Wednesday, May 22, 2013
How (and why) rotten compromises are made (and justified?)
The Times reported earlier today on the truly disgraceful decision of Senate Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee to capitulate to Republican homophobia by withdrawing an amendment by Senator Leahy that would have allowed, in the Times's language "United States citizens to apply for permanent resident status, known as a green card, on behalf of their same-sex partners."
It is unclear how the DOMA ruling will be handed down. Over at Volokh Conspiracy, federalism was offered by various conspirators, who simply didn't answer people when they noted it might not help people in D.C. and so forth at all. What happens if it's a fractured decision?
Anyway, yeah, this is how rotten compromises can be made, even without the added issues of our system that Prof. Levinson doesn't like. It also results in laws, state and federal, that are written in less than clear ways to paper over some difference or satisfy some voting bloc.
It is how people personally act too. Sometimes, things are let go or not brought up, even though we know it will cause problems, since if we did so, it would cause family strife or something.
It's a cliche, but life isn't totally fair, especially when you have to "live" with unfair people.
"At worst, Lindsay Graham is simply a bigot; at 'best,' he is a cowardly opportunist, scared of losing re-election."
No, Graham is a bigot, at best, because he engaged in bigotry. It makes no difference how he feels about gay people. If an armed robber murders someone for his wallet, then he is a murderer, even if he had no bad feelings about his victim.
I was impressed by the power asserted by Sen. Lindsey Graham (Cracker, SCar) in his role as the Red Queen (in the political/chess sense, of course), perhaps because of his fear of being S-CRUZ-ed in his reelection bid.
Keep in mind that amendments can be brought up on the Senate floor on this Committee approved bill and filibustering may follow. Even if the the full Senate approves a bill, the House will of course be an obstacle. Perhaps something will be enacted in the name of reform. But there is the political dancing with the 2014 election cycle to be in mind.
So watch for the Red Queen's moves on the demographic political board.
Here's how Markos Moulitsas phrased the argument yesterday:
"Here's the argument, in short:
If the LGBT language is included, the bill is dead, LGBT couples are SOL on immigration matters.
If the bill passes, and DOMA is revoked, LGBT couples receive equal treatment under the law.
If the bill passes, and DOMA remains law, then LGBT couples are discriminated against.
Of the three scenarios, only one leads to non-discriminatory federal immigration policy, and that one requires that the bill pass without the LGBT language."
The truly weird thing about Lindsay Graham is that there are persistent rumors that he himself is gay.
As Joe says, though, government by majority rule depends on compromise and sometimes those compromises are with evil people. If the SCOTUS did its job properly and protected fundamental rights for gays (among others), those compromises wouldn't be necessary.
The Leahy amendment was meant to backdoor federal recognition of SSM through immigration law.
Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether declining to redefine marriage is a form of "bigotry," the entire idea that you have a right to emigrate to America simply because you won a romantic and biological lottery of being related to a citizen is nuts.
We need to seriously consider returning to a relatively free immigration system where only national enemies, criminals and the diseased are barred entry, and then prohibiting all immigrants from using the welfare state for life.
The reason you come to America should be your business.
Compromise requires offers and capitulations on both sides. Did the Dems offer conservative Congresspersons from districts where the population opposes same sex marriage anything of note in trade for their support or aquiescence on the matter?
What specifically do you have in mind Mr. W? The bill already has various compromises to satisfy conservative leaning states. This amendment helps one side. Some other amendment or provision helps the other. Does each specific provision have to be balanced off?
The rumors about Sen. Graham doesn't make what he is doing here "truly weird" much at all. If anything, compensating (though I really rather not go there) to deal with such rumors would be perfectly understandable. Anyway, he's from SC, so a conservative position is natural.
A nod btw to BP's proposal though I'm not really inclined to require immigrants who let's say are blinded in industrial accidents to not be able to use Medicaid or deny their children free public education or the like.
The word "diseased" is rather open-ended too. Still, a "relatively free" system is something to think about. Hopefully, such libertarian thoughts will help bipartisan support on this bill.
"Of the three scenarios, only one leads to non-discriminatory federal immigration policy,"
Nah, the scenario where the bill doesn't pass at all also leads to non-discriminatory federal immigration policy, only one more in line with public opinion.
Nah, the scenario where the bill doesn't pass at all also leads to non-discriminatory federal immigration policy, only one more in line with public opinion.
# posted by Brett : 12:39 PM
Are you referring to the public opinion that kicked your ass in 2012?
Well, you know what they say: Run a Democrat against a Democrat, and the Democrat will win every time. Romney, the guy whose program inspired Obamacare, was hardly the person to run if you wanted a contrast.
He had to say a lot of things Democrats didn't like to get the nomination. Problem was, only the people who didn't like those things believed him when he said them.
Get back to me when the GOP actually runs somebody who agrees with conservative principles, and gets said ass kicked.
"He had to say a lot of things Democrats didn't like to get the nomination. Problem was, only the people who didn't like those things believed him when he said them."
So the majority of GOP primary voters and convention delegates who chose him as the nominee didn't believe a thing he said?
"Nah, the scenario where the bill doesn't pass at all also leads to non-discriminatory federal immigration policy, only one more in line with public opinion."
This being same sex couples, including those with marriage licenses recognized from a growing number of nations, "non-discriminatorily" are denied things opposite sex couples get.
"United States citizens to apply for permanent resident status, known as a green card, on behalf of their same-sex partners."
A bit more on this public opinion thing. Granting permanent resident status is not "same sex marriage." Twelve states have that. A few others (NJ and CA come to mind) have broad civil union or domestic partnership rights. Others have limited rights.
So, let's say such a couple wants to reside in NY (let's take Glenn Greenwald and his partner ... GG moving to Brazil part time given that country has more favorable laws on that front).
Is it really more partial to public opinion (not that the filibuster Senate is always so loyal) to deny permanent resident status? As phrased, doesn't even sound in violation of DOMA.
Brett, it's not my fault that GOP voters don't trust their own candidates.
And when you get your ass kicked in an election (by the same guy who kicked your ass 4 years earlier) you're really not in a position to talk about how public opinion is on your side. The only thing that appears to be on your side is an unshakable delusion that is not swayed by overwhelming evidence.
"Brett, it's not my fault that GOP voters don't trust their own candidates."
No, that's true, it's the fault of those candidates themselves, for being such lying SOBs. You didn't make them that.
No, but it's a prerequisite for getting the backing of the party establishment. Their long-standing position is that they don't want candidates with principles, because principles might occasionally get in the way of winning an election, or getting down to the point of being elected: Serious rent seeking.
They used to be able to hide this, back when the Democrats had such a level of dominance in American politics that Republicans failing to accomplish anything was a given. They could run on what they claimed to want, and be excused for it not happening.
Then along came the 90's, and suddenly there were enough Republican office holders to actually win fights, and it became obvious that they weren't so much losing a lot of the fights, as they were taking dives.
That's when the Republican base started to wake up to the fact that they were being played for fools by their own party. It's been a running battle ever since between the party establishment and the actual members, and the ultimate outcome of that fight is yet to be determined.
Meanwhile, the establishment has enough power to sabotoge anybody with principles, but the base won't elect people without, so Dems do pretty well.
That's a pretty amazing delusion you've got there. Apparently the "base" have more insight and more popular ideas, but the "establishment" (who apparently arrive from outer space) are able to manipulate them like sheep into voting against their interests for lying SOBs.
And yet you think this disfunctional group of clowns should be holding power. Truly Amazing.
Perhaps Brett might identify the candidate that his "base" should have had to challenge Obama in 2012 and the candidates of said "base" for 2016.
In 2012, the GOP had many, perhaps too many, candidates. Maybe Brett had a favorite in that group (other than Romney, of course) that would have had greater success against Obama. Brett seems to be suggesting that like cream with milk, for the GOP crap rises to the top. Now if the GOP were homogenized by the changing demographics, maybe cream/milk would apply.
The GOP has always been a "next in line" party when it comes to presidential nominations. I was curious whether the Tea Party movement would change that in 2012, but it did not.
The conservative and libertarian vote split several ways and Romney tacked right to win a small plurality of the vote necessary to win the nomination.
As a result, millions of potential GOP voters stayed home in the general election, including about 4 million voters who went Obama in 2008.
2016 will be interesting.
Will any of the viable 2012 GOP participants even run?
By far the most popular is Paul Ryan, but he is not making any moves to run. Neither are Gingrich or Santorum.
If not, the GOP has a crop of successful Tea Party governors and senators primed to go and the "next in line" rule may take a holiday.
Sweet Jeebus, please let Blankshot Bart finally be right about something.
Let it be so.
Palin is done. The Democrats successfully destroyed her politically several years ago. They do the politics of personal destruction very well.
Cruz does not yet have the political organization, but James Carville was right to identify him as the Republican to watch in the future.
I await with anticipation our SALADISTA's (FKA our yodeler) for his next installment of his variation on Agatha Christie (no relation to NJ Gov. Christie) "TEN LITTLE TEA PARTIERS" with Palin and Cruz down for 2016.
"Palin is done. The Democrats successfully destroyed her politically several years ago. They do the politics of personal destruction very well."
Wel, they had some considerable help from the target herself...
Blankshot, do you remember when you were all excited about Palin. and how people like me were laughing at her (and you)? And then you decided that the fact that we were laughing at her was a sign that we were "afraid" of her? Trust me, we weren't. The impending Palin train wreck was as obvious and predictable as the 2012 Romney loss. And you missed them both.
There was no need for the Dems to "destroy" Palin, because it was painfully obvious that she was in over her head. Much like you.
BD: "Palin is done. The Democrats successfully destroyed her politically several years ago. They do the politics of personal destruction very well."
Mr. W: Wel, they had some considerable help from the target herself...
These sludge masters attacked every member of her family from Trig on up to her husband.
The Democrat media quoted every unattributed catty slur in Alaska against Palin as a fact, while they gave Obama a pass and wrote glowing puff pieces for The One. If Palin had said something boneheaded like she had been to all 57 states of the union, the Democrat press would have run it 24/7 for a week and smeared her as stupid.
Even after McCain lost, the Democrats filed a series of bogus "ethics charges" against her in her last term as governor to run up her attorney bills and chase her out of office.
One voyeuristic "reporter" even bought the house next door so he could peek into her yard and home.
The GOP establishment did not like her and let her twist in the wind.
It reminded me of the "cool" and wannabe "cool" kids in high school savaging the girl from the other side of the tracks.
It's also funny as hell that Blankshot is still completely clueless about how bad a candidate Palin really was/is.
Palin made the gaffes that she made and then she retreated from any non-friendly speaking appearances-that gave the appearance of her not being able to handle things.
Negative stories, including gaffes, about all four candidates of the ticket were out there. The difference with Palin was that she did nothing to overcome such stories. Obama might make a gaffe about 57 states, but then he gave eloquent speeches and the public judged the speeches outweighing the gaffe. McCain might make a gaffe, but then people remembered this was a honest to God war hero with decades of experience as a national level leader. Palin couldn't name a newspaper or magazine she read, but importantly she did nothing to overcome this kind of thing, in fact she seemed to comfirm doubts by retreating from future forums.
Palin also made imo a critical mistake early on. She had actually won some acclaim working with Democrats and against the GOP establishment in Alaska. But her first and immediate act upon being named VP was to assume the 'pit bull' model of VP candidate and give a speech attacking Obama at the convention. This made her immediately polarizing.
For the record I think Palin was less unintelligent than she was just (ironically given what her supporters see as her appeal) lacking in the courage to make a stand ans speak her mind. I don't think she could not name a newspaper or magazine because she was not familiar with one, I think she was concerned that in naming any she might upset some voters. A lot of that could have been chalked up to her inexperience in the national spotlight and perhaps her 'handlers' pushing her to be as non-controversial as can be, but the results were at times sadly comical...
Mr. W: "Negative stories, including gaffes, about all four candidates of the ticket were out there. The difference with Palin was that she did nothing to overcome such stories. Obama might make a gaffe about 57 states, but then he gave eloquent speeches and the public judged the speeches outweighing the gaffe."
Seriously, are you kidding?
The Democrat media did not vet Obama's radical past at all and spiked any stories that came out in the conservative alternative media. In a rare moment of candor, Tom Brokaw told Charlie Rose just before the 2008 election that the news media knows next to nothing about Obama.
In sharp contrast, the Democrat media trolled through Palin's past for any innuendo they could invent including being an airhead swimsuit model, attending :::gasp::: 6 colleges to get her degree, attending a fundamentalist church and being a bad parent because her daughter got knocked up.
After Obama was nominated, ABC News had Charlie Gibson give a fawning interview beginning by asking: "Senator, I'm curious about your feelings last night. It was an historic moment. Has it sunk in yet?"
After Palin was nominated, ABC News had Charlie Gibson sneer down his reading glasses and grill Palin, then edited the video to make her look stupid.
When Palin talked about seeing Russia from her backyard in Alaska, it ran non-stop and was a continual source of ridicule. When Obama talked about visiting 57 states, it was a byline for one day.
The gross media bias in favor of the One got so bad that SNL finally skewered it in a classic skit 2008, which apparently Youtube has now removed.
Youtube did not however remove the SNL skits portraying Palin as an airhead MILF.
There's two things going on, coverage of gaffes that might imply a candidate is not smart and vetting of a candidate's past.
As for the first, perhaps unsurprisingly you did not answer my main point at all: all four of the major party candidates had gaffe moments. The difference with Palin was that she never showed any indication of rising above them to convince voters that they were not characteristic of her. Obama made gaffes, but even his enemies seemed to concede his eloquence when speaking, so few thought Obama's gaffes defined him. McCain had gaffes, but few attached to him because of his long distinguished service and career. Contrast this with Palin who in response drastically reduced her public appearances in what might not be friendly venues.
As to vetting I make two points. One, most media outlets at least make a pretense of trying not to report things unless they can be firmly established. Tellingly the matters you complain about being reported on regarding Palin (that she was a beauty pageant contestant, that she went to many schools to get her degree, that her teen daughter was pregnant, etc) were firmly established things while what you complain about not being reported about Obama, "his radical past" is, as we've discussed, much less clear (and indeed cannot be as clear as the facts regarding Palin).
But even were we to concede the 'MSM' was biased in its vetting the number one source for news, Fox News, and other outlets certainly got the word out there about many potentially damaging things about Obama. It's just that given Obama's presentation they did not stick with independents, given Palin's her problems did...
The Democrat media covered and gushed over Obama's speeches, while covering up Obama's actual past, enabling him to create the false image of a post partisan and post ideological candidate.
If the Democrat media treated Obama the same as Palin or even McCain, Obama would have been an also ran in the Democrat primary like Jesse Jackson.
Imagine if you will if Palin had joined the Nazi Party and attended a KKK church the way Obama attended socialist conferences, joined the Democratic Socialists of America's New Party and attended a racist black liberation church for 20 years.
The Democrat media would have run this 24/7 for the rest of Palin's soon to be ended political career, not covered and gushed over her folksy speeches which excited crowds of thousands at every stop.
Our SALADISTA's (FKA our yodeler) Hemingway-esque "The Old Man and the She" is a perfect work of friction for his next illiterary effort in which he can demonstrats his racial animosities. Perhaps our SALADISTA is in a pimping mode preparing for the Gubernatorial run of his mentor, TOM-TOM TANCREDO. If TOM-TOM is successful, he may then be the Tea Party choice for 2016. Can you hear the drum-roll from that little mountain top in CO or is it merely a Great Crepitation echoing feat?
Blankshot, the media ran tapes of Obama's "racist" preacher 24/7. He won anyways. Easily. Stop your fucking whining.
Check this website:
"Who's #1? The Media's 2016 Republican Field"
that will be tilled by the Tea Party. Query: How did the Tea Party's garden grow in 2012? [Check out Wikipedia for a website on the GOP's 2012 candidates to compare with 2016.]
This is the second time you didn't address the actual points I made.
It's not clear at all that Obama "joined" the New Party, and certainly not clear that the New Party is a left wing equivalent of the Nazi Party. The fact that the "Democrat Media" don't report such things as facts is to their credit.
The Rev. Wright issue was commonly reported, more so than the video of Palin participating in a ritual to protect her from witches. Obama spoke in response with an eloquence that impressed even many on the right and independents and such did not hold it against him. That's not media bias.
Actually, all those facts are clear and documented for any reporter willing to look. If I can find this material working part time after hours, any reporter worth a damn can do so working full time at their job.
Ignorance is a terrible thing. Please email me and I will send you a gratis copy of my book with all the 750 endnotes for your review. The best version of the book is the e-book form with the endnotes hyperlinked to the various sources as they exist online so you can read the actual New Party and other socialist publications for yourself. Socialists are not at all reticent when speaking amongst themselves out of public view.
The fact that this is not "not clear at all" from the lack of Democrat press reports merely proves my point.
We've talked about this before. You mentioned that your most important evidence was oft-cited minutes of a New Party meeting, but of course most of those present are on record as saying Obama wasn't there and the meetings don't seem to be correct. That's hardly "firmly established" in the way that Palin's daughter's pregnancy was, or the fact that she attended several colleges in getting her undergrad degree, etc. can be.
And of course the claim that the New Party is equivalent to the Nazi Party is one that really cannot possibly sustained as "firmly established."
The New Party published a newspaper which reported the presentations of Obama and other candidates and later reported his victory as a New Party candidate and his return to thank New Party members for their support.
A communist member of the Committees of Correspondence and part if the New Party board deciding on new members described Obama's pitch to an outside paper.
It was not like Obama was new to socialist circles at the time. Obama had been attending DSA functions since Columbia and was teaching Alinsky power principles to ACORN, another prominent source of members of the New Party. On the board of two radical foundations, Obama was financing these groups.
The definitely explains why he had the White House painted red... Not to mention that his health care plan was stolen from noted communist Mitt Romney...
Your evidence which "firmly establishes" that Obama joined the New Party is that THEY, a fusionist party whose strategy wa to glom onto mainstream candidates to gain credence, said in publications that he did so? I would think in any other matter you'd be ready to doubt what they reported...Even if we were to concede what you say about that subject, I'm not sure that Obama attending or even speaking to a New Party (or DSA or ACORN) group would tie him to that Party any more than the fact that Sarah Palin attended and later spoke at Alaska Independence Party conventions would tie her to them.
Donald Trump announced exploring for 2016 GOP presidential run. Will his reality show prompt other potential candidates to establish their own reality shows? How about "Dancing with Potential GOP Candidates" sponsored by Tea Party 501(c)(4) organizations.
Blankshot, Obama's imaginary "radical past" has been directly refuted by Obama the moderate Republican president.
Mr. W: Your evidence which "firmly establishes" that Obama joined the New Party is that THEY, a fusionist party whose strategy wa to glom onto mainstream candidates to gain credence...
Quite the opposite.
The wide acceptance of FDR progressivism nearly wiped out the Socialist Party as a viable political entity. In the 1960s, Michael Harrington proposed socialists stop running as a third party and instead run socialist candidates under the Democratic Party ticket with the intent of realigning the Democrats to the left as a Euro-style labor party. Harrington left the Socialist Party to create the Democratic Socialists of America to advance this realignment strategy.
The DSA created the New Party to take advantage of laws allowing fusion parties. A socialist could run on both the openly socialist New Party and Democrat tickets and have all the votes count toward the Democrat nomination in a primary or toward his or her candidacy in a general election. The New Party screened its candidates and only accepted those with socialist positions to advance the DSA realignment strategy.
The New Party disappeared when the major parties enacted laws to eliminate fusion parties, but the realignment strategy continues.
...said in publications that he did so? I would think in any other matter you'd be ready to doubt what they reported...
I give multiple examples in my book showing how socialists (including the younger Obama) are rather honest about their opinions and objectives when speaking amongst themselves, but will say something completely different to the public at large.
For example, ACORN, DSA and CPUSA members went to work for and funneled their money to the Obama Senate and presidential campaigns, and openly endorsed Obama in their publications.
When the conservative alternative media started breaking news of this alliance, though, Team Obama and ACORN, DSA and CPUSA all scrubbed their websites within days. Obama then denied any relationship to ACORN and joked about being called a socialist, while a parade of socialist leaders went to the credulous Democrat press denying that Obama was one of them.
After Obama won his final election last fall, the CPUSA newspaper broke the silence and ran a screaming headline "We Won!"
I submit this is the kind of wishful, less than careful partisan thinking that led you to your infamously wrong Presidential election conclusions recently.
"The wide acceptance of FDR progressivism nearly wiped out the Socialist Party as a viable political entity."
The Socialist Party in the US was never a viable political entity. It never got double digit percents of the Presidential vote and indeed four years before FDR it couldn't garner 1% of the national vote.
"The New Party screened its candidates and only accepted those with socialist positions to advance the DSA realignment strategy."
Like any fusionist party I imagine the NP followed a strategy of balancing choosing winners and otherwise strong candidates with ideological concerns. An instructive example can be found in the Conservative Party of NY which often endorsed candidate that did not support a whole lot of their positions but which seemed the lesser of evils in their eyes. Endorsement by a fusionist party can really mean very little regarding the candidate endorsed.
"socialists (including the younger Obama) are rather honest about their opinions and objectives when speaking amongst themselves, but will say something completely different to the public"
I'm betting that if we had New Party and CPUSA newspapers from those times in front of us you would find them riddled with innaccuracies and what you would doubtless call lies. And yet you take their word on these kinds of matters? And you are angry with the 'MSM' because they find socialist newspapers to be less than ideal sources upon which to base claims?
"openly endorsed Obama in their publications."
"the CPUSA newspaper broke the silence and ran a screaming headline "We Won!""
Again, what should be drawn from this? The John Birch Society notoriously endorsed Ronald Reagan in one of his gubernatorial primaries. Does that mean Reagan was a member of the JBS?
It gets better. Sarah Palin attended Alaska Independence Party conventions. The Founder of that party has spoken on record about "America and its damned institutions." Prominent members of that party are on record as advocating that members and sympathizers 'infiltrate' the major parties and run under their banner. Palin addressed their convention in person when running for governor and addressed them via video at a later one. Her husband was a registered member. Noted extremists from the party are on record bragging about their ties to Palin....What should be drawn about that?
It seems to me the MSM was correct to not put too much stock in the claims of some extremists yahoos, 'people-in-common' innuendo and such, whether it be regarding Palin or Obama.
BD: "The wide acceptance of FDR progressivism nearly wiped out the Socialist Party as a viable political entity."
Mr. W: The Socialist Party in the US was never a viable political entity. It never got double digit percents of the Presidential vote and indeed four years before FDR it couldn't garner 1% of the national vote.
Socialism was never a majority or even a plurality position in the United States. By viable, I mean a third party who could pull a substantial number of votes and win occasional races. Socialist Eugene Debs won a million votes for President before the 1920s prosperity and then the New Deal reduced the Socialist Party membership to the hundreds.
BD: "The New Party screened its candidates and only accepted those with socialist positions to advance the DSA realignment strategy."
Mr. W: Like any fusionist party I imagine the NP followed a strategy of balancing choosing winners and otherwise strong candidates with ideological concerns.
You do not have to imagine because the New Party members who made the decisions are on record stating what the selection process consisted of and who was chosen. All of their candidates, including the young Obama, were socialists with a long pedigree in socialist politics.
BD: "socialists (including the younger Obama) are rather honest about their opinions and objectives when speaking amongst themselves, but will say something completely different to the public"
Mr. W: I'm betting that if we had New Party and CPUSA newspapers from those times in front of us you would find them riddled with innaccuracies and what you would doubtless call lies.
Of the two of us, I am the one who actually read these publications. They consist of mundane meeting descriptions, your typical loony left op-eds and ranting reporting on current events. While the latter reporting can often be questionable, these folks have no reason to misrepresent descriptions of their own meetings given to members.
BD: "openly endorsed Obama in their publications...the CPUSA newspaper broke the silence and ran a screaming headline "We Won!""
Mr. W: Again, what should be drawn from this? The John Birch Society notoriously endorsed Ronald Reagan in one of his gubernatorial primaries. Does that mean Reagan was a member of the JBS?
Ah, but Mr. Obama was a documented member of the New Party, by his own admission attended DSA conferences since attending Columbia, taught Alinsky power principle classes to achieve radical change to ACORN members as reported in the local papers, and both solicited and distributed tens of thousands in donations through two foundations to DSA, ACORN and a series of other socialist front groups like the Committees of Correspondence. In turn, Obama's socialist colleagues and beneficiaries of his foundations worked in his campaigns.
This does not even go back to his African socialist father, his hard left mother or his communist surrogate father, Frank Davis.
Look, if you want to buy into the Obama post-ideological, post-racial, post-reality pose, be my guest. But if you are interested in the truth, I have all the documentation for your review.
Blankshot, there's no need to dig into Obama's past any more. The elections are over. He's been president for long enough that people now realize that the communist image that you imagine is complete bullshit. In fact, he appears to be a moderate Republican.
"Socialist Eugene Debs won a million votes for President before the 1920s prosperity and then the New Deal reduced the Socialist Party membership to the hundreds."
Perhaps the membership, but as a vote getter the Socialist Party was flagging well before FDR even sought the Presidency.
"While the latter reporting can often be questionable, these folks have no reason to misrepresent descriptions of their own meetings given to members."
You're kidding right? These people have all kinds of questionable reporting and claims, but there's no reason to misrepresent descriptions of their own meetings given to members? That shows a real lack of imagination on your part. Communist activists are noted fabricators even, no actually especially, on 'mundane' intra party matters. I suspect in other contexts you'd concede this readily.
"Mr. Obama was a documented member of the New Party"
We've gone through this. When asked for your evidence you produced some NP meeting minutes. Most of the people at that meeting are on the record saying they either can't recall Obama being there or that they say he simply wasn't.
"by his own admission attended DSA conferences"
Like Palin attended AIP conferences?
What Foundations did Obama direct?
But, in true Alinskyite fashion, I notice you once again ignore the points I made while throwing more mud on the wall...
What does Palin's involvement with the AIP tell us? How is that different than your 'evidence' of Obama's involvement with the NP (or better yet, the CPUSA)?
You state Obama attended socialist conference. Palin not only attended AIP conferences, she addressed them. You state Obama had relatives in the movement. Palin's husband was an actually registered member of the AIP. You state the groups you link Obama too advocated quiet infiltration of major party organizations. The same is true for the AIP. You point to young Obama's working with such groups. Long time AIP activists are on record bragging about working with Palin in her early political days. Obama was financially supported by socialists; Palin got financial support from AIP activists...
If any are Trekkies they may remember the episode where the crew finds a mirror universe with opposite counterparts of each crewperson.
The essay below from Salon on Sarah Palin's 'radical past' strikes me as the mirror counerpart of what people like Bart do with Obama. The way it tracks the style, reasoning, innuendo, etc., is eerily similar...
Alas, Michelle Bachmann, an early Tea Party favorite in the 2012 GOP Presidential Follies, has read the political tea leaves and decided not to run for elective office next year. Will comedians finally let her RIP? So who will be the Tea Party's next sTRUMPet?
Sometimes, things are let go or not brought up, even though we know it will cause problems, since if we did so, it would cause family strife or something.Post a Comment
buy fifa coins
cheap coins fut14