Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Wrong Campaign Gaffe Comparison
PJ Media ^ | June 12, 2012 | Rand Sandberg

Posted on 06/12/2012 8:53:24 AM PDT by Kaslin

Mitt Romney cares more about the poor than Barack Obama cares about the private sector.

As he often does, Barack Obama made a Freudian slip on Friday that once again revealed his Marxist approach to political economy. This is unsurprising, now that we have confirmation that he ran as the candidate of a socialist party in the nineties, despite denials by his campaign four years ago. In saying that “the private sector is doing just fine,” many, even some of his allies, have accused him of simply being out of touch with economic reality — a charge for which there is an abundance of other evidence. Some, including the Romney campaign, have implied that it was Obama’s own McCain moment, recalling when the Republican nominee said that the “fundamentals of the economy were sound” amidst the imploding credit markets in the fall of 2008.

But that’s not the real nature of the gaffe. A better analogy would be to compare it to a Romney gaffe from earlier this year, when the phrase “I don’t care about the poor” was taken out of context to indicate his supposed heartlessness. Of course, when one reads the entire paragraph from which it was gleefully extracted, it is clear that he is saying that the poor are being taken care of by existing government programs, whereas the objects of his concern are being punished by government policies (let’s leave aside for now the issue of how “compassionate” it is to cruelly keep the poor dependent on government programs).

But while Mitt Romney is not actually indifferent to the plight of the poor, in almost all of his actions (if not always his words) Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that he does not care about the private sector, or worse, is hostile to it, even though its vitality is essential to provide the “other people’s money” that the president needs to fund his continuing socialist schemes. From his willingness to increase taxes on small business owners through higher rates on the wealthy to cramming new carbon restrictions on the economy with no statutory basis in the guise of saving the environment, he has indicated his preference for government jobs and workers over private jobs and private property.

This weekend, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, admitted former communist Van Jones said that the president was a lifeguard throwing a life preserver to the drowning swimmers. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee appropriately retorted that when it came to private swimmers he was tossing concrete blocks. As a result of all this, America reportedly has 129,000 fewer millionaires than it did a year ago (it lost over a quarter of them), and that probably suits Barack Obama “just fine” as long as the remaining ones continue to fill his campaign coffers.

But as Marc Thiessen points out, in Barack Obama’s America it’s public-sector jobs that are “doing just fine.” When the president complains that the public sector is shrinking, he is being both disingenuous and revealing of the real problem. Yes, state and local government workers are losing their jobs, but there has been no shrinkage at the federal level. The jobs that are disappearing are in locales where the local government has run out of money. What the president and the Democrats are actually advocating is for the federal government to bail out profligate states like California, so that they can maintain their “police, teachers and firemen” at the expense of the private economy — an economy that while growing all too slowly in absolute terms to create enough jobs to employ those who want them can’t shrink fast enough with regard to the government sector to please Van Jones and Barack Obama.

But there are two problems with this. First, it is clear that “police, teachers and firemen” (and in the not-longer-so-Golden State of California, prison guards) have become the new “Washington Monument” (that is, the popular item that politicians threaten to cut first lest they actually have to trim bloat and bureaucracy). But as laudable as firefighting, teaching, and policing may be, they are not now, and never have been constitutional federal responsibilities. The notion that they are — this creeping perversion of the Founders’ intent — started with Johnson’s Great Society in the sixties, accelerated with the creation of the Department of Education under Carter, and was unfortunately cemented with Bill Clinton’s program to put a hundred thousand police on the streets. Now, too few bat an eye when Barack Obama and the Democrats propose that Washington (i.e., the rest of us) fund things that are properly in the realm of states and local governments.

But even if it were the proper role of the federal government, despite the popularity, it’s not clear that “saving or creating” (yes, he’s really still using that numerically meaningless phrase) the jobs of teachers will lead to improved educational outcomes for children. California is certainly a striking counterexample to the notion; it is almost dead last in educating, while having some of the highest-paid teachers in the nation. And Wisconsin has shown that by implementing reforms (particularly in reining in out-of-control public-employee unions) more money can be made available for teachers and education can improve.

It is also unclear that higher wages for public employees improves services in general. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace repeatedly grilled (wildly successful) Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels about what he thought about the fact (assuming it was) that his state was 47th in state-employee wages, as though that were a useful metric, or as though the governor was supposed to be in some sort of race with other states to have the highest-paid employees. But as the governor should have pointed out more directly, what matters is not how much people are paid, but how happy the taxpayers are with how they do their jobs, and what their retention rate is, and Indiana indicates that it is quite high in both, regardless of their pay in absolute terms. To reward the profligacy of California or Illinois with federal taxpayer dollars (or more correctly, more borrowed money from the Chinese) because they refuse to get their houses in order would be a slap in the face to not only the American taxpayers, but also to those states like Wisconsin and Indiana and Texas who have actually done so.

Whether Mitt Romney’s policies will be good for the poor remain to be seen, partly because we don’t yet know what they will be, but based on both his words and deeds over the past four years (and much of his life, really) we can be sure that Barack Obama’s will continue to be bad for the private economy. And as far as he’s concerned, that’s just fine.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 06/12/2012 8:53:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Columbus Free Press
New Party Online News - Elections Update

In the end the outcome was predictable, and predictably depressing. Voting for Clinton while simultaneously supporting the local Republican Congressman was not contradictory. My personal favorite line: With these results, I'd better get some of that medicinal marijuana...

So we're back where we were a few days ago. Gingrich sets the agenda, Clinton rotates it a few degrees to make it palatable. Our task, and there are no shortcuts, is to build enough power to produce better choices in the future.

A few more steps down that road were taken by local New Party chapters on Tuesday. Here are some highlights:

Overall: Campaign finance led the way, with overwhelming victories in Arkansas and Massachusetts. Not counting Washington, DC's ANC races, NP members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, bringing our overall total to 110 victories in 163 races.

Arkansas: As local favorite Bill Clinton swept to victory under cloud of tainted contributions, an NP and ACORN-backed statewide initiative for real campaign finance reform won an overwhelming victory, outpolling Clinton and Perot combined. The measure lowers contribution limits to $300 for statewide candidates and $100 for state legislative and local candidates, grants a tax credit for small donors, and tightens reporting and disclosure requirements. It'll be a big step in leveling the playing field for grassroots candidates against their corporate funded opponents. And in the first city-wide victory for a New Party candidate in Little Rock, member Paul Kelly won an at-large City Council seat. He'll join NP members Gloria Wilson and Willie Hinton on the Council, with the potential for a strong progressive caucus. In a second at-large City Council race, NP member Genevieve Stewart made a strong showing. She finished third against 2 entrenched incumbents but built her name recognition and a base of support for a possible ward race for City Council next year. Finally, in a classic New Party vs. the Right Wing matchup, member Jayne Cia handily defeated the Arkansas state chair of Empower America (Bill Bennett's organization) for a seat on the County Board.

Illinois: The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested. Interestingly, it appears that the local Democratic machine is trying to distance itself from our folks. At a "Democratic Unity" march on Chicago's West Side, a flyer invited community members to join with a host of local democratic candidates. The only two west-side Democrats not listed: NP members Danny Davis (U.S. House candidate) and Michael Chandler (Alderman and Ward Committeeman). ..."

New Party
227 West 40th St. Suite 1303
New York, NY 10018
phone: 800-200-1294
fax: 212-302-5344
email: newparty@newparty.org
web site: http://www.newparty.org

http://www.freepress.org/Backup/UnixBackup/pubhtml/newparty/newpart5.html
________________________________________________________

"Although the New Party has been effectively defunct since the late 1990s, a website still exists."-wikipedia
http://www.newparty.org/
________________________________________________________


2 posted on 06/12/2012 9:02:44 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
October 08, 2008
Archives prove Obama was a New Party member (updated)
Thomas Lifson

Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html

3 posted on 06/12/2012 9:05:35 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The following predates the revelation that Obama was actually a member of the (Marxist) New Party.

PROFILE: NEW PARTY (NP)
* Marxist political coalition
* Was active from 1992-1998
* Endorsed Barack Obama for Illinois state senate seat in 1996

Co-founded in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), the New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.

Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party's Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.

The New Party's modus operandi included the political strategy of "electoral fusion," where it would nominate, for various political offices, candidates from other parties (usually Democrats), thereby enabling each of those candidates to occupy more than one ballot line in the voting booth. By so doing, the New Party often was able to influence candidates' platforms. (Fusion of this type is permitted in seven states -- Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont -- but is common only in New York.)

Though Illinois was not one of the states that permitted electoral fusion, in 1995 Barack Obama nonetheless sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers.

In 1996, three of the four candidates endorsed by the New Party won their electoral primaries. The three victors included Barack Obama (in the 13th State Senate District), Danny Davis (in the 7th Congressional District), and Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court. All four candidates attended an April 11, 1996 New Party membership meeting to express their gratitude for the party's support.

The New Party's various chapters similarly helped to elect dozens of other political candidates in a host of American cities.

One of the more notable New Party members was Carl Davidson, a Chicago-based Marxist who became a political supporter of Barack Obama in the mid-1990s.

In 1997 the New Party's influence declined precipitously after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electoral fusion was not protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause. By 1998 the party was essentially defunct. Daniel Canto and other key party members went on to establish a new organization with similar ideals, the Working Families Party of New York.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434

4 posted on 06/12/2012 9:08:03 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Berry doesn’t care about anyone or anything but himself. He will lie, cheat and steal to get what he wants.


5 posted on 06/12/2012 7:40:16 PM PDT by peeps36 (America is being destroyed by filthy traitors in the political establishment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson