Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (67914)	10/29/2008 2:22:52 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

In the words of the DSA: The New Party was not established by DSA, nor was it established to be a vehicle for socialism in America. The DSA may have promoted the New Party, as something they approved of (maybe just more than the alternatives) but that's a different matter. Having X as a supporter does not mean that you support X: movement Y may promote you, but this does not mean you promote movement Y. As a classic example, take Al-Quaeda's apparent recent endorsement of McCain huffingtonpost.com Presumably because they judge his stance on the ME will encourage more strife there and thus give their rodents more holes to scuttle in. They may 'endorse' him, but obviously it has no bearing on how he sees them. And for that matter, he shouldn't need to disown their support - it's nothing to do with him. Meanwhile Obama states he wasn't a member of the New Party. fightthesmears.com Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement. So, Obama wasn't a member of the New Party. They provided an endorsement (in an unopposed race). And the DSA, who weren't the founders of the New Party, also endorsed him, in the same election. Anyway, from the DSA site, most recent newsletter. They're startlingly happy to admit that they're socialists, but here's what they say on Obama (I did include some in the long reply but you may well have missed it). So because they support a movement which included Obama, chicagodsa.org Obama Socialist by Bob Roman Some months ago, Chicago's In These Times predicted the "red-boating" of Obama. DSA, along with ACORN, the New Party, and Bill Ayers are now being held up as hate or fear objects for those who might need an excuse, at least, to not vote for Obama. The DSA side of this campaign has been conducted largely on the web, and the authors of these sometimes scrupulous but often scurrilous postings have usually provided links to the Chicago DSA web site. It's been great for traffic. Thus this article is for those visitors curious enough to actually visit our site in search of confirmation of various assertions, also for those visiting via a web search using Obama and Socialist. It is good that you're here because some of what is being written is downright wrong. Here's the skivvy: The New Party was not established by DSA, nor was it established to be a vehicle for socialism in America. In Chicago, the New Party was largely started by ACORN. While the New Party welcomed support from groups like DSA, the New Party's concern was politics, the political economy of working people and the poor, not ideology and for this, bringing home the bacon is what counts. Not talk. Not ideas. This makes the accounts posted (for example) at rightwingnuthouse.com or towncriernews.blogspot.com or newsbusters.org or noquarterusa.net either garbled or deliberately deceptive. Chicago DSA did indeed endorse Obama for the State Senate, but he most certainly did not seek our endorsement. As for Obama using the New Party and the Chicago DSA endorsements, possibly, but note that he had no opposition in either the primary election or in the general election. He basically did not have a campaign in 1996. One might fairly ask which party was the real beneficiary? Did Obama attend a half dozen or more DSA meetings? The only Chicago DSA meeting Obama attended was the 1996 Townhall Meeting documented at chicagodsa.org, and that meeting was co-sponsored by the University of Chicago University Democrats. The only way one can count more than one meeting is by counting every Obama meeting, no matter the sponsor no matter the venue, mentioned in New Ground. The only way these could be credible as "DSA" meetings is if you believe that anyone labeled "socialist" is an amoral, unpatriotic, conniving animal; therefore descriptions of the meetings as anything but covert DSA meetings is a lie. If you believe that, why are you reading this? So is Obama a socialist? First you'd better tell me what you mean by "socialist". I'm not being cute. There are people who would hysterically laugh at DSA being legitimately considered a "socialist" organization, never mind Obama. So what is socialism to you? Judging by the comments posted on some of these blogs, socialism is anything involving the government that the commentator doesn't like. By this standard, I suppose he is. Another way to consider it would be if Obama self-identifies as a "socialist" or "social democrat", just as DSA members do. Well, go ahead. Ask him. And if he says, "Yes," please let me know. Because in that case, he owes us for dues.