Pajamas Media

53 Comments

1. Nana-J:

Mr. Chapin,

Even though I support Obama’s candidacy, I do pity anyone foolish enough to believe that he is some sort of political messiah. I’ve lived long enough to have experienced life in our wonderful nation under every president from Eisenhower to George W. Some of our presidents have done a better job than others, and our current president I’m certain will down at the bottom of the list with some of the worst. However, I’ve no doubt that each and every one did the best that he could and believed that he was doing what was best for our nation.

That being said…. At best I find your article to be rife with misinformation. At worst I find myself wondering if your commentary isn’t in fact a bit of purposeful disinformation. For surely you seem to confused and/or ignorant of the fact that progressive political thought and practice is not the same as socialism or Marxism. To lead your readers to think otherwise does them no favors.

Thus, to clear up any misunderstanding, I offer the following:

Socialism:
1) “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.”

2) “Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. [2] This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers’ councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments.”

Marxism: “the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
Central to Marxist theory is an explanation of social change in terms of economic factors, according to which the means of production provide the economic base, which influences or determines the political and ideological superstructure. Marx and Engels predicted the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat and the eventual attainment of a classless communist society.”

Currently, many economists are starting to talk about the neoliberalism and market driven economy of the past 20-25 years as being less than ideal given the current meltdown we are now experiencing.

A definition of progressivism: “Progressivism is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century America, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties such as the American Progressive Party organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[1]

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers’ rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws, regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.”

Though various members of the press have labeled Obama as the most liberal senator, a check on his voting record reveals that in fact this description is inaccurate. In the 6 years I have been following his career, I haven’t seen any evidence from him in his legislation, writing, speeches, and interviews that indicates his philosophy or ideology is driven by socialist or Marxist theory and practice.

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:44 am 2. jeff:

Ironically I know two people that know Obama really well. One served in the Illinois Senate with him, the other is an acquaintance. They do not know each other. Both describe him as a Marxist.

His close friend and mentor, William Ayers, is a Marxist.

Obama understands compromise, and realizes that he cannot institute that type of policy and survive, but when you idealistically lean to the far far left, where you want to compromise could be “left”. Left doesn’t work successfully for the greater good in human society.

Aug 10, 2008 - 4:59 am 3. ~Paules:

Socialism defined: A socio-economic system where the political class maintains power by robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s vote. In its embryonic form socialists use the mechanism of taxation to transfer national wealth from producers (taxpayers and corporations) to favored constituent groups. Mature forms of socialism gradually move toward collectivism as control of national wealth is transferred from the private sector to government (Hat tip: Maxine Waters). Socialism in its tertiary phase requires the confiscation of all private property by which time the system is more properly known as communism.

The dangers of socialism to a free, capitalist republic include the following. 1) Loss of national identity as constituent groups are encouraged to put tribal grievences ahead of national concensus. 2) Erosion of national wealth as more people are moved from production (goods and services) towards distribution (government). 3) Loss of personal and economic liberty as the state becomes increasingly regulated. 4) The emergence of a new priveleged elite made up of party apparatchiks. 5) Lower standards of living when workers discover that additional effort is forfeit to the state in the form of taxes.

Been there, done that. Seen it before, no thanks.

Aug 10, 2008 - 6:10 am 4. goy:

Nana-J, it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen someone take the time to craft such a lengthy comment here on PJM that was also quite so fallacious. Your abuse of etymology in defense of progressivism is a perfect example of Mr. Chapin’s observations regarding the left’s victory in the culture war. I’d guess he’s grateful to you for illustrating his point so boldly.

The various ‘[1]‘ references in your comment were initially distracting, but now I see that the bulk of your post was not crafted by you at all – it is nothing more than plagiarized, copy/pasted text from Wikipedia, for which you provided no attribution (sorry, but the quotation marks don’t suffice). If you’re going to lecture others on the nuances of political ideology, I suggest you find a credible reference. Or simply learn to speak for yourself.

The tiny portion of your comment that comprised your own thoughts included a reference to what “many economists” think. I’m sure you’ll pardon me if I ignore that assertion without a few credible examples. GDP growth is currently at 2% – and that’s after absorbing the recent spike in oil price, the millions of illegal aliens we’re supporting and the media’s relentless lies about the state of the economy. The running Debt-to-GDP ratio of the past 8 years has been generally lower than the previous administration’s. Federal tax revenues are at an all-time high. So your erroneous “current meltdown” characterization commits precisely the offense you’ve falsely accused the author of committing.

Today’s self-anointed progressives have nothing in common with true American leaders like Teddy Roosevelt. His much-needed anti-trust victories worked in a completely different atmosphere from today’s, and had absolutely nothing in common with the blatant, socialist hubris of Hillary declaring she would “take [the oil companies'] profits” and turn them directly over to the State, or Obama’s ham-handed socialist plan to bribe American voters by stealing oil company profits to provide a “rebate” to consumers. As well, T.R.’s conservationist policies were grounded in their benefit to humanity, not in some delusional idolatry of “Gaia” or false fears that the sky is falling. Early Progressive ideals have been co-opted by the proponents of creeping socialism who today label themselves “progressive”. They are anything but. As von Mises observed, this process has been going on throughout both our lives (there are plenty of us out here who recall life under Eisenhower).

To put this in terms that a wikidpedian might grasp: today’s progressives ain’t your father’s Progressives. The former have morphed the precepts of anti-trust into a blind, lemming-like, anti-business ideology that finds the very notion of profit itself genuinely offensive. As well, their brand of conservation is a fantastical ideology grounded in ignorance and false fears – closer to suicidal eco-terrorism than anything ever envisioned by T.R. (sorry, there’s no more polite way to put it). Their pursuit “social justice” (without ever clearly defining it) through state regulation and control of every aspect of life their very raison d’etre.

What today’s progressives offer is nothing less than socialism on its face and marxism at its core. So-called “universal health care” is a prime example: a system that would transfer complete control of all health services to the government (not to mention the trillion$ in cash flow), resulting in the inevitable passage of “we-know-what’s-best-for-you” laws, dictating what you can and can not do based on how it might affect your government-funded health. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re already seeing this (e.g., banning of trans-fats, smoking bans, seat belt laws, etc.), so please don’t have the temerity to tell me that’s an unreasonable stretch.

Labeling themselves “progressive” is part-and-parcel of the doublespeak collectivists have been using to dupe themselves – and the “wikipedian” segment of each generation – into responding to the facts in exactly the manner that you have above.

As for Obama, anyone who still declares their support for him given recent events immediately gives up any intellectual credibility they may have had. So perhaps I should have just led off with that.

Enjoy the election.

Aug 10, 2008 - 6:47 am 5. L.Carlin:

Goy:

Bravo!

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:05 am 6. Don:

The fantasy that is Socialism (every where it is practiced) is so because of one overriding characteristic of humanity, PEOPLE ARE SELFISH (add to that PEOPLE ARE LAZY). The “workers” adopt the “don’t work too hard, you make everyone else look bad” philosophy (sounds like our unions here), those who would be exceeding the “norms” are discouraged from “overworking” or “overproducing”. Socialized medicine and centralized socialist economies demonstrate this consistently. The Elites? The Nomenclatura of the Soviet Union is the template, conditioned to believe in their “entitlement” to lead (and the perks that go with that leadership role).

In both groups selfishness and lazyness might seem to be punished (when exceedingly obvious) but in fact are rewarded. Perhaps Nan-J’s attitude (and jargon) is a product of her identification with the latter group (the Political/Genetic/Economic elite), vs understanding the realities of socialism’s impact on the former.

In all cases it becomes a system people work around (and cheat on). It is a fantasy

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:17 am 7. Madison:

So goy:

If you’re one of the people who remember the Eisenhower administration, the surely you must remember that the top marginal tax rate during Eisenhower’s administration was 91%. Clearly, the US was a thoroughly Marxist state in the 1950’s, at least according to your logic.

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:26 am 8. huxley:

The argument about whether or not Barack Obama — behind the media hype and his own vapid rhetoric — is actually a Marxist is irrelevant…

Many of the pseudo-liberals I know would passionately deny being socialists. No doubt they would be telling the truth…

That Uncle Sam is entitled to something is universally conceded, but the crucial question is one of degree.

Bernard Chapin – I oppose Obama too, but I think throwing the terms Marxist and socialist at him is incorrect and foolish. Yes, you need to make the arguments about the relationship of statism and socialism. No, you don’t get to call Obama and his supporters Marxists because their policies move in that direction.

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:53 am 9. Terry Gain:

goy,

Fabulous post. Thank you.

Aug 10, 2008 - 7:58 am 10. Sandra M:

Michelle Obama’s speech about what Obama would “allow” us to do once he became President was the second most alarming thing she ever said and should be the subject of a political ad.

Another telling moment was when Obama was told that raising taxes would bring in less revenue and he defended his position as being “more fair.”

Also, his plan for a civilian force equal to the military. For what purpose?

Tony Rezko, a Syrian with middle east ties funded Obama’s start and their concern for the poor is shown in the rotten shape the housing projects they worked on are in. So much for Obama helping the poor.

Obama went to Kenya and campaigned for his cousin Raila Odinga, who was educated in East Germany and who promised the Muslim minority that he would institute Sharia law if elected. Odinga lost and fomented mass violence against an opposing tribe, which included herding 50 Black Christians into a Pentecostal church and setting it afire. Google the story.

What I learned from Jerome Corsi’s OBAMA NATION is that Obama called Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice who leaned on the pro-western government to “power-share” with this monster and make him Prime Minister, which was done. Expect Kenya to soon fall into the Muslim zone of influence in Africa with its neighbors Somalia and the Sudan, the “horn of Africa.”

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:10 am 11. Bill Perron:

Obama says my tire air pressure indicator is all I need to combat the high price of oil. Isn’t that ignorant statement enough to convince anyone with half a brain that Obama is not living in a state of reality? HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT!!! There are a lot of stupid people in America, but just not enough of them to make him President.

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:26 am 12. Roy:

‘The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened.’
Norman Thomas

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:41 am 13. Hope + Change + Progress = Collectivism? « I’ve Gotta Fang:

[...] Politics Barack Obama, Election 2008 gottafang 10:57 am Over at Pajamas Media today, Bernard Chapin has “The Messiah That Failed.” [...]

Aug 10, 2008 - 8:57 am 14. Colin:

This article is very good. However the article and its comments also illustrates why in the context of American politics, conservatives and other opponents of the left should NOT refer to their opponents as Marxist, Socialist, Fascist or “Younger Dumber Mussolinis”.
I have coined a new term to define Barak Obama’s and others political philosophy.
That term is: Big Government Pinhead.
Definition : A person who declares that the first, best or only solution to a problem is a Law,Regulation or a new Government initiative or program. The Pinhead part is that in many cases this is the only concept their brain can hold.
BGPs have a MO: 1. Declare a crisis or emergency. 2. Form a committee and issue one or more reports. The reports conclusion will be the need for a new Law,Regulation or a new Government initiative or program.
3. Get a budget. Either a piece of some other “agency” budget or even better get an appropriation of their own. 4. Hire some employees, set up offices, issue press releases and educational materials on the seriousness of the “problem” and progress in fixing it.
5. Initiate new policy and regulations to “get the job done”.
6. Issue periodic reports on your great progress and add the idea that you can do alot more with a bigger appropriation.
7. Issue reports explaining away the reasons why your great initiative didn’t succeed as planned. Start lobbying for more resources to achieve “final success”.
8. Have a party celebrating all you good efforts and go to the Legislature for another appropriation.
9. Repeat as necessary until you reach retirement age.
N.B. This is all accompanied by many, many meetings with coffee and pastry.
Big Government Pinheadism is Repugnant and Un-American and it is currently the dominant Political Philosophy in the US and the World today.
ON the positive side Big Government Pinheads (at least the American ones), do NOT practice mass imprisonment and mass murder to further their ends. For that at least, they should be thanked and honored.

Aug 10, 2008 - 9:08 am 15. Saltherring:

America is growing closer to the point where there are more taking from our economy than contributing to it. When that happens, the Obama-types will have their way, effectively destroying our economy and way of life. Welcome, Americans, to the third-world of oppressive taxation and the nanny state, where those who work hard and “succeed” can expect the same standard of living as the indolent. Just remember, idiots, you voted for it.

Aug 10, 2008 - 9:20 am 16. Frank Logan:

People on the far left like to flatter themselves that they are for the poor and the downtrodden. But what is most likely to lift people out of poverty– telling them that the world has done them wrong, or promoting the vision, the work ethic, the dogged determination, and self-reliance necessary to accomplish that goal? Thomas Sowell

Aug 10, 2008 - 9:47 am 17. judithod:

Saltherring hits the nail on the head! Obama wants to assuage our “collective consciousness” by damping down personal enterprise in favor of entitlement programs. Two of my father’s maxims were “Never count on an inheritance” and “Make something of yourself, not for yourself.” Obama would do well to heed both!

Aug 10, 2008 - 9:52 am 18. goy:

L.Carlin, Terry – thank you.

Madison – I re-read my entire post, again, on the off chance that I missed something the first 20 times I re-read it before posting. I did miss one rough spot, but I still don’t see anything in it about logic related to marginal tax rates – much less the rates in effect when I was 6. And my Dad painted houses, so we were spared the injustice. However, to address your sarcastic attempt to put words in my mouth, I’ll just say this about that…

What you’re actually referring to is the afterburn from the New Deal years (1932 through 1938). The rate you’ve seized on actually jumped to unreasonable levels in 1932. That rate increased steadily throughout what was arguably the most socialist-influenced period in our history. These years brought us the Social Security boondoggle and other wealth redistribution schemes – not enough of which were ultimately deemed unconstitutional. The rate reached its peak in 1944. If memory serves, Eisenhower was busy fighting the Hun that year, not presiding over a broken tax system. So it would appear that Eisenhower’s administration inherited this whacky situation.

My actual feelings on the rate itself – surprise – don’t match your erroneous surmise. While irrational on its face, that marginal rate wouldn’t justify a characterization of “marxist” IMHO unless it extended over a much larger portion of the working population. It didn’t. It only stole from the very, [i]very[/i] rich – a tiny minority of citizens whose rights the mob deemed less than worthy of consideration. By the numbers, we’re only about 70% more intelligent today. I suppose that’s something.

Aug 10, 2008 - 10:19 am 19. Tom:

Bill Perron – we need to add to “There are a lot of stupid people in America, but just not enough of them to make him President.” the last word – yet. Give it to the next election year.

Aug 10, 2008 - 10:59 am 20. FRIEDA:

Before voting I just want to know if this NYTimes article is trure:

Obama about this article in New York Times, from last year (3/16/07)?
“In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ The Times’s Nicholos Kristof wrote, Obama recited, ‘with a first-class [Arabic] accent,’ the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer. ” Read the whole article here.

can he really recite the Quran? where did he learn it? why he know s by heart and if he was Muslim when did he convert to Christianity? why he is not honest about this?

source: http://WWW.OBAMASGAFFES.BLOGSPOT.COM

Aug 10, 2008 - 11:00 am 21. AnnieB:

But Socialism doesn’t create misery for the politicians in charge of it. THEY get wealth and power beyond telling – especially the guy on the very top.

And it’s telling to me that Obama sees himself as the guy on top.

Aug 10, 2008 - 11:57 am 22. AdrianS:

Mr. Obama will continue to fail miserably because his extreme leftist ideas are falling on deaf ears — or rejected outright. There has never been as much “preparation” of the citizenry to receive extreme liberalism. If anything, in only 8 out of the last 28 years have Americans leaned to the left.

Our country is still, at it’s foundation, a conservative “flag and constitution” society not yet ready to entertain the socialist ideas Obama’s ideology portends — perhaps it never will.

http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/nextgenblog/

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:14 pm 23. Tonto (USA):

The one and only place where socialism worked in recent times was 150 years ago amoung the native people’s tribes here in America. The rest of the world just ain’t that spiritual.

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:40 pm 24. Doug:

Goy: Bravo…I am not worthy, I am not worthy…

Aug 10, 2008 - 12:55 pm 25. Jesus Warrior:

Mr.Obama would not even be considered if it was not for the two disappointments which served as president. President Clinton did reform welfare and gave this country one of the toughest tools in the war on drugs. He had no morals and aweful selections to the courts. President Bush 43, opposite the only thing he done right is the appointment of the justices to the courts. Welfare, faithbased welfare, prescription drugs, and even expanding the federal government to a ridiculous size.
If this country loses its mind and elect Mr. Obama open your wallet, cut out your pockets, and lose your savings account. How much larger can government get? Will the government agencies become the largest employer of the country? Will everyone else be receiving some type of government aid?

Aug 10, 2008 - 1:15 pm 26. George Clarke:

If we accept the definition of “socialism” as given by Nana-J (via Wikipedia) its apparent objective is that “the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole,” i.e., through the “state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services,” or “state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production.” If we define the main component of “ownership” of large quantities of capital, wealth and money as the ability to allocate and distribute it, we find that collective ownership is impossible and unachievable. What happens instead is that private individuals (like FDR, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il) take over Government control, and control the wealth through their control of government. Where all the wealth is controlled by government, which is easily controlled by one or a few, then total Socialism or pure Marxism will ultimately mean nothing other than Monopolistic Capitalism as was pursued if not totally achieved by Stalin and Mao and their lesser adherents. The reason why Monopolistic Capitalism produces less wealth than more competitive capitalism, where a tighter control over wealth and capital is maintained by those responsible for its production, is because those who seek to control the government, usually by brute force, have no energy left, nor the personal need, to devote to improving production methods. They already own and control all the wealth, so why should they worry about producing any of it?

If society leaves the ownership of produced wealth to those concerned with its production (private ownership) then there will be alot more wealth, less poverty and more progress with free competitive capitalism, than with the non-competitive capitalism of one owner only. This is why competitive capitalims as opposed to the monopolistic capitalism of the Socialists is true progressivism. Equality will not be achieved if ownership is the reward for personal production, but Socialism (i.e. Monopolistic Capitalism) has even less equality, since Socialism requires that all wealth ultimately be owned and controlled by the one person who controls government. Committee control of wealth is ultimately impossible. (See Bonaparte and Stalin and the US Congress as three examples). Thus Socialism is not as advertised and will never achieve what it allegedly promotes, even while, allegedly unintentially, it destroys our lately-achieved Capitalist Accumulation of Wealth in the process, pushing us back to the primitive levels we lately escaped from. This is why in the 20th Century Socialism killed and tortured to death 100-150 millions of persons since monopolistic ownership of wealth cannot possibly support the millions of people that competitive capitalism, with the use of facotries and non-human or animal based energy like oil, coal and nuclear, have recently been able to support. Competitive capitalism with ownership by the producers means progress and wealth-accumulation. (Compare 19th Century USA, 21st Century China and South Korea to North Korea and Cambodia). Socialism or monopolistic ownership by the Great Leader means famine, disease, imperialistic expansion and cannibalism, ala Stalin, Hitler and Mao. You make the choice. If Obama does not start admitting that he perceives these obvious distinctions, then he is none too intelligent, and I reject his thinking, and Nana-J’s thinking entirely.

Aug 10, 2008 - 1:53 pm 27. Captain Paintball:

The greatest trick the devil has played is to convince the American people that Communism no longer exists…

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:08 pm 28. WR Jonas:

Sometimes this comments section is so good it just illuminates the notion of truth and citizen participation.
To Goy , whoever you are ,you hit a grand slam from a hanging curveball. Thanks

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:09 pm 29. Claire Solt:

Read Liberal Fascism to get a different idea of trends. Maybe our worst days with socialism are behind us not ahead.
As for Obama, I knew he was a totalitarian communist the first time I saw him speak on c-span. I lived through the Cold War. Then someone called in and said he had moved here from a communist country and that is what he saw in Obama.
I suppose that there are many alive now who did not get the intense schooling in communism that we got and gave ( I was a teacher.) Relax, diagnosing communism is not the same as lame brained accusations of racism.
Pay attention to how Obama treats disagreement. He does not debate, he heaps scorn on those with other ideas. The unity he wants is that of a one party state with him as dictator.

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:13 pm 30. Moultrie:

Great article and good reflection on McCarthy and the Communist Infestation of the US Federal Guv. thru the Truman Admin. Before any discussion with the Left, ask them if they have read anything about the Venona Transcripts or Blacklisted by History, if not they are too ignorant to engage. A prime example is Nana-J, who really illuminates RR’s there is so much that the left doesn’t even know what they don’t know!

Aug 10, 2008 - 2:26 pm 31. GB:

I love how the pseudo-intellectual left can never keep up with the logic and research of the right: hence, Nana and Madison. By definition — FEELINGS are more important than the negative impact of socialism on the economy to the leftists. Show me a time when Keynesian economics has performed as well at increasing the wealth of a nation as capitalism. You can’t.

Thanks Goy and George.

Reagan like tax cuts have made this nation extremely wealthy. When an economic slowdown elicits cries of “recession!” (when there’s actually a growth of 2%), you know that Americans have seen some spectacularly unusual good times. Is America about to show it’s ingratitude for these truly progressive reforms (this is where the term progressive is actually used accurately) by electing a regressive Socialist to return us to the socialism of Roosevelt (and zero economic growth). I fear so.

Aug 10, 2008 - 3:45 pm 32. John Samford:

“and our current president I’m certain will down at the bottom of the list with some of the worst. ”

Guessing at what you were trying to say, you couldn’t be more wrong. I think your criteria are wrong. President Bush has freed about 50 million people. By that standard, he is one of the top 3 presidents in American history.
Now you may have a different standard, which is fine and your right. A right that PRESIDENT Bush has done an excellent job protecting.
All you Bush haters have gotten it wrong from the get-go. It wasn’t the hanging chads, or the Supreme Court that cost algore the election, but Ralph.
” In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes, for 2.74 percent of the popular vote,[32] missing the 5 percent needed to qualify the Green Party for federally distributed public funding in the next election, yet qualifying the Greens for ballot status in many new states.

Nader’s votes in New Hampshire and Florida vastly exceeded the difference in votes between Gore and Bush.[33] Exit polls showed the state staying close, and within the margin of error without Nader[34] as national exit polls showed Nader’s supporters choose Gore over Bush by a large margin[35] well outside the margin of error. Winning either state would have given Gore the presidency”

From wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nadar#Presidential_campaign_history
If you go down the list of states in the ‘00 election, look at all the states where an extra 2% would have put those EV’s on algore’s side of the ledger. Granted, that is a rough way to figure it, but it’s as good as any other that doesn’t take a lot of work to calculate.
Here is another bone to chew on. If Nadar had not sank al’s houseboat, he (algore) would have had the same response to the WTC attack as PRESIDENT Bush did. Including Invading Iraq.

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:28 pm 33. John Samford:

“For surely you seem to confused and/or ignorant of the fact that progressive political thought and practice is not the same as socialism or Marxism.”
NOT a fact, but propaganda. They ARE ALL the same in the only respect that counts. Government control. Your progressive political thought, Socialism and Communism ALL place the state ahead of the citizens. Citizens are part of the state. In consensual government ( democracy is a more common term) the State is made up of Citizens.
As a good little Socialist, Marxist, Communist, progressive, Liberal, whatever, you prolly don’t see the difference between those two conditions.
Let me show you. In any social system either the government controls the citizens or the citizens control the government.
There is no choice ‘C’.
If the Government is in control, then the citizens are controlled by the state and thereby are part of the state.If the Citizens control the government, then the government is part of the citizens. Or as some real smart guys once said “Of the people, by the people, for the people”.

“To lead your readers to think otherwise does them no favors.”
The readers here are not the dimwitted sheep you find over at DU or the Daily Kos. As a rule they are not going to be led anywhere they don’t want to go. I’m sure I’m not the only reader who caught your blatant lie about the various flavors of Socialism not being the same. Strawberry ice cream is not chocolate ice cream, but they both ARE ice cream. You claim otherwise won’t fool many readers here.
A rose by any other name……

“Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.”
John Kenneth Galbraith
US (Canadian-born) administrator & economist (1908 – 2006)

“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
Karl Marx
German economist & Communist political philosopher (1818 – 1883)

Aug 10, 2008 - 5:51 pm 34. Justin Observer:

Funny…Communist Chinese leaders have let their people employ free-market capitalism to develop and improve their country, while still keeping an iron grip on political power and opposing free speech…

And Leftist (i.e. Marxist) leaders here in America would like nothing more than to use an iron grip on political power in Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, AND the media, to destroy free-market capitalism, squash free speech and political opposition, and use the GOVERNMENT to “improve” the lives of its citizens and the country as a whole.

Does something seem a bit off here???

Aug 10, 2008 - 6:21 pm 35. Tonto (USA):

All discussion aside, the fact that anyone watching the news, reading articles in the paper or on the net, and has half a brain, still supports Obamamania is absolutely astounding. The guy is a proven liar, a mobile disaster in foreign relations, a plagiarist, a bought and paid for minion of the leftist rich, and an avowed America hater. Good grief, we Americans are so stupid! I still can’t get over the idea that America elected Roaming Willie (twice!!) and were even considering Hillary this time.

Aug 10, 2008 - 6:32 pm 36. A Stoner:

If taxes are what is due in order to be Americans, then I propose this. In order to have your American rights upheld, you must be able to verify that you have indeed paid income taxes. No net paid taxes equates to no voting rights. Taxation without representation is what started this country. I think what will destroy this nation will be representation without taxation. People who pay no taxes can very easily be led to vote for the guy who will confiscate money from a have to give to themselves. Right now 43,000,000 or about 30% of all tax payers have either 0 or negative tax liability. I am sure most of this population votes for the Democrat.

Aug 11, 2008 - 9:14 am 37. Deb D:

Dumbing down of education in this country is taking its toll as of this election. Obama is a product of that dumbing down. He is a wholly owned commodity of leftist ideology as taught in public schools and elitist, leftist universities. The socialists/Marxists didn’t disappear after the tumultuous 60s/70s, they went into the universities (and into Education Departments — Bill Ayers is an example of that). Part of the plan is the takeover of the schools and media — they’ve done that quite well. They didn’t count on the Internet and talk radio, although if they get back in total power, beware both media–large targets on our conservative backs.

Aug 11, 2008 - 10:16 am 38. Andy:

The dems are demagoguing to get the result quickly,
Obama gets no watch at his wrist and is trying to solve everything under his personal charisma

Aug 11, 2008 - 2:06 pm 39. howiem:

I was surprised to read so many apparently well informed comments, yet no one has mentioned the most astute of all, namely F.A. Hayek, who in 1944 recognized the synonymity of Nazism and the Soviet Union’s Socialism/Communism. Hayek showed that they both functioned on complete state control of everyone’s lives. They were BOTH de facto abhorrent, FASCIST DICTATORSHIPS. In fact Hayek wrote a number of books on the subject, the most well known of which is “The Road to Serfdom”, in which he clearly shows that because no human is omniscient (not even Obama), and that a nation that allows a transition to any form of existence that disallows freedom will be a nation whose people will become slaves. The people who claim that they can make an ideal world for everyone are not that stupid. They know that when you take away freedom for the masses, it leaves them in charge to reap the spoils and retain the power for themselves. The others either act as they are told with virtually no deviance allowed, or they are punished. Thinking that there can be some kind of workers’ paradise where everyone is equal is both foolish and stupid. For those who think life should be “fair”, get over it. Life is not fair to everyone, but by trying to do one’s best to learn, work and be productive, life can become “more fair”. For those who think that everyone should be treated equally, again forget it. People are not equal. Equality is a word that does not compute in the equation of life. The only way to true equality is to robotize the masses. Obama, like all fascist copycats wants a youth movement (Hitler had one, so did Stalin), he wants a civilian security force (In Nazi Germany they were called “Brown Shirts”). When we see people like Nana-J spouting Marxist propaganda she doesn’t even understand (if she did she would try to defend herself), we should recognize that what Obama is trying to do is exactly what Stalin and Hitler tried to do – enslave everyone who does not agree with them, and eliminate those who try to revolt against their oppression. First they justified this by by faulty logic, fraudulent documentation and research, but later they will need no justification. Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats, Obama has already hinted that his scapegoats will be whites…those that refuse to follow him, that is. Why do you think he is so much in favor of gun control laws? When the people revolt, he doesn’t want them to have the means to do so. When people blindly follow other people because they like the sound of the voice, and refuse to pay attention to the meaning, the followers then become complicit in the crimes to follow. It appears that far too many people who have never lived in or read about life in a totalitarian country are completely ignorant of what this means. Under fascism only the oppressors are free. When you are told to report for community service, saying, “but I voted for Obama”, won’t help you a bit. When you want to buy something that the state does not allow to be made (to “control the resources”), you will be wondering what happened. When you make what you think is an innocent remark, and your child reports it to the apparatus, you will not understand, but you probably won’t need to since you will be dead. After all, as Hillary said, it takes a village to raise a child, not a parent, and the Obama Youth Camps will be the prime means of raising little Obamanations. If you vote for Obama, you might as well start preparing your children now for your permanent “vacation”.

And when the economy goes bad (and it will) all the anti-war talk will become mute. A war will have to be found or invented to keep the hungry masses in line…..remember the book “1984″. When the state provides you everything they say you need, but little that you want, what are you going to say then? I will tell you: You will say “Thank you Obama”, and if you don’t look or sound like you mean it, you might survive – in a re-education camp (which will be given some other name of course).

On July 4th, 1776 the United States declared independence. One of the reasons was taxation without representation. Did Obama get agreement from the people before proposing his World Poverty Tax? It is really a ploy to steal money from working Americans and others who have earned it and give it to tyrants who will steal it from their people – after creating a few token jobs to make another thrill go up Chris Matthew’s leg – or was it down his leg? The rest will go into Swiss bank accounts. To sum up Hayek, if you do not have economic freedom, if you do not have free markets, if you do not have the right of private ownership of property or goods, if you do not have options in job selection or where to send your children tom school, you will be a equally treated slave in Obamanation Land. Change you can really believe in – from Freedom to Facism!

Aug 11, 2008 - 2:17 pm 40. Pope Linus:

Barack Obama has stated on a number of occasions that higher taxation (especially on the “rich”) is required in order to make things fairer for everybody.

So, where in the Constitution does it say that everything has to be fair? I like the idea of a government guaranteeing personal freedom, but fairness?

People have said that giving the right to vote to blacks or women was completely an issue of equality, of fairness. It was simply an issue of extending that Constitutional personal freedom to every citizen. Mr. Obama, that former Constitutional Law professor, needs to bone up on his Constitution.

Aug 11, 2008 - 3:02 pm 41. Javelin:

This is today’s Hate Obama post, with self justifying redbaiting thrown in for good measure. “Oh, they’re gonna attack me by calling me a red baiter for calling him a Marxist, which I am not. But he is one anyways but I won’t say it.” What dreck!
Funny, the only people who call Obama the messiah are the usual sharks who butter him up before slashing him again with all teeth.

Aug 11, 2008 - 8:30 pm 42. Paul M Hupf:

Barack Obama is plainly and simply a Marxist. In his view government should control everything. It will serve the proper objectives of mankind. The problem is that those in control of the levers of government define what is good for mankind and enact laws to enforce what they deem good for mankind. Religious and personal beliefs are subject to the curent vogue of those in power. In consequence individual liberties disappear. You conform or risk imprisonment for proposing “beliefs that undermine the objectives of the omniscient State.”

Aug 11, 2008 - 8:35 pm 43. tanstaafl:

I guess your friend John just heard the buzzword “Marxist” and put Mark Levin in the nutcase category.

Levin uses the term for shock effect, but it isn’t too off base.

John should give him another try. He would eventually feel privileged to listen to Levin.

None of the tax & spend and redistribute income through taxation democrat contenders seems to understand that such vast powers of taxation aren’t even within the purview of the Executive.

Or, for that matter, Congress, whose limited power of taxation is briefly mentioned in Article I of the Constitution.

Barack Obama has a notion of the role and size of government that is (I know it for a fact) causing huge distress to the authors of the Constitution and the independent spirit of the Founders of this country.

Any government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.

~Thomas Jefferson

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:13 am 44. tanstaafl:

So, where in the Constitution does it say that everything has to be fair?

Nowhere.

Besides which, I consider it very “fair” that the federal government stick to the limited tasks assigned it in the Constitution and stay out of my hair in order that I might pursue “happiness” (or something).

If you listen to Obama on almost any topic (from treatment of the “Sons of Iraq” to any topic you can think of) his entire shtick is based on some notion of “fairness”.

And who, exactly, is the only individual capable of determing what constitutes “fairness” and what constitutes “unfairness” ?

The Anointed One of course.

Arrogance, to the max.

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:59 am 45. Nathan:

You said…

“situation is conceptually no different from pretending that the need for essential services somehow justifies a three-billion-dollar federal budget.

That Uncle Sam is entitled to something is universally conceded, but the crucial question is one of degree. The Democratic Party is appallingly quiet when it comes”

I would love a 3 billion dollar budget, but I think you meant a 3 trillion dollar budget.

Aug 12, 2008 - 3:38 pm 46. regmaxi:

So instead of putting our tax money to good use helping the same people who pay tax , we use it to make the rich richer and prop up dictators .
Choice …

Aug 13, 2008 - 10:42 am 47. Dawn:

Goy…..double bravos.

Aug 13, 2008 - 11:53 am 48. barrybarryquitecontrary.com:

The choice is clear in this election… Democrat or Marxist!

Furthermore, if you want to decipher the double speak of the messiah (little m)look squarely into the face of his wife, listen to her words, the bitter tone in which they are unleashed and with an unwavering conviction that you will listen to her husband (threat implied). Frightening, I know, but illuminating.

Aug 14, 2008 - 11:29 am 49. Rachel Peepers:

The Democratic Party’s Messiah may not be failing, but the drive to the Presidency; Barack’s steamrolling Washington Limited, is apparently beginning to spring some leaks.

For one thing, some of the mainstream media which has been lubricating his journey to the promised land may be starting to question whether the anointed one is the real deal, or just a compilation of smoke and mirrors that, like fog, has almost no substance behind it.

Personally, I’m starting to have serious questions whether Barack is up to the most important job in the world. Or would turn out to be a man in an ocean of politics and world crises way over his head.

An admittedly ardent, outspoken Obama supporter, hate to say, but I’m starting to feel some doubt creep into my strong, sometimes bellicose desire to see the good Senator elected President.

It’s not even the fact, as my father says, he’ll send capital gains taxes, even taxes on private home sales through the roof. Or that he’s pledged to decimate the armed forces and surrender in Iraq as the way to refill the national Bush-drained coffers. Not to mention scrap the nuclear defense shield just when it’s becoming operational.

I’m not going south on Barack because of the fact that his religious adviser and mentor, the Reverend Wright, Sunday after Sunday, berated the United States, while spewing anti-white, anti-female, anti-Hillary rhetoric like a venomous machine gun mowing down the enemy.

And it doesn’t really bug me that he’s stonewalling the investigation into his admittedly Islamic religious upbringing. Or that, as the article by the gifted and talented Jennifer Rubin so eloquently states, Barack is treating gay marriage and the abortion issue like they’re the new third rails of politics.

Or that his campaign is reported to be in the initial stages of enacting into law a comprehensive program to give “sizable” reparations to direct descendants ( or those willing to sign an affidavit that they’re of African descent)of slaves.

No, none of these issues are the lynch pin that holds my loyalty to Barack and the beautiful Michelle.

The truth be known, I have a problem with his VP pick. Frankly, I wanted him to pick Hillary for VP. Hillary, who’s intelligent, experienced and knowledgeable beyond belief. Hillary who received more popular votes than Barack, and has pledged her support for middle America blue collar values, a strong economy, and especially, women’s rights.

Instead, Barack is picking John Kerry who is documented to have lied when running for President like a drunker sailor. Who never spent (”seared into me like a branding iron”) Christmas in Cambodia, never threw his medals over onto the White House lawn as he publicly stated, never was sorry for causing POW’s to be beaten as a result of his claims before congress that the U.S. military was “cutting off heads, butchering children, raping the Vietnamese countryside and torturing innocent civilians.”

John Kerry’s VP selection is why my support for the, Democratic-primary-voter-anointed Barack Obama and beautiful first lady, Michelle, is ever so slowly starting to waver; like a stale cookie, beginning to crumble, like a –oh forget the metaphors, Barack is starting to make me feel queasy. I mean, I can no longer say with 99% certainty that Barack’s candidacy passes the smell test.

Let’s face it, you and I both know his conversion to Christianity was a Chicago political charade. The guy disavowed his Indonesian Muslim upbringing, called the woman who raised him a “typical” white woman, said he could no more disavow his relationship with Reverend Wright than he could disavow his cultural and religious upbringing; the both of which he later did.

I’m rambling now, I know, but look, he sat in church at Trinity for twenty years listening to Wright’s hate-America-First speech. Then said he didn’t remember hearing it, then said he did. Then said Reverend Wright “wasn’t the man I knew.”

Well, I’m thinking Barack Obama isn’t the man that we, rabid Obama supporters, thought all summer was the one right for the biggest job in the world.

I’m starting to think the only kind of change Barack can be counted on to deliver on is the one involving his mind.

I’m starting to believe that the man we fawned and fainted over during breathtaking speeches was in the final result a product of smoke and mirrors.

If you ask me, Barack Obama is on a collision course with a veritable freight train whose cars are filled with duty, honor and country.

John McCain.

A true American hero. And when they collide in November, I’m afraid Barack’s election hopes are going to be knocked silly. Americans everywhere are going to rise up and wise up. And realize for darn sure that Barack Obama is, was and always will be, as they say in the fight game in Chitown, just another wannabe; simply a little man with big designs who folks finally saw for what he is.

Just another bum from the neighborhood.

Aug 15, 2008 - 10:17 pm 50. jim:

wow. when will we all grow up and accept the fact that socialism as a stand-alone ideology and practice is about as inane as capitalism taken to the same level. we must have a BALANCE between the two, determined by “we the people”, NOT by corporations and their lobbyists and not by those scary university “elites”. think about it, how could CHINA possibly exist without capitalism today? likewise how could the USA survive without socialism (try getting to san diego from san fran, or boston to washington without socialist roadways; try eliminating all public education, or how about the only part of our 37th worldwide ranking healthcare system, MEDICARE)? it is a balance that might look very different in say NORWAY vs. USA, or BRAZIL vs. CANADA. let the people decide before we pontificate and exacerbate the polarization with inane arguments like this sad article.
jim

Aug 19, 2008 - 1:17 pm 51. Pajamas Media » Seven States That Will Decide the Election:

[...] this state. Bush won here twice — even when unpopular in 2004 — so the centrist McCain, closer to a Democrat than Obama in the eyes of many, shouldn’t [...]

Aug 20, 2008 - 1:11 am 52. Seven States that Will Decide the Election « THE “G” BLOG @WordPress.com:

[...] this state. Bush won here twice — even when unpopular in 2004 — so the centrist McCain, [42] closer to a Democrat than Obama in the eyes of many, shouldn’t [...]

Aug 20, 2008 - 4:32 am 53. Pajamas Media » Rejecting Obama - For the Right Reasons:

[...] his race, personal hygiene, style of dress, or any other superficial factor. I have made this point again and again, but the champion of pseudo-liberal elitists everywhere should be cashiered by the [...]

Sep 9, 2008 - 12:43 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: