During the campaign for the Democratic nomination, Obama mocked Clinton’s primary claim that she possessed the necessary foreign policy experience to be president.

“What exactly is this foreign policy expertise?” Obama said to reporters in March, while flying from a campaign event in Texas. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”

In spite of these doubts, Obama praised Clinton’s credentials Monday, saying she would be able to advance America’s interests due to her knowledge of world affairs and familiarity with world leaders.

“She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world’s leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world,” he said.

Obama said that his new foreign policy team, which will be led by Clinton, would change America’s foreign policy for the better.

“I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security,” he told reporters at the announcement.

However, Obama had expressed exactly the opposite view of Clinton during the primary campaign.

“It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected,” Obama said in a January radio ad. “Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing.”

Obama also said Monday that he>>>>Read the Full Article

In a major speech focused on Obama, titled “A Springtime of Possibility,” CPUSA leader Sam Webb declared the U.S. is now “on the road to socialism.”

Webb defined socialism as a “society that is egalitarian in the rough sense, eliminates exploitation of working people, brings an end to all forms of oppression, and is notable for the many-layered participation of working people and their allies in the management of the economy and state.”

In the speech, delivered at the CPUSA’s national convention Nov. 15 and posted on the party’s website, Webb stated it is “no exaggeration” to call Obama’s victory a “sea change.”

He referred to last month’s election as a “rout of right-wing extremism, a reaffirmation of the decency of our country and people, a leap forward on freedom road and a people’s mandate for change.

“A sense of joy, catharsis and renewal is in the air,” said Webb. “Expectations are high. A new era of progressive change is waiting to become a reality. If the past eight years of the Bush administration seemed like a winter of discontent, Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency feels like a springtime of possibility.”

He continued>>>>Read the Full Article

If the conservative era is over, can liberals come out of their defensive crouch and call themselves liberals again, instead of progressives?

In the last two decades, Democratic politicians, including Barack Obama, have abandoned the term “liberal” for “progressive.” The theory was that Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush — and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan — had succeeded in equating “liberal” in the public mind with weakness on defense, softness on crime, and “redistribution” of Joe the Plumber’s hard-earned money to the collective bogey evoked by a former Texas rock band’s clever name: Teenage Immigrant Welfare Mothers on Dope.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with this rather soulless and manipulative exercise in rebranding, for a number of reasons.

Objection No. 1. Futility. It’s not the name of the center-left that the right objects to, but the policies and values. Suppose the defeated Republican minority decided that it needed to rebrand itself by replacing “conservatism” with “traditionalism.” Would anybody on the left or center be fooled, if traditionalism was defined by exactly the same synthesis of free-market radicalism, anti-Darwinism and support for a neoconservative foreign policy?

The center-left is going to be trashed by the right, whether the right adopts one term or another. If conservatives continue to call the new progressives “liberals,” then the right wins, by implying, correctly, that progressives are liberals who are ashamed to admit what they really are. If, on the other hand, “liberal” becomes as extinct as “Whig” and conservatives agree to use the term “progressive,” then what has the center-left gained? Nothing. The same conservatives who formerly denounced liberals as tax-and-spend appeasers would now denounce progressives as tax-and-spend appeasers. What then? Would wimpy progressives then abandon progressivism and hope to avoid the wrath of Limbaugh by disguising themselves with a new alias — reformists, or pragmatists? Your enemies will caricature you, no matter what you call yourself.

Objection No. 2. Progressivism as neoliberalism. Some have sought to distinguish progressivism from liberalism in content. This was the project of the disproportionately Southern “neoliberals” like Bill Clinton and Al Gore and Dave McCurdy and the Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute in the 1980s and 1990s. Instead of using the obvious term, “moderate” or “centrist,” they sought to co-opt the term “progressive,” even though they weren’t very. In their analysis, liberalism was too identified in the public mind with organized labor and big-city machine bosses like the first Mayor Daley. They struggled and largely succeeded in creating a new Democratic Party based among upscale suburban whites and financed by the Industry Formerly Known as Wall Street rather than private-sector labor unions.

Fine by me. While the New Democrats were too conservative for my taste in some ways, a majority party has multiple factions or wings, and in the late 20th century the only way that the Democratic Party could grow was by appealing to>>>>Read the Full Story

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission created the “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated that federally-licensed radio and television stations “provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints” on “vitally important controversial issues.” Rather than be deluged with demands for air time by aggrieved listeners, the broadcasters generally opted not to cover controversial issues, thereby leaving the public less informed.

In 1987, President Reagan’s FCC jettisoned the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative talk radio grew like topsy, unencumbered by the logistical nightmare of determining what is “controversial” and what is “fair.” Rush Limbaugh’s meteoric, syndicated rise is directly attributable to this repeal, as radio stations were freed to air what listeners wanted to hear without airing what few wanted to hear. If you think that’s unfair, check out how Air America is doing.

Limbaugh even today correctly says, “Don’t me ask for equal time; I am equal time. I am the rebuttal to the liberal, mainstream, drive-by media.”

With the Democrats now set to control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid say they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio’s criticism of the Democrats.

Barack Obama, however, in June 2008, , stated that he opposes bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, through his Press Secretary Michael Ortiz: “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.” [emphasis added]

Obama knows that exhuming the Fairness Doctrine would be a frontal assault upon the First Amendment that would evoke a Boston Tea Party-like response>>>>Read the Full Article

As the late Nobel laureate Elias Canetti observes in his great book, “Crowds and Power” (first published in 1960), the crowd is based on an illusion of equality: Its quest is for that moment when “distinctions are thrown off and all become equal. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd.” These crowds, in the tens of thousands, who have been turning out for the Democratic standard-bearer in St. Louis and Denver and Portland, are a measure of American distress.

On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen. Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish. The coalition that has propelled his quest — African-Americans and affluent white liberals — has no economic coherence. But for the moment, there is the illusion of a common undertakin>>>>Read the Full Article

The remark led Rotarian Lucinda Williams to defend Mr. Obama and question the intelligence of Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Mr. Broun qualified his remark, saying he believes Mr. Obama’s policies of bigger government and shared wealth are Marxist.

“When Barack Obama is right, then I’ll support him,” he said. “When he is wrong, I’ll fight him.”

Mr. Broun also criticized Mr. McCain.

“I’m very disappointed with the McCain campaign,” he said. “In my opinion, it was inept.”

He said he believes Mr. McCain failed to adequately differentiate himself from President Bush and embrace conservative values.

He referred to Mr. McCain as a “milquetoast” Republican.>>>>Read the Full Article

BROUN CURIOUSLY SUBSEQUENTLY APOLOGIZES

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney (CNN) | Republican Paul Broun is sorry for calling President-elect Barack Obama a ‘Marxist’ and comparing him to Adolf Hitler, the Georgia Congressman said Tuesday.

“I regret putting it that way,” he told WGAC radio in Augusta, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “I apologize to anyone who has taken offense at that.”

In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, Broun admitted to calling the future commander-in-chief a ‘Marxist’ at a recent Rotary club meeting, and said Obama has expressed support for policies similar to those of Hitler.

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is,>>>>Read the Full Article Share:

]]> http://www.freecapitalistdaily.com/2008/11/broun-says-obama-marxist/757/feed 0 http://www.freecapitalistdaily.com/2008/11/spreading-the-wealth-around/700 http://www.freecapitalistdaily.com/2008/11/spreading-the-wealth-around/700#comments Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:37:25 +0000 Stephen Anderson http://daily.freecapitalist.com/?p=700 By J. Kenneth Blackwell – New York Post | THANKS to Joe the Plumber, we now know for sure that Barack Obama wants to “spread the wealth around.” But the Democratic candidate still hasn’t come clean on just how much of a European-style socialist he is.

Look at the “tax cut” he says he’ll give to 95 percent of Americans. In fact, this is simply a government check he’d hand out – including to millions who don’t pay income taxes, since each year 38 percent of Americans already get a full refund.

In other words, his “rebate” is a welfare plan, plain and simple.

When called on this, Obama’s answer is that those 38 percent still pay payroll taxes, so he’s rebating part of those payments. But that actually puts him deeper into the socialist hole. Here’s why.

Payroll taxes go to fund Social Security and Medicare – the main US social-insurance programs. The taxes are dedicated because these are insurance programs – you’re paying so that you’ll be covered when you hit retirement age.

But, down the line, these programs face a financial crisis even worse than>>>>Read the Full Article

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind>>>>Read the Full Article

At a BBQ stop this afternoon, Obama received an unwelcome greeting from one woman who yelled “socialist, socialist, socialist – get out of here!” as he met with other customers.

The woman, Diane Fanning, who works at Sam’s Club, then asked the Democratic nominee about the North American Union, which he opposes.

“I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell that’s just not something that’s happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?” Obama asked Fanning.

She reluctantly responded, “No, I’m not going to say it.”

At a rally after the stop, Obama brought up McCain’s accusations that his tax plan is a form of socialism and dismissed it as a political attack.

“He has been attacking the heck out of me,” Obama said, “Lately, he and Governor Palin actually accused me of socialism. Socialism. It’s kind of hard to figure how Warren Buffet endorsed me, Colin Powell endorsed me and John McCain thinks I’m practicing socialism.”

He accused McCain of wanting to cut taxes for Fortune 500 CEOs, “who’ve been making out like bandits, adding, “John McCain thinks>>>>Read the Full Article