Heck, Even the Communists Get It
Just about the perfect illustration...
Well, this is a first.
Never in a million years did I expect anything remotely rational from vocal supporters and leaders of the Communist Party.
Imagine my shock and surprise when beyond the, “Blah, blah, working class. Blah, blah, labor theory of value” trite that I usually expect from the Reds, I hear a position that is actually rational and would suffice to be a good role model for many of my fellows within the greater liberty/tea party movement.
What I’m referring to are multiple Communist Party officials espousing their endorsement of Barack Obama for President.
World Net Daily reporter Aaron Klein reported last year of an early endorsement of Obama by Communist Party USA Chairman Sam Webb.
In an article last week at People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, Webb discussed the need for a third party consisting of the so-called working class and labor as well as “racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight.”
Webb, however, recognized that such a party is not likely to emerge by next year.
“Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion,” he noted.
Webb said that for communists there are major differences between Democrats and Republicans. He urged his supporters to continue to back the Democrats.
Wrote Webb: “Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren’t identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda.”
He argued that to separate from the Democrats now “would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year’s elections.”
Continued Webb: “We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism, lies and economic sabotage, setting the stage for a full blown return to power of the most reactionary, racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist grouping in U.S. politics.”
“We want no part of that,” wrote Webb. “We don’t have any illusions about the Democratic Party, but we don’t have any illusions about the Republican Party either.”
Webb concluded: “Furthermore, we are also aware of the undeniable fact that no other party besides the Democratic Party stands a chance of beating the GOP next year.”
It’s interesting that while on the Right side of the spectrum, many liberty/tea party/libertarians emphatically declare that there is no difference between the two major Parties, the Communists specifically declare the opposite.
Not only are there major differences according to them, but one Party (the Democrats) is so keenly aligned with them on certain policy positions that they will endorse the candidate from that Party because “the Democrat Party stands a chance of beating the GOP”.
In a more recent publication, John Case, a writer at People’s World, one of the official web organs of the Communist Party, declared,
“Re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away – or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”
Once again, a devout Communist is expressing his understanding that “We cannot win everything at once” and that supporting Obama is in the best interests of the greater Communist movement…for the time being.
I really wish that many of my liberty friends in the NCGOP will take a similar approach to the Communists. (Yikes, I feel like a need a bath just for typing that sentence!) In our case, it’s obvious that Mitt Romney is not the candidate we would have preferred. He’s not “our guy” and he’s dead wrong on a number of philosophical positions.
Strategically speaking, however, a vote makes a difference. Where it does, there is no question that, even marginally, Romney is the superior candidate to Barack Obama and should be voted for if for no other reason than to put a stop to what would surely be an even more left wing second term of our incumbent President. It may not solve all of our Country’s problems, but it would surely slow them down long enough for us to regroup.
While I wholeheartedly agree that there are similarities between Romney and Obama, there are differences as well. It’s those that the people of NC should embrace throughout this election as they work towards a Romney victory.
Now liberty friends, don’t throw me under the bus just yet. I’m not without redemption.
Unlike the Communists, the Libertarians have a viable third party candidate to support. Gary Johnson is supremely qualified to be President with more Executive experience than both Romney and Obama combined. In my personal case, I may even vote for the man.
Strategically, I am a South Carolina resident. Romney is going to win SC, so there is no harm done by my providing a vote to the man I actually agree with more. In fact, I would say I’m in a position to help the greater liberty movement by upping the votes that a liberty candidate receives. That, however, is only due to my residency status.
To all my North Carolina friends, the strategy is different. It is imperative that Romney wins the state. As a swing state, NC votes will make a tremendous difference in the “big picture”. By ensuring that the NC electoral college votes go to Romney vs. Obama, we will help elect a President that can slow down the statist nonsense of the Obama administration.
As John Case said, “We cannot win everything at once!”. Wise words.
The point we are at politically is that the libertarian philosophy is one of the fastest growing movements in the country. Fast growing, but still not quite there.
Recognizing the political realities we face, my opinion is that liberty minded folks have to recognize a two pronged approach in this election. If you are in a swing state, supporting Romney is necessary. If your state is overwhelmingly Republican, go ahead and vote for Johnson as a way to show that we are not satisfied with the moderate candidate the GOP chose in the primary.
I recently wrote a letter expressing the need for GOP Party unity after the Primary. I stand by the letter. The letter referred to a particular local race where the strategy of “Party disloyalty” would have been a disaster. The Presidential race is an entirely different animal. If you support truly limited government, the strategy for whom to vote differs depending on where you are. In some cases unity is necessary, in others there is more freedom to “vote your conscience”. In NC, the former easily beats the later.
I’m quite sure I’ll get an earful from all sides on this. I believe I’m thinking fairly and logically, but I know there will be disagreements. I’m happy to listen and engage, but let’s keep it friendly and “PG” rated, OK?
I was soo hoping that Webb and Case would’ve come out and endorsed the Barr-Sheehan ticket. 😉
November 6th is about defeating Democrats. Beginning November 7th we continue our efforts to replace progressive Republicans.
Ya, wishful thinking there 4 years ago!
Indeed the primary goal is defeating democrats. The secondary goal is showing good numbers for the anti Obama/Romney ticket. I think we can strategically do both.
They would’ve run again with a big CPUSA endorsement.
LOL.
It is more difficult to unseat the incumbent of your own party than to win an open election. No chance a Rand Paul or a Jim DeMint beats a President Romney in 2016. Good chance that a Rand Paul or a Jim DeMint wins primary and an open general. Less than zero chance that any Republican or Democrat beats a President Johnson.
Unfortunately, “President Johnson” will not exist. We haven’t gotten to that time yet.
If Obama wins reelection, I don’t believe there will be a 2016 election. This country won’t exist in its current form. I know that sounds over the top, but with everything going on, something big is gonna happen pretty soon…
Defeatist and hyperbolic. When did PH become InfoWars South?
I speak for myself, I just happen to have a rather popular forum to speak from.
Respectfully, isn’t InfoWars where you get the majority of your news?
“marginally, Romney is the superior candidate to Barack Obama”
You had ample room to provide examples of this claim in your article. Yet you provide none.
There was no need in the context of the article. It was not the purpose of the post and remains self evident.
Remind me again Christian of how Romney is an improvement. I could probably post one example like this every hour on the hour until the DNC is over.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-executes-republican-party-power-grab
The Republican National Convention Rules Committee voted 63-38 to approve a new rule allowing granting the Republican National Committee — and Mitt Romney — sweeping new powers to amend the governing document of the GOP.
The move came at the encouragement of Mitt Romney supporters on the committee, including Romney’s top lawyer Ben Ginsberg, who stressed that it would grant “flexibility” to Romney and the committee to adapt to changing political environments. The rule allows the RNC to amend the party’s rules without a vote by the full Republican National Convention. And it offers the Republican Establishment a new tool to keep at by Tea Party initiatives that threaten to embarrass or contradict party leadership and stray from a planned message.
No arguments from me on the craziness of this. The establishment is hunkering down because they are scared. Actions like this only continue to undermine their credibility.
I’m a firm believer in Washington’s admonition against political parties, but I also don’t live in a fairytale land. I deal with reality as it exists. We have a two party system.
Yes, we have the Bushbamney Party and we have the rest of the country.
*** We have a two party system.
I find it ironic that those who profess support for freedom and small-r republican values endlessly chant this trope.
Every other modern western democracy has a MULTI party system. Britain, Israel, Germany, France, Austria, the list goes on and on. Know how many parties hold seats in Canada’s parliament? SEVEN. Yet here we are ready to board the Mobius Strip again:
1. In 2012 don’t vote for Johnson
2. Johnson gets very small % of vote
3. In 2016 media/voters look at 2012 results and dismiss Libertarians as irrelevant
4. In 2016 don’t vote for Libertarian
5. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
If you would reread my post, I encourage people in a position to vote for Johnson to do so. Against whom are you debating?
About those other multi-party system democracies…Um, they are pretty much socialist and/or broke. How’d that work out for them?
I lived in Britain. Would rather not do so permanently…
No you said people in swing states should vote for Romney. Here is the exact quote, from the original article:
“If you are in a swing state, supporting Romney is necessary. If your state is overwhelmingly Republican, go ahead and vote for Johnson.”
Oh, and Romney is superior to Obama for dozens if not hundreds of reasons…depending on how much minutia you want to dig through.
Obama declared that work for welfare is no longer required…Romney would not have done so.
Obama still 100% supports Obamacare as written. Romney at least promises changes and would not veto legislation that overturns Obamacare.
Obama still wants higher taxes on the “rich”. Romney will lower taxes across the board to spur growth.
Obama will appoint uber liberal Justices to the Supreme Court. Yes, Romney said he liked Judges like Roberts, but even Roberts overall has a much better record than what Obama will give us.
Obama’s justice department is trying to prevent common sense voter id legislation from being implemented. Romney will support voter id efforts.
On, and on, and on, and on.
Yes, there are lots of things that Romney and Obama have in common. That’s why I have never voted for Romney. But to say there would be no difference between them is, respectfully, laughable.
Especially if we keep a majority in the House and maybe (Akin aside) pick up the Senate, we can force Romney to the right. He won’t brazenly veto GOP legislation like Obama does at risk of hurting his own status within his own party.
Romneycare is the template for Obamacare.
Tax cuts mean absolutely nothing without even larger spending cuts.
Romney has proposed no spending cuts and during the primary season explicitly said that cutting federal spending would slow the economy, a Keynesian view identical to Obama’s.
John Roberts (and Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy) ruled that a man, wrongly detained for a non-crime (a traffic citation he’d actually paid) can be strip-searched multiple times without cause or suspicion. The man was ordered to squat down, expose his anus and cough, while custody officers “conducted a visual inspection of his body, instructing him to open his mouth, lift his tongue, lift his arms, and then lift his genitals.” Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
Voter ID is a state issue, unless you’re endorsing an expansion of Real-ID and more centralization of power under the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Personally, I want a president who WILL veto “GOP legislation” like PATRIOT, NDAA, TARP, debt ceiling increases, and authorizations for endless undeclared wars. But you’re right, Romney wouldn’t veto any of those.
As for Romneycare…agreed. To Romney’s credit, he believes that it should be a state issue, not a federal one. Now, any state official that still wants the government to control healthcare I’m still against. But the point is, states do have that right and it’s up to us locally to fight it.
We’re also agreed on the need for solid, real spending cuts. But assuming that won’t happen, let’s at least get some tax cuts out of it. Won’t happen with Obama. Might happen with Romney. I’m willing to take that chance.
Your Supreme Court example won’t be fixed by this election either way, but that’s one example out of dozens that could go the other way with a more conservative court that Obama will definitely not support.
Yes, voter ID is a state issue. That’s my point. Obama doesn’t see it that way.
The dems would pass the same legislation. On those we break even. Your point?
Tax cuts without spending cuts (and when I say cuts I mean 25% across the board without discrimination at a minimum, 43% targeted preferable, and that’s for FY14, the first year of the next pres. term) are at least as bad as doing nothing. And Romney has said repeatedly he will not make those cuts. In fact he wants to increase military spending, one of the biggest areas of waste in the budget.
.gov can generate operating revenue only three ways: tax, borrow, print (and print is really a subset of borrow because of how the whole Treasury/Primary Dealer/Federal Reserve process works). That’s reality.
So the Willard plan is a carbon copy of the Dubya plan (with the “bonus” that Mittens is already saber-rattling abroad whereas GWB campaigned on a “humble” foreign policy that criticized the “nation-building” of Clinton/Gore). How’d that work out?
Still waiting, Christian.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/08/23/tampa/
“In Maine, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, the party bosses have disenfranchised Paul voters — closing down party caucuses, rejecting as delegates anyone under 50, and calling the cops when all else failed. And while Ryder’s rule change failed — thanks to RNC’er Morton Blackwell — the Romney people did sneak in an amendment that would require delegates to state in writing who they intend to vote for on the convention floor at least one hour before the vote.
This is something not even the Communist Party of the Soviet Union required, and is unheard of even in Red China. The reason for the new rule is obvious: to alert the Romneyites to impending displays of public dissent. This will give them time to isolate the dissenters, strip them of their delegate credentials, and unceremoniously haul them out of the convention, preferably in handcuffs, while the cameras roll.”
So sorry to keep you waiting. I only have 4 jobs to contend with…
Again, no attempt by me to forgive these activities. They are wrong because they subvert the rules that were in place at the time of the circumstances.
However, I do believe that all primaries should be on the same day, and that delegates should go to the candidate who wins the most votes. Paul had a viable strategy within the rules at the time, but I also think those rules serve to disenfranchise voters.
Just in case anyone needs a reminder, I voted for Paul, encouraged others too, and kept a sign in my car window.
Rules Committee Chair John Sununu, henchman for PunditHouse darling Willard Mitt Romney, abandoned his committee’s meeting and left the building rather than remaining in order to accept – as required the rules – the two minority reports of the Committee.
You cannot be one type of candidate and another type of president.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-romney-sununu-republican-convention-delegates-fight-tampa-florida-2012-8#ixzz24Zf1geaQ
Also, “Earlier on Friday, (Romney campaign lawyer Ben) Ginsberg and other Romney loyalists tried to neuter the threat of a minority report by raising the threshold of support to 40 percent.”
Make rules up as you go.
Enshrine the ability of the Central Committee to instantly change rules without delegate approval.
Stifle dissent, ignore reports, unseat delegates and challenge other candidates’ ballot status.
Welcome to Christian Hine’s Republican Party, home of the “superior candidate”, a phrase charmingly similar to “superior race”. Because Red fascism is so much better than Blue fascism.
Look, Christian is a Ron Paul supporter. He voted for Paul in the SC primary. He wishes Paul were the nominee. He comes to Meck C4L meetings regularly. He simply has a different opinion about the value of making the GOP lose to teach them a lesson. I may not agree, but I respect that. There are plenty more bad guys out there more deserving of this level of venom than he is, trust me.
Thanks Adam.
By the time I made it this far down the page, I wasn’t even going to bother commenting on this. Anyone who knows me knows where I stand politically. We can disagree on strategy, and we may, but to say that I support any type of “fascism” is just over the top. I am and will be one of Romney’s harshest critics, just as I was with Bush.
I remain 100% committed to the fact, however, that politicians and political parties do not “learn lessons”. If anything, their response to a loss will be to turn *even more leftward* in an attempt to pick up democrat votes. Our voting block is simply too small to matter to them right now.
That fact, specifically, is why I would encourage anyone in a secure democrat or republican state to go ahead and vote for Johnson. That vote total might help turn some heads if spun correctly. We just can’t do that at the risk of a second Obama presidency in the swing states. It’s Romney or we’ll never get the chance to regroup and grow.
Anyway, thanks again Adam. I appreciate your leadership and friendship.
Hmmmm…. “politicians do not learn lessons” and yet “we can push Romney to the right”.
Yep… InfoWars of the South.
I stand by both statements as they are mutually exclusive.
The establishment continues to give us candidates that lose…Bush 1, Dole, McCain…obviously they don’t learn. Bush 2 wins by “running right”, Obama wins by “running right”, but then we still get Romney. Obviously no lessons learned…or, if there is, it’s to “run to the right” and then govern any darn way you want.
Pushing Romney to the right after election means having a GOP Congress. A conservative House pushes conservative legislation that Romney signs. A liberal House pushes liberal legislation…that Romney signs. Which do you prefer?
*** their response to a loss will be to turn *even more leftward*
Lost with leftward Ford – followed with win by further-right Reagan.
Won with Bush I as “heir to Reagan” – followed with loss by Bush I when he revealed true (leftist) colors.
Lost with leftward Dole – followed with win by Bush II campaigning as a conservative.
Lost with leftward McCain….
So you think Romney can bulldoze the convention, unseat duly elected delegates, ignore Roberts Rules and Party rules, change the rest of the rules on the fly, even go so far as to seat the delegations that support another candidate in different corners of the arena, and then magically transform himself into a reasonable and rational individual once he takes office and is even less beholden to those he pulverized? Fat effing chance.
Furthermore, if he’s so confident that he’s got his 1144, why even go through with the pulverizing of Maine, Louisiana and the rest? The only explanation I can possibly imagine is that he thinks this is going to be a replay of 1968 and since delegates are NOT bound to a VICE-presidential candidate that someone will nominate Ron Paul for that spot, just as supporters of some guy named George Romney nominated him for Veep in defiance of Richard Nixon’s selection of Spiro Agnew.
Anyway, I thought (and you’re telling me constantly) that Obama is the enemy, not Paulistas. Why then waste so much time, money and energy crushing dissent in your own party rather than, at the very least, leaving it alone and looking presidential by staying above it all. This Nixonian mix of paranoia and viciousness is unforgivable in a candidate and intolerable in any elected official.
“So you think Romney can bulldoze….”
Again, you attribute beliefs I don’t share to me. Seriously, what’s up with that?
I agree 90% with the grievances you are talking about. We are ultimately on the same side.
I know that reality strikes some people hard. It hurts. I know it. The next President is either going to be Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. There is no alternative. That IS reality. The electorate is not with those of us that would otherwise support Johnson yet. I’m sorry, but you have to accept that we are the minority. That doesn’t mean that we don’t keep spreading our message. That doesn’t mean we don’t continue to fight against legislation that is flat out wrong…regardless of which party is pushing it.
It does mean that our vote is either in support of the administration or against the administration IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO MATTER!
If Romney loses by one vote, then I hope you sleep well knowing that every single piece of legislation that passes that is purely against our philosophical underpinnings rests on your shoulders.
Will Romney do wrong things? Heck yes he will. But no more than Obama, and 100% likely he’ll do fewer wrong things.
I don’t vote to “teach (someone) a lesson”. I apply my own values to the slate of candidates and select the one whose values most closely match my own.
Perhaps so many people stay up late on Election Night because their consciences won’t let them sleep.
If the Patriots and the Panthers are in the Super Bowl, I don’t bet on the 49ers to win.
Now you’re just flat out lying. Johnson is on the ballot and right now he has as many votes as Obamney does.
I’m not lying. I live in the real world. Johnson won’t win because he is in the minority. What I’m trying to do, if you would please read my post, is to maximize the number of votes that he does receive so that next time around there is a larger potential base of support.
I’m trying to help here for crying out loud!!
I’d like to put forth that this thread is thusfar a perfect example of what I was hoping for in PunditHouse’s creation.
Heated discussion of disagreements can indeed be done without over the top personal attacks or distasteful language and innuendo.
Thanks Max for keeping it real.
Newby here…first post.
I think the right feels the two parties are the same is because the GOP ultimately sells us out. We saw the Reagan revolution but by the mid-90s needed the Contract with American. They sold us out again so we needed the Tea Party to jerk the reins to the right again. They all become rulers in place of representatives.
The CPUSA has been adament for 2-3 years that the 2012 election is their best shot at success. They must defeat the “reactionary forces.” The far-right (reactionary forces) know this as well. Convincing the independent, swing-voters is the challenge. The folks got a little “starry-eyed.”
The communists decided long ago to play within the political environment and have been very, very successful melting into the Democrat party. Unfortunately, their ideas are gaining mainstream acceptance.