Chicago Bloggers Onto Obama’s Membership in Communist Group Early

With the news of Stanley Kurtz’ NRO piece about Obama’s membership in a radical, communist-styled political party in Chicago making the rounds today, it is instructive to note that bloggers had all this info years ago, before Obama ran for the White House in 2008.

Back in the late 1990, then State Senate candidate Barack OBama attended meetings in Chicago of the “New Party,” a radical, left-wing pseudo party whose goal was to push very radical leftist ideas and candidates. Obama joined that party and sought openly sought their support.

When all this news came about in 2007 and 2008, Obama’s operatives vehemently denied Obama’s participation with the radical New Party. Kurtz himself wrote of this back in 2008 and was roundly criticized for it.

Today Kurtz is ballyhooing further proof that he was right all along.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Kurtz reports that the minutes of the meeting Obama attended attest to his participation. Those notes say:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

But none of this is new. Bloggers, especially those in Chicago, had all this long before Kurtz wrote about it.

Brenda J. Elliott of the blog rb02 corrects the record today with her post titled RW/RBO wrote about Sen. Barack O’bomb’em’s New Party-ACORN ties in April 2008.

While admitting in his 2008 article that “a small group of bloggers have productively explored Obama’s New Party ties”, Kurtz can never bring himself to give credit where it is due. If it were not for this “small group of bloggers” Kurtz and others who have capitalized on that research would not be writing about it.

Along with herself, Elliot notes that Chicagoans such as Bill Baar and Dan Curry also had the story.

The fact that this is suddenly “news” again really does show how the Old Media has failed in its job to vet Barack Obama.

Liberals Are In Disarray
Who is the Domestic Terrorist Targeting Conservative Bloggers?
  • jim_m

    I’m shocked!  Shocked!  To learn that a man who was raised by communists, hung out with communists in college, shared an office with communists, appointed communists to his administration, is actually a communist!  Who would ever have connected those dots?!?!?!

    • Guest

       He’s not a communist.

      • 914

        Ok, sit back, chill out. And have another Koolada!!

      • jim_m

        Nope.  He just grew up with them, hung out with them, worked with them, hired them, started his political career in their living room, espoused their ideology and belonged to a communist party.  Oh yeah, and he received the endorsement of the CPUSA in 2008.

        But he’s not a communist.

        • Guest

          Nope, he’s not.

          But I guess when you’re a far right lunatic you come up with Birther theories and ideas like yours that Obama, a centrist, is a communist. I guess he looks far left when you’re standing in the cesspool on the far right, but really he’s governing as a centrist. Any adult knows that, and I’m sure there’s a few adults left in the Republican Party.

          If any of those adults are around, here’s a link describing what the “New Party” was.

          And here’s a link to the background on “Social Democracy” – from which the New Party emerged.

          Critics of contemporary social democracy such as Jonas Hinnfors claim that when social democracy abandoned Marxism it also abandoned socialism and has become in effect a liberal movement and claim that “socialism” only remains a rhetorical term used by contemporary social democrats and that they do not genuinely intend to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system.[11] Those that believe that social democracy abandoned socialism note the beginning of its support for Keynesian economics in the 1930s and claim that since then it has supported welfare capitalism.[12][13]

          Hope a little info helps the discussion along.

          Social Democrats rejected Socialism and Marxism. They were liberals, and Obama 20 years ago was more liberal than he is now, that’s for sure, but even back then 2 decades ago he was not a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist.

          It’s ignorant to suggest otherwise

          • 914

            I suppose you buy into the theory that Jimmah Cahtah was a supply side economic genius too?!?

            Barney says: “Clean your room punk!!”

          • jim_m

            Only a far left idiot like you could call obama a centrist.  I will simply note that his involvement with the new party was only one of many indicators that obama is a communist at heart.  You failed to address any of the others.

            No one can be called a centrist when they are to the left of NOW on abortion.  Obama is today and has been for decades a proponent of infanticide.  He voted to support it in Illinois when NOW was against it and had already claimed that the legislation obama opposed would not threaten abortion rights.  The only excuse is that obama supports infanticide.  Ultra left wing, he was consistently the most liberal member of any body he was elected to.

            You call him a centrist.  I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

          • Guest

             And Jim, having been presented with the facts, now chooses to be willfully ignorant of the actual history of the New Party and chooses to suggest, once again, that Obama is a communist.

            Again, for the adults in the audience


            Birthers are willfully ignorant too. They see the birth certificate and choose to not believe their eyes. No diffference – the ignorant who claim Oama is a Socialist, or a Marxist, and this week the ignorant claim he’s a Communist. It’s people, often adults but not always, choosing to ignore reality and adopt instead a belief, a feeling — inside they just KNOW Obama is a Communist, even though the evidence right in front of their eyes, they choose to ignore and remain ignorant.

            The background and history of the New Party demonstrates that it’s not anything like the Communism – in fact it eschewed Marxism and Socialism and took heat because of it – and Jim knowing that choose to make this ignorant statement:

            “his involvement with the new party was only one of many indicators that obama is a communist at heart. “

            …even after being shown that this simply is not true.

            That’s Willful Ignorance. Just like the birthers who still KNOW Obama is not American… it’s willful ignorance of the facts.


          • 914

            He is about as American as you!!

            case closed!!

          • jim_m

             It wasn’t only about the New Party dumbass.  You are creating a straw man and making a claim about what I said that is false.  Just like in the last thread where you lied about what I said you are doing it again here.

            You have said nothing about any of the other issues I brought up.  Until you address those you are nothing but a fraud.

          • jim_m

            I’ll note that you also now call me a birther and I defy you to EVER find me supporting that nonsense.

            You have not addressed my comments about Frank Marshall Davis, about obama’s self confessed associations in college, about his relationship with Klonsky and Ayers, about his relationships with Van Jones and Anita Dunn and others, about his endorsement by the CPUSA.

            Nope.  Instead you focus on one tiny issue to the exclusion of everything else.

            Meanwhile on the Preference Cascade thread I had said that 41% was a plurality.  You out and out lied and claimed that by saying it was a plurality I was claiming that it was a majority.  Learn how to use the English language you loser.

          • Guest

            I said you’re willfully ignorant, just like birthers, I didn’t say you’re a birther, Why are you lying?

            Apparently your willful ignorance extends to pretending I said “X” when I didn’t.

            Are you mentally ill?

            “Nope. Instead you focus on one tiny issue to the exclusion of everything else.”

            Evidence that you are willfully ignoring reality is not “one tiny issue” – it’s the whole enchilada.

            “I will simply note that his involvement with the new party was only one of many indicators that obama is a communist at heart. “

            Since you’ve been shown exactly what the New Party is and stood for, you’re choosing to ignore reality when you claim that the New Party is proof that Obama is a communist.

          • jim_m

             Then why even mention it if not fr the purpose of accusing?  Your bringing it up is completely gratuitous and you have in the past made the same unfounded accusation against me and others.

          • Guest

            Again, moron, you werent’ accused of being a birther.

            You’ve proven you are as willlfully ignorant as a birther.

            that’s what I said.

            Why are you lying about what I said?

            Your mental illness is interesting to watch. You read “Birthers are willfully ignorant too. They see the birth certificate and choose to not believe their eyes.” and from that your mental illness makes you feel bad, and you think you’ve been called a birther – when obviously you haven’t.

            Weird, the way you can’t read, can’t understand facts, and choose to willfully ignore the facts so you can weave your own false reality.

            What a sick mind…

          • jim_m

             Read my post below about he DSA, which you have already claimed the New Party is from .

            You are the one ignoring the truth. 

            Furthermore you are the one who refuses to address anything else in my argument.

            Until you are willing to discuss the rest of the proofs there is no point in my responding to your BS.

          • JustRuss

            Pot, meet Kettle.

          • jim_m

            I also see that you still avoid addressing any of he other issues I brought up.  Grumpy:  Master of avoiding addressing substance.

          • Guest

             Try to stay on topic, Jim.

            Quit running away from your comment about Obama and the New Party and how that indicates he’s a communist.

            Show everybody how ignorant you are.

            Show everybody how, when shown you’re wrong, you change the subject and refuse to admit you’re wrong.

            Show everybody just how much of a pathetic ignorant ass you are… you do that better than I can.

          • Sky__Captain

            Grumpy has forgotten exactly who the first birther was – Barack Hussein Obama in 1991.

            Grumpy is the very definition of “willful ignorance”.

          • JustRuss

   do know that the birth certificate that we all saw….was a fake?  That so called birthers were right to point out that it was a fake?

          • Sky__Captain

              “If that’s the prism with which you view Barack Obama that doesn’t suprise anyone, so why bother sharing it.

            Honest, we really could care less.”

            Grumpy on May 8, 2012.

          • jim_m

            Social Democrats rejected Socialism and Marxism.

            You claim that they are Social democrats and the record shows that most of the key members of the New Party were members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  SO who is the DSA?

            The DSA’s ideas are greatly influenced by those of writer Michael Harrington, Chairman of the League for Industrial Democracy (1964) and member of the National Executive Board of the Socialist Party of America (1960-68).

            Throughout his life, Harrington simultaneously embraced the thinking of Karl Marx while rejecting the “actually existing” Communist systems of the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe. Harrington said:

            “Put it this way. Marx was a democrat with a small d. The Democratic Socialists envision a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning…and racial equality. I share an immediate program with liberals in this country because the best liberalism leads toward socialism…. I want to be on the left wing of the possible.”

            So your claim that these people are not communists is utterly and completely bogus.  Like many on the left they are the ones that claim that communism hasn’t failed because it hasn’t really been tried.  These people are all communists and they’re openly so.  Well, they are all openly so except for 0bama.

            The part in bold in the block quote… That is pretty much a definition of communism. So you admit that 0bama was part of the New Party? I just proved that they are communist. Next question?

          • Commander_Chico

            You are obviously unaware of how social democrats and democratic socialists were funded and promoted by the USA/CIA during the Cold War.  Look up the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Sidney Hook.

            Harrington’s Democratic Socialists are the USA’s representative to the Socialist International – other members are the German SPD (Willi Brandt and Helmut Schmidt) the British Labour Party (Tony Blair, nuff said) and the French Socialists (Francois Hollande, the new president of France.  

            “I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . .”

          • jim_m

            Your point?  My point is that their ideology is communist.  Grumpy is denying that they are even socialist.

            Frankly it makes sense for the CIA to fund a far left wing alternative to the soviets.  That does not mean that they aren’t still communists.

            Also, my point was that the political leanings of the New Party were only a part of the constellation of relationships that pointed to 0bama being something more than your garden variety liberal.

          • Commander_Chico


            That might have been interesting in 2008 if true (I remember the New Party as socialist, not communist), but Obama’s been a lapdog for moneyed interests since he became president.  He’s more of a corporate statist that a communist.

            Again, Bush’s DOJ prosecuted the Enron and WorldCom guys.  His father’s and Clinton’s DOJs prosecuted hundreds of S&L fraudsters.  Obama and Holder?  They prosecuted Roger Clemens and John Edwards.  Jon Corzine is still free.

          • jim_m

             Yes, I know Chico:  0bama can’t be a socialist or a communist because he is owned by the mysterious “oligarchy”.


          • Guest

             You can claim he’s a socialist or a communist — go ahead an lie if you wish — just don’t point to the “New Party” as evidence of his “communism” or “socialism” because you’re being willfully ignorant when you do that.

            That’s nonsense, and when you have been shown evidence that it’s nonsense and you still “believe” it you’re being a birther-like idiot, who has seen the evidence that shows their wrong but they willfully ignore it.

            Adults take note:

          • jim_m

             Dumbass: What about the other reasons I gave?  Too chicken to address those aren’t you?

          • Guest

            Still waiting for you to be honest about this – appears that you can’t. Why do you lie so much?

            Why can’t you admit it whewhen you’re wrong?
            It’s weird how you can’t tell the truth, even when shown you are wrong.

            Why do you lie so much?you’re wrong?

            how sad, wha

          • Guest

            Still waiting for you to be honest about this – appears that you can’t. Why do you lie so much?

            Why can’t you admit it whewhen you’re wrong?
            It’s weird how you can’t tell the truth, even when shown you are wrong.

            Why do you lie so much?you’re wrong?

            how sad, wha

          • jim_m

            Once again you post without addressing my comments above.  What? Are you going for some personal record in distraction form the point?

          • JustRuss

            Liberals lie to themselves until they believe it then lie to others. They arent evil, they are delusional.

            He may “govern as a centrist” but that is a political calculation, and its obvious from your attitude that you hate that he isn’t left wing enough for you kooks out there. 
            He was waiting until his second term to go full out commie, now it’s too late.

            But you keep lying to yourself, I know it hurts too much to admit the truth.

      • retired.military

        If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck then chickenshit Grumpy says it is not a duck.

        • jim_m

           Grumpy wouldn’t recognize a duck if it took a quack on him.

          • Guest

            lol… what a childish ass.

      • Gmacr1

        No, he’s actually a Marxist, glad you noticed.

        • Guest

           Look, another liar who cant’ read.

          What about the New Party makes Obama a “marxist”?

          Are you another willfully ignorant person? Apparently so.

          • jim_m

            New Party was founded by people form the DSA, which you pointed out above (thanks for the links).  I showed above where the DSA was founded by Marxists. 

            You have ignored this and repeated ad nauseum your original point without any attempt at addressing this issue or any other issue that has been raised.

          • Gmacr1

            So pointing out the obvious is now lying?

            Jesus, in Bizzaro world it can’t get any weirder.

          • And yet you waste your time on him…

          • Gmacr1

            Yeah, I know, sharp stick, dead horse …. Sometimes its still fun to kick a moron where it hurts.

      • LiberalNightmare

         He’s not a communist.


        I think your supposed to click your heels and say that three times if you want it to work.

        • Guest

           No, you’re, supposed to close your eyes to the evidence that shows you’re wrong and instead change the subject, as jim does.

    •  You forgot to close your LouisRenaultMode tag…

  • GarandFan

    Didn’t the MSM say that Barry was ‘properly vetted’?

    • They consider Obama’s socialism a feature, not a bug. They’d prefer it were an undisclosed feature, but nevertheless…

    • MichaelLaprarie

      Actually no.  Tom Brokaw admitted “There’s a lot about him we don’t know” just before the election.  Thing is, the MSM was far more concerned with ensuring that Obama was elected, not ensuring that he was vetted. 

      • GarandFan

        I remember the comment.  At the time I almost threw something at the TV set while yelling “Because you whores didn’t do your job!”

  • iwogisdead

    I can see the Obumble Campaign’s response—“This is old news. It was fully discussed back in 2008.”

  • 914

    “Chicago Bloggers Onto Obama’s Membership in Communist Group Early”

    Exit polls be damned!!

  • davidt

    The Democrat Media Complex DID fully vet Obama.

    They just didn’t publish what they found.

  • MichaelLaprarie

    For me, what this story says about Obama could go either way.  On one hand, he truly was  a ‘red diaper baby’ and there probably isn’t much about the New Party’s Marxist agenda that he doesn’t at least partially support.  On the other hand, this seems primarily a move guaranteed to lock up urban votes by winning the support of ACORN, which was the major social action outlet of New Party activists.  And we know Obama has no trouble doing anything in order to lock up votes.

    The real scandal here, as with all these newly published revelations, is that the press utterly failed to investigate Obama four years ago.  We should have been reading about the New Party, the Choom Gang, the ‘composite’ girlfriends, the Kenyan birth claim, etc. in 2008, not now, and not on blogs.  The MSM/Democratic Party complex went nuts over Todd Palin’s rumored association with the Alaska Independence Party.  There’s no reason for them to ignore Obama’s participation in a Marxist third party, except to protect the candidate.

    • herddog505

      I agree.  I believe that Barry is less a red than simply willing to embrace any ideology (though he obviously has a rather leftist preference) in order to advance his favorite cause, i.e. himself.

      I also agree that MiniTru has proved to be horribly, horribly biased.  They rushed to publish the fake TXANG memoes about Bush, but couldn’t be bothered to give Barry’s life more than a passing, praising glance.  They worked overtime to trash the Swiftboat Vets, then worked equally hard to hide Jeremiah Wright.  We know far, far more about Sarah Palin than about Barry thanks in part to MiniTru getting her e-mails and asking anybody and everybody to have a look at them, but MiniTru could hardly be bothered to even look into something as mundane as Barry’s college transcripts.

      And now we find – SURPRISE! – that Barry was apparently a member of a political party that can accurately be described as socialist if not outright communist.  AND we found out – SURPRISE! – NOT from MiniTru, but from bloggers and other private citizens.

      Jebus… what ELSE don’t we know?

  • Winghunter

    The intentional political agenda of the Liberal Media in refusing to vet Obama is NOT a “failure”!

    “You have to pinch yourself – a Marxist radical who all his life has been
    mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the
    philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and
    supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters,
    unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of
    becoming President of the United States. And it’s considered impolite to say
    so!” – Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08

  • jim_m


    I have given you multiple reasons why I think 0bama is a closet communist.   You have addressed 1.  I countered it by demonstrating that the people who founded the DSA and therefore the New Party were communist in their ideology even if they did not support the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. You claim this is a lie but offer absolutely nothing of substance to back yourself up.

    You’ve done nothing but whine and call me a liar (not true since I have proven my points) and distract by comparing me to a birther.

    Either address the other points I made or go away.  You lost this argument because you are incapable of addressing the issues.  AGAIN. 

    Once again we see that you offer nothing but name calling and distraction.

    • Guest

       The DSA is a red herring. Obama never belonged to the DSA.

      It’s just another lie you’re telling.

      The new party was founded by social democrats.

      Here’s what that means

      Social Democrates not only weren’t communists, they weren’t socialists either

      The fact that Obama was apprently involved in the new party 20 years ago is actually proof that he was neither a communist or a socialist — social democracy eschewed and was criticized but the socialist and communists.

      And you have known that for a a day now, and instead of admitting you were wrong – you just keep dodging the question.

      It’s amazing how you dodge the truth and willfully ignore facts.

      • jim_m

         Your claim was that democratic socialism had nothing to do with communism.  If you go and read what I posted you will see that, while they opposed the USSR and other communist states, they very much believed in Marxism and their goal was socialism or communism.

        Spin it any way you please.  I made my point using the words of he founders of the DSA, which was the representation in the United States of democratic socialism.  They claimed that they were Marxists even if you deny it.

      • jim_m

         You should not complain about dodging the truth when you have repeatedly dodged my requests to address obama’s mentor, college associations, coworkers and hiring practices.

        I’m still waiting.  I’m expecting that you will never answer those questions.

  • Having read Stanley Kurtz’ NRO piece, I consider it a stretch to say that the New Party is Communist.  So, I would not say that President Obama is a Communist. However, Obama’s membership in the New Party is evidence that Obama is a Socialist. The claim that Obama is a Centrist is laughable at best.

    • jim_m

      Yes, the New Party is decidedly socialist.   It is 0bama’s personal associations that indicate that there is something more in his personal politics.

  • Brucehenry

    If Obama is a socialist he’s a piss-poor one. Where’s my single-payer healthcare? Or even my public option? Where are the massive public-works projects and the new WPA? Why isn’t Jamie Dimon in jail or at least unemployed and disgraced, along with his friends and co-conspirators?

    I would say, “It is to laugh,” but the farce has been going on for four years, so the joke has worn thin.

    And a word to Jim and the other members of the mutual affirmation society known as the Wizbang comment section: In 2008, everybody KNEW about Davis, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc. It was on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, in the NYT, et cetera, ad nauseum. People just didn’t care.

    They didn’t care any more than they cared about the Keating Five or the disgraceful way John McCain treated his first wife. Both candidates were subjects of negative news reports and “investigative” pieces, and it made NO DIFFERENCE in how people voted.

    So, please, ENOUGH with the “Obama wasn’t vetted” bullshit. He was “vetted.” He won. It’s simply wishful thinking to believe that, if only people had “known the truth,” he wouldn’t have. It’s even more delusional to think that, if only they “know the truth” this time, he won’t win again.

    Obama could very well lose this election. But if he does, it won’t be because of Frank Marshall Davis or Jeremiah Wright or the New Party, but because people choose Mitt Romney as a better alternative.

    • jim_m

        In 2008, everybody KNEW about Davis, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc. It was
      on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, in the NYT, et cetera, ad nauseum.

      Really?  I’d like to see some substantiation of that.  Wright and Rezko were ignored for months and then Wright was only paid attention to when obama decided to respond.  They covered his response and that was the end of it.  If they had really covered Wright they would have found the $150k offer to silence him in 2008.

      I don’t recall any major news outlet covering his relationship with Davis, nor did they cover his college associations or his defense of his communist professor.  They pretty much ignored the Ayers and Klonsky connection and they never mention that Jones is a red.

      So please.  Don’t claim that the media actually covers this.  If you didn’t come to Wizbang you wouldn’t have heard any of it.  My Parents are a good barometer of the media, They get nothing accept through the MSM and ALL of these stories are news to them today.

      • Brucehenry

        I suggest a selective memory on your part, Jim. I didn’t start coming to Wizbang on a regular basis until the election of 2008 was over.I heard about ALL those issues that you claim the major news outlets “pretty much” ignored on those very same major news outlets. I can’t speak for your elderly parents, though.

        I also suggest that Obama decided to respond to the firestorm about Wright BECAUSE it was a firestorm. Do you think he would have made a major speech, anticipated and watched around the world, if the only people talking about Wright were conservative bloggers?

        I saw story after story in my local (McClatchy) paper about Rezko, Ayers, Davis, and all the other humbug you claim was “pretty much” ignored. It all depends, pretty much, on your definition of “pretty much,” I guess.

        I have no doubt that, had McCain won in 2008, we’d be hearing from the left that the media “pretty much” ignored McCain crashing 4 planes as a pilot, being involved in the Keating scandal, etc. And it would be “pretty much” the same sour grapes as right wing whiners are practicing with the pathetic “Obama wasn’t vetted” meme they espouse now. All those things were covered, just not hammered to the extent that McCain’s opponents would have wished. Welcome to free-market news, partisans!

        • JustRuss

          None of it was presented as fact by the MSM, it was all presented as “the republicans say” or “a conservative blogger has written” or “Rush Limbaugh said”, they might have mentioned the story, but couched it with skepticism. 

          Meanwhile they hit on every single lie and distortion about McCain and Palin as if it were Gospel Truth.  I believe there were studies that showed McCain hit pieces outnumbered Obama by 3-to-1 or so and that doesn’t include Palin hit pieces. Obama might have been mentioned more often, but it was mostly of the “tingling up my leg” sort. And that wasn’t more skewed because Fox News was closer to 50/50, fair and balanced you might say.

          • Brucehenry

            Selective memory again.

    • J S

      And what do you think we would have if Obama kept his Super majority in 2010?

      Just because we don’t have them does not mean he did not want them. Obama has said he wanted single payer, but at the time even his own Dem Super majority would not commit political suicide. In the end they did just that, anyway. Look at how many Dems that voted for Obamacare that were up for re-election are still in Congress.

      If Obama was vetted how come we have never seen his transcripts? Can you imagine if a GOP presidential candidate did not disclose his? The MSM would be ruthless towards that candidate until they relented. If you cannot see and even listen to the MSM own words on how they coddle Obama, then what does that say about  how much your opinion is worth?

      • Brucehenry

        His “transcripts”? Please. Who the f**k, besides right wing nutjobs, gives a f**k about college transcripts? 

        I disliked and disagreed with George W Bush, but I never felt the least interest in finding out if he got a C or a D in Freshman English Comp. Similarly, I’d wager that no one but the conspiracy-minded types on the right gives a rat’s ass about Obama’s college grades.

        Commercial news networks are businesses. They will report the news that brings in ratings and increases ad revenues. If there was any juiciness in the college transcript nonstory it would be news.

        Obama ruled out single payer DURING THE CAMPAIGN. He conceded the Public Option when negotiations had barely begun. There’s no new WPA, no Hoover Dam being built, no CCC. No proposals from the White House for any of those things. Like I said, if he’s a socialist, he’s doing a piss-poor job of it

        • jim_m

           Commercial news networks are businesses. They will report the news that brings in ratings and increases ad revenues.

          Really?  Then why does FOX crush them all in the ratings game and they still will not report the news?

          They report on their own agenda.  No more. No less

          • Brucehenry

            I could be wrong but it’s my understanding that FOX is by far the leader in the 24-hour cable news category, but that it doesn’t “crush” the 3 major nightly news broadcasts. Am I incorrect?

            Added edit: Looked it up and I was not incorrect.

          • No link?  I’m surprised at you.

            Well, not really.




            I’ll admit, sometimes I wonder about the broadcast numbers.  I know Nielsen’s made a name for themselves through supposedly accurate ratings – but if you’re not hooked to the net and you’re not hooked to one of the Nielsen ratings boxes, how can they really tell what you watch?

          • Brucehenry

            Your first link demonstrates, as I said, that FOX “News” handily beats the other 24-hour news networks.

            Your second link demonstrates that FOX — not FOX News — beats ABC, NBC, and CBS in primetime. So more people watched American Idol than Two Broke Girls, apparently.

            Your third link demonstrates my point. NBC NIghtly News averaged 7.9 million viewers, ABC had 6.8 million, and CBS had 5.4 million, while FOX “News” averaged 1.2 million for ALL its programming. What that tells me is that 1.2 million retirees are parked in front of FNC all day long, but when people want to tune into the news at 6:30, they go to NBC, ABC, or CBS.

            So Jim’s assertion that FOX “crushes them all in the ratings game” is false.

          • JustRuss

            You don’t have to pay for over the air broadcasts, fox news channel is only available on cable so you have to compare apples to apples. 

            The Fox Broadcast station is much more liberal than its cable counterpart.

        • jim_m

           Obama ruled out single payer DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

          True. but not because he didn’t want it but because he didn’t think it achievable.  His allies crowed that obamacare was the pathway to single payer making the destruction of the health insurance industry inevitable.  Check out Jan Schackowsky (C- Illinois).  Yeah the C is for communist, she wouldn’t deny it.

          • Brucehenry

            Harry Truman wanted single-payer health care AND tried to achieve it. Was he a communist?

          • JustRuss

            One does not prove the other, and there is a plethora of other information that leads to the same conclusion.

        • J S

          And I’m the nut job? LOL

          You really need to put down
          the alcohol or something Bruce.

          Since you do not understand
          the word VETTING I will not waste the time. But some of us do not care about
          Obama’s free pass or grades that he received because of his connections in
          college. We care about the content of his academic papers to see the true
          character of the man who was given a free pass from the media. And for you to
          say different is telling of your own honesty, character and respect for others. What are you afraid
          of Bruce? Why not just release his records?

          Obviously you have not
          noticed the historic drop in ratings for CNN and the other worthless MSM. You
          answered your own question and did not even know it. LOL

          And if the Trillion dollar
          stimulus to Obama’s campaign funders along with the Billions wasted on Obama’s
          Failed “green” campaign bundlers is not enough for you, then I do not
          know what else to tell you Progressives.

          Just take what Obama has actually
          done compared to what he says and what the end results are?

          Have a nice day. 🙂

          • Brucehenry

            Good thing you didn’t waste your time with a 5 inch reply. 

            What’s with the Ginsbergian spacing? Are you a poet of some kind?