Further proof that Barak Obama is a far left radical?

The silenced majority · 06-19-08, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Obama's Red Roots

Election '08: The word is that Barack Obama is a mainstream politician who sometimes attracts fringe leftists. The record tells a different story — that he has sought out radicals. What does that say of his agenda?

It's natural to be skeptical of excessive claims about Obama's radical associations. After all, there are so many. But one bears attention — because it helped him get his start in politics. In 1996, he won an Illinois state senate seat on a "fusion" ticket of the Democratic Party and leftist group called the " New Party."

The New Party, founded in 1992 with 7,000 members at its peak, had been an explicitly anti-capitalist party of ex-Communists, socialists and activists from ACORN, the hard-left group that's constantly in trouble over voter fraud. The New Party didn't ask for Obama's association; he asked for the New Party's endorsement.

Blogger Rick Moran of the American Thinker has found disturbing particulars. First, the New Party didn't give its support and campaign volunteers to just anyone. Obama actually had to audition for it. According to a September-October 1995 update on the New Party-aligned Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Web site:

"About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to . . . to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates."

Anyone wanting a New Party endorsement had to "be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP," the Web site said.

So Obama signed on with this group and now remains in its debt.

That raises questions about what was in the New Party platform that drew in Obama. Maybe its own statements saying it was formed "to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over the political process."

Sound familiar? One of the few things Obama reveals in his vague "change" agenda are plans to punish corporations. He rails against "corporate profits" and even worked in a condemnation of them in his first defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So there's little doubt he shares a lot of what the New Party believes.

The New Party also has advocated a bill of rights for children, a shorter work week, a universal "social" wage and military spending cuts. These will undermine parental rights, lower competitiveness, lard up welfare and make the U.S. less secure. All are echoed in Obama's proposals. They are the hardest battle cries of the left.

Obama should come clean on why he sought these radicals' support and, better still, disclose just how he intends to pay them back.

Obama's Red Roots - Investor's Business Daily
Obama and the New Party - HUMAN EVENTS

How is a politician who is committed to being to the left of the left going to unite the political divisions in this country? How can people who claim that the man is a far leftist still be scoffed at and dismissed? IMO there is nothing centrist about this guy, no way he can appeal to the right of center - right in this country. How many far-left associations are we willing to dismiss?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barak Obama

"Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably".

Are we still going to argue that "change" isn't anything but fast-forwarding socialism?

niftydrifty · 06-19-08, 11:11 PM

"the political divisions of this country" is largely a myth. most people have nuanced positions on issues. moderates outnumber self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives combined. the thing is, we hear the screeching from the extremes.

It doesn't matter how "left" Obama is. any Democrat is going to become a divisive figure. the Clintons were rather centrist in many respects, and look what happened to them. Hillary was regarded as too polarizing. why?

While the article attempts guilt-by-association, it's more illuminating to look at what the man actually did back then:

Quote:

Yet he emerged as a leader while still in his 30s by developing a style former colleagues describe as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. He cobbled together legislation with Republicans and conservative Democrats, making overtures other progressive politicians might consider distasteful.

Along the way, he played an important role in drafting bipartisan ethics legislation and health-care reform. He overcame law enforcement objections to codify changes designed to curb racial profiling and to make capital punishment, which he favors, more equitable.

link

Doc Howl · 06-19-08, 11:27 PM

Wait. What?

Obama is a COMMUNIST now?

Hatuey · 06-19-08, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

Wait. What?

Obama is a COMMUNIST now?

Hey. It's COMMUNIST MUSLIM to you!

Doc Howl · 06-19-08, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Hey. It's COMMUNIST MUSLIM to you!

When will he be a stealth terrorist again? That was funnier.

The silenced majority · 06-20-08, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

"the political divisions of this country" is largely a myth. most people have nuanced positions on issues. moderates outnumber self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives combined. the thing is, we hear the screeching from the extremes.

It doesn't matter how "left" Obama is. any Democrat is going to become a divisive figure. the Clintons were rather centrist in many respects, and look what happened to them. Hillary was regarded as too polarizing. why?

While the article attempts guilt-by-association, it's more illuminating to look at what the man actually did back then:

link

Thanks for at least a respectful reply Nift. Sorry man, I have to disagree here. This new development only affirms that Barak Obama is either:

1.) A far left radical seeking to fuse the center-left Democrat party with far left fringe elements to create a new direction for the party.

or

2.) A typical politic an who is willing to seek out the most radical of the far left only to win elections against centrist candidates.

The silenced majority · 06-20-08, 07:08 AM

Don't feed the troll Hatuey.

shuamort · 06-20-08, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

How is a politician who is committed to being to the left of the left going to unite the political divisions in this country?

Is the New Party still around that would beholden his commitment? I can't seem to find it online.

niftydrifty · 06-20-08, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

Thanks for at least a respectful reply Nift. Sorry man, I have to disagree here.

my advice is to steer clear of the "discover the network" site. just check out their premise:

Quote:

Since the distintegration of the world Communist movement following the publication of the Khrushchev Report in 1956, the international left has not had a coherent unifying agenda. Its organizing basis is a commitment to egalitarian goals and social constructionist assumptions on the one hand, and -- in its radical wing -- a nihilistic opposition to global capitalism, now referred to as "globalization" on the other. These radicals reject the orders and alleged "hierarchies" of western democratic capitalism, and regard America as the arch imperialist power and guarantor of private property globally. That is the reason for the inclusion of Islamic radicals alongside American radicals who share a common attitude towards America as a "Great Satan" and Israel as a "little Satan."

"Let us attempt to prove to you that the American left is part of a global anti-American conspiracy aligned with foreign radicals, using the most tenuous of associations."

from your paste in the OP:

Quote:

So Obama signed on with this group and now remains in its debt.

reality check:

Quote:

Although the New Party has been effectively defunct since the late 1990s, a website still exists.

link

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

This new development only affirms that Barak Obama is either:

what new development? did you read the article I linked to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

1.) A far left radical seeking to fuse the center-left Democrat party with far left fringe elements to create a new direction for the party.

or

2.) A typical politic an who is willing to seek out the most radical of the far left only to win elections against centrist candidates.

Iriemon · 06-20-08, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

Obama's Red Roots - Investor's Business Daily
Obama and the New Party - HUMAN EVENTS

How is a politician who is committed to being to the left of the left going to unite the political divisions in this country? How can people who claim that the man is a far leftist still be scoffed at and dismissed? IMO there is nothing centrist about this guy, no way he can appeal to the right of center - right in this country. How many far-left associations are we willing to dismiss?

Are we still going to argue that "change" isn't anything but fast-forwarding socialism?

Let me guess -- raising taxes means hes a communist.

We've heard the claim before.