Ariana has some excellent advice for the Obama campaign – ignore Sarah Palin and focus your energies on John McCain and his ties to George W. Bush:
Listening to McCain, you’d think it was the Democrats who occupied the White House the last seven-plus years and it was time to throw the bastards out.
Given that 82 percent of voters believe we are heading in the wrong direction, it’s a logical position to take. But for the American people to buy into the notion that McCain, who has raced to Bush’s side on tax cuts, on offshore drilling — even on torture — is this campaign’s agent of change, it’s going to require an incredible suspension of disbelief. Or a serious case of amnesia.
And this is clearly McCain’s campaign strategy: inducing amnesia about the past and confusion about the future, attempting to hoodwink the American people about what he has become. Which is where Sarah Palin comes in. As a major distraction. In the effort to divert attention from the matter at hand — McCain’s embrace of all things Bush — Palin is the perfect storm.
Americans love the outsider plucked from obscurity. And Palin provides bucketfuls of the new and exciting. As long as voters and the media are caught up in the latest installment of As Sarah Turns or the Alaska version of All My Children, they aren’t paying attention to the lack of solutions McCain is offering to the serious crises that face us.
Forget worrying about the economy or health care or the housing crisis — think about how many people live in Wasilla, whether Bristol and Levi will live happily ever after, and if Sarah and her “First Dude” really want Alaska to secede from the union.
This is why the McCain campaign wants Palin front and center — did you notice how much time McCain spent during the speech praising Palin and how quickly the celebratory post-speech music shifted from “Raisin’ McCain” to “Barracuda”?
And it’s why Democrats need to ignore Palin, and keep the focus on reminding voters about the stark contrast between an Obama and a McCain administration. It’s tempting to prime the Palin attack pump. But Obama and the Democrats do so at their own peril.
John McCain wants to distance himself from Bush, cloud the huge policy differences between him and Obama, and hope his compelling life story carries the day. Obama’s job is to make sure he doesn’t get away with it. Forgetting Sarah Palin is a good place to start.
The Obama campaign has already figured this out. They are attacking McCain and the GOP for ignoring the problems of health care, jobs etc. You don’t hear them mentioning Sarah Palin.
Also, Hillary is going to start campaigning with a stop in Florida on Monday, and her spokesperson has made it clear she will not be attacking Sarah Palin but instead will focus her attacks on John McCain. Furthermore, the Obama camapign has not asked her to go after Palin.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has no intention of becoming a Sarah Palin attack dog — but has no qualms going after John McCain, people close to the former first lady say.
“She’s not the answer when it comes to winning conservative women — she never was — and we’re not going to be anybody’s attack dog against Sarah Palin,” said a Clinton insider. “To be fair to Obama’s people, they haven’t asked us to do that.”
This makes sense. John McCain has embraced the Bush economic policies, and that’s what this election needs to be about for Obama to win.
Good luck– this isn’t going to work. More and more people are starting to see what a true liberal BO really is- the tide had turned!
Oh no, he might be — GASP — a liberal? We can’t elect a liberal. He would destroy America!!
People wonder why this race is as close as it is. It’s because the right has convinced so many people that liberalism is evil and anti-American. Just one more thing for us to fear.
We’ve been led by conservatives for the past eight years and look what’s happened. It’s time for a change (there’s that word again).
Seriously, you need to look into these issues before making idiotic statements like “we’ve been led by conservatives for the past 8 years”…
Bush is what’s called a NEO-conservative. They are not true conservatives. Congress has been run by the far left for the last 2 years and they are the only entity outside of serial killers with an approval rating lower than the phony, neo-conservative Bush. Who is the speaker of the House? Who is the Senate Majority leader? Look it up, see what they have done the last couple years, then come back with some semblance of a comment that at least shows you have a clue with what’s going on in this country.
I’m a rookie in this arena, so I will readily admit that I’m learning as I go. To be honest, I don’t really know what the difference is between a neo-con and a conservative. I didn’t realize that disqualified me from posting on this blog, uninformed as I may be. I’m assuming Bush and his cronies are some kind of mutation of core conservatives, but I’ll look it up.
I do know that Bush and Cheney are Republicans, and that under their watch, our country and our government seem to have lost their way. Maybe I should’ve been more precise and said that we’ve been led by Republicans for the past eight years. Either way, it’s time for a change.
This is my problem with what I’ve seen from the right — I make a comment and you jump down my throat. There’s a civil, productive way to point out an inaccuracy like that, and then there’s this kind of guerrilla mentality. It’s not about having a discussion — it’s about shredding the other guy to make yourself look good. It’s about insulting and demeaning your opponent. It’s what Palin and Guiliani did Wednesday, it’s what McCain’s goons have been doing this whole campaign, and it’s what conservatives (and neo-cons, apparently) have been doing to liberals for ages.
People who don’t “get” Barack Obama don’t seem to understand that we’re better when we work together instead of tearing each other apart. You can dismiss that as Kum Ba Ya bullshit, but even with my limited political experience, I know that this is one of the key issues separating the two sides this year. It matters. And to quite a few people.
Now let me beat you to the punch, because I’m sure you’re getting ready to call me a crybaby again. It’s true, this is sad, but not in a boo-hoo way. Obama says McCain is out of touch, and I think that’s true in a lot of ways. That’s why, after ridiculing Obama for months and calling him an “empty suit” with “empty words” about change, the McCain campaign quietly adopted the “change” theme themselves, as we saw in his speech last night. That’s not to say that the idea of change is unique and available only to Obama, but when someone spends so much time, money and energy to demean an idea, only to conveniently say “hey, maybe they’re on to something” a little later, I’m suspicious. And I’m not alone.
I’m sure you’ll dismiss this as some uninformed, pansy liberal view of the political landscape, but just keep in mind that there are millions of people who feel the same way. And while McCain may be talking about change now more than ever, a lot of people see right through him. It sounds like a ploy, just like his VP pick. McCain has said that he’d rather lose an election than have his country lose a war. I don’t doubt that one bit. But he sure is doing everything he can to win this election, from first selling his so-called “Maverick” soul to the Republican party to secure the nomination, to tearing Obama down with all the nasty, negative, divisive tricks his party is notorious for.
Now…feel free to tell me what I screwed up that time, SRG.
Fair enough.
But before I go any further, I would at least appreciate if you would understand and LEARN the difference between a neo-con and a true conservative. Maybe then we can have a civil discourse, because at that point at least you would know where the “true” conservative is coming from. And of course, I am in no way saying I am the expert, but I have spent way too much time, as G will probably agree, and Norb as well, in at least debating and coming up with my philosophy, which may or may not be what this country needs. But at least I take stands rather than simply making observations. I know you are sensitive and I want to point out this is not a personal attack, but merely my “observation”, right or wrong.
Like I said, I’ll look it up.
And what’s wrong with making observations? How can you make decisions and formulate opinions without first observing? I’ve observed enough in this election to know whose judgment and values are most closely aligned with mine, and whose temperament and vision I trust to help steer this country.
To your final point, it’s not about being sensitive. It’s not like I’m sitting here sobbing at my computer because you called me a name and said my statements are idiotic. It’s about being civil. Of course, an internet bulletin board is probably the wrong place to look for civility.
I entered the 2000 election completely open-minded. My parents were both teachers, so I grew up in a Democratic household and they were surprised (to say the least) when I told them I was considering voting for a Republican in 2000. I liked John McCain’s maverick attitude (back then, when he was actually a maverick) and liked what he had to say in his debates with Bush. Once Bush won the nomination, and I witnessed his simple-mindedness first hand in the debates with Gore, I was back in the Democratic party.
There are several conservative ideals that I think a lot of liberals can identify with. The biggest one is eliminating wasteful spending and earmarks. Both Obama and McCain have pledged to do this, but McCain chose a running mate who happily took the Bridge to Nowhere funds, eventually said no to the Bridge to Nowhere when it became a national embarrassment, and proceeded to keep all those earmarked funds. I find it hypocritical that she claims to be a fiscal conservative.
Anyway, back to my point. I have respect for true conservatives. Some of what Pat Buchanan says actually makes sense to me. The neo-cons are a group of Republicans that are hell-bent on redrawing the map in the Middle East. They got their guy (Bush) elected and came into office with the full intention of taking out Saddam Hussein. (Fmr Bush terrorism adviser Richard Clarke and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill confirmed that Bush established his intention of taking out Saddam prior to 9/11.) These neo-cons seized the opportunity to play on America’s emotions over 9/11 by trying whatever they could to link Saddam to Al-Qaeda. (And according to Pulitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind, who has the recorded interviews to prove it, Cheney authorized a forged document linking Saddam to Mohammed Atta.) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz – these are the guys to blame for the Iraqi War. Bush was probably just a pawn in their game.
Neo-cons believe we should police the world. They are closely tied with Big Oil and the military complex, which both enjoy bigger profits when we are at war. Traditional (”Goldwater”) conservatives take a much more pragmatic approach. And while I disagree with much of their social and domestic platform, I typically agree with their foreign policy.
I would guess that SRG agrees with a lot of what Ron Paul has been saying. I thought he was the only sane Republican at their debates and the entire party treats him like he’s a lunatic.
My point about the observations was you make them, but don’t have any intelligent conclusions. Again, MY opinion.
I get G and JP’s, I may not agree and we have our differences, but at least I know what their main points are. That being said, I’m sure I may go over the line every now and again, or they will…but I respect their opinion. I don’t respect people calling me names SIMPLY because I will not vote for a certain candidate. The “bigot” smear was a disgusting thing. Call me “stupid” or “idiotic” and I’ll at least be relatively civil with you.
And I hope you go beyond “looking it up”. Once you understand the difference, I know, or at least I THINK, you will then know that there is much more to this than two “sides”…but then again, with some people, such as yourself, it’s very difficult to get past any personal or emotional feelings you may have, to find anything close to the logical truth.
As for the GOP’s demonizing of the word “liberal,” I like to quote the live debate episode of The West Wing. It’s a shame that it takes a television show to put it so eloquently. (And please, no jokes trying to tie in liberalism with Hollywood. I’ve heard all of them.)
To set up the scene, it’s a debate between Santos (D) and Vinick (R), and Vinick has used the term “liberal” derisively several times already during the debate.
SANTOS
I know you like to use that word ‘liberal’ as if it were a crime.
VINICK
No. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?
SANTOS
It’s true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
VINICK
A Republican President ended slavery.
SANTOS
Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act [ed. note: that was actually more of a North/South thing as a lot of the Southern states were still Democratic at the time. It was over the Civil Rights Act that the South ultimately left the Democratic Party, never to return.], the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things every one. [ed. note: Nixon did create the EPA.] So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
John P, you nailed it exactly. Ron Paul would be my President, a great President, in my opinion, for all of us. Instead, I’m, as usual, taking the lesser of 2 boneheads, although I do have some hope AS LONG AS the neo-cons don’t hijack Palin.
John, no need to worry about being associated with Hollywood because of your views..check this clip Norb sent me, you will like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htVTYrtQWXE&feature=related
I don’t think most normal Americans have ever watched the West Wing. I haven’t and I am liberal.
Long television speeches won’t cut it obviously. I still have a chip on my shoulder about Dukakis, who I think started this whole thing. Long speeches don’t work nearly as well as not responding when Arnold Schwarzennegar says “Ven it comes to ze American economy, Michael Dukakis vill be ze real terminator”!
Obama has to fight back, and so far so good
JP, what’s the most prosperous country in Europe (economic growth-wise) and why? Also, do you know the unemployment rates for the main Euro countries?
I am not asking you this with an agenda in mind. Just asking.
I understand that there are more than two sides to this. I’m not naive. It’s all a spectrum, left to right, with the middle and extremes as well. If I said “two sides” in one of my posts, it was simply in reference to McCain vs. Obama.
“…but then again, with some people, such as yourself…”
I love how you seem to think you know me. And I also wasn’t the one who called you a “bigot,” if that’s what you’re implying.
I am not sure I trust published stats. Sort of reminds me of the stat that the average American has one testicle and one breast.
I live here and unemployment is universally higher than the USA but I would love to understand how the USA actually calculates that. I think somehow in the US rate, people are not counted if they are “long term” unemployed which I guess is because they are viewed as not trying. I think in the Europe rate if you don’t have a job you get counted.
Growth rates were more robust in Spain and France as I recall right now but the German economy was also running hot. All this until about 2 months ago and we are all very flat now.
Fundamental differences here are a more sophisticated division of interests in Europe compared to the US where the only interest that has real power is business. That balance I believe helps, and does not hurt, European commerce.
C’mon, JP. I expected better than that. It was too vanilla. I know Europe RESPECTS business (from a government standpoint) more than the US, but I want some good, solid, non-partisan information.
That’s interesting, because I have one testicle and two breasts.
But no penis.
…Okay, that was a vintage ninth-grade cheap shot!
Yes, that was. But I respect it. I left that one wide open.
Now where is tanya when you need her?
And I am not implying it’s you…I just miss her…and her slanderous statements…or is it libelous?
JP – “I don’t think most normal Americans have ever watched the West Wing.”
That’s an interesting statement. For much of its run, it was one of the most popular shows on TV, so someone was watching it. And I know several Republicans who enjoyed it, but they probably weren’t normal either.
SRG – That was a funny clip, but after seeing delegate after delegate recite the same Palin talking points when interviewed at the convention, I think the same could be said for Republicans.
nick: What stats do you want? I am not sure what your point is….
By the way, while you guys are busy trolling each other, the US Government let out a trial balloon that they will likely take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Knowing who is in the White House right now, Mr. Less Government Bush neo con, this is a truly shocking move with frightening implications on the true state of the American and global economy.
Watch and see, “neo con” is going to be a dirtier word than liberal in about 4 weeks, and the Demos are going to hang that word right around the neck of McCain Palin using the neo con version of Willie Horton, George W Bush
By the way, SRG, not to perpetuate this but:
“My point about the observations was you make them, but don’t have any intelligent conclusions.”
I would love for you to enlighten me and point out a few examples of my unintelligent conclusions. (Aside from the original conservative/neo-con blunder.)
And thanks for the info, John P. Looks like my assumption was right — neo-cons are some sort of mutation of true conservatives. I think JP’s on to something — I’ve heard plenty of people use the word “neo-con” with the same sneer that others reserve for the word “liberal.”
The 88 election always sticks out for me as the first election that the GOP was able to really gain traction with attacking the word liberal.
in particular I remember Buddy McKay who lost to Connie Mack for the senate in Florida and I remember a TV commercial in which, with a sneering voice, the commercial ended saying “Buddy McKay, you’re liberal”
I would love to hear 20 years later that same sneering voice say…… “John McCain, you’re neo con”
The word “liberal” connotates everything real conservatives (not “neo-cons”) despise. There is nothing wrong with a safety net for people that fall on hard times, as a matter of fact that is a noble aspect of a great society. When that safety net becomes a way of life with no regard to personal responsibility there in lies the problem. When you add government regulation and tax and spend policies on top of that it drives true conservatives nuts. A perfect quote by Ronald Reagan sums up Big Government liberal policies nicely—- “If it moves, tax it…if it keeps moving, regulate it….if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
What made America GREAT has always been self reliance. You start with nothing and make something of yourself. Almost everyone we know has done this from very middle class beginnings. When you give something for nothing, it loses it’s value. If you start to give everything away (healthcare, a “living” wage, housing, even heat in the winter) you will erode what made the US great– we’re already seeing it. With all these programs the US will become Europe– not that Europe is bad, but we will no longer be the riches most powerful country in the world. If that’s what you want for this country, so be it— I’d rather be great.
SRG – your comments about the last 8 years are a little misleading. Yes, we were run by neocons, and they screwed up on foreign policy.
However, you are completely letting the Republican Party, and self-proclaimed “conservatives” off the hook. George Bush ran as a conservative and had a Republican congress for six years. They were self-proclaimed conservative, and they screwed everything up as you know. They cut taxes but they spent money like crazy. They helped all their friends in the lobbying community.
You are rightfully disgusted by this, as we are, and it turns out that perhaps they were not true conservatives.
However, they subscribed, and many of their supporters still subscribe, to the bullshit argument that cutting taxes will grow the economy and solve all our problems. We’ve seen that is not the case.
For this election, we can quibble about the labels, but the bottom line is that the Republican Party, the conservatives and the neoconservatives all had a huge hand in screwing things up. Any mention of Pelosi or Reid is ridiculous, as they can’t get much done with W still in the White House.
As for Palin, she wouldn’t know the difference between a conservative and a neocon on foreign policy if you put a gun to her head. After they brief her for the next 2 weeks, I guarantee you that she will be able to spout neocon bullshit in her debate.
Remember, McCain enthusiastically supported the entire Neocon agenda. He brought up was with Iraq before even Bush did. He’s itching for a fight with Iran, and he’s making ridiculous claims like “we are all Georgians.”
If you remotely believe what you said about the neocons screwing things up, you would NEVER vote for McCain and his new sidekick.
Nick, aren’t you painting with some broad strokes?
“When that safety net becomes a way of life with no regard to personal responsibility there in lies the problem.”
I agree 100%, but aren’t we talking about a spectrum again? Does it have to be all or nothing, in the sense that you either believe in self reliance or you believe that government should provide everything for everyone? Surely there are people who espouse the views you’ve laid out above, but aren’t there also people who “lean left,” as they say, and wholeheartedly support the ideals of self-reliance while still believing that there’s a role for government to play in that equation?
One example I’d give is health care. While I don’t think the job of our government is to offer handouts or financially prop up people who refuse to find a job or otherwise contribute to society, I also believe that health care should be a right and not a privilege. When hard-working, health-insured people are going bankrupt because they get sick, that’s a problem. It’s a problem when hard-working people can’t afford to have health care. But I also think it’s a problem when the unemployed get sick and are left to fend for themselves. Because they don’t have a job, we should just toss them aside?
I know that’s a core liberal belief, so does that make me a liberal, by your definition above? Or because I understand the value of self-reliance, am I just a moderate liberal? The reason I’m asking, and the reason I think it’s a relevant question, is because Obama has placed a strong emphasis on self reliance and responsibility throughout his campaign. Yes, he has liberal views and ideas, but does that make him the kind of extreme left liberal that you despise?
Wasn’t it JFK, a liberal, who said “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”?
Again, I’m just asking questions, trying to learn. And right now, I’d like to know why a liberal viewpoint built on a foundation of self-reliance is so anti-American.
I have a problem with the healthcare thing. Just from a compassion standpoint I can see how taking care of the sick can be considered a “right,” and I don’t like to think that people are suffering and they cannot get help in the USA. BUT…and this is a big but, if there is some form of universal heathcare there HAS to be attached to it some form of personal responsibility in that if you’re a drinker, smoker, illegal drug user, whatever, and if I’m paying for it with my tax dollars I want that behavior monitored and stopped-does that make me a horrible conservative? I want my money spent wisely.
I just look at the failed liberal policies of the past (and don’t give me social security- I’m paying for that) and look at the liberal track record and I see failure. I see wasted tax dollars going to failed programs and I see my taxes going up and I get nothing for those extra dollars, and it sounds like BO is proposing the same liberal stuff, just wrapped up in the year 2008 wrapping paper.
Well, we’ll see. I think his health care program is pretty smart, with the national government acting as a reinsurance agent for catastrophic illness. This lowers the cost for everyone.
As for wasteful spending, it’s hard to top the Iraq War.
I think on health care there is a good chance of a sensible compromise that spreads risk and gives everyone access irrespective of pre-existing conditions.
He is supposedly all about change but he has the same outdated, old liberal ideas…that’s the biggest problem. Government is not always the answer. Sometimes it just needs to move aside.
SRG – that’s a pretty lazy anaysis of his ideas. Telling teachers that they will get higher salaries, but in exchange a system of accountability needs to be put in place to reward good teachers and weed out bad teachers is not the same old stuff.
Telling fathers to start taking responsibility for their kids is not the same old stuff. You swoon over Ronald Reagan when he used those themes.
His health care plan does not mandate coverage like the Hillary plan did. It’s much more market-based solution, with the government stepping in as a reinsurer. That’s not an “old liberal idea.”
We’ve done very little to invest in alternative fuels, and he will dramatically increase that investment.
Finally, he’ll end this war. That alone is reason to support him over McCain. He won’t try to expand the wars in the Middle East to Iran.
That’s kind of what I was getting at earlier (in one post or another, anyway). Excuse me for making another observation, SRG, but the right’s condescending stance on liberalism leads too many people to casually dismiss a good idea simply because it comes from a liberal. That’s counterproductive.
Hillary’s plan called for mandatory participation, to the point that your wages would be garnished if you didn’t voluntarily sign up. I think everyone here can agree that that’s insane. Obama’s plan is to make it all more affordable, more accessible and more effective for Americans. What’s the problem with that?
Jamey – I was all ready to write a response to Nick but you did so well that I don’t have to.
Nick – I’ve taken several political quizzes and they all put me smack dab in the middle of the Democratic Party, so I’m on the border of being a moderate Democrat. I feel the same way about a so-called universal health care system. People should pay in and they should pay more if they aren’t in good health. They should pay more if they are overweight, and their rates should go down if they lose weight. They should pay more if they smoke and their rates should go down if they quit smoking (hard to measure, I know). They should pay more if their blood pressure goes up, and they should get a break if they lower it by eating oatmeal in the morning.
My problem with the GOP’s plan is that there is no plan at all. Health care costs have skyrocketed over the past eight years and a Republican administration with a Republican Congress did absolutely nothing about it.
The thing I like about Obama’s plan is that it acts as a safety net for those that can’t do better. If you like your plan, great, if not, you have the option of paying into his plan. I believe government programs can exist efficiently and do a lot of good if they aren’t mandatory. If you want to ship a package, you can go to FedEx or UPS, which are more expensive and have all sorts of bells and whistles, or you can go the post office and get a 20%-40% discount with peace of mind that it will eventually arrive.
For all the people that complain about Medicare, it’s apparently quite efficient in reducing administrative costs when compared to the private sector. Private health care companies see sick customers, even long-term customers, as a hit on their profit. They’re thinking – how do we get rid of this person? A gov’t run health care program is thinking – how do we provide health care to this person in the most efficient way possible?
I understand your concerns and I agree with some of them, but something has to be done. The health care sector has been running wild for the last eight years and you can’t trust business to regulate itself.
I meant that you wrote a response about “liberals” so that I don’t have to.
Today 9/8/08 Mc Cain 48% Obama$42%
It’s over–Tom Bradley effect is not even considered.
For all you truth seekers: “Liberal” has its roots from the latin “Freedom”. The founders of America were all true Liberals. The Liberals of today have prostituted the definition by calling the protectors of these ideals “Conservatives” whivh is true, as we really want to conserve these Liberal ideas that our forefathers had. The new “Liberal” is a Solialist/communist ideologe who believes that a central government led by “Learned people” is the way a society should run; a premise totally against what the ideals of our forefathers were.
Norb – you may end up being right, but polls immediately following a convention do not predict the result.
As for today’s liberals, you discuss socialism, but it seems like life under Republicans means bailing out our entire financial system. So much for capitalism working so well when the government doesn’t do it’s job of oversight.
I was watching a discussion on CNN with a group of undecided voters, and one of the women on the show described herself as “an independent conservative with liberal views”. I suspect a lot of so-called “liberals” would fit under a similar description, in the sense that most Americans subscribe to the ideals of self-reliance and responsibility, but some of us also see the value of many of the supposed liberal policies (health care, abortion, gay rights, etc.).
I don’t think healthcare is necessarily a “liberal” policy.
Really? Conservatives opposed Medicare, Medicaid, health care subsidies for children and now universal coverage.
When Jamey refers to health care, he’s referring to the concept that the government ought to play a role in helping all Americans, including the poor and the middle class, get decent health care.
Exactly. Thanks for clarifying, Gerardo.
The GOP bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is one of the biggest expansions of Government in the history of our nation.
If Bush really were a conservative, he would let the free market sort out the mortgage situation and McCain should not support this action either if he were a true conservative.
>>>The new “Liberal” is a Solialist/communist ideologe who believes that a central government led by “Learned people” is the way a society should run; a premise totally against what the ideals of our forefathers were.
Ah, glad norb cleared that up with his “definition.” It’s funny how the right loves to throw words around like “socialist” and “communist” every chance they get. A vast majority of the left believes in capitalism, as long as its regulated. Clearly business can’t regulate itself, no matter how much the right would like to see it happen. The deregulation pushed through Congress by McCain’s financial adviser, Phil Gramm, led to the Enron debacle and the home mortgage crisis. Talk about a failed policy…
Obama’s communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a “Global Poverty Act” designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won’t find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama’s most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as “left-leaning.”
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.
This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.” Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That’s not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who “Frank” was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.”
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man’s mentor, influencing Obama’s sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”
It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the “First International.” According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, “It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure…”
Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis “was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]-if not a member…”
In addition to Tidwell’s book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis’s Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was “deeply troubled” by the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college “An advanced degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that ####.” Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of “trying to force African feet into European shoes,” Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama’s giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. “At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside,” he said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the “Frank” in Obama’s book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a “socialist realist” who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record “and see if I could do something for them.” The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson’s contacts were “passed on” to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis “espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”
Is “coalition politics” at work in Obama’s rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.
“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle,” Chapman wrote. “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”
Let’s challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?
he’s not a communist
He’s a lot closer than the others
It’s sad he was born before abortion was legal
If Palin had ANY ties to a Nazi or right-wing group, she would be shot. It’s different if you have ties to the left. It doesn’t matter.
“It’s sad he was born before abortion was legal”
Wow. Just…wow. Pro life, eh?
Obama is a communist? And people wonder why this election is “closer than it should be.”
“Don’t vote for Obama. He might be a communist. Or a Muslim. Or both!!”
You can say what you want about the abortion comment, but part of backing abortions is that you may in fact abort (kill) the next Obama.
Also, I don’t see anything where he calls him a communist – simply pointed out his ties to them. There’s a difference. You guys whined about Palin’s ties to the Alaskan Independance Party (which turned out to be false), but it’s out of bounds to point it out on Obama’s side?
No one talks about Abortion as being pro-death.
The foundation of any society is womanhood, and when killing the unborn is accepted as norm, society collapses.
It has nothing to do with “choice” choice is when she opened her legs. Abortion is nothing else than commiting an irrational act to rectify another irrational act. Like the old saying goes,two wrongs don’t make a right.
Don’t start with the rape bs., give the kid up.
perfection is unattainable.