Replies

Good luck, if the weak-minded GOPers scoff at ‘old rumors’ about Ayers, etc., you can point them to a contemporary Obama ally — Eizabeth Warren. Obama and the DNC think so highly of her that she could be the keynote speaker at the DNC convention:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/27/3413175/buzz-says-warren-may-be-keynoter.html

Kind of hard to argue Obama is not linked to her philosophy. And here is coverage of her latest ad — advocating that the US follow communist China’s example:

http://www.nysun.com/national/elizabeth-warren-praising-communist-china-as/87918/

If they want an even more objective analysis of Obama’s philosophy they can find it here:

“Consider Obama’s record in the U.S. Senate. He was rated by one prominent index as the most liberal member of that body during his tenure. That’s not the record of a pragmatic liberal. Indeed, Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, served with Obama. Since Obama’s voting record was arguably to the left of Sanders’, it is hardly fraudulent to suggest that Obama is a socialist.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/barack-obama-so-much-more-than-a-pragmatic-liberal.php

The “prominent index” noted above was from the National Journal, a very credible source even for for RINOs. The NJ rates every politician on ALL votes each Congress from most liberal to most conservative.

I believe the rating for Obama was from 2005-06, the only two years he actually served in Congress and therefore the most objective and credible benchmark to guage his philosophy.

http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=120720

So if he was to the left of the avowed socialist Sanders, how could anyone in good conscience not correctly identify Obama as a communist?

Thank you all for your input. The special meeting of the Republican Executive Committee was a real donneybrook tonight, but (as usual) they adjourned without taking any action. They tried to pass a rule that no action could be taken by any member of the Executive Committee without "oversight by the whole committee". Think about that for a minute. That would impede any action from ever getting done. When a previous board tried to exert oversight on a previous chairman (the same person who wants oversight now) he threw a gavel at them. I was there and I remember the incident.

But the greatest part of the whole evening was the defense by the Membership Chair who was being targeted by the lily-livered PC folks who didn't want to "offend" anybody with the sight of a hammer and sicle graphic. "Republicans just don't DO those things." He gave the most impassioned speech and laid out all his reasoning for the cards, followed by the coup de grace -- the platform of the RNC itself commands in 3 or 4 places to "Fight Socialism". And one more twist of the knife -- it turns out that these cards (which a couple of people thought were so shocking) were not paid for by the organization at all. They were privately funded. And the hammer and sicle graphic? Turns out it is NOT a symbol of Communism as portrayed -- it is facing the opposite way and has a star added.

The wimps were so confused that one withdrew his "second" and one changed his vote. It was a tie, and the chair broke the tie by voting it down. Since this was an emergency meeting, the folks who liked the card were not expecting this meeting and they were off at other meetings, or out of town. Now they are talking about amending the group's Constitution, adding By-laws, and Policies and Procedures. They have been talking about that for 20 years and they won't have time to take those up until February. It will be forgotten by then.

But it made for an entertaining meeting. Our Membership Chair was on Fire! He was hopping around like a gymnist at the Olympics. You all should have heard him talking about Socialism, Marxism, and Communism and how those were going to be campaign themes both at the state and national levels and how we'd better get with it, or lose this election. He even made the statement that if the local GOP were doing its job, there would be no need for the Patriots Tea Party or the Citizens' Advisory Board (another T Party-like group that sprang up around here.)

My husband just ran through the list of some of the characters suggested here and read a quote from Alinsky saying that for the left to be able to promote change, the general populace had to be subdued and lethargic (a good description of our local Republicans.) Of course, it helped that the only public criticism of the cards was from 2 avowed Communists and these 5 wimpy members of the Executive Committee. At the end, 3 of the naysayers admitted they liked the cards, even though they voted against them. They just would have liked to have been consulted first, notwithstanding the fact that they made the assignment at a previous meeting and there was no time to consult.