• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama WAS a member of the Socialist "New Party" in 1996

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

snip
Obama’s Third-Party History - Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online
 
Masada said:
Are you sure about that? lol
Click to expand...



Of course hes not sure of that.. thats why he supports a loser scumbag radical marxist...
 
Travis007 said:
at this point if Obama was related to Hitler, had tea with Stalin, and was seen golfing with Mao...the Libs here would tell me they are worried about Romneys tax returns that the IRS are obviously not worried about..
Click to expand...
No doubt...and hardly relevant. Why be concerned about whether or not he was associated with some obscure party (where exactly are they in terms of relevance these days) when we just had announced yet ANOTHER trillion dollar annual deficit, congress still cant pass a budget, congress cant agree to basic deficit cuts, let alone debt cuts, and unemployment is still out of sight? Focusing on silly crap like this is no different than those same people you bemoan focusing on Romneys teen years, taxes, and the family dog.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Except for the fact that the New party was not Marxist...nor is Obama....but I guess it feels good for you to keep believing such nonsense.
Click to expand...

whats it like to vote for a radical as you show off how little you know about the Commie Ozero?...

I play for keeps..
 
VanceMack said:
No doubt...and hardly relevant. Why be concerned about whether or not he was associated with some obscure party (where exactly are they in terms of relevance these days) when we just had announced yet ANOTHER trillion dollar annual deficit, congress still cant pass a budget, congress cant agree to basic deficit cuts, let alone debt cuts, and unemployment is still out of sight? Focusing on silly crap like this is no different than those same people you bemoan focusing on Romneys teen years, taxes, and the family dog.
Click to expand...

Obama is doing what he said he would do.. destroy the USA...his policies are "working" to destroy us..
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the ballots in the 2004 primary and general elections listed Obama as the Democratic candidate, not New Party.
Click to expand...

wow.. you may want to stop typing....
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the ballots in the 2004 primary and general elections listed Obama as the Democratic candidate, not New Party.
Click to expand...

That's because the supreme court of illinois disallowed what is known as "electoral fusion". You would need to know what that means in order to understand. The New Party's objective wasn't to run third party candidates, but to use "electoral fusion", which allowed them, as a third party, to pick a candidate and have their name on TWO lines of the ballot instead of only one.

So, what they were trying to do is get Obama's name on two lines on the ballot. One line as a Democrat, and one line as a New Party member. Supreme Court of Illinois didn't allow it. Nevertheless, Obama was a member of that organization.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Ah...the New Party had "Marxists" among their members....therefore it was a "Marxist" organization.

Whew....well that clears it up.
Click to expand...

Ran by Marxists, founded by Marxists, funded by Marxists.....

Ya, clears it up alright.....
 
I WISH Obama was more of a socialist. Too much of the same old thing, in my opinion.
 
Masada said:
Someone was asking for an image earlier. Well, here's a newspaper article confirming what Obama previously denied:

The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West > Home - Obama: Political Phoenix?
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.

Buzzfeed

... six people involved in the New Party in the 1990s said Obama was never a member, and that his involvement with the group was minimal at best.

"Obama was never a member, never active in anything," said Dan Swinney, a co-chair of the Party at the time and now the head of the Center for Labor and Community Research in Chicago, who was present at the 1996 meeting, according to the minutes. "I wish he was. He was obviously a progressive Democrat, but not a member of the New Party."

"There was really no process" for becoming a member, Swinney said.

Swinney's account echoes what New Party founder Joel Rogers told BuzzFeed last week.

"We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization," Rogers said. He later clarified in an email, "The only time I talked to BHO about it, he made clear he didn't want to work on it or join it or be identified with it."

Others who were involved in the New Party's brief existence don't remember Obama being a part of it.

Amy Sherman was, according to the minutes, also present at the January 11 meeting where Obama, running for state Senate, requested the New Party's endorsement.

"Barack Obama was not a member to my knowledge," said Sherman, now an executive at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, an adult-education nonprofit in Chicago.

In fact, neither Swinney nor Sherman, the two mentioned in the minutes, remembered Obama's presence, or the specific meeting at all, though neither disputed the possibility that they'd forgotten it.
Click to expand...


See, us lefties can make semi-supported assertions also.
 
Masada said:
It matters because it's just one more glimpse into "who" Obama is. What I've been trying to get you to focus on for several days now.

It is a strong support for the claim that he's a Marxist. If you don't know the significance, or why it matters, it's because you have once again failed to understand "who" the "new party" was, how it was comprised, who funded it, who ran it, and who were it's members.

Get it?
Click to expand...

From everything shown it seems as if the new party wanted a different system than "first past the post" in order to open things up for third parties. That's based on your wiki link.

As for the other two wasn't overly concerned except I was curious what Chomsky said about the party and from the small blurb he stated it was not a socialist party. I don't know what the hullaballo would be.
 
JRog said:
I WISH Obama was more of a socialist. Too much of the same old thing, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Move to Europe... you will feel at home..
 
JRog said:
I WISH Obama was more of a socialist. Too much of the same old thing, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Spoken out of true ignorance no doubt. Even Marx knew what Socialism led to......COMMUNISM.

Yes, communism worked out so well in Russia and other places in the world didn't it. More people died of starvation in communist Russia than were killed in WW2. Sounds like a prime vacation spot eh? How's communism treating the Chinese people, who work in factories, making your tennis shoes for 10 cents an hour? A nation that says a family can only have a certain number of children. A nation in which a person dissents, and they disappear.

Sounds grand.....
 
Travis007 said:
Obama is doing what he said he would do.. destroy the USA...his policies are "working" to destroy us..
Click to expand...

The country seems like it is in the same position (if not a better position) as it was when Bush left office. Seems pretty much intact. If his goal was to destroy the country, Obama failed.
 
AdamT said:
Okay, so you don't care if he was a member of the New Party -- your objection is to the fact that Obama's campaign denied it in 2008?
Click to expand...

Well ... since this response is so silly I think I'll save additional keystrokes.

A L
 
JRog said:
The country seems like it is in the same position (if not a better position) as it was when Bush left office. Seems pretty much intact. If his goal was to destroy the country, Obama failed.
Click to expand...

too bad facts say thats not true..
 
Masada said:
Ran by Marxists, founded by Marxists, funded by Marxists.....

Ya, clears it up alright.....
Click to expand...

I told ya.. the Libs here would run in front of a moving car to save their hero Ozero...its honestly scary how blind and ignorant it is..
 
Masada said:
Spoken out of true ignorance no doubt. Even Marx knew what Socialism led to......COMMUNISM.

Yes, communism worked out so well in Russia and other places in the world didn't it. More people died of starvation in communist Russia than were killed in WW2. Sounds like a prime vacation spot eh? How's communism treating the Chinese people, who work in factories, making your tennis shoes for 10 cents an hour? A nation that says a family can only have a certain number of children. A nation in which a person dissents, and they disappear.

Sounds grand.....
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more along the lines of Norway, Luxembourg and Belgium (some of the highest income per capita countries in the world). They are more socialist than we are AND not communist.
 
JRog said:
The country seems like it is in the same position (if not a better position) as it was when Bush left office. Seems pretty much intact. If his goal was to destroy the country, Obama failed.
Click to expand...
Obviously you havent watched the movie 2016...

I highly doubt you will find a whole lot of people saying they are better off today than 2008. SOME OF US...true...but certainly not a majority.
 
iliveonramen said:
From everything shown it seems as if the new party wanted a different system than "first past the post" in order to open things up for third parties. That's based on your wiki link.

As for the other two wasn't overly concerned except I was curious what Chomsky said about the party and from the small blurb he stated it was not a socialist party. I don't know what the hullaballo would be.
Click to expand...

Of course you wouldn't know. That's probably the most you have ever read about the New Party.

Move along....nothing to see here. Yes, they wanted to open up a third party......the Marxist Party. ACORN was all up in the middle of it, as were the Democratic SOCIALISTS Of America. Former members of the Communist Party USA. Yes, those people generally flock to capitalistic organizations like the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation dont they? lol....

Oh, the sheer naivete and osterich posturing......gets me every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom