despite repeated attempts to distance himself from ACORN, Obama’s New Party ties raise disturbing questions about his links to those proudly militant leftists. The media’s near-total silence on this critical element of Obama’s past is deeply irresponsible.
Stanley, Stanley, Stanley … stop being such a racist. Don’t you know that the media has more important tasks than to inform the electorate about the candidates for the Presidency? I hear Joe Wurzelbacher may have belonged to something called the Natural Law Party over twenty years ago. That’s obviously much more important than Obama’s political record!
In any case, the New Party was clearly far to the left of mainstream Democrats, and according to Sifry, the party explicitly thought of itself as made up of committed “progressives,” rather than conventional “liberals.” That is entirely consistent with a famous 1995 profile of Obama by Hank De Zutter, which portrays him as closely tied to ACORN, and holding a world-view well “beyond” his mother’s conventional liberalism.
To get a sense of where the New Party stood politically, consider some of its early supporters: Barbara Dudley of Greenpeace, Steve Cobble political director of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coaltion, and prominent academics like Frances Fox Piven coauthor of the “Cloward-Piven strategy” and a leader of the drive for the “motor-voter” legislation Obama later defended in court on behalf of ACORN, economist Juliet Schor, black historian, Manning Marable, historian Howard Zinn, linguist Noam Chomsky, Todd Gitlin, and writers like Gloria Steinem, and Barbara Ehrenreich. Socialist? Readers can draw their own conclusions. At one point, Sifry does describe the party’s goals as “social democratic.” In any case, the New Party clearly stands substantially to the left of the mainstream Democratic party.
Come on, Stanley. Try to keep up. Joe the Plumber isn’t licensed in Ohio! Do you know what that means? Unless the government officially declares you a plumber, you can’t be one. Why aren’t you joining the masses of your colleagues in exposing Joe as a fraud?
Unquestionably, ACORN was one of the most important forces behind the creation of the New Party. According to Sifry: “Wade Rathke, ACORN’s lead national organizer, was in on the founding discussions that led to the New Party, and the group’s political director, Zach Polett, also came to play a big role in guiding New Party field organizing for the party [in Chicago and Little Rock].” In fact, Sifry portrays ACORN’s leading role in the New Party as the result of a conscious decision by the organization to move into electoral politics in a more substantial way than they had been able to solely through their political action committee. In addition to Rathke and Polett, a key early supporter of the New Party was Obama’s closest ACORN contact, Madeline Talbott.
Psst, Stanley. Did you know that Joe’s real first name is Samuel? He’s not even a real Joe. Well, except for his middle name, which he’s used consistently, but that’s not the point.
Obviously, Stanley Kurtz is not satisfied with membership in the Tanning Bed Media — and thank goodness. Kurtz takes a measured approach in this essay, refraining from labeling the New Party as Socialist. As Kurtz points out, it included socialists, but also many more people from the Left. It gave socialists and redistributionists their best opportunity to enter mainstream politics by influencing the direction of the Democrats in Chicago, and one of their stars in this effort was Barack Obama.
Tellingly, Kurtz’ best source for the New Party and its ties to ACORN is Micah Sifry. The progressive writer first committed the history of the New Party in his book Spoiling for a Fight, written in 2002 detailing the history of independent parties in the US. Using this history, Kurtz can easily draw the lines of alliance between Obama, ACORN, and the radicals and redistributionists who sought to pull the Democrats harder to the Left in Chicago — and who succeeded with Obama.
Why haven’t the national media done the same research? They’re too busy reporting on tanning beds and Joe the Plumber’s divorce records to spend any time vetting an actual presidential candidate.










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
Goddamn Obama is not gonna blink an eye when Boxer and Waters and Pelosi start with all their crappy legislation. Centrist he isn’t.
lodge on October 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Read this:
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/19/141979.html?s=al&promo_code=6D84-1
Everything surrounding this Obama character is shady, corrupt, dishonest, and sleezy.
Keemo on October 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I think we screwed up not getting this stuff out during the summer, would’ve worked to wait till October except the financial crisis hit…with perfect timing for BO
jp on October 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Redundant.
Kafir on October 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM
“Oh gosh guys, the Democrats in Congress don’t want to give you tax cuts after all. I’m sorry, but they have a veto-proof majority, I can’t keep my promise to lower your taxes. Such a shame. No, this isn’t anything like Clinton did in 1993. Not at all.”
If George H. W. Bush can be forced to go back on a promise about taxes, anyone think Obama won’t? Please.
Seixon on October 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Because the media agrees with the goal and doesn’t want to do anything to impeed it’s implementation on a national level.
MarkTheGreat on October 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Obama is an unattended reproduction machine for liberal, socialist giveaway programs, wealth redistribution schemes and all other leftist pigswill.
rplat on October 20, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Why haven’t the national media done the same research?
What national media? I see thousands of dollar-a-trick whores prostrating themselves at Odummy’s feet, whores with notepads, cameramen and press badges.
“MINO’s”, media in name only.
Bishop on October 20, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Ethics violation, Obama broke Illinois state law as senator having taken speaking fees while a senator in direct violation of the LAW that as an attorney and senator he knew full well.
Obama is criminal.
maverick muse on October 20, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Many scoff and try to laugh off “liberal media bias” whenever it’s mentioned. While the MSM has exhibited contempt for Republicans and conservatives for decades, the “Joe the Plumber” episode has proved that they hate Republican/conservative voters as well. Charlie Rangel has serious legal tax issues with his Carribean real estate while Representative Mahoney is paying off girlfriends and bribing local officials, but the MSM yawns. Let one citizen ask a valid question–which realistically embarrassed Obama and they park a satellite truck outside his house?
perroviejo on October 20, 2008 at 9:25 AM
From Powerline:
And he isn’t even elected yet! Barack Obama says that he wants to “improve America’s standing abroad,” by which he means suck up to the Europeans. But in every tangible way, the policies he advocates will damage relations with allies and lead to diminished American influence. Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to trade.
Obama’s perverse opposition to expanding export opportunities to Colombia is well documented. His pledge to tear up NAFTA, too, is already having unintended consequences, as the Wall Street Journal reports:
Barack Obama’s promise to unilaterally rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico won’t go along with his ideas on labor and the environment has not gone unnoticed in Ottawa. If Canadians are going to have a tougher time selling their goods and services south of the border, who can blame them for looking east — across the Atlantic to Europe.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed an agreement Friday to begin negotiations for a free trade pact between Canada and the European Union. A Canada-EU study released last week outlines the joint economic benefits of such a partnership, with two-way trade estimated to increase 22.9% by 2014.
The proposed partnership goes a lot further than Nafta. In addition to allowing free trade in goods and services, it would harmonize regulations, open up the air-travel market, and boost opportunities in government-procurement. Most important, it would free the labor market so that skilled workers could move easily back and forth across the Atlantic. …
At a news conference on Friday, Mr. Harper said, “We must stand against protectionism and work to lower and eliminate barriers.”
Under an Obama administration, the United States will be more protectionist than Europe. That’s a recipe for economic decline. As with so many of Obama’s policies, however, the full extent of the damage will not be evident until long after he leaves office.
Keemo on October 20, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Look guys & gals, there’s a set of metrics that everyone is seemingly overlooking which can explain the electorate’s lack of interest: 40% don’t pay taxes. Who is this 40%? Is it growing? What’s the tipping point? Have we reached it yet?
This election isn’t about the hard left, Ayers, anti-war, etc. It’s about the culmination of certain constitutional amendments & policies enacted over the last 90 years that have finally come home to roost.
If the republic doesn’t end this generation, how can anyone here realistically expect it to continue a few more down the road? All we’re doing is putting off the end.
kuhio on October 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Yep, but they did block access to the records for a long time. Kurtz had to fight tooth and nail to get in there and look at them.
I’m suprised the Clintons didn’t open up that can of worms themselves. Overconfidence?
reaganaut on October 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Does anyone believe for a minute that we won’t have an incredibly divided country if/when Obama, Inc. pulls off the greatest election fraud since Kennedy? No, really. They only THINK they know what a divided country is. I’m beginning to rethink some of what I’ve always believed about the state of our “union.”
But this time, the fraud is in full view (if totally ignored by the MSM). There are almost more fronts than you can fight. Secretaries of State ignoring the law in order to hide fraud, ACORN promoting chaos, Obama’s radical ties being hidden by the MSM, the breaking of our the campaign financing system by B.O., the absolute public flogging of anyone and anything that questions “The One”… etc. etc.
Where can I buy my, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for Obama” shirt. I’d like to get one before the run starts.
Sugar Land on October 20, 2008 at 9:28 AM
That guy kurtz is pretty evil
tomas on October 20, 2008 at 9:28 AM
maverick muse on October 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Stop trying to deflect attention from the important issues.
Joe the Plumber DOESN’T RECYCLE!!!!1!1!!
Bruce in NH on October 20, 2008 at 9:31 AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_broke_illinois_ethics_laws_as_a_state_legislator/
maverick muse on October 20, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Where can I buy my, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for Obama” shirt. I’d like to get one before the run starts.
Sugar Land on October 20, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Are you insane? If Obarfy wins, you will be lucky to walk down the street with a t-shirt portraying an elephant, much less something derogatory toward the Super Messiah.
Bishop on October 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM
And hey, the spouse of the Republican Vice Presidential nominee was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party for a couple of years long ago. That is so much more relevant than the Democrat’s Presidential nominee’s old party.
rbj on October 20, 2008 at 9:36 AM
The left needs >50% to NOT pay taxes. At this point they will represent a majority of voters who they can depend on to vote with them to have
usthe rich pay their taxes. Opposition will be represented byRepublicansconservatives who want to start having these people pay whilewethe rich get their money. It’s bullet-proof.perroviejo on October 20, 2008 at 9:39 AM
When I became frustrated 4 yrs. ago about the media bias, I would make copies of news articles to show the other side of the story regarding Kerry. I would get up early in the morning, drive to my liberal newpaper boxes, slip copies of the articles into the liberal rags in the boxes.
Never the same boxes. I did this over and over. I also put articles in my office break room. At least I tried to get the truth out – don’t know how effective it might have been.
stenwin77 on October 20, 2008 at 9:42 AM
I wonder if O’Reilly will ever discuss this stuff. (I am not a fan, but) He is one of the only commentators that independents will listen to – yet up until now he has refused to question Obama’s associations.
dmarie on October 20, 2008 at 9:43 AM
I happened to hear part of Jesse Jackson’s Sunday radio program yesteray. Really, really scary how the left is so sure that they are going to win big and basically “re-do” government. Jackson didn’t even make any pretense at fairness as he talked about what was essentially the government seizing private property to redistribute to blacks.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I guess I am a little more cynical than most about all of this stuff from Obama’s early years in Chicago. He was a young man on the make, trying to get known in a city where it is very hard to break in. His head was stuffed with a lot of left-wing claptrap at Columbia and Harvard Law. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that he fell in with some radical leftists who were more welcoming to him and willing to promote him than the Chicago regulars were.
Obama did not pursue a particularly leftist agenda in the State Senate. Nor has he in the U.S. Senate. Certainly a committed “New Party socialist” would never have voted for the FISA bill or for any of the war-funding bills, even for political reasons. Obama has burned a lot of the hardcore leftists with these votes. People like that who are ideologues do not welcome someone back into the fold after such high-profile apostasies.
Of course, it would have been nice to have had all this stuff about Obama’s past out in the open. Perhaps Hillary Clinton could have mae better use of it. But the Democratic primary electorate is extremely liberal anyway, and I doubt it would have mattered.
Elections are about the future. Obama has successfully nvented a new persona, slightly liberal on policy, but personally a moderate, Christian family man. His words are inspiring to a lot of people and they are not all just dumb sheep or committed leftists of black racists. People seem to believe that he will not be a divisive, left wng ideologue.
rockmom on October 20, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The visceral hatred expressed by many (me included) on this site is a result of the fear we have that an Obama administration will do more harm to this country than can be rectified over several political generations. Their goal is to drive the final nail in the coffin of conservatism…and we are handing them the hammer.
Too much blood has been spilled in the cause of freedom to worry about a little more, if it should come to that. With God’s help, it will not.
SKYFOX on October 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Maybe I missed it, but Kurtz does not mention that Wade Rathke was a member of SDS – like Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson,
Mike Klonsky.
Buy Danish on October 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Kurtz: Keep your cat indoors.
whitetop on October 20, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Joe has to be a real threat to Obama.
That must be the basis for the need to destroy him.
drjohn on October 20, 2008 at 10:07 AM
The question for the next two weeks is;
Are Americans too stupid to realize that Obama=Socialism,
or do they actually WANT Socialism?
Star20 on October 20, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Full Spectrum Class Warfare
moxie_neanderthal on October 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Check out the front page news. This just in, a REPUBLICAN arrested for voter fraud. See also page 16 for a story on ACORN dealing with employee compliance issues.
Laura in Maryland on October 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM
And don’t miss the AP headline story about Freddie Mac’s “stealth” campaign to influence Republican senators. That’s a knee slapper.
rockmom on October 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Only one way out IMO and that is the 10th Amendment and the willingness of Red state governors and legislators to tell the Fed to read the Constitution and then mind their own damn business. Oklahoma is leading the way.
DerKrieger on October 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Stop being bitter and welcome our new overlords.
You will love them over time. Barack will insist on it.
Mr. Joe on October 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM
As Kurtz well points out the New Party knew they did not have enough power to gain on their own standing and worked their efforts within the Dem party.
The results are the radical socialistic policy group that resides within the Dem congress and it is called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
They don’t like to be really known to much and many should take a closer look at them.
Historically their website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) on their servers until attention was paid and then the site was moved to try to give an appearance of distance.
CommentGuy on October 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM
The reason all this good reporting fails to get any traction is because the average Dem, the MSM and a very large group of independents says “so what”. In fact most of them say its about time. They are and have been looking for these influences for years.
Every time the MSM hypes a human economic tragedy they pick up a few more adherents. Even Hillary, who chooses her words very carefully, labeled herself a Progressive. A simple google search will shed any light you need on that subject. The Dem party has always been Socialistic. The difference now is they will probably admit to it once Obama is elected. It will start with being proud to be a liberal and go on from there.
As bad as socialism is, the bigger risk is the fascism that usually comes afterwards when all the policies fail.
patrick neid on October 20, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Yes and Yes (at least they think they want Socialism).
Of course it hasn’t helped that the GOP decided this was the perfect year to make a suicide gesture by nominating a candidate that doesn’t energize the base.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 10:51 AM
There’s an old story about Chicago politics that is relevant here. A young idealistic man goes into a campaign HQ to volunteer to work for a candidate. The old machine pol at the front desk asks “Who sent you?”. When the young man says no one ‘sent’ me the party hack responds “We don’t want nobody that nobody sent”. If you don’t have any connections you are not welcome or wanted.
We are now seeing who ‘sent’ Barry.
Sefton on October 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This fundraising business is what’s bothering me, and, yes it’s shady, corrupt, dishonest, and sleezy and it has to do with the future because who is donating all of this money??? What’s in it for them??? The campaign won’t release names of contributors, why???
I think beyond radicals, socialism, and ACORN, this is a much bigger story – and it is right out in the open. Who can donate that kind of money when the economy is in such a drastic downturn? Isn’t it obscene the amount of money raised and spent on a CAMPAIGN??? Doesn’t this resonate with anyone about how he can blithely blow through MILLIONS without a second thought?
Maybe it’s just me.
tru2tx on October 20, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Scary thought. What if the American people really want cradle to grave socialism?
Angry Dumbo on October 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM
It wasn’t his mother that Barry Obama idolized. It was his Kenyan Communist father.
AZCoyote on October 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I don’t know, Ed. I get this vague impression that you’re a wee bit disillusioned with Our Betters in the Media. I’m not sure why, but that’s the feeling I get. :)
irishspy on October 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM
highhopes,
McCain was around 4th on my list, but if you believe “yes” and “yes,” like I do, McCain is the only one who had a chance at beating Obama. The country has moved too far left for someone like Romney to have a chance.
Star20 on October 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I found this both frustratingly astonishing and revealing. Thanks drjohn.
He’s been given a pass from the very start.
techno_barbarian on October 20, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Same here.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on October 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Joe the Plumber is Mr. Clean’s illigitimate love child.
Get with the program Stanley (if that’s your real name!).
eaglewingz08 on October 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
With Josephine the Plumber (in case you wondered).
eaglewingz08 on October 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM